A debate - sort of - lilshnappinturtle - So far

[chris.fo...@gmail.com]

While tackling some of the shrill commentary by AnnaAgainstAtheists in
a video comment section on YouTube, a user calling itself
"lilshnappinturtle" decided to challenge me.

After offering this forum and explaining that I only discuss with one
user at a time at YouTube but will happily debate here,
lilshnappinturtle pressed the issue.

So far, the user challenged me to debate, and I suggested a resolution
to debate. In part of the commentary that doesn't seem to be
accessible, anymore, the user declared the resolution to be "God
exists." I followed up with a challenge to present evidence, after
which lilshnappinturtle responded with something very much like
"simple...Jesus of Nazareth," after which I was told that I needed to
disprove that God exists.

The following is some of the commentary so far (as of 2:10, Central
Time, US, December 14). It's already been jumbled beyond my ability
to capture it all

CAFoster58 : No, it's a true debate. You make your assertion and
provide your evidence.

I get to rebut.

Then you get to rebut my rebuttal, all with the evidence in mind.

There are other rules.

First, you can use the Bible, but not to prove itself. Actually, you
can do that and I will expose it as circular reasoning.

You see, you want to just make assertions. Any reasonable person will
want to see evidence...not assertions.

lilshnappinturtle : I have yet to see anyone explain in rational
terms why Jesus was without sin, would you like to have a go ?

CAFoster58: I've made no claims, either way, about Jesus. You have,
however. You claim that he is evidence for God.

I'm waiting.

FramingHammer: have never heard any convincing arguments or
compelling evidence which has made me think that the idea of God is
any more than just that. An idea. A concept. A belief in the mind of
the faithful believer.

Perhaps I'll be surprised here on YouTube today!

CAFoster58: I wouldn't bet on it. ;)

I do intend to transcribe the exchanges to the Google Group, though,
before they are lost.

I'm guessing that we have yet another religious believer who doesn't
understand what constitutes a debate as an intellectual exercise.

lilshnappinturtle: You asked what evidence i have for the existence
of God, i gave you it now you want to ridicule, why don't you rebut ?

CAFoster58: You've given me nothing to rebut.

"Jesus is evidence of God" is argument by assertion - a logical
fallacy.

You need to explain *how it is* that Jesus constitutes evidence for
God.

I'm waiting.

lilshnappinturtle: Now where is your evidence for the non existence of
God ?

CAFoster58: I've already answered this point. You bear the burden of
proof for the existence of God, since you claimed that he does exist.

I am an atheist because I have yet to see any theist actually present
compelling evidence. I don't have to disprove *your* assertion. You
must provide the evidence.

So far, I'm not impressed.

lilshnappinturtle: How can a human being go through life without
committing a sin ?

Rebuttal ?

CAFoster58: Simple: If there is no God, there is no sin, since sin is
a religious concept, defined loosely as "rebellion against God."

But we can't really talk about that until we can establish that God
exists.

So give me something to rebut. What is your evidence for God...and
explain *why*.

That's how it works.

[chris.fo...@gmail.com]

lilshnappinturtle: [Quoting me:] /This was part of the issue with
lilshnappingturtle, who appears to have ducked out of further debate./

I'm still waiting on a reasonable explanation as to how it is possible
for a Human Being to go through life without committing a single
sin...remembering that the laws of the prophets were in existence long
before the birth of the Messiah.

CAFoster58: I have answered your question and I did so in reply. I
responded by pointing out that you have not established that God
exists, and that sin is a religious concept, the idea of "rebellion
against God." We can't talk about sin until we determine that there is
an entity to sin against.

Your "debate" entries are all over the place. Your original resolution
was "God exists."

We're waiting for your evidence.

[chris.fo...@gmail.com]

lilshnappingturltel: The fact that Jesus was without sin is
unexplainable, unless put into the context of divine inspiration.

But if that's not enough i would point to miracles as evidence
supporting the existence of God.....miracles CA, give us your rational
rebuttal.

CAFoster58: It is not a fact that Jesus was without "sin" because we
have yet to establish that he existed, at all, let alone in the form
descripbed in the Gospels.

All assertions must be supported by evidence.

The resolution is that God exists. The claimed evidence for this is
"Jesus of Nazareth."

I'm still waiting for how Jesus is evidence for God, and you have yet
to provide any.

"Miracles" cannot be entered as evidence for God, as there is no
evidence that miracles occur, at all. But one cannot be expected to
"rebut" a vague comment about miracles when no single example is
provided for examination.

Give us a miracle to consider that has been documented as such.

Remember, you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible. That's circular
reasoning.

lilshnappingturle: Try Tacitus, Pliny the younger, Josephus and
several other sources outwith the Bible confirm the existence of
Jesus, unless you want to take issue with Atheists who have already
accepted these sources as legitimate.

CAFoster58: One at a time. Take Tacitus first. Tell us how he
provides evidence that Jesus actually existed.

lilshnappingturtle: [Quoting me:] /as there is no evidence that
miracles occur,/

Back that statement up if you can and i'll debunk it

CAFoster: I'm not interested in an all-over-the-place debate. We can
come back to miracles when you've dealt with the previous claims.
However, I will remind you that it is not my responsibility to refute
your claims.

You claimed that miracles are evidence of God. I replied by pointing
out that there is no evidence that miracles occur, so how, exactly, am
I supposed to refute that miracles occur?

Select a miracle that you claim occurred, and we can examine it. The
burden of proof is yours.

lilshnappinturtle: Do the research and get back to me, i'm not here
to do your homework for you.

CAFoster58: Hmmm...interesting. You were quoting. Now you're not.

I take it that this "do the research" response is a reply to my
challenge for you to present your alleged evidence for Jesus from the
works of Tacitus.

I remind you that the claim was yours. Present what Tacitus had to say
about Jesus so we can examine if it genuinely constitutes evidence.

My guess is that you don't know. You're repeating something you read
somewhere.

Research your claims before you make them.

FramingHammer: "Try Tacitus, Pliny the younger, Josephus and several
other sources outwith the Bible confirm the existence of Jesus..."

Not one of these sources you cite were contemporaneous with Jesus.
They all lived decades after the alleged death of Jesus. Jesus wrote
nothing himself, and no surviving testimonies exist of any person who
actually met Jesus.

We cannot even prove Jesus' EXISTENCE, forget about all of his alleged
miracles.

[Cont'd]

[chris.fo...@gmail.com]

CAFoster58: Exactly. Alleged miracles from an unevidenced "messiah"
are not admissible unless there is some form of objective evidence
demonstating that they occurred - something independent of the claim,
itself, as likely claimed in the New Testament. This is one reason
why the New Testament cannot be used.

lilshnappinturtle: Everytime you make a statement as soon as it's
challenged , you bottle it and make a hasty retreat, you're looking to
restrict the debating agenda to your own strict criteria, who made you
the moderator anyway ?

CAFoster58: Stop whining and evading. Those are the rules of debate
and they are not negotiable. If you make an assertion, support it with
evidence.

The default position, especially with the supernatural, is non-belief,
which makes sense given human history.

CAFoster58: Part of the problem with religious people and debates is
that they assume that their beliefs must be taken for granted as true,
but notice what happens when they are pressed to support them with
some kind of objective evidence that all can evaluate, even those who
do not automatically assume the existence of God, Jesus, and the
alleged reliability of Biblical accounts. When these things are taken
away as "for granted," the theist has no rational argument, and no
evidence.

FramingHammer: "something independent of the claim, itself, as likely
claimed in the New Testament. This is one reason why the New Testament
cannot be used."

Yep. It's like using the Batman comic to "prove" the existence of
Gotham City or Bruce Wayne.

(Sorry for all of the Batman allusions. The Devil must have come over
me...)

[chris.fo...@gmail.com]

lilshnappingturtle: Okay CA, i cite the case of Vittorio Muccelli as
proof that a miracle took place, now the onus is on you to rebut this
case.

I'm waiting.

CAFoster58: Un, no...you need to explain this case and make
references to it, showing that there is evidence that it actually
occurred.

You then need to show how this alleged miracle demonstrates that Jesus
existed and was evidence for God, which is the primary resolution.

Then I'll rebut.

Debates are not conducted by one party or the other pulling whatever
he or she can out of his or her ass.

And don't forget to tell us about Tacitus...or did FramingHammer
already bury that argument?

FramingHammer: Who is this "Vittorio Muccelli" fellow? I Googled the
name without a solid hit.

How is this a miracle?

CAFoster58: This is exactly why we can't take any claims by this
particular theist for granted. ;)

lilshnappinturtle: "Hence to suppress the rumor, Nero falsely charged
with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their
enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by
Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea" - Flavius Tacitus, Annals, Book
15, chapter 44.

lilshnappinturtle: [Quoting FramingHammer:] Who is this "Vittorio
Muccelli" fellow?

Watch my video...'An interview with Author Michael Talbot'.

CAFoster58: Uh, no. Provide an independent reference that we can all
examine with respect to this alleged miracle.

Show that the miracle demonstrates unequivocally that Jesus existed.

Then show how that chain of "evidence" shows that God exists.

That's how it's done.

lilshnappinturtle: No that's how a Scientific debate is conducted,
this is YouTube WEE MAN

lilshnappinturtle: Now that i've debunked you at every turn, why
don't you provide evidence of God's non existence ?

CAFoster58: Now let's talk about Tacticus:

Flavius Tacitus was a Roman senator and historian who lived in the
first and early second centuries of the common era (CE). He was born
in 56 CE, approximately 23 years after the alleged death of Jesus.

As FramingHammer has already pointed out, Tacitus was not a
contemporary of Jesus. Tacitus, as an historian, did what historians
of the day commonly did, which was to repeat hearsay without
evidence.

CAFoster58: Child, any intelligent debate is conducted that way, and
you have yet to support any claims that you have made, let alone
debunk anyone.

We're still waiting for your evidence about miracles.

lilshnappinturtle: Vittorio's case is well documented, otherwise
Michael Talbot would not use it as an example in his book now, would
he ?

lilshnappinturtle: Rubbish, utter rubbish, to call Taqcitus'
credentials into question is laughable and only highlights your lack
of knowledge on this subject.

CAFoster58: Aside from the time distance and the idea that Tacitus
may have simply repeated hearsay, modern methods of historical
analysis have shown evidence that the commentary about Jesus found in
the annals was not original with Tacitus, but was added by later
Christian writers attempting to buttress claims about the existence of
Jesus. These doubts have been documented in several works.

CAFoster58: Evidence for these linguistic differences between the
actual writings of Tacitus and those statements allegedly addressing
Jesus and attributed to Tactitus are examined, at length, in several
scholarly works, including:

Drews, A. (1910). The Christ Myth. Chicago: The Open Court Publishing
Co.

Drews, A. (1912). Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus. Chicago: Open
Court Pubishing Co.

Wells, G. (1975). Did Jesus Exist? London: Elek/Pemberton Books.

CAFoster58: Modern historians aware of the personalities involved,
particularly with regard to the relationship between Tacitus and Nero,
have demonstrated, in the literature, good cause to indicate that
Tacitus was merely repeating hearsay, even if the words in the Annals
are genuine. Other historians, more traditional-minded, which is not
a bad thing, agree that Tacitus was referring to a "Christus" who was
the "founder" of a religious sect undeniably active in the region.

CAFoster58: In these cases, historians generally conceded the
existence of a messianic personality in the region - one of many.
Those of messianic bent led many small movements in the area, and much
was made of their activities in the literature. The nascent Christian
movement was historically established as the most significant - the
one that survived. In these cases, historians generally agree that a
very human "messiah's" legend was conflated with those of earlier
religion-myths common to the region

CAFoster58: In the end, the most significant evidence for the
historiographic record, considered with other evidence, including that
of other messianic movements and the tendencies of populations to
absorb portions of other religions held by other cultures in the
region, suggests that the "historical Jesus" was an Essene and one of
many prophets in the area, whose legend over time was conflated with
those of Mithras and other legends

CAFoster58: Suggested readings:

Gaster, T., and Frazer, J. (1969). Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old
Testament.
Millar, D. (2001). A Psychoanalytic View of Biblical Myth.
Price, R. (2000). Deconstructing Jesus.
Price, R. (2003). The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man.
Sanders, E. (1993). The Historical Figure of Jesus.

[chris.fo...@gmail.com]

lilshnappinturtle: [Quoting me:] /in the literature, good cause to
indicate that Tacitus was merely repeating hearsay/

Anyone can have a theory about anything, but the document proof that
actually exists, has been accepted by almost all Historians and
Theologians as authentic and reliable.


CAFoster58: As usual, the educated have evidence and theories -
theories explain the evidence...and the religious have excuses and
evasion.

Speaking as one holding doctorates in both history *and* theology, I
can quite unequivocally say that there is merit to the idea that has
been commonly explained in the recent literature, especially in light
of the newer evidence that is being uncovered. The religious, as
usual, run for cover. The intelligent change their minds in light of
the new evidence.

CAFoster58: Wishful thinking will not change the fact that the
evidence definitely points to the idea that Jesus, as described in the
New Testament, never existed.

CAFoster58: If there is one thing that history has taught us about
the many gods and messiahs, it's that the default condition should be
skepticism, if not outright disbelief. We consider the evidence in
light of the laws of evidence and the natural laws and processes that
we see govern our lives and the universe to this day. We can
understand readily that Jesus was probably a preacher whose legend
grew among the relatively primitive, and continues among the
intellectually primitive.

lilshnappinturtle:
A secularist overview, if i may be so bold.

CAFoster58: The "secularist overview" makes the most sense.
Historians learned, long ago, not to take the miraculous for granted,
nor to take the claims and narratives of Holy Books as automatically
true without some degree of doubt and skepticism. Human intellect
proceeds by the gaining of new knowledge, not by the preservation of
what is unevidenced or demonstrably false.

CAFoster58: Isn't it interesting, though, that the best response that
the theist can muster is to complain that the "overview" is
"secularist."

No fault can be found. No rebuttal is offered. No evidence is
provided.

Just a complaint that mine is a "secularist overview."

It is merely an application of the ad hominem fallacy.

FramingHammer: "historians generally agree that a very human

"messiah's" legend was conflated with those of earlier religion-myths
common to the region"

This is exactly correct. Religions have always been born of mystery.
Mystery is ubiquitous and a part of the human condition. For countless
generations, our religious leaders and shamans have been debating our
roles in the universe.

I would like to know what is ACTUALLY true.

I've heard that a supernatural God exists. I'm not so sure...

lilshnappinturtle: /I would like to know what is ACTUALLY true./

Jesus is Truth, Science is best guess.

CAFoster58: And yet...no clear, unequivocal evidence can be provided
for this claim.

Science stands up to examination and rigor.

Religion hides from the light of examination. It cannot withstand the
rigor.

lilshnappinturtle: Can you provide direct evidence instead of vague
references ?

CAFoster58: This is a typical theists response. Though references
were provided, claim that they are vague and hope that no one notices
that theist provided *none*...

[chris.fo...@gmail.com]

lilshnappinturtle: How can i show you the miracle i was privileged
to ?

I know that Jesus is The Messiah, but how can i explain that using the
Newtonian/Cartesian model ?

CAFoster58: I'm afraid that I have no sympathy for your position,
since you seemed to believe that you could actually take part in this
debate. But unless you can present reasonable and objective evidence
for your claims, they will have no bearing on the resolution.

Fortunately for you, the resolution is not that Jesus is the Messiah,
but that God exists, and your reason is Jesus of Nazareth. I realize
that one can relate the messiah claim, but if you cannot, you must
withdraw the claim.

CAFoster58: We can debate, later, how it is that you *know* that
Jesus was the Messiah, but we can separate that issue, for now, since
there are other claims that you made that must now be reviewed.

CAFoster58: The claim about "Vittorio Muccelli" has cycled from the
comment section. Fortunately, I am archiving this debate.

CAFoster58: lilshnappinturtle: Vittorio's case is well documented,

otherwise Michael Talbot would not use it as an example in his book
now, would he ?

I'm not convinced that we should grant Talbot any immediate
credibility any more than we should you. Regardless, the claim is
yours, not Talbot's, and I am debating you, not Talbot. Provide a
reference that we can check with regard to this "miracle," so that we
can all evalute it's validity to the discussion.

[chris.fo...@gmail.com]

CAFoster58: The case of Vittorio Michelli is one shrouded in mystery,
and it is not clear why it was cited here. This is the case of a young
cancer patient in the early 60s who was diagnosed and terminal, and
sent home to die. The claim is that the patient had lost significant
portions of bone to cancer but, after bathing in the waters at
Lourdes, miraculously recovered not only from the cancer, but the
cancerous bone reconstructed itself.

Here's the reference: tinyurl(.)com(/)5jdowz

It should be noted that I had to provide a reference. The theist
making the claim would only ask us to listen to a 9-minute video of an
interview with a physicist, dead for nearly two decades.

The claim is that this is a well-documented event, but there seems to
be no record of it outside of religious or "new age" web sites. Google
scholar provides no record. I find nothing in the ProQuest online
library and its medical sources, including professional journals.
Likewise, nothing appears in the Gale CENGAGE library or any other
online professional journal resource (so far).

Finally, there is nothing about "Vittorio Michelli" found in the
Journal of the American Medical Association's online journal
archive.

Even as the burden of proof falls to the claimant, there has been a
good faith effort to find the information and it has not been found.

The challenges to lilshnappingturtle are as follows: Provide a
reasonable, valid reference to the event. Then explain how the event
necesarily requires the intervention of God. To do this, God must be
shown to exist

[chris.fo...@gmail.com]

lilshnappingturtle: How can we trust the word of someone who is
patently dishonest ?

CA - "the commentary about Jesus found in the annals was not original

with Tacitus, but was added by later Christian writers attempting to
buttress claims about the existence of Jesus."

me : " Can you prove these documents were forged? "

I see the comment i made doesn't appear in the conversation you've
archived on your site, yet the two comments either side of it are on
there ?

You're inherently dishonest,
thus untrustworthy!

CAFoster58: God must want your own dishonesty exposed, since I awoke,
quite unexpectedly, and saw this comment.

Instead of asking if there might have been a problem, and knowing that
you are losing the "debate," you try to poison the well.

Pathetic.

All you had to do was ask. The fact is that I overlooked the comment
in the cycling in the comment section.

I'll be happy to add it, but I'll also point out your own inherent
dishonesty in declaring such things prematurely.

CAFoster58: As long as you want to complain about my alleged
dishonesty, there's the fact that I actually had posted quite a bit to
indicate, not so much that the work of Tacitus was, itself, a forgery,
but that the commentary about "Christus" may have been added by
Christian scribes? There is evidence to suggest that the comment was
added and that evidence was summarized and contained in the references
that I cited - references that you complained were vague while
providing *no* references, yourself.

CAFoster58: What about the fact that you made a claim to a miracle
regarding "Vittorio Michelli," but got the name wrong, all the while
claiming that it was "well documented?" Why is it, then, that no
scientific or verifiable professional journal has the account? And
why is it that you have yet to explain how it is relevant to the issue
of the existence of God?

The fact is that you can't support any of your claims with any kind of
reasonable, objective, verifiable evidence.

CAFoster: Let's note that you are not making any effort to support
your claims and you have not been debating properly from the start.
Most notably, you argue by assertion and then expect me to disprove
your assertions, with you making no effort to prove them.

You're really very incompetent at this. If you want to take the
debate into the realm of the uncivil, I can certainly deal with that,
too.

[chris.fo...@gmail.com]

CAFoster58: Given your own dishonest tactics coupled with the
inefficient mechanisms of YouTube comment sections as well as my own
inability to sit on top of this comment area at all times to be sure
that you don't try to sneak something by us, as well as to be sure
that I don't miss something because of those kinds of limits, this
debate in this forum is over, for now. Feel free to submit any
subsequent comments to me at the Debating YouTube Theists group at
Google Groups.

CAFoster58: The archive, as much as I was able to capture (as I had
already posted, earlier, in the very first message of the thread), may
be found here:

tinyurl(.)com(/)6pffg2

[chris.fo...@gmail.com]

Update: December 17th

Following my comments, as quoted in the message just one up in this
thread, lilshnappingturtle added no more to the debate, provided no
rebuttal, and did nothing to support his arguments. Instead, he
posted this:

"The good news is, we now know.../ Is that CAfoster is a deceitful
little Hitler wannabe who lacks any sort of integrity or credibility"

I replied: A "Hitler wannabe?" How Godwinny of you. It never bothers
me to watch religious people lose a debate and then whine that the
opposition lacks integrity or credibility. The fact is that you jumped
into a challenge, I accepted it, but it turned out that you did not
know how to debate. My comments were included in an otherwise
uneventful weekend, but I did have to go back to work, so feel free to
visit the Google Group and we can continue. Until then, all we're
getting is bluster.

And the reply to me was: You've shown yourself to be inherently
dishonest....you got caught cheating....the game's up wee man. Don't
bother replying, i refuse to have any further discourse with you. But
i will pray that God forgives you.

So I guess our lovely Christian person, here, would not engage in
"further discourse," but has no problem making accusations that he
will not support.

In any case, I replied, again: How, exactly, did I do that? By
overlooking a comment in a debate that occurred in a YouTube
discussion area and then correcting it when it was pointed out, as we
can see in this thread:

tinyurl(.)com(/)6pffg2

?

No, child, you were losing a debate - badly. You are trying to divert
attention from that fact. I think you should worry less about God, and
more about the readership. They, after all, can be demonstrated to be
real.