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: March 28, 2024, 2:53 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Something about Apologetics.
#1
Something about Apologetics.
Being a member of many rationalist groups, both online and offline, I have noticed apologetics coming up with the same old rehashed arguments over and over again. This is very typical of apologetics who need self reassurance themselves that their belief is worth their time; so they will often poke their noses where non-theists hang out. This is a sign of weakness. How often do you see an atheist in a theists forum? Never!

And the ones who dare venture into their space are swiftly banned, as theists are allergic to rational discussion. Flip side, you will always see a deluded one trying to proselytize a rationalist. And we are accommodating enough to let them air their views. This gives them extra motivation to carry on their verbal diarrhoea. Once we stop paying attention to them or stop responding to them, they get frustrated. They are attention seekers. They need attention since deep down, they are doubtful of their beliefs but years of indoctrination have permanently installed the delusion of God in their hearts which, no matter how hard they try, will never let go.

Apologetics cannot live with the notion that non-believers should not pay attention to them. Ignoring them really pisses them off. Once they realise they are ignored, you will notice they will come up with questions just to entice us into discussion with him. Ignore that too and it will just blow up their heads.
Reply
#2
RE: Something about Apologetics.
I had a good definition of apologetics but I forget what it was now. Having the flu this week has really got me off kilter, not to mention that sometimes I have the memory of a goldfish anyway. But I think it went something like apologetics is nothing more than believers trying to keep convincing themselves they're right, or something like that.
Christian apologetics is the art of rolling a dog turd in sugar and selling it as a donut.
Reply
#3
RE: Something about Apologetics.
I always found this to be the most compelling statement about apologetic fools.

http://www.davematson.edwardtbabinski.us..._tyre.html

Quote:Bible-believers are full of clever (and some not so clever) rationalizations. The crucial question, however, is not whether "answers" can be generated in response to Bible difficulties but whether credible answers can be produced. What is the best explanation? Bible-believers seem to think that any loophole, however improbable, that gets the Bible off the hook has solved the problem. Thus, it is not surprising that different, conflicting answers are often presented side by side. It never seems to occur to these people that such logic will also support the story of Goldilocks and the three bears! Or the Koran. Or, anything else. Once we abandon the probable in favor of the improbable--or even the less probable--we have abandoned objectivity. Without objectivity, there is not much hope of finding the truth; we only succeed in confirming our own prejudiced views--even as a group of flat-Earth folks in California did for years in their newsletters.


All apologists want is SOMETHING - doesn't matter how stupid - to hang their hats on and they are happy.

It doesn't take much to keep an idiot happy, you know.


Reply
#4
RE: Something about Apologetics.
Apologist - a person who attempts to apologize for all the ignorance, stupidity, hatred, and contradictions contained within the biblical cannon whilst simultaneously pretending that there is nothing to apologize for.

I should add that to my signature definitions. But I don't want to end up with an entire dictionary as a sig file.
Christian - A moron who believes that an all-benevolent God can simultaneously be a hateful jealous male-chauvinistic pig.
Wiccan - The epitome of cerebral evolution having mastered the magical powers of the universe and is in eternal harmony with the mind of God.
Atheist - An ill-defined term that means something different to everyone who uses it.
~~~~~
Luke 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
Clearly Jesus (a fictitious character or otherwise) will forgive people if they merely know not what they do
For the Bible Tells us so!
Reply
#5
RE: Something about Apologetics.
(February 24, 2012 at 6:14 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Apologist - a person who attempts to apologize for all the ignorance, stupidity, hatred, and contradictions contained within the biblical cannon whilst simultaneously pretending that there is nothing to apologize for.


I think that's pretty fair overall of the 'what'. The 'why' is I think a bit more complicated. I try not to attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance,stupidity and incompetence.

Reasonable enough to always suspect any high ranking Catholic cleric of ulterior motives;those aresholes are only ruthless politicians in silly clothes.Angry


I also like this definition: "Apologist;one who defends by argument"(Concise Oxford dictionary)

Christian apologists tend to convince only other like minded Christians,especially the diverse ignoramuses we get here. However,trying to argue with a trained Catholic apologist (and I have) is like trying to argue with Zeno of Elea;you KNOW the argument is wrong,but can't quite put your finger on it at once. Believers swallow it immediately,
Reply
#6
RE: Something about Apologetics.
(February 24, 2012 at 7:33 pm)padraic Wrote: However,trying to argue with a trained Catholic apologist (and I have) is like trying to argue with Zeno of Elea;you KNOW the argument is wrong,but can't quite put your finger on it at once. Believers swallow it immediately,

It's funny you should use Zeno of Elea as an example.

I firmly stand behind the claims of Zeno of Elea. He was my childhood hero. I recognized the truth of his arguments even when I was still in my teens.

Most people simply misunderstand his arguments. Especially modern mathematicians who believe that calculus can be used to disprove Zeno's arguments.

To begin with Zeno was simply arguing that IF the world is a continuum, then motion would not be possible. Therefore he concluded that the world must be discrete or "quantized". Most people don't realize that this was the basis of his arguments.

We now know that Zeno was indeed correct. Our world is indeed quantized. Quantum Mechanics has shown that this is the case.

Mathematicians still erroneously believe that the calculus limits proves that Zeno was wrong. But that's totally false. The calculus limit does no such thing. In fact, the formal delta-epsilon definition of the Limit in no way disproves or violates Zeno's claims.

In fact, if you are educated in calculus you should know that limits can be said to 'exist' even when they don't. In other words, if a function has a missing point (an undefined point) but it is continuous on either side of that point up to that point, then that point can be proven to be a 'limit'. Yet clearly that does not mean that the point must 'exist'.

The calculus limit (and it's formal mathematical definition) only say things about trends. To prove that a 'limit exists' all you need to do is prove that certain trends and boundaries exist. You don't need to prove that the point in question needs to exist. In fact, it doesn't need to exist.

Zeno's claim is that you can't perform an infinite number of finite steps. And the calculus limit doesn't challenge that, nor does it show that Zeno was wrong.

On the contrary Zeno was indeed correct. He discovered the quantum nature of reality long before the quantum physicists discovered it.

So Zeno should be given the title 'Father of Quantum Physics'.

But of course he'll never be recognized for his great insight because everyone still erroneously believes that he was wrong, when in fact, he was right on.

He beat the quantum physicists to the punch by almost 2000 years!

He was a genius.


Christian - A moron who believes that an all-benevolent God can simultaneously be a hateful jealous male-chauvinistic pig.
Wiccan - The epitome of cerebral evolution having mastered the magical powers of the universe and is in eternal harmony with the mind of God.
Atheist - An ill-defined term that means something different to everyone who uses it.
~~~~~
Luke 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
Clearly Jesus (a fictitious character or otherwise) will forgive people if they merely know not what they do
For the Bible Tells us so!
Reply
#7
RE: Something about Apologetics.
Quote:I firmly stand behind the claims of Zeno of Elea. He was my childhood hero. I recognized the truth of his arguments even when I was still in my teens.



Just curious; when did your teens end.? From the general flavour and content of your posts,I can't help but think that was quite recently.Thinking

Quote:But of course he'll never be recognized for his great insight because everyone still erroneously believes that he was wrong, when in fact, he was right on.


That was most certainly not the case at the philosophy faculty in which I studied in 1976.Nor is it my understanding of the general opinion of philosophers today of Zeno.

Some of Zeno's arguments are in fact intentionally invalid, to force the student to think. That is perhaps what the uneducated often misunderstand about the Greek sophists.Today 'sophistry' simply means "a clever but invalid argument used to deceive" This is unrelated to the original meaning and purpose of the sophists.


Claiming Zeno is the father of quantum physics is pretty extraordinary.Why is this view not shared by physicists? They seem to be under the impression that honour belongs to Werner Heisenberg.(1901-1976) I suppose they are simply all wrong?


A genius? I am very frugal in my use of that word, so would not use it for him or Plato,who I revere. Aristotle perhaps,or Heron of Alexandria,certainly Da Vinci and Nicola Tesla.


Without credible evidence,(say peer reviewed papers by actual physicists) I am only able to continue to consider Zeno a brilliant philosopher and logician,but not a physicist

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

An example of one of Zeno's invalid arguments:

Zeno to a student with a dog:"is that your dog?"

StudentL: "Yes"

Zeno: "Well,that dog is your father,and every time you beat the dog you beat your father"


OF COURSE the argument is absurd. But why,precisely? (do I know? Yes)





Quote:Sophism in the modern definition is a specious argument used for deceiving someone. In ancient Greece, sophists were a category of teachers who specialized in using the tools of philosophy and rhetoric for the purpose of teaching arete — excellence, or virtue — predominantly to young statesmen and nobility. The practice of charging money for education (and providing wisdom only to those who can pay) led to the condemnations made by Socrates (through Plato in his dialogues, as well as Xenophon's Memorabilia). Through works such as these, Sophists were portrayed as 'specious' or 'deceptive', hence the modern meaning of the term.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophistry

Reply
#8
RE: Something about Apologetics.
Apologetics is the art of convincing people that bullshit doesn't stink.
Reply
#9
RE: Something about Apologetics.
(February 24, 2012 at 9:47 pm)padraic Wrote: Claiming Zeno is the father of quantum physics is pretty extraordinary.Why is this view not shared by physicists? They seem to be under the impression that honour belongs to Werner Heisenberg.(1901-1976) I suppose they are simply all wrong?

Well, there is much controversy over that. Many people would argue that Max Planck is the father of quantum physics since he's the one who first introduced the concept of the quantum to explain the ultraviolet catastrophe.

Albert Einstein ran with that and used the same idea to explain the photo electric effect.

However, if you want to get technical in terms of actually developing a rigid mathematical theory that we now call "Quantum Mechanics". Then yes, both Werner Heisenberg, and Erwin Schrodinger deserve simultaneous credit for that. One described things in terms of matrices the other in terms of waves, yet they both represent the same underlying mathematical concepts.

Many people also consider Neils Borh to be a 'Father' of quantum physics too. But I think they use the term "Father" for Borh in a different way. Borh was simply a great mentor who inspired a lot of people to work on the theory and thus he was a 'fatherly figure' in the field, more so than an actual innovator of ideas. Borh was better at interpreting the work of people like Heisenberg, Born and others.


[/quote]
Without credible evidence,(say peer reviewed papers by actual physicists) I am only able to continue to consider Zeno a brilliant philosopher and logician,but not a physicist
[/quote]

Yes, Zeno was a pure philosopher, and in his day that's about all he could do because he simply didn't have the technology available to test his theories.

He also participated in many different areas of philosophical thought.

None the less, his arguments concerning motion where arguments that favored the quantized (or atmos picture) of a discrete universe. And he no doubt got those ideas from Leucippus of Miletus. He was just supporting that picture and obviously that picture turned out to be the truth of reality.

So both Leucippus and Zeno were onto the correct picture of reality.

They were both my childhood heroes. Along with Newton, Einstein, Maxwell and many other scientists.

Neither Leucippus nor Zeno could be called "True Physicists" since physics didn't even exist in those days. But they were clearly thinking about the physical nature of reality and hypothesizing about it. So in that sense they were early 'physicists'.

The bottom line is that both Leucippus and Zeno were right. Our world is made of 'atoms', and even the subatomic particles have a limit to how far they can be divided. We now know that we live in a 'quantum world'.

So Zeno was right. We can call him a genius, or we can just say that he was a 'lucky philosopher' to have guessed right. But personally I think his arguments were sound (at least in terms of this particular question)

That's not to say that I would necessarily agree with any other philosophical ideas he might have had. But clearly he was right about the deepest nature of physical reality. As was Leucippus.



Christian - A moron who believes that an all-benevolent God can simultaneously be a hateful jealous male-chauvinistic pig.
Wiccan - The epitome of cerebral evolution having mastered the magical powers of the universe and is in eternal harmony with the mind of God.
Atheist - An ill-defined term that means something different to everyone who uses it.
~~~~~
Luke 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
Clearly Jesus (a fictitious character or otherwise) will forgive people if they merely know not what they do
For the Bible Tells us so!
Reply
#10
RE: Something about Apologetics.
(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: In fact, if you are educated in calculus you should know that limits can be said to 'exist' even when they don't. In other words, if a function has a missing point (an undefined point) but it is continuous on either side of that point up to that point, then that point can be proven to be a 'limit'. Yet clearly that does not mean that the point must 'exist'.
Absolutely. Not all spaces are sequentially compact, and not all metric spaces are complete. But this observation tout court has nothing to do with the validity of a notion of a space with these properties.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Zeno's claim is that you can't perform an infinite number of finite steps. And the calculus limit doesn't challenge that, nor does it show that Zeno was wrong.
How does a methodology for describing infinite sequences/sums/etc. not challenge the claim that you can't perform an infinite number of finite steps?

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: To begin with Zeno was simply arguing that IF the world is a continuum, then motion would not be possible.
Which is funny, because the move to a continuum (as Zeno's paradoxes don't rely on any numbers outside the rationals) is precisely what you need to resolve the paradoxes.
So these philosophers were all like, "That Kant apply universally!" And then these mathematicians were all like, "Oh yes it Kan!"
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Something to watch for (or avoid) The Valkyrie 24 2211 October 4, 2023 at 4:24 pm
Last Post: brewer
  Something to think about .... scamper 16 1602 November 13, 2022 at 1:10 pm
Last Post: Thumpalumpacus
  A hint at something deeper Ahriman 0 206 October 5, 2022 at 8:14 pm
Last Post: Ahriman
  Something for nothing onlinebiker 92 4609 September 14, 2021 at 3:11 pm
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  The really real Something For Nothing no one 1 385 September 12, 2021 at 5:50 pm
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
Thumbs Down RE: Rape Apologetics no one 6 650 July 23, 2021 at 9:58 am
Last Post: no one
  Pizza, just bit the bullet, trying something new. Brian37 19 1222 June 14, 2021 at 11:58 am
Last Post: brewer
  It’s Christmas so say something nice The Valkyrie 16 1696 December 19, 2019 at 9:03 pm
Last Post: no one
  When someone says something really stupid. Cod 8 1525 July 28, 2019 at 7:35 am
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  If you see something, say something Foxaèr 24 2101 February 1, 2019 at 3:32 pm
Last Post: Shell B



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)