Atheist Debates - Debate Review part 3 - Did Jesus Rise From The Dead

The final portion of my review of the debate with Dr. Michael Licona on whether or not Jesus rose from the dead.

It's worth noting that the question of whether Jesus rose from the dead was never really addressed - the debate focused on a potential explanation for the event, in order to make the event seem more plausible.

[ErnieLG]

I remember this debate; it was so painful. Why would someone want to debate (anything) if they didn't understand the basic tenets of logic or reason?

[TheZooCrew]

After watching the debate again, I'm more disgusted than embarrassed for Licona. He has a freaking PhD and yet he's talking about Ouija boards in the opening, prattling on about Paul meeting Jesus, and spouting blatant falsehoods about 9/11 and memory. There is no excuse at all for getting shit like that so horribly wrong when you're in a debate for which you have prepared (or should have, at any rate).

[EsTOEban]

Watched the whole debate today (i haven't watched this particular video yet) and realized that you and I had a very similar path. I grew up southern baptist, but am now an atheist. Your timeline that you mentioned is shockingly similar to mine as well and I cannot thank you enough for what you do as you have been a part of saving me at least 6 more years ahead of when you realized you were an atheist at 30. Keep it up! I look forward to possibly shake your hand and thank you in person in Charleston, SC in a couple months.

[fnordiumendures]

I still don't understand why we can't hard dismiss the supernatural. Even if you claim that there are things that are inherently incomprehensible to humans, I'd just reply: "Yeah, the universe might be naturally too complex to our naturally evolved brains... sounds natural to me." Even if you claim that there are things that reside outside the cosmos, I'd just reply: "So they naturally reside there?"

As far as I can see it's completely impossible to define the supernatural in a way that exclude it from the category "natural."

[JMUDoc]

"We don't know who killed this man, so let's assume it was Mike Licona until another suspect emerges." Doubt Mike would be happy with that...

I think this is a man so terrified of "we don't know" (or, more accurately, "I don't know") that he's just got to have AN answer. ANY answer. These people make me both angry and sad.

[toxendon]

Wow, that's a lot of videos all at once! Time to get a cup of coffee.

[PrestonGranger]

I'm loving these videos, Matt. Keep 'em coming!

[sjhoneywell]

Licona's argument is essentially that we can accept a supernatural explanation for something until such time as science gives us a natural one.

How is that not a literal example of the god of the gaps argument>

[satiricalgreg]

Matt, THANK YOU for having such a strong and willing voice. PLEASE take care of yourself because we NEED your voice!

[thomasruwart]

The Supernatural Realm sounds like a great name for an EDM club. Then you can say you've been there and the beer is unreal!

[justsomestuff]

Hey Matt, what are your thoughts on Buddhism? I am an atheist (but still follow some philosophical beliefs) but my family is generally Buddhist. I would love to hear your thoughts in a video but a response back in general would be nice.

[dannysnee]

The main thing I learned from this debate is that Mike and probably many others don't understand that even if group hallucinations per say were impossible, there are other types of group delusions that produce very similar results

[PGBurgess]

+matt dillahunty:
1. perhaps a good analogy to 'jumping to the supernatural' as an explanation for the unexplained
One could f.e. state that the RiemannHypothesis, un unsolved math-issue, must have a supernatural proof... since no explanation is available, or even seems available now.

2. the nature of the gaps-response is quite strange.. It would impy there is a gap in our understanding of the SUPERnatural, where we suppose a forthcomming natural one. Which i think i very reasonable. For one: there is no 'understanding of the supernatural' to start from. And second: the sort of unexplainable things we actually do encounter, tend to fit in nice with the gaps of our understanding or flawed interpretations we have, of that natural world.

[poughkeepsieblue]

It took me 38 years to get over my discomfort with saying I don't know. Now, it would be illogical for me to assert otherwise. Learning how to be comfortable with not having answers, is not easy. It also leaves me feeling more vulnerable to being deceived by those who claim they do. So, my learning to say I don't know, is proportional to my growing skepticism, so I can keep some comfort about not knowing the answers to other people's claims as valid or not.
Its reasonable to assume that there must be some comfort you must have with your own thoughts, beliefs or disbeliefs. The destruction of the comfort of confidence, needs to coincide with the building comfort of whatever replaces it. Be that skepticism, hard atheism, or just the reasoning ability to apply logic to reach sound conclusions.
Hmm, I think I just inadvertently described the dunning Krueger effect.

[tomasbeha]

By his logic, gravity would be supernatural, since it has still not been completely explained ☺️ Another great video!

[cloudoftime]

Not just Farenheit 9/11 may have been a factor. If you consider the possibility that, after the 1 year mark, the subjects in the study may have acknowledged their unsureness in their answers. This may have lead to them looking this information up again, after the 1 year question session. This further research may then have solidified the correct details in their minds for the subsequent 3 year session.

[JimRobinson-colors]

The head off analogy is a false equivalency. He is asking you to believe the resurrection from witnesses from the bible. In the analogy of you seeing it yourself is you being the witness yourself, not taking it as hearsay.

[Beastgrows]

Where's the link to the 9/11 flashbulb memories study??

[probablynotmyname]

Where's the sciamerican Link? After watching this again I now see the link. I usually listen to your videos while doing something else and assumed the link would be in the description, which I wish it was.

[Carwyn.Morris]

My real problem with the story of the crucifixion is that they never seem to see it from the Roman point of view. Think about it for a moment. Person (A ) is being crucified, it isn't just a punishment but a billboard advertising "Piss us off and this could be you". It's my understanding (I may be wrong) but taking the body down after death wasn't common (unless they needed the space) and even when it happened the Romans didn't allow for an honorable burial as the people being crucified in their eyes were criminals. The bodies were dumped into a grave and filled over. If this is in fact the case then allowing a body to be placed in a tomb would be a big No Way. It's not much of a stretch then to reason that a body went missing from a tomb because the Romans nabbed it and threw it in a ditch to prevent such an occurrence. Again I'm not an expert and I may be wrong.