Is Paulogia a Dishonest Editor? (Capturing Christianity & Andrew Loke response)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 лют 2021
- Capturing Christianity (Cameron Bertuzzi) and Dr Andrew Loke went live on UA-cam this week to accuse me of, among other things, intentionally deceptively editing in my response to an interview the two did regarding the resurrection of Jesus.
When I left Christianity, my only reward was intellectual honesty. So I take this accusation very seriously. Please watch this video, and then leave me a note in the comment section to let me know your verdict, and any constructive criticism you may have for me.
Who Saw Risen Jesus? Dr. Andrew Loke Responds to Paulogia
• Who Saw Risen Jesus? D...
Who Saw Risen Jesus? (Dr Andrew Loke vs Dr Dale Allison & Friends)
• Who Saw Risen Jesus? (...
Final Nail to Apostle Martyrs? (Sean McDowell vs Paulogia)
• Final Nail to Apostle ...
Were the apostles martyred for their faith? Sean McDowell vs Paulogia (Unbelievable)
• Were the apostles mart...
EP34: How did the Apostles Handle Suffering? w/ Dr. Sean McDowell (Frank Turek)
• EP34: How did the Apos...
Thank you to Shannon Q! / @shannonq
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/paulogia
www.amazon.ca/hz/wishlist/ls/...
teespring.com/stores/paulogia
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzsprout.com
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord - Наука та технологія
Follow-up. Cameron Bertuzzi of Capturing Christianity has now changed his mind and has apologized here... facebook.com/capturingchristianity/posts/1836928079799370 Thank you, Cameron.
Thanks Paul but I won't be clicking that link, because that's just what he wants
He's also pinned a public apology in the comments of the original video. So for that I give him credit.
@@shaunelliott8583 Paul is being as nice as ever. I hope Shannon Q and PineCreek are not as sparing with their words on this issue.
Sounds like he's only apologizing for unjustifiably prescribing intent? looking at a few of the comments it sounds like he still thinks your edits are misleading and the edited out content conflicts with your point. The top comment at time of typing is him and at one point says "Paul hadn't realized that the clip he removed conflicted with his central thesis[...]"
Going through lengths on youtube with accusations and than placing a short facebook message to apologize seems disingenuous.
Holy crap they're all over the place...why didn't you cut out their superfluous ramblings?
😈
Look at Rhino startin shiaat! J/k
Hey Viced, love your content to
Go Rhino,Go Rhino...
Love your content 🦏. I hope to see a response to Kent hovinds Bullshit.
He wants to Get his followers to create more DAL parks. The combination of missinformation and lack of safety is a concern here.
Not even being ironic here, this video genuinely felt long compared to Pauls other ones.
Maybe Cameron wants people to see your alleged deception. I've always had more of an impression that Cameron wants people to see Cameron.
Lol this... He's one of the most smug and shady apologists I've seen
I have the same opinion about him, not forgetting how often he mentions his book, alright, we get it, you wrote a book and want people to buy it, geez! 🤣
@@andrewhall2411 actually I perceive CC host is only doing this to show himself he's not on the path to being an atheist, since his brother may win all or most conversations.
PoZ, I hadn’t really thought it in words before... but I know exactly what you mean.
Not to forget, Cameron's ministry work is now his main source of income as i understand it. More views directly translate to more $.
Hi. I’m a Christian. I’ve seen all the relevant videos, and my verdict is not guilty. That is all.
Your honesty is admirable.
@@danielthrasher1738 Totally agree.
So .........you're an christian ey ? Oh well ..... nobody is perfect !
;-)
@@gertjanvandermeij4265 hahaha you are hilarious *laughs*
What exactly is a true Christian?
The important takeaway here is that Cameron legitimately thought Paul was being intentionally deceptive, instead of assuming the best first and asking questions.
Paul treats Cameron with a higher level of charity and assumes Cameron misunderstood, instead of slandering Cameron as a liar.
Cameron is a Christian, Paul is an atheist, this is about what you should expect.
@@andystokes8702 yikes, that was a cringe comment
Cameron has since apologized and claimed he was wrong for accusing him. Both personally, which can not be verified and publicly (on his channel under posts).
@@myrhh2260 Not really
Two words: Hanlon's razor
Not guilty. Plaintiffs, however, are guilty of malicious prosecution, and will be thrown to the lions.
Please do not expose the lions to their nonsense..what did the lions do to deserve that?? 😂🤣😁
Poor lions
No we have to go by Ken Ham's biblical view, they will be thrown to the dinosaurs.
@@DarkRanger1975 Cassowaries it is, then!
@@DarkRanger1975 That will just prove Ham's claim that dinosaurs and people lived together.
Cameron has always come off as smarmy and condescending to me. He has now showed his true colors. “Really really bad” indeed.
A condescending Christian? NEVER. 🙂
I've never liked him and his style of "I'm saying this and now stopping and smirking so you know it is clever and true" delivery.
He's honestly one of the most condescending people I've ever encountered. And it's not remotely justified on his part since he's wrong and dishonest all the time.
Cameron, as an apologist, is dishonest by nature. Its in the job.
@@Zeresrail as an apologist his job is to defend the faith, not the actual truth.
The thing I love most about paulogia is his intellectual honesty, and smooth buttery cadence
Paulogia is truly buttery smooth!
Plus his cartoon muscles are dead sexy.
I can't Believe It's Not Butter!
His cartoon Avatar replaced Fabio as the spokesman 🏋️
Ironically it’s intellectually dishonest to accuse Paul of intellectual dishonesty.
Paulogia + Seth Andrews = extra butter.
To me, this is just evidence of the quality of your content, Paulogia. You'll never see an interlocutor resort to name calling and smear campaigns faster then when you dismantle their arguments so thoroughly that only desperation remains.
Honest people can easily tell who the honest actors were in this exchange.
Funny how Cameron never invited Paulogia to the podcast to have him face the charges. Almost as if he didnt want him to be able to respond... true sign if an honest man.
My impression of Cameron is that he likes to grow his silly channel and poking atheists seems to accelerate that task. It didn't take me long to figure out that he's arguing in bad faith, but maybe that all comes with some experience, and Paulogia is a pretty fresh atheist, as well as a polite canadian.
He actually just sent people to this video.
@@Francoisdp82 Awhile ago I might have given him credit for it. But he did the bare bones. Retweet and on facebook he took the time to poison the well before throwing in "but do go look your self".
@@adrenochrome_slurper yes. He is cashing in on Christianity, not capturing it.
@@adrenochrome_slurper Also posting provoking short texts and memes. He kinda understands the UA-cam game and takes everything he can get.
So they can't beat Paul honnestly, so they engage in blatant misrepresentation and I would argue slander
Agreed
Of course they need to make atheists look bad so their skeptical followers don’t become atheist,
Indeed.
Just following their leader; a person of some fame that was recently evicted.
And libel, since they've engaged in written accusations against Paul. Defamation, anyway.
Lol the classic Christian excuse when they get cornered: "You're misrepresenting my view!"
But they will never honestly tell you their view, they start saying the believe the bible, then slip into oh yes the OT was cruel and not what they believe “Jesus gave a new message” even though Jesus said (according to their text) that he didn’t come to alter but to enforce the law.
So Cameron makes another video where he only misrepresents an atheist in order to make people dismiss their arguments?
That's apologetics in a nutshell.
I really suspect that what's going to happen is the lying sack of garbage is going to file a DMCA claim because the borrowed clips are too long.
Cameron appears consistently dishonest in this...
This whole thing is big ironic. Is not everyone here doing EXACTLY what he did?
@@AcidAdventurer No. See, what Cameron did is take a few selected words of what Paul said and then moved them around until they formed something nobody said ever, or just made up "things Paul said" out of nothing at all, and then said Paul was wrong because of the made-up words.
What WE are doing is pointing out, accurately, that Cameron is a lying dishonest piece of shit.
I understand why you can't tell the difference. Oh, wait, no, I don't, because the difference is MASSIVE and you have to be a disingenuous fucking moron to think they're the same.
Did you just get out of church, Nathan? Did they have a brainwashing session on altering reality to suit your narrative, Nathan? Is your comment your extra credit assignment?
@@EdwardHowton wheres your evidence hes lying and not just a dumbass or just forgot? Would most dishonest people apologize immediately? Continue on adding to the irony while thinking you're more enlightened than everyone else.
nope, these two are liars, lying to hide their lies after they were caught.
Cameron is lying. Dr Loke really is this inept. As far as I can tell he is just completely incompetent and its good for him that he working in field where there is no need to be smart and critical thinking is frowned on.
Cameron seems like a dishonest manipulator. Loke just seems like a complete blockhead.
I think the important thing to point out, is that they are lying to themselves. And that is the dangerous part of it.
@@JayMaverick I think the most obvious indication that Cameron is dishonest is in his video response debate with Rationality Rules - he made an argument, RR responded, Cameron changed his original argument and claimed that RR's response didn't answer it.
Nobody is that stupid, right?
I will never call somebody with a degree in *theology* a "doctor", unless they are an actual _medical_ doctor.
A Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in *theology* is like having a degree in the Easter bunny. _It's a bullshyte degree._
I think you do a great job editing your material and being very fair and intellectually honest in your approach to your subject matter.
So glad to see here my fav ASMR channel 😊👍
@@94josema no worries, glad you're here as well.
@@TirarADeguello what the hell!? You’re here too! Where is my “you’re an atheist!?” Role play ASMR
Paulogia... I think you've been hitting nerves. The fact that several apologists have taken to respond, not just directly but also with directed ad hominems... means you're generating some kind of feedback inside apologists circles.
Frankly, the only deception I can accuse you of, is not making a second channel called "Saulogia", where you let your "bad" self out.
Great channel. Glad you're doing this great work.
Thank you, Emil.
I initially took Cameron to be a well-intentioned and honest actor in this area. He came across as a breath of fresh air. However there have been several events now that show him to be perfectly willing to 'go low'.
It's disappointing.
Hopefully he can improve and elevate the whole conversation.
@@Paulogia
That would be nice. Even to acknowledge that he shouldn't have called your motives into question would be very welcome. And to dial back on his rhetoric.
Well intentioned and honest actor and xian apologist is almost mutually exclusive
@@Paulogia maybe that could start by him honestly reassessing and responding to this video? Though I suspect he will just double down.
@@ChrisFineganTunes Everyone is capable of "going low." Everyone. It's just that people are awful at telling when it's coming from their own side. Omar Al Yafai has just implied that there are no well-intentioned and honest apologists on a video in which rashly calling people dishonest is condemned.
When this blew up a few days ago I was no way, there is absolutely no way Paul did this. I knew I was right.
Didn't realize this was an older video until I saw the intro. More than happy to watch it again, thanks algorithm!
Verdict: Guilty (of being honest, of having integrity, and of being highly entertaining while also educational). I so appreciate your intellect and research, and your approach to the claims of Christianity. I am a transitioning theist, and your videos have been an integral part of my transition. Thank you also for being reasonable and not screaming. Also, thank you for having honest conversations with believers like Phil “VeggieTales” Vicher and Dr. McDowell. Please, keep up the good work!
You must have hurt them real bad to get a response like this. I'd be curious what got under their skin so bad to pull this kind of childish crap.
So would I! Like, come on, folks, it's *ridiculously* easy to prove that you're lying about Paulogia's editing! Why bother?
I would say Cameron is still annoyed about Paul’s video with Matt Dillahunty and how they kinda teased him and rightfully so.
Andrew probably doesn’t interact with a lot of counter apologists and/or critics that go against the biblical narrative he has as well.
any time you bring reality into the life of the delusion seeking mind, you're making an existential threat to them. they've built their life around emotion, belief, and opinion. these things have a thin skin, and honest questions and examinations threaten to burst the bubble bringing the entire deck of cards crashing down around them.
@@bluedragonfly8139 Because the people that watch their stuff will never watch this. They get to lie to an uncritical audience.
@@thebolas000 I'm watching this. That makes you wrong. Can you admit you're wrong? Let's test your critical skills.
Please PLEASE don't stop editing! Those long rambling sections were too painful 🙁
Ha. Thanks, Matt.
I second that. This was so tedious.
@@Paulogia are you too ashamed to show your own face instead of using a cartoon, you should be ashamed of yourself
@@samuelcalderwood1379 What difference does a cartoon make ? what difference are the words spoken by a cartoon compared to the words spoken by a face. This is not even to mention that he has shown his face on sometimes.
@@unknowndane4754 it's a bit like not being able to look someone in the eye if you're lying, the man is doing really bad stuff, hence is ashamed of himself and can't even put his own face on the stupid video
It was really tough listening to them without your edits lol Makes me appreciate the way you edit SOOO MUCH MORE. I appreciate everything you do for us. I've been watching your videos for over a year now and think you do a great job representing everyone's point fairly.
Please don't let the haters get you down, Paul! You're honestly one of the most honest editors we've ever seen on UA-cam! You always go above and beyond to make sure people know the context of your clips and you never publish a video without linking to all the sources in the description and encouraging people to check them out.
Thank you for putting in the hard work to make this rebutal! The name of Paulogia will not be tainted!! :D
Of all the videos I've watched on this channel, none has made me as mad as the claim that the editing was dishonest. I'll admit that I probably should be more mad at a few other things, but I've lost any respect I've had for "Capturing Christianity" and Andrew Loke, who I knew little about beforehand and was willing to respect as much as I do any honest Christian before he showed otherwise.
I'm not sure being an Apologist qualifies one for the "honest" label. I've spent many years reading and watching these folks and there are few that I would use that term to describe. There are a few that are "mostly honest" but when you stop to think about what their position is in terms of life, the universe and everything, it's a position that requires mostly faith, not facts. To me Dr. Loke is unconcerned with facts, but with making sure everyone understands the wide variety of evidence that can be called facts, even if his "evidence" is similar to the flavors in LaCroix water (lemon flavored because a truck full of lemons drove past the bottling factory). Like, was it 2 witnesses? 4 witnesses? 6 witnesses? 500 witnesses? Paulogia seems correct that the 2 is most correct, 4 has some issues, 6 doesn't seem to pass the smell test, and the 500 number is right out. No evidence other than the Bible tells you so (cue jingle). Apologists simply can't let that slide because like many fuzzy facts in the Bible, its a tenet of faith, regardless of the reliability.
People would be considered honest when they would talk in a very hypothetical way if supernatural things might be considerable like in a philosophical table talk situation. They however can't really be considered honest when they just assume miracles of talking donkeys or resurrections by a very particular very local flimsy book collection would be reliable written by believers in all sorts of superstitious stuff, which is basically equivalent to find today in some shacks a weird dude, who hears voices in his head and talks about that the stars would predict his future.
That is like the difference between a person you can talk about hypothetical alien life like microbes out there and a bunch of people claiming that the witness accounts of some UFO guy in a desert village is totally 100% reliable that aliens look like green frogs and this dude also claims he had 500 other villagers seing frog aliens at first contact and no one has any adress of them.
I agree on all counts. This is slightly maddening and very disappointing overall.
I lost my respect for Cameron when I saw his back and forth with Stephen Woodford. From video one, he tried to poison the well, and continually did so throughout the exchange, to the extent that Stephen eventually had to address it.
As for Andrew Loke. My disdain for him isn't quite as strong tbf as I'm more familiar with Cameron's work than I am Andrew's, though, I've seen his debate with Alex Malpass, Loke came off as quite the evasive character. He didn't acknowledge where his model went wrong, despite it being explained to him over and over again.
I feel like I remember the Hovind’s accused him of dishonest editing, but then again they make so many spurious accusations it’s hard to remember them all😂
I have nothing positive to say about any of these apologists...no wonder people are leaving the faith if this is the quality of the people supporting it
Imagine how much time Loke spent on his PowerPoint misrepresenting paulogia 😂
They can't see themselves as being guilty of cherry picking, quote mining and straight up lieing to their audience. But it's all good when you lie for Jesus 😜🤑🤣
@@gabrielbondon3673 When you're a Doctorate is in magic, and how to best interpret magic, you have a lot of free time on your hands.
...that feels too harsh.
May as well discuss if Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall...
We can't know for sure if he just Sat there , or he Fell... But, whatever happened ,
it's most likely to have happened sometime after the Wall was built.
@@alchemicalheathen not harsh enough in my view. The gall of these charlatans trying to impugn Paul's actions in this way! Cheeky bastards!
"look at this guy! He's dishonestly editing clips!" He says pointing to clips they edited dishonestly to make their point.
Doesn't the ten commandments say something specific about bearing false witness there, Andrew Loke?
Depends which version you read. I prefer the version with the prohibition against boiling a baby goat in his mothers milk.
@@1970Phoenix So, I like baby goat's milk soup and I have to go to hell? You probably covet your neighbor's wife and left that out to save your precious skin, not for the love of goat babies, go adulterate yourself, I have soup to eat.
My basic respect for Cameron is evaporating rapidly.
I never cared for his typical arrogance and patting his own shoulder style videos.
💯
You still have some?
@@Raydensheraj glad I’m not the only one who can’t stand his arrogance and self back-patting.
You actually had some?
Been waiting for this vid! Let's go!
Verdict: Not Guilty
Paulogia painstakingly tries to steelman the other arguments and is known to carefully construct an argument against it. I don't see any deceptive editing from Paul.
“The Trial of Paulogia” 🤣🤣🤣
I had to suffer this insufferable trial and it’s mindless ramblings LIVE🤦🏻♂️. I’ll never get that time back again. 🤦🏻♂️
Paulogia, credit to you for responding. 👏👏
I think you have explained your intentions, clarified that you didn’t represent Sean (with whom I think you have garnered considerable respect), and explained where Cameron and Loke actually misrepresented you.
Emotions seem to run very high and reason was is sparse supply with Cameron B. and Andrew Loke.
Well done in putting the record straight.
The only thing I can find you guilty of is being far too trusting of your interlocutors.
They're going down this rabbit hole of "deception" because they have no argument against your claims besides "nu huh! You're lyin'!"
Don’t be so quick to dismiss the accusation. It is entirely possible (and I have seen it with fellow atheists), that someone with the correct, justifiable position uses deception to try and make their point, either to make it more effective or because they aren’t aware of the good arguments. Plenty of people have argued with Paul without resorting to accusations of deception, despite having the same level of support of their claims as each other.
Love you :)
Love you back. Sorry about the mess.
@@Paulogia @Shannon Q Get a room you two :)
I Love You TOO, Shannon The Cannon!!!
I have a sneaking suspicion that the only reason you guys have youtube, is to have one more forum to 'love you,' each other... Its motivating me to get one two, i wannna tell my partner too
You two make me happy. The irony.....it restores my faith in humanity. Hahahaha
You're massive integrity when editing is one of the things I appreciate most about you! You even make it a point to always suggest that your viewers visit the source material. The absolute gall of these people to suggest otherwise tells me everything I need to know about them. Thank you for responding respectfully to them regardless of what they deserve!
I've always admired your patience, goodwill, honesty, and intelligence, Paul. You are an incredibly talented video creator! As someone who didn't grow up in religion, your simple and clear videos are much easier for me to understand and learn for. Thank you SO much!
This guy is definitely all up in his feelings. Angry because somebody questioned his Iron Age myth.
It's nice to see people don't say "bronze age myths" because that's actually giving the Bible way too much credit. None of its texts dates back to the bronze age :)
@@kamilgregor LMAO you!
Christianity came before the iron age. It is bronze age myths.
oh hes def mad that paul had the gall to question HIM specifically.
@@freddan6fly no actually Christianity came about during the Iron Age. Judaism where Christianity comes from was said to have come about during the Bronze Age even though the Dead Sea Scrolls only date to the Iron Age.
This has the smell of “buy my book” from loke.
Loke's book is free though?
but its free...?
@@philamras3732 you think that he wants to stop there? His other books are not free, hes using his free book as a way to get readers (a perfectly valid strategy). Also hes an academic so having books that are being read, even if “free”, has value. However his clutching of pearls at pauls criticisms has the foul smell of “buy my book”, whether the book is technically free is not important, replace “buy” with “read” if necessary.
ua-cam.com/video/aDTwO0TlwOU/v-deo.html
that really stuck out, didn't it?
Loke: read my book.
Me: I’m disinclined to acquiesce to your request.
Oh they are grasping thin air. The irony of their accusations...
Wow, all they have left is projection.
It was projection from the beginning of the cult till the end.
And lies. They have also lies.
Lies and protection is all that they ever had.
Because they can’t provide the evidence they’ve been asked for the only card left is to attempt, unsuccessfully, to discredit the opposition.
On the issue of the 500 witnesses: a witness who cannot or will not be brought forth may as well not exist.
Try claiming in a court of law that there were 500 witnesses. They'll tell you to call them up to testify, or at least identify themselves and provide a statement. If they can't or won't, they're irrelevant.
@@Luubelaar I'm not certain but I suspect that 500 witnesses all with similar testimony would all be called. Seems more likely that someone would go through the statements and select a smaller number of witnesses with statements representative of the group, along with any making allegations not typical of the larger group. Hundreds of people repeating the same claim and facing the same rebuttals would be rather redundant when 2-3 corroborating witnesses could achieve the same result.
@@Luubelaar Plus, you can produce thousands of witness who say that the statue of liberty disappeared when Davey Copperfield did it. This happens all the time at Vegas magic shows. Even we had video of the event, it would still be useless to prove anything but the power of illusion and gullibility.
Thank you for doing another response. I could only get through about 1/2 of that 3hr snorefest. You are one of my favorite skeptics. You speak calmly and directly. Thank you for everything you do.
Very well made video with probably the best of the best argumentation I've heard this year! You are a true inspiration and a person I would love to become and I work towards becoming!
Not guilty on all charges. I have no idea what the prosecution wanted to achieve, but they failed/
Paulogia made clear Allison talked of the 500.
Your adherence to truth, civil discourse, and integrity is truly inspiring, Paul! Please keep it up and know that you are deeply appreciated.
I felt that something was off when I read Cameron’s post. I’m glad to see that you were in fact being honest as always since it’s one of the things I respect most about you. You’re a godsend, keep up the good work.
Clapped him on his dishonesty AND his bad math. Classic.
When I accuse someone of misrepresenting someone else's views, I first speak to the person I claim they misrepresented to make sure I'm right. I once presented the Maryland House of Representatives with a letter that said their Attorney General misrepresented one of her sources. The letter was FROM that source. That's how you do it.
I said this one the cc post... And cc's fanboys were like, 'we can read' except everything else they said about my comment was incorrect. It was hilarious
Seeing this episode has truly showed me how glad I am you take such care editing... Just wow... Such WASTED time. I'd never thought about that. And now it will be plastered into my mind
This video just made me appreciate the effort you go to editing the noise out. Conversation is okay to be long and have random tangents but that doesn't make a point any more valid. Keep holding yourself to that intellectual honesty standard, it's appreciated
Never noticed Paul casts a shadow against the backdrop. Nice touch! 👌
Thanks!
@@Paulogia But does he cast a reflection in a mirror?
I hope everyone who watched Cameron's video watches this and concludes for themselves who is ACTUALLY being deceptive
I doubt it. Once the bias has been confirmed, it's hard to push past and look for where you could be wrong.
It's sad because I thought Cameron was a pretty good dude but his reaction here was pretty telling.
They won't. For the vast majority of people who consume apologetics, all they need is to know the apologists exist. It comforts them so they can "believe" there is good reason to "believe" what they "believe". Only a small fraction of them make any real attempt to engage with the arguments, and even fewer yet will dare engage with the rebuttals of those arguments. For much of his audience, Cameron said it, they believe it and that settles it.
The "Like " count on Cameron's video indicates that most people know where the deception lies. The comments section is flooded with people calling out his, and Loke's, vile misrepresentations.
Good luck with that.
It has been my experience that when some people feel threatened, instead of defending their position [calmly] with facts, they [instinctively?] go on the offensive and attack their opponent, usually with things that are not relevant to the topic at hand. That is what I saw here.
And, FWIW, this is one reason I really enjoy your videos is that you stay on topic and never attack your opponent, as tempting as it may be sometimes.
All he best, Paul!
I appreciate all the hard work you do to keep your videos clear and understandable while not strawmanning your opponents.
I think the main issue is with the inherit nature of response videos done over a series, especially over a large timespan. Even if someone does watch them all and isn't trying to be dishonest, it's possible to forget what was previously established, let alone if someone hasn't followed it, and is purposefully looking for a screw up (even if not attempting to be dishonest).
Other than maybe summarizing previous points a bit more in some cases I can't think of much that could be done regarding the second issue. And as for the first I feel your purpose was clear, and it only really feels like a deceptive edit if you attribute it to proving a different point than you specified, which only really happens if you take that segment out of context.
Overall I can't think of much that could have been done without reiterating a lot of points; again, I think this is just an issue with a series of videos spread out over time, and then not being looked at in a neutral light.
Please keep up the good work, and -god bless- make sure to look after yourself!
IMO, it boils down to one thing. Loke is trying to "sell" his book and if his hysterics say anything very loudly it is his book isnt "selling" very well - even for a niche genre.
This is how I read it as well. Loke is upset that @paulogia is critical of his work and is having a fairly childish response to that. It is the same way an 8 year old reacts if their work is criticized harshly by a peer.
We shouldn't infer Dr. Loke's motives. That would be making an unsubstantiated claim.
The best argument is always the Mormon one. It just shows how ridiculous Andrew's is.
@@ianfirth33 We should be forever thankful to Mormons for having given us the opportunity to so easily show blatant double standards and epistemological flaws in Christians’ apologetics, without even the ability to call strawman ^^
Morale of this story? When you have nothing left but shit, sling it. Looking at you, Bertuzzi and Loke.
Yes, typical christian behavior. When cornered with no answers, let's just make shit up.
I sense a case of Confession through Projection on the part of Cameron and Loke. The missing chunk out of the Allison thing was him rambling (as I'm wont to do myself), while rallying his thoughts to get back to the point. As for the second bit, he had praise for you and your video, and thanks for taking the time to read the book carefully...
Imma go with the guy that you took apart, rather than Cameron and an over-emotional Loke. Hell, you had ERIC on the channel, and I sat and listened to over an hour of edited footage of that... If Eric had a problem with the editing, he'd've screamed his rage from the rooftops.
Only now I appreciate fully how your video editing makes your content enjoyable to watch. I was shouting at my screen at dr Loke "that's not the fucking point!" the entire time. It's sooo frustrating. Please, never again leave us to witness all the rambling that happens on their side D:
We got your back man. I've been watching you for a while, you aren't dishonest in this field at all. You are doing good work man.
These ridiculous people are just wasting Paul's time
My only thought on the subject is that you might include some sort of symbol to indicate when cuts are made. Your editing is so seamlessly excellent that I have never noticed an edit of source material.
Keep up your excellent work. We love it!
Thanks for the strong response, Paul. And thanks for the hard work you do editing. You just need to watch 1 min of their unedited rambling to see how much that editing aids in making complex points coherent.
Paul I tend to agree with most your videos and enjoy your style, until this video I never realised how much you actually scare the theists
You DO intentionally misrepresent people-you make them seem smarter and less bigoted.
oops. 😊
You have always been a consistent, erudite, and ethic presence on UA-cam. Keep up the great work.
This is a third strike for Cameron, after the gotcha against Dillahunty and the edits on the video debate against Stephen Woodford. The guy is another televangelist on UA-cam.
As for Paulogia, I love your channel, and the fact that you always back everything you show. Keep the good work, please.
Always a great day when a Paul video pops up
If I watched three hours of Andrew Loke, I would be climbing the walls!
This is a thoughtful and well constructed response to an accusation centred around emotional perception of your video. I appreciate your/this channel's integrity and as a former Christian yours is one of the only platforms I trust for an objective assessment.
The sword you are wielding of intellectual honesty is cutting very deep. The the louder the howls and more notorious the folks who respond to you, the greater the impact your intense labour is having.
Keep up the excellent work.
I always love your videos and totally see that you go out of your way to be intellectually honest. You've reached out and talked to people most ignore and simply mock. You always give people the benefit of the doubt. Trying to manufacture drama here is just sad.
Instead of being confident and secure about their “beliefs” they have to point the finger and squabble about someone misrepresenting you by saying 2 instead of, maybe 4 but probably 2
2 or 4 or even 6 still seems a tad short of 500.
Paul, great job. I wholeheartedly respect and admire your honesty and integrity.❤️❤️❤️
Paul, I've been watching your channel for a long while now. It's my opinion that you have nothing to change. You are always honest, concise and polite to interlocutors, and I've seen you be more than generous when dealing with wild claims.
Your personal style has influenced me to go from an angry atheist, to a somewhat moderately perturbed atheist. You've done this by showing the power that can be wielded through a calm presentation of fact.
P.S. I look forward to seeing you join tiktok when Shannon Q finally convinces you.
Believers, like Cameron, tend to give me the impression that they are more knowingly dishonest than the people responding to them.
I agree. I can't help but think that if someone spent enough time learning about the history of magic, and then spent enough time failing to perform the magic, they really have to know deep down that it's not real.
Now they just spend their time trying desperately to convince others that they're not faking and pretending for the cash and fame.
I watched all those videos when you put them out. I don't think you could have been more even-handed.
You've got to be one of the humblest athiest UA-camrs out there man. Love to see it. It's hard not to get upset at the kind of people you react to but somehow you always manage to keep things rational. I think that's the best way to win people over :)
You are absolutely not guilty. I love how your channel is devoted to a calm and serious discussion of the issues, and an almost manic desire to NOT read motivations into your interlocutors. Thank you.
It's interesting that you have to leave Christianity to understand what bearing false witness means and to develop a sense of proportion that minimizes all-or-none thinking. Verdict: not guilty.
In what way is cutting out "post-pentacostal crowd" changing Allison's point? That's what I wanna know tbh
Agree. It is entirely meaningless to the point under discussion.
Because Loke claimed that Paul tried to make it look as if Allison disagrees about the existence of the 500 witnesses, and if Paul would have showed the complete clip it would be apparent to everyone that Allison does believe in the 500. But of course, as Paul showed here, the argument was not about the existence of the 500, but about Loke's claim that people at that time could've easily verify the claim by themselves by asking to the 500 what was it that they saw.
Ikr. I thought it was obvious, even in Paul's edited clip, that Alison believed in the 500. It was so damn clear that the point was about evidence and not belief. How could Loke have innocently made this mistake?
@@wachyfanning I don't know much about Loke, but I'd think that he got emotional and was ultimately influenced by Cameron, who is pretty well known at this point for desperately trying to find some "gotcha" moments for his viewers. Maybe Cameron came to Loke saying "Hey, did you noticed that Paulogia cut out some crucial points in his video to make you look bad?" and Loke just hopped in the train. Or maybe Loke is as disingenuous as Cameron, who knows.
@@wachyfanning I will say that, as someone who doesn't know Alison and didn't watch the original Paulogia video, that the edited clip made me believe that Alison thought the 500 witnesses claim was heavily exaggerated. But in both clips, it was clear that he was also saying that verifying the details of the witnesses was impossible.
Something important to take from Cameron and Paulogia video is the following:
Cameron Video tells you *what* should you think about Paul.
Paul's video tells you *how* to use your understanding to evaluate the two positions and let you decide the conclusion.
This highlights Paul isn't interested in controlling his audience's thinking but to promote the critical thinking of then.
Meanwhile, Cameron's content always dictates what you should think, and nothing reflects this more than his slogan, _"BTW, Christianity is true"_ that only assert a conclusion without evidence.
It's SUCH a slog to listen to their unedited clips that I'm gonna take the commenters' words (and the history of the accusers) and assume that you're good to go here, Paul. Good on you for doing the work.
Paul. you are one of the honest guys I know of: and integrity means everything to the honest debater ;-)
I've always appreciated your editing. You do a great job of making things clear and concise. Here, where you held back on editing just makes me appreciate your usual job even more.
Thank you for always being so honest Paul!!!
This reminds me of the old attorney's adage:
When the facts are on your side, argue the facts.
When the facts aren't on your side, argue process.
When neither are on your side, bang you fists on the table.
Projection after projection on the part of these weak apologists.
That’s all christian apologetics can do. It how they fool their followers into believing how Christianity is the best thing ever and how foolish it is not to believe.
More projection than a cinema on a non covid Friday;)
"Weak apologist" is as redundant as "dishonest liar" is as redundant as "lying apologist".
@@EdwardHowton but they have to lie or their just so delusional that actually believe it. But I can guarantee Cameron just a dishonest liar who enjoys the following he has from his UA-cam subscribers.
@@user-xs2qq7kv9w That's why calling them apologists and liars is redundant. You can't BE an apologist without being a dishonest piece of trash. It's a foundational requirement. Lying liars who lie and don't even tell the truth.
Yeah Imma be real, I'm glad Paulogia removed that "post-pentacostal" thing because I have no clue what that's a reference to and it would have been confusing.
And it wasn't an "admission it really happened" at all, as claimed by Loke. It was a side comment. A verbal "note in the margins".
@@Luubelaar Yeah, I just have no clue what that side note is even about
You're one of the most open, honest and self-critical guys I watch on youtube.
I find the vast majority of well-known atheist channels to be tedious, despite being atheist for almost fifty years.
UA-cam's been an eye-opener over the last decade or so, as I've watched too many religious interactions for my own mental health. However, it's hard not to conclude that apologists are salespeople of the lowest ilk: their pitch muddied by the fact they can't even show plausibility for any deities, let alone the one they peddle (under one of the multiple variants of Abrahamic texts).
In short, this fellow's effort to berate you seems unopen to the data, less than honest and far from self-critical
.
Keep up the good work, Paul.
Thanks for being an investigator, rather than the tedious ego of most famous atheists on this medium
:-)
Perhaps, one day, I'll discover an apologist with integrity rather than sales pitch
These days they have to rely on presenting a floor show with sparkly graphics, lots of COMEDY ("Yew ever see a T. rex? He ain't flyin' anywhere with them li'l arms."), lots of false sentimental pan drippings about how _good_ Jesus feels in your tum-tum.
If a preacher doesn't make his congregation laugh in FEAR, SHAME, AND EMBARRASSMENT, he can't succeed.
I'm seeing this behavior so much lately within christian circles and in politics on the right. Crying about how they are a victims of some crime, describing what has happened, then it turns out they themselves are guilty of the exact thing they are complaining about. Strange behavior from those on the "moral high ground".
You're guilty!
... of being totally awesome dude. 😝
Aw, shucks.
You'd think someone with a doctorate would understand extending the principle of charity, but he literally says the guy agrees with him by engaging with the point.
That's what happens when you have a useless doctorate probably from an unaccredited school
@bob smith not sure the strength of it’s science departments adds any gloss to a degree in theology. That is just a quirk due to the antiquity of these institutions.
Love your responses. Almost always concise and well though out 😉. I have followed many of your ongoing conversations and I can confidently say... NOT GUILTY!
You're one of the most honest creators on the platform. Most don't acknowledge others valid points and only try to flame. I've never honestly seen anyone give love to whoever their responding to.
Keep it up
I did not get that Allison agrees that there were the 500 people. He questions the identity and quantity of alleged 500 people by wondering where they may have been from. Also, I do not think you misrepresent others’ arguments.
Exactly. All the unanswerable questions Allison posits argue against the historical factuality of the claim.
Exactly!
Alison was openly disrespectful to the claim of 500 witnesses. He acknowledges that there are 500 _claimed,_ - just claimed, - then dismisses the claim by pointing out that it's actually a baseless claim because there's no way it can actually be checked.
Don't let these guys get you down, Paul. You're doing great work.
Thank you.
I don’t very often write comments due to the lack of vocabulary mainly. But here I felt that I wanted to say that I find the way you communicate your points is always both very ethical and thoughtful. I wish my way of communicating was the same.
I like that you let the clip play uncut after saying that you try to make your interlocutor look better by being more succinct. I am so grateful for your editing, Paul. I could never sit through all of the apologetic drivel that you do.