I've lifted this little dialog from a comment section
on my YouTube account. I thought it was funny. On the one hand we have DrunkAtheist who shows up out of the blue, pretty much changes the subject, and then proceeds to fall into several well worn traps that are easy pickings for the other team. And on the other we have migkiller2, a sixteen year old representative of the other team who proficiently vlogs on apologetic topics and doesn't mind going from zero to CAPSLOCK
when he notices you disagree with him.
I let this go without correcting either of them. I came back one day and noticed my comments on the William Lane Craig vs Richard Carrier video had doubled thanks to this exchange and it was pretty much over by that time. I have dropped in some of my own commentary here (Ben: in italics
). The "Itchy and Scratchy" reference is of course to the Simpson's cartoon where their favorite television show features a cat and a mouse who go about killing each other in horrific ways for no reason whatsoever. In a similar way, it seems many conversations between atheists and Christians fall along the same lines. I mean, do you really think either of them got anything out of this or was it just egotistical head butting? I think you will be able to see for yourself.
DrunkAtheist, Graeme, age 19 (DA):
migkiller2, Jake, age 16 (MK2):
Why Did God wait so long to make himself known to humans (given the time humans have existed as a species on earth)... and when he did
why did he do it to so few humans and leave such little evidence?MK2:
"Why Did God wait so long to make himself known to humans"
God made himself known ~4,000 years ago. The overwhelming vast majority of humans (~98%) who have ever lived lived AFTER Christ. Secondly, the language in which the Gospel was spread was koine Greek. at the 1st century, nearly everyone on the ancient Mediterranean east of Greece spoke koine Greek, hence it would spread most easily. such language standardization had not been achieved before then.Ben: The "why the long wait" argument is a somewhat poorly conceived talking point that Christopher Hitchens likes to make use of. Unfortunately it's punch completely misses the young earth creationist audience and neglects to note in addition to the long pre-history of humanity before Moses, all the nations apart from Israel that were uninformed and all the nations after the spreading of the gospel that got missed as well (see my post on this here). What is unimpressive about the spread of the gospel via Roman roads and a vastly Greek speaking world, is that it is more evidence of religious opportunism than supernatural success. What if the gospel had spread despite there being no Roman empire to forge the way? Couldn't the disciples ride on magic carpets and speak in languages they didn't know? Why does the Holy Spirit need worldly conveniences? DA:
Our species has been on the earth for about 200,000 years and believed in thousands of different Gods just as passionately and as much as you and other Christians believe in Jesus. They've also spoken thousands of different languages.
Why have I never experience the holy spirit and why do so many other people of other religions claim to experience a different God?
In my opinion they are all mistaken and there is something else going on in the brain. MK2:
"In my opinion they are all mistaken and there is something else going on in the brain."
please remember opinions are worth a dime-a-dozen Ben: Someone is scraping bottom with a talking point that undermines this and all other conversations. DA:
Well what do you think?
Do you think all of them are wrong apart from the Christians?
You haven't really said much by saying that opinions are worth a dime a dozen. MK2:
"Do you think all of them are wrong apart from the Christians?"
"You haven't really said much by saying that opinions are worth a dime a dozen."
how's this for ya? I don't give a damn about your opinion. your argument is a giant non-sequitur. the vast plethora of religious experiences would seem to validate the existence of the supernatural.Ben: With even a little investigation it becomes quickly apparent that people can come to very strong and conflicting spiritual conclusions based on mental and other subjective terms that don't seem to need further explanation (Muslims, Mormons, and Christians all have perfect confirmation their own holy books are the right ones, for instance). Combine this with the lack of corroboration of anything supernatural despite hundreds of years of critical inquiry into supernatural claims (miraculous healings, transcendental meditation, psychics, etc.) and the prima facie case for the supernatural realm vanishes into the illusions of human experience. DA:
Or perhaps something natural which has not yet been explained.
Even if it did validate the existed of the supernatural I don't see how it validates one particular religion over another?
You still haven't responded to my point about how long humans have existed and how many Gods they've prayed to and believed in. MK2:
if we examine whether some miracles actually happened, in this case the resurrection, then we can establish with reasonable certainty the existence of YHWH
"you still haven't responded..." again, 2% of all people who have ever lived lived before Christ, and the point about other gods is completely irrelevant, a combination of a red herring fallacy and a genetic fallacy.Ben: But can we show any of the Bible miracles happened? To return to the original topic of the video, Migkilla points to N.T. Wright's "airtight" case against Richard Carrier's case for Paul teaching a "two body" doctrine of the resurrection and yet Wright concedes: "Though Moule is no doubt right that Paul can envisage here the possibility of 'exchange' (losing one body, getting another one) rather than 'addition', as in 1 Corinthians 15, we should not lose sight of the fact that even if such an 'exchange' were to take place the new body would be more than the present one." Migkilla responded with mere incredulity and changed the topic. DA:
Say it is about 2%..
Why would God let humans exist on the planet for hundreds of thousands of years with disease hunger very low life expectancy, high infant mortality... and then only about 4 thousands years reveal himself to people living in a remote part of the middle east in the form of human sacrifices etc..
There isn't even much wisdom in the bible. A lot of it is immoral and bad advice and not original. I want you to answer these questions before getting to the resurrection...MK2:
humans existing for thousands of years is completely irrelevant once you realize that only 2% of all people who ever lived lived before Christ.
perhaps you would comprehend that if you sobered up. Ben: Burn! I'll bet Jake really shoots down migs, too!DA:
I think time is more important than numbers. The reason why populations have grown so rapidly is due to gradual advances in science.
Simply dismissing it by saying that only 2% of people who ever lived lived before Christ is misleading and typical apologist tactics.
Why did God not reveal himself more effectively to everyone and why not give us more useful information and morals.
Is there any sentence in the bible that could not have been written by a man living in Palestine at that time? Ben: Do I feel the Sam Harris creeping in as well? lolMK2:
"why did god not reveal himself to everyone?"
Simple, God does not pander to skeptics. when you read the bible you realize that God only did major nature miracles 3 times in history, in the Exodus, during the time of Elijah, and Jesus, and they all were to reveal knowledge to a small group of people.Ben: Unless your name is Gideon or Thomas and you are in the Bible, God doesn't pander to skeptics and preaches credulity instead. I mean, who ever heard of believing something because you have good reason to? Pfffft.... I personally like to make sure that I don't believe things I have evidence for and do believe all the things I don't. Oh wait, I only do that on *opposite day*. At least the demonic world gets to at least be disgusted by the existence of God. Skeptics don't even have that luxury (see here). DA:
Well it all simply isn't enough evidence for me to believe in Yahweh.
I have another question. Do you believe that I'm going to hell when I die? MK2:
"Well it all simply isn't enough evidence for me to believe in Yahweh."
Well I would strongly suggest that you watch my upcoming 15 part video series on the resurrection.
"do you believe I'm going to hell when I die?"
well if you refuse to accept the atoning death of Christ on the cross, then yes you will go to hell when you die. Ben: Boy, I sure do hope that my eternity isn't hanging in the balance of MigKiller2 making a convincing argument. DA:
I'll take the risk...
I'd rather go to hell than go to heaven and worship a God who would send innocent people to hell. MK2:
where are these innocent people of whom you speak? Ben: Everyone is guilty! Therefore Jesus can treat us all like absolute shit and it's okay! Hurray for dysfunctional theology!DA:
I haven't done anything wrong. God has not given me any evidence for me to believe in him so why should I.
I am innocent. Anyone who thinks hell is a fitting punishment for me is sick and evil.
"I haven't done anything wrong."
yes you have
"God has not given me any evidence for me to believe in him so why should I."
because there is a large body of evidence for God
"I am innocent."
YOU'RE A BLASPHEMER!
"Anyone who thinks hell is a fitting punishment for me is sick and evil."
I'd like to know how you as an atheist can condemn anything as evil. Ben: DrunkAtheist fell right into that one. He could have mentioned that not even the most evil person that ever lived deserves to burn in hell *forever*. Even that is just sick. You don't have to be anywhere near perfect to not deserve eternal damnation as a punishment, but DrunkAtheist didn't mention that. DA:
OK you're crazy. The world be a much better place without people who think like you. Ben: Oh no, he's not crazy. He just Christian. Um...yeah.MK2:
"and when he did why did he do it to so few humans and leave such little evidence?"
That is a point of contention of course. a great many Christians claim to have experiences with the Holy spirit, and I wouldn't doubt every single one of them. So in order for this point to hold weight, you will actually have to show me that it is true.Ben: Maybe when migkilla can prove even one of them is genuine, he'll have a case. Until then, the argument from the preponderance of supposed evidence justifies Bigfoot, the Lochness monster, aliens, gnomes, Elvis, and whateverthehell else. I mean, if even *one* of those sightings in each category is true... Yeah, it's all true. Obviously.
Well I hope that was fun/painful enough for everyone. :D