Carrier vs. Licona debate on the resurrection

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Very fun debate between Carrier and Licona on the resurrection. I think Carrier did great.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1_GYR3xjPQ

[Cato]

Very fun debate between Carrier and Licona on the resurrection. I think Carrier did great.

I won't comment again on this thread until I have had an opportunity to hear the entire debate. The reason I paused to provide this comment is that I think Dr. Lacona was almost immediately put at a distinct disadvantage in that the moderator thought it proper to communicate his association with Lee Strobel prior to eliciting Lacona's credentials.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Somewhat unrelated, but I found this interesting. Licona was recently fired from two positions for suggesting that a gospel passage may have been metaphorical. http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2011/...ogist.html

[Cato]

Somewhat unrelated, but I found this interesting. Licona was recently fired from two positions for suggesting that a gospel passage may have been metaphorical. http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2011/...ogist.html

I enjoyed the debate, thanks for posting. I agree that Carrier did well. I also think that Licona came off quite well, not so much for his reasoning, but for his delivery. He is a little more polished than Carrier.

I was initially surprised that Licona bypassed the Gospels; however, considering Carrier's work on the subject this may have been a good debate tactic. I love debates like this where participants in the timed Q&A portion almost immediately evolve to a true back and forth discussion and not so hung up on who controls the floor for the particular ten minutes (although both agreed that the moderator should continue so as to adhere to the rules).

I know what it feels like to be out of work, so I empathize with Licona's situation. I can only hope that things will improve personally for Licona and that he has the ability to pull some 'inerrant' types with him.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

I think I heard Licona mention the "explosion" of Christianity in the 1st century. I wish Carrier had a chance to rebut that because in Carrier's book "Not the Impossible Faith" he completely destroys this modern apologist notion that there was an explosive growth of Christianity.

[Angrboda]

Somewhat unrelated, but I found this interesting. Licona was recently fired from two positions for suggesting that a gospel passage may have been metaphorical. http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2011/...ogist.html

I enjoyed the debate, thanks for posting. I agree that Carrier did well. I also think that Licona came off quite well, not so much for his reasoning, but for his delivery. He is a little more polished than Carrier.

I was initially surprised that Licona bypassed the Gospels; however, considering Carrier's work on the subject this may have been a good debate tactic. I love debates like this where participants in the timed Q&A portion almost immediately evolve to a true back and forth discussion and not so hung up on who controls the floor for the particular ten minutes (although both agreed that the moderator should continue so as to adhere to the rules).

I know what it feels like to be out of work, so I empathize with Licona's situation. I can only hope that things will improve personally for Licona and that he has the ability to pull some 'inerrant' types with him.

When all you've got is shit, you better have shinola.

I've watched Dan Barker in a number of debates, and he usually starts out highly aggressively, mocking and deriding the whole God-worship mindset and the atrocious behavior of this so-called God. He usually, imo, manages to bring it around towards the end of the debate, but I feel the initial shock to his audience leaves him with a larger gap to make up. I think it's a successfully technique, as far as an atheist debating technique can be, given the way the opposition works these debates, but I can't help wondering if he could approach it a different way so as not to have to always be coming from behind.

Debates are fascinating. I wish I'd taken an interest in college, but I lacked self-confidence. On the whole, as far as atheism is concerned, I'm persuaded that most of the time these live debates do more damage than good, only occasionally breaking even. And with religion specializing in slick, telegenic hustlers, even if you score points, dealing with the opposition takes you so far off message that I'm not sure it's worth it even then.

I've also noted that theists tend to avoid online or written debates, for obvious reason. That's not where their bread is buttered.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Debate with a presupposition apologist? Why?

You believe in the resurrection of Jesus? Can you prove it? (or that he existed) No? Well fuck off then.


Why do people insist on complicating the simple?

Debates are fascinating

Entertaining sometimes,but more often than not, just a form of public masturbation.


Entertaining:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL5WVecNdhk

[Angrboda]

Good debate, but Carrier let himself get dragged far off message in the latter half of the debate, and Licona was using aspects of the narrative which themselves require independent assessment as if they could simply be assumed because they weren't part of the central claim. Licona practically made off with the store right underneath Carrier's nose.