Light_of_Reason Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 So, on another board, I've been engaged in a discussion with an amateur Christian apologist, when to prove his case, he brings out this gem. I think it's funny how everyone who says that there is a lack of evidence for Jesus, are the ones who don't search for it. It would be like someone who never read the bible who proclaimed "It never talks about a guy named Jesus. EVER." Such absurdity!Burial box of james, jesus's brother found<- More evidence I responded with this. I find it even funnier how those believing this myth fail to check to make sure their evidences are not forgeries. http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0619/p07s01-wome.html One would think that after the embarrassment of being refuted by a Christian site of all sources, he would go and hide his head in shame. Instead, he brought up this, which was relevant because I had asked him to reconcile the contradiction by nailing down the year of Jesus' birth. Quarinius was govener twice. The first time was during the time of Herod.Click here to view a discussion on the topic The other issues you posed seem to be answered in the sources provided here as well. And what does he link to here?? A discussion forum where the very thing he is attempting to prove is being contested. At this point I have to wonder whether it is better to or Either way, this Christian soldier deserves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticOfBible Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 So, on another board, I've been engaged in a discussion with an amateur Christian apologist, when to prove his case, he brings out this gem. I think it's funny how everyone who says that there is a lack of evidence for Jesus, are the ones who don't search for it. It would be like someone who never read the bible who proclaimed "It never talks about a guy named Jesus. EVER." Such absurdity!Burial box of james, jesus's brother found<- More evidence I responded with this. I find it even funnier how those believing this myth fail to check to make sure their evidences are not forgeries. http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0619/p07s01-wome.html One would think that after the embarrassment of being refuted by a Christian site of all sources, he would go and hide his head in shame. Instead, he brought up this, which was relevant because I had asked him to reconcile the contradiction by nailing down the year of Jesus' birth. Quarinius was govener twice. The first time was during the time of Herod.Click here to view a discussion on the topic The other issues you posed seem to be answered in the sources provided here as well. And what does he link to here?? A discussion forum where the very thing he is attempting to prove is being contested. At this point I have to wonder whether it is better to or Either way, this Christian soldier deserves Ask him to join our forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Ask him to join our forum Wouldn't that be just a tad cruel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Tell him that I have the sand that Jesus wrote in when the pharisees challenged him with the hooker. I use it in the litterbox... But I know it must be the real sand, because it smells like bullshit. (or actually cat-shit, but let's not get technical here, and I don't have a cat, but who cares, because belief is belief regardless of what you see, isn't it?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charley Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 The central issues of whether or not to be christian are very seldom touched upon in any of these discussions. To me, I don't care if Jesus actually is the son of a god that exists and all of that heaven and hell stuff is true. Because if it's true, I wouldn't trust these beings as far as I coild throw them. Why should I ? The answers provided are allways fearfull surrenders to power. This engenders trust? If all their stories are true, I would side with the devils and his angels instantly. At least they had courage enough to stand up to threats, and ask no more of us than we do as we like. That inspires a lot more trust and respect out of me. So what disgusts me about it all is that these are the central issues in my view, that I see are conscientiously avoided in christian efforts to give reason and dignity to their slavish defeat; concisely put, whether or not you are going to stand up for yourself or yield to threats. As an aside, I think that this institutionalized culture of surrender is and has allways been encouraged by governments to condition people to more easily accept their authority by the governments associating themselves with religion. Think of how many times that you see being a good christian synonomous with being a good citizen. The bowing and supplication and general rim-jobing that is called "worship" and considered dignified, is good practice for obeying every law without question and staying in line. There is even something to be proud of in doing so. Imagine that...taking the easy way out and construing it as virtue. If you believe strongly enough, you won't even taste the ass in your mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artur Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taphophilia Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 The other thing that I see, is that many Apologists claim to be experts in history, mystery cults, etc. I look up their credentials and they are theologians. People seem to think that just because a person has a PhD means they are an expert in anything they say they are an expert in. If someone has an advanced degree in Theology, how does that make them an "expert" in anything other than Theology? A Theologian is not a Historian! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 The term "ameteur apologist" is redundant. If these people actually knew how to check their facts,do their homework, and show enough integrity to admit when they're wrong, then they wouldn't be apologists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 The term "ameteur apologist" is redundant. You are so right!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taphophilia Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 The term "ameteur apologist" is redundant. If these people actually knew how to check their facts,do their homework, and show enough integrity to admit when they're wrong, then they wouldn't be apologists. They'd be Ex-C's! Taph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Light_of_Reason Posted January 11, 2006 Author Share Posted January 11, 2006 So, on another board, I've been engaged in a discussion with an amateur Christian apologist Just as an aside, the professional apologists aren't much better. I've got a shelf full of books written by degreed, professional Christian apologists, and the quality of argumentation doesn't get appreciably better. There are some larger words, language references, and voluminous quotations, but the convoluted, tortured explanations stay pretty much at the same level. While this is true, I doubt that a more seasoned apologist would have used the James ossuary as proof for his beliefs given that even the Christian Science Monitor did a write up on its being a hoax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MQTA Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 what about Immature C Apologists? They come on all bright eyed and bushy tailed happily parroting bumper sticker jargon they've been fed since Gerbers, and then are SO SHOCKED when people throw some reality in their face. I love when someone younger than my oldest tells us WE are wrong and then goes about parroting even more bumper stickers AS IF we NEVER heard it before and THEIR (millionth) Time saying it will NOW make Perfect sense. We didn't get it the first 8 million times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 I always laugh at that kind of astonishment. When all they're exposed to all their lives is emotional appeal, then naturally they come here and they wrinkle their noses at us like, "Why didn't that work?". But they're not entirely without reason, which is why these apologists get so frustrated. Even the most emotionally-driven Christian still has to function by trial-and-error-reduction, just like the rest of us. Like I've said before, they can't not do it. Everyone appeals to tentativeness, whether they want to accept it or not. People cannot function without making tentative assumptions about the world around them. It's just that up until now, apologists simply haven't bothered to apply the same system of trial-and-error to their religion that they use in every day activities. I can only imagine their initial frustration when upon actually testing the validity of their beliefs, they can find precious little to work from. It must be like those days when I was a kid, and I was a little more dogmatic with my science. I didn't like changing ideas in dinosaur theories, and I'd get mad when what I wanted to be true turned out to be incorrect. But I matured, and I got over that. I now accept that I can't control reality. I imagine that's what it's like to be a creationist. The only difference is that I had an excuse to be that naive, because I was a child. And that's why I start turning the screws on apologists, because once they begin to realize that they can't find any evidence, they immediately do what young children do when they're trying to win an argument: they start to lie. That's very telling, because like a child, they think the object in an argument is to win and not to learn. That pisses me off, because I recognize the pattern of that behavior. It's like arguing with a bunch of six-year-olds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MQTA Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 I find most of them fail to see themselves in the equations they put forth. We reject God, As If we NEVER heard or didn't also grow up with learning what they're babbling, but if we ask them to check out any number of a hundred other ideas, they won't even check out or listen to what we're saying. So they criticize and say we reject Their God, but we all know ALL about why we believe what we believe, and we're just beyond their beliefs.. it's not as if we suddenly forget all we've learned, like we know nothing of what they're talking about... but then they reject WITHOUT knowing anything about what we're offering up. Or, if they think they know, when you hear what they think they know, it's totally not what the topic is (i.e. evolution, anton lavey satanism, the serpent didn't lie, etc LOL) You post a link to a site, they judge the site by the url name... won't even consider it has any worth or possible validity... but then they'll turn around and say to you "don't judge a book by its cover" They say we're all sinners, and admit that they battle with sin all the time... and then I get jealous, I haven't had a good sin in YEARS! What am I missing out on? shit. I will say though, the brainwashing works well, until the dam breaks and reality comes flooding in. For so many to spit and spat like parrots the same jingo bumper stickers, it works. The stranglehold is, as I'm sure most of you know, very hard to break totally free from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Good observation and very well said MrNeil. I remember in my teenage years too, when I had to be "right" and win the arguments. It was completely unintentional, not by any means I wanted to be that way, but the emotions were the driving force and not the reason. Over time most people (or at least some) mature and realize it's about learning (like you said), and there's so much we don't know. And the only way to learn is empirical and with reasoning, not by a priori assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Light_of_Reason Posted January 11, 2006 Author Share Posted January 11, 2006 I agree. That was very well said Neil. As for using debate/discussion for learning and mutual sharing of ideas on or around equal footing, one Christian on that site has set out to debunk some of Krueger's ideas, starting with part of the Inconsistent Attributes argument. He contended that the definition of omniscience that Krueger uses is not the one put forth by Christianity, thereby rendering Krueger's argument faulty. I challenged this point by attempting to get at the definition of omniscience, and included a rather lengthy discussion with him and several others how and why the notion must include experiential knowledge. Furthermore, I contended that if they wished to maintain the notion of omnibenevolence, then there must be certain things that God cannot have experiential knowledge about, thus rendering God not omniscient. Here's the good part. After some denials and weak retorts to this line of reasoning, I got most of the Christians in that discussion to admit that God cannot be omniscient as the word is strictly defined. It took some major work to get them there, but considering the site leans toward fundamentalism (but more moderate and tolerant than most), I take that as quite an accomplishment. Of course, I made concessions that the original points were good ones, and if refined, could counter Krueger to a point. However, having made the concession that by definition God cannot be omniscient, I believe they surrendered more to the power of the argument than they had desired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunderbolt Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 And that's why I start turning the screws on apologists, because once they begin to realize that they can't find any evidence, they immediately do what young children do when they're trying to win an argument: they start to lie . That's very telling, because like a child, they think the object in an argument is to win and not to learn. That pisses me off, because I recognize the pattern of that behavior. It's like arguing with a bunch of six-year-olds. So true, and Holdings and Gastrich are classic examples of this. I sometimes wonder if they even listen to the shit that is streaming out of their mouthes - clearly NOT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 So true, and Holdings and Gastrich are classic examples of this. I sometimes wonder if they even listen to the shit that is streaming out of their mouthes - clearly NOT! Yah forgot Hovind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 That reminds me. Gastrich.org is back in action, and it has a brand new entry. That site goes to great lengths to show that Jason Gastrich pretty much just makes shit up in his apologetic arguments. Making shit up isn't bad in itself, because using our imaginations is one of the best gifts of being human, but when you make shit up and immediately declare it as fact, that's called lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts