What's Next For Apologetics?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-04-2015, 05:26 PM
RE: What's Next For Apologetics?
(30-04-2015 05:24 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  Anjele,

I recall hearing things about them being commanded to "spread the word", but are you aware of any scripture stating to do as such?

I was raised Catholic, they don't recruit, they just breed new ones.

I am sure someone here has the answer.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
30-04-2015, 05:31 PM
RE: What's Next For Apologetics?
Is there some new theology that requires new apologetics?

Seems like it's the same old same old.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Machias's post
30-04-2015, 05:36 PM
RE: What's Next For Apologetics?
Thanks Jenny.

I'm not that familiar with scripture, at least not specifically.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2015, 05:36 PM
RE: What's Next For Apologetics?
Unique? From the religion that's entire existence is dependant on Plagerism and copyright infringement? Where their god, their morals, their 10 commandments, holidays, stories that are all borrowed from older religions and slogans and symbols that they rip off from popular brand logo's from coke cola to whatever else is out there and slap their religion all over it and call it their own?

you...actually...think they can be original?

Laughat


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2015, 05:39 PM
RE: What's Next For Apologetics?
(30-04-2015 05:36 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  Thanks Jenny.

I'm not that familiar with scripture, at least not specifically.

Yeah, I know a lot about scripture unfortunately due to years of brainwashing. But now I use my powers for good instead of evil when all the crazy christians start spouting bible passages--they get pissy because I know their bible better than they do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2015, 05:44 PM
RE: What's Next For Apologetics?
(30-04-2015 05:24 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  I recall hearing things about them being commanded to "spread the word", but are you aware of any scripture stating to do as such?

1 Peter 3:15

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2015, 05:53 PM
RE: What's Next For Apologetics?
I guess they didn't read that last sentence Simon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fodder_From_The_Truth's post
30-04-2015, 06:20 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?

Yes it is tiresome. That's why I like to hit them right between their eyes with this: how can I reliably distinguish what you call god from something that you are merely imagining. Since their god is literally imaginary, they can never, ever provide such a method.

Whatever new tactic they come up with it will be just as fallacious, just as disingenuous, just as irrational as what they have done in the past. That's the lot they are left with in trying to defend their belief in something that is metaphysically impossible. Glad it's not my problem.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like true scotsman's post
30-04-2015, 08:05 PM
RE: What's Next For Apologetics?
(30-04-2015 05:22 PM)TheStraightener Wrote:  A lot of my debates end up with the theists quoting some kind of book.

Now the books they use don't present any evidence or information... They are just books about how to argue. Books about how other people are wrong but nothing about how they are right.

Very rarey is a debate a straightforward discussion. It ends up with hair splitting and word manipulation... Mainly about how I am wrong but presenting nothing about why they are right.

Kalam isn't an argument for god. Its just an argument against the theories of abigenesis and the big bang etc. And trying to point out that others are wrong but kalam says nothing about why they are right

Pascals wager isn't evidence for god... Its a means to make someone re-evaluate their position and what awaits them if they are wrong.

They also like to belittle the arguments by saying "That question is old, ask something new".. While ignoring the fact that the questions are old for a reason. If someone can give a sound answer to these 'old questions' then there would be no need for them to be asked.

None of the common arguments back up their claims... They are just used in attempt to shut down opposition.

Question, how does kalam disprove the big bang. I don't know much about the kalam argument, only that it is derived from the contingency argument.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2015, 08:29 PM (This post was last modified: 30-04-2015 08:33 PM by Tartarus Sauce.)
RE: What's Next For Apologetics?
(30-04-2015 08:05 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  
(30-04-2015 05:22 PM)TheStraightener Wrote:  A lot of my debates end up with the theists quoting some kind of book.

Now the books they use don't present any evidence or information... They are just books about how to argue. Books about how other people are wrong but nothing about how they are right.

Very rarey is a debate a straightforward discussion. It ends up with hair splitting and word manipulation... Mainly about how I am wrong but presenting nothing about why they are right.

Kalam isn't an argument for god. Its just an argument against the theories of abigenesis and the big bang etc. And trying to point out that others are wrong but kalam says nothing about why they are right

Pascals wager isn't evidence for god... Its a means to make someone re-evaluate their position and what awaits them if they are wrong.

They also like to belittle the arguments by saying "That question is old, ask something new".. While ignoring the fact that the questions are old for a reason. If someone can give a sound answer to these 'old questions' then there would be no need for them to be asked.

None of the common arguments back up their claims... They are just used in attempt to shut down opposition.

Question, how does kalam disprove the big bang. I don't know much about the kalam argument, only that it is derived from the contingency argument.

The KCA isn't so much against the Big Bang as it is completely unsatisfied with it as an explanation on our knowledge of the universe's formation. This is of course also where the main problems with the KCA also come in to play since it resolves that discontentment by both invalidating its premises and trying to pure "logic" into frutition supposed "obligate" conclusions by delving into a territory where nothing is obligated to be concluded (the nature and principles of reality and existence beyond the scope of the universe before the Big Bang).

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: