"you have better things to do than argue with a 16-year-old nobody on youtube"

And don't forget it. :)

Well said, Apatheist - I admire your composure. I have very little patience for kiddies who pretend like they know what they're talking about.

Mig, history is NOT used to supplement science, science comes out with likelihoods and probabilities, it shows us how the world works, whilst history deciphers through evidence, accounts etc to find out whether probable events probably happened, science supplements and guides history, history is dependent on our scientific knowledge.Not the other way round.Before you use history, prove it is likely via science, which you MOST probably cannot as there is no known evidence of said resurrection that could build a scientific case for it.

I think you both have read apologists more than anything else. You can't seriously pass off history as a hard science, and yet you consistently treat it like one.

I understand the uncertainties inherent in historical methods and the obvious consequence: any attempt to demonstrate the supernatural by the means therein is flawed from the onset. I've learned that I have little hope of reasoning with people who lack this understanding.

Please don't break your promise, tehk.

You said you would make a response to Kabane.

To tehks comment on July 9. Why do you claim we don't know anything? I've read scholars on this issue, and so do you. You're one of of the more intelligent Skeptics on YouTube, which is why my tone towards you has improved. But to claim that we don't understand the issue is rather silly in my opinion, because mig and I have read credentialed scholars just as you have.

Thankses for the sub!

--Celpha

Ah well. You did a good job anyway, and atleast I watched them.

You removed your videos to Kabane/Mig?
I am slightly disappointed...

It's not a battle. It's just kids on youtube talking about things they don't really understand.