Breeds of Apologists (and how to debate them)

[pocaracas]

EDIT TO ADD: Just for fun, if you are able, put them in a room with a Liberal apologist and watch the sparks fly.

hmmmm ryft Vs Al-Fatihah... that would be fun to watch!

[CapnAwesome]

The Whining Apologist

Demeanor: These are the people who claim that whatever you say was taken out of context (no matter how much context you provide) or that the original translation actually says something different (even though they fail to provide the correct translation) or that we would really understand if we spoke ancient greek or arabic (Even though they don't speak it themselves) As a last line of defense they normally say "Well if you would open your heart to god then you'd understand." Meanwhile no positive evidence is provided. Unlike the pompous apologist, these people are all defense and rarely make a positive statement, they prefer to just whine and bitch and moan that we don't have it right, even though they won't say what is right.

Possible Nature: These people have a serious victim complex, even though they represent an oppressive majority. They aren't as bright as they think they are and don't know their holy books as well as they pretend to. No doubt these same people will bring up how they are persecuted somehow.

Favorite Fallacies: No true Scotsman, Appeal to Authority, Appeal from Silence

Suggested Strategy: Call them out directly and tell them exactly what they are doing. When confronted with what whiny little bitches they are being they will just whimper and run back to whatever holes they crawled out of.

[YahwehIsTheWay]

The Poe

Demeanor: Often times indistinguishable from the Fundy Fucktard but not for lack of trying. Usually, they'll try to drop various "tells" such as referring to themselves as a True Christian with a trademark ™ or a quote from Landover Baptist.
Nature: Typically, the Poe is inspired to post when reading something by any other apologist and their head slams into their desk. They then log on and "agree" with the apologist. Often, they feel pressured to go further and further into the deep end of crazy, trying to stay ahead of the real thing. It can be like, to quote the Daily Show, running a ponzi scheme of stupid.
Favorite Fallacies: What is this "logic" thing you keep talking about? I go by faith.
Suggested Strategy: Don't feel bad if you get "Poe-ned" by them (taking them seriously and arguing against them). Chances are good that no matter how over-the-top and ridiculous they try to be, there's some Fundy Fucktard out there that offers the same kind of argument, only seriously.

[Minimalist]

The Bible says whatever they want it to say and no interpretation is too obtuse.

That's pretty much all of them, isn't it? And in other parts of the world you can substitute 'koran' for 'bible.' SS-DD.

[Kayenneh]

How about the Ignorant Apologist, the one who never got past high school nor opened the Bible? Or the Literal Apologist, the one who refuses to use words that weren't even written in the Bible and would love to speak ancient Greek, if anyone else could understand him?

[Gilgamesh]

The best way to debate them is to repeatedly ask for evidence until they provide it.

They never provide evidence so they never get anywhere.

[Anomalocaris]

The best way to debate an apologist would seem to me to be the same as the best way to debate a flatulent cow chewing a cud.

BTW, a cow wouldn't look any worse if seen to be debating with a human. A human would look considerably worse if seen to be debating a cow.

[Cyberman]

That's essentially the reason Richard Dawkins refuses to grant creationists the benefit of reflected credibility by debating with them, isn't it: "It would look great on your CV, but not on mine!"

[mr.atheist]

How about the ones that when you use a quote from the bible to show how horrible it is,they always say you are taking it out of context? But they do the same.Or the ones that say that people who do bad things because of religion say those people aren't true christians and been a true christian means following christ?

I dont even know if you could them as apologists but they are arguments I have heard for religion.Just thought I would bring them up.

...this sounds like...

The Liberal Apologist

Demeanor: Jesus is love to these Christians and somehow mainstream Christianity has managed to get it all wrong for 2000 years. Apparently, the greatest Christian minds just aren't as smart as these people. How unfortunate for Christianity's victims since then.
Possible Nature: These people aren't necessarily liberals in the political, social or economic sense. They may be Republicans or Democrats. What they all have in common is their desire to make Jesus in their own image. The Bible says whatever they want it to say and no interpretation is too obtuse.
Favorite Fallacies: "Quote mining", "special pleading", "ad hoc hypothesis" and most of all, "moving the goal posts"
Suggested Strategy: While debating a fundamentalist may seem like assaulting a fortress, debating the liberal apologist is more like guerrilla warfare. They are nowhere and everywhere. Pinning them down on anything may be neigh impossible as they shamelessly shift positions on a dime. Focus on the most important question: Is the Bible the Word of God or is it Not the Word of God? Expect them to offer and try to justify a "sort of" answer where parts were "inspired" and other parts not so much. At this point, ask them to explain how they know which is which. Since we are not God or angels, how should we be able to tell the difference. When they offer nothing more than "you just know", they've revealed that they're making up their own religion and their own Holy Book and can dispense with the pretense of calling themselves "Christian".

Thanks for the lowdown.