The video below is about the historian Bart Erhman being interviewed by an atheist called The Infidel Guy.

Note: both of them do not believe in Christ but I hope you notice their discussion the difference between being a reasonable skeptic and being a fanatical skeptic.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnY6KHudQ7M

The video is a great video of an atheist who hasnt done his homework and an agnostic who has.


Now, since you didnt try to make a larger point out of this relating to NL atheists, I will leave it at that

Why does it always pause and buffer whenever I try to watch a video on my phone?
Also, how many MB is required to watch a 5minute video?

Bart Ehrman. . . .This was the man that first made me understand the how the bible came about historically. I became a full atheist after reading some of his books and after watching him debate some christian scholars and apologist. . .

Logicboy03: The video is a great video of an atheist who hasnt done his homework and an agnostic who has.


Now, since you didnt try to make a larger point out of this relating to NL atheists, I will leave it at that

Actually this video relates more to the Christ myth crew of namely plaetton and ryhmz amongst others. What made me laugh about the infidel guy is how much he wanted it to not be true that Jesus existed even going to the point of trying to suggest that Paul could be lying or that his scribe (if Paul had one) could be lying against him.

It is the same trend we see when arguing with atheists (you included) who don't understand the bible and don't know that they don't understand the bible. I am quite sure if Bart Erhman was some pastor saying the same thing, the infidel guy would have not believed him and you would probably have said that the "pastor was debunked by infidel guy."


I'll show you another video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lQ69VVR4gc

^^ Even the Higgs of the Higgs Boson fame says that Dawkins' fundamentalist approach is embarrassing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/dec/26/peter-higgs-richard-dawkins-fundamentalism

Mr_Anony:
Actually this video relates more to the Christ myth crew of namely plaetton and ryhmz amongst others. What made me laugh about the infidel guy is how much he wanted it to not be true that Jesus existed even going to the point of trying to suggest that Paul could be lying or that his scribe (if Paul had one) could be lying against him.

It is the same trend we see when arguing with atheists (you included) who don't understand the bible and don't know that they don't understand the bible. I am quite sure if Bart Erhman was some pastor saying the same thing, the infidel guy would have not believed him and you would probably have said that the "pastor was debunked by infidel guy."


I'll show you another video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lQ69VVR4gc

Sharaap.


While I have to admit that the first video shows how atheists can get it wrong due to arrogance once in a while, the second video is nonsense. Just one man's opinion on Dawkins book.

Logicboy03:
Sharaap.


While I have to admit that the first video shows how atheists can get it wrong due to arrogance once in a while, the second video is nonsense. Just one man's opinion on Dawkins book.

Lol, I've struck dangerously close to home.

Enigma: ^^ Even the Higgs of the Higgs Boson fame says that Dawkins' fundamentalist approach is embarrassing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/dec/26/peter-higgs-richard-dawkins-fundamentalism

Why wouldn't Higgs disagree with this man driven by hate?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPqqp8KVuQU

Mr_Anony:
Lol, I've struck dangerously close to home.

How did you conclude that?

Mr_Anony: Why wouldn't Higgs disagree with this man driven by hate? . . . .

One interesting line from the Higgs interview I put in bold below ---- especially for comparison with all the shouts of science science science and 'science debunks faith' that we hear on this forum.

"The growth of our understanding of the world through science weakens some of the motivation which makes people believers. But that's not the same thing as saying they're incompatible. It's just that I think some of the traditional reasons for belief, going back thousands of years, are rather undermined.

"But that doesn't end the whole thing. Anybody who is a convinced but not a dogmatic believer can continue to hold his belief. It means I think you have to be rather more careful about the whole debate between science and religion than some people have been in the past."

He said a lot of scientists in his field were religious believers. "I don't happen to be one myself, but maybe that's just more a matter of my family background than that there's any fundamental difficulty about reconciling the two."

Logicboy03:



How did you conclude that?

Oh by how you are so quick to jump to the defence of Mr Dawkins. I have seen ryhmz do the same thing for the Acharya S

Enigma:

One interesting line from the Higgs interview I put in bold below ---- especially for comparison with all the shouts of science science science and 'science debunks faith' that we hear on this forum.

Interestingly, the current director of the Human Genome Project Francis S Collins is actually an Evangelical Christian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins

But then compare this to the self-proclaimed "high pope of atheism".


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCtifNoIsJ4

we should challenge the very concept of gods, we should not let believers set the rules of the game with flim-flam about the possible truth of Biblical miracles, or other ways of knowing reality, or necessary beings. We should make it clear that all arguments that lead to gods are wrong because they lead to gods! God is a singular mistake, a philosophical division by zero, a point at which the respectability of arguments break down. God is out of the question, the ultimate wrong answer. - Richard Dawkins

Spot the circular argument?

^^ We had a little amusement some time ago about him even blurting out "Oh God" when he was flummoxed in that exchange. I'm too lazy to search for the threads/posts now.

One thing that I have said here a couple of times and that is widely recognised is that, for all his achievements elsewhere, Dawkins is actually a philosophical and theological dunce.

Anyway, an interesting assessment of his tactics here http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_dawkinsfallacies.htm

Enigma: ^^ We had a little amusement some time ago about him even blurting out "Oh God" when he was flummoxed in that exchange. I'm too lazy to search for the threads/posts now.

One thing that I have said here a couple of times and that is widely recognised is that, for all his achievements elsewhere, Dawkins is actually a philosophical and theological dunce.

Anyway, an interesting assessment of his tactics here http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_dawkinsfallacies.htm

Lol, just been reading and laughing

Mr_Anony:
Oh by how you are so quick to jump to the defence of Mr Dawkins. I have seen ryhmz do the same thing for the Acharya S

Because you and your ilk have been caught numerous times quote mining Dawkins. Christians have been caight editing videos and putting forward out of context quotes to lie on Dawkins.

Mr_Anony:
Spot the circular argument?

Wow....is this the new tactic? Playing dumb to make Dawkins look dumb?


Can you explain why the "circular argument" had an exclamation mark? Dawkins knew that he made a bold and confusing statement and hence the exclamation mark. He then proceeded to show why it wasnt a wrong argument. He explained in the next sentence that God is by nature a point in which arguments break down.

More stridency? Like this – we should challenge the very concept of gods, we should not let believers set the rules of the game with flim-flam about the possible truth of Biblical miracles, or other ways of knowing reality, or necessary beings. We should make it clear that all arguments that lead to gods are wrong because they lead to gods! God is a singular mistake, a philosophical division by zero, a point at which the respectability of arguments break down. God is out of the question, the ultimate wrong answer.

See how you and your ilk behave? Tomorrow, you will claim that Dawkins is known for circular arguments.


"humans make mistakes because they are human! Humans by nature are not perfect and will make mistakes"

Note that the first argument is circular but the next sentence clarifies the purposeful confusion.

Logicboy03:
Because you and your ilk have been caught numerous times quote mining Dawkins. Christians have been caight editing videos and putting forward out of context quotes to lie on Dawkins.

In very much the same way you and yours have been quote mining the bible?

Logicboy03:
Wow....is this the new tactic? Playing dumb to make Dawkins look dumb?


Can you explain why the "circular argument" had an exclamation mark? Dawkins knew that he made a bold and confusing statement and hence the exclamation mark. He then proceeded to show why it wasnt a wrong argument. He explained in the next sentence that God is by nature a point in which arguments break down.

Notice that his so-called explanation after his circular argument is nothing better than "God is wrong" what we still haven't heard is why.

Basically all dawkins has said is "arguments that lead to God are wrong because they lead to God! Why? because God is wrong". This is crap logic.

Compare with: "Everything that logicboy says is silly because logicboy says silly things! Why? because logicboy is silly" Will you accept this as a valid argument?

See how you and your ilk behave? Tomorrow, you will claim that Dawkins is known for circular arguments.

"humans make mistakes because they are human! Humans by nature are not perfect and will make mistakes"

Note that the first argument is circular but the next sentence clarifies the purposeful confusion.

Actually, you've made two circular arguments side by side by simply substituting a synonym into the mix.

"humans make mistakes because they are human! Humans by nature are not perfect(prone to mistakes) and will make mistakes"

Now I understand your problem and I personally don't see how you can make an argument out of the description of a thing without it being circular for instance: "a ball is round because it is round" that is just the nature of a ball.

Note that theirs is a difference between the objective description of a thing's nature and the subjective description of it

For instance: "a ball is round because it is round" is different from "a ball is beautiful because it is beautiful". The second statement is a subjective statement and must be compared relative to something else that is objectively beautiful for it to be valid.
For example, "a ball is beautiful because it is beautiful! balls are beautiful" is still not a valid argument


Dawkins' problem is that he is describing nature of theistic arguments using a subjective value "wrongness". The burden is now upon him to explain why God is wrong so his circular argument cannot be excused as an explanation for the wrongness of God.

In the same way when I make a circular argument based on my subjective impression of logicboy's silliness. It is not enough to just make the circular argument and conclude/"explain" that logicboy is silly, I must show how/why he is indeed silly for my statements to have any merit.


Do you get it now?....I really hope you do

Mr_Anony:
In very much the same way you and yours have been quote mining the bible?

It is almost impossible to quote mine evil in the bible. That should go without saying.

Mr_Anony:
Notice that his so-called explanation after his circular argument is nothing better than "God is wrong" what we still haven't heard is why.

Basically all dawkins has said is "arguments that lead to God are wrong because they lead to God! Why? because God is wrong". This is crap logic.

Compare with: "Everything that logicboy says is silly because logicboy says silly things! Why? because logicboy is silly" Will you accept this as a valid argument?



Actually, you've made two circular arguments side by side by simply substituting a synonym into the mix.

"humans make mistakes because they are human! Humans by nature are not perfect(prone to mistakes) and will make mistakes"

Now I understand your problem and I personally don't see how you can make an argument out of the description of a thing without it being circular for instance: "a ball is round because it is round" that is just the nature of a ball.

Note that theirs is a difference between the objective description of a thing's nature and the subjective description of it

For instance: "a ball is round because it is round" is different from "a ball is beautiful because it is beautiful". The second statement is a subjective statement and must be compared relative to something else that is objectively beautiful for it to be valid.
For example, "a ball is beautiful because it is beautiful! balls are beautiful" is still not a valid argument


Dawkins' problem is that he is describing nature of theistic arguments using a subjective value "wrongness". The burden is now upon him to explain why God is wrong so his circular argument cannot be excused as an explanation for the wrongness of God.

In the same way when I make a circular argument based on my subjective impression of logicboy's silliness. It is not enough to just make the circular argument and conclude/"explain" that logicboy is silly, I must show how/why he is indeed silly for my statements to have any merit.


Do you get it now?....I really hope you do

Argumentum ad absurdum .


1) Dawkins made a simple point. God is an impossible thing to our knowledge. A division by Zero. A timeless being. It follows that any argument that leads to him is false.

2) Plase show me the synonyms in the descriptions of humans in the two sentences;

"humans make mistakes because they are human! Humans by nature are not perfect(prone to mistakes) and will make mistakes"


You stretch arguments into absurd lengths to prove your points; mistake is a noun....making mistakes is an action......perfect is an adjective


You can continue stretching arguments to ridiculous lengths. The point that I made is very clear

Mr_Anony:
Actually this video relates more to the Christ myth crew of namely plaetton and ryhmz amongst others. What made me laugh about the infidel guy is how much he wanted it to not be true that Jesus existed even going to the point of trying to suggest that Paul could be lying or that his scribe (if Paul had one) could be lying against him.

Actually Ehrman in the end agrees with the infidel guy because according to Ehrman the Jesus's portrayed in the gospels is a fictional character since the gospels are just an embellished accounts of a man that once lived. . .He just believes there was a man behind the legend written in the gospels. . .

It is almost impossible to quote mine silly dawkins. That should go without saying.

Logicboy03:
Argumentum ad absurdum .


1) Dawkins made a simple point. God is an impossible thing to our knowledge. A division by Zero. A timeless being. It follows that any argument that leads to him is false.

2) Plase show me the synonyms in the descriptions of humans in the two sentences;

"humans make mistakes because they are human! Humans by nature are not perfect(prone to mistakes) and will make mistakes"


You stretch arguments into absurd lengths to prove your points; mistake is a noun....making mistakes is an action......perfect is an adjective


You can continue stretching arguments to ridiculous lengths. The point that I made is very clear

Lol........what was I thinking expecting logicboy to reason? SMH

mazaje:
Actually Ehrman in the end agrees with the infidel guy because according to Ehrman the Jesus's portrayed in the gospels is a fictional character since the gospels are just an embellished accounts of a man that once lived. . .He just believes there was a man behind the legend written in the gospels. . .

The point was not whether they agreed in the end or not of course both are entitled to their opinions. The point was about their methods of skepticism.

Mr_Anony:
The point was not whether they agreed in the end or not of course both are entitled to their opinions. The point was about their methods of skepticism.

The infidel guy has some valid points. . . .If we are to go by Ehrman's approach then we must also believe that Mohammed existed exactly as the prophet of allah and the hadiths are historical documents or believe everything about buddah. . .I am closer to Ehrman than the infidel guy though. But to me some of his points are valid. . .

mazaje:

The infidel guy has some valid points. . . .If we are to go by Ehrman's approach then we must also believe that Mohammed existed exactly as the prophet of allah and the hadiths are historical documents or believe everything about buddah. . .I am closer to Ehrman than the infidel guy though. But to me some of his points are valid. . .

which of the infidel guy's points are valid if I may ask? and why are they valid? Please cite the times in the video as well. Thanks

Mr_Anony:
which of the infidel guy's points are valid if I may ask? and why are they valid? Please cite the times in the video as well. Thanks

That Paul could be lying in his accounts and that not all his letter were written by him. . .

mazaje:

That Paul could be lying in his accounts and that not all his letter were written by him. . .

To which Bart answers; "why would Paul lie?"

Mr_Anony:
It is almost impossible to quote mine silly dawkins. That should go without saying.


Lol........what was I thinking expecting logicboy to reason? SMH

Are you following, Deepsight's failure? You really believe that Dawkins is silly? Note that there is a difference between being wrong and silly.



BTW, nice escape tactics.

Mr_Anony:
To which Bart answers; "why would Paul lie?"

To promote his agenda and introduce his own new religion he wants others to follow. . Why will Mohammed the founder of islam lie?. . .

mazaje:

To promote his agenda and introduce his own new religion he wants others to follow. . Why will Mohammed the founder of islam lie?. . .

About the historicicity of Christ? Are you sure you really watched that video?