Zach and Jesusfreak

[Zach]

For those that are interested, Franc and Alleee will be hosting myself and Jack Curtin (who older members may remember as Jesusfreak) on this Saturday's installment of The Hellbound Alleee show. We'll be discussion general topics, such as faith and evidence in belief.

 

You can listen to the show at: www.hellboundalleee.com.

[quicksand]

Sweet. But I will be camping this weekend. Can you let us know if we can score a freebie mp3 of it?

[Zach]

MP3 files are available for several weeks on the website. I also personally archive any radio show I appear on, and plan on producing a transcript for those who would rather read.

[Reach]

Zach and Jesusfreak, Saturday on Hellboundalleee

 

Give 'em hell, Zach!

 

 

We'll pick up the show on MP3 when available.

[quicksand]

MP3 files are available for several weeks on the website. I also personally archive any radio show I appear on, and plan on producing a transcript for those who would rather read.

Other than Gene's show x2, how many have you've been on? I think you're a great representive of a non-theist/secular humanist.

 

I guess I am saying you're kind of an activist now.

 

Anyway, can't wait to hear the show and with good old JF & in a nice civil discussion too.

[Zach]

I really enjoyed talking with Jack on the show today. Unfortunately, my phone cut out right near the end, so I wasn't able to quite finish up what I wanted to say, but I think I made some good points.

 

I've been on The Hellbound Alleee show twice before this, in addition to Gene's show The Narrow Mind. I'm also scheduled to be on Gene's new show, The Atheist Hour, on October 30th. Dan Barker will be on that show the week before me, so I'm really honored to be following him as a guest.

 

I'm as surprised as anyone else that I've gotten as much exposure as I have- I never intended to be an activist of any kind. Thanks for the kind words- I'm just a guy saying what I think.

[webmdave]

Very Cool Zach!

 

If you get copies of the exchanges, and are willing to have them posted on the site, let me know.

 

Thanks!

[Mr. Neil]

GAAAAHHHHD!!!!

 

I'm about twenty minutes into the dialogue, and I want to ram my head against the wall. JF is the most thick-headed person I've ever encountered online, aside from Jason Gastrich.

 

I know that you get along with him well, Zach, and that you have the patience of a lamb with him, but I just cannot stand that guy. The holes in his logic are so gaping that I can't believe the guy can even dress himself.

[Mr. Neil]

Listened to the whole conversation.

 

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. That man has no excuse to be that ignorant, and I think if I was there, I'd fucking tell him.

 

This is why I don't call into these shows like this, because I would likely start spitting insults the second someone like this says something dumb like, "We're seeing the same evidence but coming to different conclusions." I mean, I was screaming at the computer when he said that.

 

What really bothers me about Jack (Jesus Freak) is that he just keeps repeating the same shit over and over regardless of how many times he's been shot down. I mean, he just keeps saying this shit as though one of his unsupportable assertions are going to sneak by without anyone noticing. You can hear it near the end, as the conversation turns to the laws of logic, he keeps trying to make them out as though they're immaterial, despite repeated corrections.

 

I just about fell over when he said that the resurrection was overwhelmingly historically proven, considering that the only evidence he has is extremely poor hearsay and absolutely no archeological evidence. But again, this is the Jesus Freak method of argumentation; throw shit at the wall and see what sticks.

[quicksand]

I can't find it. Someone lend a direct link?

[Mr. Neil]

http://www.insolitology.com/shows/show71b.mp3

[quicksand]

http://www.insolitology.com/shows/show71b.mp3

Thanks Neil! Downloading it now!

 

 

 

Just finished that is!

[Zach]

Just to let those interested parties know, I've finished the transcript of the show. Here's some highlights:

 

Zach: Okay, so, you’re saying- I’m still not sure, are you saying that it’s an unequivocal fact that Jesus exists, or not?

 

Jack: Again, it depends on what we mean by “fact,” I guess.

 

Zach: What do you mean by “fact?”

 

Jack: Hmm. Well, I think that the standard definition of “fact” is something that is unquestionably true.

 

Zach: Okay, is it unquestionably true that Jesus exists?

 

Jack: I think I would have to… you have to say that you cannot declare that as an absolute fact. I would submit that.

 

Zach: Oh, so you- are you saying that you have some doubts?

 

Jack: I don’t have any doubts, but I am open- I think in order to have a rational faith, you have to be open to possibilities that you’re wrong.

 

Zach: Okay.

 

Zach: So you would… if that- if all those criteria were met, you would be the first convert to the Church of the Holy Apple?

 

Jack: Yes, sir. I’d be right there.

 

Zach: You would be right there. Wow, that’s incredible. See, yeah, I think that’s the difference between you and me, I… I just, I don’t think I could do that. I think I would have to see it for myself, I would have to see the Holy Apple.

 

Jack: Oh, you’re asking me to provide evidences?

 

Zach: Just a couple- aside from the questions that are answered by Christianity, a couple of the really hard evidences that we really can’t refute.

 

Jack: That-

 

Zach: What are the concrete facts?

 

Jack: That evolutionists can’t refute? Or atheists can’t refute?

 

Zach: Yeah.

 

Jack: That they don’t have answers- you’re saying, questions that they don’t have answers for?

 

Zach: Concrete facts that you base your belief on. Aside from the questions that are answered.

 

Jack: OK.

 

Zach: What are the concrete facts?

 

Jack: That I haven’t seen refuted?

 

Zach: Yeah.

 

Jack: Certainly the resurrection of Christ is the most astounding evidence for Christianity. The evidence for it from a- from an historian’s perspective is overwhelming. There’s no other fact in all of history, in ancient history that’s any more historically proven than the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

Franc: [snorts]

 

The full transcript is available here.

[Ouroboros]

Jack: Certainly the resurrection of Christ is the most astounding evidence for Christianity. The evidence for it from a- from an historian’s perspective is overwhelming. There’s no other fact in all of history, in ancient history that’s any more historically proven than the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

 

A- "Here I have the unrefutable and undeniable proof that Santa Claus exists!"

 

B- "So what is it?"

 

A- "He drives a sled and hands out presents at Christmas!"

 

B- "???"

[Mr. Neil]

Jack: Certainly the resurrection of Christ is the most astounding evidence for Christianity. The evidence for it from a- from an historian’s perspective is overwhelming. There’s no other fact in all of history, in ancient history that’s any more historically proven than the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

No shit. I think JF just says things like that over and over, as though repeating it is going to make Jesus more real. Whether he's trying to bombard us with bullshit or simply convince himself is up to debate.

 

There's always been one red flag claim that sticks out above all other apologist claims, and even though JF isn't explicitly saying it here, I think it fits into the conversation.

 

Christians talk endlessly about the Empty Tomb, and how a tomb which is abscent of a body is somehow supposed to stand as evidence of a bodily resurrection. Is there actually a "real" (i.e., physical) empty tomb that they're talking about, or are they just assuming that one exists because the Bible describes an empty tomb? What the hell is it that they're talking about when they say that the empty tomb proves the resurrection?

[Ouroboros]

Christians talk endlessly about the Empty Tomb, and how a tomb which is abscent of a body is somehow supposed to stand as evidence of a bodily resurrection.  Is there actually a "real" (i.e., physical) empty tomb that they're talking about, or are they just assuming that one exists because the Bible describes an empty tomb?  What the hell is it that they're talking about when they say that the empty tomb proves the resurrection?

There is a tomb. But how the F**K would anyone know if it was the one Jebus Crispus was in???

 

It was decided by the Church and tradition, I guess hundreds of years afterwards.

 

Like I told you guys, I have the real stone David used to kill Goliath. Could anyone prove me otherwise?

[Ouroboros]

I actually wished for a bike when I was a kid, and I got it at Christmas. So Santa Clowns does exist.

 

Oh, and the North Pole... does anyone doubt that the north pole exists? Well, I didn't think so. So Santa Clowns have a little toy factory there!

 

Simple logic, you only need to believe!

[MQTA]

Look at the North Pole on Google Earth, it's all water for miles around!

[Mr. Neil]

There is a tomb. But how the F**K would anyone know if it was the one Jebus Crispus was in???

 

It was decided by the Church and tradition, I guess hundreds of years afterwards.

So in other words, they've just assumed it to be the tomb of Jesus based on the fact that there's no body in it and not that there's any evidence of it being the actual tomb of Jesus?

 

Why am I not surprised?

[Ouroboros]

So in other words, they've just assumed it to be the tomb of Jesus based on the fact that there's no body in it and not that there's any evidence of it being the actual tomb of Jesus?

Yup!

 

 

C- And here we have the Tomb of Jesus

 

A- How do you know that?

 

C- Well, it's empty

 

A- So?

 

C- Jesus died and he was resurrected, so the tomb is empty

 

A- But if this is someone elses tomb?

 

C- No, because if it was someone else's, it would be a body in it, and there's none, so it's Jesus' tomb

 

A- Maybe the owner just bought it but never used it?

 

C- Oh, that's ridicoulus. Of course whoever bought it used it, and it was Jesus, and he's not here anymore. So it is his tomb.

 

A- Eh... Maybe it was Mithras?

 

C- Who the heck is Mithras? It can't be his, because he never existed, and he didn't rise from the dead, so he would still be in his tomb.

 

A- But wouldn't the empty tomb be the evidence that Mithras rose from the dead, and this tomb being empty be the proof it was Mithras tomb, because it's empty and it's empty because Mithras was resurrected?

 

C- No! That would be contradictory to the Bible. Because the Bible says Jesus was rissen and not someone else. So this is his tomb.

 

A- AAAAAAARGH!!!

[Zach]

No shit.  I think JF just says things like that over and over, as though repeating it is going to make Jesus more real.  Whether he's trying to bombard us with bullshit or simply convince himself is up to debate.

I was actually a little surprised that he talked that way- his writing has always seemed more deliberate. But it was hard to follow his train of thought- it was almost like a free-association session, where he was just running from one apologetics concept to another.

 

My goal with him was, quite honestly, to find out why he claims to have faith when he's done nothing here but present evidence, and then to find out what precisely that evidence was. I was very surprised when he admitted that he would believe in a magical apple if somebody died believing it, and also when he responded to my request for evidence by listing off questions that he feels Christianity answers.

 

Although I didn't get a chance to pursue this, I was also shocked to hear him dismiss secular worldviews as just "alternative explanations," but then talk about Christianity as a de facto alternative, and then to conclude its truth from that.