Christian "SCHOLARSHIP" Collapses | The MELTDOWN of Michael Jones

[@jeremypnet]

1:16:33 “we stopped the child sacrifice.” “How?” “We killed all the children.”

[@timbertome2443]

It's a beautiful thing when you can see through the primitive war propaganda 👌👌👌

[@goldenalt3166]

Unborn children can absorb religion in the womb. Especially if they are cows. Can't have Canaanite cows corrupting our easily decieved men now, can we?

[@Yourghostuncle]

I mean he’s not wrong 😂😂

[@kyleepratt]

It does make some sense, if and only if you assume child sacrifices to non-YHWH gods are actually effective means of getting actual aid from real gods.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

That obviously didn't happen: but you're free to believe all the ignorance you want.

[@modernatheism]

Incredible how Michael says that the evidence for the conquest is overwhelming while simultaneusly admiting that most scholars consider it to be mythological. The amount of cognitive dissonance one needs to have to hold both ideas is insane!

[@ramadadiver7810]

' the evidence for the big bang theory is overwhelming but the scholarly consensus ( of the time) was a static universe . There can be evidence that is right and true which the consensus doesn't accept YET

[@LeoVital]

@@ramadadiver7810 Yeah, no. If the evidence is overwhelming, the people who actually work with it will agree with it. You’re just trying too hard to make Uninspiring Sophistry’s take make any sense.

[@ramadadiver7810]

@LeoVital ' if the evidence is overwhelming, the people who work with ot would accept it ' NO that is not the point of scholarship . no consensus or conclusion is held indefinite. Scholarship is about challenging the status quo . Otherwise we would still believe the earth is flat

[@ramadadiver7810]

@LeoVital Let me correct myself scholarship is about presenting arguments and evidence despite the status quo . It's about seeking what is true . The consensus has changed over and over and over again and will continue in that direction simply due to new information

[@QuiveringEye]

​@ramadadiver7810 This is a good point. The issue is that Michael did not make a good argument for why the evidence is overwhelming, but rather just claimed it.

[@SapientCephalopod]

"I may not be a biblical scholar, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn!" - Michael Jones

[@thedude0000]

📌 this comment needs to be pinned 📌

[@Robert_Browne]

And he argued for an hour with the automated wake up call.

[@Allothersweretakenn]

Josh’s look in this video is Peak, don’t ever change it up 👌👌

[@VaughanMcCue]

@@thedude0000 You nailed it, albeit with a pin.

[@wax99]

Oh my god, what a throwback!

[@aosidh]

There are two wolves in Michael. One wants to be an intellectual bully, but the other believes in magic and unicorns

[@gilgamesh7652]

Funny how intelectuals and mystics can agree to the fact that the Bible stories are mythology not literal history and everything is allegorical and symbolistic. But fundamentalism make people belive nonsens like things that are not literal to be literal

[@sypherthe297th2]

Except he's not an intellectual. He doesn't want to do the work.

[@seekingtruthgaming8887]

I don't think he is trying to be a "intellectual", he's just giving arguments for beliefs he has and is trying to help Christians with deeper questions of history and philosophy. He won't be right on everything , attacking his motives doesn't really help to any of the convos.

[@aosidh]

@seekingtruthgaming8887 it's not his motives - it's his demeanor. He acts like a smug child, not a confident adult

[@gilgamesh7652]

@seekingtruthgaming8887 Well he could actually try to do better, but he neither recognize that something like religion is not something rational nor scientific neither does he truly embrace a mystical view of the things. Like Philon of Alexandria a Jewish mystic that was also a philosopher, he come with the idea of allegorical interpretation of the scripture. Like saying Adam was a symbol for mind and Eve was a symbol for senses

[@Deconstruction_Zone]

Michael Jones speaking on behalf of scholarship or academia, having no actual Biblical education, is like when car drivers tell the mechanic that they know what's wrong.

[@Thealgorithmhassummonedme]

Funny seeing you here. 😄

[@deviouskris3012]

Darth: What is your ultimate grounding in your understanding that you are a mechanic. You can’t even say it is a car, without referencing Henry Ford as was is and can be a car. Mechanic: Bro. The dif fell out of your car. It’s F$&@ed Darth: How old are you?

[@ritawing1064]

Mansplaining meets theology.

[@830toAwesome]

It's even worse. Because he's complaining that scholars are checking his work while speaking on behalf of them.

[@GameTimeWhy]

Accurate and hilarious. ​@@deviouskris3012

[@ssvdb]

Justifying killing all women en children to end "child sacrifice" is just mind boggling...

[@ramadadiver7810]

Is there something wrong with that? Or is it just a personal preference.

[@Rogstin]

@@ramadadiver7810 If you have to ask, you've exposed your inhumanity.

[@Llortnerof]

@@ramadadiver7810 Well, would you consider deliberately covering your entire kitchen in milk to avoid spilling it sensible?

[@ramadadiver7810]

​@@Rogstin I have to ask because you can't say it's wrong .

[@ramadadiver7810]

​​@@Rogstin The fact that I have to ask the questions . Shows the depravity of moral subjectivity. Do you not get why I asked it ? This is called an internal critique of moral subjectivity

[@StiveGuy]

Christian Scholarship Ah yes, the old "Trust Me Bro"

[@melancholymoshpit]

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, thou shall trust me brother.

[@computationaltheist7267]

Do you think Rat Rules ignorant sycophants will look at the evidence or they will just believe RR himself?

[@TheGr00salug]

I hate when people get into the "look at them responding to me! They must be triggered!". It's a thought termination tactic and unfortunately it works.

[@archapmangcmg]

Agreed. Also, nice reference in your username.

[@VolrinSeth]

They also fail to realise they themselves do the exact same thing, every time they react to people being 'triggered'.

[@4ndytrout46]

Meanwhile, Steve is literally just doing his job.

[@-TheUnkownUser]

The real problem is that, even if no one cares about their arguments; they would argue that it’s because what they are saying is irrefutable or “overwhelming”.

[@archapmangcmg]

@@-TheUnkownUser "Heads I win. Tails you lose." Yes, it's BS spin, nothing more.

[@MDHilgersom]

What do they expect if they are so wrong? 9 seconds? "You're wrong, go study this in a real college. Thank you for watching." Credits?

[@TheSuperGamer991]

Isn't that all they do? I just see them expecting as much work as they're willing to give. Too bad they're honest, makes for so much content.

[@christophertstone]

“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes”

[@jojorumbles8749]

"OMG they spent a lot of time and effort to fact check all of my bullshit. What losers, hur hur hur!"

[@jc1daddy2]

Sad he wont have IP on to defend himself or even have a conversation with him about this😥

[@jc1daddy2]

@@emmanuel1337 lol cope harder my friend. Christian: makes vidoes correcting atheists Athiest: hey I think you are misrepresenting me and missing the point. Lets have a debate or a conversation on this Christian: sorry but im not debating/conversing with you because until you stop misrepresenting scholarship or the facts. Athiest: I am not respresenting scholarships or the facts. Why can't we debate this or talk about it? Christian: You make so much videos that are erroneous Atheist:...that is not a good reason not to debate me or have a conversation. You would not accept this load of horse sh*t (and rightfuly so) so do not expect me or anyone else who isnt blind with bias to accept it. 100% pure cope my guy. Do better.

[@emmanuel1337]

Well, that's what Brandolini's law exposes -- if these hacks don't want to have to contend with hours of responses, then they should either stop misrepresenting the scholarship and the facts or just shut up entirely. Also, it's not like they don't produce hours of slop that people have to painstakingly go through to get to their erroneous points anyway, so take the plank out of your own eye and all of that jazz lol.

[@jc1daddy2]

@@emmanuel1337 lol cope harder my friend. Christian: makes vidoes correcting atheists Athiest: hey I think you are misrepresenting me and missing the point. Lets have a debate or a conversation on this Christian: sorry but not debating/conversing with because you have to first stop misrepresenting the scholarship and facts. Atheist: I am not doing that. Lets talk about it Christian: no keep making videos with erroneous points Athiest:...that is another assertion and is no reason not to dialgoue with me You would not accept that load of horse manure (and rightfuly so) so do not expect me or anyone else who isnt blind with bias to accept it. 100% pure cope my guy. Do better.

[@jc1daddy2]

@@emmanuel1337 lol cope harder my friend. Christian: makes vidoes correcting atheists Athiest: hey I think you are misrepresenting me and missing the point. Lets have a debate or a conversation on this Christian: sorry but not debating/conversing with because you have to first stop misrepresenting the scholarship and facts. Atheist: I am not doing that. Lets talk about it Christian: no keep making videos with erroneous points Athiest:...that is another assertion and is no reason not to dialgoue with me You would not accept thatnonsense (and rightfuly so) so do not expect me or anyone else who isnt blind with bias to accept it. 100% pure cope my guy. Do better.

[@RustyWalker]

This is where the absence of peer review hurts. They can throw up whatever they want whenever they want with no repercussions.

[@jeffknetzer856]

Yes, that phrase is quite fitting, “throw up”. Nice touch

[@MythVisionPodcast]

Christmas came early! ❤

[@benthestreetsarfa7454]

Two critiques of IP in one day? Xmas come early indeed

[@TheWorldTeacher]

Good Girl! 👌 Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

[@Thealgorithmhassummonedme]

I can't wait to watch the episode where you interview Jaaron the author of Christ Before Jesus.

[@maninalift]

These weren't coordinated to then? This was released about an hour after your video.

[@ramadadiver7810]

Christmas did come early when you tried to compare jesus to Romans whonwere defied . When Phillipeans 2 a pre Pauline creed explicitly states Jesus was in the form of the divine prior to being human .

[@georgeflowers3730]

We must understand that because apologists lack a valid response based on data or true scholarship, they are left with the only thing they can do: mock the work of true scholars.

[@ramadadiver7810]

' true scholarship ' No true scottsman ?

[@LeoVital]

@@ramadadiver7810 You don’t know what that means.

[@ramadadiver7810]

@@LeoVital You are assuming to know what my knowledge is ? You don't know what that is

[@norrecvizharan1177]

@@ramadadiver7810 I mean he's still got a point though. A majority of apologists do nothing but study the bible itself, rather than going into actual archeological historical evidence 'n stuff.

[@RamadaDiver-w9o]

​​@@norrecvizharan1177 Really .what apologist simply reads the bible itself and doesn't rely on other fields an expertise Name 1

[@Hailfire08]

The "they spent 9 hours!!!1!11!11" bit is even more stupid when the reason Mike gives for making fun of the length is "imagine how triggered they must be!" In this moment he's not defending his claims; it doesn't even matter to him whether they _can_ be defended. He's saying all he's doing is baiting on the internet until someone comes along and thinks he's serious - and if he admits it's all a big joke, why should his audience think he's serious?

[@DrasscoOfRascia]

He's just projecting his own cowardice

[@xxxtabamimingxxx6853]

Where's the 9 hours video link

[@B.S._Lewis]

Between you and Paulogia I have 6 hours of Josh & Kipp discussing a topic I've probably heard them talk about 100 times. Thanks guys.

[@11kravitzn]

Can you believe it's been almost 100 years since the Scopes Monkey trial and we have barely moved beyond the modernist "Higher critical" vs fundamentalist debate. IP is just a somewhat watered down fundamentalist.

[@Julian0101]

Hydra never dies, it just mutates.

[@Martial-Mat]

But this is why you never waste your time with apologists. Because they can ALWAYS gish gallop, change the subject, or flat out lie, and the onus is on you to respond. There's no way on earth I'm wasting 9 hours or even 2.42 watching videos on settled facts, just because these guys want to keep lying.

[@NathanBTQ]

The problem is that many folks keep believing and giving their epistemological trust to clowns like IP.

[@TheBibleSkeptic]

And thus the reason I haven't made a video for my channel in 3 yrs.

[@Martial-Mat]

@@TheBibleSkeptic Same, same.

[@bengreen171]

IP has a massive logistics problem. He wants to downplay the size of the group of people who supposedly left Egypt and travelled to Canaan..... but somehow expects us to believe that this same small group was able to replace the populations of 8 major cities as well as account for a tenfold increase in other settlements all across the region. Seems to me that if IP is right, the Israelites ended up with a lot of lebensraum.

[@ramadadiver7810]

' replace the population ' When did I.P claim that ?

[@bengreen171]

@@ramadadiver7810 I don't see IP saying that Joshua didn't really kill all the inhabitants of Jericho and Ai, and under his rules absence of evidence of mass slaughter of the other cities means we should assume the same thing happened elsewhere, right? But if that's the only objection you have, it's weak, since the point is about the logistics of one small group of people subjugating a whole region. Imagine the Sioux nation arriving on the eastern seaboard in 1870 and killing everyone in New York, then subjugating the whole of New England. When are you going to learn?

[@ramadadiver7810]

​@@bengreen171so he didn't claim that or expect that

[@bengreen171]

@@ramadadiver7810 you really are mining for scraps now.

[@ramadadiver7810]

@@bengreen171 Nice rhetoric

[@Phoennix3]

As the late and awesome Sir Terrance of Pratchett said: 'A lie can run around the world, before the truth has got its boots on.'

[@nickguy8037]

The Truth Shall Make Ye Fret

[@fellowgoyimwhite7630]

Apologetics ruin any discussion over God

[@jloiben12]

Idiots: It took them 9 hours to say why we are wrong. Sane people: maybe you said that many incorrect things…?

[@Deathvalley1980]

Love from Iran

[@rationalityrules]

[@Sarvibolt]

Yes! More Dr. Davis and Dr. Bowen. Will be a delightful evening now.

[@Silentsouls]

As soon as a theist starts being honest, they loose their faith.

[@JoriztheGreat-Invictus]

Inspiring Sophistry collapsed 🤣 your pretensions of "know how" wouldn't last a day in academia. There's a reason a lot of apologist became liberal, or turned skeptics completely and acknowledges hard facts, hard to devour and relinquish the rhetorical bullshit and moves on. Instead Inspiring Sophistry cognitive dissonance is fired up and He's unaware how those deep truths he held firmly evaporates, he's clinging to things he thought he can salvage at all cost.

[@oliviawilliams6204]

Apologists going in tengential subjects matters education reminds me how Creationists do the same thing. Geologists talking about biology, geneticists talking about geology, engineers talking about molecular biology

[@heiyuall]

Nothing but cons, trolls, and marks. Gawd has horrific hiring standards.

[@theunknownatheist3815]

Nobody “hired” those losers. They took it upon themselves to defend their imaginary friend in the sky for no pay but what they can get from their audience support.

[@truthbetold8233]

​@@theunknownatheist3815 no shit

[@laurajarrell6187]

Rules, Stephen, Loving this! Having Drs. Josh and Kip just ruin the lies and excuses apologists like these use, is excellent. Thankyou you all for truthful education! 👍🏼💙💝💙💖💙🥰✌

[@stultusvenator3233]

I have been coming to the obvious conclusion that there is no such thing as "biblical scholarship" done by Theists, it is just Quote mined apologetics, cherry picked to suit and spin.

[@istvansipos9940]

biblical scholarship. The only "scholarship" where you have to stay away from the source material. Use the bible too much, and you'll have to deny entire branches of science.

[@EmergencyMoto]

I've been begging for this from kipp and Dr. Josh so glad this came out

[@Mayeverycreaturefindhappiness]

"my god did cause genocide I swear." Very weird

[@deviouskris3012]

He did disappear when he went out for cigarettes. He lead the purge.

[@ritchiehernandez6222]

What does it say about the quality and the honesty of Michael's work that he literally thinks its a waste of time to analyze it. That might be one of the most damning admissions next to Craig admitting he lowers his standards just to meet his own bias

[@Quebolas]

I wonder if that snowboard to the left is an Arbor. Couldnt have a better duo than Kip Davis and Joshua Bowen. I like that Josh has gotten more comfortable with throwing punches!

[@donnievance1942]

Surely one of the key reasons apologists get so much wrong about the scholarship of Biblical literature has to do with their intrinsic motivation. They are not reading this material to learn anything real. They are reading it merely to find items to cherry-pick in fulfilling their agenda of proving their "holy scriptures" to be the inerrant word of God. Theie is no intellectual curiosity involved in their readings. On the other hand, people like Kipp and Bowen have been involved in this stuff all their adult lives because they are genuinely interested in these ancient cultures, what actually happened in ancient history, and why those texts read the way they do. They read them critically because they're actually interested in knowing what went down in historical reality. Apologists probably find the whole shmear to be boring as hell. They're reading all this stuff with no purpose whatever but to find something to support their theological beliefs. They have no curiosity and no respect for the materials. They're intellectual zombies, stumbling mindlessly toward a mindless, simple, single goal. Their brains will not actually register any item that cannot be used to argue that the Bible is a divinely accurate document. That's why their discourse comes out as so clownishly obtuse. Facts sail past their heads literally unseen because they are not the facts they're looking for. I have a brother who, while not a theist, has a mind that works in this manner. Whenever we have an argument, he seems literally not to hear half the stuff I say to him. It doesn't penetrate or register in his consciousness if it runs counter to his thesis. If, after our discussion, he had to take a quiz on what I said, he wouldn't be able to pass. He interrupts almost my every sentence to gish-gallop over me in a very loud voice, even a shouted rant. There's just no interest there in analysis or learning anything. All there is is a deep need to reify his every preconception as a truth, no matter how trivial. One gets the impression of a psychology that is deeply threatened by the overturning of any previous belief-- as if haunted by a fear that any crack in the wall of belief would cascade towards collapse of the entire structure. I think that's actually the case with my brother, but that's another story. My point is that believers seem to share this kind of cognitive character. They literally cannot learn countervailing information.

[@nickydaviesnsdpharms3084]

At 1:20:00 where Stephen says Davis uses the words ''town'' instead of ''cities'' because it minimizes the scale, it's basically severity softening. Something dishonest people often do in order to make the thing sound less bad than it actually is.

[@Petticca]

@0:17 Dr. Bowen showing a bit of sass there. Awesome. :)

[@bengreen171]

IP has definitely taken the 'Davis Wood School of Uncomfortable and Irrelevant Mockery' beginner's course. Mind you, he's such a bad scholar - it does look like he still only scraped a pass.

[@jc1daddy2]

IP is not a scholar and never claimed to be a scholar. Stop misrepresenting people.

[@bengreen171]

@@jc1daddy2 oh the irony. IP claims to know the scholarship. He does not. Because he's a poor scholar. Scholar/scholarship is a word with more than one normative meaning. It does refer to specific academics working in the humanities or sciences professionally - but it is also assumed by anyone with reference to someone researching or talking about the work of professional scholars. IP doesn't explicitly say he is a scholar - but he often references his higher education, and he presents himself as someone familiar with the scholarship. He's the one misrepresenting himself. He's the one who makes claims about scholarship that simply are not true - did you not see the clip of him misrepresenting the state of scholarly consensus and making the certain claim about the evidence? Did you hear him say - this is my uneducated guess about the evidence? Or did you hear him say 'this is what the evidence says?

[@rationalityrules]

​@@jc1daddy2Michael Jones steps onto the stage presenting himself as an authority. He lectures on topics where his views are, at best, highly controversial-a fact he conveniently keeps hidden from his audience. He frequently misrepresents scholarship, and he does so with great confidence and enthusiasm, all while condescending to actual experts. He quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, but what? Because he’s never explicitly claimed to be an expert, we’re supposed to forgive him these trespasses? No foul? Really? Imagine an atheist steps on stage, presented as a biblical authority figure and praised as such, only to make claims that fly completely in the face of the evidence. For example, he asserts that Jesus never existed, that there’s no evidence for his existence, and that scholars are increasingly coming around to this view. Then, when someone rightly points out that these claims aren’t just problematic but downright disgraceful, a response comes: “Well, that atheist never claimed to be an expert.” When you flip the paradigm like this, the flaws in Michael and the community that props him up as an authority become glaringly obvious.

[@bengreen171]

@@rationalityrules I find it comical that IP's fans have been reduced to such weak protests when they 'come over here', then immediately retreat to their apologist safe spaces to froth over their champion's 'brilliant and highly informed illuminations of the *real* Biblical knowledge. But nooooo - he *never* claims to be an authority.

[@haydenwalton2766]

​@@rationalityrulesdid kipp put you up to this comment, stephen ? very odd

[@iluvtacos1231]

Finally finished! You three are a treat to watch. I think the most critical aspect in these kinds of discussions that need to, in my opinion, be hammered home to apologists is: you believe the book you're arguing for is from GOD. Why is there all this fuzziness? Why is consensus scholarship routinely at odds with biblical timelines, accounts, and facts? Why can't we find 100% corrobation for 100% of the historical stuff mentioned in the old testament? Again, and I cannot stress this enough, you (apologists) want us to accept that the Bible is the word of god, not just another middle eastern bronze age text. Why doesn't it act like the word of god?

[@nathanerrington7983]

6 hours of content from Josh and Kip on the same day?? I don't have this much time on my hands

[@stultusvenator3233]

Like me 'find time' over several days.

[@amaizenblue44]

I think with the talking out of both sides of his mouth thing in the beginning, with shifting to historicity and critical scholars remaining skeptical boils down to this: He wants his sheeple audience to think "critical scholarship" refers to Bible skeptics that have a bias to falsify it. I.e., being critical of divine inspiration. I asked him on his blog how he was defining critical scholarship and stated i rather suspect the scholars he says agree with him would object to being excluded from being identified as critical scholars. My post, naturally, didnt make it through moderation.

[@MetalEddie00]

IP and his doctor friend realize they aren't going to come out on top during this back and forth. Rather, they're just appealing to their own audience that already believes what they say. In apologetics on KZbin, Christians constantly lose ground. Making it some sort of "reaction" video, for their followers that will only watch their video, not yours, that is enough. That's what they're after. Christianity, and indeed, all religions, have had to retreat from basically every academic field except for philosophy. That's where they have to make their last stand.

[@jjjccc728]

The Role of Scholarly Consensus ● Apologists' Argument: Jones and Faulk tend to dismiss scholarly consensus, particularly when it contradicts their interpretation of the biblical text. They imply that critical scholars are driven by anti-religious bias or a desire to undermine the Bible's authority. ● Counterpoint: Davis and Bowen acknowledge the importance of scholarly consensus as a reflection of the current state of knowledge and research in a given field. They emphasize that their conclusions are grounded in the work of subject matter experts and that they strive to present a fair and accurate representation of the prevailing scholarly views. ○ Bowen defends their approach: "What we are saying, though, is that here's what the consensus is saying, this is why they're saying it. If you're going to hold to a, a position that the consensus isn't holding, so you're going to argue for that, then you've got to make your case, and if you're not a subject matter expert in that topic, it doesn't lend a lot of credibility to the research that you're doing. Doesn't mean that you're wrong, no, but…you got to cut off somewhere, can't read everything, right?"

[@helburr]

You should upload a 1 hour conversation but have it on repeat so it's 9 hours long.

[@exoplanet11]

Dunning-Kruger + Straw Man Fallacy = Apologetics

[@ChaseCarman13]

First time listening, y'all are awesome! Thank you!

[@HarryNicNicholas]

why don't they just get jesus on their show? is jesus not really that bothered?

[@rainbowkrampus]

Apparently even Jesus has standards.

[@istvansipos9940]

they tried to. With very loud "Djeezus" shouts. Sadly, Yeshua had no real chance to recognize his name. The same happened in Hungarian movie industry. We tried to hire a certain Ketrec Miklós, and Nicholas Cage never contacted us. Somehow.

[@DigitalGnosis]

5:50 Weird that two guys who made talking about this their careers and have book stacks that take >9h to read behind them consider this stuff a "waste of time"

[@philm7758]

The "waste of time" is trying to convince Michael Jones specifically.

[@vegadog3053]

What I see is a clash between ancient Jewish apologists, who wrote and redactrd accounts to show how their people had a legal claim upon the holy land according to the laws and morals of their time, against contemporary Christian apologist ,who rely upon the inerrancy of the Bible, trying to retell the stories according to the morals and ethics of today. The legal possession of the land was what was most important to the ancient Jewish authors. The infallible Bible is what is most important to American Protestantism. Ancient people understood if you lost the battle you lost you claim on the land. We dont see it that way now. Greater violence doesn't settle things legally to us. You gentlemen are caught in an argument that isn't yours. That is why it is confusing. But, I appreciate your insights and scholaraly participation. Everytime we get closer to a more correct understanding of what happened.

[@jjjccc728]

Authenticity, Authority, and the Nature of Expertise A recurring theme in the conversation is the question of authenticity and authority. Davis and Bowen readily acknowledge their limitations in specific fields like archaeology or Egyptology, emphasizing their reliance on the work of subject matter experts. They prioritize transparency and clarity in presenting their arguments, making a distinction between personal opinions and conclusions based on scholarly consensus. Jones and Faulk, on the other hand, often speak with a level of confidence that exceeds their demonstrated expertise, particularly in areas outside their specific fields of study. This approach raises concerns about their representation of scholarly consensus and their tendency to dismiss or downplay dissenting views. The sources suggest that a critical approach to the biblical text, informed by a deep understanding of its historical and literary context, offers a more accurate and nuanced understanding of the events surrounding the conquest of Canaan. While apologists may seek to harmonize the biblical account with external evidence, their interpretations often appear strained and fail to account for the complexities of the archaeological and historical record.

[@Zictomorph]

Ah yes, I also list scholastic qualifications and then yell "He was a Muslim!" as if it's relevant.

[@Terminator550]

Peer reviewed scholarship work is not bulletproof. It is suppose to help reduce bias; however, it is still a flawed system.

[@alejandrovallejo4330]

It’s like these apologists have never heard of Brandolini’s Law or the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle.

[@theunknownatheist3815]

Is that the one that says it takes much longer to debunk bullshit than to spread it? 😂

[@alejandrovallejo4330]

@ yep 😂 Steven mentions it at the start.

[@brianroyster7510]

@@alejandrovallejo4330 never heard of it???? They base their entire careers on it. Not only do they know it they add the phrase "cha-ching" to it.

[@pererau]

It is heartening to me that a 165 minute video that is basically just 3 nerds nerding out on dense scholarly topics can get 64k views and counting. As a layman, I couldn't follow everything, but it was still super helpful to get the gist of scholarly consensus and see the tricks and traps that dishonest apologetics employs. Thanks for making this!

[@maninalift]

Was the release of this coordinated with myth vision? Both releasing long dismantlings of IP within an hour of eachother

[@martinelzen5127]

Steven et al, thanks for all of the work and effort!

[@Nkosi766]

Arguing with ppl who believe the talking donkey book is real makes no sense

[@alexritchie4586]

Brandolini's Law: The amount of effort required to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude greater than that required to produce it.

[@Maxrepfitgm]

Lmao 😂 you actually made the mp3 lol! I thought you were joking you mad man! 😂

[@Sixtra]

This is the third video-stream with Kipp today and the second with Joshua today 🤘😅😂

[@teachnola10]

And there’s a discussion on Alex O’Conner’s channel that now has me flipping between four different videos that i have to watch in about five minute chunks so I don’t forget about the other three.

[@Devious_Dave]

It's sad that apologists are so confident as to sidestep the need to study more deeply. It may please their followers but, to outsiders, the likes of IP come across as shallow & even childish. Why not aim to impress non-believers? - surely that would inevitably raise their standards & finally gain some respect from those with relevant expertise.

[@livejadelive]

Oh I think we both know why. But I 100% see where youre coming from though and agree.

[@stauffap]

They aren't confident. They know that the reason they believe is primarily faith. Their arguments are just there to not make them look like fools. They are defending their positions against outgroups. To appear knowledgable in the subjects they are talking about it's usefull for them to appear confident. It's much more convincing to say "scholars agree that X is the case" then saying "according to my research so far as a non-expert, it seems to me like...", which would be the honest thing to do as a non-expert. Another clue is that they complain about the long replies. A person, who is really interested in truth has no problem with a 9 hour argument. It's very clear though, that people, who just pretend to be interested in truth will have a problem with a 9 hour reply. I mean, if you are really interested in a subject then you have no problem dedicating your life to it. For example, i was always interested in understanding the world. So i went to university and studied physics and chemistry and i still study it today in my free time, because i want to know.

[@prof_renzo]

Slow down guys, I still haven't finished the other 3 hours video feat. Kipp Davis and Joshua Bowen that was uploaded today (on Paulogia)

[@buckadoz]

The idea that apologists smokescreen with confidence I believe is singularly responsible for philosophy's horrendous reputation among atheists who enter this debate from a primarily scientific background. The biggest example is how often apologists assert that objective morality is only explained by theism, while most moral philosophers are moral realists who don't think the answer is god. Almost every philosophical corollary of religion is a fringe position among relevant philosophers.

[@Glass-io9bq]

Any atheist philosopher (Or atheist who is educated in philosophy) should cringe at most pop atheists who try to argue confidently about it. Now, why most philosophers are moral realists (And what precisely they mean by that) is an issue onto itself, but the existence of physicalists who are moral realists doesn't mean it's a coherent or defensible positions. Experts are wrong all the time, and for some inscrutable reason many philosophers have just married themselves to physicalism. And honestly, to date the best argument I've heard for physicalist moral realism is the claim that we inherently experience pleasure as good, so whatever physical state correlates to pleasure must be the thing we should maximize. Which is not really much of an argument. So if you're aware of any actual physicalist arguments for moral realism that don't involve a good dose of smoke and mirrors, then feel free to share them. (And yes, apologists who conflate physicalism with atheism when making things like the moral argument are being very sloppy, hence why I specify here.)

[@CharlesPayet]

0:18 LOL Josh spitting truth bombs straight outta the gate. 😂

[@adolfocastanon1880]

I hate how these apologists try to dump on the work of academics that have investigated all their lives just to try to justify their myths. They can’t engage with the data seriously.

[@Pabimra85]

I see videos like Michaels and my reaction is always "ughhh" but right after that it's always "why bother?" I don't have the time, training, patience or knowledge to actually fact check all of the "sounds like bullshit" you hear. I'm so grateful that you DO bother! It is a necessary waste of time to say no to this type of bullshit! Keep at it Stephen! Also, never chop off that magnificent head of hair you've got, you wonderful ape you!

[@michaelbell3181]

Great content guys!

[@exoplanet11]

These apologists are crazy. First they go against all reason to prove that the conquest happened, then they go against all morality to claim that genocide is good. Don't they see the easy out? Just say "we agree w/ the scholars, this never happened. So it must all be a metaphor for something."

[@seekingtruthgaming8887]

I think some do. I think most of the stories are about nephilim, and the entire conquest narrative starts with that.(Numb 13:33) Hence Joshua ends his narrative with "there are no more Anakim in the land" Obviously no giants existed so the story is merely a allegory to explain some theological truth of some sort.

[@FuddlyDud]

Around 26:30, I’m loving Dr. Kipp’s focusing on the scholarship! That said, the summary right here sounds like a possible conquest and Judges period that sounds cohesive with Jones and Falk’s model. Am I missing something? :)

[@RamadaDiver-w9o]

Nope

[@apollo8352]

What I really struggle with is for over a thousand years people have been doing doctorates of theology or equivalent. And either they have lying or not even bothering to take any interest in what is written in the bible. There are all those nice verses in Samuel about gay marriages, gay love being WONDERFUL, gay love being so great two souls become one... Or John, Jesus special friend, the one he loved.... Genesis certainly tells as Gods original plan did not include women, who were very much made as an after thought out of a spare rib from Adam or Steve when the plants and animals would not serve man. Yet knowing all that they still condemned homosexuals! They could read Acts 9:7 and compare it to Acts 22:9 and see Paul/Saul never had a conversion encounter that was anything more than a liars lies! Yet they peddled Paul's testimony even when he claimed to be quoting Jesus whom Paul never meet....to spite telling them in Galatians 1:11-16 none ofbthe information in Paul's scriptures came from any eye witnesses, any other person or any other source...which also rules out being divinely inspired ! Obviously from what I have learnt a doctorate of theology is something more appropriate to being issued by monty as the issuing authority!

[@Ikonicre_Moonshield]

Expired Sophistry and Dr Falkwaad. *straps in and grabs the popcorn*

[@epicofatrahasis3775]

Religious people, stick with critical scholarship, not dishonest apologists. How many times does this need to be said? Critical scholars will follow the data where it leads and accept conclusions that go against their beliefs, whereas apologists will not. So who are the honest ones? Don’t just stick with apologists because they tell you what you want to hear and because you want the Bible to be true. Undertake a proper academic, objective study of the Bible. Start with the below articles. *"Studying the Bible"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei (This particular article from a critical Biblical scholar highlights how the authors of the Hebrew Bible used their *fictional* god as a mouthpiece for their own views and ideologies) *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei

[@TheProphetofLogic]

Michael realizes that the majority of its subscribers don't have the attention span to watch something 9 hours long or even 90 minutes long.

[@heruraha93]

Insipid Sophistry stays losing

[@zehkiel8018]

People like this make me hate the word servant. They were enslaved, guy. They were slaves. Made to be slaves by the people you're praising. I don't care that it was normal for the time, your book supposedly is supposed to be stable for all of time.

[@dayniasykora7213]

Michael should set aside some time to skim some basic anthropology because he really, really misunderstands everything about physical remains. By his lights I should literally be tripping over skeletons on my way to the mailbox.

[@chinkasuyaro8983]

Two minutes in, and I've already learned 'Brandolini's law'. Thanks, Steve!

[@ThisDonut]

Theres no bad faith like christian faith

[@pauldaly9006]

This well represents a basic problem of the internet. The old saying "a lie can get around the world before the truth can put on its pants" is expanded a million fold. A lie can get a million clicks before the truth can even start the debunking process.

[@Zeupater]

Sucks doing people’s homework for them.

[@DigitalHammurabi]

It’s Zeupater!!!!! Hi!!!! How are you doing??

[@Zeupater]

Hello!! Getting by. I hope you’re all well. 😀

[@ezbody]

Michael Jones is a "have my cake and eat it, too" kind of a Christian. He is like a very devout Flat-Earther who believes in a ball Earth and respects science, at the same time.

[@GodEqualstheSquaRootof-1]

IP = insipid Philosophy

[@rainbowkrampus]

Insipid Pedantry*

[@DrKippDavis]

No, no. "Insipid Sophistry."

[@Kelley_X]

Insipid Panderer

[@shiroskull2029]

You guys do the gods work

[@stauffap]

I guess that they would call praying for 9 hours in church super deep and spiritual, but dealing with facts for 9 hours is just a waste of time. This makes sense of course, if you assume that believe is the reason they are part of their religion and that consciously put believe first i.e. it's their primary reason for being part of a religion. Blind belief comes first and the "arguments" are a way to not appear foolish and confuse people just enough to not look foolish or just enough to make debunking hard enough or time consuming enough that either people won't watch the debunking.

[@joerdim]

This IP guy is a conman. He tries hard to maintain this fake image of a reasonable, agreeable, educated, morally superior and well mannered son-in-law. I like how you people expose his true colors.

[@SOX-9]

Lol. If you trust this crazy channel, you need your brain checked.

[@Nai61a]

joe etc: I have long been of the opinion that his anger stems from a realisation that he is flogging a dead horse. He is intellectually astute enough to know that his "God" belief is without good, credible foundation. But his income now depends on his apologetics. I suppose it's cognitive bias personified.

[@SOX-9]

@Nai61a lol. He is happy in most of his videos, and I think the issue is that people like you do not understand when good arguments for God are made. Also, I do not know a single argument that clearly shows there is no God.

[@joerdim]

@@Nai61a Yep. Apologists depending on the income they generate with their content is a big issue.

[@joerdim]

@@SOX-9 No one cares. The burden of proof is on the theist to show that a god exists. There is just nothing that warrants belief in a god. It's usually embarrassing stuff like personal experience why theist believe in this crap. If aliens would land tomorrow I would be ashamed to have to admit that I am of the same species as gullible people like you.

[@mindymild]

If I didn’t know better Michael and David are a part of a ploy to get people to watch all’yalls videos.

[@Akindmind-oe7ol]

Thanks for the incredibly irritating ringtone. 😭

[@falsebeliever8079]

I once mocked William L. Craig for dedicating over an hour to respond to Steven. The christians rightly called me out for such a poor argument. I wonder what they are thinking about the current discource.

[@MsJavaWolf]

16:00 That's not a contradiction. There can be overwhelming evidence that it was a historical event and the consensus can just be wrong. He also didn't say that opinion has shifted, he said it IS shifting, that's completely consistent with it still being a minority view, though it might become the majority view in the future.

[@RoninTF2011]

But there isn't evidence....so what is supposed to shift any consensus?

[@MsJavaWolf]

@@RoninTF2011 I haven't watched the whole video. Inspiring Philosophy might be interpreting the evidence incorrectly or just lying for all I know, but it's still not a logical contradiction, it would just be a false claim.

[@soonerarrow]

He knows the truth. He is just lying.

[@Terminator550]

All you guys did was found scholars that agreed with your narrative, and you guys did not examine the methodology used by the sources stated in this video.

[@anormal-3d]

I would love it if rationality rules replied to my comment 😅

[@obiwanshinobi87]

I used to like IP until I saw that he censors people in his chat that ask genuine questions or valid info... that's why he hides his chat on his lives when it's uploaded... Pretty sad tbh

[@chandlerking6438]

I have had this happen quite often. I noticed that he gets a lot with data wrong, and whenever I comment on something that would destroy his points, he deletes it (I’m getting a PhD in Educational Research, so I deal with data a lot!).

[@ironicnation3553]

IP is the goat.

[@jamierichardson7683]

Come on. Don't make retorts this easy

[@Screwball.78]

Dr. Kipp, Dr. Josh, and Steve are my spirit animal.

[@calebaronhalt3242]

That was the most sincere crying I've ever seen. Well done Team Rationality. You destroyed IP.

[@FuddlyDud]

Around 34:20, I love your contextualized contention Dr. Kipp! However, why wasn’t this in your original response to Jones? Why is this the first time I’m hearing you say this in the 2nd livestream response in a chain of technically 3 responses? :/

[@doofusrick5998]

Legend says that every time Michael is dishonest his voice cracks

[@beedub_]

That can’t possibly be true, his voice doesn’t crack NEARLY that often

[@davidnrose2135]

Being wrong is easy. Being right is hard

[@TheBullgang]

I wish you’d scrutinize Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism, and any other from of religious thought

[@Quebolas]

Yea but in our side of the world Christianity is who does most damage

[@fellowgoyimwhite7630]

Theres way less stuff to scrutinize about brahmanic religions thant abrahamic

[@unduloid]

He already has a full-time job refuting the Christian BS.

[@thedeebo410]

Cry more.

[@4Mr.Crowley2]

Christianity and its nutcases dominate the U. S. and the U. K. hence this channel’s focus on Christianity in particular. I’m quite sure you can research other religions and their apologetics.

[@stauffap]

I recognize the same tactic from when you talk about climate science. You prove to someone that global warming has to be man made. They then say "show me the calculation" and then you explain why that's impractical (because you need to write a small program on a computer to do the calculation), then they come back and still want the calculation, then you show them the calculations, which is a lot of material and then they say that they won't read it, because it's too much. Well, no kidding! It's almost like i said from the beginning that it's too much, which is the reason why it can't be done as a hobby. But of course they'll dismiss it anyway even when you show them how we know that the calculations are correct. You just can't win when you're dealing with people, who aren't actually REALLY interested in truth. If they were interested, then they would have studied the subject and they would be willing to spend a lot of time understanding it.