Just had my first public debate, with pastor Phil Fernandes
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-07-2014, 04:10 PM (This post was last modified: 13-07-2014 06:31 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Just had my first public debate, with pastor Phil Fernandes
(12-07-2014 10:26 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The topic was the resurrection of Jesus. It was 1 o'clock in the morning in Australia and I was talking via Skype. I must admit I was nervous as it was my first time and I was up against a very well oiled and experienced debater.

Unfortunately there were technical issues with my (brand-new and expensive) headset, so I couldn't hear a lot of what he said. Oh well.

I would appreciate any feedback, including criticism.

It was a good experience and I'll be smoother and more relaxed next time...and I'll have equipment that works.

Here it is...

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/healingxout...reasonable

70 % of NT scholars agree that Jesus rose from the dead ? Really ? Where did he get that ? Let's see the data, and who was polled.

One of the big problems, is, as Dr. B.B. Scott (Christian Tulsa seminary professor), points out in "The Trouble With Resurrection", is that the Greek texts of Paul, the nuances and tenses of the verbs have been mistranslated (or not correctly translated exactly), thus misunderstood. If what Paul meant, was that Yahweh "raised up", (as in "exalted") the hero Jesus, in the very tradition he existed in, (Jewish Apocalypticism), just like he "exalted" other Jewish heroes, it has a TOTALLY different meaning. Paul never said Jesus was "raised bodily" as Fernandes claims. That's just his prejudice talking. He did say he was "raised up" or "exalted". In Hebrew culture the "exaltation" (*raising up* of heroes, ie with a PASSIVE meaning to the verb action) it did not mean they "bodily re-awakened from death", it meant Yahweh recognized them as "heroes" and "granted them immortality", (much as "being installed in a Hall of Fame" is done today). Real bodies don't "appear" and "disappear". They don't walk with people, and people not recognize them (The Road to Emmaus incident). So whatever it is they're talking about, it's NOT A NORMAL PHYSICAL BODY. It's something else. At the end of Matthew, it says they saw him, "they DOUBTED but they worshiped". If you see a real physical body, there is nothing to doubt. Which raises the question : why did Thomas doubt ? HE could see the body, right ? Yet even seeing whatever he saw, (obviously not a real physical body), he still doubted.

We also know the first version of Mark's Gospel ended with the empty tomb. So apparently the earliest closest to the supposed events did not include a physical resurrection.

Islam grew fast, and Islamists are willing to die. Does THAT make Islam true for Fernandez ?

See also Bart Ehrman's new book http://www.amazon.com/How-Jesus-Became-G...B00DB39V2Q
"How Jesus Became God. The *EXALTATION* of a Jewish preacher from Galilee".

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...other-look

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
13-07-2014, 05:28 PM
RE: Just had my first public debate, with pastor Phil Fernandes
(13-07-2014 04:10 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(12-07-2014 10:26 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The topic was the resurrection of Jesus. It was 1 o'clock in the morning in Australia and I was talking via Skype. I must admit I was nervous as it was my first time and I was up against a very well oiled and experienced debater.

Unfortunately there were technical issues with my (brand-new and expensive) headset, so I couldn't hear a lot of what he said. Oh well.

I would appreciate any feedback, including criticism.

It was a good experience and I'll be smoother and more relaxed next time...and I'll have equipment that works.

Here it is...

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/healingxout...reasonable

70 % of NT scholars agree that Jesus rose from the dead ? Really ? Where did he get that ? Let's see the data, and who was polled.

One of the big problems, is, as Dr. B.B. Scott (Christian Tulsa seminary professor), points out in "The Trouble With Resurrection", is that the Greek texts of Paul, the nuances and tenses of the verbs have been mistranslated, thus misunderstood. If what Paul meant, was that Yahweh "raised up", (as in "exalted") the hero Jesus, in the very tradition he existed in, (Jewish Apocalypticism), just like he "exalted" other Jewish heroes, it has a TOTALLY different meaning. Paul never said Jesus was "raised bodily" as Fernandes claims. That's just his prejudice talking. He did say he was "raised up" or "exalted". In Hebrew culture the "exaltation" (*raising up* of heroes, ie with a PASSIVE meaning to the verb action) it did not mean they "bodily re-awakened from death", it meant Yahweh recognized them as "heroes" and "granted them immortality", (mush as "being installed in a Hall of Fame" is done today. Real bodies don't "appear" and "disappear". They don't walk with people, and people not recognize them (The Road to Emmaus incident). So whatever it is they're talking about, it's NOT A NORMAL PHYSICAL BODY. It's something else. At the end of Matthew, it says they saw him, "they DOUBTED but they worshiped". If you see a real physical body, there is nothing to doubt. Which raises the question : why did Thomas doubt ? HE could see the body, right ? Yet even seeing whatever he saw, (obviously not a real physical body), he still doubted.

We also know the first version of Mark's Gospel ended with the empty tomb. So apparently the earliest closest to the supposed events did not include a physical resurrection.

Islam grew fast, and Islamists are willing to die. Does THAT make Islam true for Fernandez ?

See also Bart Ehrman's new book http://www.amazon.com/How-Jesus-Became-G...B00DB39V2Q
"How Jesus Became God. The *EXALTATION* of a Jewish preacher from Galilee".

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...other-look

Good points. Thanks Bucky
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2014, 05:33 PM
RE: Just had my first public debate, with pastor Phil Fernandes
(13-07-2014 03:48 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  I will watch in its entirety as soon as I get a chance.
Never heard of the other guy.....
Congrats on opting for an open debateYes.............dogma destroys dialogue.

Thanks. It's actually quite daunting to know you are live on radio. Every hesitation is a mark against you. On a forum you have time to formulate your answers, but not on radio.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2014, 05:35 PM
RE: Just had my first public debate, with pastor Phil Fernandes
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2014, 05:37 PM
RE: Just had my first public debate, with pastor Phil Fernandes
I'll try this again.

Bucky.... PS...love this post. http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...other-look
I get something new from it with every reread.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2014, 06:18 PM (This post was last modified: 14-07-2014 04:24 AM by DLJ.)
RE: Just had my first public debate, with pastor Phil Fernandes
Atheist's critique of the atheist.

Areas for Improvement:

Be nicer at the start: Thank everyone and tip your hat to their qualifications ... which you can understate... thus showing that you have researched them (even if you haven't). It will give them a swell of pride / a false sense of security as they'll think you are scared of them / a nervous moment as they realise they may have underestimated you... all at the same time.

Challenge the 'mythicist' assertion. You were painted as a crank and could have knocked that one on the head by stating that you are pointing out that the marketing of Jesus bears the hall-marks of other myths (e.g. the popularity of resurrection) and you were not saying that Jesus himself was a myth (even though you haven't ruled it out).

Check out the pronunciation of 'zealot'. I think it's zell not ze-al but I could be wrong.


Strengths:

Your style: To me, you did not seem nervous. You came across as humbly assertive and honest.
Saying "that's true" at one point was a masterstroke... It showed you were willing to listen and accede a point and at the same time implied that everything else Phil said was therefore not true.

Summarising the opponents points and repeating the question ("I think what you were asking... ") is a nice touch. It again shows you are listening and considering your answer.

Dan Dennett uses this similar approach... see insert on page 2:
"You can't find love in the dictionary"

Your purpose: Not a professional but just a humble guy who cares about his patients and had started to question what he had been spoon-fed... that's a good angle and aims at your possible target audience: the hesitantly faithful.

Your innocence: Being new to this lets you get away with a few things (speaking after the bell; interrupting; dodging the 'only ask questions' rule). I don't think your opponent would have let an experienced debater get away with that.

Doing a Hitch: Apart from his opening statement, his time and your time were spent discussing your agenda. I think you did this (as Hitch did) simply by ignoring his points. Even if it was a tech problem that stopped you from hearing him, I think you should continue to use that tactic.

I enjoyed the sarcastic asides and the humour particularly the understatements ("active imagination", "didn't give a fig tree" and my favourite about the crucifixion "that didn't look good"... I nearly pissed myself!) but careful with those... don't forget that your opponent is not the ultimate audience.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
13-07-2014, 07:58 PM
RE: Just had my first public debate, with pastor Phil Fernandes
(13-07-2014 06:18 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Check out the pronunciation of 'zealot'. I think it's zell not ze-al but I could be wrong.

I've always heard it as 'zell-ot' too.

But that's probably the fault of regional dialect and a rather thick accent, and one might consider than a fault to not change.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
14-07-2014, 01:50 AM
RE: Just had my first public debate, with pastor Phil Fernandes
(13-07-2014 05:33 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Thanks. It's actually quite daunting to know you are live on radio. Every hesitation is a mark against you. On a forum you have time to formulate your answers, but not on radio.

I totally get that. While I have never been in a live debate I have presented in front of academics and had to field questions. I've also observed many PhD students learn to do the same. One thing I have noticed many times when people are doing it for the first time, is that it is easy to seize up, struggle to think of what to say next or even to think clearly. You're standing there, presenting your first year experiments (often without any success) to a department of people way more qualified and advanced in the field than yourself while you're still unsure what's going to work.

What I discovered was that it is so easy to start focusing on things going wrong and that this very act actually makes it happen.

Whereas if you are confident in your research, have plenty of rehearsed notes to draw on (or a comprehensive power point presentation behind you) and concentrate on this instead then you lose the fear and this by itself means that the fear of messing up becomes unfounded.

This is especially important at the beginning before you get into the swing of things. The notes or power point presentation becomes a life raft which allows you to gain confidence and occasionally go for a swim. You know that if you start to struggle you can always get back to something you are sure of. This is why preparation is key.

I don't think pauses are necessarily a bad thing because it can just as easily be seen as you trying to figure out the best way to make the other person understand. For example, it is very important for academics to figure out the best way to explain their research to laymen. They are also fully aware of what their results do and do not suggest and this gives them that air of confidence about them (sometimes mistaken as arrogance). In the same way, if a child asks you a deep question there's no point answering with technical details. Do it right and you will look erudite and they will look like a child.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mathilda's post
14-07-2014, 03:08 AM
RE: Just had my first public debate, with pastor Phil Fernandes
(13-07-2014 06:18 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Atheist's critique of the atheist.

Areas for Improvement:

Be nicer at the start: Thank everyone and tip your hat to their qualifications ... which you can understate... this showing that you have researched them (even if you haven't). It will give them a swell of pride / a false sense of security as they'll think you are scared of them / a nervous moment as they realise they may have underestimated you... all at the same time.

Challenge the 'mythicist' assertion. You were painted as a crank and could have knocked that one on the head by stating that you are pointing out that the marketing of Jesus bears the hall-marks of other myths (e.g. the popularity of resurrection) and you were not saying that Jesus himself was a myth (even though you haven't ruled it out).

Check out the pronunciation of 'zealot'. I think it's zell not ze-al but I could be wrong.


Strengths:

Your style: To me, you did not seem nervous. You came across as humbly assertive and honest.
Saying "that's true" at one point was a masterstroke... It showed you were willing to listen and accede a point and at the same time implied that everything else Phil said was therefore not true.

Summarising the opponents points and repeating the question ("I think what you were asking... ") is a nice touch. It again shows you are listening and considering your answer.

Dan Dennett uses this similar approach... see insert on page 2:
"You can't find love in the dictionary"

Your purpose: Not a professional but just a humble guy who cares about his patients and started to question what he had been spoon-fed... that's a good angle and aims at your possible target audience: the hesitantly faithful.

Your innocence: Being new to this lets you get away with a few things (speaking after the bell; interrupting; dodging the 'only ask questions' rule). I don't think your opponent would have let an experienced debater get away with that.

Doing a Hitch: Apart from his opening statement, his time and your time were spent discussing your agenda. I think you did this (as Hitch did) simply by ignoring his points. Even if it was a tech problem that stopped you from hearing him, I think you should continue to use that tactic.

I enjoyed the sarcastic asides and the humour particularly the understatements ("active imagination", "didn't give a fig tree" and my favourite about the crucifixion "that didn't look good"... I nearly pissed myself!) but careful with those... don't forget that your opponent is not the ultimate audience.

Thank you so much for your constructive comments. Boy is it nice to get little bit of support!

Do you think I have a strong Australian accent? Not that it really matters one way or the other.

I would've loved to say hello to everyone, and acknowledge Phil, and explain who I was and that I felt honoured to be there, but I wasn't actually given the chance to do that. I suppose I could have eaten into my seven minutes introduction time but I needed to get all of that out to lay down my position.

My biggest regret about the debate was the poor audio. I invested a hundred dollars in a proper headset but it just didn't work well. Phil on his cellphone sounded clearer. Oh well. That's life.

Thanks ++ for finding the time to listen.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2014, 03:17 AM
RE: Just had my first public debate, with pastor Phil Fernandes
(14-07-2014 01:50 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(13-07-2014 05:33 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Thanks. It's actually quite daunting to know you are live on radio. Every hesitation is a mark against you. On a forum you have time to formulate your answers, but not on radio.

I totally get that. While I have never been in a live debate I have presented in front of academics and had to field questions. I've also observed many PhD students learn to do the same. One thing I have noticed many times when people are doing it for the first time, is that it is easy to seize up, struggle to think of what to say next or even to think clearly. You're standing there, presenting your first year experiments (often without any success) to a department of people way more qualified and advanced in the field than yourself while you're still unsure what's going to work.

What I discovered was that it is so easy to start focusing on things going wrong and that this very act actually makes it happen.

Whereas if you are confident in your research, have plenty of rehearsed notes to draw on (or a comprehensive power point presentation behind you) and concentrate on this instead then you lose the fear and this by itself means that the fear of messing up becomes unfounded.

This is especially important at the beginning before you get into the swing of things. The notes or power point presentation becomes a life raft which allows you to gain confidence and occasionally go for a swim. You know that if you start to struggle you can always get back to something you are sure of. This is why preparation is key.

I don't think pauses are necessarily a bad thing because it can just as easily be seen as you trying to figure out the best way to make the other person understand. For example, it is very important for academics to figure out the best way to explain their research to laymen. They are also fully aware of what their results do and do not suggest and this gives them that air of confidence about them (sometimes mistaken as arrogance). In the same way, if a child asks you a deep question there's no point answering with technical details. Do it right and you will look erudite and they will look like a child.

"What I discovered was that it is so easy to start focusing on things going wrong and that this very act actually makes it happen." Oh yes...good point!

"Whereas if you are confident in your research, have plenty of rehearsed notes to draw on (or a comprehensive power point presentation behind you) and concentrate on this instead then you lose the fear and this by itself means that the fear of messing up becomes unfounded. "

Yes! I love my notes! I used them... But tried to make it sound as though I wasn't reading them. That's not easy.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: