Christian tactic for losing debates with atheists like Bill Maher

[BobRyan]

The YouTube title is horribly mistitled.

Let's examine the strategy that the Christian in this video used to lose the debate.

1. Argue that key portions of the Bible are complete nonsense.
2. Argue against Maher's claim that the Bible itself says it is all true.
3. Join with Maher in demeaning Christians that think the Bible is actually true even in its key statements about who God says He is and what God says He did.
4. Have no answer at all for why God allowed one single person to be killed by an Israelite much less whole towns or cultures other than "Atheist countries also do bad stuff".


There is of course "another view" of this fiasco - and this is contained in a post on this page that follows at some point. And that view is this --

He did that quite well,

(I just wanted to give a short snip from the "other side" of this ... the full details are in the posts that follow mine).

=============================================

ONE of the few things the Christian debater got right was that Maher's claim that no atheist nation has committed atrocities or crimes against humanity - is total nonsense for anyone who was alive during the 20th century and knew anything about Cuba or Russia or Communist China etc.

Your thoughts?

Bob

 

[GUANO]

They're both idiots =)

 

[Albion]

I figure that Maher chooses carefully whom to invite onto his show for a debate, and it's not going to be someone who will make him look bad or effectively defend any proposition that Maher is not much interested in.

 

[BobRyan]

They're both idiots =)

Indeed they both are wrong in many ways. But somehow it was crafted to have the Christian be the cause of his own defeat in that video - more often than not.

A great many Christians think that if they toss at least some key parts of the Bible under a bus - this will cause atheists to befriend them and see that Christianity is a great and true religion after all.

Notice how that strategy "does NOT work" in the video. Not only does it not work with Maher - it does not work with the audience or the viewer of the video.

 

[zippy2006]

1. Argue that key portions of the Bible are complete nonsense.

Ross Douthat isn't a creationist, like you apparently are. To say more than that, that he thinks portions of the Bible are complete nonsense, is blatant mischaracterization on your part.

2. Argue against Maher's claim that the Bible itself says it is all true.

Again, not a creationist.

3. Join with Maher in demeaning Christians that think the Bible is actually true even in its key statements about who God says He is and what God says He did.

Right, you're a creationist. Thanks for telling us again.

4. Have no answer at all for why God allowed one single person to be killed by an Israelite much less whole towns or cultures other than "Atheist countries also do bad stuff".

His answer had to do with Original Sin. That was probably too subtle for you to grasp.

 

[381465]

I think most debates are useless.
Most often neither side is remotely open to a different idea and the debate is just some sick self stimulation and fulfills some argumentative gratification.

 

[BobRyan]

Ross Douthat isn't a creationist, like you apparently are. To say more than that, that he thinks portions of the Bible are complete nonsense, is blatant mischaracterization on your part.

Actually I was using a much more gracious term than Maher used for that idea - and Ross had virtually no rebuttal at all for it. Nada.

You have come back with an accusation - but even you offer nothing by way of actual evidence.

Step 2 in Ross's failed tactic.

2. Argue against Maher's claim that the Bible itself says it is all true.

Again, not a creationist.

AND apparently not able to survive Maher's observations about the Bible's own statements that it is all true.

Hint: Maher is not a creationist either. This video is NOT an example of how "this tactic works". Rather of how "it flopped"

And now for the 3rd step in Ross' failed solution

3. Join with Maher in demeaning Christians that think the Bible is actually true even in its key statements about who God says He is and what God says He did.

Here again was supposedly a tactic to win over Mayher as it proposes the same low regard for Christians who accept Bible truth in Genesis as an atheist would have.

Here again we note how it did not get the intended response from the atheist - Maher.

Right, you're a creationist. Thanks for telling us again.

As it turns out I am not the one in the video - and Maher is not a creationist either.

Details matter.

And now the 4th part of Ross' failed tactic

4. Have no answer at all for why God allowed one single person to be killed by an Israelite much less whole towns or cultures other than "Atheist countries also do bad stuff".

This was supposed to win Maher by arguing that atheists are as a bad as the Bible-commands found in scripture telling Israel to go and kill someone. That idea is just as non-compelling in substance as it seems on the surface. And Maher did not fail to notice the flaw.

His answer had to do with Original Sin. That was probably too subtle for you to grasp.

Which would be utter nonsense as an explanation for why God told Israel to kill someone -- and we all know it. But thanks for at least trying to rescue Ross on that failed point.

Even the audience seems to see right through Ross' non-Answer and so also does Maher. You cannot justify/defend God's Commands - by appealing to the depravity of atheist nations AS IF to say "If man is so depraved then no wonder God's commands are defective" ... such arguments are total nonsense and Maher called him out on that point.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I think most debates are useless.
Most often neither side is remotely open to a different idea and the debate is just some sick self stimulation and fulfills some argumentative gratification.

Certainly it is true that the two individuals were not likely to change sides -- but the audience hides behind anonymity and so also the viewers. Ross actually scores almost no corrective points against Mahere's challenges -- other than to refute Maher's claim that no atheist nation has done any despicable acts, and that horrific acts require that the person first believe in God.

 

[zippy2006]

Actually I was using a much more gracious term than Maher used for that idea - and Ross had virtually no rebuttal at all for it. Nada.

You have come back with an accusation - but even you offer nothing by way of actual evidence.

All I see is a creationist whining because a Christian doesn't agree with them.

Your fallacies aside, if you read the comments on the video you will see how bad your assessment is. Even many atheists admit that Douthat made a good case.

Now let's address some of the "points" you try to make:

AND apparently not able to survive Maher's observations about the Bible's own statements that it is all true.

You present no evidence for such a case, you merely assert your creationist agenda.

Here again was supposedly a tactic to win over Mayher...

His tactic is not to win over Maher, it is to present a counterpoint to his atheist assertions. He did that quite well, as the comments bear out.

Here again we note how it did not get the intended response from the atheist - Maher.

Fallacy, see above.

This was supposed to win Maher...

Fallacy, see above.

...by arguing that atheists are as a bad as the Bible-commands found in scripture telling Israel to go and kill someone. That idea is just as non-compelling in substance as it seems on the surface. And Maher did not fail to notice the flaw.

No, the point is that God must take drastic measures in a world infected by Original Sin.

Which would be utter nonsense as an explanation for why God told Israel to kill someone -- and we all know it. But thanks for at least trying to rescue Ross on that failed point.

Is that honestly the best representation you're capable of? Needless to say, it doesn't reflect well on you.

Even the audience seems to see right through Ross' non-Answer and so also does Maher.

Bill Maher's atheist audience liked the atheist's points better than the Christian's? Wow, that is unbelievable! Maybe it's time to come out from under that rock you're living under. It would have been a disaster for Christianity if you had been on Maher's show. Laughter from the audience would have drowned out your creationism. I'm sure you would be as receptive to the atheist audience then as you are now.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Actually I was using a much more gracious term than Maher used for that idea - and Ross had virtually no rebuttal at all for it. Nada.

You have come back with an accusation - but even you offer nothing by way of actual evidence.

All I see is a creationist whining because a Christian doesn't agree with them.

Then you did not actually watch the discussion between the two non-Creationists.

Details matter.

(Or perhaps you are proposing that the loss to Maher by Ross is due to "an observer watching the video" that believes the Bible).

If it is the latter -- then I find your logic "illusive"

 

[BobRyan]

Ross Douthat isn't a creationist, like you apparently are. To say more than that, that he thinks portions of the Bible are complete nonsense, is blatant mischaracterization on your part.

Actually I was using a much more gracious term than Maher used for that idea - and Ross had virtually no rebuttal at all for it. Nada.

You have come back with an accusation - but even you offer nothing by way of actual evidence.

Step 2 in Ross's failed tactic.

2. Argue against Maher's claim that the Bible itself says it is all true.

Again, not a creationist.

AND apparently not able to survive Maher's observations about the Bible's own statements that it is all true.

Hint: Maher is not a creationist either. This video is NOT an example of how "this tactic works". Rather of how "it flopped"

And now for the 3rd step in Ross' failed solution

3. Join with Maher in demeaning Christians that think the Bible is actually true even in its key statements about who God says He is and what God says He did.

Here again was supposedly a tactic to win over Mayher as it proposes the same low regard for Christians who accept Bible truth in Genesis as an atheist would have.

Here again we note how it did not get the intended response from the atheist - Maher.

Right, you're a creationist. Thanks for telling us again.

As it turns out I am not the one in the video - and Maher is not a creationist either.

Details matter.

And now the 4th part of Ross' failed tactic

4. Have no answer at all for why God allowed one single person to be killed by an Israelite much less whole towns or cultures other than "Atheist countries also do bad stuff".

This was supposed to win Maher by arguing that atheists are as a bad as the Bible-commands found in scripture telling Israel to go and kill someone. That idea is just as non-compelling in substance as it seems on the surface. And Maher did not fail to notice the flaw.

His answer had to do with Original Sin. That was probably too subtle for you to grasp.

Which would be utter nonsense as an explanation for why God told Israel to kill someone -- and we all know it. But thanks for at least trying to rescue Ross on that failed point.

Even the audience seems to see right through Ross' non-Answer and so also does Maher. You cannot justify/defend God's Commands - by appealing to the depravity of atheist nations AS IF to say "If man is so depraved then no wonder God's commands are defective" ... such arguments are total nonsense and Maher called him out on that point.


===========================

Were we just "not supposed to notice"???

Your fallacies aside, if you read the comments on the video you will see how bad your assessment is.

"if you read the comments on the video"????? hahaha --- very funny! Thanks for that.

How about "if you actually watch the video"!!

Please be serious.

His tactic is not to win over Maher,

Hint: that would not be a "tactic" it would be an "'objective" and I agree his object may not be to completely win over Maher - (though he appears to say this is the very objective he was going for) His TACTIC is to agree with the atheists in their objection to the Bible "AS IF" that would result in atheists having a better more positive view of Christianity.

In fact he says to Maher "I was thinking about you the whole time I was writing this book ... day and night.. and the good news for you (as an atheist) is..." that Catholics and mainline Protestants are declining... and yet the "bad news for you and for me - is that Americans are as religious as ever" (Even though catholicism is in decline?)

That tactic failed. As BOTH Maher AND his audience and the objective observer demonstrate.


The "olive branch" he holds out to Maher is that "everything you hate - the things you really hate about Christianity (as an atheist) is embodied by the faiths that have arisen (during this Catholic decline)... in way this is bad news for BOTH of us" So here was his effort to close with gap with the atheist POV at least to some degree.

Maher then offers his own olive branch "you are saying that the Christian right is anti-intilectual (I am not trying to be insulting here)" and Dross responds "oh yes you are right and -- you are just describing" -- and then Maher adds "but isn't ALL religion (including all of Christianity) by its very nature anti-intellectual". (Maher divides them up between crazies and monsters)

it is to present a counterpoint to his atheist assertions.

Indeed a counterpoint where the flaw was not instantly obvious to both Maher and the audience -- and the observers of the video. The fact that he failed is being used as a basis to "be informed" from that colossal flop. "Why dig the hole deeper" at this point??

Bill Maher's atheist audience liked the atheist's points better than the Christian's?

Rather the audience no matter what survey you did of them... saw the flaws as quickly as Maher pointed them out.

Just as the observers of the video can easily do!

This cannot be "blamed on me" as it turns out. Logic and reason being what they are.

 

[BobRyan]

He did that quite well,

I must give you your due on that one - it is pretty funny!

But out of respect I am including it in the OP as an example of the "another take" on this video.

"Is that honestly the best representation you're capable of? Needless to say, it doesn't reflect well on you."

It would have been a disaster for Christianity if you had been on Maher's show. Laughter from the audience would have drowned out your creationism.

Imagining that someone else could-a would-a done worse -- is perhaps your best retort since it is nothing more than untestable speculation and so cannot be instantly disproven with the evidence in the video unlike the case with your other answers.

BTW - you have free will - and you can choose to take the losing side of that discussion and double-down on it. It just makes my point - that this people are married to that losing argument "AS IF" its great selling point is how well it plays with atheists -- when in fact atheists like Dawkins and Maher immediately expose it's flaws - rather than embracing it.

 

[BobRyan]

In the video we get this dud - "the TRUTH is that the idea that you take Genesis literally with 6 days of creation is pretty much a modern invention" (Ross).

Question - how many people fall for that -- in real life??

Meanwhhile - more informed scholars have written the exact opposite "

https://www.dbts.edu/journals/2000/mccabe.pdf
"Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal
a literal interpretation of the creation days has been the prevailing view of orthodox Christianity. This literal interpretation maintains that God created the
heavens, the earth, and all things therein in six, successive 24 - hour days.
The literal interpretation of the creation days has come under a more threatening and increasing assault within the last 150 to 200 years."

So which is it - has blind faith evolutionism been gaining ground and asserting itself just since the past 150 years - or is it "For in Six days the LORD MADE the heavens and the Earth the seas and all that are in them" Ex 20:11 the text and legal code on the doctrine of origins - that just surfaced in the last 150 years.???

Is there anyone alive on planet Earth that really thinks Moses "was a Darwinist"???

Darwin, Dawkins, Provine, P.Z Meyers, and many others freely admit that Bible is not now teaching Darwinism, or long ages of creation - and never did.


"Support for an Earth that was created thousands of years ago declined among the scientists and philosophers from the 18th century onwards with the development of the Age of Enlightenment,"
Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia
Declined over 200 years... declined 'from what"??

Declined from its prior state of universal acceptance among both Jews and Christians.

from - Brief History of Creationism | NCSE
"At the end of the Middle Ages, European tradition held that all of the Earth´s inhabitants had been created by God in one place, the Garden of Eden, soon after the formation of the earth. But as the scientific revolution began to unfold some 400 years ago, naturalists started to catalog fossils according to the layers in which they were found"

Here is a statement by an evolutionist -

Were the Early Church Fathers Young Earth Creationists?
"Based on my own research, no early church father taught any form of a day-age view or an earth older than 10,000 years. In fact, the first people that I can clearly identify as teaching the old-earth view are Isaac Newton and Thomas Burnet in the late seventeenth century. This seems like a fatal blow to old-earth creationism and a strong vindication of Mook’s position but closer examination shows otherwise."

The author above trying to salvage his old-earth evolutionist views adds this
"A deficient knowledge of Hebrew is probably the single most important factor leading to a young-earth misunderstanding of Genesis (see here for previous articles on this issue). This problem has continued to play a significant role even in our own time."

His argument is that all ECFs were basically ignorant in terms of understanding Hebrew and so - only having the Greek text for the OT - were universally creationist.

Which means that the Hebrew authors of the Septuagint (the 70) were also creationist.

Digging the hole even deeper that same author above says "Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine rejected a calendar-day view, believing instead that everything was created instantly. For completeness, we should include Hilary of Poitiers and the Jewish scholar Philo who believed likewise, even though Mook does not discuss them."

None of that "helping Ross" hide the truth - so he simply spins a story to the contrary of all known fact!!

====================

And so - what about those "Hebrew scholars"???

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

 

[zippy2006]

Then you did not actually watch the discussion between the two non-Creationists.

No, you are the whining creationist, not Bill or Ross. You have a remarkably hard time understanding what is going on, both in YouTube videos and in threads.

Actually I was using a much more gracious term than Maher used for that idea - and Ross had virtually no rebuttal at all for it. Nada.

You have come back with an accusation - but even you offer nothing by way of actual evidence.

Step 2 in Ross's failed tactic.





AND apparently not able to survive Maher's observations about the Bible's own statements that it is all true.

Hint: Maher is not a creationist either. This video is NOT an example of how "this tactic works". Rather of how "it flopped"

And now for the 3rd step in Ross' failed solution


Here again was supposedly a tactic to win over Mayher as it proposes the same low regard for Christians who accept Bible truth in Genesis as an atheist would have.

Here again we note how it did not get the intended response from the atheist - Maher.



As it turns out I am not the one in the video - and Maher is not a creationist either.

Details matter.

And now the 4th part of Ross' failed tactic


This was supposed to win Maher by arguing that atheists are as a bad as the Bible-commands found in scripture telling Israel to go and kill someone. That idea is just as non-compelling in substance as it seems on the surface. And Maher did not fail to notice the flaw.



Which would be utter nonsense as an explanation for why God told Israel to kill someone -- and we all know it. But thanks for at least trying to rescue Ross on that failed point.

Even the audience seems to see right through Ross' non-Answer and so also does Maher. You cannot justify/defend God's Commands - by appealing to the depravity of atheist nations AS IF to say "If man is so depraved then no wonder God's commands are defective" ... such arguments are total nonsense and Maher called him out on that point.

You just copied and pasted a previous post. I already addressed it here. It seems that you're running short on tricks.

Maher then offers his own olive branch "you are saying that the Christian right is anti-intilectual (I am not trying to be insulting here)" and Dross responds "oh yes you are right and -- you are just describing" -- and then Maher adds "but isn't ALL religion (including all of Christianity) by its very nature anti-intellectual". (Maher divides them up between crazies and monsters)

Perhaps you need to watch the video and get that blood out of your eyes. Maher doesn't say, "The Christian right is anti-intellectual," he says, "The Right, they've hurt religion, because they've made it anti-intellectual." And Ross does not respond by saying, "Oh yes you are right and -- you are just describing." He actually says, "Yeah... I mean, I think, I think...," beginning to qualify his statement before Maher cuts him off. Like this entire thread, your whole approach is calumnious misrepresentation in order to present a facile creationist agenda.

Douthat was actually appearing on Maher and other media outlets to publicize his book, Bad Religion, which is an extended argument regarding the sustained religiosity of America despite the shrinking percentage of orthodox Christians. It is needless to say that you are oblivious to this context and have never read the book.

Rather the audience no matter what survey you did of them... saw the flaws as quickly as Maher pointed them out.

Not the audience in the YouTube comments (atheists and Christians alike). Not the person who posted the video.

So really the only audience that serves your point is Maher's audience, the same audience that would make a laughing stock of your creationism.

Just as the observers of the video can easily do!

It's funny that at best one single person on CF, GUANO, has agreed with you, isn't it? And he shows no evidence of actually watching the video.

This cannot be "blamed on me" as it turns out. Logic and reason being what they are.

It's ironic that the creationist who is upset because his pet theory has been disparaged by a Christian on YouTube is talking about logic and reason. Rationalizing anger against a non-creationist isn't reason, and it isn't logical. You're just blowing smoke.

In the video we get this dud - "the TRUTH is that the idea that you take Genesis literally with 6 days of creation is pretty much a modern invention" (Ross)...

...and the true creationist agenda becomes visible to plain sight.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Then you did not actually watch the discussion between the two non-Creationists.

No, you are the whining creationist, not Bill or Ross.

Hint: I am not in that video.

Hint #2 - the fact that an observer of the video believes the Bible does not explain/excuse Ross' colossal fail.

You have a remarkably hard time understanding what is going on, both in YouTube videos and in threads.

You just copied and pasted a previous post. I already addressed it -- It seems that you're running short on tricks.

Perhaps you need to watch the video and get that blood out of your eyes. Maher says, "The Christian right is anti-intellectual," when he says, "The Right, they've hurt religion, because they've made it anti-intellectual." And Ross does respond by saying, "Oh yes you are right and -- you are just describing." He actually says more than just "Yeah... I mean, I think, I think...,"

 

[zippy2006]

Hint: I am not in that video.

I never said you were.

You have a remarkably hard time understanding what is going on, both in YouTube videos and in threads.

You just copied and pasted a previous post. I already addressed it -- It seems that you're running short on tricks.

Perhaps you need to watch the video and get that blood out of your eyes. Maher says, "The Christian right is anti-intellectual," when he says, "The Right, they've hurt religion, because they've made it anti-intellectual."

These are quotes from my last post, yet you put them in your post as if they are your own. Do you even know how to post on a forum? Do you even understand how the quote function works?

And Ross does respond by saying, "Oh yes you are right and -- you are just describing." He actually says more than just "Yeah... I mean, I think, I think...,"

You can't just take quotes and rearrange their order in the dialogue to suit your desires. Douthat doesn't actually say, "Oh yes you are right and -- you are just describing," at all. He says, "No, no, you're just describing. I understand," but he doesn't say it in response to Maher's claim about the Right.

Let's look at your fictional set of quotes from BobRyan la la land as found in this post:

Maher: "You are saying that the Christian right is anti-intilectual (I am not trying to be insulting here)"
Douthat: "Oh yes you are right and -- you are just describing"
Maher: "but isn't ALL religion (including all of Christianity) by its very nature anti-intellectual"
​

Now let's look at what actually happened in the real, non-fiction world (starting at 1:44 in the video):

Maher: "You say--now you criticize both sides--you say the Right, they've hurt religion because they've made it anti-intellectual."
Douthat: "Yeah... I mean, I think, I think..."
Maher (interrupting): "...but isn't all religion--I'm not insulting here, I'm just saying..."
Douthat: "No, no, you're just describing. I understand."
Maher: "...It is, by it's very nature, anti-intellectual..."
Douthat (interrupting): (Douthat now explains why Maher holds that belief and why it is false)
​

Like Dan Brown, your claims and theories would be so much more authoritative without all those darn facts getting in the way! But to be fair to Brown, he actually knew he was writing fiction. If Douthat was mistaken in taking fundamentalist creationists to be anti-intellectual, you're certainly not doing anything to help their cause. Douthat might point to this thread as proof of his point.

 

[BobRyan]

Let's look at your fictional set of quotes from BobRyan la la land as found in this post:

Maher: "You are saying that the Christian right is anti-intilectual (I am not trying to be insulting here)"
Douthat: "Oh yes you are right and -- you are just describing"
Maher: "but isn't ALL religion (including all of Christianity) by its very nature anti-intellectual"
​

Now let's look at what actually happened in the real, non-fiction world (starting at 1:44 in the video):

Maher: "You say--now you criticize both sides--you say the Right, they've hurt religion because they've made it anti-intellectual."
Douthat: "Yeah... I mean, I think, I think..."
Maher (interrupting): "...but isn't all religion--I'm not insulting here, I'm just saying..."
Douthat: "No, no, you're just describing. I understand."
Maher: "...It is, by it's very nature, anti-intellectual..."

​

.

A distinction without a difference

Douthat: "here is the bad news. Both for Christians like myself AND for critics like yourself.
Americans are still as religious as EVER! ... what are we if we're no longer a traditionally Christian nation but also NOT YET a nation of Bill Mahers? My answer is that we have WORD (in fact a throw back to the Dark Ages) for religious faith that is still deeply influenced by Christianity but isn't "Traditionally" Christian...we're a nation of heretics!

And... the bad news is that everything you really hate about religion is embodied by the faith's that have arisen as institutional Christianity has declined. So you know.. prosperity preachers.. Joel Osteen... in a way it is BAD NEW for BOTH of us"

Maher: "You say--now you criticize both sides--you say the Right because THEY have made it anti-intellectual - RIGHT?
Douthat: "YEAH I mean I think I think"

(As "if" tossing the right "under a bus" will help him make peace with Maher)

Maher (interrupting): "...but isn't all religion--I'm not insulting here, I'm just saying..."
Douthat: "No, no, you're just describing. I understand."
Maher: "...It is, by it's very nature, anti-intellectual..."

(SHOWING that Maher is not falling for the slight-of-hand ploy Douthat tries out just then)

Douthat: "let me give you an example..a person like yourself looks at religious history and says --- once upon a time CHRISTIANS all took GENESIS literally" RIGHT? And then SCIENCE came along and said you can't take GENESIS literally anymore and so you've got HALF of Christians who are you know going to Ken Ham's Creation Museum and sort of clinging to that .."

Maher: "ha ha"

Douthat: "and then you have modern Christians doing some sort of funny dance and not really owning up to reality.."

Tossing a lot of Christianity into his Douthat basket of deplorables as an olive leaf to atheists...

Douthat: "but the truth is that the idea that you take Genesis literally as in SIX literal days of creation is pretty much a MODERN INVENTION". "Fundamentalism STARTS in the late nineteenth century (1800's) - the idea of the RAPTURE right where everybody is lifted out of the shoes. That's a early 20th century innovation."

Piling up almost as many Christians as he thinks atheists like Maher would like to dismiss into a basket of deplorables. All of this supposedly to sidestaep Maher's (anti-intellectual accusation)

Douthat: "IF you go back and look at ancient Christian AUTHORITIES they are looking at Genesis the SAME way you (atheists) are"

Maher: "you're giving yourself license to say that SOME of the Bible is (lies and stories)"


Maher: "The bible is divided into the crazy and the wicked"
===================================

which brings us to this -- Yesterday at 7:11 PM #13

Now that everyone is caught up. hopefully.

 

[zippy2006]

Douthat: "here is the bad news. Both for Christians like myself AND for critics like yourself.
Americans are still as religious as EVER! ... what are we if we're no longer a traditionally Christian nation but also NOT YET a nation of Bill Mahers? My answer is that we have WORD (in fact a throw back to the Dark Ages) for religious faith that is still deeply influenced by Christianity but isn't "Traditionally" Christian...we're a nation of heretics!

And... the bad news is that everything you really hate about religion is embodied by the faith's that have arisen as institutional Christianity has declined. So you know.. prosperity preachers.. Joel Osteen... in a way it is BAD NEW for BOTH of us"

Maher: "You say--now you criticize both sides--you say the Right because THEY have made it anti-intellectual - RIGHT?
Douthat: "YEAH I mean I think I think"

(As "if" tossing the right "under a bus" will help him make peace with Maher)

Maher (interrupting): "...but isn't all religion--I'm not insulting here, I'm just saying..."
Douthat: "No, no, you're just describing. I understand."
Maher: "...It is, by it's very nature, anti-intellectual..."

(SHOWING that Maher is not falling for the slight-of-hand ploy Douthat tries out just then)

Douthat: "let me give you an example..a person like yourself looks at religious history and says --- once upon a time CHRISTIANS all took GENESIS literally" RIGHT? And then SCIENCE came along and said you can't take GENESIS literally anymore and so you've got HALF of Christians who are you know going to Ken Ham's Creation Museum and sort of clinging to that .."

Maher: "ha ha"

Douthat: "and then you have modern Christians doing some sort of funny dance and not really owning up to reality.."

Tossing a lot of Christianity into his Douthat basket of deplorables as an olive leaf to atheists...

Douthat: "but the truth is that the idea that you take Genesis literally as in SIX literal days of creation is pretty much a MODERN INVENTION". "Fundamentalism STARTS in the late nineteenth century (1800's) - the idea of the RAPTURE right where everybody is lifted out of the shoes. That's a early 20th century innovation.

IF you go back and look at ancient Christian AUTHORITIES they are looking at Genesis the SAME way you (atheists) are"

Maher: "you're giving yourself license to say that SOME of the Bible is (lies and stories)"

In the spirit of full disclosure, perhaps you should change the thread title to, "The ramblings of a malcontent creationist." You could sell popcorn and turn a profit.

 

[BobRyan]

In the video we get this dud - "the TRUTH is that the idea that you take Genesis literally with 6 days of creation is pretty much a modern invention" (Ross).

Question - how many people fall for that -- in real life??

Meanwhhile - more informed scholars have written the exact opposite "

https://www.dbts.edu/journals/2000/mccabe.pdf
"Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal
a literal interpretation of the creation days has been the prevailing view of orthodox Christianity. This literal interpretation maintains that God created the
heavens, the earth, and all things therein in six, successive 24 - hour days.
The literal interpretation of the creation days has come under a more threatening and increasing assault within the last 150 to 200 years."

So which is it - has blind faith evolutionism been gaining ground and asserting itself just since the past 150 years - or is it "For in Six days the LORD MADE the heavens and the Earth the seas and all that are in them" Ex 20:11 the text and legal code on the doctrine of origins - that just surfaced in the last 150 years.???

Is there anyone alive on planet Earth that really thinks Moses "was a Darwinist"???

Darwin, Dawkins, Provine, P.Z Meyers, and many others freely admit that Bible is not now teaching Darwinism, or long ages of creation - and never did.


"Support for an Earth that was created thousands of years ago declined among the scientists and philosophers from the 18th century onwards with the development of the Age of Enlightenment,"
Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia
Declined over 200 years... declined 'from what"??

Declined from its prior state of universal acceptance among both Jews and Christians.

from - Brief History of Creationism | NCSE
"At the end of the Middle Ages, European tradition held that all of the Earth´s inhabitants had been created by God in one place, the Garden of Eden, soon after the formation of the earth. But as the scientific revolution began to unfold some 400 years ago, naturalists started to catalog fossils according to the layers in which they were found"

Here is a statement by an evolutionist -

Were the Early Church Fathers Young Earth Creationists?
"Based on my own research, no early church father taught any form of a day-age view or an earth older than 10,000 years. In fact, the first people that I can clearly identify as teaching the old-earth view are Isaac Newton and Thomas Burnet in the late seventeenth century. This seems like a fatal blow to old-earth creationism and a strong vindication of Mook’s position but closer examination shows otherwise."

The author above trying to salvage his old-earth evolutionist views adds this
"A deficient knowledge of Hebrew is probably the single most important factor leading to a young-earth misunderstanding of Genesis (see here for previous articles on this issue). This problem has continued to play a significant role even in our own time."

His argument is that all ECFs were basically ignorant in terms of understanding Hebrew and so - only having the Greek text for the OT - were universally creationist.

Which means that the Hebrew authors of the Septuagint (the 70) were also creationist.

Digging the hole even deeper that same author above says "Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine rejected a calendar-day view, believing instead that everything was created instantly. For completeness, we should include Hilary of Poitiers and the Jewish scholar Philo who believed likewise, even though Mook does not discuss them."

None of that "helping Ross" hide the truth - so he simply spins a story to the contrary of all known fact!!

====================

And so - what about those "Hebrew scholars"???

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

Like Dan Brown, your claims and theories would be so much more authoritative without all those darn facts getting in the way! .

You are free to "struggle with the facts" as you please - you have free will.

I am happy to accept them as they are.

 

[BobRyan]

In the spirit of full disclosure, perhaps you should change the thread title to, "The ramblings of a malcontent creationist."

Sadly for you - there is no creationist on that video for you to insult. Step into reality please.