Off-Topic: Did Jesus rise from the dead?

NuclearAge:Who said men can't multi-task?

Who said Rocket was a ma-- *ducks to avoid Rocket's slap*

SubJunk:

JAMedic:That was a good debate Subjunk, thanks for sharing it

Cheers
My friend and I are wondering how long it will take Licona to become an atheist It seems like Carrier raised some points that really got through to him at times

Mhm, there were a lot of good points raised - I really have to agree that the format was excellent for bringing out more of a discussion than a debate. Personally, I think Licona was a better speaker, but I think it's a fairly moot argument - without a presupposition for the possibility of divinity, or at the very least, the supernatural, the probability of Jesus being raised can only be seen as nil. And because the majority of academic thought is approaching the topic (or any topic) without that presupposition, it's never going to be accepted as historical fact. Really the debate only offered Licona a chance to demonstrate the validity of the evidence he sees as supporting his beliefs - personally, I think he did that quite well. Carrier's argument that the burden of truth lies on Licona and that the evidence Licona needs must be fairly extraordinary was fairly standard - although I'm surprised that he didn't call into question the reliability of the epistles in terms of whether Paul was even giving what he believed to be the true story, and whether the records of his letters are accurate (I think this was touched on a little, but it wasn't a road the debate went down). Anyhow, good debate - would love to go on talking about it, but I'm late for school Catchy'all laters

SubJunk:It's awesome to see you have an interest in this stuff I smell some good discussions coming up.

Mhm, definitely - I'm always keen for a serious discussion, as long as it isn't tooooo serious

You're right that Licona is the more charismatic of the two,

That's a much better way to word it than by simply saying "...a better speaker..." - I didn't mean to (and hope I didn't) give the impression that I felt Carrier was a poor speaker or that I felt his argument was weak, so thanks for clarifying this.

I'd started to reply more lengthily to your reply, but I'm 'fraid I've got masses of stuff to do tonight, so I'll have to leave it at that for now (that said, I'll definitely be up to a good discussion later on)

Edit: (...oh, and no, I haven't read any of Carrier's work, in fact the topic itself is fairly new to me - at least in terms of a historical perspective. I'd be interested in finding out what Carrier has to say on Paul's trustworthiness though - he brushed on having doubts at one point in the main body of the debate, but didn't elaborate. Was there anything in the second part - the audience's opportunity to question the debaters - about this? I wouldn't be surprised if it came up there, but I'm afraid I didn't have time to watch that part of the discussion. [If there're any books of Carrier's you'd really emphatically recommend, I'd be quite keen to read them, although since I'm preeetty busy what with school and all I don't have much time for leisure reading anymore ])

waaa, maybe i should watch the video to join the conversation lol

omg, religion has found our forums, we are in trouble

ahh im getting aboard the fail boat... everyone for themselves!!