TOP 10 apologetic mistakes *rough draft

[Guest Slayer-2004]

Im going to post this on CF once its finished , an possibly the final version on this site if we want it . Please tell me what you think . Note that this is intended for christians to use and ask themselves if they are making this mistake and hopefully some of them might get something out of it , so obviously I wrote this as simple to read as possible .

 

 

 

1 . Quoting the bible when trying to prove a fact to a non believer

Ex -

Non believer: *evolutionary rant*

apologist:Your wrong . The bible never said we evolved from apes , therefore we didnt .

 

Reason why this doesnt work : As a christian its easy to make the mistake of talking to non believers as you would other christians . Unfortunatly it doesnt work . Telling a non believer that something is false because the bible says so is the same as telling them its false because you dont believe its true . It comes accross to us as an opinion rather then a fact . "Biblical truths" are meaningless to people who dont believe in the bible to begin with . Note that using the bible to claim something is immoral doesnt work for the same reasons .

 

2. Replying with "love bombing" Rather then giving thought to the topic at hand

Ex -

Non believer: why does *verse 1* contradict *verse 2*

Apologist: It doesnt matter because jesus loves you . once you understand that all problems will go away

 

Reason this doesnt work : To the non believer , this sort of response comes accross as annoying . Its also seen as a dodge and may possibly convince them that christians dont have an answer and thus the verses really do contradict each other . Bad idea .

 

3.Threats of hellfire / Using pascals wager / preaching doomsday

Ex 1 -

Non believer : Give me one good reason to believe !

Apologist : Well since you dont believe in an afterlife you have nothing to lose by converting to christianity . Only Jesus can save you from satan .

 

Reason why this doesnt work : To the average passerby on the street

this might work , but most of the people who come to christian apologetics forums as non christians are experienced skeptics and many of us have college degree's and/or lots of experience in philosophy , biology , theology ect . In other words non believers who come here have heard this kind of stuff literally thousands of times and can easily get around it . Some skeptics will even simply stop reading your post once they realise that its a form of pascals wager and just move on . It a waste of time to even try .

 

4. The use of presuppositionalism and/or TAG ( Trancendental argument for god ) As the main supporting pillar in almost all your posts

Ex -

non believer : *Long rational argument dealing with deep theological issues*

Apologist : Ha ! You dont even believe in god ! How can you account for the logic you just used to try and debunk his existance ? Only by pressuposing christianity is true can you hope to make sense .

 

Reason why this doesnt work : First of all , let me just point something out . Almost all skeptics who have dealt with TAG and pressupositionalism consider apologists like the one in the example to be both annoying and completely insane . This is not an insult , its just how most non believers view this . A lot of us consider pressupositionalism to be an attempt to dodge having to use evidence to back up your claims and while we often will carry on debate if you continue to use this apologetic method non believers will often start to ignore you .

 

Ask yourselves honestly , have you ever seen a single testimony where the recent convert said "TAG and pressupositionalism opened my eyes ! Jesus is lord !" ? I know I most certainly have not , and I have read hundreds of testimonies . There is a reason for why such a thing never happens .

 

5. Attempt to "mind read" a non believer and claim her/his motives are based on evil and rebellion .

Ex -

Non believer : I would probobly never become a christian since I find it logically impossible

Apologist : No , you are a child of god who has gone astray . The only reason people dont believe is because of a adolescent like rebellion against god and because they wish to sin . Your lying .

 

Reason this doesnt work : This is similar to mistake #1 . Your trying to use points only supported in the bible to disprove something to a person who doesnt even believe the bible is anything more then another myth . The sooner you start taking non christians seriously the sooner they will start taking you seriously .

 

6. the "If I can disprove evolution then creatinism becomes true !" attitude .

Ex -

apologist : *Attempts to debunk evolution* therefore , creationism is true and Jesus lives !

non believer : ....... *sigh~ ......

 

Reason this doesnt work : Sorry , but if even if you did somehow debunk evolution creationsim wouldnt suddenly become the scientifically accepted standard any more then the theory that we all warped into reality through a giant doom bannana . A scientific theory must follow guidlines . If you wish to prove creationsim , then provide proof of creationism ... not proof against other theories .

 

7. Attempt to enter and debunk an argument about something science related that you clearly know nothing about .

Ex -

non believer : Early plants were very basic in nature , and the reason behind the differance in the existance and structure of cell walls in Plants and animals is ...*rant* .... why plants evolved with the ability to perform photosynthesis ... *rant rant*

Apologist : Thats absurd ! Plants have skin , god gave it to them . Who cares about footosenthisis when we know that ? How can a skeptic such as yourself claim belief in plants magically gaining energy but not in god ?

 

Reason why this doesnt work : Personally I think this one should be obvious . I exaggerated a bit in the example , but the basic point remains the same . If you wish to debunk something then first you should honestly ask yourself "Do I really understand what this is about ?" . When a christian ( or anyone for that matter ) tries to debunk a scientific theory without any understanding of what the scientific theory is about it becomes very obvious very fast . Total waste of time . This problem happens a lot in evolutionary debates . Please for the sake of us all educate yourself on what evolution is about BEFORE you try and point out holes in it . You will save a lot of time by doing that .

 

8. Judge a non christian religion on christian concepts

Ex -

Non believer : I am a buddhist. Why should I choose christianity over this ?

Apologist : Because Buddha never died for your sins .

 

Reason why this doesnt work : Lets use pantheism as an example . If I were to judge christianity on pantheist concepts ( such as god=the universe ) I would conclude that christianity is about worshiping yourself and asking yourself for forgivness . From this I would wrongly conclude that christianity is an arrogant religion . Ask yourself , would you as a christian care if I started a topic and did that ? Probobly not . In buddhism buddha didnt die for everyones sins because according to buddhism nobody had to . Telling a buddhist that buddhism is false because Buddhism didnt follow a specific christian trait is the same as saying its false because you believe that its false . Again , see mistake #1 .

 

 

9. The use of PRATTS ( Points refuted a thousand times )

Ex -

Apologist : Since science cannot currently account for the beggining of life , God did it !

Non believer : Oh boy ... God of the gaps ... AGAIN ...

 

Reason why this doesnt work : PRATTS are named for what they really are . Points refuted a thousand times . Most of these are common fallacious arguments used by christians/apologists that have been debunked many many times . If you have something to say , please do a google search on "Points refuted a thousand times" and check to see if you are using a PRATT . If you are , then reply with a rebuttal to the argument against the PRATT . Apologists who use PRATTS constantly without checking to see if what they are saying has been said billions of times before and logically trashed an equal number of times get old really fast and are eventually ignored . Be warned : whenever you use a PRATT you are basically admitting to skeptics that you are either very new to apologetics or you just dont care what they have to say in return . If you want non believers to take your arguments seriously , dont use PRATTS . PRATTS are bad mmmmkay ?

 

A few classic PRATTS : "Science is a religion too !" , "Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics !" , "There isnt enough dust on the moon for the earth to be that old !" , "there were no eyewitnesses for evolution !" ect.

 

10.

 

I thought of a few things for ten , but I would rather leave this one open for any of you guys to add .

[Mr. Neil]

11. Even starting.

[Nihil]

11. Even starting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

[Guest Roamin' Lion]

Slayer,

 

This is good work. I hope you post your finished product.

[Mythra]

Very nice, slayer. I can tell you put a lot of thought into it. Looks like it's right on the money from where I stand.

 

Pretty comprehensive, too. You might have trouble coming up with #10.

[cmotdibbler]

I wonder how long it will take for AiG to come up with a snappy reply to these? They already have a page devoted to arguements a YECer should *not* use in a debate. They must employ someone to update it constantly.

[scotter]

Thoughtful work, you have put a lot of thinking in it.

 

About #8, two-cents supplements (up to you to incorporate into #8, or as #11, actually up to you to adopt it or not)

 

“Evangelical Christian apologetics in debating the distinctiveness of Christianity over other religions is God’s reaching out to humanity, by having His Son Jesus died on the Cross to redeem for man’s sins.

 

That’s a double-edged sword. Why particularly in Christianity having this theology? Because Christianity is the only religion that deflates man since the day he was born, believing man is born of Sin (Original Sin), that man is born separated from God because of the Fall of Adam and Eve.

 

Even Judaism, Christianity’s predecessor, does not believe in Original Sin; in Buddhism, every body has the Buddha nature to become Buddha, to become enlightened. In non-Christian theist religions, it is believed man is blessed with the glorious potential to reach God, then why does God need to reach out to man?”

 

‘Just to present my idea, feel free to further polish.

[Cerise]

I hate to say it, but if you take away all their usual arguments you are left with nothing and all christian to non-christian debate ceases.  Pretty much, just list all the logical fallacies and tell them they can't use even one in debate.  Conversation will be over because the bible, god..etc, can not be proven without violating at least one logical fallacy.

 

It is a good list (the OP) but I think it will drive off more fundy debaters than it will attract.  I think most are too intimidated to post here as is. 

 

Just my $.02

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sadly, I think that's probably correct.

[white_raven23]

How about the tendency to twist the topic of an argument?

 

Like that dumbass invictus in the recent thread discussing evolution (a process)

and him trying to make it an argument for origin? Which is NOT the same topic.

[Guest Slayer-2004]

Im actually going to post it somewhere else . Possibly christian forums apologetics section .

 

And yes , they really dont have much left . The list is another way of saying "Your current methods fail in all forms of logic . Do you xians really have anything that can be called proof ? Or are you all full of shit ?"

[Thurisaz]

Either way, it's good stuff.