Respectable books on apologetics?

[MindForgedManacle]

So... I'm here to say that most of the above is bullshit in my view. :p While I think Craig is a repetitive bore, Plantinga's no slouch and to say he's an afront to critical thinking is just silly shit, to be frank.


As for a good book on apologetics, the absolute best religious apologists have ever put out would be the "Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology". I couldn't afford it myself (broke enough as it is), but a philosopher I chat with on Twitter sent me a PDF of it, if you're interested. It's very comprehensive and detailed, if that's your sort of thing.

[Rampant.A.I.]

So... I'm here to say that most of the above is bullshit in my view. :p While I think Craig is a repetitive bore, Plantinga's no slouch and to say he's an afront to critical thinking is just silly shit, to be frank.

You think "solving" regress by saying "it just proves God because God" is critical thinking?

You do know Plantinga thinks the KCA is a solid argument, despite all historical objections, right?

[Simon Moon]

So... I'm here to say that most of the above is bullshit in my view. :p While I think Craig is a repetitive bore, Plantinga's no slouch and to say he's an afront to critical thinking is just silly shit, to be frank.

You think "solving" regress by saying "it just proves God because God" is critical thinking?

You do know Plantinga thinks the KCA is a solid argument, despite all historical objections, right?

He's also stated that his modal version of the Ontologiocal argument is not convincing.

He acknowledges that no ontological argument has the kind of persuasive character that would convince a non-believer; rather, they can realistically hope to reinforce the convictions of a theist.

WHAT...?!

Aopologetics is designed to reinforce already existing beliefs. Who would have thought that?

[Rampant.A.I.]

The problem is he's doing it within the framework of epistemology, which is supposed to be a field dealing with what constitutes knowledge. "I dunno: therefore God" is not only an non-academic way of approaching the problem, it's intellectually dishonest.

He's presupposing unsupported knowledge on which to base knowledge. He knows this, and yet continues to do it.

[Brian37]

I couldn't get past the title. It is an oxymoron. It would be like saying the guy who draws Spiderman professionally for a comic book has more credibility than a kid who draws Spiderman and ends up on the parents fridge out of pity.

Are there elaborate arguments apologists use and take creativity to concoct? Yes. But the ability to make an elaborate con doesn't make you more right than a kid who's only trick is "pull my finger".

[fr0d0]

My wife is a big fan of Love Wins, by Rob Bell. I may have liked it better if I still believed when I read it.

I don't think that's suitable for non Christians. I'm a fan but the support for that particular theology is thin, even though I adopt it myself.

Far better is velvet Elvis. Some awesome Bell stuff in there. Good for non believers too.

I'd also recommend John H Walton's "The lost world of genesis one". I was astounded reading that at the sensitivity Walton shows towards the non believing reader. I think he fully addresses and challenges the atheist position with full reverence and respect. I've seen nothing like it.

[Anomalocaris]

Are there any books on apologetics that are somewhat respected by the Athiest Community?

Wouldn't you think if any book on apologetics were to be found by us to be respectable, we would stopped being atheists?

[fr0d0]

There's an awesome Australian guy too that was chucked out of ywam: Dave Andrews who wrote Christi-Anarchy

Great demolition of precious Christian ivory towers. A good read for non believers IMO

[Minimalist]

A respectable apologist would be as impossible as an honest burglar.

[Brian37]

Are there any books on apologetics that are somewhat respected by the Athiest Community?

Wouldn't you think if any book on apologetics were to be found by us to be respectable, we would stopped being atheists?

Every time I see or hear the word "respect", my nuts shrink and I have a deep seeded desire to go on a killing spree.(metaphorically and sarcastically only)

If one has facts, those facts do not need respect. They are true, not out of political correctness or desire. Facts are not proven out of avoiding conflict or a shit kicking. Facts are what they are because they face a shit kicking and survive.

I hate the word "respect". I value that which can be proven. Things that are proven are independent of our own personal desires and do not need protection by cliche words like "respect".

I reject the books of apologists because they are not arguments for universal science. They are nothing more than arguments for personal comic book super heros they know do not exist.