6 of 7: Using the Socratic Method with Christian Proselytizers (apologetic counter-arguments)

[snbeings]

I think what you are attempting to do is to destroy fundamental dogmatic literalism which is extremely easy to do. However, the function of the Bible is as a historic record, poetry, cultural perspective, and philosophy. The main purpose of the Bible is as a bunch of pointers to get the reader into a direct experience of God, i.e. Enlightenment, Union, Christ-hood. There is no way to argue against the direct experience of transcendence and Divine selfless Love!

[ToddAllenGates]

@snbeings

1 of 3:

> I think what you are attempting to do is to destroy fundamental dogmatic literalism which is extremely easy to do.

Yet fundamentalists have an *amazing* number of followers! And creationism is not at all easy to defeat, and it causes headaches for science teachers throughout the US.

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 3:

> However, the function of the Bible is as a historic record, poetry, cultural perspective, and philosophy.

I personally enjoy reading the bible from that perspective too. But most Christians I know of say the "function" is for God to tell us His Truth, which include the story of Creation, rules on homosexuality & marriage & pre-marital sex, etc.

[ToddAllenGates]

3 of 3:

> There is no way to argue against the direct experience of transcendence and Divine selfless Love!

Agreed. And as long as it's a private experience—and doesn't translate into theists saying that others need to do such & such or be condemned to an eternity of hellfire—then there's *no reason* to argue against it!

[snbeings]

@ToddAllenGates

Well the Fundies having masses follow them is bad. I think we should teach Evolution equally with I.D. + creationism and then let the kids choose their own path. This war of one against the other stupid.

However I would argue that one can have a direct experience of the Divine, the source of all things. Once the experience is had, one pretty much knows there is a source to all of this, but this still allows evolution to be.

[ToddAllenGates]

@snbeings

1 of 2:

> we should teach Evolution equally with creationism and let the kids choose their own path

I disagree with the approach of teaching two contradictory explanations—the 6-day creation myth (or myths from other religions), and the facts of evolution—and then let kids figure out which one is right. That's like saying we should teach them that the earth is a sphere *and* that it's flat. Not only is it TOTALLY confusing . . . but *why* "teach" things that are simply false?

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 2:

But if what you mean is that we should teach children the facts of our ancient universe and ancient earth and of evolution, and then let kids choose their own path as for whether the first spark of life was "God-breathed," and whether belief in the supernatural is compatible with evolution---then I completely agree!

[miraenna]

Wow, all I can say wow! I can't promise to be able to take things like that with a straight face like you do.

I' afraid I'd burst to loud spontaneous laughter and/or my face would turn into agonizing grin because of a serious headache from all the mind twisting and spinning. My only hope would be to try to focus on observing an interesting psychological phenomenon taking place.

How do you get thru it?

Thanks for sharing!

[ToddAllenGates]

> How do you get thru it?

Lots of practice!

> Thanks for sharing!

Thanks for watching!!

[illbetilbake]

bill hicks explained the dinosaurs pretty well

[ToddAllenGates]

> bill hicks explained the dinosaurs

Yes -- God planted the bogus bones to test our faith!

[smpunditz]

WOW!! I haven't even heard these excuses before. The fact that they would require this much external justification for understanding the supposed divine word of God should be enough to tell them that it is clearly just a collection of poorly written fairy tales.

[ToddAllenGates]

> WOW!! I haven't even heard these excuses before.

They all come from apologetic literature—I certainly couldn't have come up with this stuff on my own!

> . . should be enough to tell them that it is clearly just a collection of poorly written fairy tales.

It *should* be—yet human creativity & the human capacity for delusion is a formidable combination!

[smashbeans]

wave ur hands in the air like you just dont care!! great stuff man

[LynxChan]

pre-plagiarized? Seriously? This can be said with a straight face?

Faith really is something.

[ToddGates]

> pre-plagiarized? Seriously?

I got it straight from Christian apologetics—I couldn't have made this up on my own!!

[Elaina43]

Re: 8:00 That Satan - what a wily fellow!

[AutodidacticPhd]

"what a wily fellow! "

Yeah, that clever little rascal.

:D

[musicgeniusno1]

Another good one,thanks. No matter what is presented to the apologists,they will always construct something to counter it-i get sick of being told it's interpretation issues,or allegorical etc. When someone starts with a conclusion,it's almost impossible to find neutral ground.

[ToddAllenGates]

> When someone starts with a conclusion,it's almost impossible to find neutral ground

True, and I have no hopes of de-converting die-hard believers. When it comes to theists on the fence, however, I hope to be able to demonstrate how the apologist's answers involve too many double-standards to be able to stand up to scrutiny.

[musicgeniusno1]

Yes,fence sitters are at least more likely to at least engage in useful discussion :)

[gremlinn7]

For the "all the kingdoms of the world" part - I suppose it could also be defended by claiming that the unseen portions of the world were devoid of kingdoms.

[ToddAllenGates]

> For the "all the kingdoms of the world" part - I suppose it could also be defended by claiming that the unseen portions of the world were devoid of kingdoms.

True . . . I guess North America didn't count because there were chiefdoms instead of kingdoms. (Welcome to the slippery world of apologetics!)

[EvoBiologist]

Even more of a problem than the lack of dinosaurs in Genesis 1 are the other problems.

-light before stars

-plants before the sun

-all the plants are created on the same day, when the evolution of many of the land plants should come at least after the fishes (and in the case of flowering plants, after insects - creeping things - showed up on land)

-all the sea creatures and birds are created on the same day, when whales and birds should actually come later after land animals

Some major errors

[ToddAllenGates]

> Some major errors

Quite true! There's lots to choose from ... I just happened to pick dinosaurs because the fossils/bones are very difficult to deny.

When I've questioned things like the bible's tale about the universe containing light before the stars, I've had proselytizers give maddening responses like "How do you know it didn't happen that way? Were you there? With God, anything is possible!"

[EvoBiologist]

"How do you know it didn't happen that way? Were you there? With God, anything is possible!"

My favorite version of this line of reasoning is the "God created a MATURE Earth" excuse. He just made everything LOOK really old (mountains, erosion patterns, light on the way from distant stars, etc.) when He first created it a few thousand years ago, therefore, it's impossible to use any evidence to falsify the Young Earth myth.

[ToddAllenGates]

> My favorite version of this line of reasoning is the "God created a MATURE Earth" excuse. He just made everything LOOK really old (mountains, erosion patterns, light on the way from distant stars, etc.)

The flexibility of human logic never ceases to amaze me!

[Singebuggercat]

This is the best talking-head atheist vid series I have seen. Nice work.

[ToddAllenGates]

> This is the best talking-head atheist vid series I have seen.

TOO kind but thanks!!

[Keylimedelight]

He's right, I've seen allot of smack talking but rarely do i see such well reasoned arguments.

[ToddAllenGates]

> I've seen a lot of smack talking but rarely do i see such well reasoned arguments

I try to avoid smack talking, because then "smack" is where all the focus ends up going.

[freethinker3161]

oh man have i heard all these and then some. lol, great job.

[ToddAllenGates]

> great job.

Thank you!

[gonyea12]

Leviticus 11:10-12

If you eat at Red Lobster than you're no better than a homosexual in the eyes of God.

[ToddAllenGates]

> If you eat at Red Lobster than you're no better than a homosexual in the eyes of God.

Abominations either way! I'm surprised the fundamentalists don't picket seafood restaurants ... I guess certain abominations are permissible if they're tasty enough.

[pookiehohn]

Oddly the same argument("I guess certain abominations are permissible if they're tasty enough") can be used for Homosexuality!

[ToddAllenGates]

> Oddly the same argument("I guess certain abominations are permissible if they're tasty enough") can be used for Homosexuality!

Ha-ha ... straight to hell for you for that one!!