This was posted 5 years 4 months 18 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Free Digital Audio Course "The Resurrection of Jesus" by Dr. Gary Habermas (Normal Price USD $99) @ Credo Courses

13439
Free Digital Audio Course "The Resurrection of Jesus" by Dr. Gary Habermas (Normal Price USD $99) @ Credo Courses
Go to Deal
gto21 on 02/12/2018 - 02:31 credocourses.com (641 clicks)
Last edited 02/12/2018 - 02:35

Merry Christmas from Credo Courses - Normal Price USD $99, Free for Limited Time.

If you aren't interested in Credo Courses deals you can simply hide that store from your deal feed. https://www.ozbargain.com.au/wiki/help:faq_beginner?#how_can…

Dr. Gary Habermas is Distinguished Research Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy at Liberty University. Dr. Habermas is the most respected scholar of the resurrection of Jesus in America and in this class he teaches you everything he’s learned.

Gary Habermas, the world’s leading expert on the resurrection of Christ, has created an entire course just for you!

There is no more important event in human history than the Resurrection of Christ. This event not only evidences God’s intervention and love into the human condition, it tells the world that Christ is Lord.

The great thing about the resurrection of Christ is that it is not something God asks believers to accept with blind faith. This is an event that happened in human history with hundreds of historic details that people are called to examine to gain confidence in their faith in Christ.

That is why this 30-session Credo Course is focused solely on the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. There is not a more important event for Christians to know inside and out. The historicity of the resurrection is sure to tame any skeptic (outside and within).

Full Session List

The Importance of the Resurrection of Jesus
A Priori Objections (Part 1)
A Priori Objections (Part 2)
Principles of Historiography
Methodology: How Do We Use Historiography in Apologetics
Approaching Scripture
Minimal Facts Method
Preaching before Completion of the New Testament
Naturalistic Theories: Alternative Explanations for the Resurrection
Naturalistic Theory 1: The Disciples Stole the Body
Naturalistic Theory 2: Someone Else Stole the Body
Naturalistic Theory 3: The Swoon Theory
Naturalistic Theory 4: The Hallucination Theory
Naturalistic Theory 5: The Copycat Theory
Supernatural Alternative Theories
Categorical Problems with Naturalistic Theories
Understanding the Mind of a Skeptic
Changing the Skeptical Mindset of the Naturalist (Part 1)
Changing the Skeptical Mindset of the Naturalist (Part 2)
Evidence for the Death of Jesus
Evidence for the Appearances of Jesus
Evidence for the Empty Tomb
Constructing a Historical Timeline
Apologetics: Building a Bridge from Miracles to Christianity
Apologetics: Establishing a Connection between the Resurrection and the Existence of God
Who Did Jesus Think He Was? Establishing the Deity of Christ
Grounding Theology (Part 1)
Grounding Theology (Part 2)
Grounding Christian Practice: Application Based on the Resurrection
The Resurrection of Jesus

Education

Related Stores

Credo Courses
Credo Courses

closed Comments

  • Elwes on 02/12/2018 - 09:57
    +8

    Normally US$99!? The fact that it's 100% off tells you what this is really worth.

  • cheapo999 on 02/12/2018 - 10:05
    -5

    Stop selling religion! This got to be one of Ozbargain TCs.

    • EightImmortals on 02/12/2018 - 10:49
      +34

      Why? Why should a noisy bunch of haters get to dictate what other ozbargainers can see or not see?

      If you don't like the deal then don't click the link, it's not that hard is it? Just stop trying to force YOUR beliefs on the rest of us.

      • CocaKoala on 02/12/2018 - 10:59

        Just stop trying to force YOUR beliefs on the rest of us.

        Refusing to accept religious bunkum is NOT a belief.

        • EightImmortals on 02/12/2018 - 11:24
          +20

          No it isn't but trying to have all different beliefs banned is.

          • Scrooge McDuck on 02/12/2018 - 15:12
            +4

            @EightImmortals: It's a pursuit rather than a belief. But I agree that deals which part of the user base find valuable shouldn't be banned. But they, like all deals, should be open to criticism.

            Tell that to the OzBargain moderator who banned me for 30 days because I posted a deal for The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster:
            https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/6534691/redir

            Whether you regard FSM as a religion or as a non-religious statement, shutting it down is religious discrimination.

        • pifts on 02/12/2018 - 13:18
          -4

          Coco you should take a long, thoughtful read of your comment and try again … haha

      • yoke2018 on 02/12/2018 - 11:12
        +29

        Refusing religious / spiritual beliefs is the belief of atheism. To reject one is to accept the other. I’m afraid to burst the bubble, but as an atheist myself, our atheistic secular worldview is in fact a belief system. I’m actually appalled by the lack of critical thinking, respect, and dialogue that the atheist OzBargainers here have shown. On behalf of the actual atheist community who are open to knowledge and critical and diplomatic discussion, we’re sorry that so much demonising is shown towards the post of a genuinely bargained course. I’ll be listening this myself and debunking a lot of it with my own philosophical approaches, namely metaphysics, advanced logic, moral philosophy, epistemology, and existentialism. I’d love to debunk Gary Habermus’ ideas, but only after I hear what he’s premises for his conclusions are; now this I love doing, and so do true atheists, and not the OzBargainers here.

        • EightImmortals on 02/12/2018 - 11:25
          +10

          Send me a link if you get around to writing up that rebuttal, I'd be interested in hearing an informed counterpoint. :)

          • yoke2018 on 02/12/2018 - 11:41
            +3

            @EightImmortals: Yeah well I got to listen to this junk first. I take notes and reference my work. I personally favour the moral psychology approach to debunk religion as it’s more practically and personally relevant to people and the problem of evil / suffering / pain is simply too compelling in my opinion. The free will argument just doesn’t work I don’t think.

            • EightImmortals on 02/12/2018 - 11:56
              +3

              @yoke2018: What does that have to do with the resurrection of Christ? Evil/suffering and free will are all valid debates to be had, just not what this course is about. :)

              • yoke2018 on 02/12/2018 - 12:00

                @EightImmortals: Sorry you’re right, moral psyc is simply one approach,
                there are about 5 others.

        • cheapo999 on 02/12/2018 - 11:26
          +2

          You got it wrong. This is not a crusade against theism. It is just not the right forum to sell religions/beliefs including atheism. This is bargain shopping channel.

          • EightImmortals on 02/12/2018 - 11:28
            +7

            @cheapo999: Can't get a better bargain than 'free'.

            • cheapo999 on 02/12/2018 - 11:33
              -1

              @EightImmortals: Ever heard of expression 'there is no free lunch'?

              Just informed yourself how many death and suffering caused by strong beliefs/faiths throughout human history.

              • EightImmortals on 02/12/2018 - 11:44
                +2

                @cheapo999: Maybe How many of it was caused by something they got from Oz Bargain?
                And though I'm not going to get too far off-topic but I think you'll find that the 'strong beliefs/faiths' that have created the most death and suffering (especially in the last century)had nothing to do with religion and some of the biggest ones (Marxist Russia, China) were committed by Atheists. When people blame 'them' for committing these crimes they ALWAYS overlook the forest for the trees. Namely that the problem is with the human race and not with any particular worldview per-se. Wherever one group has (or wants) power over another then violence ALWAYS proceeds regardless of who's name or what cause they are doing it in. This is a matter of historical fact and as I said, as it's too far off-topic I wont be debating that point any further. :)

              • pensionday on 02/12/2018 - 11:54
                +2

                @cheapo999: Death and suffering is a symptom of abused power; not a belief system that promotes understanding/love etc.

                Use of political persuasion is just as guilty: feudalism, socialism, fascism, capitalism et al are equally abused throughout history.

                It is not the system, but its abuse, that causes problems.

                • cheapo999 on 02/12/2018 - 12:08

                  @pensionday: Not if there are so many conflicting messages in the so called 'holy book'.

                  100% proven by history that it only leads to more devastation, wars, chaos in the world.

                • Scrooge McDuck on 02/12/2018 - 14:38

                  @pensionday:

                  Death and suffering is a symptom of abused power; not a belief system that promotes understanding/love etc.

                  Only for heterosexuals, in the case of the Christian Bible.

              • Ulysses31 on 02/12/2018 - 12:30

                @cheapo999: People kill those with religious beliefs, regardless of their own.

                • cheapo999 on 02/12/2018 - 12:39

                  @Ulysses31: Quite true. They use those faiths for justification. Thats why they are dangerous.

          • yoke2018 on 02/12/2018 - 11:39
            +1

            @cheapo999: Well, a free beginners, intermediate, and advanced critical thinking course (tailored to disputing religious thoughts) worth $100 each, is selling atheism; or a 30 lecture course of Krauss’ or Dan Dennett’s philosophy of religion (and in his case non-religion). I’d consider them ozbargain worthy.

            • cheapo999 on 02/12/2018 - 11:52
              -5

              @yoke2018: This is indoctrination course. Not advancing anything.

              • yoke2018 on 02/12/2018 - 12:05

                @cheapo999: The point was selling beliefs (philosophical religion in this case) is not ozbargain worthy, and I just made the ‘reductio ad absurdum’ counter point that selling belief (e.g philosophical non-religion or atheism) would be considered ozbargain worthy by some or many OzBargainers. There is a double standard at play.

                • cheapo999 on 02/12/2018 - 12:22

                  @yoke2018: There is no double standard. Selling something that proven to be dangerous should be forbidden. This apologetics course is no different. If someone making a course to justify suicide bombing, or initiate holy war this has to be banned as well. Same thing for other controversial subjects such as abortion, same sex marriage, green movement, right wing extrimism etc. In other word, please keep Ozbargain clean from faith or political propaganda.

                  • Ulysses31 on 02/12/2018 - 12:32

                    @cheapo999: Cigarettes, alcohol, weapons, prescription medication doesn't count though?

                  • yoke2018 on 02/12/2018 - 12:36
                    +1

                    @cheapo999: Interesting point. That’s up to the ozbargain executive peeps. I actually agree with you here (not the idea that religion in and of itself is dangerous—extremists are i believe—but misaligned from grounded truth in many ways but that religion is mostly beneficial for society and not vice versa). I think Ozbargain should steer clear from deals/bargains that are of a religious/non-religious and political nature. Courses in economy, neutral history (Jesus of Nazareth is fine I think insofar as they don’t steer towards celebrating religion) and neutral philosophy (eg not celebrating neither religion nor atheism—but an overview approach), and the other soft/hard sciences yeah.
                    The nature of ecourses is such that it’s difficult to filter or be selective in what can be marketed here. It’s a tough one.

                  • EightImmortals on 02/12/2018 - 12:38
                    +2

                    @cheapo999: Damn son! You used up all my negs for the day. Have a couple of defacto ones instead. ;)

        • Kikiriki on 02/12/2018 - 11:29
          +1

          I have a lot of respect for the approach you advocate. How different the world would be if we all adopted it.

        • Mechanist on 02/12/2018 - 11:43
          -2

          Atheist is a lack of believe, Not a believe. It's not about refusing religion.

          • EightImmortals on 02/12/2018 - 11:49
            +2

            @Mechanist: lols, no it isn't mate. Atheism is the BELIEF that NO Gods exist. You don't have to water it down to try and sound more reasonable, I accept your right to believe whatever you want.
            This link might help you to clarify it.

            https://www.str.org/blog/atheism-isn-t-simply-a-lack-of-beli…

            "Atheism is not simply a lack of belief. It is not the default position. Let’s get our terms straight. The theist affirms the statement, “There is a God.” The agnostic says, “I do not know if God exists” or “You cannot know God exists.” The atheist affirms the statement, “There is no God.” These are all beliefs. "

            • Mechanist on 02/12/2018 - 11:53
              +1

              @EightImmortals: Nice argument but it's not true. Should I add in a lol out something to make in more rebuking.

              https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism

              • EightImmortals on 02/12/2018 - 12:04

                @Mechanist: Well now you're just arguing semantics.

                "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

                A 'lack of belief in the existence of God' is just another way to say that you believe that God not exist.

                (I didn't vote you down either. :) )

            • Mechanist on 02/12/2018 - 12:03
              +1

              @EightImmortals: @EightImmortals that blog is hilarious. It isn't even an decent argument. Lol. Guy asserts atheism isn't a lack of believe basically "just cause I say so". Ha thanks . Also it's not semantics. You are wrong and that's ok. You have some personal issue with atheists. You don't have to argue about it. Go on with your life. They don't care that you beleive in God

          • yoke2018 on 02/12/2018 - 12:07
            +4

            @Mechanist: All world views are beliefs. Atheism is a worldview. Therefore atheism is a belief.
            Now which part of this argument do you disagree with?

            Gosh, atheists, please KNOW YOUR ATHEISM!!! Omgsh, please know what a bloody worldview is for freak sake before engaging.

            • Mechanist on 02/12/2018 - 12:10

              @yoke2018: Haha that is hilarious. World View are beleives. Please explain. How many works views do you hold. Do you have one for each god or thing you lack believe in?

              • yoke2018 on 02/12/2018 - 13:15
                +1

                @Mechanist: Well, the fact that it says worldview suggests that it’s a belief. But that’s semantics.

                Beliefs are not bad. Relationships and marriage are based beliefs. In fact, you believe (without definite proof) that other people here on Ozbargain are actual people. You believe that your memory is correct. Science is also a belief system.

                Now that out of the way, “worldview is the set of beliefs about fundamental aspects of Reality that ground and influence all your perceiving, thinking, knowing, and doing. Your worldview consists of your epistemology, your metaphysics, your cosmology, your teleology, your theology (including a lack of), your anthropology, and your axiology.” http://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~funkk/Personal/worldview.ht…

                Atheists commonly share a number of beliefs (I am only generalizing since inidividual atheist differ, eg one may be an empiricist and one may not be) such as naturalism (no afterlife), physicalism/materialism (no soul), empiricism (knowledge through senses only), belief in evolution/abiogenesis, a consequentialist moral system (choices based on best outcomes and not be dogmas or “rules”), origins of the universe and life (Big Bang or something equivalent), Behaviourism (explanations for actions/behaviours especially those that are ‘evil’), etc.

        • Mechanist on 02/12/2018 - 12:17

          @yokes You aren't an atheist. You are just trying to sound like one. Are you and @eightimmortals the same person?

        • gto21 on 02/12/2018 - 12:30
          +2

          Agree atheism is a belief system. I don't know why many atheists get upset when someone calls it a belief system. Maybe they associate a belief system with religion. So they don't like calling it a belief system.

          • Duff5000 on 03/12/2018 - 01:16

            @gto21: Is it a system though? There are thousands of claimed "gods". Christians believe in one and think the rest are made up garbage. Atheists just believe in one less.

            Would you say a christian has a Thor belief system in that they believe thor doesn't exist?

            • gto21 on 03/12/2018 - 03:31
              +1

              @Duff5000: Atheists just believe in one less - great argument. Everyone is a rapist only difference most people rape one person less. Everyone is a murder only difference most people killed one person less. The Rick Gervais argument is a very bad argument. He's a comedian, not an apologist.

        • WARvault on 02/12/2018 - 13:00
          +1

          As a TRUE member of the gatekeeping community I know that this guys version of gatekeeping is the one true gatekeeping and any other gatekeeper claiming otherwise is crazy or wrong and either way should hand in their Gatekeeper Society card, PRONTO!

          /s

        • Scrooge McDuck on 02/12/2018 - 14:45

          Refusing religious / spiritual beliefs is the belief of atheism. To reject one is to accept the other. I’m afraid to burst the bubble, but as an atheist myself, our atheistic secular worldview is in fact a belief system.

          I'm not sure if you're false flagging or confused, but I'll bite:

          Theism is the belief in the existence of a god or gods.

          Atheism is the negation of theism and therefore is not a belief. It is simply the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods.

          • EightImmortals on 02/12/2018 - 15:38
            -1

            @Scrooge McDuck: In that case as a theist I do not have a believe in God, I simply have a lack of belief in the non-existence of God or Gods.

        • BadGiraffe on 02/12/2018 - 17:29
          +1

          I remember a similar post a few months back, and I said it was ironic that the zealots here were the atheists, and not the other way around.

      • [Deactivated] on 02/12/2018 - 12:47
        +1

        But you’re wrong. You believe in things that don’t exist, and you can’t produce scientific evidence to back up your claims.

        • yoke2018 on 02/12/2018 - 13:26
          +3

          Can you prove that others’ have minds? No. Can you prove that your memory is true? No. You believe in those without any proofs. It’s an apriori knowledge.

          To use science, you need to believe in the scientific method. Science can only back up a limited number of claims. It can’t deductively back up that your wife/husband won’t leave you. It can inductively back it up. Science is limited and not the only method toward knowledge aka reliable justified true beliefs.

          • Scrooge McDuck on 02/12/2018 - 14:50
            +1

            @yoke2018: Can you prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist? No.

            In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is the most sensible.

            • tryagain on 02/12/2018 - 23:33

              @Scrooge McDuck:

              Can you prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist? No.
              In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is the most sensible.

              Agreed, but if you are trying to conflate the flying spaghetti monster, which, as you say there is an absence of evidence for, with the person of Jesus Christ you really haven't given this much thought. John Dickson wrote this 4 years ago

              Contrary to recent atheist claims, Jesus did live. I will eat a page of my Bible if someone can find me just one full Professor of Ancient History, Classics, or New Testament in an accredited uni who thinks otherwise.

              I personally think that is a pretty low bar, yet his bible is still intact. If you really think that the flying spaghetti monster with no evidence is a good comparison to Jesus Christ with a considerable amount of evidence (even disregarding the bible) then that says a lot about how much you care for truth.

              • gto21 on 02/12/2018 - 23:40
                -1

                @tryagain: If it was a good comparison. We would find many Christians believing in flying spaghetti monster. But we don't. The flying spaghetti monster argument is a good one.

                • yoke2018 on 03/12/2018 - 01:35
                  +1

                  @gto21: Thanks gto21 for clarifying what point Scrooge McDuck was trying to make. It was just a very unusual use of Ockham's razor to follow up his analogical argument. It's superfluous.

                  To argue by analogy is to argue that because two things are similar, what is true of one is also true of the other. the closer the analogy, the stronger the argument, right? I.e, it becomes more valid (either deductively or inductively).

                  So the question becomes, how similar or dissimilar in analogy is the Flying Spaghetti Monster to Jesus of Nazareth's Resurrection? (disclaimer: do I believe in either? absolutely not lol, there simply isn't enough compelling evidence as I alluded to with regards to the flying spaghetti monster above).

                  But doing my own research on this resurrection idea, there are a few 'evidences' that Christians claim (some more compelling than others). Some of the more compelling ones (for me at least) come from ancient history:
                  - the first 'witness' testimonies according to the earliest writings of Christians were women. In Jewish culture, women's testimonies mean jack shit because the men have the authority and power — especially in making a massive claim about a resurrection.
                  - the Jews (Christian's enemies during ancient times) themselves confirm that the body of Jesus was absent from the tomb. they go to very far measures to cover this up. the Boulder itself according to historians was massive and could not be moved by 2 strong men who according to the Jews at the time were manning the tomb.
                  - the disciples all knowingly died gruesome deaths (skinned, crucified, etc)for an empty cause and didn't gain anything substantial, not even for money, but public hate and being hunted down by the Roman Empire (now that's scary as shit if you know anything about the Roman empire).
                  - scientific evidence regarding the shroud of Turin strongly suggesting that the body had a similar profile (age, time, geography, type of torture and death) to Jesus of Nazareth. the burial garment worn by the dead body in the tomb contained its shape to its entirely - it wasn't moved. it apparently just deflated or subsumed - apparently the only explanation for a burial garment to retain its entire shape.
                  - Jesus of Nazareth also was a historical man as most historians agree with.

                  The above few pieces of historical and genetic evidence for a 'resurrection' outweighs any evidence recorded by anyone about the existence of the phenomenon of a flying spaghetti monster. Based just on this small analysis, I think the analogy between a flying spaghetti monster and a resurrection (as absurd as both sound), is weak and not strong.

                • yoke2018 on 03/12/2018 - 01:56
                  +1

                  @gto21: It's actually a very bad argument. To evaluate the strength of an analogical argument's validity, you got to get these things right:
                  1. Truth. Are the two things being compared indeed similar in the way assumed? One is a material object with physical properties (flying spaghetti monster) within the realm of natural laws of physics, and the other is an immaterial 'object' with non-physical or 'spiritual' properties (resurrection) within the realm of the supernatural. Very different.
                  2. Relevance. The features where they are similar in are not all relevant to the conclusion (I.e. because the flying spaghetti monster is outrageous / fantasy / absolutely implausible, so must be the resurrection). See below point as complementary.
                  3. Number. We haven't discovered a lot of shared properties between two phenomena, and not all their properties mean that they are outrageous / fantasy / absolutely implausible. And so the analogical argument is weaker than when we can identify many shared properties.
                  4. Diversity. The shared properties are not really of different types. There is a lack of diversity in seeing in how many different ways the flying spaghetti monster is similar to the resurrection.
                  5. Disanalogy. Even if the flying spaghetti monster and the resurrection are similar in lots of relevant respects (which they're not…), there are way too many dissimilarities between them which casts doubt on the conclusion that because the flying spaghetti monster is outrageous / fantasy / absolutely implausible, so is the resurrection.

                  I'm not agreeing with the Christians that the resurrection is real, just like the 'flying spaghetti monsters, I think it's junk. But it's way more plausible and well-reasoned by thoughtful critical thinkers and historians. If I was to chose either at point blank gun point, I'd choose the resurrection simply on its (still very limited) merits.

              • yoke2018 on 03/12/2018 - 01:24

                @tryagain: I don't think he's referring to the historical Jesus of Nazareth. we know that most historians agree that he existed. I think he's referring to the resurrection (I hope he is…otherwise scrooge has a long way to go).

                • tryagain on 03/12/2018 - 06:57

                  @yoke2018: You would be surprised how many atheists don't believe in the historical Jesus, I think it's likely because it's something Dawkins tried to cast doubt on in the god delusion. In my experience the Spaghetti Monster is usually invoked by those trying to question not just the resurrection but also the existence.

            • yoke2018 on 03/12/2018 - 00:50

              @Scrooge McDuck: Ockham's razor applies to both the absence and presence of evidence to the contrary.

              I can inductively 'prove' for the non-existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - because we don't generally see a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Firstly, spaghetti has physical properties such as texture, size, shape, and motion (flight). So it's not an invisible, imperceptible monster like a ghost or whathaveyou. Because we don't experience such an occurrence, unlike the setting of a sun on a daily basis, I and most others can confidently say that we have inductive knowledge that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster - if there was, then the probability would be very low, unlike the setting of the sun.

              You follow this up with referencing Ockham's razor. Well, the razor is that there most likely is no Flying Spaghetti Monster because we hardly experience it on a universal level.

              So, I actually don't understand what point you are trying to make, especially by utilizing Ockham's razor. I think you've tried to sound intelligent but your statements are hollow. In fact, you make no argument lol, what exactly are your premises, and what is the conclusion that you are trying to make? Can you please put it in syllogistic form because I think you've committed a major formal logical fallacy — i.e. it does not follow a logical structure and so becomes invalid.

            • yoke2018 on 03/12/2018 - 01:59

              @Scrooge McDuck: A misuse of Ockham's razor.

              • gto21 on 03/12/2018 - 03:40

                @yoke2018: Based on some of the evidence you mentioned. Don't you believe the resurrection more likely happened than not? No need of 100% sure, but which one is more likely based on the argument for and against?

                • yoke2018 on 03/12/2018 - 15:39

                  @gto21: No, because I think it remains below 50% or chance level of it actually occurring. I actually think it's very very unlikely despite the apparent evidence that supports it (which many phenomena that don't exist [well, that I believe given the quantity and quality of reliable justifications] still have supporting evidence for). The Flying Spaghetti Monster may have trace amount of evidence, UFOs and Bigfoot may have small amounts of evidence, and likewise the resurrection.

      • Duff5000 on 02/12/2018 - 18:58

        a noisy bunch of haters

        Sounds like christians to me….

    • [Deactivated] on 02/12/2018 - 12:46
      +3

      Yeah. Adult products are banned from OzBargain, and most people would get more fulfilment out of those than out of this.

      Plus, they’re less offensive and less damaging.

      Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

  • aussieolfaction on 02/12/2018 - 10:54
    +5

    Normal Price USD $99

    haha

  • wfdTamar on 02/12/2018 - 11:04
    +8

    ‘Professor of Apologetics‘ - just means he’s married.

    • yoke2018 on 02/12/2018 - 11:08
      +4

      Apologetics is the field of defending beliefs; us atheists have an apologetic approach with regards to defending the non-religious worldview (which all the above comments are evidence of lol).

      • YellowDieselGolf on 02/12/2018 - 11:33
        +1

        =====|> Joke =====|>

        You

        • yoke2018 on 02/12/2018 - 11:43
          +2

          Do you know about any epistemology? If you don’t then you’re a joke / clown actually.

          In fact, atheist apologists include:
          Sam Harris,
          Dan Dennett,
          Richard Dawkins,
          Laurence Krauss,
          Bertrand Russell,
          Chris Hitchens (RIP),
          Steven Fry,
          Peter Singer (as an Aussie I have A LOT of respect for this highly intelligent and caring man),
          Michael Sherma
          Stephen Hawking,
          Dan Barker
          Etc.

          • YellowDieselGolf on 02/12/2018 - 19:22

            @yoke2018: TLDR

            • yoke2018 on 03/12/2018 - 02:04

              @YellowDieselGolf: Just a list of famous and reputable atheists that Christians should respect (some less so than others eg Chris Hitchens lol because he was a bit of a dick lol). But Singer, Sherma, Dennett, Krauss, and the like deserve respect.

              • tryagain on 03/12/2018 - 07:05

                @yoke2018: Krauss, really? I had more time for Hitchens arguments than his, sure he was pretty bombastic but he seemed to have a better grasp of what he arguing against than Krauss.

                • yoke2018 on 03/12/2018 - 15:49

                  @tryagain: lol, pretty bombastic is an understatement. I have still have no idea how his brother Peter is a staunch Anglican apologist. Anyway, verbal arguments or debates are not in Krauss' field of strengths. At least Hitchens stayed on point despite his flamboyant means.

  • yoke2018 on 02/12/2018 - 11:08
    +17

    Wow I can’t believe the close mindedness here. For atheists, knowledge is power. To win a war against Christians you need to know the enemy— be close to the enemy not far away. I honestly am ashamed among the atheist communities for this openly closed minded and non-academic approach to disputing Christian beliefs. Even if this were a free Theology 101 course or a Christianity 101 course or a Islam 101 course, conducted by a Professor (you can’t get that chair unless you have numerous peer reviewed research papers published in reputable journals) I think it’s worthwhile looking into, because as skeptics, we can’t just dismiss something without knowing in pretty damn good depth about what we’re disputing.

    As a skeptic and phislophically critical thinker myself, I see value in knowing much about these contents in order to dispute then, with knowledge. That is power.

    • EightImmortals on 02/12/2018 - 11:26
      +5

      Nice post. Speaking as a former atheist myself I approve of your approach. :)

      • BadGiraffe on 02/12/2018 - 17:32

        Former atheist? What changed?

        • EightImmortals on 02/12/2018 - 19:35
          +3

          I started questioning and searching and found a path that seemed to be a better and more easily defensible explanation of reality than Atheism was. So for the last few decades I've been questioning THAT path and haven't found any evidence yet that has forced me to the conclusion that atheism was true after all.

          • gto21 on 02/12/2018 - 19:40
            +3

            @EightImmortals: I was an agnostic. I started to have questions. Doing research, I think theism have better arguments than the atheism. I'm not saying I can prove God. Be it's more reasonable to believe in the concept of God than not.

            • yoke2018 on 03/12/2018 - 03:12

              @gto21: I'm just wondering, which arguments seem the most compelling for you in order for you to stick with theism? I'm genuinely interested. I think theism has solid arguments, but as you know already, I think atheism has some stronger points ;) but I'd like to know which ones you mean. Not debating, just hearing you out.

              • EightImmortals on 03/12/2018 - 09:50

                @yoke2018: Weeeellllll, OK on the promise of 'not debating' :)

                I'm not sure if I can adequately answer that question now but I'll give it a try. What I mean is that in the early days, for the first 15-20 years or so of this particular journey I was almost exclusively trading in that marketplace so I had a good handle on the current arguments and where the debates were at. In the last 15 years or so I have kind of moved on from that arena and into the realm of Mysticism, mindfulness, meditation, the presence and awareness taught by Gurjeiff (and Ouspensky and Nicol) last century through his '4th Way' teachings which lead to a greater comprehension of the deeper meanings of the scriptures and a closer walk with Christ.

                Not that that is any more or less important that the intellectual pursuits but it's more a case of once I became convinced of certain aspects being 'most likely' to be true it was a natural progression forward. I still keep one eye on the marketplace however in case any new or interesting arguments/evidence come up that I should be aware of. So with that in mind…and taking into account my old-man memory…..

                I think the first thing that rattled my cage was having my faith in Darwinism rocked a bit. This was back in the days before the internet and it was mostly the creationist guys working in that area. I don't think ID was a thing back then, if it was I wasn't aware of it but as I said it was before the internet so either you had awareness of things or you didn't. So questioning Darwinism was ridiculous to me at that point as was the idea that the Bible might have something of worth that I should actually read it. But as I was in a rather objective frame of mind because I just wanted to know what was true and was willing to examine my current beliefs I was happy to proceed with the investigation, regardless of how cynical I was to any alternative at the time. 'Everyone' knew that Darwinism was true and only nutjob anti-science morons would ever dare to doubt or question it. But after a few years of doing so I became convinced that Darwinism was on VERY shaky ground (evidentially speaking) and still to this day I have yet to see any actual evidence that forces me to the conclusion that Darwism has occurred. And to clarify that statement I am referring to 'Big D' Darwinism and not the small observable things that do not warrant (IMO) the conclusions drawn from them. The power in Darwinism (AFAICT) is in it's compelling story and it's philosophical payoff. I mean let's be honest I can 'imagine' evolution progressing in the way we are told, but then I can 'imagine' lots of things. But I think it is still with us because, as Dawkins famously said "Evolution allows us to be intellectually fulfilled atheists." So eventually it became clear to me that evolution was not 'science' and 'fact' but just another idea competing in the marketplace for our allegiance. IMO intelligent design is a far superior theory in that regard and seems to be a much nicer fit with the actual evidence than what Darwinism is. Now of course evolution being true does not disprove the existence of God, but it does make God unnecessary, at least for the biological aspects of the universe and it does undermine the veracity of the Bible. So once that idol was smashed I was free to at least make the effort to read the bible for myself, just to see what was in there. At that point I wasn't trying to prove or disprove anything, it was just one more step on the path on enquiry, I figured that once I'd read it I was then free to discard it because then I would KNOW for fact that it was all nonsense. Silly me. :)

                At some point I was introduced to the Kalaam cosmological argument and it was quite persuasive as well especially as it addresses the fallacy (IMO) of relativism and the existence of non-physical real things like logic, maths and (ok I'll say it) objective morality.

                One of the other things (though it is an observation rather than an argument) that stands out is the mean-spiritedness of a LOT of atheist debaters. I'm referring to the more famous ones rather than the typical internet troll. They seem to happily engage in ridicule and abuse towards those on the opposite side while the theists (whether convincing or not)were not. The theists seem more confident in and more interested in defending their own worldview rather than attacking and ridiculing the atheist they were debating. Of course there are exceptions and there are some debate-level atheists who do not express those traits but they seem to be in the minority. As I said, that was just an off-putting observation and I realise it doesn't say much about whether their particular arguments are valid and true or not. But maybe it says something about the type of character that that worldview produces?

                "Out of curiosity, is this mainly in relation to life after death, plus the value/virtue system that Christians live by, the goat/sheet divide at the last judgement, the communal sense of fellowship that is obtained, and also prayerful meditation practices/self-reflections?"

                Nice question. :) I would have to say 'not directly', as you noted elsewhere (I think it was you?)the western Church is in big trouble now that we are in a a post-Christian culture. They dropped the ball (or baby Jesus) and genuine spiritual seekers, or kids that were raised in the Church culture are leaving in search is the divine (or the hard lessons of the world) instead of rules, do's and dont's and how-to's. Conversely too, and maybe ironically, a lot of non Christians are coming in because they they have lived the other side of the coin already and have seen the futility of the 'material life'. Personally I think things started going off track when the western Church split from the Eastern Church at Constantinople and took on the materialism of western culture, maybe it started earlier. Either way, at this point in time ALL western Churches are a product of Catholicism (even the protestant ones)and most of it seems to miss the point that Christ didn't come to give us religion. :) Along with this shift to materialism (if I am using the right word) came a HUGE loss in the deeper meaning and more universal application of Christ's teaching in the scriptures.

                The 'pie in the sky when you die' belief is one of these aberrations. From what I can see, 'salvation' (the word means 'healing' )is for NOW, not for the afterlife though obviously it would carry over to the afterlife if it exists. Which brings us to the virtue/value system you mentioned. Though many great things have been dome by Christendom over the centuries it is quite clear that Jesus was more concerned about the inward state of the individual rather than the outward works. Even the worst person can do good things occasionally but because the Church (and most other non-spiritual teachings) have lost that connection and understanding to our inner being it is much easier to adopt a 'good works will save me' type of attitude. And don't get me wrong, doing works is better than doing bad stuff, or doing nothing, it's just something (IMO) that should flow naturally from the death of self rather than as something I can try to claim for my own virtue. Not sure if that answers your question at all but the good works of the Church were never part of my intellectual process on coming to a decision. Same thing goes with the last judgement, to me that is something that will happen all by itself, if it is true then there's nothing I can do about it either way. Communal fellowship can be found in ANY group of like-minded people so that was not on my radar either even though we have made some good lifelong freinds in the Church.

                I have only recently (the last 10 years or so) begun to discover meditation and awareness practices. They were never taught in the Churches that I went to and seem to have been relegated more to the deeper spirituality and mysticism of Eastern Orthodoxy over the last 1000 years or so. Though I've noticed a greater interest in the general population in those kinds of things over the last few years.

                Anyway, I've waffled on for way longer than I planned to. I hope I might have got close to answering your questions, if not, then please post some more. In the spirit of friendly discussion of course, I'm way over having arguments about things. :)

                • godfather on 14/12/2018 - 19:36

                  @EightImmortals: In regards to your statement "I have only recently (the last 10 years or so) begun to discover meditation and awareness practices."

                  Hesychasm? A stab in the dark

                  • EightImmortals on 18/12/2018 - 09:36

                    @godfather: hehe, I had to look that word up. :)

                    But yes I would include that, along with other types of meditation.

          • yoke2018 on 03/12/2018 - 03:10

            @EightImmortals: Out of curiosity, is this mainly in relation to life after death, plus the value/virtue system that Christians live by, the goat/sheet divide at the last judgement, the communal sense of fellowship that is obtained, and also prayerful meditation practices/self-reflections?

    • pensionday on 02/12/2018 - 11:58
      +5

      You're expecting far too much of the average Australian/westerner. We live in a media fuelled system. Keeping us busy results in being unable to take luxuries such as "thinking".

      This is not an accident; it's by design.

      • yoke2018 on 02/12/2018 - 12:10
        +3

        But youtube makes critical thinking and philosophy and atheism debates so accessible nowadays…I guess with time.

        • EightImmortals on 02/12/2018 - 12:17

          But how many people (from ALL worldviews) are interested in learning/questioning and doubting those worldviews for the purpose of testing their veracity? Most people just want to be right and as a personal observation I've noted that those who are the loudest and most abusive and argumentative are those who are very insecure in their beliefs and have not had a serious look at alternative beliefs and weighed up the evidence/arguments even half seriously. Seems to be the same way they vote in elections too. :P

          • pensionday on 02/12/2018 - 12:32

            @EightImmortals: Yes. Crusades are for those who are compelled to disregard others opinions and/or beliefs.

            Secure and comfortable people give their opinion when asked, and rarely otherwise from my observations.

          • cheapo999 on 02/12/2018 - 12:45

            @EightImmortals: Indeed.

    • [Deactivated] on 02/12/2018 - 16:58
      +1

      It's a fallacy that has existed for over two millennia.

      Calling out atheists who dismiss any religion is akin to anyone of sound mind refusing to entertain a lecture on flat Earth. Just because an idea exists and has been repeatedly endorsed doesn't mean it warrants any further examination.

      I for one have read the Bible and several Christian religious books, the Quran and some of the Torah. I don't think anyone needs to know more than the basics to dismiss the validity of their claims because it can be summarised - greater being(s) that cannot be proven but more importantly (to religious people at least) cannot be disproven, a whole lot of magic tricks and a version of the afterlife that also cannot be disproven.

      One only needs to study these texts if they wish to debate which religion holds more merit or are more compatible in a given scenario but that's akin to comparing which fork works best for soup.

      • gto21 on 02/12/2018 - 17:08
        +1

        Most Christians in history don't believe in a flat earth. And I'm talking since the first century. That just wrong you don't know history.

        • [Deactivated] on 02/12/2018 - 17:16
          +3

          Your whole comment is just wrong because I never implied flat earthers are exclusively Christians. They're their own thing and a fairly big movement of their own.

          But I'm interested in proof that

          Most Christians in history don't believe in a flat earth.

          • gto21 on 02/12/2018 - 17:19

            @[Deactivated]: Why are you claiming its a lecture on flat earth then?

            • [Deactivated] on 02/12/2018 - 17:21
              +1

              @gto21:

              is akin to anyone of sound mind refusing to entertain a lecture on flat Earth.

              Dictionary.

              So where is the proof of your claim.

              Most Christians in history don't believe in a flat earth. And I'm talking since the first century.

              • gto21 on 02/12/2018 - 17:31
                +1

                @[Deactivated]: I don't know why you keep speaking about flat earth when even some atheists believe in flat earth. Anyway, it's still available. In the following lecture, Dr. Robert Bowman Jr gave the evidence that most Christians through history don't believe in flat earth. https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/412048.

                • [Deactivated] on 02/12/2018 - 17:42

                  @gto21:

                  I don't know why you keep speaking about flat earth when even some atheists believe in flat earth.

                  I made two mentions.

                  Throwing an obscure 9hr lecture isn't proof. If there was a timestamp on the relevant section of the recording, it's a reference at best.

                  So, where is the proof? Surely the lecturer would have cited empirical data/proof.

                  Most Christians in history don't believe in a flat earth. And I'm talking since the first century.

                  • gto21 on 02/12/2018 - 17:56
                    +1

                    @[Deactivated]: It's in the first 4 lectures. I can't remember which one. You will have to listen to it. IF I listen to it again in the future I'll let you know. But I gave you the resources. If you want to learn it's available. If you don't want to listen not my problem.

                    • [Deactivated] on 02/12/2018 - 18:10

                      @gto21: It was never your problem but you did make a bold claim that you cannot substantiate but instead provided "resource" in the form of four lectures by a doctorate in theology.

                      Since I allegedly "kept mentioning" flat Earth, there are also many lectures on flat Earth. The earth still isn't flat.

                      Also, a car salesman saying their brand of car is the best also doesn't mean their car is indeed the best.

                      That is simply not how proof works.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join