Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 96 (8883 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 01-18-2019 1:51 PM
261 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: candle2
Post Volume:
Total: 845,874 Year: 911/19,786 Month: 911/1,731 Week: 268/438 Day: 53/33 Hour: 11/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456Next
Author Topic:   Counter-Apologetics
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1769
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 31 of 86 (665015)
06-07-2012 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Artemis Entreri
06-06-2012 7:06 PM


Re: yeah riiight
if you were really about respect then you would be respectful. There are many respectful Atheists on this board, you are just NOT one of them.

There is a difference between respecting someone's right to believe what they wish and respecting what they actually believe. If you were to tell me that 1 and 1 are 3 is it not more respectful to tell you that you are wrong then to nod approvingly?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Artemis Entreri, posted 06-06-2012 7:06 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Artemis Entreri, posted 06-07-2012 7:57 AM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply
 Message 33 by vimesey, posted 06-07-2012 8:06 AM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 32 of 86 (665019)
06-07-2012 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by ProtoTypical
06-07-2012 7:18 AM


Re: yeah riiight
dogmafood writes:

There is a difference between respecting someone's right to believe what they wish and respecting what they actually believe.

just as there is a difference between being respectful and having a trollish avatar. there are those here who advertise themselves as troll without even typing one letter. they use avatars designed to tease and taunt christians. All i am saying is be truthful, don't say one thing that is an obvious lie.

If you were to tell me that 1 and 1 are 3 is it not more respectful to tell you that you are wrong then to nod approvingly?

except i am not telling you that. all i am saying is that avatars like the ones from dwise or taz are offensive, and are offensive on purpose. I don't have issue with having an avatar like that (they are both hilarious). my issue is when these people lie and say they are respectful of others, and are atheist, when the truth is they are taunting and are anti-theists.

much like you would let someone know the 1+1 is not 3, I am letting the liars know that they are lying.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-07-2012 7:18 AM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 919
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 7.2


(3)
Message 33 of 86 (665020)
06-07-2012 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by ProtoTypical
06-07-2012 7:18 AM


Re: yeah riiight
I think I would look at the whole issue of respect and respectfulness in three different contexts, when it comes to EVC and its associated debates:

1. If (as a non-believer), I debate with a YEC and they were to maintain that despite all of the evidence and all of the science, their belief remains solid that the YEC narrative is correct (as an article of faith, and perhaps as a result of a "godddidit" line of reasoning), then I can respectfully disagree with that view. It's their life, their belief and their right to believe. I will try to avoid language like "you're wrong and I'm right", since that implies superiority and inferiority - I will focus on agreement and disagreement instead.

2. If I debate with a YEC, and they were to seek to twist, invalidate or invent the science, or fail to provide evidence for a scientific proposal which they cite in support of the YEC narrative, then language like "you're wrong and I'm right" will come into it. I can still respect their right to their belief, but I have very little respect for attempts to derail scientific enquiry and advances, in order to try to dress the YEC narrative in something verifiable.

3. If I debate with a YEC, and they argue that the YEC narrative is not only scientifically supported, but should also be taught in schools as valid science, then the language is going to be "HELL NO ! That may be your belief, but you are not lumping that claptrap onto anyone else's children and calling it science !"

In all three scenarios, I will always respect the other person's right to their belief. But the respectfulness of the terms of the debate will vary, dependent upon whether the person seeks to damage scientific advancement or children's educations, in order to make them feel happier about their belief.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-07-2012 7:18 AM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16081
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 6.4


(1)
Message 34 of 86 (665131)
06-08-2012 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by LexM1985
06-05-2012 6:15 PM


Another question to atheists: When do you think it's appropriate to debate scripture?

When they turn up on debate sites wanting to talk about it.

---

Knock knock.
Who's there?
Atheists.
Atheists wh ---
Just kidding, we don't go round knocking on doors.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by LexM1985, posted 06-05-2012 6:15 PM LexM1985 has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 11882
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 35 of 86 (846323)
01-04-2019 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by dwise1
06-06-2012 3:38 AM


Why Apologise for Apologetics?
dWise1 writes:

A Christian needs to always find some way to get every argument to come back around to the Christ. An atheist just needs to consider what's actually going on. A Christian has to also think always about what other Christians think of his solution; an atheist only needs to offer a solution.

Good point.

But I target ringo, here. He seems to have a problem with apologetics in general...citing them as simply wrong.

I dunno...I've heard some good ones lately...one I shared with ICANT at the GD thread.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by dwise1, posted 06-06-2012 3:38 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by PaulK, posted 01-04-2019 7:57 AM Phat has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14631
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 36 of 86 (846324)
01-04-2019 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Phat
01-04-2019 7:05 AM


Re: Why Apologise for Apologetics?
Apologetics is too often an exercise in deception. And that includes the superficial videos that you linked to in the other thread.

I think that that is something that should be apologised for.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Phat, posted 01-04-2019 7:05 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Phat, posted 01-04-2019 8:25 AM PaulK has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 11882
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 37 of 86 (846327)
01-04-2019 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by PaulK
01-04-2019 7:57 AM


Re: Why Apologise for Apologetics?
There is only one...the video by ravi zacharias. What do you find incredulous about his point? I thought it well done.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by PaulK, posted 01-04-2019 7:57 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by PaulK, posted 01-04-2019 8:42 AM Phat has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14631
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 38 of 86 (846329)
01-04-2019 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Phat
01-04-2019 8:25 AM


Re: Why Apologise for Apologetics?
Only one? By Ravi Zacharias ? What about the series of six by Craig Parson that you linked here Message 38. Aren’t those the ones you meant ?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Phat, posted 01-04-2019 8:25 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Phat, posted 01-04-2019 9:11 AM PaulK has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 11882
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 39 of 86 (846330)
01-04-2019 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by PaulK
01-04-2019 8:42 AM


Re: Why Apologise for Apologetics?
no, although those two are a counterargument, in my opinion. Richard Carrier does not impress me.
A Response to "Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story". The counter-apologists use an entirely different set of facts and I intuitively question their overall motive for what they attempt to do.
Jesus Did Exist: A Response to Richard Carrier. I suppose I'm picking on Carrier specifically, but he does annoy me with his claims.
Dawkins is harmless...rather amusing, actually and I like him.
Sam Harris uses some persuasive cultural arguments which should be entertained...if but to provide a broader perspective of reality.

Quid Pro Quo, Dr.Lector. What dont you like about Parson?

And what I wanted you to listen to is the one video by Ravi Zacharias.
here.(post 39) Its short.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by PaulK, posted 01-04-2019 8:42 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by PaulK, posted 01-04-2019 9:32 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 01-04-2019 9:48 AM Phat has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14631
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 40 of 86 (846334)
01-04-2019 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Phat
01-04-2019 9:11 AM


Re: Why Apologise for Apologetics?
quote:

no, although those two are a counterargument, in my opinion. Richard Carrier does not impress me.

I find Carrier’s work a very mixed bag, but those videos are certainly not a response to his arguments. From the first two, at least, they seem to be meant for naive and uninformed believers to try to pretend that there are good reasons to trust the Bible.

quote:

A Response to "Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story". The counter-apologists use an entirely different set of facts and I intuitively question their overall motive for what they attempt to do.

That article is worse than anything I’ve seen from Carrier. And really, if society is filled with dishonest propaganda for beliefs you don’t share, why wouldn’t you want to counter it ?

The videos from Parson are, as I said superficial and while the audience are told they are the jury the opposing case isn’t even mentioned in the two that I watched. It’s just a recital of the usual apologetics - even starting with the standard bit about numbers and dates of manuscripts without even mentioning that that is only ever about preservation of the original text (or that the really early “manuscripts” are tiny scraps of papyrus). Sheesh!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Phat, posted 01-04-2019 9:11 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14631
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 41 of 86 (846335)
01-04-2019 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Phat
01-04-2019 9:11 AM


Re: Why Apologise for Apologetics?
Well I watched the Ravi Zacharias video. I can’t say anything good about it. If you think that there are any good arguments in it let me know so I can properly shred them.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Phat, posted 01-04-2019 9:11 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Phat, posted 01-04-2019 3:12 PM PaulK has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 11882
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 42 of 86 (846342)
01-04-2019 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by PaulK
01-04-2019 9:48 AM


Re: Why Apologise for Apologetics?
You and i must be miles apart!
Granted you see no reason for religion or belief at all so i understand your position somewhat. To me Ravi is honest. His arguments appear rational to members of the choir. You see no reason to sing so i cant persuade you there. Our worldviews share little in common. I fail to see why his argument is bad however.

Edited by Phat, : Spelling


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 01-04-2019 9:48 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 01-04-2019 3:44 PM Phat has responded
 Message 47 by ringo, posted 01-05-2019 11:31 AM Phat has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14631
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 43 of 86 (846345)
01-04-2019 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Phat
01-04-2019 3:12 PM


Re: Why Apologise for Apologetics?
quote:

Granted you see no reason for religion or belief at all so i understand your position somewhat. To me Ravi is honest.

My first encounter with Ravi Zacharias was reading about his attempt to blame atheism for the Holocaust. That was a vile thing to do - especially when Christianity has a long history of pogroms.

But no, you don’t understand my position. I have done my own investigations and Zacharias and his colleague are making false claims and omitting facts. I know that the alleged “prophecies” of Jesus aren’t. I know that 1 Corinthians does not mention people interacting with the risen Jesus. I know that there are clear signs of legendary development in the Gospel accounts relating to the Resurrection.

quote:

Our worldviews share little in common.

Apparently, I care about the truth and you don’t.

quote:

I fail to see why his argument is bad however.

Which argument? I’m quite happy to take on any argument from that little video. If the points above don’t cover it just tell me what the argument says - or any other apologetic argument you think good. Text is so much better for debate than video.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Phat, posted 01-04-2019 3:12 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Phat, posted 01-05-2019 6:38 AM PaulK has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 11882
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 44 of 86 (846362)
01-05-2019 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by PaulK
01-04-2019 3:44 PM


Re: Why Apologise for Apologetics?
PaulK writes:

I’m quite happy to take on any argument from that little video. If the points above don’t cover it just tell me what the argument says - or any other apologetic argument you think good. Text is so much better for debate than video.

I may mount an argument/discussion with you regarding these matters. I'll likely lose on points--your arguments are well presented.

When I tackle an opponent, my main thrust is to discern their motive for argument. Broken down, it simply means that believers want people to see why they believe and that belief is rational. You seem content with challenging this assumption. I would dare to ask you why? Do you honestly believe that people are better off believing--based on inconclusive evidence thus far--that Jesus was at best mortal and historical and that the God of the Bible...or any other religion---simply likely does not exist?

Apparently, I care about the truth and you don’t.
Your conclusions, if I understand them correctly, are premature. In addition, I see nothing useful that could be gained through your argumentative persuasion for readers to think as you do.

So to begin, I would ask you why you believe in your argument? I can see why a Christian apologist would defend their faith. What I don't see is why you defend yours?

Here is a rough breakdown of the points presented in the video:

RZIM writes:

The answers that Ravi and John provide are both kind and insightful.

In their response, they clarify that:

Any point of view is exclusive of all other points of view.
The real question is which point of view is true.
We can fairly test the major worldview by examining how well they answer four questions:
A. Origin
B. Meaning
C. Morality
D. Destiny
The answer to each question must meet two criteria:
A. It must correspond to the truth - matching empirical evidence or the tests of reason
B. It must fit together with the answers to the three other questions - coherence.
Finally, there are really only three fundamental worldviews:
A. Only the universe exists (e.g., naturalism).
B. Only God exists.
C. Both God and the universe exist (e.g., Judaism, Christianity, and Islam).

I encourage you to take some time to reflect on their answers. Are they right? Have they missed something?


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 01-04-2019 3:44 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by PaulK, posted 01-05-2019 7:04 AM Phat has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14631
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 45 of 86 (846364)
01-05-2019 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Phat
01-05-2019 6:38 AM


Re: Why Apologise for Apologetics?
quote:

When I tackle an opponent, my main thrust is to discern their motive for argument. Broken down, it simply means that believers want people to see why they believe and that belief is rational. You seem content with challenging this assumption. I would dare to ask you why? Do you honestly believe that people are better off believing--based on inconclusive evidence thus far--that Jesus was at best mortal and historical and that the God of the Bible...or any other religion---simply likely does not exist?

My motive is to get at the truth. Now I think that there is a good case that people are not better off in thrall to deceivers, but that is secondary.

The motives behind an argument - at least when dealing with truth claims are not a good guide to whether the claims are true. There may be good reasons for deception, there may be bad motives for telling the truth. Your guesses as to the motives of others is even less reliable. For instance GDR may have had “good” reasons for claiming that Jesus was not talking about the End Times in Mark 13, but the allusions to Daniel’s End Times prophecies argue otherwise.


RZIM writes:
The answers that Ravi and John provide are both kind and insightful.

In their response, they clarify that:

Any point of view is exclusive of all other points of view.
The real question is which point of view is true.

I would question that it is true that “Any point of view is exclusive of all other points of view” - points of view can obviously intersect, and I see no reason why one point of view cannot be a proper subset of another.


We can fairly test the major worldview by examining how well they answer four questions:
A. Origin
B. Meaning
C. Morality
D. Destiny

I question whether “Destiny” is a relevant issue at all. I certainly question whether it is possible to know the truth about it.


The answer to each question must meet two criteria:
A. It must correspond to the truth - matching empirical evidence or the tests of reason
B. It must fit together with the answers to the three other questions - coherence.

I have to say that I think that they must be applying the first criterion quite loosely.


Finally, there are really only three fundamental worldviews:
A. Only the universe exists (e.g., naturalism).
B. Only God exists.
C. Both God and the universe exist (e.g., Judaism, Christianity, and Islam).

I have to say that option 3 includes drastically different worldviews, including (at least some forms of) Buddhism and Deism - and many others - as well as the Abrahamic faiths. I don’t think you can get a coherent set of answers to their questions out of it, so how can it qualify as a worldview ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Phat, posted 01-05-2019 6:38 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Phat, posted 01-05-2019 7:12 AM PaulK has responded

    
Prev12
3
456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019