The Resurrection Debate BOMBSHELLS You Missed (Jonathan McLatchie Response) (feat Shannon Q)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 кві 2023
- I review my recent debate with Dr Jonathan McLatchie on the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. @ShannonQ joins me to weigh in on a modern miracle claim.
Full debate - • Paulogia vs Jonathan M...
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/paulogia
Paulogia Channel Wish-List
www.amazon.ca/hz/wishlist/ls/...
Paulogia Merch
teespring.com/stores/paulogia
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzsprout.com
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord
Send me cool mail!
Paulogia
PO Box 1350
Lantz Stn Main, NS
B2S 1A0
Canada - Наука та технологія
I am very disappointed with Paulogia for his comments in this video regarding his recent debate with me earlier this year. He thoroughly misrepresented me at multiple points. For example, how the heck did he come to the conclusion that I think that historical documents are either 100% true or 100% false? Given that I reject inerrancy (and believe there are in fact minor mistakes in the gospels), this makes absolutely no sense at all. Today I also listened to his discussion on Matt Dillahunty's show, "The Line," which aired a month ago (though I just learned of it) in which he gave the same strawmen as here. I suggest Paulogia put out another video or release a statement correcting the record and apologizing to his viewers (and me) for the blatantly false characterization of my perspective on ancient history. When you have an audience of more than 100,000 subscribers, this sort of misrepresentation is utterly irresponsible.
Relevant portion of this video:
11:46 - 14:56
You said that you "disagree with the pericope by pericope approach to historiography because you can make an inductive argument that treats the document as whole sources". Does this not mean you're taking it as a single, trustworthy source?
If that is the case, the strawman doesn't seem to be too far off. It seems to me that you're advocating that most of the claims (if not all) are true. Whether or not the texts themselves have a few minor discrepancies seems besides the point.
I'm curious to know: Do you believe in all of the claims in the New Testament? Or are there any claims that you would consider false?
Your arguments are shamefully unsubtantial, circular, and prejudiced, regardless of what Paul might have said about them. I don't take his word for it, I listen to you. Have done since you called Dillahunty on AXP a decade-ish ago. Still deeply unimpressed by your lopsided approach and conclusions. But at least you didn't rage-quit this debate, so kudos for that I suppose.
PS my nana would've been incensed that you wore a hat inside. Manners!
Having listened to the original debate, Paul's summary of your position, as expressed in that debate, is perfectly fair.
If you did not fully articulate your own position that is not his problem, but yours. He is not straw-manning you.
Totes. The four Winnie the Pooh books are historical also, with some very, very minor errors. I cannot believe that some believe this is fiction. On the whole, it is clearly historical. Bears get stuck in trees, bears love honey...
I don't see how you're being misrepresented. You point blank say that you can make the case that you treat the document as a whole source, and that the whole document is substantially trustworthy. It's pretty disingenuous to object to Paul's conclusions when he draws them from YOUR stated positions. How the heck did he come to the conclusion you ask? By listening to what you said. If that's not what you meant, then by all means, clarify. And don't let's focus on the 'minor mistakes in the gospels' nonsense. We're talking about major contradictions and outright falsity.
Paul, you're a lot nicer than I could be. As a PhD historian, I can say with 100 percent certainty that McClatchie doesn't know how to do historical research and should stick to the field he has actually studied- biology. It is very misleading for him to slap "doctor" on his name in this discussion. I'm a doctor too, but that would mean fuck all if I were discussing his field, biology. FFS....
That dude totally sounded like a bratty kid arguing for a special rule implied by the D&D handbook that means his character didn’t die.
You captured him perfectly.
"Treating my myths as if they were true is what historians ought to be doing." He said with a straight face.
If they weren't true, they wouldn't be myths now would they? I would discuss this further but I have to go as I have double parked my Pegasus. 🥴
The longer I do this, the more apparent it is that cultists are 100% performative at all times. They're *ALWAYS* putting on a show. Loud proud proclamations of Faithitudinousness(tm) is their job as laid out in their script as faith-actors. They get up on their church-stage, say their lines, and get applause from the audience in the cheap seats.
And that's all it ever is. Every. Single. Time. I wouldn't even be surprised if I could somehow read their thoughts and discovered they all think "Well _OBVIOUSLY_ all that god nonsense is fake, but I *HAVE* to put on a show to be a Good(tm) Person(tm), don't I?". It seems like to them it's just the done thing. Take Billy "The King of Con" Mitchell; he just got his ass handed to him by having a private conversation recorded where he says he needs to fake evidence of himself not cheating to own his critics in court. It's all the same thing. There's sincere human beings, and then there's whatever the hell Latchie here is.
@@EdwardHowton Well said, after years of watching these I'm also convinced the field of apologia is about 50% performance art and 50% high pressure sales. They're just basically carnival barkers and hypemen selling a "NEW AND IMPROVED DEITY....NOW WITH 10% LESS GENOCIDE! AND NEW, FRESH FORGIVENESS SCENT!" I swear some of them missed their calling is comedians because most will say the most absurd hilarious nonsense.
The I expect Jedi will be the major religion very soon,
The stories are told from a long time ago...
@@EdwardHowton Billy would make a good preacher. 😂
So apropos of Dr. Jonathan McLatchie: it doesn't matter to me what apologists in fact do, what matters to me is what they ought to do. What they ought to do is stop lying and asserting others' positions. Oh well, I guess no one gets what they want.
🤣👍
True, but... if you try sometimes, you just might find you get what you need.
So in summary, they _ought to_ be intellectually honest, not only towards others, but also with themselves.
… Shocking paradigm shift! 😱
I have been perusing a communication from a government official from Nigeria. Given that there is an actual nation called Nigeria, I can only conclude that this official's offer to share a windfall with me is entirely legitimate.
Thank you Dr. McLatchie.
😂
What a coincidence! I wonder if your guy is a relative of the Nigerian Prince I've spoken to? 🤣
Well, as long as he has an exciting financial opportunity with which to present you.
No risky involved.
The US federal sentence for wire fraud is up to 20 years in prison and a $100,000 fine. That penalty proves their story is true, because nobody would be willing to risk a possible negative result for potential gain.
I do not for one second believe that there are young Earth scenarios that fit the data. The data definitely points to a very old Earth and an even older universe.
and literally BILLIONS of all religists are okay with old earth and evolution, it's hill they are doing themselves in on.
Actually, Last Thursdayism does. Of course, that's not used by YECs, but I believe I've heard "created light in motion between the stars and earth". And it's not plausible, either, but it does fit the data, pretty much by definition.
"God made the earth from parts of older planets so that's why it looks old" I believe the LDS have some version of this.
"The earth was already here before day one of creation" I've heard fundamentalist apologists since like J Vernon McGee in the 70s use this one.
"Satan put the fossils there to confuse us" I think LDS and other organizations use this one.
I know these are attempts at making the data fit the yec narrative but there are ways to make the data look like it fits.
@@KaiHenningsen that explains old light, but not old rocks. the only thing i’ve ever heard them do is dismiss the entire concept of radiometric dating, usually based on the idea that carbon dating specifically isn’t good for billions of years timescales. denying evidence isn’t incorporating it into ur model.
the only yec scenario that honestly meets all the evidence is to posit a trickster god
@@KaiHenningsen You're technically correct, but "fit the data" carries an implied threshold of explanatory capability. Injecting an element into your argument that can fit any data makes "fit the data" completely worthless.
24:00 it's like how when Jesus fulfils OT prophecy, he's the Messiah because he's fulfilling prophecy, and when he breaks from it, he's the Messiah because they wouldn't have made it up.
Reminds me of Life of Brian:
"Only the true Messiah denies his divinity!"
"All right, I am the Messiah!"
"He is! He is the Messiah!"
Life of Brian was such a great description of Religion... I wonder why it got so popular, lol.
So... are you a member of the sandal sect?
@@aralornwolf3140 You heretic... we must follow the gourd! Even to this day we shall sing "Follow the drinking gourd!" :P
as someone who has been blamed for my chronic illnesses by my parents because i became an atheist around the same time i got my diagnoses (age 15), that last part hit me hard.
it's so shitty to be told it's a lesson or test or punishment.
Been there! It is absolutely shitty to be told that you deserve whatever crappy fate that has landed on you!!
And it’s not just family or religious people family, but people of all or no faith as well. I’ve come to the conclusion that people have a need to explain the unexplainable, because otherwise it could be them next. In order to sleep comfortably at night, they need to believe that somehow illness or bad accidents are someone’s fault or have some justification.
That way it could never happen to them because they believe in the right faith, or they exercise regularly or eat right or have the right attitude or ….something controllable. People don’t just naturally accept that bad things happen randomly, because if it could happen to you & me, then it could happen to them as well, which is too scary to accept.
My point is that this is not limited to religious believers, but it may simply be instinctively to avoid, reject, or pull away from people who are sick or have handicaps. It take a lot of honest fearlessness to accept that life can be random. That bad things can and do happen to good people all the time for no reason at all.
My chronic pain started in my early teens as well, and wasn’t diagnosed until I was 40! Which meant decades of being treated badly by medical staff as well as the general public & my closest associates & family. I learned how very scary my situation was to others. I almost lost faith in humanity because of the ridicule and disbelief of others. Getting an actual diagnosis meant the world to me. But even after finally having proof that I have am illness and therefore I’m not crazy, it didn’t change much with non medical people.
I’m almost 60, and I’ve come to accept that people who reject or avoid or discount or blame you & me for our own pain, do so from a basic human instinct to avoid disease. Not because they are terrible people. It allows me to be more accepting of others and not judge people so harshly for the awful things they say, and to stop focusing on how much it hurts me. I don’t think it is personal to them. No matter how unbelievably personal it feels to me, or how extreme their reaction to me.
It started in HS, I couldn’t believe how mean people were to me when I was on crutches, something that happen to me many times. I was shocked that people would slam doors in my face or refuse to give up their seat on a bus for me. But what helped me understand it was how often completely universal I found this experience. It wasn’t just bad people or rotten teenagers, it was human. As hard as that was to accept, it help me to have compassion and it forced me to become more independent. I learn to be proactive about my needs and to be prepared for people’s reactions.
As long as I have a core group of friends /family that accept me as the crippled, limited person that I am, without judgement or fear, I can forgive those who can’t. More so, as long I trust myself and stop listening to those outside messages, I can persevere. And even thrive. Sometimes being different can have its own reward, because being outside the “in” group makes it easier to see why people act the way they do. It helped me immensely to spend some time in a chronic pain support group, with people on a broad spectrum of pain, from minor to on death’s doorstep. We all had similar experiences, regardless of severity of our symptoms.
As in all things, I find humor to be the best response to an uncomfortable situation. It lessens the tension & makes me more human and relatable to others. Of course I allow myself to stop spending time with the people who will just never get it.
Best of luck to you friend!
@@LOwens-xf8yo It's amazing how such a different disease from mine in terms of symptoms manifests in very similar life impacts. Having a core group of friends allowing you to mostly escape from social judgement, having bullying at school for literal medical disabilities, dealing with people who don't want to accept that it could happen to them or someone they love.
My mom was diagnosed with cancer last week. Highly treatable and all, but cancer nonetheless. She is 58. It really can happen to anyone, we as a society need to give empathy to the people who are struggling, not least because with one wrong roll of the dice, we can become one of them.
And I intentionally used seemingly weird pronouns there, because she already has chronic health issues which cause some disabilities, but she is now also added to the cancer group. Just because we already have a disability doesn't mean we can't get worse or get another health issue. Life really is fickle.
@@LOwens-xf8yo if i could give you an award i would. Your comment so brilliantly encapsulates my experience even now as a 31 yr old with a disability and illnesses I had get way way worse in my 20s.
You're farther along in your forgiveness of peoples ignorance and deliberate choices to abandon years long friendships because I have more needs now and less abilities than friends my age.
People truly truly deeply fear the basic fact that anyone is at risk of becoming like us at any random point for any reason. Bodies are so fragile.
Anyways you sound wonderful and I'm going to try to take what you've said about being less hurt by other peoples aversions to me and my needs/reality to heart and stop being so hurt by their fear and ignorance.
I have a story kind of the same, Diabetic at 8, got told i would die a horrible screaming death. before 30. So I spent my younger days on a razor edge, for that reason. died more the a few times, I stopped counting at 7. went to the Desert inb the middle of no where, there i was bit by black widows, and rattle snakes,
In all those times it was the same.
@@helly9027 Thank you so much. Obviously this has been a huge issue for me. I am in a place of forgiveness now that I’m old. I started off just thinking it was just the people in my life that sucked. Then I became a misanthrope, believing that everyone sucked. Finally it dawned on me that it was ok if it was universal, because maybe it’s part of a normal instinct. And if that’s true, that makes it much easier to forgive. But more importantly, the people who have overcome their initial instinct (disgust, fear, etc) and took the time to listen and have empathy were truly treasures! I have very few friends, but I am utterly devoted to all of them.
I have condrocalconosis or pseudo-gout, which means calcium leaches from my bones into my cartilage. It’s worst in my knees, but affects all my joints. It’s very painful but the intensity is sporadic, which makes it hard to predict, and even harder for doctors and others to believe. Five years ago I had breast cancer, and the best I can say about it was that I think I had it easier then most, because I’m used to having a sedentary lifestyle.
The hardest part of cancer (other then the fear of it returning) was not being able to have proper pain medication after surgery. My usual normal medication, suboxone, is a opioid antagonist, so opioids don’t work for me. My wife rushed me screaming home where I immediately smoke some marijuana and it controlled the post-surgical pain at least 80%. I never really believed that pot could be used so effectively for acute pain until then. I had been using it for stress management, which is a big part of long-term pain management. Figuring out how to forgive other people also made a big difference in managing my pain.
I used opioids as pain management for over a decade and hated feeling loopy all the time. A doctor finally replaced my opioid prescription to suboxone and my life regained its sanity! I’m so grateful that it was recently approved for general use by the FDA. After almost 15 years on opioids, the fog finally lifted, thanks to modern medicine!
Of course, putting my wife through medical school was also a huge help. Definitely my best investment ever!
I hope you find the people, medicine, and attitude to make a difference in your life as well. Any chronic condition must be treated holistically, especially important is to learn to always be kind to yourself.
Jonathon: "That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection."
Paul: "Thank you, your honor."
Jonathon: "Overruled."
A good My Cousin Vinnie quote is always in order.
Yutes.
Everything that guy just said was bullshit.
You didn't point this out specifically, so I will. Jonathan is wrong at 32:50 because there is no "mathematical" guarantee that you can have an arbitrary number of INDEPENDENT testimonies. If they're not independent, then each additional testimony is not providing the same amount of evidence as the previous testimony, and there may be diminishing returns that never allow the set of testimonies to overcome a particularly low prior, or even a threshold after which additional testimonies provide no additional evidential value at all.
I would argue that a slight restatement of the converse of Johnathon's statement is actually true. As time increases since miraculous event X, the mathematical likelihood of the set S (which includes said arbitrary number) actually includes an authentic independent testimony of event X approaches zero. And in my opinion it does so rapidly, like within a decade.
It's never actually zero because people may have died or been rendered unable to document such miracles via events of happenstance or bad luck but I think it's safe to assume that people coming back from the dead makes a stir. There would be accounts of the accounts, people like Josephus would've recorded the influx of such claims or claims of those claims.
There's an additional problem that even when you have a lot of independent testimonies you have to very carefully separate what was actually seen from the hypothesis/interpretation of what was seen by those witnesses. People unconsciously conflate "I saw X" to "X was Y," and when you have a group that shares the same socio-cultural beliefs that will interpret certain mysterious phenomena in the same way, it's very easy to end up with "X was Y" and completely skip over the evidence for whether X was actually Y or not. There's a reason that UFO sightings and alien abductions didn't start being reported until AFTER we had movies about UFOs and alien abductions. Basically this boils down to "a lot of independent witnesses is good evidence something happened, but not necessarily great evidence that any particular thing happened." The prior probability of the particular claim still matters a lot.
This is exactly right. There is a saying that the plural of anecdotes is not data. There is no mathematical relationship whereby a certain number of consistent testimonies turns a highly unlikely claim Into a likely one. But even if there were, they would need to be extremely high in quantity, quality, and perfect consistency. The gospel accounts don’t even come close
And not to mention that we already know the equation to figure out what bar the testimonial evidence must reach to prove an event happened. It must be less likely that the testimony is false than it is for the event to have actually happened. A miracle is an impossible event, so the bar is impossibility. You must prove that it’s utterly impossible for the testimony to be false in order for it to prove the occurrence of a miracle.
So we need testimony from someone who cannot be mistaken, and cannot tell a lie. Not even the god of the Bible meets that standard, and they’d have to first prove he exists to even try to use his testimony.
Always worth hearing Craig shoot his Philsophy in the foot. And McClatchie's lack of self awareness is only surprising to Jonathon himself.
"it's what they ought to do"
Oh my, this is going to be painful and stupid. You just know whatever the guy is going to say comes down to abandoning proper standards that are there to prevent you from accepting all kinds of nonsense...
What ShannonQ said was very powerful both emotionally and rationally. I can't help but think of my mother who has suffered with many health problems, from degenerative disc disease, to strokes, to COPD, to now chronic venous insufficiency and the chronic pain that they cause that has left her like so many in the US addicted to opioids to manage that pain. She's a Christian and her and my dad have spent decades (at this point) praying for a miracle, listening to preachers, wondering what they're doing wrong... it's also painful for me because every time I try to educate them about the causes of these problems, some of which could be alleviated if she would make (or would've made) better health choices, I'm the bad guy for trying to get her to do what she could do to help, rather than excusing her for doing nothing and just praying for a miracle. So that kind of "believe hard enough and you can be healed by a miracle" is not only damaging when it comes to people like Shannon who CAN'T do anything to get better, it is to people like my mother who could and don't because they're convinced only God can help them.
The basic reality of religion and religious people it's a cruel heartless sport
@Jonathan Henderson - I was moved as well by Shannon's words. There is nothing in this world that matches the ignorant cruelty of Christians or Muslims
Be fair, the Jews, as the other people of the book, are just as cruel and ignorant when they are in a position of power, like their genocide documented in the Tanakh or their war crimes in the current 'war' that their bad faith and religious bigotry have caused.
Shannon’s reflections on MS remind me of myself, as a Christian teenager, desperately praying for my nonverbal autistic brother to get better and nothing happening. Thank you for sharing something so personal.
I wanted to be a deer.. God didn't answer me either..
Wait. A document that relies on miracles to establish certain facts is the one document that must be deemed wholly historically reliable? BTW I love the video flashes to the Star Trek episode “The Trouble With Tribbles.” One of my favorites. Nice touch.
Yup...and why does he wants it? Because he wants it for solely emotional reasons (not being honest about on camera) where he holds an extermeley low epistemological bar for it to be true...(and for the bible tells him so *jingle* ), obviously. Like all apologists (liars for emotional fictions) do. No exception.
Star Trek makes MANY references to well established historical facts, such as the existence of Abraham Lincoln. The reasonable inference is that it is true.
Spider-Man lives in New York, New York is historically verifiable, ergo I’m gonna go radiate some spiders.
@@Qroe Ah, but what kind of radiation? Also, we legitimately exposed plants to radiation in hopes of getting interesting new mutations in the past (atomic gardening). They, like most products of mutagenic breeding, are even considered okay for organic farming! Or at least the non-radiated offspring/clones are, pretty sure the parent plants aren't actually eaten. I think. Not GMOs though. Those are made in a lab, not a greenhouse bathed in gamma radiation, and you can't trust things from labs...
Sorry, wandered off on a tangent. Anyway, so long as you keep the radiation right around the threshold for lasting genetic or health damage (once you figure out where it is), you should be able to produce all sorts of interesting variations, and possibly even new species of spiders. Probably won't grant you superpowers if they bite you, though.
Cameron doesn't have a good record of integrity. I totally believe that he would deliberately muddy the debate topic if he thought it gave his guy the advantage. I understand why Catholicism would be so enticing to someone like him
Fool me once: God exists.
Fool me twice: Jesus arose.
Fool me three times: to the Vatican I go!
Not sure why people hold Cameron in high esteem. He comes across as ignorant and petty. He seems to be there for the $.
@@robertt9342 Not to mention he has a history of telling Paul that he's a liar. In my opinion, a stunt to gaslight and get attention. I didn't see any other reason for it.
I also have MS, and Shannon expressed perfectly my feelings about miracle healings. Thanks for sharing this, Shannon.
Thank you for helping me work through several Apologetic arguments that I used to believe and distribute as a former Christian. I am two years into my now Atheist/Agnostic life, and your UA-cam channel has been a massive help to me. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I can't say it enough, thank you.
-Jesse Dorman (a former Christian who listens to you critique the claims of Christians. )
That's incredibly kind, Jesse. Thank you.
@@Paulogia 😊
@@filipe.sm31 Good stuff!
@@filipe.sm31 Don't forget Viced Rhino! 😀
I love what she said!!! I have epilepsy, no one else in my family has it. And what a wonderful disease some god supposedly created that you have to deal with every day of your life. My grandmother died from a brain tumor the size of a fist. We all went to church every Sunday. When she died the family fell apart. I can't believe there is a god that did that!!!
Wow, how inconsiderate of you.
Also I’m sorry for your lost. Speaking as someone as an atheist who at times wonders if there can be a God I always fallback to my atheist answer, because I don’t like to imagine a creator who is this heartless to their own creation
Well if the xian god exists that would be completely in line with the psych described in the bible. But it doesn't fit with the "good god" story xians prefer over what's in their book.
The Christian god should be in prison as a serial killer.
God has been letting generation upon generation perish in untold suffering, and to this day, allows children to starve, to name just one example.
Almost as if there was no God…
I feel compelled to express my compassion for the young lady; I had never previously considered the harmful impact of claims of miracle cures on those who are (to borrow a phrase) left behind. Thank you for educating me.
I just gotta add in there too, the fad miracle cure recommendations are super obnoxious too. No, super metabolic compound isn't gonna cure my eczema, and it is insulting that you think my doctor and I haven't tried relevant treatments.
Also, cut us some slack at work. You think we WANT to do socially awkward stuff related to our chronic condition in front of other people? No! But sometimes it is necessary.
That's very generous of Matt to be so kind about McLatchie, because i personally thought he was an utter weasel whose arguments are entirely unconvincing....and worse a bad faith debater who runs at the first sign of being forced to clarify their baseless assertions.
He does a PHD in molecular biology, so he is a pretty smart guy.
@@gsp3428 Putin/Jong-un probably have 8 PHD's as well, are they 'smart' guys? Jonathan should probably stick to his lane, and stop pre-determining his answers, and try facing questions head on (maybe hat on) and deal with reality.
@@gsp3428 I have known many folks brilliant in narrow fields, and completely clueless out of their field of expertise.
Yeah same
@@gsp3428 Does his qualifications bypass OP's complaints?
I don't think this guy understands what fitting all the evidence means 😂
Oh he does. He's professional apologist
Actual human beings see "fitting all the evidence" as coming up with a model that accurately explains it.
Lying douchenozzles like McLatchie see "fitting all the evidence" as hammering puzzle pieces that don't actually belong with the sledgehammer of boneheaded brain-dead faithitude.
The tragic and depressing part is? The douchenozzles think their method is the correct one. There's no saving this goddamn species.
@@gornser so a global flood which would require more water than modern science can estimate ever existed fits the evidence? Lol Not to mention the crystal dome over the flat earth
Does anyone ever raise the case of Haile Selassie in these discussions? There are thousands of people living right now who believe essentially the same things about him that Christians purport to believe about Jesus, yet his life and death are firmly established in recent history.
What about him?
Haile Selassie? The God-Emperor of Ethiopia?
I can imagine a hypothetical Rasta apologist two thousand years in the future making basically all the same arguments for the divinity of Selassie. It seems like a counter to the idea that only a supernatural event can explain the existence/persistence of Christianity. When, in fact, it has been demonstrated that a viral idea is all that is necessary to establish a widespread belief in the divinity of a real historical figure within a generation.
@@mindtruthwordlife505 Heck, doesn't even take a generation. Sathya Sai Baba declared himself to be divine at the age of 14 and by the time he died had millions of people believing this to be the case. And he did this in the age of widespread literacy, newspapers, cameras, the internet, and even smart phones (he died in 2011). You can watch his "resurrections" on UA-cam and speak in person with his devotees, many of which claim that he still regularly appears to, and speaks with them.
@@dougt7580 And he had many high profile, educated and world famous devotees and not just the scientifically ignorant commonfolk of India.
Shannon killed it, I know she was worried about being too emotional and heated to come across well but it was totally the opposite, that was quite eloquent and powerful
Where's Bart when you need him? Lol
Also, I'm digging 3d rendered Paul.
I can't wait for Testify to come in and make a stupid comment about this discussion.
Regarding Shannon's points about the MS miracle claims. I have been severely depressed for a majority of my life - to the point of wishing it would end many times. Before I accepted that I was an atheist I tried my best to believe in God. There was never a single name, like in this case. But I heard innumerable stories about how people's mother, son, cousin, friend, etc. sincerely gave their heart to Jesus and their depression was taken from them.
There have been few things more hurtful than being told - in essence - that all I had to do to escape my misery was to choose to believe in God. I can't. I was, and am, unconvinced. And since I didn't make that *choice* I was not only deemed culpable for the issues in my brain, but consciously so... and evil, to boot.
Worst of all though, I genuinely believe that these were people who wanted to help. And the best they could do was expect the impossible from me and then impune my character when I failed to achieve it.
There are plenty of people in similar positions where people are insulted, attacked, and belittled by well-meaning people simply because they are too blinded by dogmatism. To me that is much sadder than the people who scaffold their hate and bigotry with dogma.
isnt that the guy that ragequit in his debate vs Dillahunty?
Yes, yes it is.
Link?
Link?
@@robertt9342 ua-cam.com/video/a-wIaCRIdOA/v-deo.html
somewhere around 1hr 17 mins
Shannon, thank you so much for what you had to say about your illness. When i was a boy my greatgrandmother had cancer, i prayed my heart out and read the bible so hard trying anything i could to save my grandmother. i begged, pleaded till my throat grew soar and my tears ran dry. And still he took her from me, i could only take it in that moment that if god was real that he was one sick SOB. It changed everything about my life and was the cruelest thing you could ever do to a 10 year old boy was tell him that he could save his grandma through prayer. stories like the one propped up here about magical healing hurt me so much inside to know that some child may read theaw things and ruin their lives because they believe these lies. it just is cruel. Thank you shannon for making me feel seen😢❤
I’ve seen enough apologetics that seeing an apologist be dishonest that the gas lighting and change of topic didn’t even raise an eyebrow for me.
Then I was really surprised with McLatchie put “honestly mistaken” as one of the options that explains what the disciples and witnesses reported. Apologists never do that because they need the false dichotomy of “blatant liars” or “the resurrection happened”
I don't care how mechanics fix a car, I care how they ought to fix it … which is by dancing on the roof naked while singing Black Sabbath songs.
See what I did there?
I've seen the lakes of Minnesota with my own eyes, therefore I take the ENTIRE account of Paul Bunyan and Babe the blue ox creating those lakes by jumping around to be completely factual and trustworthy. Very high tier. Complete harmony. All Historians OUGHT to do this! LMAO
The point about treating the entire document as trustworthy is incredibly poor. I cannot believe he has given any thought to this and came to the conclusion it’s how historians should do history, because it’s clear it’s not even what he is doing.
He gives Josephus as an example and says he’s generally reliable when discussing contemporaneous events, and not so much for historical events, implying that we should treat Josephus as generally reliable. The very obvious question is: how do we know Josephus is generally reliable on contemporaneous events? The answer is historians have compared what he wrote with other evidence to evaluate. So McLatchie wants to use this method of comparing each claim to evidence to evaluate it because he implicitly agrees that’s the right way to evaluate claims. But then - after we’ve used that reliable method enough for a given source to have a sense of that source is very reliable, generally reliable, or generally unreliable - at that point we should stop using the reliable method and instead use our generalisation as a proxy. “That source has generally been reliable in the past, so let’s just assume it’s true on this claim instead of evaluating the evidence for the claim”. And worse: he wants to employ this method for claims that are wild, and considered to be impossible. Claims like “a person came alive two days after death”.
I wonder how he’d feel about applying this method of his to religions that he doesn’t believe in!
Or even to his professional field of Molecular Biology.
Would he pass any student who used those same standards or flunk them?
@@Lobsterwithinternet That’s a good point.
@@Lobsterwithinternet good point! Grading is useless by this "logic".
These apologists are so disingenuous, if there is a naturalist explanation, Occam's razor would eliminate all supernatural claims
To be fair, i think they’d say they don’t agree with Occam’s razor. That’s not necessarily disingenuous, it’s more likely to be broken thinking skills due to years of having critical thinking undermined by nonsense such as “claims by this religion you should treat different to other claims. You shouldn’t question them”.
I love what Shannon said. I have a degenerative vision disorder. That causes central vision loss. I rely on assistive technology. When people say, I'll pray for you (when there's no cure) it males me feel annoyed. I understand it comes from a kind place, so I don't say anything to people. But the idea that I should wish for a miracle is frustrating
Yeah. I understand. How you found a go to response that seems genuine to you, but not snarky to them? Maybe, “I appreciate you.” I’m really curious because I understand it’s their way of expressing caring reassurance
and they don’t see how it really requires you to give them grace.
"That sounds frustrating, I'll pray for you, now shut up and let me talk about my new shoes.."
And the money given to the church could be used for medical research that might actually help you. But no, down the toilet with untold billions.
Paul you did great on your debate with Jonathan he can not name one person who said I saw the risen Lord except Paul and his was a vision.
Even still he had no experience meeting Jesus, so how would he know it was him or someone else?
Over 500 people saw the risen Christ. All the apostles did and so did some women who we know by name.
@@Justas399 Except of course if they didn't.
@@Justas399 Some people told us that. They didn't see anything themselves, or at least don't claim they did. And they didn't tell us their own names, either. So how can we possibly know how trustworthy they are? Well, we do know that at least three of them cribbed from each other, and it seems very likely that the fourth had at least seen at least one version from that. And they at least had the chance to know Paul's story ("Luke" had certainly heard it because he wrote Acts, which mentions a variant of the vision), and to know Josephus.
The 500 number comes from Paul, and it's obvious from the phrasing it was not originally from him. So it's at best second-hand, from unnamed people, who have it from other unnamed people. Worthless. The others are a bit fewer unnamed people in the chain, but they're still at best secondhand.
@@Justas399 Over 500 people saw Harry Potter perform actual magic.
McLatchie should look up the term 'mis en scene' when he considers the 'casualness' of peripheral details and 'undesigned coincidences'. Literally nothing was put into the background of a film set in a casual way. And the best sets look completely natural - casually correct.
You cannot argue that the gospels were carefully written to share a specific message, using specific motifs and literary arrangements - and then claim that some of it was just chucked in for no reason.
Shannon's story at the end hits me deep, despite not being in quite the same boat.
As a teen, I prayed for the god I believed in to please send a teacher down to the gym locker rooms, where I was often horrendously bullied. No matter how much I pleaded with the the teachers to come down and see the bullying, no matter how much I prayed with all my desperately devout heart, it didn't happen. And that's SUCH an easy minor freakin' thing to make happen!
Is it any wonder then, that after a few years I believed I had been abandoned? That I started to think I was damned? That I spiraled into a dark and dangerous depression?
Miracle claims can have deeply *deeply* dangerous effects on the people who genuinely believe, but don't receive anything even close to the help they need.
It's no wonder that now that I'm out of that worldview, I am extremely skeptical of miracle claims, and even more suspicious about the people who peddle them.
That guy is just exhausting. Life's too short to tolerate his brand of bushwah.
It's pretty funny to hear McLatchie claim that Acts is historically accurate. There are quite a few bible scholars that refer to Acts as being "Christian Fan Fiction".
Somehow this makes me wish someone would make a parody/exemplar argument for the historical validity of "The Revolt of the Angels" by Anatole France. Use the "it's so reliable I take the entire thing as true" take whenever possible, and other weird, atypical methods of "validating" the text.
“b but people know that it’s fiction!” the apologist mutters, well aware that they’re standing on epistemic ground entirely incapable of ruling out things that we, as a society, have forgotten were fictional or fraudulent
Great book, very funny. Should be made into a TV series.
Frankly I disagree with you guys that Jonathan is intelligent. After watching his debates with you and Matt I came away pretty convinced he's larping as an evidentialist. His "evidence" is nothing but the bible's claims, and his singular determining factor for trusting the bible or any claim is internal consistency. Yet he's also a staunch revisionist. So even if you show him inconsistencies he thinks its fine to reinterpret them in such a way you can claim no inconsistency. Its the epitome of circular reasoning.
Being honest about his epistemology would make him look like a moron, so instead he larps as an evidentialist because we live in an era where evidence is supposed to be more important than claims. Yet like everyone else who degrades that standard, he twists and stretches the means of evidence to be so broad anything can be evidence and now that standard is meaningless.
I'm open to having my mind changed but as far as I've seen, he's the gold standard for worst possible epistemology.
P.S I hope we get to see Dr. Dale here again. I like Dr. Dale.
Agreed entirely, except for “worst possible”. Presuppositionalists would have to take the cake there.
It reminds me of the 'Four Horseman' discussion, where Hitchens cited Dinesh as one of their best opponents, whereas I always viewed him as absurd.
@@Commanderziff Those two things aren’t mutually exclusive!
@@Commanderziff Just because someone is the best, doesn't mean they're good.
A book says a thing does an awful lot of heavy lifting in Jonathan's world. Too much heavy lifting for a book where he doesn't know who wrote it, doesn't know when it was written and definitely doesn't know where it was written.
Excellent. Glad you put this together because as a viewer, it was easy to lose the thread over the course of the debate
That's often the goal of debaters..
@@Dr.JustIsWrong lol so true
For Shannon Q: please be strong.
You should have asked what unit of measure he uses for "casualness" and "specificity" and how he calculates the values from the text
I mean, it's the bible, so... cubits.
Shannon’s piece was super powerful. Wow.
I've been rewatching Babylon 5. One of the episodes involved an alien race being the victims of a plague decimating... and eventually destroying... their population. They refused to study or even talk about it... because they thought it was divine punishment!
Good thing nobody thinks in those terms nowadays... oh, wait.
That episode makes me ugly cry every time. When they find the little girl's mom, but then she stumbles. 💔
@@jenny-jennybobenny Right? And there was also the episode "Believers," where the parents wouldn't allow Dr Franklin to operate on their son because it was against their religious beliefs. That was another tearjerker.
"I will not nitpick the Bible." -- Lauren Boebert, US congressperson. LOL!
take a shot every time he says "As I previously said..." in a snarky tone. But whats really happening is he only has a SINGULAR source. Also keep emergency services dialed up when you do the drinking game.
A good start to the week. Excellent.
I agree! I was very pleased to see a Paulogia video!!
Why are these apologist debates more interesting than most TV these days, I've watched so many of these but it never gets old haha
McLatchie is a funny guy because in his silly analogy he is the creationist.
Of course there are explanations that fit with a young earth… but only if you ignore all of the scientific evidence and think that imaginary magical explanations with no supporting evidence whatsoever are valid explanations.
The natural explanations for the supposed evidence for the resurrection are all much more likely to be true by default if you don’t presuppose that magic exists and that the stories of the gospels happened exactly as described.
2 subtle things:
1: There are certain points that you want to punch him through the screen
2: Every time he starts special pleading, you lift the "for the bible tells me so" mug
Wow! Great show, and Shannon, you killed it at the end! Perfectly said.
Shannon brought up some memories from deep within me of the crappy apologetics (and woo woo) I was told about my own (from birth) and my mother's (I was about 10 at her onset) chronic illnesses.
I nearly died from it when I was 6, and I got all of the "God saved you" and "it's part of God's plan!". She was bedridden for about a year, and slowly has been getting a bit better over the last two decades. The idea that you choose to have this happen to you by rejecting God (or woo woo), or not embracing Him enough, it's straight up disgusting. And yet they sing songs like "Jesus loves me this I know" and "Our God is an awesome God".
I don't choose to be sick every day. I don't choose to not be able to work or socialize or sleep the way normies do. You are invalidating my struggles by suggesting otherwise.
I like the song about the Creator of hundreds of billions of massive galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of solar systems, and the universe to contain them, having a love for me as deep as "the deepest sea.."
About 0.00000000000000000000012%
Yeah.
Right there.
It was lost when he questioned scholars. "Ought to do?" Seriously? The hubris.
You've grown so much over the years I watched you. I remember when you were barley at 20k members. Your content is top notch and some of my favorite. I wish I could have a conversation with you!
I'd like to have an audio file of Paul reading bedtime stories to soothe me to sleep at night.
I just started watching but McLatchie posted in the comments section of the debate and admitted he argued a different topic. If I remember correctly he basically admitted that the spread of Christianity can obviously have a naturalistic explanation but wanted to argue for the truth of the resurrection because that’s what matters to him.
That sounds about right for him
The resurrection of Christ is one of the best attested events of the ancient world.
@@Justas399 The resurrection of Christ is one of the least attested events of all of recorded history. We have better evidence of the meteor that killed the Dinosaurs, and no human being was present for that.
@@Justas399
Nah, it’s one of the worst attested events in the ancient world.
Literally the only person who claims that he saw the resurrected Jesus in a vision never met him.😂
@@Justas399 LOL
Is someone's willingness to die for a cause supposed to be impressive to us? Or at all relevant to the truth of the cause? It's not, Jonathan.
It's probably the least convincing argument anyone can use, because it can be used for anything.
I know that earth is a sphere… but if you threaten to kill me I would say whatever you want, even that earth has the shape of a banana.
Obviously that isn’t evidence for anything.
If someone dies for a belief at best this tells me that they really believed it… but if they could have saved their life by recanting it also tells me that we are probably dealing with a religious fanatic and that automatically drastically reduces my confidence that their beliefs are justified.
@@iluvtacos1231 Agreed, I was always confused why apologists use this one. How do they explain all the other followers of religions that have died for their religion? Does that mean that their religion is simultaneously true? How about people that didn't die for a religion but in war for their country?
we’d best all convert to mormonism if it is, since joe smith really did verifiably die for the cause, along with hundreds of other early mormons!
@@solacedagony1234
Right??
And, in my opinion, it gets dumber when they say that people wouldn't die for a lie.
Like, we're just gonna ignore the entire industry of spying?
"Welcome to Paulogia, where a _former_ deluded person who thought he was a Christian, takes a look at the claims of *current* deluded people who _think_ they are Christians." - Eric Hovind(Courtesy of)
Jonathan is a liar like every other apologist. Their dishonesty is repulsive and it is surprising to me how anyone with barely above intelligence evidence can take them seriously. But I do understand people want to believe the same way they get anxious and depressed for emotional reasons they can’t always control.
Specificity and Casualness are extremely well-known literary devices for telling stories with verisimilitude. Every author who's spent any time studying writing knows this. That largely comes from the fact that when people tell the truth in real life those are hallmarks. Now, if both are hallmarks of actual truth-telling and verisimilitudinous storytelling, how can we tell the difference? Well, we can't from that alone, and both are extremely common it's not as if one has a much higher prior probability than the other.
What we CAN do is rely on priors for what's being claimed, and when we start being told about things like resurrection, for which the vast, vast majority of such stories are known fictions, we can feel pretty confident we're in the realm of fiction (even if it's historical fiction, or legends based on real people/events) rather than fact. The major problem with theists is that their priors are completely out-of-whack. They start from the position that things most common in fiction have high priors of being true, usually merely because they grew up believing them. When you grow up believing magic is real, then any claim about magic is not going to seem outrageous.
Shannon Q is a model for how Christians ought to behave! She was kind, calm, courteous, generous, and everything that my fellow Christians OUGHT to be when they interact with other people.
For the first 60 years of my life I was a faithful believer. I prayed for healing for myself and my children many times and no healings resulted. For many years I took this as a sign of rejection and was very hurt. Realizing I had several friends and relatives who prayed for healings who not only did not received them but, many died. My ultimate conclusion is - healings do not happen. Jesus was not born of a virgin, did not die for my “sins”, was not resurrected and God is not real. My only remaining question is - what took me so long to give up the mythology? 🤪
Congrats on ur freedom bro .💪💪💪
Don't feel bad, even Jesus prayed to not be killed..
@@Dr.JustIsWrong I guess if the imaginary god didn’t answer his prayers (if he ever existed) then I shouldn’t have felt bad but when you have a great need that is ignored that is hard to see at the time. Just glad I no longer have those unrealistic expectations.
@@Dr.JustIsWrong One of my favorite stories to bring up - how the Christian God cried like a baby and begged its Daddy to let it wimp out on following through with its mission that it was sent to complete. Especially curious in that if Jesus was indeed God, he was in complete control of the situation, was merely acting out the plan that he devised, had zero chance of failure, and was not in any danger whatsoever and had nothing at risk. If anything he benefited from being crucified since he got to stop lugging around that crappy meat sack and go back to being one hundred percent God
@@Beegee1952
I only meant don't feel bad/rejected now about prayers "not answered," cus even Jesus got totally snubbed.
God always kills everyone.
I wouldn't pretend to tell you how you should feel in the past.
As a chronic “interrupter” (who works furiously to overcome this ADHD challenge), I find Paul’s patience admirable! …frustrating as hell, but admirable. If I were Paul, I’d try to find a Canadian polite way of not allowing apologists to get on their apologist soapbox. Can’t help with what that might look like, as I am not Canadian, and I am a chronic interrupter. Sigh
Sometimes people interrupt due to enthusiastic engagement with the speaker ; which - imo - should be flattering to the speaker..
Sometimes people interrupt to blockade communication ; which - imo - is a d¡ck move..
Sometimes people interrupt due to more pressing matters..
Sometimes people interrupt due to boredom..
I'm pretty sure you could identify which category you fit into, for any specific occurrence..
To be fair, remember to consider the first listed possibility..
Dillahunty said it best once in an episode of that podcast, and I'll paraphrase: if you're in a debate and you let the other guy veer off on irrelevant tangents or build up an entire case with a _foundational_ mistake in it, you're wasting everybody's time and letting them waste yours. You MUST snipe any Wrong early to avoid having to argue against a bad construct for the next couple hours.
Interrupting can be perfectly acceptable. It should only be punished when the dishonest party (McLatchie) starts building up a nonsense case on a bad foundation or tries to sabotage the response because he feels cornered and knows he's being exposed as a liar and/or fraud.
So in practice it would make debates with Kent Hovind MUCH easier to listen to; he'd never get to talk except to actually answer the actual questions, I.E. he'd NEVER talk. What a dream world that would be.
@@Dr.JustIsWrong For dickish interrupters, check out Erhman V Bass from a couple of days ago - absolutely appalling.
@@EdwardHowton
Yeah, I intentionally left off anchoring for reasons.
Thanks! Very well said and explained. Much appreciated.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Missed it by tthhhhhAT much.
It's funny you think that the "one chance in a million" part is the sound clip of the year, when it's actually the OTHER part, 10 seconds away. "I lower it!" Thanks Bill.
Jonathan is as much of a “dr” as Noah builds Aircraft carriers!
He, believe it or not, has an actual doctorate from an actual university.
Don't forget that Ben Carson is a doctor as well. Being good at one thing doesn't mean you are well educated in anything else
If Jonathan is one of the best apologist thinkers out there (which I'm totally willing to grant!), things are pretty barren.
Just an empty discipline. I'm much more impressed when a believer just says they have faith or personal experience.
As science continues eliminating places for apologists to hide, their field will continue to shrink and will just be relegated to "philosophy".
Religion is a social construct dramatically increasing the chances to get laid.
Sex is the reward, not truth.
I agree.
Personal experience is a perfectly valid reason to believe in God.
@@Marniwheeler I think there is plenty of reason to be skeptical given what we know about how our brains work, but I certainly can't disprove personal experience and wouldn't bother trying to.
@@Marniwheeler I wouldn't believe anything that fantastical based on personal experience, but maybe that's just me.
Shannon worded that so well throughout her entire segment.
Thanks ❤
'if there's even a 1% chance that Jesus existed and rose from the dead, we have to take it as an *absolute* certainty
Forget one detail did Jesus ever exist. Once you establish that as a fact. Then you can go on from there if if you can't prove the first everything else is completely irrelevant. Just saying.
@@josephrodriguez2780 it doesn't matter if he existed or not cos he never wrote anything anyway. even if he existed no one wrote anything about him either. it's stories.
Well WLC was saying 0.0001% chance.
Thanks Batman.
@@KXSocialChannel thank YOU lol I was wondering if anyone would realize I was using a terrible quote to mock terrible logic
@shannons response was absolutely awesome here.
Paul, your style, leaning more towards discussion than debate is remarkable and effective, I enjoy watching those interactions greatly!
Think of all the children maimed or blinded in war who could have avoided being injured by simply being sufficiently pious children. The 18 month old injured toddlers should have known better because it is written on their hearts after all .
Acts is definitely a "For the bible tells me so" moment. Acts is also in such disagreement with the authentic Pauline letters and with the gospels that to treat it as historical and as historically reliable is building a house on sand indeed.
Sending the two of you love from Alberta!
Holy shit (pun intended)! I'm SO glad he's not a historian, but I'm worried about how he treats data in biological experiments. If he can harmonize discrepant data, then he'll just accept all the other data as true? Now I have to see if he has published any scholarly, peer-reviewed papers IN HIS FIELD, and how he harmonized anomalous figures.
His analysis of any data should include discussion on the influence and affect of magic and sorcery on the dataset. Failure to do so would render his analysis incomplete and inconsistent with his own views, which as he is expressed here, include that magic and supernaturalism not only are possible, but thay they can and have occurred and been documented. Although in my experience, people like him seem to contend that magic is a temporal phenomenon and its occurrence is curiously highly localized along the south and eastern Mediterranean Coastline of the earth's current landmass.
That's more accurate than you think. LinkedIn actually lists his PhD being in Evolutionary Biology...which he got after he spent a year as an intern at the Discovery Institute. Basically, it looks like he may have picked up his higher as a way to give legitimacy to his claims. Though, admittedly, he had gotten his Masters' in the same the year before that internship, so maybe I'm doing him a disservice. But it really does look suspiciously like he earned his degrees with an agenda.
Thank you, Shannon for so clearly explain the issues re miracle healings etc
I had no idea that Shannon has MS. My Mother was diagnosed in the early 1980’s with MS, so I sympathize with your diagnosis and the fight you’re in. I hope every day for significant treatment evolution for MS, and I wish for you to be successful in your fight.
Do we need a McClatchie T-shirt "Casuality does not imply Causality"? 😁
You rock!
Shannon was beautifully eloquent as always x
Thanks for the video :)
"And the graves were opened and many bodies of the saints which slept arose and walked into town"
Yep, that's incredibly reliable because I've seen the film "Shaun of the Dead".
(Matthew 27:52)
No minimally trained historian, and by minimally I mean even basic level university history courses, would view historical documents the way Johnny here does. Any legitimate institution that gave him a degree should STRONGLY consider revoking them.
His doctorate is in Molecular Biology, not History.
Which shows.
@@Lobsterwithinternet I have to assume he took some freshman level history course somewhere along the way. That level of intellectual dishonesty is rarely compartmentalized.
He himself doesn’t even view historical documents the way he claims to!
How does he get to the conclusion about whether a source is very reliable or generally reliable or generally unreliable? He skipped over that part, didn’t he! The answer is by evaluating the claims and comparing them to other evidence to see if they are true or likely true. This is the method he is implicitly endorsing. He just wants to stop using that method when it comes to claims he wants to be true, but for which there is no corroborating evidence. Curious that. Especially when he doesn’t want to use that same method for religions that he doesn’t believe in!
@@JohnSmith-fz1ih An apologist using double standards?? Hard to imagine...
It's sad to see grown men arguing over what Leprechaun shoes are made of.
I'm so stealing that.
Love your work! Would it be possible to normalize soundlevels in your videos? Shannons audio level was soooo much higher then anything hearable before i almost screamed in pain. Thank you ;)
Easy to understand, educational, entertaining. Thank you.
This is one of the extremely few debates I was able to listen all the way through because mclatchie stayed calm and polite and at least ostensibly thoughtful. I find that apologists get desperate, hurried and rude and when they do, I lose patience and have to move on, usually about halfway through.
And honest, "Fkk historians! Mor0ns!"
Maclatchies PhD "it's all true, really it is"
I wonder if Jonathan thinks the movie "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" is all true since Abraham Lincoln existed.
Shannon Q your commentary was very moving to me. I do not have MS but have known people with this condition and really feel that what you said absolutely needed to be said. Thank you!
My girlfriend has progressive ms. I'm sorry to hear that about Sharron it seems tough.
Wow. So millions of people are having their diseases prayed over - and one of them "gets better" and they call that a documented miracle?
That is an astonishingly weak case.
And Shannon laid out the part that the religious never consider: it is an offensively dense claim.
And also - it seemed clear to me that the reasoning was circular: miracles are evidence of a religion, and the assertion of that religion is how to identify miracles correctly.
I just noticed at 26:37: for the Bible tells me so.. Nice one Paul! Playing the jingle without playing the jingle, like that
great work as always
The first time I seen Jonathan ever was when he raged quit during a debate with Matt because he kept trying to use the Bible as concrete evidence for the gospels being true. So these dishonest debate tactics that Jonathan has used doesn’t surprise me. I’m more surprised to see an honest Christian apologist, so it’s safe to say that I am rarely ever surprised.
I'm sorry is this the guy that actually left when he was debating Matt Dillahunty because they had nothing else except what is said in a book? Or as Paul would say for the Bible tells me so, garbage arguments.
I guess he still has nothing.
And the amount of continued dishonesty and being deliberately disingenuous on the Christian behalf is absolutely and utterly appalling
As an acceptable mathematician, I am offended by the claim that Dr. McLatchie makes at 33:00. He is giving mathematical properties to unquantifiable, intangible properties of oral testimony. You cannot claim that anything from the real world is "mathematically false". It is like saying that concepts are green, the two things are so absolutely different that putting both on the same sentence is stupidity. There are no properties in testimony that, by themselves, point to any probability at all. Testimony by itself, without any corroborating evidence or additional information, is something that just cannot be assigned a probability, just like love cannot be given a length or a width.
This is the incredibly disingenuous or dumb thing that McLatchie said: "That is just mathematically false because testimony conveys some evidential value in confirming a particular proposition then there has to be a certain level of testimony in terms of quantity and quality that will overcome the initial intrinsically low prior probability of the miracle itself"
Super green!
Also, it's taking all my strength not to make joke about love and length, just so you know. 😀
13:38 "I'm appealing to evidence..." What evidence? I certainly haven't seen any and this discussion has been going on for generations. When does Dr. McLatchie reveal this amazing evidence?
How can people just say stuff like he does and sleep with a clear conscience?
You make the mistake in thinking he _has_ a conscience, where lyin' for the lord is concerned.