What's Next For Apologetics?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-04-2015, 03:52 PM
What's Next For Apologetics?
In June I'll have been here at TTA for one year, and in that year I've noticed a common theme in every atheism/theism debate...that they're all the same.

I have yet to see a single unique, thought provoking argument from any theist who has come through. It's always the same process:

1. Present argument, that has been debunked, as an unbreakable proof for their particular flavor of God.

2. TTA regulars scoff at but then proceed to dismantle said argument.

3. Theist turns to chess playing pigeon or simply repeats same argument points over and over in the form of a 5 year old playing "I win."

4. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.


Considering these trolls are merely parroting their favorite apologist, I can't imagine things are much different at the professional debating level. In fact, I've watched enough debates to know its practically the same.

So back to the topic question, what is the next step for apologists and their God? Surely they can't just keep coming with the same defeated arguments. Will someone come up with a new "proof" to debate, or at least put a new spin on an old one?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Fodder_From_The_Truth's post
30-04-2015, 03:57 PM
RE: What's Next For Apologetics?
(30-04-2015 03:52 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  In June I'll have been here at TTA for one year, and in that year I've noticed a common theme in every atheism/theism debate...that they're all the same.

I have yet to see a single unique, thought provoking argument from any theist who has come through. It's always the same process:

1. Present argument, that has been debunked, as an unbreakable proof for their particular flavor of God.

2. TTA regulars scoff at but then proceed to dismantle said argument.

3. Theist turns to chess playing pigeon or simply repeats same argument points over and over in the form of a 5 year old playing "I win."

4. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.


Considering these trolls are merely parroting their favorite apologist, I can't imagine things are much different at the professional debating level. In fact, I've watched enough debates to know its practically the same.

So back to the topic question, what is the next step for apologists and their God? Surely they can't just keep coming with the same defeated arguments. Will someone come up with a new "proof" to debate, or at least put a new spin on an old one?

Nope lol. They will always go back to their same tired arguments. And as long as they have pseudoscience and the Word of God to back them up--they will never, ever change.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jennybee's post
30-04-2015, 04:06 PM
RE: What's Next For Apologetics?
(30-04-2015 03:52 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  In June I'll have been here at TTA for one year, and in that year I've noticed a common theme in every atheism/theism debate...that they're all the same.

So back to the topic question, what is the next step for apologists and their God? Surely they can't just keep coming with the same defeated arguments. Will someone come up with a new "proof" to debate, or at least put a new spin on an old one?

I don't think that a new "proof" will be found, for what else one could add to such long debate.

And debate is generous term when even one who lived so long ago as Epicurus made a quite problem for theists when he asked -

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
30-04-2015, 04:14 PM
RE: What's Next For Apologetics?
Some quasi-garbled nonsense using particle science findings to make holes for god.

but the methods wont change

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2015, 04:26 PM
RE: What's Next For Apologetics?
The mainstream apologists don't seem to ever change their arguments -- because, like Call of the Wild, they seem to think these arguments are slam dunks, so why bother to find new ones? -- but some academic theists have actually come up with some new twists. I'm thinking of people like Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne. They are mostly off the public radar, because their arguments and writings are a bit more technical -- Plantinga likes to use modal logic, and Swinburne uses Bayesian probability. What I've noticed, though, is that neither of them claims to have an absolute proof of God's existence. They are arguing in terms of probability and plausibility -- i.e., it's not entirely insane to believe in God, there is a significant probability that God may exist, etc. They seem to be fighting a rearguard type of battle. "We probably can't win, but we're not going down without a fight." That's my impression, anyway.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Grasshopper's post
30-04-2015, 04:27 PM
RE: What's Next For Apologetics?
Of course you're going to hear the same old arguments; apologetics isn't about you. It isn't even about the arguments, really. It's about making the theist feel like he isn't an idiot for believing this crap, maybe silencing opposition as a bonus, though of course the repetition of arguments that have been refuted so often lends credence to the idea that most theists are happy tuning you out too. If theists could find some way to make a lengthy string of nonsense sounds give them the same feeling of intellectual justification that apologetics does, I guarantee you'd have a lot less formal apologetics, and a lot more shapeless babbling, because that sure as shit is the path of least resistance, and apologetics is hardly around for the sake of intellectual rigor.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Esquilax's post
30-04-2015, 04:38 PM
RE: What's Next For Apologetics?
Esquilax,

Thanks for the reply but yours leads me to the question: Than why do they bother?

They've got their holy books, churches, population majority, money, and the comforting warm fuzzies. Why bother to poke at non believers, debate real scientists or troll boards such as this? Why not kick back and proclaim victory from the comfort of their church pew?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2015, 04:44 PM
RE: What's Next For Apologetics?
Like a sow's ear ---


You can't make a reasonable argument when all you've got is myth, legend and assorted bullshit in your arsenal.

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2015, 04:48 PM (This post was last modified: 30-04-2015 04:55 PM by Simon Moon.)
RE: What's Next For Apologetics?
The pattern seems to be:

1. Resurrect a long refuted argument (Kalam, TAG, teleological, ontological, etc).
2. Add some new bits to it (model logic added to ontological argument, for example).
3. Prance it around live debates over and over (William Craig with his flawed version of Kalam), and forums.
4. It becomes a sitting target, then the argument dies, what would seem to be, a permanent death.

Repeat...

Looks like we may be stuck with the most idiotic argument yet, Sye Ten Bruggencate's moronic version of presuppositional aplologetics.

His argument goes something like this, "How do you know that?".

Repeat ad infinitum.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Simon Moon's post
30-04-2015, 04:49 PM
RE: What's Next For Apologetics?
(30-04-2015 03:52 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  In June I'll have been here at TTA for one year, and in that year I've noticed a common theme in every atheism/theism debate...that they're all the same.

I have yet to see a single unique, thought provoking argument from any theist who has come through. It's always the same process:

1. Present argument, that has been debunked, as an unbreakable proof for their particular flavor of God.

2. TTA regulars scoff at but then proceed to dismantle said argument.

3. Theist turns to chess playing pigeon or simply repeats same argument points over and over in the form of a 5 year old playing "I win."

4. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.


Considering these trolls are merely parroting their favorite apologist, I can't imagine things are much different at the professional debating level. In fact, I've watched enough debates to know its practically the same.

So back to the topic question, what is the next step for apologists and their God? Surely they can't just keep coming with the same defeated arguments. Will someone come up with a new "proof" to debate, or at least put a new spin on an old one?

There is no foreseeable next step in apologetics; it is a stagnant field. Every change that has occurred within it has happen only due to outside force pushing inward, it simply wont change of it's own volition and even when forced change does occur, more often than it everything new will effectively be nothing but a restatement of what was before.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: