1 of 7: Using the Socratic Method with Christian Proselytizers (overview)

[progrockcoffee]

Why should we use the Socratic Method? :D

[ToddAllenGates]

@progrockcoffee

> Why should we use the Socratic Method?

I'm not saying you *should* ... but the advantage is that instead of pitting your arguments against the Christians (which often just makes people defensive), you use their own arguments against them.

[mike53406]

Religious people are so simple minded. They never question their faith and never dig deep enough to find that it makes no sense. Simple is bliss I guess...

[ToddAllenGates]

@mike53406

> They never question their faith and never dig deep enough to find that it makes no sense.

Even more amazing is when they *do* dig deep and come up with illogical rationalizations to explain why everything makes "logical" sense.

[iammarkfitz]

Right on Todd..... didn't have the time to go through all your videos and my apologies for jumping to conclusions you weren't making. God bless.

[ToddAllenGates]

@iammarkfitz

> didn't have the time to go through all your videos and my apologies for jumping to conclusions you weren't making.

No prob -- thanks!

[iammarkfitz]

How about another premise? The sense of good and evil. Does it have to be put under a microscope to exist? A large percentage of our life is quantifiable but we ignore the spiritual sense -- it has a huge impact and is right in front of us everyday. You see a loving mother holding a child and what do you sense? You see a raging mother hit her child and what do you sense? You see courage? You see cowardice? Ignoring it makes this very disconnected from reality.

[ToddAllenGates]

@iammarkfitz

> Ignoring it makes this very disconnected from reality

The point of this video series is to look at some of the reasons why theists reject religions other than their own—and then to look at whether or not those same reasons may apply to their own religion. None of this denies the existence of love, suffering, courage, cowardice, etc.

[coreyalan23]

doesn't work. Several discoveries counter to the theory of evolution have been supressed but are nevertheless not too hard to find. The occult stuff is creepy, and at the very least, there is a large contingent of affluent people that certainly believe in that shit. You'll see the "huge psychological discoveries" coming out on an assembly line, it's all casting spells, waking up your genie, forsaking God, just watch. Thanks for the chat.

[coreyalan23]

If you do research that stuff, it will take some time. Darwin didn't come up with evolution. It was an excuse for Eugenics. He lifted the ideas right from the Greek Materialists, who asserted that all things were material by nature and thus life could only be explained materially. Accidental and biological basis of life is predicated upon the assumption that all things are material. But clearly not all things are material. Any metaphysicist or quantum physicist will tell you it just

[coreyalan23]

from different ends of the earth come up with some of the exact same things. There's some interesting discoveries in native folklore, and in european as well of a trickster figure-- a defiant male that rebels against the ultimate authority that always takes the form of a patriarchal power. You'll find this in native americans, norwegians, arabs, asians, druids, egyptians, yep, everywhere. There seems to be something of the God/Lucifer rebellion that is imprinted within us.

[coreyalan23]

by His own grace please him in some incredibly difficult to figure out way. or (F) humankind writes down stories and passes them down from generation to generation. As these stories evolve, so does the human perspective over himself and his relation to life. There are many hills and valleys in human history, each providing its own viewpoint and truth. Each truth finds its way into support column of cultural experience. This experience is then handed down and refined. Different cultures

[coreyalan23]

Well you invented your own fallacy: the false tri-chotomy. lol. but seriously, if God granted freewill, then "quality control" would amount to limiting freewill in some way. so (D) God revealed parts, politically motivated men changed and invented parts, the truth is out there, but it takes some analysis and study and knowledge of our epistemological limits in order to keep things in perspective. OR (E) The whole damn thing is true and God finds us to be thoroughly repugnant unless we

[ToddAllenGates]

1 of 7:

> Well you invented your own fallacy: the false tri-chotomy.

Okay, good point—there *are* more options!

> if God granted freewill, then "quality control" would amount to limiting freewill in some way.

Imagine reading studying hard for a test, then failing it, and then finding out the reason for your failure was that the text of your textbook has mistakes in it.

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 7:

You write to the textbook's author to let him know, and he responds that there were NO mistakes in the initial edition, but that upon subsequent releases, people have been corrupting the text—but that's not his problem! He issued forth an excellent source of knowledge, but he's not going to interfere with people's free will and "make" them keep his work perfect. And if subsequent generations get misled by the corrupted text, well, too bad for them, but it's not his problem.

[ToddAllenGates]

3 of 7:

What would you think of such a response? Why do you think this sort of answer makes sense when it comes to the Bible?

> (D) God revealed parts, politically motivated men changed and invented parts,

This still makes God out to be either incompetent or uncaring about the innocent who are misled.

[ToddAllenGates]

4 of 7:

> the truth is out there, but it takes some analysis and study and knowledge of our epistemological limits in order to keep things in perspective.

This "God is not one for crystal-clear communication theory" well explains the 30,000 denominations of Christianity!

[ToddAllenGates]

5 of 7:

> (E) The whole damn thing is true and God finds us to be thoroughly repugnant unless we by His own grace please him in some incredibly difficult to figure out way

This makes God out to be something of a sadist (given His omniscience, He made us in a way He *knew* He would hate), but if the Bible is true . . . well, this position is logical!

[ToddAllenGates]

6 of 7:

> (F) humankind writes down stories and passes them down from generation to generation. . . .Each truth finds its way into support column of cultural experience.

Kind of like the New Age Spirituality idea that finds "truth" in many religions. Still, this makes "clear communication" a low priority for this Higher Power—

[ToddAllenGates]

7 of 7:

—because even though different religions offer similar answers in some respects, in other respects their answers are utterly irreconcilable (there IS a caste system vs. there's NO caste system; God WANTS idolatry vs. God FORBIDS idolatry, God HATES homosexuality vs. God is OK with homosexuality, etc.).

> Thanks for the chat.

Likewise!

[coreyalan23]

You seem to have spent some time on this stuff, what's your take? Do you just remain unconvinced of all things? Or have you settled into some position? The way I learn is I evaluate every argument I can. Problem is, most arguments nowadays are refutations of one thing or another but very few are asserting anything specific.

[ToddAllenGates]

1 of 8:

> one of the major fallacies of Biblical teachers is to lift quotations and present them as eternal instruction to all of God's people

I agree—but even though these are not "eternal instructions," they nonetheless exist as directions for a certain group of people to commit horrific genocide to another certain group of people in a certain time period (some 3,000 years ago).

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 8:

And the directions are disturbingly human-sounding, as they resemble the mindset of the Nazis, the Rwandan Hutus (during the 1994 genocide attempt), etc.

So even if these are not eternal instructions, is it likely that the Creator of the Universe *ever* authorized them? To me, the most probable answer is that humans wrote them all on their own—just like the other ancient scriptures that tell stories of *their* gods giving instructions of wiping out rival evil heathen tribes.

[ToddAllenGates]

3 of 8:

So if these passages are just things made up by people, what does that say about the Bible's credibility?

What's more likely:

(A) That God wrote ALL of the bible, including the horrifically and even absurdly savage? (Like in 2 Kings 2:23-24, where God has a bear maul 42 children to death for the crime of teasing a guy for being bald.)

[ToddAllenGates]

4 of 8:

(B) God wrote SOME of the Bible, and humans interjected the savage and ignorant sections? (Which would mean there's no "Quality Control" over the Bible's text. This seems unworthy of a God who could create the universe—it makes Him out to be an incredibly incompetent in the area of paperwork. Can you imagine a CEO issuing instructions, but lets subordinates mangle the text upon distribution?)

[ToddAllenGates]

5 of 8:

(C) That humans *alone* wrote up the whole bible: just as they wrote the so-called "Word of God" of every other area of the world: India, Iraq (okay, Mesopotamia), Iran (okay, Persia), China, Greece, Rome, etc.

> You seem to have spent some time on this stuff, what's your take?

Option C!

[ToddAllenGates]

6 of 8:

> Do you just remain unconvinced of all things? Or have you settled into some position?

I used to think that the First Cause argument and the Design argument were strong enough to make the existence of "a Creator" more probable than improbable.

[ToddAllenGates]

7 of 8:

After reading the first three chapters or so of the book "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design," I reversed that opinion, and now believe that the existence of "a Creator" is more improbable than probable.

The idea that there's no afterlife and no Almighty Judge to make everything "right" (in one mysterious way or another) is NOT necessarily comforting. So I'm not "recommending" this belief system to you.

[ToddAllenGates]

8 of 8:

But what I *do* like about non-theism is that life makes sense: from the thousands of confusing religions to the utter indifference of nature. And when you study evolution sufficiently, even the "good" things can make sense: from beautiful designs to love and compassion.

But again, I don't think this belief system is for everyone! I feel that many people are better off, and better for, believing in their version of god.

[coreyalan23]

the rest i'll just hope to have figured out, but no one has pulled that off yet, so maybe that's not the point.

[coreyalan23]

If atheism is wrought with unworkable implications, and religions are wrought with them as well, what does that mean? And this brings us right back to, I believe, Kierkegaard and the need to take a leap of faith of some sort. If we get that far, then it makes sense to look for the supreme reality that created and sustains us. So we turn to religion, and gain faith, and get confused by the religious, and lose faith, etc. I wish I had answers for you. Loving God seems to be the only cure.

[coreyalan23]

That's that the problem: the atheist will argue for strong atheism ("I know for a fact there is no God") until they get cornered by the same epistemological standards they have applied to God. Then they revert to weak atheism ("my mind is just uncorrupted by religion, I have no belief in a diety, but don't believe either way."). Problem with weak atheism is that every societal culture in world history asked themselves about death and perceived some higher power, without exception.

[coreyalan23]

Dear, I hope I don't give the impression that i'm this solid on this stuff. I have much confusion and have been studying this stuff almost around the clock for the last two months. The confusion subsides when I start to answer questions and discuss this stuff, but for someone that doesn't know if he is a Christian or a Muslim, or some lonely combination of both, well, you see the problem. Truth be told, even when I was a Sartre and DeBeauvoir apologist I could not stop having a sense of God.

[coreyalan23]

Calvanism quite frankly frighten me. Besides, if man is truly deprived, then why should we ever be charitable to each other. The Calvanist seems to say "everybody sucks," but then says we are "made in the image and likeness of God." So I guess only physically that's true?  How could that be? It is the image AND likeness, isn't it? This is very confusing. So I prefer to take the same approach I would take to literary criticism and always evaluate context and pretext.

[coreyalan23]

Those quotes are quite obviously not presented that way. Some parts of the Bible are, however, and those include the 10 commandments and the instructions of Jesus, each of which exclusively forbid violence against others, and not only physical violence either, emotional violence is also forbidden. You could also take the Calvinist approach and say, "well, so what? God is angry, he has every right to be, and we better beg for mercy." Either viewpoint is valid, but the implications of

[coreyalan23]

You are correct. If you want a more comedic one, there is the one where he instructs his followers to stone a man to death for collecting wood on the sabbath, and another one where he commands them to kill everyon in a village (cattle included) because some theives entered the place. But context is nevertheless important and one of the major fallacies of Biblical teachers is to lift quotations and present them as eternal instruction to all of God's people.

[coreyalan23]

Socrates was killed for not submitting to paganism. He denied that he was an atheist, but believed in "spirits." Socrates was an occultist, like much of our world leadership today.

[coreyalan23]

btw- not trying to convert you to anything. Only encouraging you to keep questioning and seeing for yourself. I myself am seeking where I stand. I believe there is one God, I arrived at that conclusion through philosophical means, which I am prepared to offer a comprehensive defense of.  But i'm not sure where I stand on much else. This is not something to take lightly, as you say. "Seek and ye shall find" they say, so I seek in earnest, which requires forsaking cultural attachments.

[coreyalan23]

1 of 3

that verse doesn't tell followers to kill for God. I challenge you to find that verse, also it must be presented in context. Any critical thinker knows the importance of context, particularly when you are dealing with a translation.

[ToddAllenGates]

1 of 3:

> that verse doesn't tell followers to kill for God.

True—the passage says "those nations shall be utterly laid waste," but it doesn't specifically tell followers to do the killing.

That being said, the Old Testament is PACKED with commands for slaughter, and sometimes even genocide:

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 3:

Numbers 31:17-18 (Gods instructions to the army officers who captured the cities of Midian) --- "Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."

Deuteronomy 7:1-2 (Moses instructions, passed on from God) --

[ToddAllenGates]

3 of 3:

"When the Lord your God brings you into the land that you are about to enter and occupy, and he clears away many nations before you—the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations mightier and more numerous than you—and when the Lord your God gives them over to you and you defeat them, then you must utterly destroy them. Make no covenant with them and show them no mercy."

[coreyalan23]

sorry for all of the typos. I know what a preposition is and I know the difference between "there" and "their." I just type too quick for my inner editor to keep up sometimes.

[coreyalan23]

PS - Socrates was not a skeptic, he only appeared that way to people that failed to recognize that a container can only hold a smaller portion of infinity than will exist outside of it. Socrates knew this, well, Plato's Socrates, anyways.

[coreyalan23]

3 - bloodshed is against God in both the Bible and the Qu'ran. People say religion caused all the wars and that is a lie, politics caused all of the wars-- groups of entitled people making their slaves fight over further entitlement. People have their hatred stoked by demagogues within their cultures. This is not the result of following and submitting to God, but of following and submitting to MEN that pretend to be God.

[ToddAllenGates]

1 of 3:

> bloodshed is against God in both the Bible and the Qu'ran

THE BIBLE (Isaiah 60:12, 14):

For the nation and kingdom that will not serve you [Israel] shall perish; those nations shall be utterly laid waste . . . The descendants of those who oppressed you shall come bending low to you, and all who despised you shall bow down at your feet.

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 3:

THE QURAN (Surah 17:4, 8):

"And we gave clear warning to the Children of Israel in the Book that twice would they do mischief on the earth and be elated with mighty arrogance, and twice would they be punished. It may be that your Lord may yet show Mercy unto you; but if ye [Jews] revert to your sins, we shall revert to Our punishments: and We have made Hell a prison for those who reject the Faith."

Truly the Lord writes in mysterious ways!

[ToddAllenGates]

3 of 3:

Joseph Campbell pointed out these two passages in 1967 (shortly after the six-day Arab-Israeli war), noting: "These, then, are the two war mythologies that are even today confronting each other in the highly contentious Near East and may yet explode our planet."

[coreyalan23]

3 of 3:

The most humane societies in world history were rooted in the three great monotheistic religions. The most shocking evils in world history were perpetrated by pagans (an interesting subject when you start to try to discern who exactly are pagans) and atheists. Some pagans claim to be monotheists, and then they march into war with idols and abandon all scripture. Celebrating pagan holidays, like in "christian" america, is another interesting sign.

[coreyalan23]

2 of 3:

once again, my first comment applies here. all murdering islamic stuff is found in Hadith. Now go back and run a search of the Bible and Qu'ran, and fairly present instances where they specifically instruct their followers never to resort to violence.

[coreyalan23]

that is our reality. I had to see that for myself. I was Godless, seeking my own good. But I love to solve problems. How do you see a problem? Overpopulation? Carbon pollution? Is humanity a disease upon the earth? or is humanity in hatred of God? I choose the latter, but the former is more popular today. Wait and see how the rich atheists decide to fix world problems. Watch and see. I choose God. I will not deny my Creator. If we have come that far, then where do we seek him?

[coreyalan23]

all belief structures are like a container for truth, but the container can only ever shut out more truth than it can possibly hold. I will never be able to provide the answers to everybody, nor all of the answers to myself, for every answer leads to multiple questions. I have not yet found any conflict between the Bible and the Qu'ran, only between Christians and Muslims. Jesus says God is one, Qu'ran says belief in Jesus is necessary to be in the Book of Life. Mankind is wicked

[coreyalan23]

1 - by your definition, everyone is a fundamentalist, including empiricists (scientists) and nihilists (atheists).  2 - because people do not find them to be complementary is irrelevant. Their is much deception in the world. The truth must be sought with sincerity. It is each person's responsibility. I can't speak for anyone else. I have not settled on two religions but am only seeking the one God. I trust I will, piece by piece, find truth, God willing. Since infinity is reality, then

[coreyalan23]

** "a way OUT of skepticism"

[coreyalan23]

(okay one more)

a lot of paganism has infiltrated the montheistic religions. there is a trail to follow but it is a lot of work. I am no where near complete. Keep searching and don't drink koolaid :) You may realize that most people, the religious especially, do not like God and find ways to avoid him. Many of us make Gods of ourselves or other things that are created and not Creator. The point of seeking God is not for happiness, nor for self-help, but out of a desire for closeness to God.

[coreyalan23]

4 of 4

your search may be different (probably will be). I spent a lot of time researching the occult and I recommend your research start their-- Nazis, Crowley, Kabballah, all mysticism. It all came clear to me while I was researching what the hell is wrong with this world and why governments slaughter people. It started there, ended up in the occult, and with my seeking God and the highest goodness with all of my passion and sincerity. I find truth in Bible and Qu'ran, but a lot of

[coreyalan23]

3 of 4

That is my opinion and I certainly invite anyone to read the same and challenge me. I wish to be critical. But when it comes to God, I have made up my mind. That is an article of faith and something that comes from within and I cannot offer intellectual justifcation apart from the fact that believing in something is a hell of a lot better than believing in nothing. Sincerity and honesty are important to me and there is no way to justify them but God. That is the result of my search

[coreyalan23]

You want to read the pagan religions and some of the new age stuff? Go ahead. Read them all, just stay critical and don't be seduced (I'm sure you'll be okay, but some people just drink the kool-aid). I am critical of everything I read. I listen to arguments from all sides, but ultimately I wanted a way of skepticism. I think Hamlet is a great story about the limits of interpersonal skepticism, but that's another topic. I read the Bible and Qu'ran and I find them to be of the same essence.

[ToddAllenGates]

1 of 3:

> I read the Bible and Qu'ran and I find them to be of the same essence.

I don't wish to be critical of those who find God in multiple scriptures, because the resulting tolerance is a good thing for the world. But if you were to ask me why I don't believe this myself, it's because I just can't believe that a Creator of the Universe would inspire multiple Holy Books that a great many people DON'T find as complementary, but as rivals for the Truth.

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 3:

And horrific consequences come about through such clashes: much of the never-ending bloodshed in of the Middle East is due to Jews and Muslims both feeling that God Almighty has reserved the Holy Land to them alone (Jews, thus, are enemies of Allah; Muslims, thus, are enemies of Jehovah).

[ToddAllenGates]

3 of 3:

Much of the bloodshed in India and Pakistan, too, is due to religious differences: both can find Scriptural Support for shedding the blood of their gods' enemies. And a Creator intelligent enough to create the world would *know* the effect of rival holy books.

But again, I have little desire to argue against the "many religions, One God" philosophy, for if more people adopted such a way of thinking, we'd probably have a more peaceful world.

[coreyalan23]

1 of 4

You've given me much to respond to, and I will attempt to do it as efficiently as possible. First, "fundamentalist" is equivocal. Sunni or Shi'ia? 7th day adventist or Baptist? "Fundamentalist" is really just a catch all term.  The problem is that we would rather have someone grace us with wisdom than seek it ourselves. Read geek read! I'm not being insulting, as I am a geek myself.

[ToddAllenGates]

> First, "fundamentalist" is equivocal. Sunni or Shi'ia? 7th day adventist or Baptist?

By "fundamentalist" I meant those who adhere strictly to the interpretations of their group: so fundamentalists could be Sunni, Shi'ia, Baptist, etc. Or as you aptly put it, those who "would rather have someone grace us with wisdom." (Very well said!)

[coreyalan23]

also be warned I am a thoroughly inadequate spiritual advisor.

[coreyalan23]

PS - sorry for my tone earlier. It was inappropriate. We all share in these questions. My point with epistemology is simply that "knowledge" is a fantasy. We operate best in faith. How do you know which faith is the best faith? I think those answers must be sought within yourself and in scripture. I see nothing wrong with reading the Qu'ran, the Torah, the New Testament and praying for guidance. God must act on behalf of your faith, until that happens, there will be much doubt.

[coreyalan23]

1 more:

Perhaps the problem is people seek cultural superiority. Different cultures describe truth in different ways. Most people do not understand the complexity of language, cultural symbols--the problem of translation. 'Dust from heels' means we can only try our best to serve God, but we have limits-- let us not kill each other because of those limits. We Christians need to remove the planks from our own eyes-- we are celebrating pagan holidays and murdering for wealth.

[coreyalan23]

3 of 3:

This type of understanding is a miracle unto itself. I understand that. It is a miracle that must be prayed for.  There are anti-empirical elements, and that is the point. I am reaching for God in all sincerity, and I use the tools that are before me. Understanding arises up like a volcano from within, removing doubt and guiding my heart. That is all I can tell you. But before I found God, I subscribed to the arguments of Sartre and DeBeauvoir, but they contradictions too!

[coreyalan23]

2 of 3:

The three monotheistic religions all have much in common: the God of Abraham, Noah, Solomon, and Jesus. The differences seem somewhat minor to me. But what of it? I am not in a position to stand for all things. I am in a position to reach for God such that I may gain understanding. This begins with a sense of humility, not self-righteousness. There is much in all religions that seems to me to be an infection of materialism and empiricism. These are obstructions to following God.

[coreyalan23]

There are a lot of equivocation in what you say. The word "dismiss" for one. If I "dismiss" a religion on my quest for God, does that mean that I must violently condemn all others whom I haven't met? Of course not. It is not encumbent upon me to explain all things. I can not KNOW what God thinks of those other religions. I know Hinduism holds much in common with Kaballa, which is mysticism and witchcraft. .

[ToddAllenGates2]

1 of 10:

> There are a lot of equivocation in what you say. The word "dismiss" for one.

I use "dismiss" in the sense that fundamentalists of any particular religion will say that THEIR religion alone is backed by the authority of God, and everyone outside their faith is doomed. Plenty of those to be found within every religion.

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 10:

> does that mean that I must violently condemn all others whom I haven't met?

I agree that it doesn't: not even if you were a fundamentalist---which I can tell you're not. But if you *were* a fundamentalist, you might pity others outside your faith, and/or do all you could to convert them to the specifics of God's Will.

[ToddAllenGates]

3 of 10:

> The three monotheistic religions all have much in common: the God of Abraham, Noah, Solomon, and Jesus. The differences seem somewhat minor to me.

To the fundamentalist Muslim, following Judaism or Christianity means you are disobeying Allah's rules to pray towards Mecca 5x a day, abstain from alcohol, etc. To the fundamentalist Christian, Jews & Muslims are going to hell for not accepting Jesus as savior. And so on. So a life in hell vs. heaven is a big difference!

[ToddAllenGates]

4 of 10:

> I am not in a position to stand for all things. I am in a position to reach for God such that I may gain understanding.

Maybe this just betrays my identity as a bookish geek, but it just seems to me that if there was a god who wanted us to understand "Him" (so to speak), He would have communicated us with us clearly—not through handwritten notes of oral legends that had been passed down for decades or even centuries.

[ToddAllenGates]

5 of 10:

> This begins with a sense of humility, not self-righteousness.

An admirable quality, to be sure, but not one that requires religion. Humility has its own rewards on earth, likewise self-righteousness has its punishments—all without bringing a god into the picture.

[ToddAllenGates]

6 of 10:

> This type of understanding is a miracle unto itself. I understand that. It is a miracle that must be prayed for. There are anti-empirical elements, and that is the point. I am reaching for God in all sincerity, and I use the tools that are before me.

Who's to know what's really from god and what's not when sincere & sane people have intuition that points them in different directions?

[ToddAllenGates]

7 of 10:

Suppose some people's prayers tell them that idolatry is a sin against God, and other people's prayers tell them idolatry is a MUST: God *demands* it. Same with homosexuality: people's prayers lead us in different directions, as do different holy books (the Abrahamic religions condemn homosexuality, while many sects of Buddhism and Hinduism are tolerant of it).

[ToddAllenGates]

8 of 10:

> Perhaps the problem is people seek cultural superiority

Often it's cultural superiority, but often it's a sincere belief that one's religion REALLY is right and therefore the other person's must REALLY be wrong.

> . . . let us not kill each other because of those limits.

---and some people, such as the more fanatical Muslims, will say that *God orders* them to kill all those believed to be "enemies of the faith."

[ToddAllenGates]

9 of 10:

> How do you know which faith is the best faith? I think those answers must be sought within yourself and in scripture. I see nothing wrong with reading the Qu'ran, the Torah, the New Testament and praying for guidance.

The Buddhist & Taoist scriptures too? What about the Book of Mormon? What about Scientology? How can one know where to draw the line?

[ToddAllenGates]

10 of 10:

> Understanding arises up like a volcano from within, removing doubt and guiding my heart. That is all I can tell you.

If it brings you happiness, then I guess that's probably all that needs to be said!

[coreyalan23]

don't worry about trying to make yourself better than others. I suspect you are missing law school.

[ToddAllenGates]

1 of 2:

> don't worry about trying to make yourself better than others. I suspect you are missing law school.

This video series is not about "making myself better than others"—the question I raise is "If we accept the premise that there's a Communicative God and *one* religion is from this god and the rest were just made up by people, by what means can we say which is that one religion from God?"

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 2:

And I feel this is an important question to ask, and an important decision to make. After all, if a particular religious claim—be it from Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, etc.—really happens to have the authority of the Creator of the Universe, there are HUGE consequences for not following it.

[coreyalan23]

my dialoge with you would be simple: to your first question, "yes, unless you want to believe you do not have a soul. consider the implications of humans being no more significant than rats, and tell me how that state of mind is different from the eugenicist. then when you try to regain the upper hand, I remind you of our epistemological limits to knowledge and declare the true Christian doctrine is a doctrine of FAITH. Seek the truth with sincerity, and the dust falls from my heels.

[ToddAllenGates]

1 of 4:

> my dialoge with you would be simple: to your first question, "yes, unless you want to believe you do not have a soul. consider the implications of humans being no more significant than rats

This video series is not about atheism. It accepts the premise that there IS a Creator, so this is not about dismissing the soul.

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 4:

I simply ask "how do we distinguish between the thousands of religions created by man over the millennia (invented to explain Creation, Suffering, rules for living, and the afterlife) from that ONE religion dictated by Divinity?

[ToddAllenGates]

3 of 4:

> I remind you of our epistemological limits to knowledge and declare the true Christian doctrine is a doctrine of FAITH. Seek the truth with sincerity, and the dust falls from my heels.

Yet witness the millions of Muslims worshipping at Mecca, the millions of Hindus bathing in the sacred Ganges River, and so on. Aren't the religions beliefs of millions of others also based on faith?

[ToddAllenGates]

4 of 4:

If you dismiss the religion of the Muslim and the Mormon, they too could reply that their doctrine is one of FAITH, and if you would only seek the truth with sincerity, then the dust would fall from your heels.

But one last point: if Christianity makes you happy—and you feel you have a genuine spiritual relationship with Jesus—then I wouldn't want to dissuade you even if I could (and I know I can't).

[EternallyExistent]

hmmm its really true that theists should try to convert atheists much more vigorously if they really believe in hell. so why doesnt it happen in actuality? some of them are just too shy to talk probably , but some are not so sure about all this heaven-hell thing, just dont admit it to themselves, yea that rings true. thank u for enlightening me on this, this could be a very strong argument!

[ToddAllenGates]

> some of them are just too shy to talk probably

If I was convinced that a meteor was coming to destroy my neighborhood, I don't think "being shy" would be a good reason to not tell people!

> some are not so sure about all this heaven-hell thing, just dont admit it to themselves

I suspect that's often the case.

> thank u for enlightening me on this

My pleasure: thanks for the compliment!

[Naiant]

One picky point -- Zoroastrians don't proselytize. In fact, they don't even accept converts, believing that religion is connected with divinely given culture. (There are some liberal Zoroastrians today that accept conversion by someone who marries into the religion, but this doesn't involve proselytization.)

[ToddAllenGates]

> Zoroastrians don't proselytize

Thanks - I actually didn't know that (but I think my main point still stands that I wouldn't resent Zoroastrian proselytizing should it ever occur).

[shieldsff]

Really, all one can reasonably conclude is that you have not done a self-reading of the Christian text... Your accusations about what christians believe and how they arrive at that belief is wrong-headed ! Also, id your entire assumption is materialistic/naturalistic (w/o any proof) then there can't be much of a basis for exchange. Lastly, a true Christian would never be inclined to keep their belief solitary- you are correct in your 'being hit by a truck' analogy.

[ToddAllenGates]

> Your accusations about what Christians believe and how they arrive at that belief is wrong-headed

My main point in this video is that Christians—like true-believers of other faiths—believe (1) there is a Creator, (2) this Creator has communicated with us, (3) *other* people's sacred texts were just made up by people, but their own sacred text [the Judeo-Christian Bible] was authorized from God.

Which of these premises is wrong?

[Esandero]

Also I can do a bible study for you since you've quoted the bible.

If you would like that I can do it in context and explain it.

But I don't think you're interested in what the meaning of the text really is.

[TheTruePooka]

Heh heh... yes, I recall when reading Socrates debating some of his opponenets, the sometimes leading questions he would ask would leave me feeling he was taking unfair advantage and being a right sodding bastard. :->

[TheTruePooka]

One comment; when using the Socratic method, it is important that you avoid the temptation to withhold information when dealing with a person who has greater ignorance than you on a subject.

It can have a backlash effect. Always do your best to be honest and present all the evidence as you are aware of it.

[ToddAllenGates]

> when using the Socratic method, it is important that your avoid the temptation to withhold information ... It can have a backlash effect

Yet Socrates himself often withheld information temporarily in order to let the person he was debating discover the contradictory thoughts on his/her own.

Then again, he also pissed enough people off that they ended up killing him--so your backlash point is quite valid!

[Esandero]

You need to study the bible. It makes no claims of the sun revolving around the earth or a flat earth etc.

When you watch your local weatherman and he says the sun "rises" do you object lol?

Give me a break here.

I would suggest using the socratic method to validate itself. For reason to be reasonable it must investigate its own parameters.

I find you a very good proselytyzer:)

[ToddAllenGates]

1 of 3:

> When you watch your local weatherman and he says the sun "rises" do you object

The difference is that today we all *know* it's an expression, but up until the 1600s, the common knowledge of that age was that the sun revolved around the earth (because it surely *does*, after all, LOOK that way to the unaided human eye).

The Bible does nothing to inform us otherwise—and when you read Joshua 10:13, Ecclesiastes 1:5, Psalm 93:1, and Psalms 104:5,

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 3:

you find that these passages all imply a sun that orbits a stationary earth. It's only in light of modern knowledge that believers now say "well, God's just speaking metaphorically."

I picked those four passages because those are the passages the Catholic Church cited when it threatened to burn Galileo at the stake for teaching the heretical idea that the earth moved, and was not the center of our solar system.

[ToddAllenGates]

3 of 3:

Excerpts from the Catholic Church's 1633 indictment of Galileo:

You, Galileo [are] denounced ... for holding as true a false doctrine ... that the sun is ... in the center of the world, and that the earth moves ... you include several propositions contrary to the true sense and authority of the Holy Scriptures; ... The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves ... is absurd and erroneous in faith.

[Esandero]

I didn't mean to say that a mistake wasn't made God forbid an atheist get unjust treatment for being an atheist lol.

But Galileo was not charged with heresy! Nor was he put in any dungeon.

In fact he was treated quite well with sympathy from church members after the incident.

But you've got to understand the church was not in agreement on this.

It was and is (science) a difficult issue with all people.

Its not just religious people and because they have differences in interpretation we

[Esandero]

should just forget the whole thing?

Does that sound reasonable to anyone?

I learn from other believers views that are different from mine sometimes. I have learned where I have been wrong.

So different interpretations from other believers is not a threat to me.

[Esandero]

You've been a victim of bad information my friend.

The ancient Greeks and medieval christians all knew that the earth was round. They observed the hull of a ship sailing disappears before the top of the mast. They also saw that during a lunar eclipse the earth casts a circular shadow on the moon.

Dante's medieval cosmology was based on the idea of a spherical earth.

Also you need the whole history of galileo to understand it never was a science vs religion question.

Galileo claimed

[Esandero]

in "dialogue concerning the two chief world systems" galileo claimed to have demonstrated the "truth" of heliocentrism when in fact he did not.

He claimed the rapid movement of the earth around the sun was responsible for the tides. And we know now the moon is chiefly responsible.

He also assumed that planets moved in circular paths even though by Galileo's time Kepler had shown that the planetary orbits are elliptical.

Galileo also embarra ssed the pope by contending himself with the

[Esandero]

pope as a dumb person where Galileo refutes the pope making him look dumb.

(the pope was not amused)

The whole issue is Galileo making false claims here and there and then trying to pretend all the opposition is against good science. It never was the case.

Historian (Gary Ferngren) claims that the picture of Galileo as a martyr to intellectual freedom and a victim of the church's "opposition to science" little more than

Also galileo was never charged with heresy or put in a dungeon etc.

[Esandero]

a caricature. This Galileo case was an anomaly historian (Thomas Lessl) writes.

"A momentary break in the otherwise harmonious relationship that existed between relgion and science."

Alfred North Whitehead historian of science writes. "The worst that happened to men of science was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention and mild reproof,before dieing peacefully in his bed.

Galileo was a great scientist with a poor disposition.

His disposition is what got him in trouble.

[ToddAllenGates]

1 of 4:

> The ancient Greeks and medieval christians all knew that the earth was round.

We're not discussing whether the ancients knew the earth was round, but whether they knew the earth moved.

There are no biblical passages that give an accurate description of the universe's layout: an earth that turns on its axis to give us night and day, or that our planet orbits the sun (while on a tilt) to give us the seasons.

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 4:

Instead, what we find in the Bible is the same limited knowledge of the natural world that we find in all other ancient texts. If there is indeed a Master Designer of the Universe, I see no evidence that this Creator also inspired a book (be it the Bible, Koran, Rig Veda, etc.).

> This Galileo case was an anomaly . . . "A momentary break in the otherwise harmonious relationship that existed between religion and science."

[ToddAllenGates]

3 of 4:

For Christians who interpret the Bible literally, conflict *still* exists. Contrast Kentucky's Creationist Museum and its depiction of all land animals created within the same week—including dinosaurs—with every other museum, all of which tell us that life evolved over billions of years, and that there was about 65 million years between the last dinosaur and the first human.

[ToddAllenGates]

4 of 4:

If you think the Creationist Museum is right, why do you think all the other museums are getting things so wrong?

If you think the Creationist Museum is wrong, what are they misreading in the Bible?

[Esandero]

The bible is not a scientific text book and it makes no claims to be.

So criticizism for that is irrelevant.

We were discussing a bit of what was known historically and can do more if you like.

[HisTruthbeUNKOWN]

The thing is, Christianity is 2,000 years old. The American concept of what constitutes "Christianity" is far removed from the ancient Othodox Christain viewpoint. Protestants are 'johnny-come-lately's' in the history of Christiandom.

All of which proves God ain't really running the show. They just can't see the forest for the trees.

[ToddAllenGates]

> The American concept of what constitutes "Christianity" is far removed from the ancient Othodox Christain viewpoint.

Not that the ancient viewpoint was any better!

> All of which proves God ain't really running the show.

I guess Omnipotence doesn't include good management!

[amoxtlacatl]

Just discovered your channel.

SUBSCRIBED.

[ToddAllenGates]

> Just discovered your channel. SUBSCRIBED.

Good to hear, amoxtlacatl--thank you!

[smashbeans]

rock on and let the show begin !!

[middlekk]

The title for your video on skepticism of the creator of the universe should be:

"We don't know and neither do you"

I find that usually disarms the theist, because it levels the playing field. We can THEN discuss the level of empirical evidence needed to prove their god created the universe, which would be the same to prove string theory, brane theory, foam theory, the inflationary model and all the rest. (Using the term theory as they do, which is colloquially, since none are proved yet).

[ToddGates]

> The title for your video on skepticism of the creator of the universe ...

A good approach for a noble goal, but when it comes to videos on skepticism of "a Creator," I feel that YouTubers such as AronRa and potholer54 handle it far better than I can. I stick to the simpler goal of questioning only organized religion (see my video 'Three advantages to questioning "the Creator's Word" but not "a Creator"' for more details.)

[PlantPirate]

Todd,

I was just wondering how often you have these conversations with theists, and what the results are.

[ToddAllenGates]

1 of 2:

> I was just wondering how often you have these conversations with theists,

While writing my book, I had them frequently (lately I've been working on other projects, so my exchanges with theists are now limited to YouTube.)

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 2:

> and what the results are.

Mixed! With die-hard fundamentalists, I get nowhere.

With "on-the-fence" theists, I believe I help nurture their seeds of doubt.

With "on-the-fence" YouTube theists, some tell me that I've helped them deconvert. One wrote to me to say "I don't know if I should thank you for clarifying matters or hate you for destroying my hope!"

[samplesking1]

This is all mind/ego/intellect games. All you have to do is let go of it all, you end up with only oneness. Apologetics and debating is all unnecessary. This coming from being a Xtian mystic myself. Its all intellectual spaghetti. Know yourself and you will know God. Beyond the mind, ego, intellect.

[maknaros1]

I would love to talk to you and have you use the socratic method on me while I try to witness to you. I think it would be interesting.

[ToddAllenGates]

1 of 2:

> I think it would be interesting.

Hi Maknaros1,

My experience with skilled Christian apologists is that the conversation ends in a stalemate:

- I give my reasons for why I find that the telltale signs of human authorship in *foreign* faiths equally apply to Christianity

- The apologist can give reasons for why Christianity is an exception: why it really is different

- I give my reasons for why I find that their "Christianity is an exception" arguments don't hold up to scrutiny

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 2:

- Apologists can say why their arguments *do* hold up to scrutiny

---and then it goes back & forth like that.

Even in my own book (a dialogue between a Christian apologist and a Socratic skeptic), neither side can convince the other. But even though my skeptic character doesn't "win" the argument, it's my hope that the reader will be able to discern whose arguments are stronger.

[hugesinker]

Hey Todd,

I still don't understand why you remade this series.. people said that you talked too fast? Have they ever watched an AronRa video? You speak slowly and bring up a lot of very interesting details in your videos.. don't dumb them down to the lowest common denominator.

Plus.. I have ego issues and like reading the reaction to my comments from time to time. ;)

[ToddAllenGates]

> I still don't understand why you remade this series.. people said that you talked too fast? ...

In the 2007 version I really was talking too fast, especially for people who spoke English as a second language (I got several requests to please slow down from such people). In fact I could barely understand several of my own words.

Probably the biggest reason for my remake, however, was that I wanted to improve the overall organization / quality of the material.

[mrhudson]

I enjoyed! Thanks! I'm glad Rabid Ape sent me your way.

Others who like this work may also like Thunderfoot. He's the man.

[ToddAllenGates]

> I'm glad Rabid Ape sent me your way.

I'm glad he did too!

> Others who like this work may also like Thunderfoot. He's the man.

Yes, he has a lot of great videos (although given that he has some 48,000 subscribers, probably all of my subs already know of him).

[CamdenBloke]

At the request of a Christian friend, I went along to one of her bible study meetings. I was as respectful as possible, and granted the assumption (for case of argument) that the bible was true. As they were going through I was applying reason and questioning to all the statements made and created some very interesting results.

[ToddAllenGates]

> I went along to one of her bible study meetings

I would do likewise, but I'm afraid I'd end up with too much blood in my mouth from having to bite my tongue!

[DanCurry16]

I'm glad RabidApe directed me to you. I find you easy to listen to, can't wait to get through the rest of the videos in this series, and others. :)

[ToddAllenGates]

> I find you easy to listen to, can't wait to get through the rest of the videos in this series, and others

Thanks - glad to have you here!

[gonyea12]

Is being reincarnated as a cockroach really so bad?

A roach doesn't know it could have it much better, I bet they are perfectly content as long as they have food and adequate reproduction opportunity.

Much like any other living thing.

[ToddAllenGates]

> Is being reincarnated as a cockroach really so bad?

True ... I guess I *can*, after all, not worry about disobeying Hinduism divine caste rules!

[zebruh]

As always with your videos, I'm unavoidably eager to see the rest of this series.

[ToddAllenGates]

> I'm unavoidably eager to see the rest of this series.

Very complimentary—thank you!

[Perrine234]

Great series, as always.  Why don't you split your series into roughly equal ten-minute videos?

[ToddAllenGates]

> Great series, as always.

Thanks!

> Why don't you split your series into roughly equal ten-minute videos?

I divide them more by topic than time length. (Kind of like the way chapters in a book are of uneven lengths.)

[freethinker3161]

im really glad that dasamericanatheist directed me to ya. great vid.

[ToddAllenGates]

> i'm really glad that dasamericanatheist directed me to ya. great vid.

Thanks! And yes, I owe DasAmericanAtheist and RabidApe big time.

[mooxim]

very smart and very diplomatic. I'm glad i subscribed.

[ToddAllenGates]

> I'm glad i subscribed.

Glad you did too!

[CognosSquare]

Clues about human authorship

1 Ignorance about the universe as we know it now

2 Proposes barbaric laws and biases

3 Origins. (Being an obvious patchwork of other religions)

Earlier this week I heard another clue that also is interesting. Its the obvious "gods-eye" storytelling of the bible. For example we get to know what a guard is thinking. We get to know in detail what Jesus says to Satan in the garden eventhough everyone else is sleeping. The constant doubting in spite of earlier miracles

[grnmessiah]

It's interesting that the Gospels reference what was said in the closed meeting of the Sanhedrin, isn't it?

[ToddAllenGates]

> The constant doubting in spite of earlier miracles

This one strikes me as a clue of *bad* human storytelling. If I had witnessed God parting the sea, I would have ZERO doubts -- much less think that I should try my luck worshipping a golden calf.

[musicgeniusno1]

Looking forward to this,it all looks very interesting :)

[ToddAllenGates]

> Looking forward to this,it all looks very interesting :)

Good to hear!

[wtblessing]

looking forward to seeing more! audio's a bit quiet though.

[ToddAllenGates]

> looking forward to seeing more!

Thank you!

[ragetony]

I'd like to buy a copy.

[ToddAllenGates]

> I'd like to buy a copy.

Thanks!

[ragetony]

Hows about a link to your book.

[CognosSquare]

He fixed that. Its to the right (pretty far down).

[ragetony]

thanks

[ToddAllenGates]

> How's about a link to your book.

> He fixed that. Its to the right (pretty far down).

Thanks for pointing that out ... also, I just brought the link up to the top.

[Misterb0z]

Nice remake, Todd.

This will be a good opportunity for your new subscribers to get up to speed with your stuff.

The book is well worth buying, by the way, folks.

[ToddAllenGates]

> The book is well worth buying, by the way, folks.

Thanks, Misterb0z, for the endorsement!