Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have a cousin who is married to someone who calls himself a Christian apologist. What is that, exactly?
His resume includes:
Public speaker, pastor/teacher, Christian apologist, writer, & blogger on matters of faith & culture.
Ratio Christi Chapter Director / Community Apologist at Ratio Christi
Ratio Christi Chapter Director / Community Apologist at Ratio Christi at Germanna Community College
Staff Apologist and Director at The Real Issue Apologetics Ministry
Studied Apologetics at Biola University
Studied Theology at Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary
Studied Religious studies at Oklahoma Baptist University
It appears that he thinks of himself as a professional person who uses argument to defend religion, but I don't find his arguments convincing. My encounters with him have not been pleasant.
Last edited by KaraZetterberg153; 09-19-2018 at 08:38 PM..
It's exactly that -someone who defends their belief. I see myself as an atheist apoloogist, too. It more than just defending, one attacks the other position as well. There's also the aspect of research and study. It's not going to be easy to defend a position and attack the other side if one doesn't have the information. One can only get away with so much ducking and diving.
I have found that atheist apologetics means an ability to swim in many different waters. I mean REALLY different - everything from Cosmology to ancient history; philosophy and logic to Redaction criticism.
I have found a major weakness in Christian apologetics is a lack of knowledge and a lack of logic. They rely to a heavy degree on denial and attacking - both atheism and on a personal level. One of the ploys that some use is to try to provoke a flame war. It's easier for a theist to hold their own in trash -talk and personal abuse than in defending their actual position.
They take criticism of their religion very personally. An atheist is in a stronger position if they Don't take an attack on atheism personally. Of course, we get accused of taking it personally and it's easy to get into personals where one attacks the understanding and methods of the other side, but I find it a tremendous help to not take it personally and be cheery and friendly while filleting their argument, argument methods and personal credibility to undercooked tatters and slinging them in the bin.
I also find it both helpful and fun to poke a bit of humourous deprecation at atheism, too. It avoids putting up atheism as an aunt sally for the believers to shy brickbats at. It's hard for them to accuse us of being a global conspiracy to subvert science so it reluctantly tell lies to support atheism when i have made a huge joke of that absurd idea.
And the thing to keep in mind is that they are always arguing as though the atheists have to do all the proving. It's a Ploy, but it's also what they have Faith in. Their Belief makes them think that the God -claim is to be taken as true until disproven. It puts them in a a very strong position.
But not an unassailable one. Unllke many atheist apologists, I do accept that the Bible is There and has at least as much of a claim as any other book to be given credence until there is good reason to doubt it. That's why Bible criticism is a cornerstone of my apologetics. Evolution -theory has also had to be another. Strictly -speaking it is not part of atheist apologetics, but it must become so because so much Christian apologetics relies on 'Who made everything, then?" as a last resort, and quite often, the first.
I find it very handy to at least have a general idea of the apologetics subjects and refutation. The details can be looked up online; it's unreasonable to expect everyone to remember all this stuff. Knowing where to look (Talk origins is a marvellous resource for evolution, in particular refuting misrepresentations, quotemining and damned lies) and wiki, while deprecated as Not Authoritative, is a very good general reference. If anyone challenges it's reliability, a particular subject can be followed up to a valid authority.
Yes; Appeal to Authority is another apologetic to look out for. Oh yes...understanding the apologist's argument is helpful. The Christian apologists quite often don't understand your argument and don't want to, because if they did, they might have to start thinking. They are trapped in a method that requires pushing away the atheist argument without even looking a it. This often means that they don't recall their own argument and it's a hoot when they end up attacking their own original position.
Oh - one last thing. Check your posts, keep the thing short, succinct, clear and understandable, free of Jargon, obscurity and waffle, and above all don't have typing and grammar errors. This is very important to remember to do. I ought to know. I never remember to do it.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-20-2018 at 12:36 AM..
As Transponder says, it means defending their beliefs. It basically relies on pretending what the early Christians said about the apostolic tradition is valid history, when most of it was invented from the second century and later.
It also relies on ignoring what many of those early Christians actually wrote. Such as Tertullian saying around 200 AD that the gospel of John ended at chapter 20. So chapter 21 was added later. Or Justin Martyr saying Jesus gave the eucharist to the twelve disciples after his resurrection. The gospels says before the resurrection, and Acts says there was only eleven disciples until Jesus ascended to heaven. Or Clement around 90 AD saying Paul died in Spain, not Rome.
Another tactic I find amusing is the acceptance of any evidence that supports their belief (no matter how bad), while any evidence used to counter their beliefs is 'bias from an atheist web site', even when that alleged bias is actually the Bible.
Excellent. Yes. It is a Firm Belief by the Christians that the claims about Church origins are true:
Jesus did pretty much what the gospels relate, the Apostles took the Message to all the nations, Peter going to Rome and Paul doing Asia Minor and Greece.
Those who have studied the early writings know that there are some questions to ask about this and I have got to say that the conclusions I came to was that the disciples stayed in Jerusalem, pretty much, though there seems to have been some missionary activity in Syria. it is easy for the believers to argue for Thomas going to India or Arimathea taking Jesus' wine cup to England. I doubt that Peter ever went to Rome and if he did it wasn't as anything one would consider Pope no. 1. But then all sorts apologetics are produced as 'evidence' for this, and the argument rages.
His bones are exhibited as Proof Positive that it's ALL TRUE! and never mind that the original Peter - bones had to be hurriedly discarded when they turned out to be female, and then they rummaged through the landfill midden of beef and pork bones until they found a bit of Adult male skeleton of some 3rd century Trans-Tiburine tramp, and they put that on display.
Remember that arguing from Faith means that lies are justified if it supports what is known to be True, anyway.
And to make a solid case, they can point to some Firm 2nd c believer finding an old cellar on a Roman Hill and painting 'Peter's tomb'on the plaster wall, because in Christian apologetics, a Faith -claim is true as soon as made, unless totally disproved, which nobody can do if you reject even the hardest evidence and deny everything.
It's why the struggle for where the burden of proof lies is the real battleground of the religion -debate.
There is a line in Russell, something like, he could 'barely consider it with patience.' One of the roughest remarks he wrote, I think. But that's how I feel about this perspective and also this person. My maternal grandmother inserted this 'god virus' into our family and I hate this happened. My uncle took it up and passed it on to his children. What destructive, stupid nonsense.
Grandma had this huge, large print bible and we literally sat on the floor around her, listening to this stuff. Once, she was talking about how "the mark of Cain" was the black skin of negroes (an absurdity once preached by Billy Graham but repudiated by him later in his career). That was too much for me, even at 12, and I said, grandma, that can't be right. Mother dragged me into another room, slapped me, and said I might as well have taken a knife and stuck it in grandma.
It's exactly that -someone who defends their belief. I see myself as an atheist apoloogist
Well, that's only because as an Atheist you likely embrace Zoology, the SCIENTIFIC study of animals!! Unlike Noah who kinda winged it....
And here I always thought they were referred to as Christian Apologists because they felt the need to "apologize" for some of the silly beliefs and behaviors...
Well, that's only because as an Atheist you likely embrace Zoology, the SCIENTIFIC study of animals!! Unlike Noah who kinda winged it....
And here I always thought they were referred to as Christian Apologists because they felt the need to "apologize" for some of the silly beliefs and behaviors...
Thank you One quip that went down well on a former Forum was 'they have a lot to apologise for' and I've never been able to use it since.
As to zoology (I suppose you have evolutionary arguments in mind) aside from a childish fascination with dinosaurs (I wonder why) which has remained with me, and a vague Haeckel -diagram idea of Evolution theory with a Missing "Missing Link" supposed to be in there, I knew nothing about it. I did read a couple of books querying Human evolution (Still got "Not from the Apes" in my library) and only getting into the religion debate when the Ark feasibility study and McDowell's apologetics handbook were fresh out did I have to start getting into evolution theory as well and Palaeontology, geology and genetics. As i did, I found that the 'Objections' were either answered, misrepresented the evidence or needed far -fetched explanations. Examples, denial of transitionals (archaeopteryx was a hot debate like 'Lucy' is now) misrepresentation of the 'cambrian explosion' which none of the apologists seemed to understand but just the name sounded like 'instant creation of all kinds' to them. Quotemining of ..everyone, really, but Darwin on the eye was a favourite. Oh yes, the stunning (almost as much as hearing that dinosaurs had to be on the Ark) realisation that creationists Do Not Understand evolution -theory. That's why they make a puzzlingly pointless big deal about infertile Equines, Ligors and so on, when interbreeding is no part of Evolution -theory. They only Think it is.
Since then, DNA, feathered dinosaurs, Australopithecus and then earlier hominids have answered so many questions, and even Polystrates (one of the best evidences they had) has now turned into refutation of the Flood (they grow one on top of the other -as you'd get in strata laid down in swamps, but NOT in a flood). Ken Hamm was pretty well beaten in debate (his infamous lie that 'all jumbled together is what we find' should have done for him (1), the famous vertical whale (in vertical strata ) has all been done, and even the attempt to disprove Abiogenesis with flawed statistics (a planned outcome by chance is impossible - an unplanned result by chance is...inevitable) has been refuted.
some rocky bits...the T Rex 'soft tissue'..has been weathered, Frozen mammoths has gone on the list of 'arguments creationists should not use', RATE's efforts to refute Geological dating only confirmed it, and the Landmark Dover case screwed I/D forever, so Lawyer Lusk has had to lie about what I/D is to try to keep it afloat as Science. And Behe (once the Plantinga of Creationist 'science') was shown up as a fraud, the creationist 'witnesses' not even daring to turn up. .
So you see that an evolutionary ignoramus picked up enough stray information to be able to do a pretty fair impression of a informed evolutionist at need.
(1) what we find is of course stratification of species that display an evolutionary development, and Hamm knows this, as he must have heard the woefully inept 'the faster/smarter animals/better swimmers got buried later' and 'all jumbled up' is a deliberate lie to fool people.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-20-2018 at 09:24 AM..
I have a cousin who is married to someone who calls himself a Christian apologist. What is that, exactly?
His resume includes:
Public speaker, pastor/teacher, Christian apologist, writer, & blogger on matters of faith & culture.
Ratio Christi Chapter Director / Community Apologist at Ratio Christi
Ratio Christi Chapter Director / Community Apologist at Ratio Christi at Germanna Community College
Staff Apologist and Director at The Real Issue Apologetics Ministry
.
Hey....I applied for all of those jobs and was turned down because I was an atheist. I filed a suit for discrimination but my lawyer isn't very confident.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Excellent. Yes. It is a Firm Belief by the Christians that the claims about Church origins are true:
) has all been done, and even the attempt to disprove Abiogenesis with flawed statistics (a planned outcome by chance is impossible - an unplanned result by chance is...inevitable) has been refuted.
