On the Christian Use of Bayes' Theorem, by JP415 and GearHedEd

I have an axe to grind with the way Craig, Torley, et al. used Bayes’ Theorem. It just seems like a diversionary tactic. During a debate, they break out an equation and say, “Our methods are objective! See, we’ve even got a math formula to prove it.” But when you look at the formula, you see that it’s stuffed with a bunch of unproven assumptions. They should know better. Maybe they do.
They do. Craig's entire career has been an effort to become a "respected Christian Apologist". He was already committed before he went to college. And none of the "priors" that they stuff into their Bayes' Theorem Machine are reasonable. It all comes from poorly evidenced claims in the Bible, and gets a "pass" because of where it was found.
Yeah, it's like, "Given our prior background knowledge that Superman came from the planet Krypton, it's entirely likely that he could fly and shoot laser beams from his eyes." You could just put any old thing in there and get the results you want.
I think this analysis is basically correct, and I wish to comment further.

Richard Swinburne wrote a book on the resurrection using Bayes' Theorem, and concluded it's "97% probable that God Incarnate in the person of Jesus was raised from the dead" given the existence of his god. Listen folks, this is typical delusional foolishness. Swinburne doesn't candidly say his god is his given, but that's indeed his given. Given the existence of his god he concludes it's 97% probable "God Incarnate" in the person of Jesus was raised from the dead, because that's the only way someone can conclude "God Incarnate" was raised from the dead, by starting with the Christian god as a given. The specific given god cannot be a nebulous deity, or Allah or the Jewish Old Testament Yahweh, since non-Christian believers don't conclude "God Incarnate" arose from the dead. Even though they believe in god, they believe in a different god. [That's why I say there is no such thing as theism, only theisms. No theist merely believes in an arbitrary set of agreed upon doctrines for discussion and debate. They believe in much more than a limited doctrinal set, which makes all the difference.] So when non-Christian believers examine the evidence for the resurrection they agree with atheists, agnostics, and deists that there isn't sufficient objective evidence to believe their god did that particular miracle.

Only if the given god isn't just any god, but the Christian god, can Swinburne make his case. This is special pleading, begging the question and assuming what needs to be proved. It's also a big fat non-sequitur, since it doesn't follow that different believers can assume a different god and still conclude Jesus arose.

WTF? WTF? Who are we dealing with here? Ignoramuses I tell ya, stupid people, or else con-artists who seek to deceive us because they can.

Question: Should atheist intellectuals respond to Swinburne with an alternative Bayesian analysis to convince him and/or his readers otherwise?

Before I try, I'd like to know if it'll make a difference that's worth my effort. I'm not being anti-intellectual here. To atheists who wish to respond in kind, go ahead. Have at it. I'm asking how effective it is to respond in kind. Perhaps someone should do so, okay. Yet, I still want to know if the effort will actually change minds. I'm told that when Christian apologists are forced by Bayesian math to quantify their assumptions, background knowledge, and their priors, we can pinpoint exactly where our differences reside. But we already know where our differences reside! Quantifying them just shows how far our differences are apart. Yet, we already know how far apart our differences are without the math. Knowing them and even quantifying them doesn't help anyone solve them all by itself.

My educated guess is that anyone who bothers writing and/or responding to a Bayesian defense of the resurrection has already come to a strong position on the resurrection, one way or another on both sides, such that participating in such a mathematical debate wouldn't change anyone's mind. But when atheists respond in kind I strongly suspect we give these apologists respectability, and they can in turn pat us on our back, all the while wasting a great deal of time that could be better spent doing other projects.