Jump to content

Looking For Counter-apologetics Resources.


Lethallunacy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi all! I'm new to these forums (long time lurker) and I wasn't sure whether this post belonged here, or elsewhere. Feel free to move it if I've posted in the wrong forum.

 

 

I've long been interested in counter apologetics, but I haven't been able to find very many good resources. Can someone help point me in the right direction? As an aside, how many of you have experience debating apologists? If so what are the best sources of information to use?

 

 

Thanks for your time. I'm looking forward to posting more :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some good stuff here:

 

http://www.infidels.org/

 

Favorite Youtube guy:

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007

 

Also good:

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Xtech

Reasonable Doubts podcast. Smart, funny. iTunes it.

 

http://doubtreligion.blogspot.com/

 

Here is an excerpt from the comments section of the Reasonable Doubts blog. It gives you a good idea of what they're about and how well they explain their points:

 

"I find that there are some believers who have no problem accepting religious claims either solely on faith or what they perceive to be a preponderance of evidence. Yet these same believers will call on the atheist to prove his case beyond any doubt. Luckily centuries of work in philosophy have equipped us fallible humans with tools of logic and investigation that allow us to reason carefully about the world even in matters that do not permit total certainty. The arguments offered on this show are not intended to be a complete refutation of all possible variants of Christianity/Theism that exist. Instead we target specific claims made by apologists and offer counter arguments using a variety of reasoning strategies . What Justin presented in this episode is a type of argument called an "inference to the best explanation." In an IBE you examine certain facts about the world that all parties should be able to agree upon and then evaluate competing theories to see which one can give the best accounting of all the data (there's slightly more to it than that, but that’s the gist). In Justin's argument we find that the human reproductive system fits the blind process of natural selection much better than the idea of a Christian god who created man and woman to be a "one flesh unity." It's not supposed to be a knock-down argument against all religious belief or even this single claim. IBE's are inductive inferences, they cannot prove their case with total certainty, but nevertheless they make it clear that some beliefs are much more reasonable to hold than others given the evidence (this form of reasoning is employed in the sciences all the time). One could think of this entire show as one large cumulative case against the supernatural drawn from a broad scope of academic disciplines--a huge, 87 hour-long Inference to the Best Explanation. We try to demonstrate that time and time again natural explanations do a better job accounting for the data of experience than supernatural explanations and for that reason we feel justified in believing supernatural beliefs to be human creations, not absolute truths. I hope you will continue to listen to our back catalogue. It most likely will not change your mind. But it is my hope that you will come away understanding that not all atheists strike at religion merely out of anger or ignorance…often their doubts are quite reasonable.

 

Jeremy (co-host of RD)"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would war against simply reading and citing counter apologetics. It is better you learn about what they are saying and educate yourself. If you merely spout someone else's stuff, you are no better than the woos.

 

I debate woos on a few issues but generally you do not learn from them as they usually default to ad homs and feel insulted when you challenge their beliefs.

 

It takes time to get a good grounding in all the possible angles they deflect to. Knowing the bible in detail and being able to cite verses w/o a C&P helps.

 

What helped me was that I was dumbfuckistan apologist so I know the drill they use.

 

There really is no career in debating woos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started with logical fallacies:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_fallacies

 

And then the study of 16th and 17th century European philosophical history sealed it for me. Especially 1600s which set the stage for all the revolutions to come after. This is when all the great foundations of Christianity came into question through science and radical new philosophy. In many ways all the conflicts today with christianity are left over rehashes from this era when the church got its clock metaphorically cleaned in a big way. And most of the arguments were settled then as well. You'll find that much of the contemporary christian program is an attempt to turn the clock back to the 1100s and 1200s when christianity was triumphant.

 

If you do torrents these are good lectures

 

Invention of the Modern Self

http://btjunkie.org/torrent/TTC-Enlightenment-Invention-of-the-Modern-Self/3777a89f9cbc1037fc69f7fa713adad0859fcad30fa1

 

 

And a big archive but this one has

Voltaire and the triumph of the Enlightenment

which is fabulous

http://torrents.thepiratebay.org/4074125/TTC_audio_archive_-_part_4.4074125.TPB.torrent

 

http://btjunkie.org/torrent/TMS-Enlightenment-Reason-Tolerance-and-Humanity-ttc-tms

/3779ac1d17034ad4d7b8e02a51443fd5d71d8c6d206e

 

 

Then there is just straight up reading of people like

David Hume and Mark Twain. As well as hard core science like Darwin, and Geology including the process of Carbon dating. Astronomy and Cosmology help, and Brian Greene's books on the current state and implications of science are just amazing and inspirational compared to the staid and boring kind of arguments and world view you get from christianity.

 

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6214126/The_Hidden_Reality_-_Brian_Greene_-_MP3_Format_Audio_Book_-_Unab

 

I was also helped by study of Philosophy of Science, wherein so many serious hard-core criticisms of the scientific world view are presented (but never once trotted out by your average arguing Christian).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one area I like to debate is the YEC folk who obviously also believe in a literal ww fludd.

 

The 3 unrefuted evidence of an old earth are;

 

Antarctic ice cores (go back 780 000 years.

Lake varves vary but exceed way beyond 6000 years.

In SA we have two of the oldest active cave formations Sudwala and Cango and these are 1.5Bn years old.

 

For some reason the guided evolutionists need to fit stuff into a short time frame, an old earth of 4.5Bn years allows plenty of time for evolution.

 

One has to really be dense to ignore the fossil records we find daily as predicted.

 

When you have debunked the creation event, the rest of their buybull is irrelevant as the concept of original sin is moot and thus jeebus and his quick fix is moot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

I would war against simply reading and citing counter apologetics. It is better you learn about what they are saying and educate yourself. If you merely spout someone else's stuff, you are no better than the woos.

 

I debate woos on a few issues but generally you do not learn from them as they usually default to ad homs and feel insulted when you challenge their beliefs.

 

It takes time to get a good grounding in all the possible angles they deflect to. Knowing the bible in detail and being able to cite verses w/o a C&P helps.

 

What helped me was that I was dumbfuckistan apologist so I know the drill they use.

 

There really is no career in debating woos.

 

LivingLife, If you could say just one or two sentences to the strong believer - what would it be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LivingLife, If you could say just one or two sentences to the strong believer - what would it be?

I rarely do. There was an instance where I was working for a widow last year. Her husband had recently passed from cancer and my mom had just passed also from cancer. We were discussing it and sort of empathizing with one another, her nephew is an ordained minister and I happened to overhear him ministering to her about god's mysterious ways and they would see each other again. I said nothing and she mentioned this counseling to me; from that came the Q which church do I belong to and I said I am atheist.

 

Then the plethora of Q's how can this be, which church had hurt me and on and on.

 

I simply said I had researched it all and found it all to be man made. I did not want to discuss it in her state as she started crying and told me she needed to believe to keep herself sane. I did not push the issue but she then wanted me to believe to validate her beliefs.

 

The remaining time on the project suffered b/c of this small indiscretion on my part.

 

Thus I only discuss it on forums where I am ess. anonymous.

 

There are no two things I can say, it really depends where they are coming from and the ones I usually engage with are the folk opposed to abortion, BC, YEC, rapture retards IOW American Evangelicals. Most folk that are xian in name only do not push their beliefs on me.

 

Folk I used to be friends with at church I no longer have dealings with and if they ever asked me when I am coming to church again, I will simply tell them I am not interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

I did not want to discuss it in her state as she started crying and told me she needed to believe to keep herself sane. I did not push the issue but she then wanted me to believe to validate her beliefs.

 

 

This would be the reason I would 'buck' anyone who tried to steal my belief from me when I was a believer. I couldn't imagine what life without god would be???

 

I have an atheist cousin who used to challenge me all the time and deep, deep, deep, down inside -I knew he was right. My new sentence, when I ever get to use it (which isn't very often) is, 'I simply do not see evidence of a kind, loving god'.................................. you can see the christian get scared before your very eyes............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And then the study of 16th and 17th century European philosophical history sealed it for me. Especially 1600s which set the stage for all the revolutions to come after. This is when all the great foundations of Christianity came into question through science and radical new philosophy. In many ways all the conflicts today with christianity are left over rehashes from this era when the church got its clock metaphorically cleaned in a big way. And most of the arguments were settled then as well. You'll find that much of the contemporary christian program is an attempt to turn the clock back to the 1100s and 1200s when christianity was triumphant.

 

This is the impression that I get from most apologists as well.

 

thanks for the links by the way! As a Philosophy student, I found the second in particular to be very interesting.

 

 

Does anyone have any information on the origins of Christianity/Monotheistic Judaism that they could point me to? I've been really getting into this topic as of late

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admittedly, I haven't delved too deeply into apologetics. With the bit that I have, such as C.S. Lewis, it became apparent to me fairly quickly that there were logical fallacies in just about everything that I read.

 

Occam's razor also proves very useful. While Occam's razor does not at all guarantee the most accurate possibility, it is quite useful to cut unlikely possibilities. Most of us, in the course of our deconversions, became familiar (or became reacquainted) with Occam's razor, so I don't think I have to preach to the choir here.

 

Utlimately, though, watch out. The apologist pretends (or sometimes even genuinely believes) he is being "open minded" and "skeptical," however, he is not, because he will never seriously acknowledge that he could be wrong about his most fundamental premise - that God is real and exists. In other words, apologists like to start out with the conclusion, then work backwards. They then try to mold the "evidence" they find to fit their conclusion. I hope the issues with this kind of approach are apparent to you.

 

Remember that if you encounter a committed apologist, you most likely will not "win" (even if you do), because he is not a genuine skeptic. He believes he is absolutely correct with no possibility of ever being wrong about his fundamental premises. That sort of mindset is not conducive to a rational exchange of ideas.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Remember that if you encounter a committed apologist, you most likely will not "win" (even if you do), because he is not a genuine skeptic. He believes he is absolutely correct with no possibility of ever being wrong about his fundamental premises. That sort of mindset is not conducive to a rational exchange of ideas.

 

I think you just made a very important statement here paul!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read Why I Became an Atheist by John W Loftus, and check out his blog "Debunking Christianity". Also read "The End of Biblical Studies" by Hector Avalos, Anything by Bart Ehrman or Richard Dawkins.

 

Go to google and type in refuting William Lane Craig, plenty of free shit there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.