7 of 7: Using the Soc. Method w/ Christian Proselytizers (scrutinizing apologetic counter-arguments)

This series is an overview of the approach I outline in my book, "Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer" (a dialogue between a Christian proselytizer and a Socratic skeptic).

LINK TO CUSTOMER REVIEWS ON AMAZON: http://www.amazon.com/review/product/1601450893/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?_enc...

Link to eBook: http://booklocker.com/books/2739.html

Link to free PDF excerpt: http://assets.booklocker.com/pdfs/2739s.pdf

An overview of whole series:

1 of 7: a brief overview of videos 2 through 7.

2 of 7: a description of the Socratic Method.

3 of 7: the ground premises that the skeptic needs to establish with the Christian in order to focus on the issue at hand, which is "Are there convincing reasons for me to believe that the Judeo-Christian Bible is the Word of God?"

4 of 7: the skeptic and the Christian read through scriptures and stories from non-Christian religions. Both agree that the following three characteristics are strong clues that a religion was not created by an Infallible Wisdom, but just made up by quite fallible humans: (1) when a religion a cluelessness about the layout of the universe (its stories describe stars as tiny, the moon as a light, the earth as flat, the sun as orbiting our planet, etc.) (2) it contains laws that are barbaric and reflect senseless prejudices (3) history reveals that the religion was pieced together from ideas and stories from pre-existing religions

5 of 7: the skeptic and the Christian read through the Judeo-Christian Bible, and examine it by the same critical light just held up to non-Christian religions.

5.1 through 5.5: Further details on the origins of the Judeo-Christian bible--how many of its ideas & stories can be found in religions that pre-date the bible by centuries.

5.1 explains why many of the baffling details within the tale of Noah & the Ark make sense once the story is read as a monotheistic version (in which God is said to be Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Benevolent) of a story that was originally polytheistic (in which the gods were none of the above).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9fxvJy9swk&feature=channel_page

5.2 discusses the pre-Christian religious stories from the Greeks, Romans, and Zoroastrians about unions between gods & mortals, miraculous virgin births, and offspring that were both human and god. It also covers the "Satanic pre-plagiarization" explanations from early Church Fathers Justin Martyr and Tertullian on how the pagans knew about these phenomena centuries before the time of Jesus.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-ymGDRZfOQ&feature=channel_page

5.3: Richard Dawkins refers to the Christian premises behind the belief that Jesus/God sacrificed Himself to appease Himself as "barking mad." This video looks at each of those premises--Divine Anger, the need for sacrifice, the use of a scapegoat--from the perspective of comparative mythology. The subtitle for this video is "Richard Dawkins meets Joseph Campbell."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDJ-azGoBt8&feature=channel

5.4: the evolution of the afterlife. Stage One - the 37 out of 39 Old Testament books that either don't mention, or even deny, an afterlife. Stage Two - the 2 Old Testament books that say there IS an afterlife. Stage Three - The New Testament, in which the afterlife, complete with Judgment Day & Heaven & Hell, becomes one of Christianity's main selling points.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6_XJjJiVAY&feature=channel_page

5.5: A discussion of the evidence that Christianity's "Satan" comes more from pagan religions than Judaism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYgNfKBg4H0&feature=channel_page

6 of 7: a review of some of the common counterarguments from Christian apologists

7 of 7: why I find the Christian apologist's answers unconvincing.

Related videos:
"An abbreviated version of using the Socratic Method with Christian Proselytizers": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaJwTvxAlBM

"Three advantages to questioning 'the Creator's Word' but not 'a Creator' (when speaking w/ theists)": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3lye16mJvQ

"When science contradicts Scripture: how theists cope": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py48Lb495ew


* * * * * * * * * *


My three YouTube channels:

- http://youtube.com/user/ToddGates - my musician channel

- http://youtube.com/user/ToddAllenGates - where I discuss the ideas in "Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer"

- http://youtube.com/user/ToddAllenGates2 - where I discuss the ideas in my book "Hunting, Gathering, & Videogames" (such as "Why do we have to work?" and "Why do we have to use money?" and "How should we define 'success'?")

Category:

Education

Tags:

• atheism
• skepticism
• Christian
• apologetics
• comparative
• mythology
• Socratic
• Method
• Christianity
• faith
• religion
• proselytizer
• Bible
• God
• Jesus
• Christ
• holy
• text
• savior
• Joseph
• Campbell
• ToddAllenGates
• ToddGates
• ToddAllenGates2
• Todd
• Allen
• Gates

[ToddAllenGates]

@evangelical1

> I now see this is a separate question from the book.

Yes, I separate the two. When I question Christianity, I take the temporary stance of "let's say a Higher Power DOES exist."

> Do you answer in the video you refer me to?

In that video I only mention the practical advantages of questioning organized religion, but not "A Higher Power."

Only 1 of my videos covers why I think a Creator is more improbable than probable ... and you already responded to it in January.

[evangelical1]

@ToddAllenGates Well, I guess I missed the entire point. Oops! I thought you were saying something like, Christianity resembles other religions which are known to be false, so Christianity is too. So how do you go from "Christianity is made up by fallible people" to "probably there is no God of any kind"? I now see this is a separate question from the book. Do you answer in the video you refer me to?

[ToddAllenGates]

@evangelical1

> the whole point-whether God (probably) exists or not-of the series isn't it?

No. The whole point is *if* a god exists and *if* we know that humans make up religions on their own (as every fundamentalist agrees that humans do, at least when looking at religions other than their own), then how do we recognize signs that a religion is made up by fallible people?

I have a separate video on the practical advantages of not arguing about God's existence: watch?v=l3lye16mJvQ

[ToddAllenGates]

@evangelical1 > If possible, such a being exists in some logically possible world.

I don't see it that way at all. It's all just remote possibilities.

> But then by definition of 'necessary' in modal logic, such a being has to exist in every logically possible world including the actual world so God exists

All just remote possibilities ... you might as well be talking about All-Powerful unicorns. Sorry if I sound closed-minded and am not giving this proper consideration.

[ToddAllenGates]

@evangelical1

> why is it unique in explaining the universe as beginning a finite time ago?

The phrase "In the beginning" hardly spells out the Big Bang!

[ToddAllenGates]

@evangelical1

> there aren't any mistakes in it I'm aware of and I've been intensely studying it for years

I don't think this will be a productive discussion for either of us ... but against my better judgment ... I'll just ask "What about dinosaurs? Modern knowledge tells us they ruled for 160 million years, and there was some 65 million years between the last dinosaur and the first human. How do you reconcile that with Genesis?

[ToddAllenGates]

@Domzdream

> Either ALL of them are right.

I have a video series on this subject too ... it's called

'Problems with the "all religions are One!" New Age spirituality approach' - /watch?v=YyLQ0q-3lLA

> Or none of them are.

I think the latter is the more probable!

[evangelical1]

@ToddAllenGates ...everyone else on your view. If that is so then why is it unique in explaining the universe as beginning a finite time ago? This is perfectly in line with relatively recent science. One could then say that it got the beginning date wrong, but that is a separate question. If we think the Bible teaches 4004 BC that can count on your side but the advanced knowledge of the big bang counts on my side. If its just guesswork then why didn't more ancient men guess it, btw?

[evangelical1]

@ToddAllenGates It is easy to tell the difference between Omniscience and man's guesswork. If the Bible does not mention something, that does not mean that God does not know about it. If it mentions something which is known to be false, that would count against it being written by an omniscient being but there aren't any mistakes in it I'm aware of and I've been intensely studying it for years. And what about scientific foreknowledge? The Bible is supposed to rampantly steal from...

[evangelical1]

@evangelical1 Now, while you concede that God exists at the beginning of your series, it is only for the sake of argument. For you conclude that God probably does not exist. So the existence of God is totally relevant to the series. That is the whole point-whether God (probably) exists or not-of the series isn't it?