The Long List Of The Most Bullshit Apologetics Arguements You Have Ever Heard.

[Guest Valk0010]

This is just something to help newbs, and maybe if done right, be a laugh to others.

 

But what are the worst apologetics you ever heard?

 

One that is for some reason been floating in my mind for the past few days for some reason is the following.

 

The world of the disciples was as such, that they wouldn't have broke rank with what jewish people generally believed religiously at the time. And because they did, therefore Jesus was actually the Son of God. In other words, they wouldn't commit heresy or fall for a lie, unless it was actually a truth that would have been different then Judaism.

 

No I am not making that up.

 

The problem with is that logically if you can be persuaded to the truth of notions, there is no real way you can't then not be persuaded to the falsehood of notions. Just thinking in general is a process that can lead to error. You can't have one without the other. It also shoots a hole in the argument that god, had to work within the barbaric ways of the Old testament.

 

So yeah, post the most absurd arguement you ever heard and why its horseshit.

[pratt]

in the late 80s...... the argument : no one will die for a lie,,,,,

 

not sure we have suicide bombers yet......

[Guest Valk0010]

Another one I thought off:

 

Native american religions prove christianity. Nature is the holy spirit. The Sun is the Son, and earth is the father. And that is how they get to heaven.

 

Of course this betrays any sense of anthropology. For example, you need sun for crops, nothing more.

[Positivist]

Regarding human suffering, William Lane Craig tells us:

• It may well be the case that natural and moral evils are part of the means God uses to draw people into His Kingdom...
  
• ...an evil in the world, say, a child dying of cancer or a brutal murder of a man, could set a ripple effect in history going such that God's morally sufficient reason for permitting it might not emerge until centuries later or in another country
  
• ...the purpose of human life is not happiness in this world, but "knowledge of God which will ultimately produce true and everlasting happiness."
  
• God may permit some suffering in our lives in order to build us or to test us, or to build and test others, or the achieve some other overriding end.
  

I don't think the Bible is any good at explaining the suffering that occurs on this planet.

 

Source: http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article827.html

[stryper]

Mere Christianity

 

I haven't read it. But just listening to some people quote from it makes my logic circuits fry.

 

 

Pretty much anything, my believer family puts up on Facebook regarding religion. The latest being about my cousin's wife who had a double mastectomy a few years ago and now has a recurrence of cancer. "Pray for us". I so want to reply. "Get thee to the Mayo Clinic, wench" but for some reason that might construed as heartless.

[ConureDelSol]

The Case for Christ

 

The story of some reporter who talks to one secular person and then SEVERAL Christians and is convinced of Christianity.

 

Edit: Also, 700th post! Whee!

[jackbauer]

Three words:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis's_trilemma]Lord Liar Lunitic[/url]

 

I've seen elementary math problems more complex than that.

[JoeCoastie]

I tried reading Mere Christianity to hold on to my faith. I was afraid of becoming an atheist and a friend gave me that book to help. I read about half way through before I realized I really was an atheist and C.S. Lewis' circular assumptions only confirmed that. I'll answer the Lord, Liar, Lunatic question, I go with liar.

[Ouroboros]

Regarding human suffering, William Lane Craig tells us:

• It may well be the case that natural and moral evils are part of the means God uses to draw people into His Kingdom...
  
• ...an evil in the world, say, a child dying of cancer or a brutal murder of a man, could set a ripple effect in history going such that God's morally sufficient reason for permitting it might not emerge until centuries later or in another country
  
• ...the purpose of human life is not happiness in this world, but "knowledge of God which will ultimately produce true and everlasting happiness."
  
• God may permit some suffering in our lives in order to build us or to test us, or to build and test others, or the achieve some other overriding end.
  

I don't think the Bible is any good at explaining the suffering that occurs on this planet.

 

Source: http://www.infidels....article827.html

Agree. WLC states a couple of premises... but where's the evidence that those claims are true? An old book? Why can't God explain this personally to each and everyone of us and everyone else on this planet? Why does he need prophets from 2,000 years ago to tell us? God is extremely incapable of comprehensive and coherent communication.

[Guest Valk0010]

Regarding human suffering, William Lane Craig tells us:

• It may well be the case that natural and moral evils are part of the means God uses to draw people into His Kingdom...
  
• ...an evil in the world, say, a child dying of cancer or a brutal murder of a man, could set a ripple effect in history going such that God's morally sufficient reason for permitting it might not emerge until centuries later or in another country
  
• ...the purpose of human life is not happiness in this world, but "knowledge of God which will ultimately produce true and everlasting happiness."
  
• God may permit some suffering in our lives in order to build us or to test us, or to build and test others, or the achieve some other overriding end.
  

I don't think the Bible is any good at explaining the suffering that occurs on this planet.

 

Source: http://www.infidels....article827.html

Yeah, appeal to fallacies is very nice. We don't know why god does things, so therefore he cares about us in wierd ways is the most correct answer. NOOOOOOOT! That god doesn't exists works a ton better. Causing someone suffering for someone else good thing is not a moral thing. And its not like, say smacking a kid outside of his head for doing something stupid. That would be making someone learn something by negative reinforcement. Killing a child to draw a person to god is barbaric.

[scriptor]

Mere Christianity

 

I haven't read it. But just listening to some people quote from it makes my logic circuits fry.

 

I'm actually going to disagree with you here. I have read Mere Christianity, and I found it both interesting and stimulating. I actually think its one of the better apologetics books out there.

 

 

I tried reading Mere Christianity to hold on to my faith. I was afraid of becoming an atheist and a friend gave me that book to help. I read about half way through before I realized I really was an atheist and C.S. Lewis' circular assumptions only confirmed that. I'll answer the Lord, Liar, Lunatic question, I go with liar.

 

I'm curious. What exactly do you mean by "circular assumptions"? I don't recall that Lewis' arguments were circular, but I may be mistaken.

 

With respect to Lewis' trilemma, I am inclined to lean towards "lunatic". Again, however, the issue is not that the argument is invalid; merely that Lewis makes the wrong choice.

 

In my opinion there are no good replies to the question of human suffering.

 

Any apologetics argument that is based on science is, in my opinion, utter hogwash. Science describes how things occur in the natural world. Christianity seeks to explain why things occur. This is not a scientific question. It is a good, interesting question, but it isn't a scientific question.

[Ouroboros]

With respect to Lewis' trilemma, I am inclined to lean towards "lunatic". Again, however, the issue is not that the argument is invalid; merely that Lewis makes the wrong choice.

I'm leaning more towards that Lewis forgot one "L" word, "legend." He created a false dilemma by forgetting other options.

[scriptor]

With respect to Lewis' trilemma, I am inclined to lean towards "lunatic". Again, however, the issue is not that the argument is invalid; merely that Lewis makes the wrong choice.

I'm leaning more towards that Lewis forgot one "L" word, "legend." He created a false dilemma by forgetting other options.

 

You're right, the trilemma assumes that Jesus actually existed. But the point of the argument is not to convince people that he existed. The point isn't even to convince people that he was god. The point of the trilemma was to stop people from saying "Jesus was just a wise and good moral teacher". That's all.

[Guest Valk0010]

With respect to Lewis' trilemma, I am inclined to lean towards "lunatic". Again, however, the issue is not that the argument is invalid; merely that Lewis makes the wrong choice.

I'm leaning more towards that Lewis forgot one "L" word, "legend." He created a false dilemma by forgetting other options.

 

You're right, the trilemma assumes that Jesus actually existed. But the point of the argument is not to convince people that he existed. The point isn't even to convince people that he was god. The point of the trilemma was to stop people from saying "Jesus was just a wise and good moral teacher". That's all.

I would go with lunatic, if I had to only pick from the three, but legendary does fit the bill way better.

[stryper]

apologetics....it often reminds me of the Greek priests talking to the inventor to come up with bigger and better special effects in the temples to get the people to give mo' money.

 

Only it is wrapped in the guise of being logical and reasoned. Myths and Legends are still Myths and legends regardless of what's behind it.

 

Despite what they would have you believe from Cochlea Tupac is still dead.

[Sybaris]

The Case for Christ

 

 

 

Lee Strobel books are just feel good manuals for the faithful. His arguments are so weak and lame but I applaud the genius behind being able to fleece the flock with them.

[JoeCoastie]

C.S. Lewis makes assertions like I know there's good and evil so there must be a god and that god is Jesus. Mere Christianity is based on his WW2 pump up speeches so I don't see why Christians make such a strong case for it. C.S. Lewis' words were probably nice for Christians hiding in the London subway tunnels, but they did nothing for me during my crisis of faith.

I also tried reading More than a Carpenter, who's author not too long ago said “going all the way back, when Al Gore invented the Internet [he said jokingly], I made the statement off and on for 10-11 years that the abundance of knowledge, the abundance of information, will not lead to certainty; it will lead to pervasive skepticism. And, folks, that’s exactly what has happened. It’s like this. How do you really know, there is so much out there… This abundance [of information] has led to skepticism. And then the Internet has leveled the playing field [giving equal access to skeptics].” I love seeing how scared of knowledge they are.

[BrotherJosh]

"If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?" I don't think this is used in "serious" apologetics But I've heard it about half a dozen times.

[mcdaddy]

I tried reading Mere Christianity to hold on to my faith. I was afraid of becoming an atheist and a friend gave me that book to help. I read about half way through before I realized I really was an atheist and C.S. Lewis' circular assumptions only confirmed that. I'll answer the Lord, Liar, Lunatic question, I go with liar.

 

The answer is the 4th option: Legend.

[Ouroboros]

You're right, the trilemma assumes that Jesus actually existed. But the point of the argument is not to convince people that he existed. The point isn't even to convince people that he was god. The point of the trilemma was to stop people from saying "Jesus was just a wise and good moral teacher". That's all.

Ah. Got it. But the way I see it is that whatever sayings that were attributed to Jesus, most (or all) were other people's sayings that were just put to his name. Good and bad things, just put in the mouth of Jesus. So was Jesus a wise and good moral teacher? No. He never said those things. He was given the words by legend.

[Positivist]

"If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?"

A great comeback would be "If evolution is true, why are there still religious people?"

[LivingLife]

One of the weirdest things for me when I started interacting with US folk was the concept that they believed in creationism and took Genesis literally. Where I grew up, in 4 African countries, evidence for old earth is in your face all the time and we never learned anything remotely along the lines that the earth was a mere 6k yo. Being born in Livingstone and physically seeing the Victoria Waterfalls gorges, when we were taught that they were +100k yo, there was no question as the evidence was there in 3D.

 

The other thing was appeal to scholars mostly American to defend the bible when clearly the bible does not stand on its own merits. The woos loved CS Lewis and prior to this interaction, I had never heard of him. Needless to say, I read a lot of apologetics and soon realised this was a mere way to keep the gullible hooked but did little for a real seeker.

 

The types of issues being dealt with never came up on our collective radar screens in my ascent to adulthood. The creation, flood and most of the OT stories were dealt with as allegory.

 

If I never had a run in with the American brand of xianity here, I would probably be still a mediocre believer. My wife's church I attended, they really had no major issues with us living together as we were engaged and they still sent a deacon to our apartment once a month to collect dues. They never taught hell-fire and brimstone messages. The advent of the US woo in SA in the 80's, they too did not harp too much on hell as they knew this would not draw the masses from the reformed churches. TBH, I had never heard a hell-fire sermon in SA till I watched in utter amazement John Haggee preaching this on our TBN channel. I guess that is what initially piqued my interest in this doctrine and got me researching - in a way I suppose I have to thank the US woos for my atheism, it forced me to dig a dig and finally discover it was all BS.

[reluctantagn]

Ray Comfort's banana argument

[JoeCoastie]

If god designed the banana then Satan must have designed coconuts, pineapples, and jackfruit.

[scriptor]

You're right, the trilemma assumes that Jesus actually existed. But the point of the argument is not to convince people that he existed. The point isn't even to convince people that he was god. The point of the trilemma was to stop people from saying "Jesus was just a wise and good moral teacher". That's all.

Ah. Got it. But the way I see it is that whatever sayings that were attributed to Jesus, most (or all) were other people's sayings that were just put to his name. Good and bad things, just put in the mouth of Jesus. So was Jesus a wise and good moral teacher? No. He never said those things. He was given the words by legend.

 

You're probably right about that.

I spent some time in university studying the tradition of King Arthur. The bottom line there is that there was probably a King called Arthur who did a few impressive things, and from there the legend grew. What may have happened is that any time a king did something good, his deeds were eventually attributed to this legendary Arthur. But there is no reason to believe he pulled a sword from a stone, or that he went to Avalon to recover from his wounds and will one day return, or any of the other stuff that makes for good fantasy. I suspect something similar may be said of Jesus.