Why must Christian apologists tell lies?

[YahwehIsTheWay]

Ah, Poe's Law

I resemble that remark

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

I think one reason you might see apologists lie, or keep relying on debunked information or arguments, is because the apologists themselves were never convinced in their faith by their own arguments. Craig for instance, has written about having a religious experience in coming to his faith. Apparently his "logical" arguments, the sort they he expects you to be convinced by, is not what convinced himself. He seems to be completely convinced by his experience alone. Craig was once asked if he were to travel back in time to when Jesus was supposed to have been resurrected and found that he never rose, Craig replied that he would have assumed that it was trick because he "knows" Jesus rose by the "work of the holy spirit in his life." That's how delusional he is. You could give him the best evidence you could possible get, and he wouldn't except it.

I suspect that many apologists are like Craig in this respect and given that they were convinced by experience rather than reason, they think that their arguments no matter how flawed must be closer to the truth than an atheist's argument so they keep using them. And you have to realize that ultimately, in these debates, they're not there to convince the person they're debating. They're only there to "win souls" in the audience. And if their arguments "win souls" it doesn't really matter how bad their arguments are. Apologists are evangelistic utilitarians.

[Justtristo]

I think one reason you might see apologists lie, or keep relying on debunked information or arguments, is because the apologists themselves were never convinced in their faith by their own arguments. Craig for instance, has written about having a religious experience in coming to his faith. Apparently his "logical" arguments, the sort they he expects you to be convinced by, is not what convinced himself. He seems to be completely convinced by his experience alone. Craig was once asked if he were to travel back in time to when Jesus was supposed to have been resurrected and found that he never rose, Craig replied that he would have assumed that it was trick because he "knows" Jesus rose by the "work of the holy spirit in his life." That's how delusional he is. You could give him the best evidence you could possible get, and he wouldn't except it.

I suspect that many apologists are like Craig in this respect and given that they were convinced by experience rather than reason, they think that their arguments no matter how flawed must be closer to the truth than an atheist's argument so they keep using them. And you have to realize that ultimately, in these debates, they're not there to convince the person they're debating. They're only there to "win souls" in the audience. And if their arguments "win souls" it doesn't really matter how bad their arguments are. Apologists are evangelistic utilitarians.

You got me thinking, I am coming to think Christian Apologetics in the form William Lane Craig is famous for, is basically an attempt appear to be rational to the "infidels". Also that is approach to tell people why you believe the tenets of Christianity is true, rather than stating the truth that the "holy spirit just worked through me" is fundamentally dishonest.