Comments by "Chompy the Beast" (@chompythebeast) on "The Resurrection in its Cultural Context [feat. Dr. Bart Ehrman]" video.

@Sarah Hodgins lol yikes. Riding a mythical high horse like that on some classic antisemitism in the comments section of this video? Pretty gross
9
@Qwerty-lp1fz She's also in this comment throwing out classic antisemitism. She's just a True Believer™ whose sensibilities are offended by frank academic discussions of her articles of faith
8
What you are describing is quite literally a matter or article of your own faith. You're hanging up on that word "commitment", but it could just as easily not be there and it would mean the same thing. After all, saying that your ideas are more committed to you than you are to your ideas is not rational―it is a faith commitment on your part, but again, the "commitment" part isn't the important part
4
@jdewit8148 This very vid pointed out the lay lunacy of pulling the "Were you there?" card to discredit any read of history that one dislikes, and here you are using it immediately lol. You're talking about what you want the text to mean, and your own rhetoric can be used against you to prove it: Were you there? It's silly
2
Saying it like that makes it sound like he's pro- some other religion, rather than just viewing the miraculous claims of Christian mythology with a scientific eye
2
@BladeEffect "Don't have a sacred cow, man"
2
@nth7273 Naturalistic explanations are the only ones that are testable. Once again, this is abut the sheer methodology: If physics or chemistry based upon mythology and non-naturalistic understanding cannot produce greater results than physics or chemistry which limit themselves to the testable, why should other studies? Articles of faith are fundamentally unscientific in nature, and simply are not congruent with history or religious studies. This isn't about an individual bias, this is, if anything, a bias inherent to science itself―and the scientific method has, once again, produced demonstrably greater results in all fields where it's been applied than non-naturalist forms of study that predate it by millennia. Rejecting the historicity of all the miraculous events recorded by humanity except for the ones that appeal to your own personal faith is simply an inherently ahistorical perspective
2
Woke has no meaning other than to slander ideas one doesn't like, usually humanist ideas. It's one of those words that says a whole lot more about the person using it than it does about anything else
2
Yeah, I'm honestly wondering how that kind of hyper-self-aware cognitive dissonance even works. It must really thrive on the "well, we don't know, so anything's possible" approach to rationalizing belief in the irrational. A sort of positive agnosticism that just wears whatever specific colors appeal to the scholar in question
1