The more and more I watch debates between defenders of christianity and skeptics , the weaker and weaker the christian arguments become and, more times than not, I observe the skeptic being more honest and straightforward in their presentation of the evidence . Carrier for the win!
Regardless of whether one personally thinks Christianity is reasonable or not, I don't know how any intellectually honest person could fail to acknowledge that Richard Carrier thoroughly kicked David Marshall's ass in every respect. To be blunt, he made Marshall look like a bumbling fool-and did it in less than his allotted time. Actually, Marshall did that to himself. He was off topic and irrelevant with almost every point he raised.
I like Marshall's closing argument... something like "I implore you to be open minded enough to close your mind and cling to an idea as though it is irrefutable truth"
What stuck out for me was religious guy's claim that gospel miracles are purposeful, not done to show off - you mean like the time when Jesus cursed a fig tree for no reason except that it wasn't the season for figs? How did changing water into wine make the world a better place? It's nothing more than attempts to shift the burden of proof for a fairy tale that cannot be corroborated by a single contemporary account, which conflicts with itself.
I wonder what the "purpose" of making wine out of water to offer already drunk people more alcohol? I wonder what Dionysos might say the god of wine and extasy whose follower celebrated every year such a ceremony. May be they thought this was a show off of some preacher or at least of his followers who want to make Jesus look like he would play in the league of the gods and make a man into more then a man.
Or for that matter, how is saints coming out of their tombs in accordance with respecting nature? Or in the exorcism of Legion, was the man clothed and in his mind? Was driving demons into swine respecting nature?
"The dead sea scrolls point to the new testament". Do you not realize that the writers of the NT were aware of the "prophesies" of the OT? If you know what the "prophesies" are, and you are writing a story about a "messiah" to fit that, would you not make sure that your "messiah" fits those old stories?
one heck of a story they invented, God humbling himself and dying on the cross to atone for our sins, sheding of pure blood his resime is too strong too be invented by desert people 2000 years ago “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." "I am that I am" -He is enduringly strong -He is entirely sincere; -He is eternally steadfast; -He is immortally graceful; -He is imperially powerful; -He is impartially merciful; The Heavens declare His glory and the firmament shows His handiwork He who is, who was, and who always will be; The first and the last He is the Alpha and Omega the Aleph and the Tau the A and the Z; He is the first fruits of them that slept. He is: -King of the Jews .King of Israel -King of all the Ages -King of Heaven; -King of Glory; -King of Kings and Lord of Lords; A PROPHET before Moses A priest after Melchizadek; A champion like joshua; An offering in place of Isaac A king from the line of David; A wise counselor above Solomon; A beloved/rejected/exalted son like Joseph And yet far more.... "For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead [a]bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all [b]principality and power." He is our Kingsman-Redeemer and He is our Avenger of Blood; He is our City of Refuge; Our preforming High Priest, Our Personal Prophet, Our Reigning King, He is the loftiest idea in Literature; The highest personality in Philosophy; The fundamental doctrine of Theology; His Incarnation, touched and transformed time.Now the whole world counts time as Before Christ (BC) and AD (Anno Domoni - in the year of our Lord). Jesus Christ is the central figure of History. He was born of a woman - so that we could be born of God; He humbled Himself - so that we could be lifted up; He became a servant - so that we could be made co-heirs; He suffered rejection - so that we could become His friends; He denied Himself - so that we could freely recieve all things; He gave Himself so that He could bless us in every way. He is available to the tempted and the tried; He blesses the young; he cleanses the lepers; He defend the feeble; He deliver the captives; He discharges the debtors; He forgives the sinners; He franchises the meek; He guards the besieged; He heals the sick; He provides strength to the weak; He regard the aged; He rewards the diligent; He serves the unforunate; He sympathizes and He saves! His Promises are sure His Goodness is limitless; His light is matchless; His offices are manifold; His reign is righteous; His grace is sufficient; His love never changes; His mercy is everlasting; His Word is enough; His Yoke is easy and His burden is light! The Heaven of heavens cannot contain Him; Man cannot explain Him The Pharaisees couldn't stand Him and learned that they couldn't stop Him; Pilate couldn't find any fault with Him; the witnesses couldn't agree against Him. Herod couldn't kill Him death couldn't handle Him the grave couldn't hold Him! He has always been and always will be; He had no predecessor and will have no successor; You can't impeach Him and he isn't going to resign! His name is above every name; That at the name of Yeshua Every knee shall bow, Every tounge shall confess His is the kingdom, the power, and the glory for ever, and ever. Amen!
They didn't invent the Jesus out of whole cloth. They copied him from the many stories of Page dying&rising gods, who were won of god, born of a virgin on 25 Dec to be killed for our sins and through whom we obtain personal salvation. Look up Dionysus, Osiris, Bacchus, Dolmoxus, Insane and so on.
@@CroElectroStile It’s exactly the opposite. People from 2000yrs ago that were ignorant of virtually all natural phenomena, are the very ones that would need to invent your god.
An absurdly large portion of Marshall's reasoning behind his belief seems to be: "Since I can't explain how coincidences occur, a magical sky father is orchestrating events on Earth to make mundane shit happen." I'm not a theist, but I think I would have to be offended on behalf of theists for such a childish view of a deity, especially for theists who believe in a deity that cares. The view that a loving and powerful being is so concerned with who notices who in a crowded train-station that it will intervene with free-will while letting tragedies around the world play out, it is pretty deluded and self-centered view.
Tim Spangler Seriously?! If you can manage to equate those two arguments in your mind, it's NO wonder that you believe impossible nonsense for no good reason. First of all, I have NEVER heard an atheist use your counter-example, straw-man of an argument. Secondly, Futrix DID adequately distill David's argument - an argument that HAS been presented by MANY apologists, theologians, and garden-variety believers. Thirdly, even though it could reasonably be argued that their argument is about as flimsy as tissue-paper, it at least makes a certain amount of sense if you don't dig too deeply - your hypothetical atheist argument would be completely and utterly nonsensical and something no self-respecting atheist would ever try to pass off as an argument..
As a christian I used to pray all the time and feel "blessed" by favors and lucky coincidences. Then I became an atheist, as least as far as all known religions are concerned, and my life is still full of fun surprises and lucky coincidences. The biggest difference is the lack of existential dread. (And all the opening of my schedule because regular prayer is a major timesuck.)
As a former Christian, secular meditation and breathing exercises is actually a very good thing. Pray all the time? I was extremely dedicated but lucky if I prayed when I got up, went to bed and when I ate.
***** Marshall puts weight on personal appeals, and scripture, where Carrier focuses on facts. It's like a NBA player, playing pick up basketball with middle school kids. Marshall had no defense to the germ /disease model. Jesus could heal blind people but not blindness. Marshall either grossly underestimated Carriers ability, or simply lacked the effort to prepare. His reference to Craig' s win, is lame and a waste of time.
Richard carrier's leap of faith in his theories are far greater than any religious leap of faiths🤣🤣 No Offence but that's what mainstream historians think of him.
He did dodge specific points and used many fallacies, mostly incredulity in regards to atheism which I'm sure he would point out if an atheist used it against Christianity. Pretty week arguments. 🤷
+pedrosura Brutal?.. I'd say honest. Marshal was being completely dishonest and Carrier didn't let him get away with it. I agree with Matt Russell above that Mashall should NOT debate unless his actual goal is to deconvert Christians.
Mr Marshall it is nice that you claim god cares that your personal needs in food are miraculously meet. Not that you would have to work instead of sitting in a park and complaining to god about it. May be this is the reason why god could not take care of the 36.000 children starving at this day? But it is good to know you did not have to feel hunger a single day. It is shocking that you bring such anecdotal story to support your case.
Incredible. Marshall argues that Christianity is true because religion is universal and many features of Christianity also appears in many older religions. Has he never heard of Occam's Razor?
Regarding Carrier's opening: Tracie Harris has the best explanation of the Problem of Evil: "If I could stop a man from raping a child, I would. That's the difference between me and your god."
That last woman speaker, is an excellent example of how much further this campaign of re-education has to go. Many--it seems, are way beyond help. You can talk and reason with some 'slaves' interminally, and get nowhere. 'And some fell on stony ground'. apparently.
I think Richard Carrier won the debate. Part of that is because David Marshall was completely honest in his attitude. He didn't hide behind rhetorical tricks, never evaded questions, stuck to the subject matters and gave (apparently) honest answers, even when they were problematic for him. Kudos to Mr. Marshall for being an honest man. Now compare that with, for example, WLC or Hugh Ross...
Yeah all WLC does is just dodge the questions and repeat over and over again, that if there is a God... god must be a moral being (which makes no sense). And something can't be considered moral unless it's learned from the creator of the universe, which also makes no sense lol. It's his only two arguments.
No David, you don't believe the audience is out there "by faith", you can hear them, and you probably saw them when you came in. That makes you a liar from statement 1. Faith is believing something without any evidence (or reason). And your assertion for Christianity "is wholly credible, because it is ridiculous", as Tertullian said in De Carne Christi - before he abandoned his "orthodox faith" in favour of that of Montanism.
I think Richard definitely won this debate. Marshall's answers were too vague whilst Richard's were detailed and explained observations very well. Marshall however is not a good debater and came across as selling snake oil. I'm not an atheist, however Richard is the only person so far to convince me that the NT is a christian pagan fable cobbled together decades after Jesus. It is also reasonable to assume that jesus was a fictious character though I am not sure about that.
6 Years on from your comment where you seemed to be pretty agnostic about the claims of religion where do you find yourself today with regards to belief in a god or theistic claims?
@@GoodDay2YouSir Haha, interesting question. I've learned a lot in the last 6 years. I don't remember this debate and it's too long to watch again. My position now is that Jesus probably existed, was possibly some kind of faith healer who gained notoriety amongst the elite but was welcomed by the people. Perhaps he got lucky and managed to help some people get better. It seems that is it likely he was crucified and then the legends started of this beloved faith healer. Paul, being its most effective exponent in the early years, gave Christianity traction. Paul is the reason it didn't fizzle out. Christianity is a mix of Judaism with ancient Greek philosophy including Stoicism, Cynicism, and Epicureanism. What is ironic is the ancient Greeks nearly supplanted Judaism with their culture and civilization as the Jews found it preferable but there was a big fight back by a minority of Jewish zealots and eventually through Christianity the Jews managed to supplant the Greek civilization, its science, philosophy and medicine with Jewish superstitious claptrap. That set the timetable for discovery and advancement back by maybe 500 years.
Dr. Marshall was simply outclassed in this debate. He essentially conceded the debate when he had absolutely no response/rebuttal to Richard's main negative case for the reasonableness of the Christian faith, and even admitted as such!
Cannot tell you how freeing it is to NOT be a member of the any Abrahamic religion. I mean, listen to the last Muslim lady ask her question about things that really mean absolutely nothing. Yet it rules her life and causes her great concern. Such a waste of time and energy.
How can miracles,a questionable phenomenon, be given as the proof of another questionable phenomenon, gods, religion? It's just not possible for an honest, logical person to remotely think this is good argument
David said that he has no problem with god making miracles in other religions. Well if so, than it means that god would intentionally reinforce the "wrong" faith in those people and than send them to hell for believing it. That's just monstrous.
So one minute they say "god doesn't reveal himself, as he doesn't intervene on free will." Then they say, "a guy from Africa became a Christian because God told him to follow jeaus" My BS alarm is deafening.
I’m very impressed with David. Impressed with the degree in which his critical thinking can be switched off completely when it comes to sweet baby Jesus and the myths about his life. He is also a wonderful example of how we don’t deal with coincidence very well. Firstly because we don’t remember the 99.999999999999999999999% of non coincidences in our life and secondly because we have hyper active agency detection device mechanisms in our mind that makes teleology a common thing we use to ascribe meaning to things with no meaning at all. Only coincidence.
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't hear Carrier doing that. He referenced dozens of books, most by other people. Yes, he referenced himself and his own works a few times, but I never got the sense he was just trying to promote book sales. He was saying, "look, I only have one minute here, but if you are interested, I make the entire argument in this book." I don't find that cheeky at all. I find it that he's showing his credibility as a legit scholar.
Claiming miracles in the gospels are unique to ancient literature makes them legit??? How reasonable is that? Maybe he ought to first provide evidence for them first...........good luck Marshall.
Oops! It's been pointed out to me that I made a typo in my comment on this three days ago and left out the word 'not'. When I wrote "...serious minded Theists (a term which does include the arrogant and moronic YECs such as Ham, Hovind, Comfort or Lisle)" I meant to say that the term does NOT include these charlatans. I don't mind people making reasoned criticisms of what I say but I obviously didn't mean to write patently absurd bollocks.
I'm so glad that God answered Mr. Marshall's monetary prayers, no matter how scant. What more proof does anyone need for the existence of God than Mr. Marshall's coincidences. Solipsism at its best. This same personal God allows millions of children to die every year under horrific situations. But this could be God's mysterious ways. Why save all these children when the real miracle is telling people in their heads to go preach the gospels! WOW!!!!
Oners82 sol·ip·sism [sol-ip-siz-uhm] Show IPA noun 1. Philosophy . the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist. 2. extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption. Dictionary.com
I agree: But I also believe that to be a theist and think that God works in your favor and has a divine plan for you, grants you everlasting life, is quite solipsistic. .
Marshall's argument is anecdotal, spiritual, arbitrary and personal. He offers sweet stories and platitudes instead of hard evidence or strong scholarly opinion and he uses poor logic in place of facts. He is simply not the scholar Carrier is. ...but he IS at a disadvantage: his subject doesn't exist.
The argument is easy: if a Christian god exists he should be omnipotent, omnipresent and benevolent and loving mankind, so he would remove all disease and misery instantly or give his followers the knowledge or power to end all disease and misery. Since this is not the case we are left with either: 1. there is no god or 2. god is either non-caring or malevolent, i.e. not a Christian god.
God exists! She miraculously gave Richard Carrier much better arguments that She doesn't exist than she did to David Marshall that She did! Boy does She work in mysterious ways! Or is it maybe the God of Reason, who knows he doesn’t exist, that gave Carrier such good arguments? I’m still agnostic on that one.
Wow, David Marshall is embarrassingly inept at debating. He also seems to be a complete intellectual lightweight who doesn't understand why just because you read something in a book you like and find compelling doesn't necessarily make it true.
I'm really curious about how well the muslim lady at the end of the QA could comprehend of what was being discussed throughout the debate, many of Carriers points could work just as well if this was a debate about whether the islamic faith is reasonable without much modification. Or would she believe the devil was working to confuse and misguide her as she says about the christians.
Marshall’s first response uses not a single argument to refute anything Carrier actually said. It’s hopeless and I have no faith Christians will get any better. And that is as charitable as I can get. I pray every day to the non-existent great one to give better existent arguments to her delusional believers. Maybe one day he will (not) answer my prayers and so prove the (non-) efficacy of (non-) prayers to a (non) existent being.
Great lecture by Richard. I would like to make a point about germs that Richard mentioned. FYI, prophet Muhammad (saw) said in many His sayings that wash your hand and don't wipe your hand to towel before you eat. Also Muslims wash their hand, face, arms and feet approximately 5 times a day. Even in OT, God requires to make a wudu before the prayer.
"Everything we know comes from human testimony." Yes, but what must one do if their are contradictions in the testimony, if you simply read the resurrection accounts you'll notice several contradictions in the writings of the gospels. The same can be said for martyr stories and biblical translations.
Did you overlook the title of the "debate"? As I recall, it says, "Is the Christian Faith Reasonable?" Hence, Marshall is arguing that Yahweh, specifically, is the one and only true "god'. I have no idea to whom you are referring when you write "WE're arguing for a generic god..." Marshall is not. Who is "we"?
I meet a man in Rome that had an apartment just a few streets from where I work. So did a god guide me to him? Not very likely. When I was attending the university, I happened on a girl from a class that I was attending, and it turned out she knew that the class was cancelled for the week, and I didn't. Such things happen, it doesn't mean there's a god.
What lots of people (even pastors) don't (yet) understand. God created us according to His own image and likeness. Godly. Mankind/the first Adam fell. The image of God in man got lost. That's why there is all this predicament on earth (selfishness, greed, lust, wars, sicknesses, death, etc). We are all born into that mess. For the fall of man a perfect atoning sacrifice had to be made.... that is what God did in Christ. With His own once and for all perefect sacrifice, He paid the debt for the fall of man for us, so we can be indwelled by His Spirit again and finally receive the divine life of the ages back, the first Adam let got of in the fall of man. An amazing act of grace and love by our creator. That is what you see happening in Christ's first disciples. They too healed all and walked in unselfish love. And yes.... that is still avaible today. The holy blood is in place, the Holy Spirit is here to give us understanding, power and transform us back to origin. Not to be debated about, but to be embraced and be-come. So: The Kingdom of God already came. Through Christ, in Spiritform, in those that understand. Hence the divine healing miracles we experience. God manifested in Christ to give us back the divine life mankind lost in the fall of Adam. Christ, the exact image of the invisible God. The image we were created after in Gen 1. The image we lost in the fall of man. The image that can be freely restored by Christ's blood and Holy Spirit working IN us. What a plan. What a solution. What a love. What a God. Jesus is amazing. It is the ultimate conclusion of the word and plan of God. God came full circle. He Himself stooped down from glory to restore us back to original created value: Christlikeness. Walking in divine healing power and unselfish love. Jesus, born of the Spirit of God, filled with the spirit of God. The "Son" of God, the incarnated word, God in the flesh. For three years He healed all, raised the dead, casted out demons, controlled nature, spoke pure divine truth. He said: "Follow Me. If you see Me, you see the Father. The Father and I are one. The glory I have IN My Father, I give to you. It pleases the Father to give you His Kingdom/Holy Spirit/divine nature. I will send Holy Spirit, the same as Me, He will be IN you, guide you into truth and give you explosive power. The same miracles i do, you will do too, because you will understand that the Father is IN Me and I am IN you. Freely I give you My Kingdom/Holy Spirit/divine nature, heal the sick, raise the dead, cast out demons, freely I give, freely share" Etc, etc, etc. I have experienced thousands of beautifull healing miracles through the power of Holy Spirit IN me already. Broken bones, cancers, covid, all kinds of infirmities healed in seconds. Demons manifesting and casted out by a simple "get out, in Jesus name". Jesus. De name above all names. In Him all power and wisdom is sourced and.... He calls us one with Him. God in man and man in God again. C'mon Jesus!! So.... again: God stooped down IN Christ to restore us back to Gen 1:27 were He said: "Let us make man according to our image and likeness and let them have authority.....": walk as Christ. Christ, the exact image of the invisible God. The image we were created after and being restored to by His atoning blood for the fall of man and indwelling Holy Spirit. You are free to receive this original divine life of the ages by Holy Spirit of Christ/God. Ask Him to guide you into truth. Read the Gospel of John and fall in love with your creator. You are not made for the fall of man and its effects, but for the image/glory of God and to walk like Christ. Holy Spirit is the guide and transforming power that will get you there. Amazing grace. A big leap in faith can be made when we start realizing we are already IN Christ, IN the last Adam. Free from the fall! Loved! Growing into awareness of our new (yet old) godly identity. Changing by Holy Spirit. The most fullfilled life ever. Paul healed all on Malta. He understood and wrote: "As in the first Adam ALL died (lost the divine nature), so also ALL were made alive IN Christ to walk in Zoë (= divine life) again". "IN Christ (the last Adam) we are co-cruisified (dead to the fall and its effects), co-raised (justified/made righteousness, holy, blameless, above reproach), co-seated (one with Him)" "The fullness of deity dwells in Christ and YOU HAVE BEEN MADE COMPLETE IN HIM, who is the head of every principality and power". So.... thank you Jesus! Thank you for redeeming me from the fall of man. Thank you for your Holy Spirit that makes this new (yet old) divine life come alive in me. You are amazing! In the shadow of Peter the sick healed... He understood too and wrote: "By Gods power (Holy Spirit) and knowing Christ, we have become partakers of the divine nature and have escaped the fall of man". The divine life of the ages has been returned to us by Jesus once and for all perfect atoning sacrifice for the debt of the fall of man and His indwelling Holy Spirit in us. Jesus/God is amazing!!! Ask Him to give you revelation and change you to the way it was before the fall of man: Christlikeness. He will do so. For it is written: "the Spirit brings forth after His own kind". "I have come to give you Zoë (divine life) in abundance...."
Talking about disconfirming Christianity is nonsense. Do we have to go through every religious claim people are willing to assert and disconfirm them? Why would anybody choose that totally useless approach? How about the believer proves them and then they'll be accepted. If we're have to disprove them then you're already wrong because many others contradict yours which we can't disprove anymore than we can disprove yours. The art of Theistic apologetics seems to be nothing more than taking advantage of people that already believe
I know what you meant, but with the history of Catholics you might have wanted to make sure that one word was spelled the way you wanted. Prey and pray have two different meanings.
This guy lost all credibility with me when he mentioned craig as "winning" a debate. craigs "debate" tactic is to tell his opponents they must do x, y and z, and if they don't they lose. Then when the opponent rightfully ignores this beginner's debate tactic and makes their own case, craig says "you lose cause you didn't do what I told you to do!" I mean if you watch this and believe this makes you a winner, you deserve your ignorance, and certainly won't be persuaded from it.
He (WLC) tries to confuse his followers by claiming that plausibility equals possibility, which it doesn’t without ruling out any impossibility. “Plausible” is virtually no different than “imagined”, and is absolutely no different than “imagined” in the manner that he uses it. His arguments go like this Plausibile(imagined)=possible=likely, but he never even explains how he got to “possible” in the first place.
At least Marshall didn't use the current apologetic technique of rapid firing truckloads of false information(and which I suspect apologetics are fully aware of) represented as fact, therefore relying on the limited time-frame of a debate to try and score points.
AnarchoRepublican dick is an atheist and by definition from the american atheists website: it is a lack of belief in gods So if dick has a "lack of belief in gods" why is he talking about something he has a "lack of belief in". That's very hypocritical. dick should be going around the world tell everyone how good atheism is, how much atheism, has helped the world in the name of atheism and all the atheist organisations there are to help people in the world like the "evil" religious people have and do. My bad, there aren't any. In reality, atheist do nothing to help the people of the world in the name of atheism.
Jeez. Marshall says that because Willie is good at watching the clock then scholars like Crossan, Price and Carrier cannot disprove the resurrection? And that validates all other miracles? Even the believers will be noticing the water cooler moment
He said miracles happen because his cute Japanese wife spotted her cute Japanese girlfriend in a crowd full of Asian and asians all look alike. Ok, thank the jesus I guess.
'all of the debates between Craig and Ehrman'.. as in plural? I have only seen one resurrection debate and I agree that Ehrman came out on top (Craig's possibility calculus-argument was just laughable) But are there other debates? If so, could you refer me to them?
At 1:36 Marshall says the gospel has been the center of human reform. I think I could write an entire paper on this but suffice it to say I disagree with that statement. Not only has Christianity specifically hindered human reform (gay marriage, woman's rights, and slavery just to name a few), but I see human social advancements as reforming Christianity (as in the examples above). As far as personal reform, I'm not sure how he can possibly quantify how many people have decided to improve themselves based solely on the gospels as apposed to other means or in addition to other means. I say "in addition" because you would have to find a way to factor in people who just so happen to be Christian but reform themselves based on secular influences. You also can't conclude that they would NOT have reformed themselves were they not Christians. In other words, it would at the very least be difficult, if not impossible, to measure the impact that their belief has in their reform other than anecdotally.
I have researched and considered the "Myth" hypothesis for years. I have considered the fact that there are no first-hand accounts of Jesus. However, it needs to be mentioned that there was no first-hand evidence of Pontius Pilate until 1961 when they discovered the "Pilate Stone" (from the research I did). Pilate was also a more significant figure during his time than any preacher would have been so that being the case, I am not sure it is surprising that no first-hand evidence of Jesus has been found.
Dcasingena: Everything we know comes from human testimony, including all of science. Relying on reports from trustworthy people is not "anecdotal," it is a necessary prerequisite of all empirical and even deductive reasoning, since we are ourselves people. I cited many eminent scholars to back up my points, in fact. But I deliberately gave arguments that anyone can verify for themselves, precisely because "winning the debate" was not my goal, but helping those in attendance find the truth.
@Miscellaneous Various In my religious phase of my life you wouldn't have changed my mind. If you had argued the sky is blue I would have argued it was pink(well maybes not that bad but you get my drift).
@Miscellaneous Various I was exaggerating in my last post but how do you know that the sky is not pink? You only believe the sky is blue because someone told you it was(am not being serious).
Religious apologetics really is a pathetic shell game which is become more and more painfully transparent with every passing debate. I almost feel sorry for Marshall. When Carrier started debating he was alittle clunky but he's getting better and better all the time. I'm looking forward to his next book and the debates that will undoubtedly follow. It's about time the historical credibility of Jesus was publically questioned. (personally, I don't believe a word of it)
omg when marshall did the story about his wife finding her friend in the crowd I almost lost it it was like he became worried half-way through that he was saying "all asians look the same" also it's a weak point in general: what about all the times you're in a crowd with a person and you DON'T spot them? exactly.
1:16 In all honesty, its not so much that Carrier won at this point, its more that Marshall repeatedly shot himself in the foot. Carrier wisely acted on his opponent's fall.
He says it as he is aware that he can show a short example and if one wants to dive deeper and what lies behind it it and what all supports his arguments. Carriers talks are substatntial and not empty shell claims like WLC that sound catchy.
Is the Christian faith reasonable?, from my atheist point of view, I could argue that yes, it is reasonable.. we humans have been steeped in Christianity for the past 2,000 years or so, faith is passed on from generation to generation, so it's reasonable that it's still around today. Reasonable is a very broad term. The more you look into the core beliefs however, the less reasonable it becomes. It's based on magic, and there is little evidence that real supernatural magic exists.
Oners82 Your "faith" in the laws of physics, gravity, etc. is a misuse of the word. None of those things require faith, as there is ample evidence for all of them and the definition of faith is belief *without* evidence or evidence of that for which there is no evidence. If faith required evidence, it wouldn't be faith, it would be knowledge. You're confusing faith with acceptance. Miles is correct. Faith is *never* reasonable unless your sole intent is some form of self inflicted delusion.
Experienced detectives recognize that testimonies of real events always contain contradictions, unless the witnesses were colluding. This is no surprise.
But experienced detectives don’t deal in the supernatural, which needs extraordinary evidence to support it, not a mush-mash of unsubstantiated contradictions in a book which is supposed to be “The Word of God”, which just happens to be penned by a bunch of highly superstitious people that invented gods regularly. That’s what theists regular forget in their arguments. Most things in history are claims of everyday, real life events that are known to be possible in reality. When evaluating the evidence of the Bible, you are evaluating claims of wizardry, and magical beings, which have never once be shown to be a possibility in reality, but are regularly added in mythology. Come on, a god could surely give a better way of getting his message out.
At no point did your vague, hand-waving, presupposition based waffling merit a serious reply. If a reply was what you desired, you had only to examine what he'd already said before you cheerfully blathered on. Richard didn't offer explanations for all the gospels, he addressed some of the less outright fraudulent passages, which are few a far between. The man calling fantastic tales full of verified falsities by anonymous sources "trustworthy" labelling me "disconnected from reality"? Priceless!
It makes me sad that a historian and atheist of Carrier's ability has succumbed to the religious impulse by joining forces with the morality police of A+/FTB.
I'm an atheist even if there was a god like this I would not follow such a piece of work . He is or would be a bad god in my idea what a god should be like. The funny part is there are so many people out there looking for the unknown answers they will except the god of the gaps for there own personal answers. When we where in 2nd grade we all did the whisper a short story in our neighbors ear and passed the story on until the last person, the story was never the same and most times it wasn't even close. This is how things get so messed up. I personally don't think there was even one jesus out of all the claims. Remember back then there was no cable TV, or internet.
If your interlocutor is granting that a deity exists for the sake of time, and you still feel the need to constantly bring it up to rationalize your specific religion, then you've lost the debate IMO. Dr. Carrier could've easily just said that you can't even prove a deity exists, and the conversation would've boringly centered around that. Idk if David Marshall was strictly prepared for that response or what.
Nonsense. Anyone who thinks Carrier answered my arguments, didn't understand what was going on, frankly. I did a poor job of answering his, as well -- to a large extent, we talked past one another.
It has been said that the when you throw a stick at a bunch of dogs , the dog that barks the loudest is the one that got hit. Just read through these comments and you tell me which "dog" felt the pain of reason . Dr. Carrier was incredibly sound and reasonable, Dr. David Marshall, not so much. Cognitive dissonance in full effect around these parts.
1. "more blatant sorts of miracles" 2. The claim that I'm avoiding your arguments 1. The problem is that there is no way to separate what a religious person calls a miracle, from what a materialist calls a coincidence. Twenty coin flips coming up heads in a row looks like a miracle right? However a person who understands probability realises that it is perfectly natural and probable. 2. I am addressing just one aspect of your worldview re. are miracles real? and if so how can they be justified?
Last lady in the QA provides the best demonstration to what religions do to the human brain.
The more and more I watch debates between defenders of christianity and skeptics , the weaker and weaker the christian arguments become and, more times than not, I observe the skeptic being more honest and straightforward in their presentation of the evidence .
Carrier for the win!
Regardless of whether one personally thinks Christianity is reasonable or not, I don't know how any intellectually honest person could fail to acknowledge that Richard Carrier thoroughly kicked David Marshall's ass in every respect. To be blunt, he made Marshall look like a bumbling fool-and did it in less than his allotted time. Actually, Marshall did that to himself. He was off topic and irrelevant with almost every point he raised.
I like Marshall's closing argument... something like "I implore you to be open minded enough to close your mind and cling to an idea as though it is irrefutable truth"
Marshall was whooped. Carrier carefully refuted every single argument he had.
What stuck out for me was religious guy's claim that gospel miracles are purposeful, not done to show off - you mean like the time when Jesus cursed a fig tree for no reason except that it wasn't the season for figs? How did changing water into wine make the world a better place? It's nothing more than attempts to shift the burden of proof for a fairy tale that cannot be corroborated by a single contemporary account, which conflicts with itself.
I wonder what the "purpose" of making wine out of water to offer already drunk people more alcohol? I wonder what Dionysos might say the god of wine and extasy whose follower celebrated every year such a ceremony. May be they thought this was a show off of some preacher or at least of his followers who want to make Jesus look like he would play in the league of the gods and make a man into more then a man.
Or for that matter, how is saints coming out of their tombs in accordance with respecting nature? Or in the exorcism of Legion, was the man clothed and in his mind? Was driving demons into swine respecting nature?
Richard Carrier is the best thinker i have ever known.
Carrier is a good thinker, but best is a little bit of a stretch.
Okay, then top percentile?
@Language and Programming Channel That makes two of us, then :-)
David Marshall comes on first about 7:45. Carrier comes on at about 26:00
That last lady is a good illustration of the "reasonableness" of religion.
"The dead sea scrolls point to the new testament". Do you not realize that the writers of the NT were aware of the "prophesies" of the OT? If you know what the "prophesies" are, and you are writing a story about a "messiah" to fit that, would you not make sure that your "messiah" fits those old stories?
one heck of a story they invented, God humbling himself and dying on the cross to atone for our sins, sheding of pure blood
his resime is too strong too be invented by desert people 2000 years ago
“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
"I am that I am"
-He is enduringly strong
-He is entirely sincere;
-He is eternally steadfast;
-He is immortally graceful;
-He is imperially powerful;
-He is impartially merciful;
The Heavens declare His glory and the firmament shows His handiwork
He who is, who was,
and who always will be;
The first and the last
He is the Alpha and Omega
the Aleph and the Tau
the A and the Z;
He is the first fruits of them that slept.
He is:
-King of the Jews
.King of Israel
-King of all the Ages
-King of Heaven;
-King of Glory;
-King of Kings and Lord of Lords;
A PROPHET before Moses
A priest after Melchizadek;
A champion like joshua;
An offering in place of Isaac
A king from the line of David;
A wise counselor above Solomon;
A beloved/rejected/exalted son like Joseph
And yet far more....
"For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead [a]bodily;
and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all [b]principality and power."
He is our Kingsman-Redeemer
and He is our Avenger of Blood;
He is our City of Refuge;
Our preforming High Priest,
Our Personal Prophet,
Our Reigning King,
He is the loftiest idea in Literature;
The highest personality in Philosophy;
The fundamental doctrine of Theology;
His Incarnation, touched and transformed time.Now the whole world counts time as Before Christ (BC) and AD (Anno Domoni - in the year of our Lord).
Jesus Christ is the central figure of History.
He was born of a woman - so that we could be born of God;
He humbled Himself - so that we could be lifted up;
He became a servant - so that we could be made co-heirs;
He suffered rejection - so that we could become His friends;
He denied Himself - so that we could freely recieve all things;
He gave Himself so that He could bless us in every way.
He is available to the tempted and the tried;
He blesses the young;
he cleanses the lepers;
He defend the feeble;
He deliver the captives;
He discharges the debtors;
He forgives the sinners;
He franchises the meek;
He guards the besieged;
He heals the sick;
He provides strength to the weak;
He regard the aged;
He rewards the diligent;
He serves the unforunate;
He sympathizes and He saves!
His Promises are sure
His Goodness is limitless;
His light is matchless;
His offices are manifold;
His reign is righteous;
His grace is sufficient;
His love never changes;
His mercy is everlasting;
His Word is enough;
His Yoke is easy and His burden is light!
The Heaven of heavens cannot contain Him;
Man cannot explain Him
The Pharaisees couldn't stand Him and learned that they couldn't stop Him;
Pilate couldn't find any fault with Him;
the witnesses couldn't agree against Him.
Herod couldn't kill Him
death couldn't handle Him
the grave couldn't hold Him!
He has always been and always will be;
He had no predecessor and will have no successor;
You can't impeach Him and he isn't going to resign!
His name is above every name;
That at the name of Yeshua
Every knee shall bow, Every tounge shall confess
His is the kingdom, the power, and the glory for ever, and ever. Amen!
@Brad Watson you need Jesus! repent and humble yourself!
They didn't invent the Jesus out of whole cloth. They copied him from the many stories of Page dying&rising gods, who were won of god, born of a virgin on 25 Dec to be killed for our sins and through whom we obtain personal salvation. Look up Dionysus, Osiris, Bacchus, Dolmoxus, Insane and so on.
@@CroElectroStile It’s exactly the opposite. People from 2000yrs ago that were ignorant of virtually all natural phenomena, are the very ones that would need to invent your god.
@@CroElectroStile he (dead give away its not god) is a demented genocidal sociopath. Unworthy of worship even if its real.
An absurdly large portion of Marshall's reasoning behind his belief seems to be: "Since I can't explain how coincidences occur, a magical sky father is orchestrating events on Earth to make mundane shit happen." I'm not a theist, but I think I would have to be offended on behalf of theists for such a childish view of a deity, especially for theists who believe in a deity that cares. The view that a loving and powerful being is so concerned with who notices who in a crowded train-station that it will intervene with free-will while letting tragedies around the world play out, it is pretty deluded and self-centered view.
Since atheists can't reason how the universe or life began, there must not be a God.
Tim Spangler Seriously?! If you can manage to equate those two arguments in your mind, it's NO wonder that you believe impossible nonsense for no good reason. First of all, I have NEVER heard an atheist use your counter-example, straw-man of an argument. Secondly, Futrix DID adequately distill David's argument - an argument that HAS been presented by MANY apologists, theologians, and garden-variety believers. Thirdly, even though it could reasonably be argued that their argument is about as flimsy as tissue-paper, it at least makes a certain amount of sense if you don't dig too deeply - your hypothetical atheist argument would be completely and utterly nonsensical and something no self-respecting atheist would ever try to pass off as an argument..
Tim Spangler Since theists can't reason at all about anything, there must be a magical sky spook that dunnit.
While ignoring the thousands of unanswered prayers. Seems like a big scam to keep believers from thinking their way out of their organizations
@@JnWayn 100s of billions of prayers.
As a christian I used to pray all the time and feel "blessed" by favors and lucky coincidences. Then I became an atheist, as least as far as all known religions are concerned, and my life is still full of fun surprises and lucky coincidences. The biggest difference is the lack of existential dread. (And all the opening of my schedule because regular prayer is a major timesuck.)
As a former Christian, secular meditation and breathing exercises is actually a very good thing. Pray all the time? I was extremely dedicated but lucky if I prayed when I got up, went to bed and when I ate.
David Marshall doesn't seem like a nice person. He seems full of suppressed anger.
Well he does lie for a living.
I've heard many debates, but this Christian guy was particularly pathetic in addressing the problem...
***** Marshall puts weight on personal appeals, and scripture, where Carrier focuses on facts. It's like a NBA player, playing pick up basketball with middle school kids. Marshall had no defense to the germ /disease model. Jesus could heal blind people but not blindness. Marshall either grossly underestimated Carriers ability, or simply lacked the effort to prepare. His reference to Craig' s win, is lame and a waste of time.
William Mc Roberts Well said!
I know..he got destroyed...
Richard carrier's leap of faith in his theories are far greater than any religious leap of faiths🤣🤣
No Offence but that's what mainstream historians think of him.
He did dodge specific points and used many fallacies, mostly incredulity in regards to atheism which I'm sure he would point out if an atheist used it against Christianity. Pretty week arguments. 🤷
"If it's so difficult to disprove one single christian miracle, I think it would be very difficult to disprove them all." - A complete non-sequitur.
Richard Carrier destroyed this guy... Wow! That was brutal..
+pedrosura Brutal?.. I'd say honest. Marshal was being completely dishonest and Carrier didn't let him get away with it. I agree with Matt Russell above that Mashall should NOT debate unless his actual goal is to deconvert Christians.
Sadly I agree AND as as christian myself!!!!He was unprepared PERIOD
@@outstandingcruise3613 he just doesnt have a leg to stand on because religious belief is by its very nature unreasonable.
Mr Marshall it is nice that you claim god cares that your personal needs in food are miraculously meet. Not that you would have to work instead of sitting in a park and complaining to god about it. May be this is the reason why god could not take care of the 36.000 children starving at this day? But it is good to know you did not have to feel hunger a single day. It is shocking that you bring such anecdotal story to support your case.
Marshall starts out extolling the relationship between reason and Christianity, then tosses out a bunch of logical fallacies.
Still on the opening statement, and he's slinging around an argument from improbability.
Incredible. Marshall argues that Christianity is true because religion is universal and many features of Christianity also appears in many older religions. Has he never heard of Occam's Razor?
Even worse: Asians don't all look alike to other Asians, therefore god exists and Christianity is true.
Where did this man get his degrees?
Now he's arguing that the Bible describes miracles, therefore Christianity is true. By this argument, Harry Potter is real.
Regarding Carrier's opening: Tracie Harris has the best explanation of the Problem of Evil: "If I could stop a man from raping a child, I would. That's the difference between me and your god."
That last woman speaker, is an excellent example of how much further this campaign of re-education has to go. Many--it seems, are way beyond help. You can talk and reason with some 'slaves' interminally, and get nowhere. 'And some fell on stony ground'. apparently.
I think Richard Carrier won the debate. Part of that is because David Marshall was completely honest in his attitude. He didn't hide behind rhetorical tricks, never evaded questions, stuck to the subject matters and gave (apparently) honest answers, even when they were problematic for him. Kudos to Mr. Marshall for being an honest man. Now compare that with, for example, WLC or Hugh Ross...
Yeah all WLC does is just dodge the questions and repeat over and over again, that if there is a God... god must be a moral being (which makes no sense). And something can't be considered moral unless it's learned from the creator of the universe, which also makes no sense lol. It's his only two arguments.
No David, you don't believe the audience is out there "by faith", you can hear them, and you probably saw them when you came in. That makes you a liar from statement 1. Faith is believing something without any evidence (or reason).
And your assertion for Christianity "is wholly credible, because it is ridiculous", as Tertullian said in De Carne Christi - before he abandoned his "orthodox faith" in favour of that of Montanism.
Take away lesson: "Just as their knowledge was ignorantly human, so was their ability."
Great argument Marshall... magic is why the Christian faith is reasonable.
The last lady was perfect, everything you need to know about how religion poisons the mind
If David Marshall "opened his mind", all we would see is a fog of mysticism. Hardly a debate - more like a hatchet job.
The IQ of this debate seriously depreciated when the audience got involved.
I think Richard definitely won this debate. Marshall's answers were too vague whilst Richard's were detailed and explained observations very well.
Marshall however is not a good debater and came across as selling snake oil.
I'm not an atheist, however Richard is the only person so far to convince me that the NT is a christian pagan fable cobbled together decades after Jesus.
It is also reasonable to assume that jesus was a fictious character though I am not sure about that.
6 Years on from your comment where you seemed to be pretty agnostic about the claims of religion where do you find yourself today with regards to belief in a god or theistic claims?
@@GoodDay2YouSir
Haha, interesting question.
I've learned a lot in the last 6 years. I don't remember this debate and it's too long to watch again.
My position now is that Jesus probably existed, was possibly some kind of faith healer who gained notoriety amongst the elite but was welcomed by the people. Perhaps he got lucky and managed to help some people get better. It seems that is it likely he was crucified and then the legends started of this beloved faith healer. Paul, being its most effective exponent in the early years, gave Christianity traction. Paul is the reason it didn't fizzle out.
Christianity is a mix of Judaism with ancient Greek philosophy including Stoicism, Cynicism, and Epicureanism.
What is ironic is the ancient Greeks nearly supplanted Judaism with their culture and civilization as the Jews found it preferable but there was a big fight back by a minority of Jewish zealots and eventually through Christianity the Jews managed to supplant the Greek civilization, its science, philosophy and medicine with Jewish superstitious claptrap. That set the timetable for discovery and advancement back by maybe 500 years.
Dr. Marshall was simply outclassed in this debate. He essentially conceded the debate when he had absolutely no response/rebuttal to Richard's main negative case for the reasonableness of the Christian faith, and even admitted as such!
Cannot tell you how freeing it is to NOT be a member of the any Abrahamic religion. I mean, listen to the last Muslim lady ask her question about things that really mean absolutely nothing. Yet it rules her life and causes her great concern. Such a waste of time and energy.
How can miracles,a questionable phenomenon, be given as the proof of another questionable phenomenon, gods, religion? It's just not possible for an honest, logical person to remotely think this is good argument
Faith by necessity is unreasonable.
It's astounding that in 2015 people still believe in this nonsense.
+Poseidon63 yes richard carriers nonsense!
Giuseppe Pagliaio
LOL
+Poseidon63 you mean atheism? Yes atheism is complete nonsese
kur vgazati
So not believing in Zeus is nonsense, right, well done.
Poseidon63
who is talking about Zeus?
David said that he has no problem with god making miracles in other religions. Well if so, than it means that god would intentionally reinforce the "wrong" faith in those people and than send them to hell for believing it. That's just monstrous.
So one minute they say "god doesn't reveal himself, as he doesn't intervene on free will." Then they say, "a guy from Africa became a Christian because God told him to follow jeaus" My BS alarm is deafening.
Just as I expected; no evidence at all from the theist.
brilliant by Carrier
I’m very impressed with David.
Impressed with the degree in which his critical thinking can be switched off completely when it comes to sweet baby Jesus and the myths about his life.
He is also a wonderful example of how we don’t deal with coincidence very well. Firstly because we don’t remember the 99.999999999999999999999% of non coincidences in our life and secondly because we have hyper active agency detection device mechanisms in our mind that makes teleology a common thing we use to ascribe meaning to things with no meaning at all. Only coincidence.
for those who are bored by introductions 7:25
Such silliness to debate whether fairy tale characters are real
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't hear Carrier doing that. He referenced dozens of books, most by other people. Yes, he referenced himself and his own works a few times, but I never got the sense he was just trying to promote book sales. He was saying, "look, I only have one minute here, but if you are interested, I make the entire argument in this book."
I don't find that cheeky at all. I find it that he's showing his credibility as a legit scholar.
Claiming miracles in the gospels are unique to ancient literature makes them legit???
How reasonable is that?
Maybe he ought to first provide evidence for them first...........good luck Marshall.
Carrier has a PhD from Columbia. Columbia is the house that raised some legendary historians. He's an historian for sure.
Oops! It's been pointed out to me that I made a typo in my comment on this three days ago and left out the word 'not'. When I wrote "...serious minded Theists (a term which does include the arrogant and moronic YECs such as Ham, Hovind, Comfort or Lisle)" I meant to say that the term does NOT include these charlatans. I don't mind people making reasoned criticisms of what I say but I obviously didn't mean to write patently absurd bollocks.
Starts at 7:27 with Marshall.
I'm so glad that God answered Mr. Marshall's monetary prayers, no matter how scant. What more proof does anyone need for the existence of God than Mr. Marshall's coincidences. Solipsism at its best. This same personal God allows millions of children to die every year under horrific situations. But this could be God's mysterious ways. Why save all these children when the real miracle is telling people in their heads to go preach the gospels! WOW!!!!
Oners82 sol·ip·sism [sol-ip-siz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
Philosophy . the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist.
2.
extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption.
Dictionary.com
I agree: But I also believe that to be a theist and think that God works in your favor and has a divine plan for you, grants you everlasting life, is quite solipsistic. .
HAHAHA!!!
Marshall's argument is anecdotal, spiritual, arbitrary and personal. He offers sweet stories and platitudes instead of hard evidence or strong scholarly opinion and he uses poor logic in place of facts. He is simply not the scholar Carrier is.
...but he IS at a disadvantage: his subject doesn't exist.
David Marshall is a terrible representative for his side. And I'm not even on his side.
The argument is easy: if a Christian god exists he should be omnipotent, omnipresent and benevolent and loving mankind, so he would remove all disease and misery instantly or give his followers the knowledge or power to end all disease and misery.
Since this is not the case we are left with either: 1. there is no god or 2. god is either non-caring or malevolent, i.e. not a Christian god.
If you can't convince them, baffle them with bullshit.
Dr. Carrier's opponent(s) never address his issues. I wonder why??
God exists! She miraculously gave Richard Carrier much better arguments that She doesn't exist than she did to David Marshall that She did! Boy does She work in mysterious ways!
Or is it maybe the God of Reason, who knows he doesn’t exist, that gave Carrier such good arguments? I’m still agnostic on that one.
I think you're trolling but at this point I'm not sure. If it was that's a sneaky troll.
"I would try to kill myself (in Carrier's world) but the gun would turn into a flower...." He really said that.
Wow, David Marshall is embarrassingly inept at debating. He also seems to be a complete intellectual lightweight who doesn't understand why just because you read something in a book you like and find compelling doesn't necessarily make it true.
Thanks for uploading!
I'm really curious about how well the muslim lady at the end of the QA could comprehend of what was being discussed throughout the debate, many of Carriers points could work just as well if this was a debate about whether the islamic faith is reasonable without much modification. Or would she believe the devil was working to confuse and misguide her as she says about the christians.
Marshall’s first response uses not a single argument to refute anything Carrier actually said. It’s hopeless and I have no faith Christians will get any better. And that is as charitable as I can get. I pray every day to the non-existent great one to give better existent arguments to her delusional believers. Maybe one day he will (not) answer my prayers and so prove the (non-) efficacy of (non-) prayers to a (non) existent being.
Great lecture by Richard. I would like to make a point about germs that Richard mentioned. FYI, prophet Muhammad (saw) said in many His sayings that wash your hand and don't wipe your hand to towel before you eat. Also Muslims wash their hand, face, arms and feet approximately 5 times a day. Even in OT, God requires to make a wudu before the prayer.
"Everything we know comes from human testimony."
Yes, but what must one do if their are contradictions in the testimony, if you simply read the resurrection accounts you'll notice several contradictions in the writings of the gospels. The same can be said for martyr stories and biblical translations.
Did you overlook the title of the "debate"?
As I recall, it says, "Is the Christian Faith Reasonable?"
Hence, Marshall is arguing that Yahweh, specifically, is the one and only true "god'.
I have no idea to whom you are referring when you write "WE're arguing for a generic god..." Marshall is not. Who is "we"?
So after about 20 debates, I see Carrier 22, Christian's -10
"[CLAP CLAP CLAP...]"
I already knew you were a trained seal, you didn't have to reinforce that point.
BTW can anyone tell me what *kind* of Christian Marshall is? (Is he an evangelical?) Thanks.
I want to freeze myself to be woken up years from now to read the gospel according to magneto or better yet professor x
I meet a man in Rome that had an apartment just a few streets from where I work. So did a god guide me to him? Not very likely. When I was attending the university, I happened on a girl from a class that I was attending, and it turned out she knew that the class was cancelled for the week, and I didn't. Such things happen, it doesn't mean there's a god.
What lots of people (even pastors) don't (yet) understand.
God created us according to His own image and likeness. Godly.
Mankind/the first Adam fell. The image of God in man got lost. That's why there is all this predicament on earth (selfishness, greed, lust, wars, sicknesses, death, etc).
We are all born into that mess.
For the fall of man a perfect atoning sacrifice had to be made.... that is what God did in Christ.
With His own once and for all perefect sacrifice, He paid the debt for the fall of man for us, so we can be indwelled by His Spirit again and finally receive the divine life of the ages back, the first Adam let got of in the fall of man. An amazing act of grace and love by our creator.
That is what you see happening in Christ's first disciples. They too healed all and walked in unselfish love.
And yes.... that is still avaible today. The holy blood is in place, the Holy Spirit is here to give us understanding, power and transform us back to origin.
Not to be debated about, but to be embraced and be-come.
So: The Kingdom of God already came. Through Christ, in Spiritform, in those that understand.
Hence the divine healing miracles we experience.
God manifested in Christ to give us back the divine life mankind lost in the fall of Adam.
Christ, the exact image of the invisible God.
The image we were created after in Gen 1.
The image we lost in the fall of man.
The image that can be freely restored by Christ's blood and Holy Spirit working IN us.
What a plan. What a solution. What a love. What a God. Jesus is amazing.
It is the ultimate conclusion of the word and plan of God. God came full circle.
He Himself stooped down from glory to restore us back to original created value: Christlikeness. Walking in divine healing power and unselfish love.
Jesus, born of the Spirit of God, filled with the spirit of God. The "Son" of God, the incarnated word, God in the flesh.
For three years He healed all, raised the dead, casted out demons, controlled nature, spoke pure divine truth.
He said:
"Follow Me. If you see Me, you see the Father. The Father and I are one. The glory I have IN My Father, I give to you. It pleases the Father to give you His Kingdom/Holy Spirit/divine nature. I will send Holy Spirit, the same as Me, He will be IN you, guide you into truth and give you explosive power. The same miracles i do, you will do too, because you will understand that the Father is IN Me and I am IN you. Freely I give you My Kingdom/Holy Spirit/divine nature, heal the sick, raise the dead, cast out demons, freely I give, freely share" Etc, etc, etc.
I have experienced thousands of beautifull healing miracles through the power of Holy Spirit IN me already. Broken bones, cancers, covid, all kinds of infirmities healed in seconds. Demons manifesting and casted out by a simple "get out, in Jesus name".
Jesus. De name above all names. In Him all power and wisdom is sourced and.... He calls us one with Him. God in man and man in God again. C'mon Jesus!!
So.... again: God stooped down IN Christ to restore us back to Gen 1:27 were He said: "Let us make man according to our image and likeness and let them have authority.....": walk as Christ.
Christ, the exact image of the invisible God. The image we were created after and being restored to by His atoning blood for the fall of man and indwelling Holy Spirit.
You are free to receive this original divine life of the ages by Holy Spirit of Christ/God. Ask Him to guide you into truth. Read the Gospel of John and fall in love with your creator.
You are not made for the fall of man and its effects, but for the image/glory of God and to walk like Christ. Holy Spirit is the guide and transforming power that will get you there. Amazing grace.
A big leap in faith can be made when we start realizing we are already IN Christ, IN the last Adam.
Free from the fall! Loved! Growing into awareness of our new (yet old) godly identity. Changing by Holy Spirit. The most fullfilled life ever.
Paul healed all on Malta. He understood and wrote:
"As in the first Adam ALL died (lost the divine nature), so also ALL were made alive IN Christ to walk in Zoë (= divine life) again".
"IN Christ (the last Adam) we are co-cruisified (dead to the fall and its effects), co-raised (justified/made righteousness, holy, blameless, above reproach), co-seated (one with Him)"
"The fullness of deity dwells in Christ and YOU HAVE BEEN MADE COMPLETE IN HIM, who is the head of every principality and power".
So.... thank you Jesus! Thank you for redeeming me from the fall of man. Thank you for your Holy Spirit that makes this new (yet old) divine life come alive in me. You are amazing!
In the shadow of Peter the sick healed... He understood too and wrote:
"By Gods power (Holy Spirit) and knowing Christ, we have become partakers of the divine nature and have escaped the fall of man".
The divine life of the ages has been returned to us by Jesus once and for all perfect atoning sacrifice for the debt of the fall of man and His indwelling Holy Spirit in us. Jesus/God is amazing!!!
Ask Him to give you revelation and change you to the way it was before the fall of man: Christlikeness.
He will do so. For it is written: "the Spirit brings forth after His own kind".
"I have come to give you Zoë (divine life) in abundance...."
Talking about disconfirming Christianity is nonsense. Do we have to go through every religious claim people are willing to assert and disconfirm them? Why would anybody choose that totally useless approach? How about the believer proves them and then they'll be accepted. If we're have to disprove them then you're already wrong because many others contradict yours which we can't disprove anymore than we can disprove yours. The art of Theistic apologetics seems to be nothing more than taking advantage of people that already believe
Does anyone know of a podcast version of this debate anywhere?
David, maybe you should have preyed to cure children of cancer that day, instead of praying that you wouldn’t have to miss dinner.
I know what you meant, but with the history of Catholics you might have wanted to make sure that one word was spelled the way you wanted. Prey and pray have two different meanings.
This guy lost all credibility with me when he mentioned craig as "winning" a debate. craigs "debate" tactic is to tell his opponents they must do x, y and z, and if they don't they lose. Then when the opponent rightfully ignores this beginner's debate tactic and makes their own case, craig says "you lose cause you didn't do what I told you to do!" I mean if you watch this and believe this makes you a winner, you deserve your ignorance, and certainly won't be persuaded from it.
He (WLC) tries to confuse his followers by claiming that plausibility equals possibility, which it doesn’t without ruling out any impossibility. “Plausible” is virtually no different than “imagined”, and is absolutely no different than “imagined” in the manner that he uses it.
His arguments go like this Plausibile(imagined)=possible=likely, but he never even explains how he got to “possible” in the first place.
At least Marshall didn't use the current apologetic technique of rapid firing truckloads of false information(and which I suspect apologetics are fully aware of) represented as fact, therefore relying on the limited time-frame of a debate to try and score points.
The "gish gallop"
Miles Greb Yep, it's called the Gish Gallop, and it's what substitutes for valid arguments among creationists and apologists.
How can these Christians get up and talk such nonsense?
How can these atheists get up and talk such nonsense?
AnarchoRepublican I have yet to hear any atheist speak common sense. dick stands there and utters nonsense, pure, unadulterated nonsense.
AnarchoRepublican dick is an atheist and by definition from the american atheists website: it is a lack of belief in gods
So if dick has a "lack of belief in gods" why is he talking about something he has a "lack of belief in". That's very hypocritical. dick should be going around the world tell everyone how good atheism is, how much atheism, has helped the world in the name of atheism and all the atheist organisations there are to help people in the world like the "evil" religious people have and do. My bad, there aren't any. In reality, atheist do nothing to help the people of the world in the name of atheism.
david vitrogen more proof that atheism is nonsense.
Idiot atheist More proof that you have no clue what the word proof even means.
Make sure to listen to the very end !
Jeez. Marshall says that because Willie is good at watching the clock then scholars like Crossan, Price and Carrier cannot disprove the resurrection? And that validates all other miracles? Even the believers will be noticing the water cooler moment
He said miracles happen because his cute Japanese wife spotted her cute Japanese girlfriend in a crowd full of Asian and asians all look alike.
Ok, thank the jesus I guess.
'all of the debates between Craig and Ehrman'.. as in plural? I have only seen one resurrection debate and I agree that Ehrman came out on top (Craig's possibility calculus-argument was just laughable) But are there other debates? If so, could you refer me to them?
.........and the winner is...........Richard....100%.......
At 1:36 Marshall says the gospel has been the center of human reform. I think I could write an entire paper on this but suffice it to say I disagree with that statement. Not only has Christianity specifically hindered human reform (gay marriage, woman's rights, and slavery just to name a few), but I see human social advancements as reforming Christianity (as in the examples above). As far as personal reform, I'm not sure how he can possibly quantify how many people have decided to improve themselves based solely on the gospels as apposed to other means or in addition to other means. I say "in addition" because you would have to find a way to factor in people who just so happen to be Christian but reform themselves based on secular influences. You also can't conclude that they would NOT have reformed themselves were they not Christians. In other words, it would at the very least be difficult, if not impossible, to measure the impact that their belief has in their reform other than anecdotally.
I have researched and considered the "Myth" hypothesis for years. I have considered the fact that there are no first-hand accounts of Jesus. However, it needs to be mentioned that there was no first-hand evidence of Pontius Pilate until 1961 when they discovered the "Pilate Stone" (from the research I did). Pilate was also a more significant figure during his time than any preacher would have been so that being the case, I am not sure it is surprising that no first-hand evidence of Jesus has been found.
Dcasingena: Everything we know comes from human testimony, including all of science. Relying on reports from trustworthy people is not "anecdotal," it is a necessary prerequisite of all empirical and even deductive reasoning, since we are ourselves people. I cited many eminent scholars to back up my points, in fact. But I deliberately gave arguments that anyone can verify for themselves, precisely because "winning the debate" was not my goal, but helping those in attendance find the truth.
What are the points of these debates? Has anyone ever been convinced to switch sides because of some debate on this subject they have watched?
@Miscellaneous Various In my religious phase of my life you wouldn't have changed my mind. If you had argued the sky is blue I would have argued it was pink(well maybes not that bad but you get my drift).
@Miscellaneous Various I was exaggerating in my last post but how do you know that the sky is not pink? You only believe the sky is blue because someone told you it was(am not being serious).
Religious apologetics really is a pathetic shell game which is become more and more painfully transparent with every passing debate. I almost feel sorry for Marshall. When Carrier started debating he was alittle clunky but he's getting better and better all the time. I'm looking forward to his next book and the debates that will undoubtedly follow. It's about time the historical credibility of Jesus was publically questioned. (personally, I don't believe a word of it)
omg when marshall did the story about his wife finding her friend in the crowd I almost lost it
it was like he became worried half-way through that he was saying "all asians look the same"
also it's a weak point in general: what about all the times you're in a crowd with a person and you DON'T spot them? exactly.
1:16 In all honesty, its not so much that Carrier won at this point, its more that Marshall repeatedly shot himself in the foot. Carrier wisely acted on his opponent's fall.
He says it as he is aware that he can show a short example and if one wants to dive deeper and what lies behind it it and what all supports his arguments. Carriers talks are substatntial and not empty shell claims like WLC that sound catchy.
Marshall’s hypothesis seems very weak...
Is the Christian faith reasonable?, from my atheist point of view, I could argue that yes, it is reasonable.. we humans have been steeped in Christianity for the past 2,000 years or so, faith is passed on from generation to generation, so it's reasonable that it's still around today. Reasonable is a very broad term. The more you look into the core beliefs however, the less reasonable it becomes. It's based on magic, and there is little evidence that real supernatural magic exists.
Faith is never reasonable. So by definition it can not be.
Example
Yes
Oners82 Your "faith" in the laws of physics, gravity, etc. is a misuse of the word. None of those things require faith, as there is ample evidence for all of them and the definition of faith is belief *without* evidence or evidence of that for which there is no evidence. If faith required evidence, it wouldn't be faith, it would be knowledge. You're confusing faith with acceptance. Miles is correct. Faith is *never* reasonable unless your sole intent is some form of self inflicted delusion.
Oners82 Your name was not in the end credits of any of those movies, neither was Pete M....I rest my case.
I agree with you there. But don't worry -- Richard is still a young man, he has time to learn. :- )
Experienced detectives recognize that testimonies of real events always contain contradictions, unless the witnesses were colluding. This is no surprise.
But experienced detectives don’t deal in the supernatural, which needs extraordinary evidence to support it, not a mush-mash of unsubstantiated contradictions in a book which is supposed to be “The Word of God”, which just happens to be penned by a bunch of highly superstitious people that invented gods regularly. That’s what theists regular forget in their arguments. Most things in history are claims of everyday, real life events that are known to be possible in reality. When evaluating the evidence of the Bible, you are evaluating claims of wizardry, and magical beings, which have never once be shown to be a possibility in reality, but are regularly added in mythology.
Come on, a god could surely give a better way of getting his message out.
At no point did your vague, hand-waving, presupposition based waffling merit a serious reply. If a reply was what you desired, you had only to examine what he'd already said before you cheerfully blathered on. Richard didn't offer explanations for all the gospels, he addressed some of the less outright fraudulent passages, which are few a far between. The man calling fantastic tales full of verified falsities by anonymous sources "trustworthy" labelling me "disconnected from reality"? Priceless!
love some of the crazy guys asking questions
It makes me sad that a historian and atheist of Carrier's ability has succumbed to the religious impulse by joining forces with the morality police of A+/FTB.
I'm an atheist even if there was a god like this I would not follow such a piece of work . He is or would be a bad god in my idea what a god should be like. The funny part is there are so many people out there looking for the unknown answers they will except the god of the gaps for there own personal answers. When we where in 2nd grade we all did the whisper a short story in our neighbors ear and passed the story on until the last person, the story was never the same and most times it wasn't even close. This is how things get so messed up. I personally don't think there was even one jesus out of all the claims. Remember back then there was no cable TV, or internet.
If your interlocutor is granting that a deity exists for the sake of time, and you still feel the need to constantly bring it up to rationalize your specific religion, then you've lost the debate IMO. Dr. Carrier could've easily just said that you can't even prove a deity exists, and the conversation would've boringly centered around that. Idk if David Marshall was strictly prepared for that response or what.
Nonsense. Anyone who thinks Carrier answered my arguments, didn't understand what was going on, frankly. I did a poor job of answering his, as well -- to a large extent, we talked past one another.
Dr. Carrier is God! Wow!
What part of the greatest story ever told dont Christians understand it was a crafted myth canabalized from the clever literative memes
Is all Christian argument these days based on anecdote?
It has been said that the when you throw a stick at a bunch of dogs , the dog that barks the loudest is the one that got hit.
Just read through these comments and you tell me which "dog" felt the pain of reason . Dr. Carrier was incredibly sound and reasonable, Dr. David Marshall, not so much.
Cognitive dissonance in full effect around these parts.
22 minutes in, and Marshall's pointless anecdotes are convincing me I may have just had a stroke.
1. "more blatant sorts of miracles"
2. The claim that I'm avoiding your arguments
1. The problem is that there is no way to separate what a religious person calls a miracle, from what a materialist calls a coincidence. Twenty coin flips coming up heads in a row looks like a miracle right? However a person who understands probability realises that it is perfectly natural and probable.
2. I am addressing just one aspect of your worldview re. are miracles real? and if so how can they be justified?
I'm 15 minutes into this and it's rank silliness. This guy has a PhD? Are you kidding me?