Re: Ever Felt You Could Do A Better Job In Defense, Even As A Skeptic (share An Example):

[Guest FaithofSolarDaevas]

People who encounter the chr apologist may have thought to themselves Hell, I could do a better job of "apologetics" even as a "Skeptic" AND "Unbeliever"..I am a contrarian by nature. I will go to a site and sound just like a chr. or just like an "unbeliever" depending upon where I am at.,.I have caught myself thinking "Why did he or she say thus and so?"? Share an thought as long as it is along these lines. I think I can do a far better job of the defense of "faith" (even if I personally might not have it myself),.

However, some of the more "literal" bible believing laymen actually think there are "horses" in "Heaven". I am aluding to some to the language found in the end of the bible. Seriously, They think "my little pony" is going to be available there. I say, This is symbolic language and I say if I can recognize that then why cant christians figure it out

 

Ive thought why do they suggest the "BEAST" could have been nothing more than a "Hebrew euphuism", rather than the highly symbolic meaning of sorts ?

[ghostchild]

Sure, i could defend christianity as well as or better than any person i've ever heard. It's not hard, because as you say, much of the bible is taken ridiculously literally and i think most of all of it was always meant to be symbolic. Even jesus bloody well spoke in parables, right?

 

However, there are things for which there simply is no adequate defence. The whole religion falls on its face, but certain things that are commonly held by christians to be true, like the young-earth idea for example, are just shockingly ignorant. I could easily tear down any young earth argument, no matter how "scientific", given an internet connection and a few minutes.

 

If you take young earth creationism, the concept of heaven and hell, and the cherry-picking attitude to the bible that all christian religions take, it becomes clear that nothing in the actual established versions of christianity are meant for intelligent, thinking people. It's all meant to fool and lead those who aren't in a position to question. Maybe one could build a rational, partially defensible christianity, i don't know, but it definitely doesn't exist, and for these people, these apologists, they aren't trying to prove god and salvation, they're trying to prove all the ridiculous crap too, and they would never give up on their belief that it is all *real*. to argue it's all a metaphor is actually an attack on their religion, not a defense of it, because for them, that stuff seems to be just as important as anything else they believe.

 

 

Yes it's stupid, but as far as i can tell this is the case. why else would the young earthers hate the christian evolutionists so very much?

[Guest AtheistInAFoxhole]

I have to agree here. I think (know, even) that I could defend Christianity so much more easily than I defend what I believe (or my lack of belief) now. Everytime the topic of my Atheism comes up I usually come across an argument that I know inside and out (and used to use before) that I even know the argument against, and yet I can't seem to defend myself, and I always think that life was so much easier as an apologist. Then again, when you rely on faith instead of evidence, most of your arguments come down to philosophical nimbleness (and as Bertrand Russell said [i paraphrase here] "All philosophical arguments are nothing more than cases of bad grammar"). I keep telling myself that I need to learn my arguments better, because I normally just admit that I am not an expert and I point them in the direction of a good book. At least I try when confronted (even attacked, on occasion), you know?

[Vixentrox]

Since most Xtian's trying to defend thier faith know little to nothing about history and don't know what is in thier Bible, yes I could do better. Once you have the logical arguments of why Xtianity is bullshit down pat it's easier to come up with credible arguments against a less sophisticated attacker of the faith.

[ShackledNoMore]

I could absolutely defend xianity better than the majority of apologists (for one thing, I've thought about xianity and apologetics lot more than most xians), but clone me (or pit me against someone of equal knowledge, intelligence, and skill) and the clone refuting xianity would smoke the one defending xianity so badly it would be embarrassing.

[Yrth]

I share foxhole's problem. I was pretty damn good at reconciling Christian teachings with the rest of what I thought that, well, it's a little difficult now to 'smoke' everything immediately. That said, I think the Christian argument I would have the most trouble refuting would be, um... the one where, ahm... shoot, hold on a second, here... I really wasn't trying to be sarcastic, I actually thought I had something there. Guess I don't. 8/

[Neon Genesis]

I was recently watching a video on youtube where John Shelby Spong was debating with fundies about whether or not homosexuality was incomptabible with Christianity. While I admire Bishop Spong a lot and I respect him for trying to defend gays and lesbians, I felt like I could do a better job of arguing his belief that it's ok to be a gay Christian better than he could. His argument felt rather shaky to me and he even seemed a bit unsure of his argument, so I thought I had a stronger argument to defend gay Christians than him.