summary of apologetic arguments

[jasonlong]

I'm constructing a quick FAQ and would appreciate input. One of the questions I have is this:

 

Haven’t you read anything by Author X? He/she explains all of the so-called [biblical] “problems” you mention.

 

The following is what I have come up with so far. I'm looking for broad, sweeping generalizations that typically apply to apologetic works (note the use of "almost always" in the first part). If you have any ideas, let me know.

 

Whomever Author X happens to be at the moment, a few things almost always remain true:

 

1. X began with the conclusion that the Bible is true and worked backwards to find only supportive evidence.

 

2. X is not interested in the most likely conclusion, only the most likely conclusion that doesn’t invalidate the Bible.

 

3. If X was born with religion Y instead of Christianity, X would be just as confident that religion Y was correct.

 

4. There are countless Xs in every religion who claim to be able to prove that each of their belief systems is true.

 

5. X is skillful at making an argument seem valid but eventually looks foolish if you just do some unbiased research.

[Francois Tremblay]

On my web site, I talk about presuppositionalism and some other apologetics arguments, in case you're interested. Transcendental arguments seem to have become my specialty.

[scepticjoe]

You could say something like this:

 

I cannot answer ever author in this short FAQ. However, if you do a web search on the author's name or the title of his book, you will probably find some sceptic reviews of his work. ( Put the name or title in quotes: "Josh McDowell" or "Evidence that Demands a Verdict") Internet infidels has many good reviews at this link:

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/the...ologetics.shtml

[jasonlong]

On my web site, I talk about presuppositionalism and some other apologetics arguments, in case you're interested.  Transcendental arguments seem to have become my specialty.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

TAG isn't worth two minutes of my time, but I'm glad someone has the patience to deal with Paul and the bunch. It takes a special breed of person. I'm aiming more mainstream, but thanks for the suggestion.

 

You could say something like this:

 

I cannot answer ever author in this short FAQ.  However, if you do a web search on the author's name or the title of his book, you will probably find some sceptic reviews of his work.  ( Put the name or title in quotes:  "Josh McDowell" or "Evidence that Demands a Verdict") Internet infidels has many good reviews at this link:

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/the...ologetics.shtml

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Good idea. Thanks.

[Francois Tremblay]

TAG isn't worth two minutes of my time

 

Believe me, they don't think the same about TANG. lol

[Asimov]

Believe me, they don't think the same about TANG. lol

 

What's the TANG?

[Guest Ex-monkey]

On my web site, I talk about presuppositionalism and some other apologetics arguments, in case you're interested.  Transcendental arguments seem to have become my specialty.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Tremblay Exposed

[Guest MalaInSe]

Tremblay Exposed

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I don't know... this just seems so.... weird.

 

Manata v. Tremblay? It's like alternate personalities arguing.

[Asimov]

 

I don't know... this just seems so.... weird.

 

Manata v. Tremblay?  It's like alternate personalities arguing.

 

Maybe Manata is the Spock with a beard?

 

[Asimov]

Tremblay Exposed

 

 

Paul!!! So glad to see you!!

 

I thought you were "done with us"?

[Francois Tremblay]

OMG ! I've been exposed ! The presups are after me, I'm in for it this time.

 

Bwahahaha !

 

Someone hide me from the big bad presups !

 

MalaInSe : shut up you little shit. To even mention me on the same sentence as Manata shows what an imbecile you are.

[Guest MalaInSe]

MalaInSe : shut up you little shit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

[Asimov]

I'm sensin some bad blood here....but even I would be offended if someone compared me to Manata.

 

Franc, you're gonna burst a blood vessel in your brain if you take things too seriously here. Even if you disagree with someone, you don't have to be sooo.....asshole about it. Ad hom attacks aren't the best way to get your points across. If you expect anyone to take you seriously, you'll understand that I'm sayin this so you don't become the laughing stock of this community, especially considering most of us are atheists, people who you would (I assume) want support from.

 

Just look at Paul, he's a fuckhead. He insults anyone and everyone who disagrees with him, he's an asshole, and now people just laugh at his bullshit.

 

I've noticed that very quickly your reputation seems to be degenerating as you insult more and more people who are well-liked on this board. I'm saying this to be friendly, not as a "flake". I like your stuff, and I think some of what you say is hilarious, I'm just telling you this as someone who's read a lot of your stuff on your website, and who does support you. Don't fuck up here, and think before you post. There's a difference between friendly bantering and outright insults.

[LloydDobler]

Haha you just made the list Asimov! Prepare to be called names and alienated.

[Francois Tremblay]

Oh, Asimov, I know what you're saying... but I'm just putting them on ignore. I reacted to this moron's post because you quoted it. It's really all just poppycock, and I don't care if anyone who believes it laughs at me. Everyone deserves to be laughed at once in a while.

 

They can laugh, but my work is judged on whether it's good or not, not whether I'm likeable or not. That's all that counts. I don't need any of these people.

 

Anyway, none of this matters, because Manata has "exposed" me. Now all I have left to do is run away in shame, never to return.

 

Bwahahahaha !

 

You know the last one ? Manata lambasted us on his blog recently for saying that he's "stealing concepts". He thinks we actually mean that he's cutting up brains and stealing neurons. Not only does Manata not understand basic maths, but now we know he doesn't understand metaphors either.

 

If this is what his "exposure" is like, it should be clown comedy.

[Asimov]

Haha you just made the list Asimov!  Prepare to be called names and alienated.

 

 

Well, I would hope not, I like Franc. I just don't agree with some of his methods. Hey, maybe insulting people is funny sometimes...but not in a serious discussion.

[Asimov]

Oh, Asimov, I know what you're saying... but I'm just putting them on ignore. I reacted to this moron's post because you quoted it. It's really all just poppycock, and I don't care if anyone who believes it laughs at me. Everyone deserves to be laughed at once in a while.

 

They can laugh, but my work is judged on whether it's good or not, not whether I'm likeable or not. That's all that counts. I don't need any of these people.

 

Of course, I agree that people do sometimes. I'm just saying that toning it down a little is something you might consider. Putting people on ignore is fine if you don't like them. But calling names? That's childish.

 

Anyway, none of this matters, because Manata has "exposed" me. Now all I have left to do is run away in shame, never to return.

 

The only thing left is for Manata to "expose" himself in front of a bunch of 12 year old girls.

 

[Francois Tremblay]

Now Manata is emailing me, trying to convince me that concepts are not material because an entity can't exist in more than one location. I guess we can add the difference between a concept and its referents to the list of things he doesn't understand. Geesh !

[Guest bdp]

Manata calls people 'fool' which his own 'Lord and God' expressly forbids him to do (sermon on the mount, Matthew somewhere around chapter 5 or 6, not going to look it up). If he isn't going to take the commands of his own god seriously then I have no reason to take anything he says seriously. But for his own sake he'd better look really close at this because Jesus said Paul is guilty enough to go into hell for it, and of course Jesus also said not everyone who calls him 'Lord' will enter into paradise. Paul ignored this the last time I brought it up, let's see if he has any answer for it now...

 

bdp

 

btw welcome back Paul

[Asimov]

Now Manata is emailing me, trying to convince me that concepts are not material because an entity can't exist in more than one location. I guess we can add the difference between a concept and its referents to the list of things he doesn't understand. Geesh !

 

Interesting....I wonder if he's aware of Quantum Mechanics? Labs have observed a particle existing in two places at the same time.

 

*I got that from "what the bleep do we know?" so if anyone wishes to slam what I said down, then they can take it up with the movie.

[Cerise]

OMG ! I've been exposed ! The presups are after me, I'm in for it this time.

 

Bwahahaha !

 

Someone hide me from the big bad presups !

 

MalaInSe : shut up you little shit. To even mention me on the same sentence as Manata shows what an imbecile you are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I think this deserves a big ol' WTF?

 

I'm sensin some bad blood here....but even I would be offended if someone compared me to Manata.

 

Asimov, what are you talking about? The little "v." sign does not mean a comparison is being made, as far as I know. Last time I studied english (which was this morning, to tell the truth) it meant a battle or adversarial position. How on earth did you get "comparison" out of "v." anyway?

 

I'm going to just leave with WTF? all around here.

[Vixentrox]

Looks like a bot post.

[Checkmate]

I just PM'd Reach about this. It may be time to lock the doors, again.

[Reach]

I just PM'd Reach about this.  It may be time to lock the doors, again.

100234[/snapback]

Thanks, Mr. Grinch. This topic is closed for now while we check this out.