Dishonest Apologetics

[anEvilAtheist]

I also believed that God-belief was childish at one time but I changed my mind.

The quotation I cited were Einstein’s words so I guess he also changed his mind. Whatever you believe or say my friend, those were Einstein’s words and we all know what he meant by them.

Why must you insist on being so argumentative? You read things into posts that are not there.

Tell me, are you a journalist? No, that is unfair, you must be a newser instead.

I do not think “we all know what he meant by them”. You have to look at the context of the remarks, as well as his other remarks. Einstein lived during a period in which it was dangerous to publically admit to being an atheist or agnostic. So I think that private letters to friends offer a more accurate insight into his true beliefs.

Based on what I have read of his letters, he seems to be either an atheist or an agnostic. He rejected arguments that there must be some kind of God because of design or because of the laws of nature (as is made clear by his correspondence with Guy Raner). And he definitely rejected the idea of a personal God, remarking that:
Albert Einstein:

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.

So while it’s impossible to know exactly what his beliefs were, I do not think we can assume that he actually believed in a God (unless you merely define God as something else that exists, such as laws of nature).

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Since this was addressed to Surfmeister, I will leave most of this for him. However, there was one point you made that I wanted to respond to.

Now, tell me… about the great athetists of the ancient and modern world, you know, those who changed history by their penetrating logic that everything we see before us ‘just happened’, those who brought mankind out of darkness by their insights into nothingness, those who actually rose from the dead to prove there IS NO GOD! Please, tell me … because, I would hate to think of you and the others having nothing in your hands when you look over your life when your end finally comes. Tell us all, please… and do so in the context of why you are posting on CAF.

There is more to atheists than logical arguments against God, just as there is more to Christians than logical arguments for God. If you look at the Christians who did the most good, it was not through logical argumentation, but by really helping those in need, by showing compassion and helping in whatever way they could. Similarly, the atheists that do the most good do not do it through logical arguments. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have each given tens of millions to charity. Lance Armstrong has inspired millions by overcoming all obstacles and reaching the pinnacle of his sport. High level philosophical debates may not change history, but atheists can affect history in a positive way just as theists can. And I can’t speak for Surfmeister, but my main reason for posting is that I enjoy philosophical debate and thought CAF would give me a good chance to engage in some.

Even playing the odds tells you that yours is truly a losing proposition.

I will let Surfmeister take the first crack at this. But if he doesn’t want to, I’d be happy to explain why Pascal’s wager is deeply flawed. I have discussed the issue several times before on CAF, and have yet to hear a serviceable defense of it.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, EvilAtheist,

Please, feel free to respond … had I known your interest in this subject, I would have addressed it to both of you…

I will let Surfmeister take the first crack at this. But if he doesn’t want to, I’d be happy to explain why Pascal’s wager is deeply flawed. I have discussed the issue several times before on CAF, and have yet to hear a serviceable defense of it.

I await your rebuttal… and, I am sure, so does Pascal!

God bless

 

[wasmit]

Surfmeister, I don’t want to turn this into a polemic.

I repeat that I mentioned Einstein because here was a prominent scientist who had deep knowledge of science and came to a point where even he acknowledged the existence of God. He realised that he could not find all the answers in Science. That’s all.

Furthermore, Jean Paul Sartre, another atheist, also acknowledged God at the end of his life.

I do not consider either Einstein or Satre to be examples of apologetics but merely wanted to illustrate that such men sometimes can and do reach a point where they may acknowledge the existence of God.

If, in your opinion, this is “dishonest apologetics” then it remains just that - your opinion.

AMEN!!

The problem I have with this statement, on these forums, is that the word “God” will be understood by many(most?) readers to mean “The Christian God”.

When you say “he acknowledged the existence of God” You are implying through your wording and post location that he believed in the existence of the Christian God, which is false.

 

[Cinette]

I do not think “we all know what he meant by them”. You have to look at the context of the remarks, as well as his other remarks. Einstein lived during a period in which it was dangerous to publically admit to being an atheist or agnostic. So I think that private letters to friends offer a more accurate insight into his true beliefs.

Based on what I have read of his letters, he seems to be either an atheist or an agnostic. He rejected arguments that there must be some kind of God because of design or because of the laws of nature (as is made clear by his correspondence with Guy Raner). And he definitely rejected the idea of a personal God, remarking that:

So while it’s impossible to know exactly what his beliefs were, I do not think we can assume that he actually believed in a God (unless you merely define God as something else that exists, such as laws of nature).

Hi Atheist!

The Portuguese have an expression “I am selling it to you for the price at which I bought it”. I read that quotation in a little book I bought in a second hand bookshop and all I did was pass it on. That the book came from a 2nd hand shop doesn’t diminish its authenticity! LOL!

I think Einstein was famous enough to boldly say what he felt. Just like Picasso who wore baggy old pants and would run around the dining room table a few times as an antidote to some superstition!! He didn’t care - he was famous!

Cheers
Cinette

 

[Cinette]

The problem I have with this statement, on these forums, is that the word “God” will be understood by many(most?) readers to mean “The Christian God”.

When you say “he acknowledged the existence of God” You are implying through your wording and post location that he believed in the existence of the Christian God, which is false.

No wasmit, you are wrong. As a Christian and especially as Catholic I believe that the three main religions, Judaism, Christianity and Muslims all worship the same God. They may have different names for God but they all worship one God and that is the God of the creation - the same God.

Cinette

 

[codebilly]

If you define God as light, then I believe in God. However, I see no reason to think that light has any of the supernatural properties that are ascribed to God.

But if I have no reason to think that Catholicism is true, why would I go through all of that? And why should I choose Catholicism. Maybe I should try immersing myself in Islam for a while and see if that feels true. I could spend my whole life trying out different churches, but I think it would be a waste of time. Especially since the evidence I have seen makes it seem like it is incredibly unlikely that the God of Catholicism exists (as well as many other gods).

I know you are not making full use of your cognitive powers. Theistic philosophers point out the fact that there are 3 states of consciousness.

They are the waking, the dreaming, and the deep sleep. Further, that the sage, loving God with whole heart, mind, soul and strength are capable of merging all 3 states ( … Mother Teresa slept may 1 hour per day).

When you are able to merge all 3 states of your consciousness your self discipline and will, then you will be able to comment on our saints and church.

Since it may be difficult to take the treasure from the Roman Catholic Church, perhaps you can first accept our faith from the east.

Please read the following and meditate sincerely. The gift of God is there for the scientist or athlete as they say in the East. Look within … sincerely look within, and use you intellect. Again, until your conscious states (all of them) are as one, then you do not have your full discriminative powers to make conclusions. A “scientist” lacking skills in mathematics will have no chance of understanding physics.

Good luck and May God’s Light shine upon you.

**Five Stages in Contemplative Prayer
**
The Jesus Prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Be Merciful”

We have mainly five stages. This is, roughly, the course of the development of the Jesus Prayer. Each stage has its own grace.

• Firstly. The reciting of the Jesus Prayer VOCALLY. We repeat the Jesus Prayer with our lips while trying at the same time to focus our attention on the words of the prayer.
• Secondly. Then the nous (Greek, “mind”) takes the Jesus Prayer and says it noetically [WITHIN, MENTALLY OR SPIRITUALLY]. Our whole attention is found again in the words but it is concentrated on the nous [the soul’s attention, the Eye of the soul]. When the nous gets tired then we start again to vocalize the prayer with the lips. After the nous has been rested we start again to concentrate our attention there.

St. Neilos advises:

Always remember God and your nous will become heaven.

• Thirdly. The Jesus Prayer then comes down into THE HEART. Nous and heart are now united and combined with each other. Attention is centered in the heart and it is immersed again into the words of the Jesus Prayer, which has an invisible depth.
• Fourthly. The Prayer becomes now self-activating [PRAYER WITHOUT CEASING]. It is done while the ascetic is working or eating or discussing or while he is in church or even while he is sleeping. “I sleep but by heart waketh” is said in the Holy Scriptures (Song of Songs 5:2).
• Fifthly. Then one feels a divine soft flame within his soul burning it and making it joyful [LOVE, DEVOTION, WARMTH AND VISIONS OF DIVINE LIGHT]. The grace of Christ lives in the heart. The Holy Trinity is established. “We become the habitation of God, when He lives within us, established in the memory. Thus we become the temple of God when remembrance of His is not disturbed by earthly cares, and mind is not distracted by unexpected thoughts. Fleeing all that, the Friend of God withdraws into Him, chasing away the passions which invite intemperate thoughts, and occupying himself in a way which leads to virtue.” (Saint Basil the Great) Thus he feels the Divine Presence within himself and this grace passes through the body which becomes dead to the world and is crucified [THE NOUS RISES ABOVE BODY-CONSCIOUSNESS DURING CONTEMPLATIVE PRACTICE]. And this is the extremist stage, which is sometimes connected with the Vision of the Uncreated Light of the Holy Trinity.

 

[Surfmeister]

Hi, Surfmeister,

I have just joined the thread and have been reading your posts with genuine interest…

As I see it, there are enough real stories out there about genuine conversions so as to totally dismiss this ‘dishonest apologietics’ fantasy topic fueled by those who are filled by cynical and despairing views of reality.

When I look at history and see how man was before Christ came into history - and then look at the Twelve ‘clunkers’ He chose - with the biggest ‘clunker’ being Peter. And then what happened during His three year Public Life - and then His horrible death - and how these Apostles fled and coward in locked rooms. This is a terrible story that is obviously filled with death and despair! And, even the initial announcement of Christ rising from the dead is greeted with disbelief by the Apostles. Wow - this is a hard audience! Then there are all of these recorded appearances and then Pentecost where the Catholic Church breaks out of its ‘shell’ and soars throughout all of the world sprading the message of salvation through Christ. You just can not explain transformations like this WITHOUT God.

Now, tell me… about the great athetists of the ancient and modern world, you know, those who changed history by their penetrating logic that everything we see before us ‘just happened’, those who brought mankind out of darkness by their insights into nothingness, those who actually rose from the dead to prove there IS NO GOD! Please, tell me … because, I would hate to think of you and the others having nothing in your hands when you look over your life when your end finally comes. Tell us all, please… and do so in the context of why you are posting on CAF.

When your last moment on earth arrives and you are faced with the unmistakable reality of death - your own personal death - you will be confronted with two distinct possibilities about God: He either exists or He doesn’t. Now, that may sound like a coin-flip or a 50:50 proposition - but, hold on just a moment; it isn’t. Let’s see …

If you have lived your life as though there is no God and, it turns out, that there isn’t - hey, you were right! And, yours is the inheritance of nothingness and the reward of oblivion. You obviously can’t get any better then that, right?! But, if there is a God and you have lived your life like there wasn’t a God … how do you think the God - Who actually exists is going to respond to this? Do you stand with your hands at your sides looking down at the tops of your feet claiming no one told you, or there was not enough prooof, or you had not yet finished doing the necessary research? That is truly a tough situation to be in - and, one you are willing to choose. The penalties are quite harsh for such a prideful blunder. Now, if you do believe in God and act as though God has given us rules of conduct (and believing in His Son should top the list) and you behave in this manner - His Word tells us about the Promise of Life Eternal with God. So, the way I see it, there two ways to lose (no God, live like you want and nothing afterwards or yes God, live like you want and hell afterwards) and one way to win (yes God, live like He told us and heaven afterwards). Even playing the odds tells you that yours is truly a losing proposition.

The choice is yours.

God bless

I find it somewhat amusing that you assume I’m an atheist, when I’ve said no such thing. Cannot two believers disagree?
Anyway, I’m here on this forum because an old friend posts here and I keep an eye on his posts. This thread caught my eye, which isn’t surpising because dishonest apologetics is a pet topic of mine. While reading, I see a post containing misinformation. I joined the forum to respond to that particular post and got caught up in the conversation. Misinformation just irks me to no end. Do you ever get those emails where somebody claims they got MS from aspartame or a missing child in Texas needs your prayers or terrible new computer virus coming…BEWARE!? 9 times out of 10 they’re hoaxes. Yet people just keep passing them on, never doing a background check, and the sender gets added to my “Not a critical thinker” folder and a link to Snopes.com. That’s the same kind of thing we see with dishonest apologetics.
I draw a parallel between apologetics and salesmen. Each has a product to sell, right? Well, if the salesman starts embellishing the wonders of the product, making misleading, unsupported claims about the product, getting celebrity endorsements when you just KNOW the celebrity never used the product in his life, using tired old cliches when discussing the product, you not only question the honesty of the salesman, but you question the product. If it’s so darned great, why does the salesmen have to lie? The product is undermined and the salesman is called a huckster.
A good product sells itself.
Snake oil needs a little showmanship.

 

[Surfmeister]

I would write a post to discuss Pascal’s Wager, but I’m so busy trying to believe 4000+ religions (including Jedi)…just in case.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Okay. Let me explain something here for all concerned.

CAF does not require that everyone agree with the Catholic faith, or even believe in God.

We DO however require that all discussions remain respectful and charitable and if anyone feels that they cannot comply with the rules and guidelines as laid out in this link, then perhaps you are on the wrong forum.

In general, members here at CAF are some of the best I have seen anywhere on the “intarweb”, and that goes for our believers and non-believers as well.

I expect that to continue.

http://bestsmileys.com/cartoon/11.gif Don’t disappoint me. You wouldn’t like me when I’m disappointed.
Very sincerely,

 

[Cinette]

I find it somewhat amusing that you assume I’m an atheist, when I’ve said no such thing. Cannot two believers disagree?
Anyway, I’m here on this forum because an old friend posts here and I keep an eye on his posts. This thread caught my eye, which isn’t surpising because dishonest apologetics is a pet topic of mine. While reading, I see a post containing misinformation. I joined the forum to respond to that particular post and got caught up in the conversation. Misinformation just irks me to no end. Do you ever get those emails where somebody claims they got MS from aspartame or a missing child in Texas needs your prayers or terrible new computer virus coming…BEWARE!? 9 times out of 10 they’re hoaxes. Yet people just keep passing them on, never doing a background check, and the sender gets added to my “Not a critical thinker” folder and a link to Snopes.com. That’s the same kind of thing we see with dishonest apologetics.
I draw a parallel between apologetics and salesmen. Each has a product to sell, right? Well, if the salesman starts embellishing the wonders of the product, making misleading, unsupported claims about the product, getting celebrity endorsements when you just KNOW the celebrity never used the product in his life, using tired old cliches when discussing the product, you not only question the honesty of the salesman, but you question the product. If it’s so darned great, why does the salesmen have to lie? The product is undermined and the salesman is called a huckster.
A good product sells itself.
Snake oil needs a little showmanship.

Surfmeister -

It is evident that you consider yourself to be knowledgeable and perhaps an expert in apologetics and are in the habit in making pronouncements on the honesty of others while maintaining your integrity!

I am not an expert and I am certainly not sufficiently knowledgeable in matters of Faith. I am a revert to the Catholic Church and have been trying to catch up by reading on apologetics and other books. My interest has led me to these forums.

When I find something in a book (as in the case of Einstein) I have no reason to disbelieve the contents of the book. I found the information plausible. I shared this knowledge in my posting and was not aware that there would be an Einstein/Sartre and whatever “expert” lurking on the Forums to declare my postings “dishonest”.

I have had exchanges with our fellow poster Atheist without insults being thrown at me. He is “sympathique” and amiable. You, on the other hand, are arrogant and antipathique.

I have no doubt that there are many “atheists” in heaven. I have known several who were self-sacrificing and who endured solitary confinement - brave and herioc people who, for some reason, didn’t believe in God, but who lived lives which could be described as Christian. Someone very close to me lived such a life and died an atheist. I am sure he was not condemned by our merciful God.

I did not think you were atheist but was not sure if you were Christian. Something else maybe but not Christian.

I am on these forums to learn and exchange ideas with honest individuals. I am not sure you are in that category.

Cinette

 

[Surfmeister]

Yikes! See the post above yours, Cinette. I’m trying very hard, I think, not to be combative. Because of the nature of the topic, I think it’s going to be difficult for people not to take remarks personally, but I do feel we are all entitled to our opinions on this topic. If I share mine with you and you share yours with me, then we both know where the other is at. Right?

 

[Cinette]

Yikes! See the post above yours, Cinette. I’m trying very hard, I think, not to be combative. Because of the nature of the topic, I think it’s going to be difficult for people not to take remarks personally, but I do feel we are all entitled to our opinions on this topic. If I share mine with you, you with mine, then we both know where the other is at. Right?

Yes I saw that surfmeister and if my editing facility worked I would have posted some similies to show my feelings.

Maybe you should consider a different method of debate, one that is not combative. You have always got your gloves on! Mind you, I have seen worse, much worse.

You called me a “dishonest apologist”. As you know I took exception to “dishonest” - as for apologist that is a category which cannot be ascribed to me either. I am far from being an apologist although one day I hope to be one.

Want to start again?

Cinette

 

[Surfmeister]

Come on now, you can’t type with gloves on!
It’s always difficult to ‘read’ people in this setting. We can’t see faces, hear inflections. I honestly don’t know how to debate an issue without using arguments. You view it as combative, and I view it as trying to get my point across.
I use this definition of apologetics:
A field of Christian theology that aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defend the faith against objections, and expose the perceived flaws of other world views.

Apologetics occurs all the time on these boards, in every thread, I would think. It’s performed by pros and laypeople alike. And, as the opening post states, the idea that people continue to use dishonest arguements (the arguments being dishonest, not necessarily the person) is curious. Why, when confronted with the exposed error, do people continue to use the flawed arguement? That is what the opening post states, and what we’re exploring…or at least* I *was.
I like to know if I’m using a flawed argument or repeating a false claim. For years, I cautioned people regarding the Poinsettia plant …I don’t know if you have them there, but our houses are decked with them at Christmas time…“Keep them away from your pets and kids, they’re poisonous!” Um…red face here. Urban legend. I had to recant, but I’m grateful for the person who set me straight. Which is great, because now we can have poinsettias at Christmas!

 

[Cinette]

Come on now, you can’t type with gloves on!
It’s always difficult to ‘read’ people in this setting. We can’t see faces, hear inflections. I honestly don’t know how to debate an issue without using arguments. You view it as combative, and I view it as trying to get my point across.
I use this definition of apologetics:
A field of Christian theology that aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defend the faith against objections, and expose the perceived flaws of other world views.

Apologetics occurs all the time on these boards, in every thread, I would think. It’s performed by pros and laypeople alike. And, as the opening post states, the idea that people continue to use dishonest arguements (the arguments being dishonest, not necessarily the person) is curious. Why, when confronted with the exposed error, do people continue to use the flawed arguement? That is what the opening post states, and what we’re exploring…or at least* I *was.
I like to know if I’m using a flawed argument or repeating a false claim. For years, I cautioned people regarding the Poinsettia plant …I don’t know if you have them there, but our houses are decked with them at Christmas time…“Keep them away from your pets and kids, they’re poisonous!” Um…red face here. Urban legend. I had to recant, but I’m grateful for the person who set me straight. Which is great, because now we can have poinsettias at Christmas!

I used my hands a lot when I speak - what is why I sometimes knock over my wine glass!

Ever heard the expression that you can’t catch flies with vinagre?

You are not of latin origin obviously. You certainly are not a diplomat! LOL.

The idea is to debate so as to learn and exchange views and if one is wrong try and do it without offending.

Have a nice day
Cinette

 

[wasmit]

No wasmit, you are wrong. As a Christian and especially as Catholic I believe that the three main religions, Judaism, Christianity and Muslims all worship the same God. They may have different names for God but they all worship one God and that is the God of the creation - the same God.

Cinette

What you believe isn’t related to this issue.
It’s a matter of accuracy, your statement is misleading due to being ambiguous.

If you said “he believes in God”, you are implying “He believes in the Christian God”, due to this being a christian website. Whenever a person reads the word “God” on this website, they assume it to mean “the Christian God”, because this is accurate almost all of the time.

However, earlier (in another post) I think you mentioned that you meant the deist god. This is not the message that your statement was communicating.

---

It is similar to me saying “Jesus was born in the town of Guasave, Mexico in the 1980’s”. Many on this forum would reply “lol no he was born in the middle east ~2000 years ago.”

I actually meant Jesus Lopez, a baseball player for the San Diego Padres, and my statement is correct in that context. However, This is not the message that my statement was communicating, because most(all) people here assume the word “Jesus” to mean “Jesus from the Bible”.

 

[Cinette]

What you believe isn’t related to this issue.
It’s a matter of accuracy, your statement is misleading due to being ambiguous.

If you said “he believes in God”, you are implying “He believes in the Christian God”, due to this being a christian website. Whenever a person reads the word “God” on this website, they assume it to mean “the Christian God”, because this is accurate almost all of the time.

However, earlier (in another post) I think you mentioned that you meant the deist god. This is not the message that your statement was communicating.

It is similar to me saying “Jesus was born in the town of Guasave, Mexico in the 1980’s”. Many on this forum would reply “lol no he was born in the middle east ~2000 years ago.”

I actually meant Jesus Lopez, a baseball player for the San Diego Padres, and my statement is correct in that context. However, This is not the message that my statement was communicating, because most(all) people here assume the word “Jesus” to mean “Jesus from the Bible”.

Recently the Pope visited the Middle East - he was in Jordan, Israel and Palestine. I do not remember where exactly this took place except that it was in Israel. Towards the end of the meeting which was attended by members of the three religions, a Rabbi (Jewish LOL) went up to the podium and sang a song he had written. In a haunting chant of hope he sang "Shalom, Peace, Dona Nobis Pacem… etc. " it was beautiful and at a given moment the Pope got up and taking the hand of each of the men on either side of him (on one side a Rabbi and on the other side a muslim) raised the hands in a kind of pray/supplication. It was moving and beautiful. I think this gesture demonstrated what Catholics mean on these forums when they refer to God.

That is how I feel and if there are Catholics on this thread who feel differently let them come forward.

Peace
Cinette

 

[wasmit]

What you or I believe isn’t related to this issue.

It’s a matter of accuracy, your statement is misleading due to being ambiguous.

 

[Cinette]

What you or I believe isn’t related to this issue.

It’s a matter of accuracy, your statement is misleading due to being ambiguous.

@%$#)(&?":&%!&?"???

 

[Surfmeister]

I used my hands a lot when I speak - what is why I sometimes knock over my wine glass!

Ever heard the expression that you can’t catch flies with vinagre?

You are not of latin origin obviously. You certainly are not a diplomat! LOL.

The idea is to debate so as to learn and exchange views and if one is wrong try and do it without offending.

Have a nice day
Cinette

You know what, Cinette? I seriously think…no ulterior motives, straight from the hip…that our cultural differences are causing a miscommunication. My dear Grandmother used to say, “You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar!”, and I honestly thought that my poinsettia story illustrated how we can be wrong, be thankful, and be optimistic for the future. Perhaps I overestimate my communication skills? I tried to be friendly and you smacked me down. I give up. Perhaps we should close the book at this chapter?
I can’t please you, so I shall cease trying. Be well. And for goodness’ sake, quit dwelling on this. It’s just a forum message board. Perspective!