What's Next For Apologetics?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-04-2015, 08:35 PM
RE: What's Next For Apologetics?
I have two reasons for being here.
The first of these is that I find it helps me learn about my faith. I get asked a question I can't answer so I'm forced to go and look it up. Thus I become better informed about my faith.

the second reason is that I just like debates. Intellectual sparing is one of my guilty pleasures (as my ex can attest to), and I just love arguing. Although I'm not hugely fond of text debates, I prefer one on one verbal debates, especially as I spend most of my time on TTA via my phone and it invariably comes up that a post requires more than what I am willing to type on a phone and so I tend to drop out of threads since by the time I have gotten to my computer, the debate has moved on.

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, 08:41 PM
RE: What's Next For Apologetics?
In response to your comment that people always put forward the same arguments, there is a statement that my philosophy teacher says that goes that there is nothing new in philosophy. For the most part new arguments don't appear in centuries old debates simply for the reason that they are centuries old. After several billions of people debating the same questions tend to come up over and over again.

I also plan on starting a thread related to this question especially regarding the concept of evidence, so stay tuned I will probably write over the next week or so.

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
01-05-2015, 01:19 AM
RE: What's Next For Apologetics?
(30-04-2015 04:52 PM)jennybee Wrote:  
(30-04-2015 04:44 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  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.

I understand the whole getting spoon fed passages in church because I remember as a christian that whole thing being kind of mindless. You were just parroting back everything you heard. What I have trouble understanding are these religious nuts who actually take time to plan their debate (which means they have actually *thought* about things and maybe even did a little research.) The way they can actually believe what they are saying during their debates always blows my mind.

They may take time, but they are still as you say religious nuts. They won't stop believing because something doesne't fit, they ignore it, or say that is metaphor. Benevolent god could be good exapmle - you coud say that one could believe in it only if one Bible was censored. But for some god's benevolence is out of the question, he isn't benevolent cause he save peoples, etc. he is benevolent cause he is described as such and reality could not disprove this, it's (postulat semantyczny in polish) semantic stipulation (?) in English.

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
01-05-2015, 05:00 AM
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?

Yabut, I've *discovered* on YouTube, something that everyone else in the history of the planet for some reason over-looked. Jebus wants me to share the good news with you. Yes

Facepalm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2015, 05:16 AM
RE: What's Next For Apologetics?
(30-04-2015 05:26 PM)jennybee Wrote:  
(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?

Mark 16:15 NKJV

“And He said to them, ‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.'”

Think maybe we could convince them to go work on pidgeons instead? It's about their speed. Oo! They could discuss it while playing chess together!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2015, 05:21 AM
RE: What's Next For Apologetics?
(30-04-2015 04:48 PM)Simon Moon Wrote:  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.

I'm an Atheist Presup, the Tenth Dimensionalist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkcUvn-4z50

That's how to counter him. Kaboom.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2015, 05:43 AM
RE: What's Next For Apologetics?
(01-05-2015 05:16 AM)OddGamer Wrote:  
(30-04-2015 05:26 PM)jennybee Wrote:  Mark 16:15 NKJV

“And He said to them, ‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.'”

Think maybe we could convince them to go work on pidgeons instead? It's about their speed. Oo! They could discuss it while playing chess together!

Yeah, that passage makes no sense in re: to the O.T....Here they "care" about preaching to every creature. In the O.T., they sacrificed the shit out of animals, because God loves the smell of burning flesh. I never got how god went from a sadistic tyrant to hippie jesus. I agree with you regarding the pigeons lol Big Grin

"Let the waters settle and you will see the moon and stars mirrored in your own being." -Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jennybee's post
01-05-2015, 06:13 AM
RE: What's Next For Apologetics?
(30-04-2015 03:52 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  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.

You have to realize that most of them don't see us as defeating or debunking their arguments. I've only run into a handful of people (here and in FB groups) that admit when an argument is bad and stop using it.

Anecdotally, I can say that when I was still Christian, I would often see an atheist debunking an argument as them "trying anything to weasel out of the truth". So, if I busted out the Cosmological Argument, they said I was assuming God was the cause, I asked them what the cause was, and they said "I don't know, but not knowing isn't evidence for God", I would have seen this as a weasel move. Back then, I figured if God was "the best" explanation for an unanswered question, that it must be good logic to assert it as true.

I'm sure a huge number of them fall into that general pattern. It typically takes some genuine introspection, a willingness to admit you could be wrong, and often a lot of time to break out of that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
01-05-2015, 06:30 AM (This post was last modified: 01-05-2015 06:33 AM by RobbyPants.)
RE: What's Next For Apologetics?
(01-05-2015 05:43 AM)jennybee Wrote:  Yeah, that passage makes no sense in re: to the O.T....Here they "care" about preaching to every creature. In the O.T., they sacrificed the shit out of animals, because God loves the smell of burning flesh. I never got how god went from a sadistic tyrant to hippie jesus. I agree with you regarding the pigeons lol Big Grin

Religions evolve to fit the people that follow them. Otherwise, they tend to die out.

Christianity likely drew a lot from Zoroastrianism, a religion that was popular around Judaism's hay day, and is still practiced today. A lot of the differences between Judaism and Christianity are found in Zoroastrianism (An evil force opposing the good one, a final savior born of a virgin, heaven and hell).

If you read the OT without Christian blinders on and you don't read a lot of NT stories backward into it, you get a different picture. Remember that the OT predates the NT by a good 700 - 800 years. They believed different things. Among other things:
  • People went to Sheol when they died, which is sort of like Hades. There was no good or bad afterlife.
  • When God threatened "death" in the OT, it actually meant "death", not "spiritual" or "eternal" death, as often read backward from the NT. God just fuggin killed fools back then. It's just, those types of threats are falsifiable, and people started to realize that you wouldn't actually die. So, the punishment/reward system got kicked back to the afterlife, where casual observation by any six-year-old couldn't prove it wrong.
  • Satan didn't even exist in the early stories. His first mentioning is in Job, and it's not even clear that he's working against God in that story. Satan evolved throughout the Bible (a good 15-minute video to watch if you have the time), as evident by simply reading the stories chronologically.
  • There was no concept of Original Sin. Sure, Adam and Eve sinned, but this wasn't the DNA-altering, disease-causing event that a lot of apologists like to say it was; at least not in the OT alone.

As for why Jesus was such a hippy, one important thing to remember is that they were under Roman occupation. Rome was pretty good about allowing cultures to keep their religions (with the exception of druids who freaking sacrificed people) so long as they paid their taxes and stayed in line. There's a reason Jesus promoted non-violence in response to a show of force and advocated paying one's taxes to Caesar. If he'd said otherwise, he may have been dragged off and executed as an insurrectionist, and the religion might never have existed.

Also, I wouldn't entirely call Jesus a hippy. In the OT, YHWH would kill you for angering him. Now, you get tortured for eternity for not believing in a nonfalsifiable entity. Out of the frying pan and into the (eternal) fire.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
01-05-2015, 07:39 AM
RE: What's Next For Apologetics?
(01-05-2015 06:30 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(01-05-2015 05:43 AM)jennybee Wrote:  Yeah, that passage makes no sense in re: to the O.T....Here they "care" about preaching to every creature. In the O.T., they sacrificed the shit out of animals, because God loves the smell of burning flesh. I never got how god went from a sadistic tyrant to hippie jesus. I agree with you regarding the pigeons lol Big Grin

Religions evolve to fit the people that follow them. Otherwise, they tend to die out.

Christianity likely drew a lot from Zoroastrianism, a religion that was popular around Judaism's hay day, and is still practiced today. A lot of the differences between Judaism and Christianity are found in Zoroastrianism (An evil force opposing the good one, a final savior born of a virgin, heaven and hell).

If you read the OT without Christian blinders on and you don't read a lot of NT stories backward into it, you get a different picture. Remember that the OT predates the NT by a good 700 - 800 years. They believed different things. Among other things:
  • People went to Sheol when they died, which is sort of like Hades. There was no good or bad afterlife.
  • When God threatened "death" in the OT, it actually meant "death", not "spiritual" or "eternal" death, as often read backward from the NT. God just fuggin killed fools back then. It's just, those types of threats are falsifiable, and people started to realize that you wouldn't actually die. So, the punishment/reward system got kicked back to the afterlife, where casual observation by any six-year-old couldn't prove it wrong.
  • Satan didn't even exist in the early stories. His first mentioning is in Job, and it's not even clear that he's working against God in that story. Satan evolved throughout the Bible (a good 15-minute video to watch if you have the time), as evident by simply reading the stories chronologically.
  • There was no concept of Original Sin. Sure, Adam and Eve sinned, but this wasn't the DNA-altering, disease-causing event that a lot of apologists like to say it was; at least not in the OT alone.

As for why Jesus was such a hippy, one important thing to remember is that they were under Roman occupation. Rome was pretty good about allowing cultures to keep their religions (with the exception of druids who freaking sacrificed people) so long as they paid their taxes and stayed in line. There's a reason Jesus promoted non-violence in response to a show of force and advocated paying one's taxes to Caesar. If he'd said otherwise, he may have been dragged off and executed as an insurrectionist, and the religion might never have existed.

Also, I wouldn't entirely call Jesus a hippy. In the OT, YHWH would kill you for angering him. Now, you get tortured for eternity for not believing in a nonfalsifiable entity. Out of the frying pan and into the (eternal) fire.

Right lol. Can't forget about the eternal burning torture of damnation lol. I just meant that God of the O.T. was smiting everyone left and right for any reason he could think of. At least Jesus was all about turn the other cheek yadda yadda. I have read a few books about religions evolving. Genesis is a take off on the Enuma Elish (Babylonian creation myth) for instance. I read a few books on the whole Satan thing too. In the O.T.--in most cases--Satan was referred to as *a satan* or a stumbling block--not an actual being (except for in passage such as Job of course). The concept of hell also comes from the Egyptian's belief in the lake of fire--you can see a few passages in the Bible referring to the lake of fire--well, that's where they got it--from the Egyptians. Thanks for the link--I will check that out Thumbsup

"Let the waters settle and you will see the moon and stars mirrored in your own being." -Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like jennybee's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: