Non-fundamentalist apologetics is about obfuscation
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-05-2015, 09:03 AM
RE: Non-fundamentalist apologetics is about obfuscation
Nice job of proving Robbie's OP Tom Thumbsup

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
09-05-2015, 06:54 PM
RE: Non-fundamentalist apologetics is about obfuscation
(09-05-2015 07:26 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

You are right that fundamentalism is a relatively recent thing. I'm not trying to imply that moderate Christianity sprang from an increasingly lax take on fundamentalism. Still, regardless of which came first, they are the ones who seem most prone to making strong claims and are slower to obfuscate. They make more bold claims about what is God's will and defend literal readings of stories other Christians would consider metaphorical at best.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2015, 11:55 PM
RE: Non-fundamentalist apologetics is about obfuscation
The goals of apologetics are:
1. Maintain plausible deniability: Allow the believer permission to continue believing despite contradictory evidence.
2. To show someone who more or less thinks like them, they can relate to, who seems smarter then they, and yet still professes to believe. Our propensity as humans is to believe what someone fitting that description believes ahead of critically analysing the arguments and evidence ourselves.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Hafnof's post
10-05-2015, 07:34 AM
RE: Non-fundamentalist apologetics is about obfuscation
(08-05-2015 06:45 PM)TheMrBillShow Wrote:  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.

(09-05-2015 07:01 AM)jennybee Wrote:  And why leave his Word open to so many different interpretations which leads to violence, bigotry, and hate?

You two are just thinking too much. I have been told by someone close to me once that you "have to have the mind of a child" to take in god's word (OH sweet irony Laughat ). This same person also thinks that bible studies let you understand better too. So which is it?

"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
10-05-2015, 07:36 AM
RE: Non-fundamentalist apologetics is about obfuscation
(09-05-2015 11:55 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  The goals of apologetics are:
1. Maintain plausible deniability: Allow the believer permission to continue believing despite contradictory evidence.
2. To show someone who more or less thinks like them, they can relate to, who seems smarter then they, and yet still professes to believe. Our propensity as humans is to believe what someone fitting that description believes ahead of critically analysing the arguments and evidence ourselves.

I would add a #0.5 in there.

0.5. To keep you in the pew. Steps 1 and 2 are just the means to that end.

"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
[+] 2 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
10-05-2015, 07:42 AM
RE: Non-fundamentalist apologetics is about obfuscation
(10-05-2015 07:34 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(08-05-2015 06:45 PM)TheMrBillShow Wrote:  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.

(09-05-2015 07:01 AM)jennybee Wrote:  And why leave his Word open to so many different interpretations which leads to violence, bigotry, and hate?

You two are just thinking too much. I have been told by someone close to me once that you "have to have the mind of a child" to take in god's word (OH sweet irony Laughat ). This same person also thinks that bible studies let you understand better too. So which is it?

If you go into things with the mindset of a child--it is much easier for the church to lead you along during bible study. Oh, and they have good snacks. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: