Non-fundamentalist apologetics is about obfuscation
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-05-2015, 12:57 PM
RE: Non-fundamentalist apologetics is about obfuscation
(08-05-2015 09:25 AM)dimaniac Wrote:  or less illogical/with fewer contradictions

LaughatLaughatLaughatLaughat

Riiiiiggggggghhhhhhttttt. Keep telling yourself that buddy.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Organic Chemist's post
08-05-2015, 01:06 PM
RE: Non-fundamentalist apologetics is about obfuscation
(08-05-2015 10:14 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  There are people who believe you need to be fluent in ancient Hebrew and Greek and have a PhD in history and anthropology to understand the Bible, and that it contains deep, universal truths.

Certainly there are people who believe you need to be incredibly well educated in order to even *question* the Bible. If one argues against creationism for example, then despite *themselves* being happy to be ignorant of biology / whatever else apart from the nice pat answers easily accessible from answersingenesis, they assert that you're a damn fool to believe anything without *yourself* having examined the evidence - in this case they presumably expect one to be a Dawkins-esque master of science.

Another tactic which I despise is the ones who will say "I did a BSc / read a wikipedia article / drew in crayon on the walls about this subject - *I* did the background reading, and *I* can tell you it's all bullshit, no need to worry yourselves over it. Concentrate on praising the Lawd."

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
08-05-2015, 06:45 PM
RE: Non-fundamentalist apologetics is about obfuscation
(08-05-2015 10:40 AM)jennybee Wrote:  After reading the Bible several times over--I agree you need a PhD in history, anthropology, literature, archaeology, and linguistics to even attempt to make sense of anything in there. It is supposed to be accessible to any person. Anyone should be able to pick it up and get what God is trying to convey. If an all powerful being did write the book (through scribes), then you would expect that it would be understandable to all cultures/languages/times/places/people etc.

This has bothered me also. The most important task for any human being is to come to know this god and what he wants for us. We have only the briefest of lifetimes to make decisions that will determine the fate of our immortal soul. Given the gravity of this task, you'd think the existence of this god and what it wants us to do would be the single most apparent and accessible bit of knowledge anybody could comprehend. It should be incapable of being questioned at all.

Not a very nice god to make us play with such high stakes and then hide behind myth and rumor. What a dick.

There is no "I" in "team" but there is a broken and mixed up "me."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like TheMrBillShow's post
08-05-2015, 07:05 PM
RE: Non-fundamentalist apologetics is about obfuscation
(08-05-2015 08:57 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Fundamentalism aside, I've noticed when talking to other Christians that most of their apologetics is about trying to make God increasingly vague and undefined to shield him from scrutiny. It tends to involve less pseudoscience and more poorly defined terms.

This is good from the theistic point of view because it helps stave off cognitive dissonance. It isn't about proving their belief right, but rather about retaining faith by making it so it can't be proven wrong. I used to be pretty good at this when I was in college. A lot of what I believed was done specifically to reconcile observable reality with my ever-changing belief system.

Of course, it also ended up being what made me ultimately reject my faith. I was in a period of time when I was trying to get it to "make sense", and one day I had this thought "why am I so focused on believing in a religion that I am making up as I go along?". That was the first time I actually felt some comfort in letting go.

My worst area of cognitive dissonance was with old-Earth creationism. I reasoned that life "evolved" in the time frames that scientists see in the fossil record, it was just that god provided all of the speciation events. I literally shoved god into all of the transitional gaps in the fossil record without realizing the breathtaking intellectual dishonesty I was engaged in.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2015, 06:38 AM
RE: Non-fundamentalist apologetics is about obfuscation
(08-05-2015 08:57 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Fundamentalism aside, I've noticed when talking to other Christians that most of their apologetics is about trying to make God increasingly vague and undefined to shield him from scrutiny. It tends to involve less pseudoscience and more poorly defined terms.

At what period in time do you imagine the Christian concept of God, didn't have the marks you perceive as vague and undefined? Do you think God and Christianity as perceived in the Pauline Epistles as not vague and undefined? Do you think the message of the Gospels, with it's heavy reliance on symbols, metaphors, a parables was not vague and undefined?

Is there some common ideas found among these non-fundie types that you find too vague and undefined, not particularly comprehensible by you? That you wanted clarification on?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2015, 07:01 AM
RE: Non-fundamentalist apologetics is about obfuscation
(08-05-2015 06:45 PM)TheMrBillShow Wrote:  
(08-05-2015 10:40 AM)jennybee Wrote:  After reading the Bible several times over--I agree you need a PhD in history, anthropology, literature, archaeology, and linguistics to even attempt to make sense of anything in there. It is supposed to be accessible to any person. Anyone should be able to pick it up and get what God is trying to convey. If an all powerful being did write the book (through scribes), then you would expect that it would be understandable to all cultures/languages/times/places/people etc.

This has bothered me also. The most important task for any human being is to come to know this god and what he wants for us. We have only the briefest of lifetimes to make decisions that will determine the fate of our immortal soul. Given the gravity of this task, you'd think the existence of this god and what it wants us to do would be the single most apparent and accessible bit of knowledge anybody could comprehend. It should be incapable of being questioned at all.

Not a very nice god to make us play with such high stakes and then hide behind myth and rumor. What a dick.

And why leave his Word open to so many different interpretations which leads to violence, bigotry, and hate?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like jennybee's post
09-05-2015, 07:07 AM
RE: Non-fundamentalist apologetics is about obfuscation
(09-05-2015 06:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(08-05-2015 08:57 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Fundamentalism aside, I've noticed when talking to other Christians that most of their apologetics is about trying to make God increasingly vague and undefined to shield him from scrutiny. It tends to involve less pseudoscience and more poorly defined terms.

At what period in time do you imagine the Christian concept of God, didn't have the marks you perceive as vague and undefined? Do you think God and Christianity as perceived in the Pauline Epistles as not vague and undefined? Do you think the message of the Gospels, with it's heavy reliance on symbols, metaphors, a parables was not vague and undefined?

Is there some common ideas found among these non-fundie types that you find too vague and undefined, not particularly comprehensible by you? That you wanted clarification on?

Why is your God invisible?
Can you point to a single bona fide miracle? The Bible claims that miracles are proof of God. Provide an example of one thing that *is* provably a miracle. Provide a coherent definition for the word "miracle".
Answer the question of why if God is good and loves us, and is all-powerful, horrible and shitty things still happen in the world? Why do kids starve? Why do people blow each other up and get away with it?
Explain why your God can't talk to us himself and instead appoints shitty apologists to do his PR work?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
09-05-2015, 07:13 AM
RE: Non-fundamentalist apologetics is about obfuscation
(09-05-2015 06:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  At what period in time do you imagine the Christian concept of God, didn't have the marks you perceive as vague and undefined? Do you think God and Christianity as perceived in the Pauline Epistles as not vague and undefined? Do you think the message of the Gospels, with it's heavy reliance on symbols, metaphors, a parables was not vague and undefined?

Is there some common ideas found among these non-fundie types that you find too vague and undefined, not particularly comprehensible by you? That you wanted clarification on?

It's more of a trend I've noticed where fundamentalist-types will posit a god that is involved in every facet of our lives, and where every aspect of the Bible is literally true.

Opposite this is a trend where any time a hard question is asked, the god shrinks away, like a cockroach running from the light. The god stops being the literal Abrahamic god YHWH and becomes some vague god of the gaps, only occupying that which we can't look at and verify. Some times, this god gets to vague as to make us wonder "why do we care if it exists?".

The basic difference is when presented with counter-evidence, whether the apologist claims that the evidence must be false/lies/an attempt to kill god, or if the apologist redefines their god to match the new evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
09-05-2015, 07:26 AM (This post was last modified: 09-05-2015 07:30 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Non-fundamentalist apologetics is about obfuscation
Quote:The basic difference is when presented with counter-evidence, whether the apologist claims that the evidence must be false/lies/an attempt to kill god, or if the apologist redefines their god to match the new evidence.

There seems to be very little new definitions of God. The variety of definitions have seemingly always existed, and don't seem to have developed from apologetics, or from "counter-evidence". Christianity almost immediately developed a variety of competing perspectives, gnostic views, heterodox views, those we now labeled as orthodox. Pick up the Epistles, the writing of Augustine, the early church fathers, Aquinas, and you'd find the sort of vagueness you find difficult to grasp.

You have things a bit backward here, that Christianity that found it self developing as a response to counter-evidence, in light of the scientific world view, and scientific literalism, is fundamentalism. Which developed as a response to a changing and increasingly threatening secular landscape. It rose as a response to secularism. The reason why you find them more accessible is because they coopted the same language, and reasoning, and dependencies on literalism, that science had been reliant on. If modern science was the iPhone, fundamentalism was a samsung, an imitator of that phenenom. This allows you to perceive and reject common fundie beliefs as would bad science, because that what it's enterprise was built on.

Quote:It's more of a trend I've noticed where fundamentalist-types will posit a god that is involved in every facet of our lives, and where every aspect of the Bible is literally true.

I think the truth of the matter is, is that fundie are typically only superficially literal. You're not gonna find many who believe turn the other cheek was literal, though you'd perhaps find a variety of non-fundies who do take it as so.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2015, 08:31 AM (This post was last modified: 09-05-2015 08:59 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Non-fundamentalist apologetics is about obfuscation
(09-05-2015 07:07 AM)morondog Wrote:  Why is your God invisible?

Probably because no one has really seen him.

Quote:Can you point to a single bona fide miracle?

What would make a miracle bona fide? How would you verify a miracle when we have no tools or methodology to do so? Science can't do it, because the scientific method is dependent on methodological naturalism. The only explanations it can provide are naturalistic explanations. So what would certify a miracle as bona fide?

Quote:The Bible claims that miracles are proof of God.

No, the Christian belief is the exact opposite:

"For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,…" 1 Corinthians 1:22

"A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah." Jesus then left them and went away." Matthew 16:4

But what do you think the end result would be for you if this was proven to you? At best you would believe that there was some being capable of doing magic tricks. At best you'd have a God who does magic tricks. An entertainer for children's parties.

Quote:Provide an example of one thing that *is* provably a miracle. Provide a coherent definition for the word "miracle".

In the strong sense, it would be an event that defines naturalistic explanations. In which the naturalistic explanations are not very persuasive or convincing. In this regard, the resurrection, would be a miracle. Of course I don't think the case for the resurrection, might be all that convincing for you, but I'm probably more open to naturalistic explanations than you are to supernatural ones. So perhaps you can try and convince me with the best naturalistic explanation you can come up with as to what happened after Jesus's death, to give rise to those beliefs almost immediately after his death, that he rose.


Quote:Answer the question of why if God is good and loves us, and is all-powerful, horrible and shitty things still happen in the world? Why do kids starve? Why do people blow each other up and get away with it?

Perhaps because the concept of a God who loves us, wasn't predicated on the world being something other than what it is. If the concept was a product of suburbia, something written up by Pixar, than it might be suggestive of this. But it came out of the perspective of those for whom the world was at it's worst, and among those for whom it was the worst to.

A God who loved us in a way that he created a world where his creatures would know no pain or suffering, or loss, sadness or tragedy, but a perpetual sort of crib, guarded and ignorant of our possibilities, would be a God whose love, might be the sort you seek, but it would be a different sort of love than the one recognized in the Christian God of Love, which is love borne in recognition of a tragic world.

Quote:Explain why your God can't talk to us himself and instead appoints shitty apologists to do his PR work?

Sure, once you explain why do authors often refuse to provide interpretations of their novels and stories, and leave this to it's readers to work it out themselves.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: