Apologist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-02-2013, 04:47 PM
RE: Apologist
Hey, Chas.

What are you, John Lennon?

I did ask the question. Three of them.

Reading a wiki article tells me nothing about how the people in this forum think about and utilise the term. That's what I'm interested in. That's why I asked. I'm from the Good Will Hunting school of thought.





You like apples?

[Love ya, brother Cool ]

Hey, Dom.

Perhaps you could elaborate on "crappy"?

Hey, Vosur.

Thank you for that reply.

Quote:As far as I know, the term "apologist" commonly refers to a
(religious) person that debates about the validity of his position
and/or that of his opponent (in public).

My question to you then would be, if I repost what you wrote and take out the bracketed inserts, I wind up with a statement that doesn't make a lot of sense IMO. So why are the religious singled out?

"...the term "apologist" commonly refers to a person that debates about the validity of his position
and/or that of his opponent..."

Hey, Hedgehog.

That was a very passionate response. I did, however, feel that it was a little facetious. Could you perhaps elaborate?

Hey, KC.

Interesting.

Is there an assumption about the validity of their justifications?

Hey, DLJ.

....fucking guy lol....

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 04:52 PM
RE: Apologist
I guess the validity of the apologist is based on the person receiving the apology.

This means that a YEC is going to see a YEC's apologies as highly valid whereas an evolutionist will see them as poppycock.

[Image: RHcn6pd.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 04:59 PM
RE: Apologist
Well when I think of apologists I associate the word with people like William Lane Craig, Frank Turek, Douglas Wilson and people of their ilk.

Essentially anyone who tries to explain away the inconsistencies in their religion without really explaining anything at all.

Sort of like the politicians of the debating circuit. They talk a lot but never really say anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 05:01 PM (This post was last modified: 04-02-2013 05:09 PM by Ghost.)
RE: Apologist
Hey, KC.

I think I meant generally. Ie, embeded within the definition of the term. Like, is it closer to "an apologist makes statements that falsely justify their position," or, "an apologist is anyone that attempts to justify their position?"

For example, when an evolutionary biologist makes a statement that justifies evolution, are they an apologist?

Or, if a YEC justifies their position and the receiver agrees, does that mean that they are not an apologist?

ON EDIT:

Hey, Hedgehog.

Thank you for clarifying.

You'll have to forgive me. I'm not really familiar with those men.

Explaining away the inconsistencies. Nice. Very insightful. Is the assumption that the inconsistencies cannot be explained away? Or that they have failed? Or that the mere attempt to explain inconsistencies is the issue?

It's an interesting question to me, because ideology (something we all have) necessarily contains contradictions. Hegemony is the mechanism that attempts to suture those contradictions and naturalise the ideology (to make it the "common sense view"). It's actually an important mechanism because without it, we would be unable to accept any ideology because we'd always be painfully aware of the contradictions and inconsistencies. Living without ideology might sound good, but it would actually make life impossible. That being said, hegemony can easily become a trap.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 05:05 PM
RE: Apologist
(04-02-2013 04:47 PM)Ghost Wrote:  ...
Hey, DLJ.

....fucking guy lol....

You didn't like my reply.

Weeping

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 05:07 PM (This post was last modified: 04-02-2013 05:18 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Apologist
Apologist to me is the art of using logic and reason to justify the claims of the religious. To try and justify the unjustifiable.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 05:08 PM
RE: Apologist
(04-02-2013 05:01 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, KC.

I think I meant generally. Ie, embeded within the definition of the term. Like, is it closer to "an apologist makes statements that falsely justify their position," or, "an apologist is anyone that attempts to justify their position?"

For example, when an evolutionary biologist makes a statement that justifies evolution, are they an apologist?

Or, if a YEC justifies their position and the receiver agrees, does that mean that they are not an apologist?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Yeah, it's a formal justification against any allegation.

Anyone who defends a position is an apologist... denotatively speaking.

[Image: RHcn6pd.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 05:09 PM (This post was last modified: 04-02-2013 05:12 PM by Vosur.)
RE: Apologist
(04-02-2013 04:47 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Vosur.

Thank you for that reply.

Quote:As far as I know, the term "apologist" commonly refers to a (religious) person that debates about the validity of his position and/or that of his opponent (in public).

My question to you then would be, if I repost what you wrote and take out the bracketed inserts, I wind up with a statement that doesn't make a lot of sense IMO. So why are the religious singled out?

"...the term "apologist" commonly refers to a person that debates about the validity of his position and/or that of his opponent..."
I see I should have stated my reasoning behind putting "religious" and "in public" in brackets. While it is true that every time I've seen it being used was to describe a religious person who defends his particular views against an opponent in public, I'm aware that it can be used in a more broader sense. Putting the aforementioned terms in brackets allows one to use the word "apologist" in a more diverse way without stepping out of the boundaries of the term's definition. I'm not sure if any of this makes sense, I'm almost falling asleep right now. Sleepy

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 05:14 PM
RE: Apologist
(04-02-2013 04:47 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Chas.

What are you, John Lennon?

I did ask the question. Three of them.

Reading a wiki article tells me nothing about how the people in this forum think about and utilise the term. That's what I'm interested in. That's why I asked. I'm from the Good Will Hunting school of thought.

If you wanted peoples thoughts, then you should have asked that. You asked for a definition. You got that.

How do you like them fucking apples?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
04-02-2013, 05:16 PM
RE: Apologist
(04-02-2013 05:05 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(04-02-2013 04:47 PM)Ghost Wrote:  ...
Hey, DLJ.

....fucking guy lol....

You didn't like my reply.

Weeping


No, he's being a dick about being unclear.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: