Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 13, 2024, 9:12 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Another apologist with his "clever" questions
#11
RE: Another apologist with his "clever" questions
Quote:What is the colour of anger?

Cheese Doodle orange.

Quote:What was Moses' iphone password?

I-II-III-IV-V-VI-VII-VIII-IX-X

Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
Reply
#12
RE: Another apologist with his "clever" questions
Lol. "We" atheists.

This little gambit of pretending to be an atheist whilst laying out your apologetics... Trite.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great

PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
Reply
#13
RE: Another apologist with his "clever" questions
It would be great if there was even a grain of truth that Christians were keen always to find peaceful solution, turn other cheek and that they only follow "good parts" from the Bible. I mean take the wars in Middle East that are only for oil wells and imagine if Christians in US and Europe got together and said "We demand wars be stopped. This war must be fought with logistics, not blood and that huge chunk of money invested in alternatives to oil." but that sounds ridiculous, that will never happen. For instance Catholic church probably makes billions sending priests to Middle East as a "moral" relief to soldiers and as an overall "moral" backing for the shameful deeds that apparently even Hillary and Trump are now accusing each other being for it.
Not to mention Evangelical hate groups.
teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries. It was even possible for the most venerated patriarchs of the Church, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, to conclude that heretics should be tortured (Augustine) or killed outright (Aquinas). Martin Luther and John Calvin advocated the wholesale murder of heretics, apostates, Jews, and witches. - Sam Harris, "Letter To A Christian Nation"
Reply
#14
RE: Another apologist with his "clever" questions
I never understood the celebrity status of Dawkins among some atheists. He beclowns himself with straw man objections to serious arguments.
Reply
#15
RE: Another apologist with his "clever" questions
(October 15, 2016 at 10:07 am)ChadWooters Wrote: I never understood the celebrity status of Dawkins among some atheists. He beclowns himself with straw man objections to serious arguments.

An example of "straw-man objections to serious questions" would be nice.
He is by no means perfect, but he does sum up the atheist-naturalist/humanist viewpoint perfectly.
I admit he is probably not the most convincing person, but he is very knowledgeable. In other words he is very good at preaching to the choir.

His arguments are well thought out and are often outside the realm of most theists' understanding. He makes references to philosophers, scientists and countless pieces of work throughout history... some of which is well outside the reading repertoire of the average theist. Just read any youtube comment section of almost any Dawkins video. There are a ton of clueless theists who say he is wrong for whatever reason, yet they dont understand his arguments very well.

For example, if you watched the "Why? question" video I posted earlier, a ton of thiests dismiss "science" because Dawkins cannot answer the purpose of life question. But if you listen to his response, it makes sense. He is a very logical man.
Reply
#16
RE: Another apologist with his "clever" questions
(October 15, 2016 at 7:26 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: Lol. "We" atheists.

This little gambit of pretending to be an atheist whilst laying out your apologetics... Trite.

I am an atheist. I have never been religious even though my family taunts me about it to this very day. I dont beleive one bit. Maybe read my other posts? 

I just enjoy reading theist material. It is just comedic gold.
Reply
#17
RE: Another apologist with his "clever" questions
apologist is the most rational stance for belief and non belief.  Working with each other, using observations, and growing. Anti-apologetic is narrow minded, self serving, and limited understanding.  fund/milli mental or adult children of abuse, either way, not the best leaders.
anti-logical Fallacies of Ambiguity
Reply
#18
RE: Another apologist with his "clever" questions
Making up excuses for lunacy is not rational.  Try again.
Reply
#19
RE: Another apologist with his "clever" questions
(October 21, 2016 at 8:59 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Making up excuses for lunacy is not rational.  Try again.
I was talking about apologetics, not the stance.

The person the op is talking about is not even clever.  He just gave us personal opinions. We do not have to have a "god" for the things he was talking about.  For example "meaning", we don't know enough to have a grand meaning and inserting a god doesn't give us meaning.  It may give a person a meaning, but that is just an opinion.
anti-logical Fallacies of Ambiguity
Reply
#20
RE: Another apologist with his "clever" questions
(October 14, 2016 at 10:10 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I have never considered Ravi Zckerias a particularly compelling speaker. At the same time, I'm rather sympathetic to 1, 2, and 5.


Really?  Number one about the big questions remaining unanswered?  But assigning god as an answer to a question for which we have no settled empirical answer is simply positing a second black box within the black box whose mechanism we are wondering about.  I can't very well settle for that without asking about the mechanism accounting for the functioning of the second box.  From here there are only two dodges available:

1) the one you prefer, there are limitations to human capacities which make comprehension of the inner black box possible;

or 

2) it is just inner-inner black boxes all the way down.


If there are a in principle reasons why the functioning of the inner box cannot be comprehended then why not just say at the outset we don't understand how the initial black box works?
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  James Randi deserves his own RIP thread. Brian37 27 2986 January 6, 2021 at 11:39 am
Last Post: RozzerusUnrelentus
  A very clever alien.. R00tKiT 85 10738 January 4, 2021 at 10:10 am
Last Post: RozzerusUnrelentus
  His wish sounds familiar purplepurpose 1 1034 November 16, 2017 at 4:55 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Matt Dilahunty On What Would Change His Mind About God Edwardo Piet 14 5830 January 29, 2017 at 1:12 pm
Last Post: Cyberman
Video God Just Changed His Mind (from Evil to Good) Mental Outlaw 51 16205 April 16, 2015 at 8:41 am
Last Post: Tonus
  Big Name NFL Athlete Asserts his Atheism FatAndFaithless 41 15383 January 21, 2015 at 12:39 pm
Last Post: Chas
Thumbs Up Man who wore colander on his head for licence photo says it is part of Church of FSM MountainsWinAgain 19 5961 June 24, 2014 at 8:13 am
Last Post: RobbyPants
  Will a sign from God will convince us of his existence? Lawman 51 10332 March 24, 2014 at 8:34 pm
Last Post: tor
  Would atheist worship The biblical God if his existence was proven? Sinnersburninhell100 110 27778 January 13, 2014 at 6:32 pm
Last Post: JuliaL
  Clever answers for all occasions A_Nony_Mouse 20 5293 April 11, 2013 at 6:38 pm
Last Post: Simon Moon



Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)