(February 5, 2012 at 10:42 am)SleepingDemon Wrote:Interesting analysis. However, to be honest with you I must say the Islamic apologetics today is poor. It was good when the likes of Deedat came in but unfortunetly most of apologists today just repeat what Deedat said and most of Deedat's arguments have been refuted because they are old arguments I guess.(February 5, 2012 at 10:17 am)Zakir_250 Wrote: Okay. Be honest but what do you think of Muslim apologetics?
I hold Muslim apologetics in the same regard that i hold all apologetics, they cling to.a foundational assumption regardless of the direction their various debates take.
Say two scientists are discussing evolutionary biology, if scientist A presents evidence that contradicts scientist Believe, scientist B will have no choice but to reevaluate his/her preconceived notions and adjust to the new evidence. Apologists simply jam their fingers in their ears and retreat or redirect the conversation.
We have different definitions of evidence. The rational mind follows evidence, the irrational mind manipulates the evidence to support what they already believe. They hold your beliefs dogmatically, not tentatively as the secular world does. Apologetics remain apologetics even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The most damning evidence is however that there are Muslim apologetics, christian apologetics, scientology apologetics, Mormon apologetics, ad nauseum for every religion still in existence today. And though you have different brands, different methods, different holy books and favorite sources all apologetics presume to hold onto the truth that the rest of the world denies. I find all cases underwhelming.
It is improving because we have guys like Adam Deen, Abdullah Al-Andalusi and Hamza Tzortzis but there is still more to go. One thing I don't like about our apologetics is that they use others arguments instead of making thier own arguments. How many times have modern apologists repeated Zakir Naik's words?