1 of 5: Details of "Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer"

The main theme of "Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer" (a Socratic dialogue between a Christian apologist/proselytizer and a skeptic): "If you understand why you reject all the other religions, you'll understand why I reject yours."

To read customer reviews (time-saving tip--the 5-star reviews are the most well-written!): http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1601450893/ref=s9sims_c2_14_img1-rfc_g1-frt_...

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Dialogue
• Christian
• Proselytizer
• Socratic
• Method
• comparative
• mythology
• religion
• Bible
• God
• faith
• ToddAllenGates
• ToddGates

[ToddAllenGates2]

> The Socratic method can be dead wrong if one misuses it!

Agreed, in the sense that for syllogisms to work, the first premise has to be "major," and the second premise has to be a subset of that first major premise. So there are lots of ways to abuse this (see Wikipedia's section "Everyday Syllogistic Mistakes" in their entry on "SYLLOGISM").

[gonyea12]

wikepedia - syllogism, a very interesting article. I have to admit that I'm a little weak on philosophy although.

Btw I ordered your book, I eagerly anticipate reading it.

[Esandero]

O so you weren't trying to make the argument that religion causes people to do bad.

I missread you there,sorry.

I would say that I think you're minimizing atheism a bit as to its effect on people. I think by default atheism is as you say (doesn't do this,doesn't do that) and I would say that is the problem WITH atheism.

Now we can talk about Japan and how moral they are since you mentioned them.

And the Netherlands and Sweden have been highly influenced by christianity.

I would say

[ToddAllenGates]

3 of 3:

People everywhere have to get along with others, and care and compassion and empathy have their own rewards, and immorality comes with its own punishments—people can be moral without the likes of threats of hell or a bad reincarnation.

> how do you agree with me on my observed behavioral comment then?

In the sense that observations and logic are more reliable sources of information than dogmatic beliefs / opinions (unless I misunderstood what you were saying).

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 3:

And if you're saying that it was Mao's atheism that *led* him to be evil, then we would expect to see evil leadership in every, or at least most, atheistic governments. But again, Japan and Sweden are among the most atheistic countries in the world, and have relatively low crime rates. I know you can identify select evil dictators that have been atheists, but evil dictators come in all shades. I don't know of any evidence that links atheism to immorality.

[ToddAllenGates]

1 of 3:

> I mentioned Mao Zedong the atheist 70 million deaths. No comment on that?

No doubt, evil people can be atheists. Evil people can also be Christian, Muslim, or Hindu. So I'm not sure what your point is. Saying the evil dictator Mao was atheist and concluding that atheism is therefore evil is like saying dictators Hitler and Hussein both had mustaches, and "therefore, people with mustaches must be evil."

[Esandero]

Taliban,Inquisition? I mentioned Mao Zedong the atheist 70 million deaths.

No comment on that?

I can educate you on the "famed" inquisition if you like. Or the "witch trials" where 20 something people were killed.

(How in the world is twenty something people even remembered today??)

Its part of a drum beat to progress a way of thinking used as propaganda only.

[Esandero]

Ayn Rand maybe an agnostic doing a 30yr study on atheism by pretending to be one.

So how do you agree with me on my observed behavioral comment then?

Empirically if Ayn Rand says she's an atheist that is all you need.

[ToddAllenGates]

> How do you know Ayn Rand is an atheist?

From her books and interviews. Here's a video of her discussing her atheism: /watch?v=fTmac2fs5HQ (called "Ayn Rand on Religion" from YouTuber WildPeru).

> Or do we observe behavior facts and let them give us a closer to the truth observation?

We're in full agreement here!

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 2:

Also when you mention countries who have "kept" morals that came from religion it hardly helps atheism.

If Japan's morality came from religion, it would be Shintoism, not Christianity. Regardless, religion can reinforce pre-existing moral values, but I see no reason to believe that religion is the "source" of morality. (One of the best videos I've seen on this is by NoelPlum99, called "The Roots of Our Morality" - /watch?v=fTmac2fs5HQ).

[ToddAllenGates]

1 of 2:

> I merely pointed out atheists who've done horrible things.

No argument here.

> It's a valid point when atheists try and correlate God to atrocities.

Yes, but I don't make that argument. (Although those who do don't say "God leads to atrocities" but rather "belief in a dogmatic interpretation of a certain version of God's Alleged Word [as practiced by the Taliban, the Inquisition, etc.] leads to atrocities.")

[Esandero]

I merely pointed out atheists who've done horrible things.

Its a valid point when atheists try and correlate God to atrocities.

Also when you mention countries who have "kept" morals that came from religion it hardly helps atheism.