Another apologist with his "clever" questions

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

What is the colour of anger?

Cheese Doodle orange.

What was Moses' iphone password?

I-II-III-IV-V-VI-VII-VIII-IX-X

Boru

[SteelCurtain]

Lol. "We" atheists.

This little gambit of pretending to be an atheist whilst laying out your apologetics... Trite.

[Fake Messiah]

It would be great if there was even a grain of truth that Christians were keen always to find peaceful solution, turn other cheek and that they only follow "good parts" from the Bible. I mean take the wars in Middle East that are only for oil wells and imagine if Christians in US and Europe got together and said "We demand wars be stopped. This war must be fought with logistics, not blood and that huge chunk of money invested in alternatives to oil." but that sounds ridiculous, that will never happen. For instance Catholic church probably makes billions sending priests to Middle East as a "moral" relief to soldiers and as an overall "moral" backing for the shameful deeds that apparently even Hillary and Trump are now accusing each other being for it.
Not to mention Evangelical hate groups.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I never understood the celebrity status of Dawkins among some atheists. He beclowns himself with straw man objections to serious arguments.

[TheMonster]

I never understood the celebrity status of Dawkins among some atheists. He beclowns himself with straw man objections to serious arguments.

An example of "straw-man objections to serious questions" would be nice.
He is by no means perfect, but he does sum up the atheist-naturalist/humanist viewpoint perfectly.
I admit he is probably not the most convincing person, but he is very knowledgeable. In other words he is very good at preaching to the choir.

His arguments are well thought out and are often outside the realm of most theists' understanding. He makes references to philosophers, scientists and countless pieces of work throughout history... some of which is well outside the reading repertoire of the average theist. Just read any youtube comment section of almost any Dawkins video. There are a ton of clueless theists who say he is wrong for whatever reason, yet they dont understand his arguments very well.

For example, if you watched the "Why? question" video I posted earlier, a ton of thiests dismiss "science" because Dawkins cannot answer the purpose of life question. But if you listen to his response, it makes sense. He is a very logical man.

[TheMonster]

Lol. "We" atheists.

This little gambit of pretending to be an atheist whilst laying out your apologetics... Trite.

I am an atheist. I have never been religious even though my family taunts me about it to this very day. I dont beleive one bit. Maybe read my other posts? 

I just enjoy reading theist material. It is just comedic gold.

[comet]

apologist is the most rational stance for belief and non belief.  Working with each other, using observations, and growing. Anti-apologetic is narrow minded, self serving, and limited understanding.  fund/milli mental or adult children of abuse, either way, not the best leaders.

[Minimalist]

Making up excuses for lunacy is not rational.  Try again.

[comet]

Making up excuses for lunacy is not rational.  Try again.

I was talking about apologetics, not the stance.

The person the op is talking about is not even clever.  He just gave us personal opinions. We do not have to have a "god" for the things he was talking about.  For example "meaning", we don't know enough to have a grand meaning and inserting a god doesn't give us meaning.  It may give a person a meaning, but that is just an opinion.

[Whateverist]

I have never considered Ravi Zckerias a particularly compelling speaker. At the same time, I'm rather sympathetic to 1, 2, and 5.

Really?  Number one about the big questions remaining unanswered?  But assigning god as an answer to a question for which we have no settled empirical answer is simply positing a second black box within the black box whose mechanism we are wondering about.  I can't very well settle for that without asking about the mechanism accounting for the functioning of the second box.  From here there are only two dodges available:

1) the one you prefer, there are limitations to human capacities which make comprehension of the inner black box possible;

or 

2) it is just inner-inner black boxes all the way down.


If there are a in principle reasons why the functioning of the inner box cannot be comprehended then why not just say at the outset we don't understand how the initial black box works?