Apologetics

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

I even after losing my faith, still look at things like the historical evidence for the resurrection.

I was wondering If I could get some opinions from those more wiser then myself.

 

How valuable are the claims of apologists?

 

Should I not waste my money on them and just find them in looking for a possible rebuttal.

 

I do understand that looking at all points of view is important, but I need to cut through as much of the crap as I can and get to the point with some level of certainty.

 

I don't have the money to by mountains of books so my abilities to good research are limited to internet and the best books available

 

And this is why I need your guys is help.

 

Any help is appreciated.

[Guest I Love Dog]

I even after losing my faith, still look at things like the historical evidence for the resurrection.

I was wondering If I could get some opinions from those more wiser then myself.

 

How valuable are the claims of apologists?

 

Should I not waste my money on them and just find them in looking for a possible rebuttal.

 

I do understand that looking at all points of view is important, but I need to cut through as much of the crap as I can and get to the point with some level of certainty.

 

I don't have the money to by mountains of books so my abilities to good research are limited to internet and the best books available

 

And this is why I need your guys is help.

 

Any help is appreciated.

 

I bought the book Jesus Never Existed. It's not expensive and it is a fantastic book!

 

If you ever had any doubts about the honesty and morality of Christianity, then this is THE book!

 

I'm in Australia, so I had to pay a heap extra postage and had to WAIT! But it was worth it.

 

Of course, if you can't afford the book then just about all of the info is on the Web site.

[Mutate]

if a xian book sounds very crappy it may be helpful in helping you make your mind up. im undecided myself at mo.

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

my abilities to good research are limited to internet and the best books available

 

 

Library?

 

P

 

well the library that i have access to has very little in the way of high qualities books, it has a great consists of stuff that is written for Christians by Christians if you know what i mean.

[Shyone]

I even after losing my faith, still look at things like the historical evidence for the resurrection.

I was wondering If I could get some opinions from those more wiser then myself.

 

How valuable are the claims of apologists?

 

Should I not waste my money on them and just find them in looking for a possible rebuttal.

 

I do understand that looking at all points of view is important, but I need to cut through as much of the crap as I can and get to the point with some level of certainty.

 

I don't have the money to by mountains of books so my abilities to good research are limited to internet and the best books available

 

And this is why I need your guys is help.

 

Any help is appreciated.

The goal of apologetics is to make problems disappear, and since the problems are legimate, they must rely on distortion, fallacy and outright lies to accomplish their goal.

 

Can you make black into white? Bad into Good? Contradiction into Harmony?

 

They can, but black remains black, Bad is still bad, and Contradictions are contradictions.

 

I have no respect for Christian apologists. They will not face problems or answer questions honestly, so why read them?

 

Over and over, specific apologies have been presented on this board, and they have been torn apart. I recommend that if you find a specific apology that you feel is "persuasive", present it for analysis and see the dishonesty revealed.

[Franko47]

There are some excellent debates on UTube and other sites that feature the kind of "counters" to apologists that you might be looking for.

 

Dan Barker is pretty good; enter him on the Utube index to see various lectures and debates, since he understands Bible-driven Christianity better than most; he was a former fundy "intellectual" and minister for most of his early adult life. Unlike Dawkins and some others who attempt to counter apologists with (gosh) science and rational thinking, Barker understands how the game is played and has handled likely every apologetic argument there is. He's also an expert on scripture, translations, Christian history and so on, usually rendering Bible Christian apologists down to a sputtering circus of rhetorical and emotional argument.

[Thurisaz]

The goal of apologetics is to make problems disappear [...]

 

I'd like to offer some correction to that. They want to make the problems disappear... but as they can't, all apologetics is really just an attempt to hide the problems.

 

I have no respect for Christian apologists. They will not face problems or answer questions honestly, so why read them?

 

This. Exactly this.

 

I've been checking out apologetics for several years and the very pattern they use tells all the story already.

 

How should a debate proceed? By claim, counter-claim, counter-counter-claim et cetera until one side admits "well can't argue against that - you win".

 

How do apologetical "debates" proceed?

 

(memorized cookie-cutter apologetic claim, followed by skeptics' refutations) * n (as long as the apologist has more memorized phrases to use)

 

(Silence for a few hours/days/weeks, depending on the specific apologist)

 

Repeat this ad infinitum.

 

When in any debate one side doesn't even have the slightest clue where the other side is coming from and is not trying to learn that either, you don't have to be an expert on the topic to tell who's probably right. I have yet to see any apologist who doesn't fit this pattern of willful ignorance perfectly.

[LivingLife]

Apologists will never surrender, we shall fight them mf on the beaches...

 

I have yet to meet one apologist that I cannot corner and the only escape is to deflect, they will never say ya got me. I used to do apologetics and intense bible study led me inexorably out of theism. I know the mindset, the support structure. The difference I was arguing for universalism so I had some good arguments with the eternal torment (ET) camp, I seldom was challenged by atheists and was often befriended by them and repped and complimented, we of course had a common enemy.

 

When I started with apologetics, I took the stance of trying to prove universalism as false and ended up one of them, it was a nice intermediate place to be having some semblance of not having wasted 30 years of my life. Many of my questions they could answer and were not so dogmatic however there was this tendency to state you just not ready to understand that yet, we are all on different paths, one day the lawd will reveal it to you. I accelerated along this mythical road and sort of became a teacher of UR but the more I delved in and debated, there still was not unified doctrine/belief, folk just accepted what made their paradigm feel comfortable. When I got into textual criticism, that was when I realised that it is the same BS just packaged differently.

 

To dismiss the ET concepts was easy but then when folk still held to inerrancy, I no longer could stomach that. Dismissing gawd was bit harder and took longer to do.

[Vigile]

The problem here, as I see it, is that coming to us and asking our opinion on apologetics is akin to being an xian and going to the pastor and asking him to help explain some biblical discrepancy for you.

 

You need to have a firm understanding yourself what is wrong with xian claims, not just someone else's opinion on the matter. IMO you'd be better off learning some basics of logic. In that way you can recognize for yourself where the errors are. Then have at the apologetics if you are so inclined. No doubt you will see raging logical flaws in them and you will know for yourself why you don't accept their propositions. It will take some work on your part but it's better to do the work than to always have that nagging wonder in the back of your head.

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

yeah, i know a bit about apologetics I was just asking for opinions

 

I am doing this because I don't want to spend five years like Dan Barker did for example doing this.

 

I would rather deal with good apologetics arguements for a little while then deal with a bunch of bad ones for along time.

 

The apologetics I have found suck, hence my current belief state.

 

But I don't have the means to look at every single one. That is why I am asking.

I might just have to be I deal with it when it comes along. But it doesn't hurt to ask I think.

 

I do see the comparison though.

 

Thanks Virgile

[★ Citsonga ★]

The goal of apologetics is to make problems disappear [...]

 

I'd like to offer some correction to that. They want to make the problems disappear... but as they can't, all apologetics is really just an attempt to hide the problems.

 

That's not really a correction. Shyone said that the GOAL of apologetics is to make problems disappear, not that they actually accomplish that goal.

[★ Citsonga ★]

I even after losing my faith, still look at things like the historical evidence for the resurrection.

I was wondering If I could get some opinions from those more wiser then myself.

 

How valuable are the claims of apologists?

 

Should I not waste my money on them and just find them in looking for a possible rebuttal.

 

I would say that if you've been in the faith for a while and have been indoctrinated with it, then what's the point of feeding on the bs even more? I'd recommend reading other viewpoints instead.

 

But that's just me, coming from the perspective of one heavily indoctrinated in christianity for 29 years before beginning to question it. There's not much in the way of apologetics that would be new to me, but there's plenty stuff from atheists, scientists and historians that would be new to me. So I'd rather focus on getting good information from those sources than bad information from apologists. After all, their purpose is to support their preconceived religious perspectives rather than look at evidence objectively and draw reasonable conclusions regardless of where it leads them.

[smellincoffee]

I used to listen to Ravi Zacharias (in the first year after my exit), and that was helpful. Learning to think logically was an asset, and he got me interested in philosophy. Ultimately, though, Zacharias' stuff and apologetics in general became repetitive.I've never been impressed by it since learning to question assumptions.

[ShackledNoMore]

I personally think it is good to have a decent grasp of apologetics (it sounds like you do, as I think most of us do here). Examining apologetic arguments is part of the critical thought process that I think we owe to ourselves. After awhile, the apologetic arguments start to become trite, and at the point it becomes counter-productive to keep trudging through the same hackneyed arguments ad nauseum in search of something else. There is just not anything compelling out there.

[Thurisaz]

The goal of apologetics is to make problems disappear [...]

 

I'd like to offer some correction to that. They want to make the problems disappear... but as they can't, all apologetics is really just an attempt to hide the problems.

 

That's not really a correction. Shyone said that the GOAL of apologetics is to make problems disappear, not that they actually accomplish that goal.

 

Hrmmmm.

 

Granted, I guess it's a matter of perspective

[wt-hell?!]

How should a debate proceed? By claim, counter-claim, counter-counter-claim et cetera until one side admits "well can't argue against that - you win".

 

How do apologetical "debates" proceed?

 

(memorized cookie-cutter apologetic claim, followed by skeptics' refutations) * n (as long as the apologist has more memorized phrases to use)

 

(Silence for a few hours/days/weeks, depending on the specific apologist)

 

Repeat this ad infinitum.

 

When in any debate one side doesn't even have the slightest clue where the other side is coming from and is not trying to learn that either, you don't have to be an expert on the topic to tell who's probably right. I have yet to see any apologist who doesn't fit this pattern of willful ignorance perfectly.

 

So this is why a friend of mine hasn't spoken to me in over a week? I guess he had to go get some more cookie cutter responses! Anyways, whenever they get cornered it usually never ends with "good debate, i see things a little differently, I learned something here today" it usually ends (right after a loaded question) with "well, i've got things to do so we'll talk later." It doesn't really take much to get through their "logic"

[scepticjoe]

The Internet Infidels have a lot of good articles about Christian apologetics.

 

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/

[Mutate]

"How should a debate proceed? By claim, counter-claim, counter-counter-claim et cetera until one side admits "well can't argue against that - you win"."

 

thats the theory. but in reality they just answer you as if youve said something else, try and make it sound as if youve made another arguement that they'd rather hear.

[fallenleaf]

I have read a lot of apologetic. A LOT!!! In my years as a teenager I probably read upwards of 100 different books relating to apologetics. It's a waste of time and energy.

 

In fact, the only time I have ever benefited from it was when my cousin (in college to be a Baptist preacher at the time) tried to get me to read an apologetics book from his school's library. He dragged me to the library and brought me to their extensive apologetics section. I started pulling books off the shelves, "Read this, read this one too, this is a new version but I read the older one..." After about 10 minutes... I had made a stack of books about chest high on the floor (and pulled maybe a third of the books off the shelves). My cousin just huffed angrily at me and stormed off. I pushed the pile over and followed him out. LOL... I was in the mood to be a total jerk that day.

 

A few years ago, I was a member of a fundamentalist website... their resident atheist at large. One of their members went and bought me a copy of an apologetics book that I hadn't read or heard of (at the time). They mailed it to me. It was I don't have enough faith to be an atheist. I think. Anyway, I read half of it and posted an honest review on their forums. I pointed out what arguments they were using and how those arguments didn't hold up to real scrutiny. I discussed what I thought of the book and gave a pretty long and detailed review. I had been taking notes while reading the book. After reading my review of the first half, I was told to not bother reading the second half. LOL... good times.

 

Anyway... do something more productive with your time. Masturbate... or huff spray paint... or learn to hunt, clean, and cook your neighbor's pets. I don't care... just about anything is a better use of your time.

[★ Citsonga ★]

After reading my review of the first half, I was told to not bother reading the second half. LOL...

 

LOL indeed!

[fallenleaf]

After reading my review of the first half, I was told to not bother reading the second half. LOL...

 

LOL indeed!

 

Well, if I remember correctly, the major issue was that the second half proceeded as though the first half had been enough proof that there was a God. And the second half was meant to show you that, since there is a god (see part 1), that god must be the one from the bible. So yeah, it was really a pointless exercise to continue at that point.

[centauri]

I even after losing my faith, still look at things like the historical evidence for the resurrection.

I was wondering If I could get some opinions from those more wiser then myself.

 

How valuable are the claims of apologists?

They have some value because they demonstrate the power of the human mind to rationalize anything into "truth".

It actually reinforces the case for a morally relative universe rather than one based on absolutes because every apologist is "spinning" his perspective of a text to make it align with an illusionary absolute that exists in their mind.

The rationalization process ensures that "God" will always agree with them, even though they make it seem that they are seeking God and "truth" rather than creating it themselves.

The Bible, Jesus, God, etc, will end up meaning whatever they want it to mean.

It's a form of theater, where they are the writer and the producer.

 

It's also silly that an all-powerful God would need legions of apologists to explain what he couldn't make clear and concise the first time, to every soul he created.

The apologists can't even agree with each other in many cases.

 

There are plenty of free sites that deal with apologetics.

If you want a list of some, let me know.

You shouldn't have to spend much money at all unless you want to own the books where the claims originate.

Apologetics is an industry filled with professional rationalizers and excuse makers, much like political think tanks are, and they're attempting to create reality for you and millions of others.

[★ Citsonga ★]

I should clarify that although a lot of apologetics arguments are grasping at straws to rationalize answers to real problems, not all are. There have been some arguments used against the bible that are based on misunderstandings, and challenging those particular misunderstandings isn't unreasonable. So, it's not that every argument set forth by an apologist is bs, but the fact that they do have to resort to bs with a lot of stuff is an indication that apologetics overall is worthless.

[PK!]

Christian apologetics is the straw that broke the camels back for me. Searching for christian influenced answers to my various questions showed me that what i believed was a fraud. The answers are just to weak in the bigger picture of things.