Counter-Apologetics

Focusing on option 3, how I interpret it is that both materialism(cosmos) and spirit(gods of one type or another) exist. It is, of course, a belief in which we have no evidence for. Thus we can choose to consider it or we can choose option A.If we choose C, we then would go on to define which "God" we were talking about. Tangle limits everything to the book itself...whereas believers have described a more detailed God based on their beliefs(imaginations). So to start with, in matters of belief...why limit a character to a book? If the character being discussed is a Deity, would it not make sense that the character was larger than the book itself?

Why don't you bring his arguments here? If you tried to explain them in your own words, maybe they wouldn't seem so rational after all.

I just did. Look up a couple of posts.

That's just philosophical gibberish. If you're going to defend apologists, defend their positions on Christian doctrine.

I'd have to really dissect what Ravi says concerning doctrine, but its nothing new that we have not discussed.Add by Edit:L Thinking back, Im trying to compile a summary of *YOUR* Doctrine...lemme think....the message is whats important rather than the messenger....most Christians fail to follow the message (of Matthew 25) and only defend the messenger...Ravi does this...but we cant judge his mission...he may well hand out spare change as well...Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

If it makes so much sense to you, you must have already disected it.

ooopsAdd by Edit:L Thinking back, Im trying to compile a summary of *YOUR* Doctrine...lemme think....the message is whats important rather than the messenger....most Christians fail to follow the message (of Matthew 25) and only defend the messenger...Ravi does this...but we cant judge his mission...he may well hand out spare change as well...

You complain that I don't respect apologists. I'm trying to find out what it is that you think I should respect.

You and Tangle both have taken a position that Jesus never existed apart from a historical figure (if at all) and then Tangle goes on to argue that without the resurrection, Christianity is irrelevant. You, on the other hand, argue that the message has value. I'll tell you what I respect about your message. You and jar both emphasize the *doing* part. Feeding. Clothing. Spare Changing. Loving. I respect that. What I challenge (yet find hard to attack) is the idea that there is no evidence for God, Jesus,(as God) or that a Holy Spirit is around that makes us humans any wiser. It's a challenge! You have a good argument.But as to what you should respect, I'm curious why you have dismissed the apologists. Like Parson. I see that you cant watch videos...which makes it tougher for me. It's hard to compile written apologetic arguments...since I myself am basically my own apologist after listening to so many others. I do know that I don't dismiss their intelligence nor motive as readily as you do.You confidently proclaim them as simply WRONG, as if you've somehow won an intellectual chess game. I challenge your premature conclusion, as I challenge PaulK. He seems to enjoy it!

If they don't show up for the game, I win by default. I'd rather have a more decisive win but it's hard to get you to pry them out of their videos. But you don't actually challenge it. You just say you do.

Sorry...I prefer videos. Is it my fault you cant watch them? Here is another one...but I'll include the basic outline for you to challenge.
Outline:

quote:

---

Ravi starts by asking, Do you lock your door at night? The questioner laughs and says, Yea. Sure.

​

I hear what you’re saying. It sounds very cavalier though.
Do you know who has killed more people in the 20th century than China and Russia? 60 million apiece. Wow. It makes the Holocaust seem tame. The 20th century became the bloodiest century in history. And the reason it became the bloodiest century in history is you can see the weapons of our warfare piling up and there was no guiding principle to take us anywhere.
In a perfect world, we don’t need to be afraid.
I don’t think the question is fairly stated as what are you afraid of, I am just saying it is basically unliveable.
The fact of the matter is if morality is purely subjective than you have absolutely nothing for stopping anybody for being a subjective moralist, to just zing one through your forehead and say, ‘that’s my answer.’
If you’re willing to say to me that moral reasoning can be purely subjective, I just say to you, ‘look out, you ain’t see nothing yet if everybody believed what you did.’
Subjective morality would be good if we all wanted to be nice peopleBut the reason you lock your doors, and the reason we have our police, and military, and law courts, is because when subjective morality becomes totally subjectivized, this [mass killings in societies like the former Soviet Union] is what happens in our society.
Questions:

​

Why do you think this video is so popular?
What do you see as the appeal of subjective moral reasoning?
What are some creative and interesting ways that you have persuaded people they need to find an absolute basis for morality?

---

So I guess our question is this: Is there such a thing as absolute morality? If so, how is it determined? I would argue that subscription to belief is essentially betting on a given absolute.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Is it my fault you can't present the arguments in your own words? Well, of course there's no such thing as absolute morality. Nobody has more relative morality than Christians. After all, God's "absolute morality" doesn't even apply to Himself.But you can see the dishonesty of the apologist right there. He's arguing against subjective morality, which is a strawman.And again, what has that got to do with specific Christian doctrines?

Videos are a very poor method of making points. Usually they are full of extraneous material and inefficient at getting to the actual argument.Also those with a weak argument don't want to write down a succinct statement of what their point is. Some of them are so weak that when you try to write it out as clearly as possible it becomes apparent that there is nothing to say.It is interesting to observe that you are avoiding picking your most favorite point and stating it and then your second and so on. Why is that?

I'll have to think about it.... Happy New Year, Ned...by the way

My post count would be a lot higher if every thought was as brilliant written down as it is in my head.