Christian Apologetics and Arguments are Futile

[GodsRevolt]

Your belief is not the same as truth. You make that mistake a lot.

OK, I think I see what you are saying, that one claim does not establish the other claim? Just because there is a God does not mean that he had Son. Just because people believed that Son was God does not mean that there was an actual person.

I think that I got a little confused with this paragraph here:

Does anyone else notice the insuperable disconnect between the philosophical arguments and the last 2 religious ones? If you establish with the first 3 that there is a Maximally Great Being who is the 1st Cause and fine-tuned the universe for life, and that there was a man 2000-ish years ago who claimed to be either a manifestation or prophet of said being (depends on your theology), and that Christians have powerful experiences that they assign to said being.

The second sentence appears to be setting up an if/then statement, but the "then" never really comes about.

I really apologize if I misunderstood you, and please don't take it as me misrepresenting you. I was only asking for clarification and presenting what I understood from it. If what I understood was wrong, I appreciate you putting the time into helping me out.

Also, I do not confuse my belief with certain truth. I have faith that my beliefs come together into a single truth. And to be honest, it often comes to be tested.

Just like I have noticed that some atheists in this forum do not define themselves as being 100% certain that there is no God, they only believe there is no God.

Or am I mistaken there as well? I didn't think that I was that old, but apparently things have changed since I was an atheist.

[Simon Moon]

Also, I do not confuse my belief with certain truth. I have faith that my beliefs come together into a single truth. And to be honest, it often comes to be tested.

Just like I have noticed that some atheists in this forum do not define themselves as being 100% certain that there is no God, they only believe there is no God.

Or am I mistaken there as well? I didn't think that I was that old, but apparently things have changed since I was an atheist.

Nothing has changed. The disbelief that gods exist is the definition of atheism. There is no need to assert that gods do not exist in order to be an atheist.

SOME atheists may assert that gods do not exist, but they are a subset of atheists. Some people may define this position as anti-theism.

Just look at the word etymology-

'Theism' means the belief that a god or gods exist.

The 'A' prefix means 'without'.

So, atheism means 'without belief in the existence of gods'.

Let me add, that for the vast majority of atheists, their atheism is a provisional position, not a dogmatic one. As long as there continues to be a lack of demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument and valid\sound logic to support the claim that a god exists, I will continue to disbelieve.

[bennyboy]

Just like I have noticed that some atheists in this forum do not define themselves as being 100% certain that there is no God, they only believe there is no God.

The agnosticism of atheists is really just an expression of the rules of evidence. Given the proposition of ANY thing, no matter how far-fetched, there are two possible states of evidence: you know for sure that it exists, or you don't. Proving for sure that a thing DOES NOT exist is impossible. Maybe God is hiding under a rock on a moon near Betelgeuse, for example.

Atheists are also technically agnostic about:
-fairies
-leprechauns
-ghosts
-Zeus
-the Flying Spaghetti Monster


So I don't think you should take the slight agnosticism as an expression of possibility that these people are going to adopt the God position any time soon.

Christian agnosticism, on the other hand, is based on the strength of faith to stand up to the considerable CONTRARY evidence that constantly assails it. For example, some Christians, when faced with starving African babies, will have an emotional/intellectual crisis: how could a good God allow such unnecessary suffering in someone who's so obviously free of sin? When faced with the Noah's Ark story, a Christian can look up the number of known species, and their volume, and realize that such a ship would not be possible to build. But at some point, a rational Christian is going to have to redefine his God idea or live in a state of cognitive dissonance: believing in ideas that are clearly baloney.

[GodsRevolt]

So I don't think you should take the slight agnosticism as an expression of possibility that these people are going to adopt the God position any time soon.

I'm not sure when I took this stance.

Besides, preaching is expressly forbidden by the laws of this forum. Which is fine, I'm no good at it anyway.

Conversion is between you and God. I am here for conversation.

[Simon Moon]

I'm not sure when I took this stance.

Besides, preaching is expressly forbidden by the laws of this forum. Which is fine, I'm no good at it anyway.

Conversion is between you and God. I am here for conversation.

Preaching would not convince us anyway.

The only thing that would convince us is demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument.

MY mind works in such a way as to only accept a proposition as true when it meets its burden of proof, and not a second earlier.

[MindForgedManacle]

OK, I think I see what you are saying, that one claim does not establish the other claim? Just because there is a God does not mean that he had Son. Just because people believed that Son was God does not mean that there was an actual person.

Exactly.

I think that I got a little confused with this paragraph here:

---

Does anyone else notice the insuperable disconnect between the philosophical arguments and the last 2 religious ones? If you establish with the first 3 that there is a Maximally Great Being who is the 1st Cause and fine-tuned the universe for life, and that there was a man 2000-ish years ago who claimed to be either a manifestation or prophet of said being (depends on your theology), and that Christians have powerful experiences that they assign to said being.

---

The second sentence appears to be setting up an if/then statement, but the "then" never really comes about.

Ah, my bad. Sometimes I type these threads out quickly on my phone, and so the stream of consciousness isn't ironed out.

I really apologize if I misunderstood you, and please don't take it as me misrepresenting you. I was only asking for clarification and presenting what I understood from it. If what I understood was wrong, I appreciate you putting the time into helping me out.

That's my bad. I've been annoyed in some discussions on the forums before by some theists who seemingly intentionally misrepresent people's positions, so I admit it's almost become inbuilt to see a potential misunderstanding as ill intent.

Also, I do not confuse my belief with certain truth. I have faith that my beliefs come together into a single truth. And to be honest, it often comes to be tested.

Just like I have noticed that some atheists in this forum do not define themselves as being 100% certain that there is no God, they only believe there is no God.

Or am I mistaken there as well? I didn't think that I was that old, but apparently things have changed since I was an atheist.

Seems mostly accurate. I'm more or less certain that God (Yahweh) doesn't exist, or least as is often described and defined by apologists. It's more or less impossible to rule out all or any god(s) a priori because not all of them are self-contradictory.

[T.J.]

I'm confused exactly what constitutes a Christian Apologetic and how the listed arguments fits them in such a category or what makes them different than just a standard Christian. If I overlooked something that explained it in this thread then I apologize. I've never seen the term used before coming to this forum.

I was reffering to the teaching of christ, not his action per se. However if you want to get into that then that is a whole can of worms on it's own.
For example Horus was born of the virgin isis
or dionysus who was killed and raised after three days
Oh that also include attis, mithras and krishna as well.
I think that you will find Christianity has very little in the way of originality.

The story of Horus was the first real red flag that made me seriously examine my own spiritual beliefs. I saw a phase by phase comparison of his story and Jesus' and the only thing that was different was how Jesus died since the Romans had a very specific way of doing things. It was a real eye-opener.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

The story of Horus was the first real red flag that made me seriously examine my own spiritual beliefs. I saw a phase by phase comparison of his story and Jesus' and the only thing that was different was how Jesus died since the Romans had a very specific way of doing things. It was a real eye-opener.

The similarities between jesus and horus are nearly all fabricated. I'm not sure where this story originated, but anyone that's researched egyptian gods will tell you it's bogus

[Minimalist]

Xtians are their own worst enemy with shit like that. As xtian art evolved it looked to ancient sources such as this of Isis nursing Horus and adapted it to friggin "mary" and her little bastard jesus.




Most of these analogies are a bit of a stretch. What is not a stretch is the commonality of the dying/resurrected vegetation god throughout the region. You always get some xtian assholes going "oh, but Tammuz had a blue hat....so different from OUR JEBUS!" while the main point goes right over their silly heads.

[justin]

The Purple Space Monkey is all powerful and thoughtful with the design of the universe, why would It not be able to come down as an invisthee fairy and put happy-bubbles in the soul believers so they can do the Monkey Dance of Joy?

See the problem? I've just made up a bunch of stuff. Whether I believe in it, or whether I can convince a billion others to believe their experiences are related to it, is irrelevant.

Yes I do, I do see the problem, you have shed light on this and the problem is you. That's the most ridiculous thing I've seen.

GC

he pointed out the logical fallacy and he is the problem? No, people believe irrational superstitous BS and refusing to change when refuted is the problem. Then this causes a snowball effect of problems. One being you.

JC