It IS the same as your measley 1 hour video because IT IS EVIDENCE, and there's a lot of it. PLUS these videos ARE dissected and splayed out for the leyman.
Telling me I have to watch 72 hours versus 1 hours is the same thing. Sure thing, jackass.
it was a warning to you that if were going to debate using the words and findings of other
As I said, this is where we all start from unless we're experts. You don't have a counter-argument to that.
then you will have MUCH more watching and refuting to do than I will
No, you're just being unreasonable. I could tell you to read Richard Carrier's book, which punches in at over 700 pages. Instead I linked to an easily digestible 1-hour video that summarizes the main points. If you had a 1-hour video to offer in return, or any reference that attempted to debate Carrier's points, we'd be on even ground. But you're trying to win the argument by acting like a jackass.
Can you imagine basing the meaning of your entire life on a 1 hour youtube video?
I was an atheist many years before I saw this video. Whether Jesus was based on an actual historical figure or not is an intellectual curiosity, nothing more, since I've already rejected the mythology, and what we're left with is debating just how much reality is left once you strip away all the nonsense.
You try so hard to insult me, but its just a rehash of r/atheism edgelords.
I'm not trying hard to insult you. I'm accurately describing your failures that lead to incomprehension of reasonable statements. It was you that decided to try to mock me because I'm not 100% sure about poorly documented events from over 2,000 years ago. You haven't said a single thing of substance.
Telling me I have to watch 72 hours versus 1 hours is the same thing. Sure thing, jackass.
Well you specified no rules, so your prosecution rested at 1 comment with a 1 hour long video and my defense could have thrown hours long video links that were "easily digestible", but I still only jokingly remarked so.
So lets get back on topic.
Without the use of anyone else's words, why dont you think Jesus or God are real?
It can be short, but it should be your words.
Because even agnostics can imagine "a galanctic machine core which manages energy and mass" as part of some existential quatum theory.
Well you specified no rules
I don't have to specify rules that are common sense. It's not unreasonable to ask somebody interested in a topic that people have spent entire careers on to watch a 1 hour video summarizing a position. It IS unreasonable to question my open-mindedness while refusing to watch said video, and instead first handwaving, and then coming back with a 72-hour jackass retort.
Without the use of anyone else's words, why dont you think Jesus or God are real?
We've been over this and you have no counterargument. Given that neither of us our experts in the history of Jesus, our starting position has to be the information conveyed by experts. I can put it in my own words, but I'm only summarizing what's in the video. If you want the full argument, you have to watch the video.
In short, Jesus Christ is just one more dying and rising personal savior god that was in vogue for the region at the time. I could instead ask you why you don't believe Osiris was a real, historical figure. The Christian gospels are mythology written centuries after the fact., and so are not reliable evidence. The references in historical documents like Josephus are either fraudulent or rely on the beliefs of Christians. And the earliest documents like the letters of Paul relate his visions of Jesus -- that is, revelations, not the teachings of an actual preacher.
I'm not trying hard to insult you. I'm accurately describing your failures that lead to incomprehension of reasonable statements.
Sir, you dont have reasonable statements, you have a youtube video.
Let's continue:
The video you posted is of a man who paid to have "a study done", and is presenting the study under the pretense that "we had to go back from the beginning of history and determine what was factual" (~2:06) - essentially selectively building his case cherry picking his facts as his nearly guaranteed predetermination of this subject leads him through the course of history as pleases, but lets continue.
Around 6 minutes in - he supposes nearly every point he tries to make. And its riding on a sense of smarm and false comfidence moreso than concrete. Hes bringing up old religions and inferring that "creating gods wasnt new during the time of Jesus, therfore, he was *probably just a story"
~7:00 - still just a bunch of inferences. Hes saying the churches were engaging in bad behaviors and manipulating as a support for his overarching theory - which is a notion that was literally in the bible and also warned against by Jesus which is just hilarious.
The idea of people saying they are "Jewish" or "Christian" when they actually are assholes is also in there and warned about.
So do sometimes greedy, horrible, power hungry people parade around as christians rnjoying a tax-free status as they do bad things??? Lots and lots of times - but it wasnt Jesus who did it nor would he condone of it.
And once again this isnt evem the guys "main point" he just snarkily throws these vague inferences in to solidify the loose collection of pre-arranged facts hes carefully revealed so far.
Its not off to a hot start.
~14:30 - Im hanging im there, but as I thought near the 6 minute mark, its still a chunk of factual and rational thinking bolstered by the opinion - he makes his case against the timeline of the formation of the bible using his series of facts, but then goes on to conclude with "christians were known to lie and make things up" when these are the very things Jesus warned against - he even instructs "take heed no man decieve you" - WARNING you against deceitful people who use religion or guilt to enslave you.
And you are using that ability right now. You decided you didnt believe in something and wanted to do something else potentially for your own benefit - and thats literally what he wanted for you.
Now saying that Jesus warned against these things doesnt prove in your mind that he was 100% real, I know, but it absolutely takes a chunk of his arguments off the table that rely on "people who posed as Christians but did bad things" because it is directly against what the man himself fought against - and he directly spoke against it
And I wonder at this point, does he consider Catholics to be Christians?
And earlier around 13:00 he asks, as reads the slideshow, "Why believe this?" in regards to Jesus being a fictitious trope
"Because it was typical of the time for people to make up deities." Essentially.
Thats his big segue. "It was typical."
Its too bad we're talking about a statistical outlier here. Not just any statistical outlier - THE ONE.
And while the stories of "the" one were plenty, everyone's got their choice to believe (as granted by God) or not - but if there were a one to ever be "the one" eg., a messenger or expression / extension of some grand cosmic processing core that came by just to check things out/shake things up - then Jesus is my choice.
He had criticisms of churches in his own time nearly inline with modern atheist arguments against modern Christianity... That they were hollow and greedy and liars. How leading people astray with false religion is a horrible, shitty thing to do.
This Is silly.
~15 mins in, will watch rest tom and hopefully give a more cohesive response.
(post is archived)