Dishonest Apologetics

[Surfmeister]

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

Yeah, I think it’s a cultural barrier that we’re unsuccessfully trying to overcome. Suffice it to say, when a theist says “God”, it is presumed it is THEIR notion of God that is being described. Being a Catholic site, we would also presume it is the Catholic idea of God being presented. We are all well aware that the Judeo Christian (and Muslim!) God are one and the same. The pantheist God, the ancient Greek God, the deist God, the omg! are different entities!
(See how friendly I am?)

 

[Surfmeister]

Yeah, I think it’s a cultural barrier that we’re unsuccessfully trying to overcome. Suffice it to say, when a theist says “God”, it is presumed it is THEIR notion of God that is being described. Being a Catholic site, we would also presume it is the Catholic idea of God being presented. We are all well aware that the Judeo Christian (and Muslim!) God are one and the same. The pantheist God, the ancient Greek God, the deist God, the omg! are different entities!
(See how friendly I am?)

Trying to be funny and upbeat… Call 1-800-Niceguy! and tell me how I’m doing!

 

[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.

OK wasmit, I’m S O R R Y! I also love poinsettias and they are always in our homes at Christmas.

Hey, wait a minute aren’t you Jewish?

I don’t think we have locked horns for cultural reasons. In my country we are multi-cultural and have learned to appreciate and become fond of other cultures.

Don’t be mad at me. I’ll try harder.

Cheers
Cinette

 

[Surfmeister]

Actually, it’s me…I?..that had the poinsettia story. (hiding from the grammar police…JOKE!!!)

 

[Cinette]

Looks like I got wasmit and Surfmeister mixed up!! Well I am S O R R Y for upsetting everyone!

I will definitely try harder to understand. I will go back to the OP and read it again. Maybe you are right and I am wrong.

cheers
Cinette

 

[wasmit]

Trying to be clear - you said the word “God”.

What did you mean? The christian god, or the deist god?

 

[Surfmeister]

Looks like I got wasmit and Surfmeister mixed up!! Well I am S O R R Y for upsetting everyone!

I will definitely try harder to understand. I will go back to the OP and read it again. Maybe you are right and I am wrong.

cheers
Cinette

Thanks, I appreciate that. Off to beddy byes now…have a good one!

 

[Cinette]

Trying to be clear - you said the word “God”.

What did you mean? The christian god, or the deist god?

For me there is only one God, the God of heaven and earth and all mankind and I believe that I am referring also to the God of the Jewish people and Muslims.

Then there are gods…

Am I being clear now?

Cinette

 

[wasmit]

almost.

When you wrote this, which one were you talking about? Your christian God, or the other deist god?

 

[Cinette]

almost.

When you wrote this, which one were you talking about? Your christian God, or the other deist god?

When I speak of God I mean God with a capital G and that means the following:

• Almighty God of the Christians
• The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - the God of the Jewish Faith
• The God of the Muslim Faith

I thought I made that clear. I hope it is now clearer.

Deism means one who recognises the existence of a god but not religion. Probably new age stuff and some other religions.

God bless you
Cinette

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Surfmeiser,

I am vry sorry, and apologize for misreading your post.

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.

God bless

 

[jargon631]

I wholeheartedly agree. Personally, I try to analyze an argument BEFORE I start using it. I only want to use logic that is airtight. And I agree there are bad apologists on both sides. I think the fact that you strive to only present arguments that are not built on justifying the ends is quite refreshing.

it also lends credibility to the arguement…whichever side you prefer…fd

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Hi, EvilAtheist,

Based on your reasoning listed below, you may want to consider changing your ‘handle’ to “LazyAtheist”. I truly had expected better from you - honest. Anyone fixing to enter into all eternity with this line of reasoning … well, buddy, you certainly deserve everything you get.

I don’t think you’ve identified any errors in my reasoning. But even if you had, I’m not trying to “enter into all eternity” (if by this you mean going to heaven), because I believe that heaven does not exist. And even if my reasoning was flawed, and I was completely irrational, I do not think an omnibenevolent God would condemn me to hell for it. If God exists, he endowed each of us with different natural abilities or disabilities (we would each have our own cross to bear). Some of us are severely mentally or physically handicapped. If I was unable to recognize logic or reason effectively, as is unfortunately the case for some people, I think it would blatantly contradict God’s omnibenevolence to condemn me to hell for it.

Let’s see how you logic holds up with just the smallest amount of work… but, first, may I recommend that you read the following four items first to get a better understanding of the Bible you are intent on criticizing:

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510fr.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0805fea4.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9505fea1.asp

catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp

I read all four, but didn’t get much out of them. I was already aware of pretty much everything in these articles, other than the analysis of the specific passages in the Oral Tradition in the New Testament article. I generally agree with them, although I thought the Bible as Historical Truth section of Proving Inspiration was poorly argued. I really wish you would stop presuming my ignorance. I have actually explored a lot of these issues more deeply than you realize.

Wow! You will really have to do much better then this. Without putting too fine a point on this: who are you? What are your credentials?

I have to do no such thing. Remember, this is your argument. You claim that the miracles in the Bible actually happened. I say that I have seen insufficient evidence that the miracles in the Bible represent true historical events. If I claimed that the events depicted in Harry Potter were historical fact, it would be unreasonable to ask you to prove that they were not (after all, wizards hide their existence very well). Instead, you would want to know why I think Harry Potter is true. I have heard many arguments people use to try to show that the Bible is historically accurate, but I do not think any of them really work. Since this is a message board, I am not going to write a book debunking all apologetic claims (nor would doing so interest me), but if you explain what arguments you find compelling, I can explain why I disagree.

I have no credentials; I am merely a person who has an interest in the subject of apologetics. I read and listen to the arguments of people who do have credentials. Do you have to be an expert on Islam and the Koran in order to reject it? Do you have to be an expert on Hinduism in order to believe that it is false?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I provide you with data that is over 2,000 years old (NT material) and has been scrutinized by scholars and skeptics from the very beginning. Do you honestly think that if this was a hoax it would still be in existence? Get serious.

So if Islam is still around in 600 years, is that proof that Islam is correct? Also, you are committing a straw man fallacy when you argue against it being a hoax. A hoax is a deliberate attempt to deceive people into accepting something known to be false. I do not claim that any of this is a hoax. I explained one theory for what might have happened in earlier posts. If you are interested, you might want to look at this post and this post.

There is more evidence to support that Christ worked miracles then there is for Caesar having fought in Gaul!

I do not think this is true. For one thing, we have a description of the campaign in a book written by Caesar himself. I strongly disagree with your statement and am curious on what basis you make that claim.

Simply stated: put up or shut up.

I really hope we can keep this civil. I think there’s no need to tell the other side to shut up. I always try to be polite, and I hope you do the same.

Identify the lies - and move forward in your disbelif. Fail to honestly back up your statement, then move forward toward belief.

I’m sorry, I just don’t understand what you mean by this. Would it be possible for you to clarify?

Your entire arguments rests on the premisis, “…could have added to it”? So, what was added? Do you have any data to back up this truly lame statement? Really, this is a major issue for you to think about: there have been some really determined people that have set out to prove the entire story of God a myth. Where are they now? Try looking on he dust heap of history along with other discarded theories.

I do not know what was added because I do not know what happened. If I hear an urban legend, I do not know how much of it is true and how much of it built up after being told repeatedly, but I do not assume it to be true without some evidence that it is. I cannot speak for the theories and beliefs of others; all I can do is defend my beliefs.

Hmmmm… Matthew and John were Apostles they were with Jesus from the beginning of His Public Life. Mark and Luke were not Apostles, but were eye witnesses to the events they recorded.

Right, but were they the people who wrote the gospels? From what I have read, the scholarly consensus is that it is probable that none of them actually wrote the gospels that have their names attached to them. If you want to convince me that any of them were written by those witnesses, you’ll have to present some reasons.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

None of these men were ‘court reporters’ and carried around scrolls and ink writing down every word as Jesus said them. These accounts were first writtn many years removed from Pentecost. Now, when there is an accident, the police look for witnesses and have them write down their story without consulting with one another. The police then compare the written accounts. A dead give-away is when all the stories are in 100% agreement with one another. There are all kinds of little divergences between the writers in insignificant details - but, the major details: Jesus is God, proclaimed the message of salvation, performed many miracles, identified that He was the fulfillment of prophecy, suffered and died for our sins, and rose from the dead on His Own Power are all in agreement.

For one thing, many sections of the gospels are almost word-for-word copies of other gospels. Also, I agree with you that the gospels agree on some of the major points. For example, they all agree that Jesus was crucified and there was an empty tomb. However, in almost every detail about Jesus’ crucifixion, resurrection, and subsequent appearances, the gospels differ. Mere agreement on major details is not enough. Consider a group suspected of a murder. Each member is interviewed and each says that the group had no role in the murder, but all their stories of what actually happened differ wildly. In this case, agreement on the major detail does not provide evidence that the witnesses are giving reliable accounts of what happened.

Looks like you are back to just being lazy again… “but I just don’t think…” pretty much catches the flavor of what you are presenting here. No data, no real reason … just… this. This is truly sad for a grown person to present this as an argument before other adults.

I wasn’t trying to convince you that I was right, merely giving the reasons why I don’t agree with what you presented. You never established the historic reliability of the Bible.

You are so right! Merely claiming something does not make it so. But, as I previously told you, the NT was written by eye-witnesses. Paul SAW CHRIST on the road to Damascus. The other writers all moved about with Christ and witnessed His miracles.

You claimed the New Testament was written by eyewitnesses, but you didn’t give the reasons why you believe that. I agree that Paul claimed Jesus appeared to him and we have books of the Bible written by Paul. However, we have claims from today about religious figures appearing to people in dreams or visions. We do not assume that every one of these represents an actual appearance. Similarly, I see no reason to assume that the actual Jesus of Nazareth must have appeared to Paul.

The issue before us is about the Bible - and not the Koran. Let’s stay on topic.

God bless

I was just checking to make sure you were evaluating the evidence fairly. If a claim in the Bible that there were a lot of witnesses is good evidence that there were, why wouldn’t something similar in the Koran be good evidence?

 

[Godfollower]

I really hope we can keep this civil. I think there’s no need to tell the other side to shut up. I always try to be polite, and I hope you do the same.

Please stick around. Some posts have gotten out of line on this thread (and I agree that you shouldn’t’ve been told to put up or shut up), but I am enjoying (the civil parts of) the debate. I hope you’ll keep it going.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Evilatheist,

First, let me apologize for the incivilities I am guilty of. Both my words and tone were inappropriate.

You claim that the miracles in the Bible actually happened. I say that I have seen insufficient evidence that the miracles in the Bible represent true historical events.

Maybe developing one idea at a time would be a better approach.

What would you consider sufficient evidence about miracles?

God bless

 

[wasmit]

When I speak of God I mean God with a capital G and that means the following:

• Almighty God of the Christians
• The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - the God of the Jewish Faith
• The God of the Muslim Faith

I thought I made that clear. I hope it is now clearer.

Deism means one who recognises the existence of a god but not religion. Probably new age stuff and some other religions.

God bless you
Cinette

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

In that case, you are wrong to say that “he[einstein] believed in God”

 

[Cinette]

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

In that case, you are wrong to say that “he[einstein] believed in God”

Oh? Please explain.

Cheers
Cinette

 

[Cinette]

Why do I believe in Christianity and the Bible? Why do I believe in the Trinity, the Eucharist, the Resurrection?

To an atheist this may sound like mambo jambo. I have often thought that if I had lived in those times and been there when Jesus spoke: “…….For my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed……” and all that he said to the people which made most of the disciples turn away in horror, I am pretty sure I would have turned away also. In fact, I would have laughed when told that this man Jesus who had been crucified had now risen from the dead. That would have been the last straw.

When the Apostles, inspired by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost were transformed and went out to spread the good news they only had Oral Tradition – nothing was written down. Yes, when stories are told from one person to another the stories tend to change but when you have a situation where Jesus said he would be with us always and that the Holy Spirit would be sent to guide us and we have the witness of the transformation of the Apostles, then one begins to think.

Add to this the witness of 2000 years, the growth of the Church, the sacrifice of lives in the name of the Faith, the many miracles, the Bible, the Catechism, the unfolding of history – things good and bad – and the triumph of good over evil, the continuous struggle of good over evil………….etc etc etc. Then to me the witness of these 2000 years and the lives of the saints and so much more strenghthens the case - it becomes easier for me to believe. I have the benefit of the test of time.

Then there is Faith. Who can explain Faith fully? It is something mysterious. Yes, this is another thing – mystery! Faith implies that we accept mysteries. To an atheist this must sound ludicrous. I have witnessed an atheist, my husband, go from unbeliever to believer and what struck me the most was when he believed he changed from a cynical skeptic to an almost childlike humility. It was such a strange and wonderful thing to witness. In the past he would challenge everything and now he yields to his new found Faith.

I do not expect people to believe me, especially atheists, I can only state my belief, my witness, my acceptance.

Blessings for all
Cinette