Posts: 3395
Threads: 43
Joined: February 8, 2015
Reputation:
33
RE: Apologists
August 11, 2015 at 10:18 am
(August 11, 2015 at 2:33 am)robvalue Wrote: Personally I find it extremely hard to believe that anyone has converted into a religion just by apologetics. I firmly believe that apologetics is the rationalization people use either to make themselves feel better, or to try and hide the real reasons that they don't feel they can logically defend.
I've heard people claim to have converted just based on this stuff, but I still don't believe them. It's a common ploy to say, "I used to be an atheist, and then..." Because apologetics is inherently dishonest, it's far more likely to be one more lie.
I've listened to many Steve Shives series where he critiques popular books, and my god... the things these people write make me cringe. They generally put on a show of appealing to sceptics, but then quickly descend into completely irrational bullshit than no one except a believer is going to take seriously.
If these arguments do somehow tip you over, I think you must have been pretty much there already. They are so easily destroyed by anyone without presupposition and a basic grounding in logic.
I agree. Every time I have spoken with a theist who uses that old "I used to be an atheist" claim, to get at what it was they previously believed, have turned out to be mistaken (or liars), as they had previously just not been as rabidly religious as they are at present. Remember, a lot of theists have trouble understanding what atheism is, and it shows in this, too. "Mad at god" and other theistic ideas are "atheism" in the minds of many theists.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Apologists
August 12, 2015 at 4:36 am
And of course, even if there is any truth to what they are saying, they've been immersed in the mythology since birth and that religion just happens to be the one and only true religion. How convenient.
Lee Strobel is a cock.
Posts: 5356
Threads: 178
Joined: June 28, 2015
Reputation:
35
RE: Apologists
August 12, 2015 at 4:56 am
"Mad at God" ?
Posts: 30763
Threads: 1382
Joined: March 15, 2013
Reputation:
152
RE: Apologists
August 12, 2015 at 5:00 am
(August 12, 2015 at 4:56 am)pool Wrote: "Mad at God" ?
He means theists are of the irrational mindset that atheists are atheists because we are mad at god.
"Never trust a fox. Looks like a dog, behaves like a cat."
~ Erin Hunter
Posts: 1765
Threads: 225
Joined: February 18, 2015
Reputation:
16
RE: Apologists
August 12, 2015 at 5:12 pm
(This post was last modified: August 12, 2015 at 5:14 pm by ReptilianPeon.)
I don't like any apologists. No religionists are ever honest. Occasionally though, if I need a good laugh, I'll watch some DawahMan or Zakir Naik. They are also a good reminder of how dangerous religion actually is. I would watch more Hamza Tzortis but I hate the sound of his voice. All the people I mentioned are extremely dangerous and I do not recommend them at all. You have been warned!
Posts: 30129
Threads: 304
Joined: April 18, 2014
Reputation:
92
RE: Apologists
August 12, 2015 at 5:33 pm
Mormon apologetics in regards to The Book of Abraham is worthy of a Monty Python skit. And eventually the admins there threw in the towel when it got to be too too much even for them to swallow. I don't know if any of the folks excommunicated for getting to the end of the game before the admins did were allowed to come back, but I would assume not.
(that would be another one of those Religion 101 things)
The granting of a pardon is an imputation of guilt, and the acceptance a confession of it.
Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: Apologists
August 12, 2015 at 6:43 pm
(August 10, 2015 at 11:26 pm)Drich Wrote: That's not true, is it? Because up until some "fact" gets replaced with something more.. 'Factier' 'science' more over the scientist makes all sorts of efforts to maintain his pet hypothesis' validity.
Don't look no way but that is a form of appologetics
Somebody doesn't know what peer review is. 
But hey, let's ignore the obvious point that you have not, even a little, provided evidence of scientists attempting to maintain their hypotheses where there was not sufficient justification to do so: all you're saying that that scientists tend to accept the things that they believe to be true, up until the point that additional evidence shows that not to be the case, upon which time they admit that they are wrong and move on.
Which, I mean... yeah. What else would you want to happen?
The appreciable difference, which you didn't seem to get in your rush to equivocate, is that when a scientist defends their hypothesis, that comes as a result of much testing and review that justifies the original findings. The scientist is never defending their views from criticism, they're simply saying additional true things according to their testing of the evidence, which just so happen to align with what they already hypothesized, and you've already acknowledged that in those cases where the testing does not align thus, they admit they were wrong.
By contrast, there are no tests in apologetics, mostly because there is no evidence in apologetics, and the majority of apologetic arguments are configured so as to be unfalsifiable. This is another one of those things where you try to equate two things so you can smugly have your "gotcha!" moment, while profoundly misunderstanding the original objection in doing so; if you want to widen the scope of the definition of apologetics to "any defense of a topic," then you're no longer talking about the thing we're objecting to, and your argument loses validity. The double standard can only be present if you're still discussing the original topic, after all.
Are you ever embarrassed that every argument you make only demonstrates that you didn't know what you were talking about before you opened your big, insipid trap?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 38
Threads: 3
Joined: July 30, 2015
Reputation:
2
RE: Apologists
August 12, 2015 at 10:52 pm
(August 10, 2015 at 4:07 am)robvalue Wrote: Actually, some of them don't even do that and are still doing well, I'm at a loss to explain why.
I think it's just because they speak very loud. Believers like that sort of thing.
Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way - Christopher Hitchens
Posts: 4659
Threads: 123
Joined: June 27, 2014
Reputation:
40
RE: Apologists
August 12, 2015 at 11:15 pm
I'm curious about the word apologist. Why is it only used when the person using it doesn't agree with the apologist's position? Everyone is an apologist that I've heard of.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you
Posts: 3837
Threads: 197
Joined: August 28, 2013
Reputation:
38
RE: Apologists
August 13, 2015 at 2:26 am
(August 12, 2015 at 4:36 am)robvalue Wrote: And of course, even if there is any truth to what they are saying, they've been immersed in the mythology since birth and that religion just happens to be the one and only true religion. How convenient.
Lee Strobel is a cock.
I listen to him talk and all I can think about is how I wonna punch him in the throat.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
|
