You Put Absolutely NO Thought Into This

[Astonished]

It occurs to me that it doesn't get brought up frequently enough nor strongly enough that apologists' approaches have literally NO thought put into them at all for the most part. So if you happen to be such an apologist/evangelist, maybe reconsider how you go about your shtick if you don't want to come across as entirely thoughtless.

1. Magic bullet answers. Saying every question's answer is 'gawd' doesn't just come across as intellectually vapid and lazy, it IS intellectually vapid and lazy. It doesn't speak highly about how much respect you have for the intelligence of whomever you're using this on, either.

2. Blaming the victim. Instead of being reasonable and actually critically analyzing your god and its imperfections and lies and failures, you'll inevitably point the finger at us for being sinners, or just unwilling to listen for whatever reason. Nothing will piss someone off quicker than this condescending shit and if you don't understand why, well, you probably wouldn't comprehend it even if it was explained to you (since you wouldn't use that in the first place if you realized how stupid this was.)

3. Presenting things that aren't evidence as evidence. This says that you're too lazy and/or inept to do any actual research of your own which, if this is so fucking important to you, seems like your life ought to revolve around it, and if you believe so strongly in it, surely you must have confidence that you can prove it to an unbeliever. But no, it's always someone else's claims that are presented (which are trivially easy to debunk) and it's always something that is either fraudulent, mistaken or simply not anything that in any other context would ever be considered admissible. But at least the tangible evidence can be disproved, every other piece of pseudo-evidence isn't even worth the breath wasted mentioning it and can be dismissed outright; what was the point, and what were you thinking bringing it up? Oh, right, you weren't thinking.

I'm too tired to keep going for now but there's bound to be lots more. Just please, stop giving us reasons to think that if a fly flew into one of your ears, it would have no trouble crawling through and coming out the other ear like there was nothing in its way.

[Minimalist]

Apologetics has a simple goal.  Perhaps best expressed here:

Bible-believers are full of clever (and some not so clever) rationalizations. The crucial question, however, is not whether “answers” can be generated in response to Bible difficulties but whether credible answers can be produced. What is the best explanation? Bible-believers seem to think that any loophole, however improbable, that gets the Bible off the hook has solved the problem. Thus, it is not surprising that different, conflicting answers are often presented side by side. It never seems to occur to these people that such logic will also support the story of Goldilocks and the three bears! Or the Koran. Or, anything else. Once we abandon the probable in favor of the improbable—or even the less probable—we have abandoned objectivity. Without objectivity, there is not much hope of finding the truth; we only succeed in confirming our own prejudiced views—even as a group of flat-Earth folks in California did for years in their newsletters.

https://etb-biblical-errancy.blogspot.co...ailed.html

All they seek to do is give themselves any bullshit reason they can think of to continue believing in fucking nonsense.  That's how you end up with the absurd idea that the contradictions in the fucking bible are the result of the various gospel writers telling the same story in different ways.  Or that their godboy was born in both 4 BC and 6 AD. 

As Babinsky says above, Goldilocks is more probable.

[vorlon13]

Apologetics has a simple goal.  Perhaps best expressed here:

Bible-believers are full of clever (and some not so clever) rationalizations. The crucial question, however, is not whether “answers” can be generated in response to Bible difficulties but whether credible answers can be produced. What is the best explanation? Bible-believers seem to think that any loophole, however improbable, that gets the Bible off the hook has solved the problem. Thus, it is not surprising that different, conflicting answers are often presented side by side. It never seems to occur to these people that such logic will also support the story of Goldilocks and the three bears! Or the Koran. Or, anything else. Once we abandon the probable in favor of the improbable—or even the less probable—we have abandoned objectivity. Without objectivity, there is not much hope of finding the truth; we only succeed in confirming our own prejudiced views—even as a group of flat-Earth folks in California did for years in their newsletters.

https://etb-biblical-errancy.blogspot.co...ailed.html

All they seek to do is give themselves any bullshit reason they can think of to continue believing in fucking nonsense.  That's how you end up with the absurd idea that the contradictions in the fucking bible are the result of the various gospel writers telling the same story in different ways.  Or that their godboy was born in both 4 BC and 6 AD. 

As Babinsky says above, Goldilocks is more probable.

Well, I find it compelling since He was crucified twice, it is possible He was born twice.


It balances out totally !!!




PRAISE Jesus !!!

[Astonished]

Eh, I was on the verge of fainting when I wrote it. But it's irritating when the utter mindlessness of these explanations is spewed at us so it had to be said.

[brewer]

Apologetics has a simple goal.  Perhaps best expressed here:



https://etb-biblical-errancy.blogspot.co...ailed.html

All they seek to do is give themselves any bullshit reason they can think of to continue believing in fucking nonsense.  That's how you end up with the absurd idea that the contradictions in the fucking bible are the result of the various gospel writers telling the same story in different ways.  Or that their godboy was born in both 4 BC and 6 AD. 

As Babinsky says above, Goldilocks is more probable.

Well, I find it compelling since He was crucified twice, it is possible He was born twice.


It balances out totally !!!




PRAISE Jesus !!!

Did you ever think that he just couldn't make up his mind?

"OK followers, Thurs didn't turn out as good as planned so we're going to do this all again tomorrow. The Romans said they are willing. And for god's sake, tomorrow bring a friend. This need to be BIG!".

[Minimalist]

"Out the door, line on the left, one cross each....."

[vorlon13]

Well, I find it compelling since He was crucified twice, it is possible He was born twice.


It balances out totally !!!




PRAISE Jesus !!!

Did you ever think that he just couldn't make up his mind?

"OK followers, Thurs didn't turn out as good as planned so we're going to do this all again tomorrow. The Romans said they are willing. And for god's sake, tomorrow bring a friend. This need to be BIG!".

Interesting idea, but I still think we have all sinned enough to merit a double crucifixion.

Hell, just what I've done . . . .

[Drich]

It occurs to me that it doesn't get brought up frequently enough nor strongly enough that apologists' approaches have literally NO thought put into them at all for the most part. So if you happen to be such an apologist/evangelist, maybe reconsider how you go about your shtick if you don't want to come across as entirely thoughtless.

So... no examples just speaking bigotry, stereotypes and prejudice??? Got it.

1. Magic bullet answers. Saying every question's answer is 'gawd' doesn't just come across as intellectually vapid and lazy, it IS intellectually vapid and lazy. It doesn't speak highly about how much respect you have for the intelligence of whomever you're using this on, either.

what is a magic bullet answer?

2. Blaming the victim. Instead of being reasonable and actually critically analyzing your god and its imperfections and lies and failures, you'll inevitably point the finger at us for being sinners, or just unwilling to listen for whatever reason.

If you are willing to reason and listen then why is sin such a big deal?

Nothing will piss someone off quicker than this condescending shit and if you don't understand why, well, you probably wouldn't comprehend it even if it was explained to you (since you wouldn't use that in the first place if you realized how stupid this was.)

Maybe 'pissed off' is apart of the road home. To be pissed off here is to feel you are less or have a short coming in your base morality.. once you can identify that short coming then you can begin to understand God is not even judging people on the sliding moral scale you judge yourself on.
It's ok to be pissed if you do not understand, just don't ignore instruction and clarity when you ask for it.

3. Presenting things that aren't evidence as evidence.

That's the thing sport. Evidence here follows the evidence allowed and identified in a court. While you pretend to only seek scientific evidence. The problem with only seeking known scientific evidence is that it does not allow for anything not already known. In other words unless it is already accepted as evidence, "it not real evidence" or can you not see your little catch 22?

This says that you're too lazy and/or inept to do any actual research of your own which, if this is so fucking important to you, seems like your life ought to revolve around it, and if you believe so strongly in it, surely you must have confidence that you can prove it to an unbeliever.

Actually shift goalposts on what 'evidence' is will ever keep the unbeliever at arm's length. In essence "Evidence" should include personal testimony as any court trial would completely depend on.

But no, it's always someone else's claims that are presented (which are trivially easy to debunk) and it's always something that is either fraudulent, mistaken or simply not anything that in any other context would ever be considered admissible.

Depends on the claim.

But at least the tangible evidence can be disproved, every other piece of pseudo-evidence isn't even worth the breath wasted mentioning it and can be dismissed outright; what was the point, and what were you thinking bringing it up? Oh, right, you weren't thinking.

no tangable evidence are generally dismissed as 'anomalies.' Anomalies in science and in medicine.

I'm too tired to keep going for now but there's bound to be lots more. Just please, stop giving us reasons to think that if a fly flew into one of your ears, it would have no trouble crawling through and coming out the other ear like there was nothing in its way.

when ever where ever sport.

[Astonished]

Dipshitch, I have you on ignore for a reason. Fuck off with your bullshit.

[Drich]

Dipshitch, I have you on ignore for a reason. Fuck off with your bullshit.

You have me on ignore because I don't follow your little hate speech logic.