Christians DESTROYED my Hypothesis! (Capturing Christianity response)

[@rodbrewster4629]

Never bring logic to a magic fight.

[@redpillpusher]

😂

[@Jcs57]

Never underestimate the power of a logical fallacy in the hands of a master.

[@zemorph42]

I don't know. Logic is a part of physics and a magician who understands the physics of their world could be devastatingly effective.

[@annestephens9631]

Chuckle at the Kung Fu of the Pharisees -- Ecclesgooniastes 3.14159...

[@JoyRBradford]

Right on! You are hilarious! Thank you! 👍😊

[@markrothenbuhler6232]

R.I.P. the recently demolished Paulogia. I have faith that he will be resurrected in KZbin video format three days later. Become a witness by being a subscriber.

[@omnikevlar2338]

Does this mean he will change his name to Saulogia?

[@Eric-cj8sb]

​@@omnikevlar2338nice one. Lol.

[@counterpoiseag6068]

It’s true. I’ve subscribed. But only I can see the channel or communicate what Saulogia says. It’s all in accordance with the prophecy

[@Soapy-chan]

I was subscribed long before I had evidence for that, meaning my comments under his videos count as scripture.

[@madamsloth]

Amen 😂

[@Soapy-chan]

"how dare you try to provide an explanation from a naturalistic perspective that doesn't include supernatural events"

[@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn]

Which is an accusation that could be levelled at every historian of the last 1,000 years.

[@Jcs57]

I used my authentic replica Harry Potter magic wand to create this whole reality just today with false memories imprinted in everyone’s mind. My assertion is reliable and above reproach and any thoughts that I’m making this up were also imprinted in your mind by my magic to cause confusion for observational experimentation.

[@utubepunk]

​@@Jcs57Damn. You're good!

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

@@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn Cameron would be the right candidate to try that and accuse everybody not automatically taking supernatural mumbo jumbo as granted of a giant bias against magical thinking... despite not being able to prove one singular miracle himself... i think he even still defends the Shroud of Turin as authentic, ignoring that the image on it is not even 3 dimensional as it would have to be if an actual body left it behind, even unmiraculously, but much more so with the "official" (Shroud fan) theory of the body exuding celestial light and burning the image in...

[@CharlesPayet]

@@Jcs57if only you knew how I caused you to do that with my power as a Maia, given to me by The One, Ilúvatar, in the Great Music before time began.

[@oddjam]

I tolerated unfair persecution of Paul for over an hour. Pretty sure that makes me a martyr.

[@dohpam1ne]

lmfao

[@utubepunk]

Ha! Nice!

[@lylez00]

Him too.

[@riseofdarkleela]

at this time there’s 105 witnesses clicking the like as is our creed

[@utubepunk]

@@riseofdarkleela So if we get over 500 likes, we win, it becomes true & we beat Christianity. That's how this works, right?

[@dohpam1ne]

"here's my hypothesis for why the Biblical account of Jesus's death is wrong" "that hypothesis can't be right, it contradicts the Bible"

[@flamboulder]

It is profound honestly 🙄

[@bigburrito308]

You can't look at anything objectively if you presuppose opinions that aren't true 😂

[@mtdouthit1291]

This was a golden opportunity to use the “for the Bible tells me so” jingle over and over! Because all they did to “counter” you was just restate the Bible!

[@Julian0101]

I though you were joking about the beginning of the video... But yeah, most of their 'rebuttals' were impliying on how paul was "ignoring" the bible as a source of history for the bible's fable.

[@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn]

They kept talking about "historical accounts" and "source materials", then I realized they meant the bible!

[@Jcs57]

Because the Bible tells me so buttressed with the corroborating bald assertion.

[@robertadsett5273]

Well, that and tradition

[@haydenwalton2766]

before cameron speaks I have to take the batteries out of my irony alarm

[@davidhoffman6980]

How ironic is it that men who believe in resurrections and supernatural fish and bread copy-pastes are calling the idea of a religious conversion due to guilt "implausible."

[@7126RevPeR]

Also known as ctrl+c and ctrl+v for those who think those are magical functions and not physically naturalistic functions possible by visually and physically realistic functions and not just some magical function doable with mouse clicks and just coded magic. Not like the resurrection. 😂

[@shassett79]

Oh no! An "anti-supernaturalistic philosophical assumption?" So, like... a worldview based on his priors and the demonstrable experience of everyone alive today? _You only reject my hypothesis that a leprechaun drank the last beer because of your anti-supernaturalistic philosophical assumptions!!"_

[@emmanuel1337]

Pseudo-intellectuals gonna pseudo-intellectualize lol.

[@Jcs57]

@@emmanuel1337Amen

[@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv]

Did Paulogia take into account supercalifragilisticexpialidocious ? No, Checkmate Paulogia.

[@shassett79]

@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv Paulogia failed to consider the alternative hypothesis that The Great Gazoo caused the entire universe and everything in it to appear last week for his own amusement. Quick, someone prove I'm wrong!

[@RobotProctor]

He also wasn't even doing that.. ehrman was

[@MetaphorUB]

Why do these dudes open by complaining about not knowing how to pronounce “Paulogia”? It’s at the beginning of literally *every* video Paul makes. This is really insincere, especially coming from Cameron. He knows damn well how to pronounce it.

[@Fade2GrayOG]

It's a rule that every apologist must open their video by feigning ignorance of how to pronounce Paulogia whenever discussing him.

[@mtdouthit1291]

It’s called poisoning the well

[@Jcs57]

@@mtdouthit1291It also coveys the message their review of the subject material and author was cursory at best.

[@Dadtheimpaler]

Yeah, I have to concur that it's likely done intentionally, which is dishonest and sad. It reminds me of Republican politicians referring to the "Democrat Party" instead of the "Democratic Party". They know exactly what they're doing.

[@RAXTSFK]

It’s because for them, this is largely an emotional exercise

[@sobertillnoon]

I feel like when they can't pronounce your name, it's them telling on themselves that they've never actually watched one of your videos.

[@13shadowwolf]

It's extremely telling to their level of Honesty, when they repeatedly "can't pronounce" Paulogia. They aren't actually addressing what other people say, they are ONLY regurgitating the phrases that maintain their belief structures. Their arguments are based on modern interpretation of ancient mythology, and their methods demonstrate they don't have any valid arguments.

[@sobertillnoon]

@@13shadowwolf yeah, but the way that Jimmy guy pronounces Josephus makes me think that maybe he's just not very smart.

[@13shadowwolf]

@@sobertillnoon very true, it's really easy to memorize pro-belief statements and base a personality around regurgitation of those statements. The majority of the human species never really thinks about why they have particular beliefs, which is why religion is so prevalent, Faith doesn't take any real Thought to maintain.

[@Dadtheimpaler]

​@@13shadowwolf If they're going to rebut his video, the absolute least they can do is listen to enough of his material to learn the correct pronunciation. They're either extraordinarily lazy or outright disrespectful.

[@13shadowwolf]

@@Dadtheimpaler cognitive dissonance forces them to be both lazy and disrespectful, so they can maintain their beliefs.

[@tnypxl]

I love how every time they intentionally flub the name. This is how you know they don’t plan on engaging the merits of the arguments.

[@martin2289]

Disingenuous right out of the gate. Pretty typical for apologists, actually.

[@13shadowwolf]

Cameron has never shown much in the way of being honest in their interactions with other ideas.

[@bodricthered]

It's getting to the point of being as clear a signal as using 'evidences'.

[@WorkingFromHomeToday452]

It's called poisoning the well. It primes their audience to not take Paul seriously.

[@granthicks2030]

I also like how one of them corrects another for using the standard pronunciation of "Josephus" with the accent on the second syllable.

[@whatevername8551]

LMAO - "it wasn't decades later, it was, uh, 20 years." It makes me question whether he's actually read the source material...

[@Jcs57]

Since he seems to not quite grasp the meaning of words would reading it or not provided any meaningful difference.

[@lubrew5862]

But the vague “decades” being plural is still correct. It’s not as accurate and was probably meant to deceive. But then again most apologists put honesty and intellectual integrity to the side because it okay when it comes to proselytizing for Jesus..

[@coast2coast00]

To be fair, the point was that it was less than 20 years, which would have to be less than multiple decades.

[@VeridicusMaximus]

Makes me wonder if he can actually read!

[@whatevername8551]

​@@coast2coast00I thought he said 53 AD or something, which would be right at 2 decades from their popular timeline

[@wilkimist]

The whole stream was a practice in how dishonest 3 Christians can be. Cameron questioning the relevance of Jesus existing shows how thoughtlessly he speaks. Paul is kind in addressing their criticism.

[@Fade2GrayOG]

Yeah, that was the moment I realized this panel had absolutely nothing to offer.

[@utubepunk]

100%. Paul always takes the high road in these back & forths. Their cope is tangible.

[@umairarshad1949]

The reaction to Jesus existing shows tthat Cameron went in expecting to fight. Cameron wasn't really trying to understand Paul's position

[@turnerturner3281]

Agreed, however I think Paul is handing out some SASS this time and I'm here for it :D

[@utubepunk]

@@turnerturner3281 Lol. Agreed. I too am here for some sass as well.

[@dougt7580]

You know if Cameron would just invite Jesus onto his podcast we could condense that 2 1/2 hours down to about 5 minutes. But then Cameron would be unemployed.

[@emmanuelpiscicelli6232]

For Cameron it's about the paycheck.

[@kellanstec]

Claiming a person is currently alive after being dead is an empirical claim. At least present an alive person.

[@glenn_r_frank_author]

I have always wondered how many "professional clergy" or "ministry businessesmen" like this struggle when they see the paper tiger they serve for what it is, but know if they denounce their faith they will be unemployed.

[@CharlesPayet]

@@glenn_r_frank_authorthere are probably a lot of them in The Clergy Project, hoping to find a way out.

[@Nymaz]

@@glenn_r_frank_author Check out the "Clergy Project", it's a support group for those who have lost their faith yet continue in their profession as religious leaders.

[@ramigilneas9274]

It won’t take long until Paul can simply respond with something like "The critic clearly isn’t familiar with my published work.“

[@Greyz174]

One million pages

[@scrumbobulus]

They laugh at the idea that someone could believe Jesus had risen after a bereavement hallucination, yet fully believe that Joesph took Mary as his wife because of an angel in his dreams.

[@HangrySaturn]

You postmodern neo-Marxist!

[@Uldihaa]

Well, they also believe that Rome took censuses of client states where the people there (not Roman citizens mind you) had to return to the land of their ancestors (for "reasons"). That said Rome was perfectly fine with the severe disruption this would cause as said people stopped working to make a trip that would keep them from working for as much as 5+ days, all to collect information that was worthless to Rome. Oh, and that there was not a single mention by any historian of the time of such a cluster-f of disruption(1). And that somehow the parents of Jesus were also simultaneously fleeing a king that ordered mass infanticide in his capital; no mention of a census appears in this story btw. (1) This sort of thing would have led to the formations of caravans as merchants offered space to all these traveling people; for a fee, of course. There would have been records, either Judean or Roman, for such an event. Even if my some chance not a single primary source survived to today, other Judean writers would have mentioned it even a century later.

[@shinobi-no-bueno]

They believe in ghosts. That's really all I need to know

[@alisaurus4224]

Yeah but the angel wasn’t a hallucination-it was REAL!!! ( 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄 )

[@tonedumbharry]

@@Uldihaa So far as the Roman census goes, this sort of thing is something that is recorded as happening, just not the census in question (source was Bart Ehrman, but I can't remenber which posting)..

[@thescoobymike]

When Matthew 27:9 confuses Jeremiah and Zechariah, Christians do mental gymnastics to find a way to justify it. When Paulogia accidentally types a wrong digit in his citation, it means his entire argument has been DESTROYED

[@germankolesnikov856]

Where does he confuse them?

[@kherevmikiel2486]

Matthew 27:9 attempts to quote Jeremiah and claims as such, but the passage quoted is actually from Zechariah not Jeremiah

[@donsheffler]

They didn’t “miss the point”. They consciously traveled around the point.

[@CharlesPayet]

So…they shot for the moon and completely missed the moon, every planet, every dwarf planet, every asteroid, and every object from the Kuiper Belt past the Oort Cloud?

[@northshoregirl8173]

"Paulogia's cherry picking doesn't match our cherry picking!" 😡

[@blue-pi2kt]

Of all the people to accuse of cherry picking though.....

[@greatcaesarsghostwriter3018]

"I'll stop lying about you when you stop telling the truth about me!"

[@w.a.r4623]

Exactly what I was thinking lmao

[@-TheUnkownUser]

Like, that’s implying a fallacy (unipolar fallacy) from Paulogia. The problem is that the whole exposition tends to be “one sided”, in itself. That unilateral approach sort to speak, doesn’t invalidate the argument. Neither makes it false. It would be fallacious if Paulogia said or implied that his arguments are the only ones valid. So, it is really troubling to accuse him in this case. It just shows the bad faith from Cameron and co…

[@EclecticPerson]

The point of Paulogia's "minimal witnesses" theory is that it's quite possible that the resurrection story emerged without any actual supernatural event having occurred. Thus, the case for an actual resurrection must be considered infinitely less plausible than a naturalistic explanation (such as Paulogia's "minimal witnesses" theory). Paulogia's theory is just one possible naturalistic explanation. There are many alternatives. A person could posit that the whole story was completely made up out of thin air. That is, it's pure fiction, just as the Christian apocrypha are also fiction and (in my view) ALL other religions are pure fiction too. There is, for example, not a shred of truth to the Book of Mormon, in most people's view. There wasn't a mistaken gold-colored object that Joseph Smith saw and no "mistaken" perception (or hallucination) of the Angel Moroni by Mr. Smith. There was simply nothing at all. Smith just made it all up. My own musing is that the Jesus resurrection story could've started with one of the disciples saying that "Jesus is still with us [in spirit]", after Jesus was crucified, and that's all it took to get the stories circulating that Jesus was still hanging around somewhere--risen from the dead. And then the narrative was honed and modified over time in the first few years after the crucifixion (orally, of course, initially), eventually resulting in the Bible story (which, of course, most Jews didn't buy into at all, at the time, and they still don't---Christianity, of course, was a small sect for a long time).

[@jrivera345]

You had a good run, Paul. 😢 see you at Church on Sunday.

[@uncleanunicorn4571]

I have faith.His career will be resurrected in three days.

[@pansepot1490]

😂

[@elephant_888]

Ignore all of this if you have real problems and religion gives you comfort, then stay faithful and believing. Otherwise, if you honestly thought that was a defense of the resurrection, you actually need to study more of your scripture not less. Start with reading through the 4 gospels in detail, start to finish, and then compare and contrast the stories before reading about the synoptic problem.

[@homotheticwren]

@@elephant_888 Pretty sure OP was joking.

[@johnhunter4]

ROFL

[@cuzned1375]

I’m still mystified by people who say they watched a Paulogia video , and they know they can _demolish_ every argument in it, but somehow didn’t hear the name Paulogia at any point in that process.

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

Shouldn't be. It’s obviously meant to discredit him to their audience.

The BALLS on those guys to act as if YOU have to defend your position, given their beliefs.

[@Drak_Thedp]

However, here they critique HIS positive assertion that the church could originate in a specific way without the need for a resurrection. Although I agree that their critique is on par with children throwing poop at a scientist.

[@chinkasuyaro8983]

But it makes sense, given that most Christian scholars believe that their position is rational. Especially the ones who have promised in writing not to entertain any alternative hypotheses. Physical/fiscal/social/philosophical/temporal investment in and dependence upon a proposition cannot POSSIBLY lead to bias. /s

[@magicpigfpv6989]

To be fair one of them is a red head…. /s/

[@mythicalducky]

​@@magicpigfpv6989yeah red heads suck *hides bleach and black dye behind my back* Imagine being a red head*nervous laughter*

[@nathanaelgazzard7989]

​@@mythicalduckyIve always wanted red hair

[@NoStringsAttachedPrd]

1:01:00 Paulogia: "Paul might've felt bad for killing people and had a post-bereavement hallucinatory experience" Cameron, advocating on the side of magic: "What strikes me is how implausible this is... You might as well postulate aliens, or time travellers, just add in a whole bunch of other stuff. Nah, it's easier to say Jesus rose from the dead, much simpler!" I don't know what to even say to that. I think I'll just point at it in astonishment

[@thomaslehner5605]

Actually, aliens are much more believable than the resurrection story.

[@kevincrady2831]

@@thomaslehner5605 Exactly! By all means, be skeptical of aliens, but we have countless photographs of flying saucers, indentations in the ground where they (allegedly) landed, documented radar-visual sightings (in which a UFO was seen visibly and detected on radar), thousands of eyewitnesses who are alive and can be interviewed today, and even Congressional hearings with government insiders claiming that we have crashed alien spacecraft. If you reject this evidence for aliens (as the guys in the Christian panel do) then you have to reject the far more paltry "evidence" in favor of Jesus' resurrection.

[@joshridinger3407]

the most likely explanation is that paul was just a faurly normal helenized jew who converted to christianity and then just made up the whole backstory of persecuting christians. modern day christians do this kind of shit all the time, making exaggerated claims or outright lies that they used to be militant atheists or hardcore criminals or drug addicts or whatever. usually the truth is that at most they went through an edgy teenage 'skeptic' phase or they had some moderate first world problems for a few years

[@mesplin3]

I don't see any issue. My neighbor Frank, who is definitely a real person, rose from the dead last Thursday.

[@donnievance1942]

@@thomaslehner5605 Yep. The possible existence of aliens doesn't a priori violate descriptive natural law.

[@johnthemachine]

Former catholic here, my favorite aspect of videos like this is the existential nature of Christian responses. They try and act cool and collected but it’s so obvious that their entire lives/worldviews are essentially on the line when responding to content like yours. You can clearly see they’re having a fear response to your information. I’d love a psychological analysis of what these Christian guys are going through mentally while trying to debunk you.

[@LuisGonzalez-oy3ku]

Perhaps the simplest description is Cognitive Dissonance.

[@pansepot1490]

That would actually be interesting. I can’t never be sure how much is dumb, how much is cognitive dissonance, how much is grift.

[@martifingers]

Hi John. I know what you are saying and broadly agree. However there are problems with this approach - both ethical and intellectual (the analysis can equally be done on either side!) But overall I agree it's the elephant in the room in many of these discussions (cf the "Low Bar Bill" incident of a little while ago) and it is worth thinking about how it could be initiated. FWIW I have been very influenced in recent years by the ideas of Terror Management Theory and the work of Ernest Becker et al. It is easy to apply this in a mechanistic way - in fact there is a lot of subtlety involved.

[@cypress_piper]

When eternal conscious torment is on the line how can anyone afford to risk a healthy skepticism?

[@JosephKano]

​@cypress_piper *slow blink* pascals wager. LOL. FFS really.

[@SnakeWasRight]

Theyre not getting that it doesnt matter whether you use the Bible or not. The challenge was to explain the existence Christianity without the supernatural. Paul is free to pick and choose which parts of the bible would have happened for a plausible naturalistic explanation. Their contention is that it CANNOT be done without invoking the supernatural, but they're complaining that he isnt taking supernatural claims to be reliable... like wtf

[@bodricthered]

But remember, their paychecks rely on not understanding

[@SnakeWasRight]

@@bodricthered well, I'd say they believe their eternal soul relies on it. If they can keep pretending they're going to live forever, then they don't have to face mortality.

[@artemisia4718]

Apologists are trained to repeat stuff, it takes a while for them to come up with new excuses. Paul’s hypothesis is fairly new on the scene (at least the way he frases it) so apologists are just recycling tired resurrection talking points instead of facing Paul’s theory directly.

[@ScientiaHistoria]

Well said - the point I kept thinking to myself: the apologist exercise is not the Paulogia exercise. He needs only to demonstrate (a) each step is plausible and (b) when linked together form a plausible explanation of what we observe as Christianity. And there could be thousands of such plausible scenarios (one could true making the other ones wrong…it doesn’t matter. ) By contrast, the Apologists need to show their claim is in fact true, so they think that’s what Paul has to do as well. Totally missing the point.

[@SnakeWasRight]

@@ScientiaHistoria yup, all Paul is saying is that there are other possibilities, while they claim there is no other possibility. To equate the burden of proof here is just absurd.

[@StarfishPrime-yt2iv]

6 minutes in and Paul has already summarized their entire stream. I don't know how you remain friendly with these people. They are so incredibly dishonest, it's disgusting.

[@Jcs57]

To be fair their job and job description is Lying For Jesus guys gotta pay the bills not much different than used car salesmen and lawyers.

[@aldebaran4154]

The one thing I like about these people is they are so desperate that they're doing the opposite of what they want, helping to create more atheists. Keep up the good work, apologist!

[@Phourc]

​@aldebaran4154 lol I hope many more christians can see the bullshit for what it is. The absolute weakness of apologetics was a small part in my own deconversion process, so it definitely happens. :P

[@CH4R10T_TV]

​@@aldebaran4154That's an interesting observation. They're putting on the armor of god, except it's an iron maiden. Oof.

[@Azaziel21]

So if a man came to me and said that he was born, then he died, and then he came back to life, but I choose to only believe the first claim, am I cherry-picking facts?

[@Jcs57]

If he followed the introduction with _must have warm brains_ than I would say yes you were cherry picking.

[@user-pn8ke3kf5f]

Yes because [apologist NPC dialogue about David Hume].

[@timbrubaker1787]

Damn right! You're cherry-picking the one that's true from the obviously false ones. How do you not see that?

[@themattylee]

The thing that's particularly wild to me, as an ex-Mormon, is that all of the reasons they give to prove the sincerity of Peter and Paul apply equally to Joseph Smith. And yet they have no problem doubting his sincerity despite the persecution and martyrdom and multiple attestation and group appearances. I even give early apostles the benefit of calling them "well intentioned liars", a courtesy not typically extended to early Mormons.

[@Uryvichk]

The only difference between Peter/Paul and Joseph Smith is that newspapers existed in the 1800s and more people were literate and thus able to write about their experiences. Flip those two around in the historical record and they'd be saying similar things about Peter and Paul and saying skeptics are morons for believing the golden plates weren't real.

[@philm7758]

​@@Uryvichk With the rabid search for, and viscous attack on, any heretical work in the last 2,000 years, it is likely that if such a document had existed, the church would have destroyed it.

[@cemreomerayna463]

@@Uryvichk Agreed. Christians aren't aware that the reliability of the extant evidence for some faith claims (especially the modern ones) actually surpass the reliability of the NT extensively.

[@timothyloveridge4051]

Fellow ex-mormon here, they are really good at pointing out everyone else's flaws, but they never point it internally, why would they, they "know" that they already have the truth, their job is to reaffirm that truth

[@TorianTammas]

"Philosophical uninformed" What does that even mean for a work of greek-roman literature in which people turn water into wine.

[@Uldihaa]

It's pseudo-intellectual babbling. They're trying to sound more learned than they actually are.

[@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn]

"Philosophically uninformed" and "Lack of familiarity with the source materials" is ripped right out of William Lane Craig's playbook. The king of sounding profound while prattling nonsense.

[@Julian0101]

Lately in apologism it simply means 'you dont have the same press upositions as i have, therefore you are wrong '.

[@ramigilneas9274]

The new trend is to make the ridiculous claim that if a miracle happened isn’t a question of history… instead it’s a question of philosophy. Sure… let’s ask a philosopher like Low Bar Bill who unironically thinks that it’s possible that many jewish saints rose from the dead and appeared to many people instead of asking a trained historian who evaluates the data by applying the historical method.

[@PonyJammin]

How many times have these people responded to you? And they act like they've never heard of you every single time.

[@fieldrequired283]

It's all optics. They have to look like they're above Paulogia to prime their audience to find his arguments non-credible. If they engaged with him respectfully, their audience might accidentally look at the arguments on their own merits instead of dismissing them outright. It's the same reason they have to insult and belittle him at every turn. They have to prime the audience (and themselves) to dismiss everything he says outright _before_ they risk hearing a compelling argument.

[@timbrubaker1787]

@@fieldrequired283 Very well put. Apologists aren't participating in a free exchange of ideas, they're attempting to keep as many christians as possible crammed into their little information bubble so they never find out the truth.

[@SnappyWasHere]

The worst part of listening to apologists is the casual insults and belittling they do when talking about someone they disagree with. It shows the type of people they are.

[@bigskypioneer1898]

To be fair, I'm guilty of this too... but name calling is the first BIG sign the opposition doesn't have an argument based on merits.

[@JGM0JGM]

@@bigskypioneer1898 Yeah, but to be honest, it so difficult not to belittle a fully grown adult who believes that some dude walked on water 2,000 years ago because it says so in a book...

[@juanbetancourtg68]

They’re intellectually limited, what do you expect?

[@joe19912]

​@@robertwarner-ev7wpThey could do better by just saying "you gotta have faith". By now they fully understand they cannot win by facts or logic.

[@jdevlin1910]

@@robertwarner-ev7wp What would be useful though? Its morals are generally awful throughout. We have long since moved past anything it may have had to say.

[@aliasfakename4533]

How is it that no one who responds to your videos can pronounce "Paulogia" despite them hearing you pronounce it at the beginning of the video they presumably watched?

[@shassett79]

My uncharitable assessment is that they're doing it deliberately as a subtle ad hom to demonstrate that they don't spend much time considering Paul's arguments and are otherwise above him.

[@Callum679]

Yeah. It's so obvious what the play on words is well, even if you never hear Paul say it.

[@Julian0101]

I suppose that happens when someone is just waiting to hear key words instead of actually listening to the argument.

[@shassett79]

I would enjoy Paul making a big show of not being able to pronounce their names, lol. "Cam-camaro?... jacuzzi? Jime-y Ack-ine? Or whatever? Anyway...."

[@shassett79]

​@@jaimefernandez2624In my imagination, he'd be doing it as a joke for us, complete with a big stage wink. Everyone would realize that he was just making fun of their weird inability to say his name; just a little fun.

[@michaelsbeverly]

Ten minutes in....these guys are either really dishonest, really naive, or just so indoctrinated they cannot fairly evaluate a recipe for pancakes.

[@EclecticPerson]

I expect it's often a combination of multiple things: dumbness, naivety (i.e., lacking critical thinking skills), grifting/self-interest (their career and earnings depend on their believing falsehoods and ignoring facts and logic), and indoctrination (they can't even imagine a world where ALL religions, including their own, were just made up stories).

[@UK_Canuck]

How utterly frustrating to have had to sit through 2½ hours of that. Paul, I commend your fortitude.

[@stiimuli]

It is utterly fascinating that, this many years in, having dealt with you and your videos so often, apologists still find it so difficult to pronounce Paulogia.....even when others in the same video with them are telling them how its pronounced! As i've said before, its looking more and more intentional.

[@wadeheaton123]

Antisupernaturalist? Bad Paul. Bad Paul. Here, have some Kool-Aid.

[@michaelhenry1763]

Let’s fun, grant the supernatural. We still cannot grant the resurrection. Why? Because no where in the Hebrew Bible does YHWH raise a human from the dead for a sacrifice for sin.

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

@@michaelhenry1763Let’s even be more fun. How do we know that it was this god that resurrected him from the dead and not Loki as a joke?

[@mads2357]

I love W.L.C just granting that the guard might be made up to refute a point, while not seeing that the tombs existance in the first place might be the same. I know it was just one of your asides, but that clip baffles me every time.

[@Krikenemp18]

Low-Bar Bill is constantly lowering the bar in all aspects.

[@donnievance1942]

The "empty tomb" is their big evidence for the resurrection, when in fact there is nothing but a tale of a tomb.

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

@@Krikenemp18If he lowered it any farther, oceanographers could use it to travel down to the Marianas Trench.

[@Oswlek]

It's funny that apologists today are so willing - nay, _eager_ - to lie for their religion, yet I'm supposed to think religious fervor 2,000 years ago would have compelled historical accuracy?

[@thedarknessthatcomesbefore4279]

Yeah, them guys 2000 years ago never ever lied or made stuff up 😂😂😂

[@23Hiya]

You're a hero Paul. These people act in such bad faith that I cannot imagine engaging with them regularly in any way. I could not do your job.

[@Rhewin]

You can tell this really bothers them. If they didn’t think it was compelling, they wouldn’t spend multiple hours discussing it.

[@chris999999999999]

To paraphrase Mark Twain, "Suppose you were arguing dishonestly, and suppose you were a Christian apologist; but I repeat myself."

[@christopherbiomass7155]

"Why does this panel keep insinuating I'm cherry picking by excluding data that I've explicitly included?" Because they are - cough, cough, - cherry picking.

[@Rurike]

Jesus, just point one and it already seems like these guys are treating this like some "top 12 arguments against the resurection" video, not laying out a hypothetical point by point

[@JoyRBradford]

All they have is dunking on Paul. These guys are SO sure of their beliefs it comes off as desperate. And arrogant!

[@Soapy-chan]

and they strawman, insult and lie

[@christophersandford5888]

And tbh Paul is probably one of the hardest counter apologists on KZbin to dunk on! He engages honestly with the other viewpoint, even to the extent of allowing his opponent to define terms. He is extremely polite and calm takes time to explain his point and highights erros he has made. He shows a high level of intellectual honesty. There is not much there to dunk on unless you think his ideas are flawed which this group don't really engage with at all in a meaningful way. Bit of a let down given I was promised a total destruction! 😂

[@JoyRBradford]

@@christophersandford5888 Well said Christopher! Paulogia drives apologists crazy because he is so honest and admits when he is wrong. Capturing Christianity DID NOT destroy Paul. They made fools and hypocrites out of themselves by attacking Paul on a personal level. And they have the balls to say that Paul is cherry picking? Bring up slavery to an apologist if you don't know what cherry picking means. Good God! 😂

[@methodbanana2676]

They're only superficially sure of their beliefs (at best).

[@JoyRBradford]

@@methodbanana2676 Yes, totally agree. I see desperation in both Capturing Christianity and Mike Winger. They build huge walls around their Christian beliefs because of pure unadulterated fear. They are so fearful that they can't even entertain the idea of questioning their beliefs. It's like taking away their life saving vests while stranded in the ocean. Fear seeps from their pores. I am not kidding, I think they live in total fear at all times.

[@thelyrebird1310]

If that was you being destroyed, then their definition of the word is about as absurd as their interpretation of the bible.

[@roblovestar9159]

Brilliant disquisition, Paul. Deserves far more views and likes.

[@mmerri9780]

I will never understand why so many apologists cannot pronounce Paul's channels name.

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

I already understand and I can't understand how Paul has the patience to deal with disingenuous jokesters like them.

[@DarthCalculus]

"there's a defendant in Manhattan who would love to have Jimmy on his jury" 💀

[@al4nmcintyre]

"Anti-supernaturalistic" 🤣🤣

[@howlrichard1028]

Expialidosus

[@13shadowwolf]

It really demonstrates how dishonest they are when they assume that supernatural exists. They start without evidence, and make up propaganda to pretend as if they have a valid argument to be made.

[@Finckelstein]

How dare he not entertain magic as the solution to everything!

[@quinn0517]

I laughed out loud when he said that.. I guess I'm an anti-supernaturalisticist

[@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn]

I assume when he goes to the doctor he expects something like, "Well we can't rule out evil spirits causing your pain. Have you been listening to any heavy metal music lately? Been watching R rated movies? We'll run some diagnostic tests later, but first we have to rule out demonic activity."

[@WorkingFromHomeToday452]

Yosemite Sam fails to kill Bugs Bunny, and now fails to debunk a KZbin video. Remarkable.

[@jdevlin1910]

It's what he's been up to the years in between that worry me

[@WorkingFromHomeToday452]

@@jdevlin1910 😂😂😂

[@c.guydubois8270]

.

[@goldenalt3166]

53:53 What's really implausible is that the most important site in early christianity was well known and yet was completely forgotten in the center of the religious movement.

[@magicrectangleEnt]

Yeah for me this is like Noah's Ark never being found. Arguably the most important object in human history, and the most important grave in human history, and we have nada, zilch, nothing for either of them.

[@goldenalt3166]

@@magicrectangleEnt Noah's ark is more believable. After all, there was no religious significance to the boat itself. But tomb supposedly had angels pointing it out as evidence. And everyone going to check it out. Not to mention apologists say that the Romans and Jews would have dragged his body out at this provocation. But there's no early attestation to its location. Joseph was so unimpressed with the resurrection that he just reused the tomb on the next corpse that came along?

[@michaelhenry1763]

Excellent point! Even today, there are two sites for the “ traditional” tomb.

[@martifingers]

Great point. I missed that.

[@michaelhenry1763]

@@martifingers yeah, I think the “ super national bias” angle is a red herring attempting to bash atheists. We do not seem to understand that millions of Jews and billions of Muslims do not believe in the resurrection either. They have a flawed notion that if the supernatural exists then the resurrection must have happened.

[@KentS-q8d]

These guys are the whole problem in dealing with apologists. They can't conceive of anyone actually doubting the truth of the Bible. "You say we have no proof. Sure, we do. It's right there in scripture." This is a perfectly reasonable and valid argument for them.

[@Webchain]

Imagine if Capturing Christianity cared as much about honesty as he does his hair.

[@scottgodlewski306]

Doesn't he end all of his videos with "by the way, the Bible is true"? Cameron's bias is so strong, he's incapable of honest consideration of anything that contradicts it.

[@utubepunk]

There's a joke in there about the truth of what Cameron's hair looks like without product being a metaphor for his beliefs but it's too early for me to dig up that shallow grave.

[@vvanheukelum]

He has to focus on his hair, to distract from his nose.

[@c.guydubois8270]

Ouch....​@@vvanheukelum

[@plantsinrocks]

I love that in the intro to every single one of your videos you say "welcome to Paulogia" and then every video a Christian makes about you they pretend to be completely flummoxed on how to pronounce the name.

[@ahomeinpisgahontheroad4481]

Interesting that the tone of the besmirches is high pitched . They hide their anger and anxiety in their attempt to contradict and criticize your paper.

[@Jcs57]

The tone and texture comes across as….. _No mommy I didn’t write on the wall with my crayons_

[@Jcs57]

Radical Skepticism - _Not accepting a premise built on a foundation of timbers harvested from the forest of fallacies fastened together with presumption and pleading and covered with because the Bible tells me so._ Radical Theism - _Accepting that a being created from nothing created all matter out of nothing because there at one point was nothing and you can’t get something from nothing._

[@JosephKano]

An uncreated being. They insist their gods are an uncreated being. Not a being created out of nothing. It's... somehow always been. Special pleading in extremis.

[@nanibread5261]

Not watched yet but i'm guessing the "demolition" is basically "nuh uh my book says it happened so it did you big meanie"

[@mastone3609]

Are we counting this as prophecy?

[@Finckelstein]

@@mastone3609 If the bible can count "There will be wars and rumours of wars" as prophecy, I can claim "If I don't breathe for an extended period of time I will cease to breathe forever" as a prophecy. So sure, why not? Everything is a prophecy according to christians anyway.

[@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn]

Well I watched it and you pretty much nailed it.

[@bodricthered]

With the damn jingle going in the back of all our minds... Yup, just 'for the bibblebabble tells me so...'

[@riluna3695]

@@mastone3609 Let's find out! Paulogia has rules for exactly this. 1) "Not watched yet" shows it was posted before the events took place, from the prophet's point of view, so check that one off. 2) "I'm guessing" means it's intended to be a prediction, so that's another check. 4) Answerable only by a specific kind of argument within this one single video. Check. 5) Not open to interpretation. Check. 6) Neither Paulogia nor the people he's responding to were attempting to fulfil this prediction. Check. But alas, it misses on Rule 3: Predicting faulty and irrational logic from Apologists is in no way, shape, or form a non-mundane claim. Good try, but your ESP Card has been revoked. Still, you did better than most Biblical Prophecies :D

[@TheClearwall]

Holy shit man. Your sarcasm was on effing point here. Great job

[@ejcarter9]

It amazes me that so much scholarly effort is put into defending an obvious grief-avoidance system. I guess I should attribute all that effort into really, really, really wanting to see grandma again.

[@timbrubaker1787]

There's also a lot of money and political power one the line. Don't forget about those.

[@NoStringsAttachedPrd]

The wrap-up in short; Gary Habermas: "here's my challenge, come up with a naturalistic explanation that explains early belief in the resurrection better than the bible" Paulogia: "here's one" Cameron, Jimmy and Gavin for two hours: "no but that contradicts the bible though. You're close-minded and anti-supernaturalistic"

[@okasa64]

The more I learn, the more difficult I find it to listen to apologists. Cheers to you Paul, and sorry I don't think I can make it all the way through this video.

[@marcomoreno6748]

Oh no you're suffering right along side us for the sake of the algorithm 😂 we'll be Paulogine martyrd 😂

[@okasa64]

@@marcomoreno6748 You are correct. All Hail the Mightly Algorithmo. I will steel myself and gird my loins and watch this video to the end.

[@martifingers]

Spoiler - Paul won!

[@lylez00]

Whisky helps.

[@Beaverswings]

Dude, see if Ehrman can help you with the application process for graduate studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (and maybe to be your supervisor), and get into the program. This is your thesis material and the resultant product can be turned into the book with, hopefully, all of your sources and arguments pre-scrutinized by your supervisor and by the defense committee. Two birds with one stone.

[@michaelsbeverly]

You want him to move from Canada to the American South? Lol.... That's like asking him to take out a hammer and smash his thumb over and over just for fun.

[@Kyeudo]

@@michaelsbeverly Paul already works trying to educate theists about the problems with their religious claims. Potato, Potahto.

[@CharlesPayet]

@@michaelsbeverlywell, I would love the chance to hang out with him at my alma mater 2 hours away. Go Heels!

[@michaelsbeverly]

@@CharlesPayet I was there in 2017, my daughter walked that spring, got her master's degree. For the NCAA final, I was the taxi driver to the bar where they watched the game, you had to show up like the day before to get a wrist band...lol and then there were things burning in the streets after the game. I'd love to hang out with Paul and Bart on a lovely spring day in Chapel Hill and order barbcue.

[@CharlesPayet]

@@michaelsbeverly I finished undergrad in ‘94 and was on Franklin Street after the championship in ‘93, then did dental school as well, graduating in ‘98. GO HEELS! And congratulations to your daughter on her Masters.

[@scottgodlewski306]

Akin - "You need to provide evidence for a claim if you want people to believe it". I nearly fainted.

[@Krikenemp18]

I somehow doubt he would accept testimony or logical deductions as evidence from Paul.

[@OscarSommerbo]

Dammit Paul! My cross button broke after I mashed it so hard to "doubt". There will be no demolishing today.

[@rcnfo1197]

Paulogia demonstrates incredible patience to suffer those fools. Might as well be arguing with flat earthers.

[@zeendaniels5809]

Are you kidding? It's a martyrdom every video, he's suffering for us every upload... He should be starting his own religion! Or at least be canonized...

[@Ardren]

What's with the theme about "cherry picking". It's like they decided to use that term at the start and just had to stick with it even when it didn't make sense.

[@ghostinthemachine8243]

I wonder how many pies they could make out of all those sour cherries.

[@Jcs57]

If you’re a cherry picker picking cherries with fellow cherry pickers is the conversation generally about cherry picking?

[@CheatahX]

Basic tactics. Just accuse the other of what you're doing.

[@therealsmalk]

Scare words. Now that everybody knows what fallacies are and how they work, it's like nobody takes you seriously unless you invoke them.

[@ACharmedEarthling]

It made me question if they even knew what 'cherry picking' meant, since they so consistently misused it.

[@aerophage]

You are way more patient than I would be when dealing with people so obviously not arguing in good faith

[@captainhowdy2782]

If JC wasn't meant to be left to rot on the cross, then why post an identifying marker above his head?

[@Paulogia]

Good point.

[@ThatShikushi]

Christian humility and kindness really shining through here with all the mockery, misrepresentation and hubris on display.

[@masterthnag105]

They wouldn't be attacking you if they weren't afraid of you.

[@Jcs57]

Nothing says you’re making an impact more than flood management showing up with sandbags.

[@Scuzzbopper.]

It's a paraphrase, but you could have gone with "If you destroy me, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine." 😉

[@Silenttalker22]

As soon as dude said "Radical skepticism" they lost all credibility. It's like all the right wing outlets that can never say "left wing"; they have to say "the radical left". It has to appear worse before addressing the argument. Just radical dishonesty.

[@SkeptiQuest]

Yes. He couldn't have more effectively shown us that he doesn't even know what skepticism is. To state that one is too skeptical is practically synonymous to stating that one is insufficiently credulous, or not gullible enough. Paul, why can't you be more gullible!

[@tzorfireis425]

They got that totally tubular dishonesty

[@luis_sa78]

I was so waiting for this!

[@probablynotmyname8521]

The panel has zero self awareness.

[@greatcaesarsghostwriter3018]

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

[@swolejeezy2603]

Apologists ironically failing the good faith challenge

[@CharlesPayet]

3:19 one of my favorite bits of listening to this every night as I fall asleep, is @Paulogia ‘s use of *_beshmirchment_* .

[@AndrewChristiansen-rx4mx]

It is telling that they say Paul is cherry picking the data, when that is what this panel does.

[@martin2289]

Just started watching the video but already I can tell there's going to be a massive lack of self-awareness and loads of hypocrisy going on with their critiques.

[@lucyferos205]

People who say New York is real but Spider-Man isn't are obviously cherry-picking Amazing Fantasy.

[@Joblerone]

the triple-paul flash at 1:10:20 is conjuring fond memories of my very first time screen recording my own desktop - here's hoping it made you laugh as much as i did when you edited it

[@dechskaison2497]

I loathe their dishonesty.

[@jonhanson8925]

The more Christians talk about "The Truth" the more dishonest you know they are

[@magepunk2376]

Welcome to Christianity.

[@spiffywellington3500]

When I listened to this a few days ago, one of the comments was something to the effect of, "these guys are quite the team, i wouldn't want to debate them." Which shows how unfamiliar many of the listeners are with the topic and how powerful confident statements can be to the general public.

[@Ratciclefan]

Rest in peace Paulogia, your sacrifice will never be forgotten

[@whatevername8551]

Half the runtime, double the power

[@emmanuel1337]

But the double of zero is still zero! Don't insult Paulogia like that! Hahaha.

[@whatevername8551]

​@@emmanuel1337true!

[@Keira_Blackstone]

now I'm imagining how long a video like this would be if Viced Rhino made it.

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

“Double the pride, double the fall!”

[@moodyrick8503]

*_Miracle claims are only true if they are Christian_** ?* If they believe that people can't lie & make up a myth like Jesus & the resurrection, how do they explain all of the miracle claims from other religions ? Some of which are far better attested to, than the miracle claims for Jesus.

[@GetMeThere1]

I think your work on a naturalistic explanation for Christian origins is the best work you've done on your channel -- and the most widely valuable to all. I think it would make a great book.

[@goldenalt3166]

35:49 I took "establish a chain of custody" to be an apologetic attempt by the gospel author, not an undesigned coincidence.

[@TheCheapPhilosophy]

Has a problem with a text labelled "by Quintillion"... Has no problem with anonymous Gospels labeled John, Mark, Luke and Matthew... Boom!

[@ColinWrubleski-eq5sh]

The Gospels were and are NOT anonymous. Anyone who refuses to accept that they were written by who the texts themselves say they were is being willfully dishonest, unwilling to react properly to the demands the correct and plain reading of the texts makes.

[@TheCheapPhilosophy]

@@ColinWrubleski-eq5sh That is not the scholar consensus, sorry. Besides, all the gods from books (real or imaginary) have human writers (anonymous or not). None of them are gods that can give their own messages transcending space and time, somehow... Underwhelming.

[@jeremypnet]

@@ColinWrubleski-eq5shyou haven’t read the texts then. They don’t say who wrote them.

[@Twentydragon]

11:15 - Skepticism doesn't have to be justified. It's not a premise; it's a starting point used as a default in order to minimize bias and avoid jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

[@M4ttNet]

I love them saying "You need evidence for a claim for people to believe"... yeah I'm glad we finally agree, you need evidence of a resurrection hence a naturalistic explanation is just fine.

[@DirtPoorWargamer]

Never expect someone to understand something when their livelihood depends on them not.

[@chemtrooper1]

Definitely a wise axiom!

[@crizolaczarrazcalozirc6052]

Thanks! That was awesome Paul you were not destroyed by any means. Of course this panel is extremely confused on a lot of things, how do I become a patron?

[@Paulogia]

Thank you! You can check it out at www.patreon.com/paulogia

[@sansabark]

If they strike you down, it can only make you stronger.

[@farkasmactavish]

I love how the "for the Bible tells me so" jingle is sped up to sound exactly like a bar from The Can-Can.

[@Jcs57]

59:30 Red Beard without a smidgen of self awareness…… _If you’re going to make a claim you have to provide evidence to back up your claim if you want people to believe you_ You don’t say, it’s kinda the reason I’m an atheist listening to a 🤡

[@facundocesa4931]

What an amazing response. Congratulations. I don't know how you remember everything they said at other points in their video (like ridiculing the hypothesis that somebody can change their mind due to guilt, when they proposed it earlier). You're awesome.

[@Itsjustmehere17]

I haven’t started Paul’s response but after listening to their whole video, it struck me as: “let us use a maximal facts approach to dismantle Paul’s minimal facts explanation”. Paul was playing by one set of rules, they changed the rules and responded.

[@darthbolshevik]

In one of his lectures Craig Evans suggested, that those graves which Sanhedrin made for criminals were indeed rock cut tombs, not graves in the soil. That would make story of burial by Joseph more probable. Whats your opinion about that ?

[@Brascofarian]

I've been looking forward to this. Cameron would have been more accurate if he'd called his channel "Capturing Sophistry".

[@thomaslehner5605]

I was looking forward to your response video and man, you did not disappoint!

[@lewisfitzsimmons1271]

“This point (whether Jesus was a real person or not) seem rather irrelevant to how Christianity began” - Cameron Jesus Existance Christ, Cameron keeps making it reaaaally hard to hold on to the last shred of respect I have for him…

[@Soapy-chan]

he just has proven that a ressurected jesus isnt a requirement to christianity existing, refuting his entire belief system

[@marcomoreno6748]

I almost feel bad for this lot... almost.