Dishonest Apologetics

  • Thread starter Thread starter anEvilAtheist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, that’s what I think a Deist would say. I, too, think that the Deist believes in a small ‘g’ god. The god is not a personal god but a force or an event or whatever. Which is why you CAN’T say that Einstein believed in God. If Einstein believed in a god, it was definitely a small ‘g’ god.
🙂
Well we can only speculate, not so? Somehow I would imagine that a man of his intellect would choose God - our creator.

I do not understand your fascination with deism. It has no attraction. What is the point?

Cinnette
 
Well we can only speculate, not so? Somehow I would imagine that a man of his intellect would choose God - our creator.

I do not understand your fascination with deism. It has no attraction. What is the point?

Cinnette
Somehow I would imagine that a man of his intellect would choose to state that belief in your God is childish. Why do I imagine this? Because he said so. I would prefer to take his words regarding his beliefs than yours. That you would want to misrepresent the beliefs of a man fifty years dead speaks volumes about you and others who would want to put his name on your list of believers in your faith. It’s like the Mormons going through the obituaries and adding names to their roster to fluff up their ranks. Is that what you want? Dishonest membership? Yeah, well, two can play that game. Hitler was a Catholic. (please do not accuse me of Godwin’s Law…facetiousness and I are old friends)
😛
I am not fascinated with deism. I am curious as to why you would make this claim. Is it a red herring?
 
Somehow I would imagine that a man of his intellect would choose to state that belief in your God is childish. Why do I imagine this? Because he said so. I would prefer to take his words regarding his beliefs than yours. That you would want to misrepresent the beliefs of a man fifty years dead speaks volumes about you and others who would want to put his name on your list of believers in your faith. It’s like the Mormons going through the obituaries and adding names to their roster to fluff up their ranks. Is that what you want? Dishonest membership? Yeah, well, two can play that game. Hitler was a Catholic. (please do not accuse me of Godwin’s Law…facetiousness and I are old friends)
😛
I am not fascinated with deism. I am curious as to why you would make this claim. Is it a red herring?
You accuse me of “imagining”. Your accusations can be directed to you as well - you seem pretty certain how to interpret Einstein’s words. As I said, we can only speculate.

So it speaks volumes about me, eh? You obviously have an opinion of me.

A person might be baptised in the Catholic Church. It does not make him a Catholic. He did not behave like one. Hitler was a human being - does that make him human?

Cinette
 
You accuse me of “imagining”. Your accusations can be directed to you as well - you seem pretty certain how to interpret Einstein’s words. As I said, we can only speculate.

So it speaks volumes about me, eh? You obviously have an opinion of me.

A person might be baptised in the Catholic Church. It does not make him a Catholic. He did not behave like one. Hitler was a human being - does that make him human?

Cinette
Talk about spoiling for a fight! Never mind.
Einstein was clear. He was not a theist. The end.
“Imagine” was YOUR word, I might add. Get a grip.
 
Yes, I’ll say it. I most certainly do have an opinion of you, and I’m sure you have one of me.
 
To the moderators: I apologize. I lost my patience. I will strive to recapture it.
 
I have never given much thought to this at all. I am been engaged in seeking to know my faith better. I am interested in God not gods.

Blessings
Cinette

yes…a personal exploration of faith can be enlightening…it is wonderful that your explorations led to a solidifying of your faith…my exploration has led me to deism…we have both been rewarded for our efforts…:D…fd
 
I do not understand your fascination with deism. It has no attraction. What is the point?

Cinnette

well…it has no attraction for YOU…i’m not quite sure of the global census, but i think it would be fair to say that you probably dont speak for the entire poulation…👍…fd
 
This is why it’s so hard to discuss faith and religion. Everybody seems to be working with different definitions. I define deism as: “The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.”
This sounds like a belief in nothing! Never interested me at all.

To me God is very real. I feel God and his great love. I want to get to know Him better. I am interested in other people’s experience of God. God makes me happy. If I believed as you believe I would feel very empty.

Cinette

actually…i am a deist…surfmeister was quoting me…btw…you should re-check your definition of deism…you have a post a few pages back that appears to be at odds with your current post…:confused:…fd
 
anEvilAtheist - I’ve gotten a little frustrated with the amount of bad arguments that both Christians and atheists make when debating the existence of God. So here’s a question for both groups: do you stop using bad arguments once you find out that they’re flawed? Or do you keep using the argument anyway, hoping that the person you’re using it on won’t be smart enough to spot the flaw? Do the ends justify the means as long as you lead them to the right place, or is it more important to make honest arguments?

By bad arguments, I mean those that are either logically invalid, or rest on very questionable assumptions. I’ll give you a few examples to let you know where I’m coming from. One argument I hear a lot of atheists use is that because the overwhelming majority of the universe is lifeless, it could not have been designed. The problem with this is that if an omnipotent God existed, he could have created everything with no effort whatsoever and could have created the entire rest of the universe just to give us something pretty to look at and explore. Another atheist argument that I think is logically flawed is the statement that because evolution can explain why people have religious beliefs, those religious beliefs must be false. If God exists, he could simply have made us this way in order to make it easier to realize that he exists. So it shows why people might believe in God even if he doesn’t exist, but it does not show that God is merely imaginary. Another common argument is that religious people have done very bad things in the past. This does not show that their religion is false, just that members of any religion are humans, and have flaws. Both atheists and Christians have been brutal murderers and both atheists and Christians have been generous humanitarians.

As an atheist, I obviously think that many Christian arguments are flawed, and I’ll mention a couple of them. Sometimes Christians say that their beliefs must be reasonable since so many people share their beliefs and atheists must be wrong since there are fewer of us. The problem is that popularity is not a good way of establishing what the truth is.

Agreed!

…Christianity is no more or less true today than it was when it consisted of a few hundred people. Islam does not become true if it far surpasses Christianity in adherents. Another argument that just doesn’t work is Pascal’s Wager, which says that an atheist loses nothing if he accepts Catholicism and has everything to gain if it turns out to be true. Because of this, an atheist should supposedly try to believe. One problem is that religion isn’t completely costless (going to mass, giving money to the church). So in order for the wager to work, there must be some evidence that Catholicism is true, otherwise we should give all our money to anyone who walks up to us on the street and says that he will somehow give us infinite happiness in exchange. Since there are many contradictory religions, someone would have to consider every possible religion, and pick the one with the most evidence.

**Jesus Christ is the only Man to appeal to miracles that He Himself performed, as a testimony to His Divine character. No other religion appeals to miracles as a testimony to their founders credibility, not even Mohammad; he admitted that he could not perform miracles. All the miracles of Jesus pointed to him as the Messiah. Jesus did not just heal the sick and raise the dead for the express purpose of taking suffering away, but to produce the credentials of his kingdom and establish His credibility. However, he did have intense love/compassion for the people and felt their suffering enough to relieve them by showing his concern through love. From the beginning we see miracles in Jesus’ ministry. From changing the water to wine for the celebration of a marriage to increasing the amount of food from the sparse amount his disciples already had. Jesus life ministry was to physically heal people so that they would know from these miraculous works that he was their Messiah. Jesus performed miracles in every facet of life, in the natural and the supernatural. In Matthew 8 He healed a leper which was unheard of in his day.

The four gospels record about 35 miracles that Jesus performed. These were not the only ones he did, but the specific ones the writers picked out under the guidance of the holy Spirit to represent His ministry. At the end of John’s gospel he says the books of the world would be filled with his miracle accounts if they were all written down. Only two of His miracles are found in all four gospels, the feeding of the five thousand and the resurrection.
**
 
**In Matt. 4:23 Jesus healed every kind of disease and every kind of sickness among the people by some just touching the fringe of His cloak - and as many as touched it were being cured. (Mark 6:56) And all the multitude were trying to touch Him, for power was coming from Him and healing them all. (Luke 6:19) He performed all kinds of miracles and cured the various illnesses of His day. These include: leprosy, blindness from birth, deafness, paralysis, fever, shriveled limbs, an amputated ear, muteness, and blood hemorrhaging. In Matthew 8:10:13 Jesus healed a centurion servant without even being present. He healed by touch and from a distance demonstrating that He is Lord of space and time. He had control over nature by calming the seas. Matthew 8:25-27: "A great storm arose on the Sea of Galilee covering their boat with waves. Then His disciples came to Him and awoke Him, saying, ‘Lord, save us! We are perishing!’ But He said to them, ‘Why are you fearful, O you of little faith?’ Then He arose and rebuked the winds and the sea. And there was a great calm. And the men marveled, saying, ‘Who can this be, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?’ Even his disciples who were living with him could not understand how this was possible. They to were in awe of a man who could control natures rage by a word. Jesus displayed complete authority over the forces of nature. It was the same word that created all things in the book of Genesis. He did not fail once. Jesus Christ proved he was Lord over space and time while not subject to either. All the miracles were defying natural laws. No one ever claimed to do such things, for the simple fact that they couldn’t!

Jesus predicted that the city of Jerusalem would be destroyed. Forty years before it occurred, Jesus gave specifics to its destruction; Jesus spoke of the temple being destroyed and the manner of its destruction. Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came to Him to show Him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” Matthew 24:1- 2 Just as he predicted the Romans came in stripped the gold off the glorious temple and tore down the stones. After this he prophesied that they would be led away until a certain time, “they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations.” Finally Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." (Luke 21:24) - And so it was…

Where are the prophecies and miracles of Mohammad in the Koran, or any other major religion for that matter? You name the famous religious person, and what they will lack are miracles, predictive prophecy fulfilled, and prophecy from their own mouths coming to pass far in the future.

One thing is quite clear: there never was or will be anyone like Jesus. But I will concede that believing in Him is by faith alone, and cannot be tested in a lab. However, I truly believe that it takes more faith to be an atheist. The idea that the infinite universe is in need of no designer is so silly!!! If I told you that your car just spontaneously presented itself, with no causality, would you believe me? **

It would take more than one lifetime to thoroughly consider the evidence for the many thousands of religions (and only considering the most popular is not good enough). So this does not really work as a way of deciding what to believe, and it really all comes down to whether the evidence for Catholicism is enough to conclude that it is probably true.

**Take a look into the apparitions of Garabandal and the miracles of Damascus. Please explain to me how a girl from Damascus, among other things, could exude 100% olive oil from her skin, as per all the scientists that investigated the matter, or how the 4 little girls in Garabandal, when in ecstatic states, could have repeatedly defied the laws of nature and accurately returned 100’s of Rosary’s and crosses etc, each day, for 4 years, to the rightful owner, even though they had no idea from whom these items came. Would this be good enough evidence to convince you that Catholicism is probably true?
**

Another argument I sometimes hear is that someone you know was sick and recovered after you prayed for them. The reason why this doesn’t work as evidence of God is that some people will inevitably recover whether you pray for them or not. What would provide evidence of God is a study showing that people receiving prayers recovered faster than those who did not. However, so far no properly conducted study has discovered a significant effect.

**Check out the miraculous healings Lourdes:

74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:gKqfQtYEyhQJ:www.theworkofgod.org/Aparitns/Lourdes/Lourdes1.htm+lourdes+miraculous+healings&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
**

I’m not saying that I’m immune from this, but when I find out that I made a bad argument, I figure out how to fix it or stop using it. So feel free to let me know if you think any of the arguments I just made are bad. Finally, I’m not trying to demean anyone; I’m just trying to figure out why people use bad arguments, and hopefully raise the level of debate so we can figure out which side has more support.

**Usually strong personal bias clouds reason and sound judgment… **
 
Jesus Christ is the only Man to appeal to miracles that He Himself performed, as a testimony to His Divine character. No other religion appeals to miracles as a testimony to their founders credibility, not even Mohammad; he admitted that he could not perform miracles. All the miracles of Jesus pointed to him as the Messiah. Jesus did not just heal the sick and raise the dead for the express purpose of taking suffering away, but to produce the credentials of his kingdom and establish His credibility.
If Jesus performed even 1/2 of the miracles you listed, that would be enough to convince me to believe (and actually, one miracle would be enough). The issue for me is that I don’t have enough reasons to trust the biblical account. I don’t assume that what is written in the Bible, or the Koran, or the Book of Mormon is correct until someone shows me reasons to think it is true. My current belief is that the Bible is based on a small amount of true events and that these were exaggerated and expanded as the story spread. So I don’t think it works to cite Bible stories until you establish that they are true. And the same thing holds with prophecies that the gospels say that Jesus made. If there’s no good evidence that Jesus made them, or that the prophecies were made before the events happened, then I don’t think they’re good evidence for Christianity.
Where are the prophecies and miracles of Mohammad in the Koran, or any other major religion for that matter? You name the famous religious person, and what they will lack are miracles, predictive prophecy fulfilled, and prophecy from their own mouths coming to pass far in the future.
I’m still waiting to hear good evidence that there have been Christian miracles or incredibly accurate prophecies. I do not believe that the miracles claimed by any religion are real (at least until I see good reasons to think that they are).
**One thing is quite clear: there never was or will be anyone like Jesus. But I will concede that believing in Him is by faith alone, and cannot be tested in a lab. However, I truly believe that it takes more faith to be an atheist. The idea that the infinite universe is in need of no designer is so silly!!! If I told you that your car just spontaneously presented itself, with no causality, would you believe me? **
No, because we have experience with how cars come into being, whereas we have no experience with how universes come into being. Also, the universe (and by universe I mean the entire natural world) could easily have existed eternally. So just like you (I presume) can’t explain why there is a God and the universe instead of no God and no universe, I don’t know why there is a universe instead of no universe. There are some questions that we can never know the answer to.
Take a look into the apparitions of Garabandal and the miracles of Damascus. … Would this be good enough evidence to convince you that Catholicism is probably true?
Assuming the girl hadn’t drank gallons of olive oil, and the girls had no natural way of knowing who owned the rosaries, either of these would be excellent evidence that Catholicism is true (probably enough for me convert). I researched them a little bit though and couldn’t find good sources to back up your claims. There have been plenty of religious hoaxes by various people over the years, so I’d need some actual evidence that the claims are true.
The problem I have with Lourdes is that we have no way of knowing if the number of unexplainable remissions is higher than the number of such remissions for people who don’t go to Lourdes. According to Father Liam Griffin of the Sanctuaries of Lourdes, there have been 66 declared miracles over about the past 150 years at Lourdes. However, he also says that they receive 80,000 sick visitors every year. Even if that number used to be somewhat lower, we’re still talking about many millions of total visitors. So somewhere around 1 in 100,000 had a recovery that the Church was confident could not be explained naturally (not just cases where there wasn’t enough information). Considering that spontaneous remissions do happen, even without attending Lourdes, I’d need to see that the odds of recovering of those who went to Lourdes was much higher than for those who didn’t. Right now it doesn’t seem like there’s a significant difference.
**Usually strong personal bias clouds reason and sound judgment… **
I agree. I think there are some atheists who don’t want God to exist and this cloud’s their reason, just like there are some Christians who really want to believe the Christian story and this clouds their reason.
 
Aahh Surfmeister,
Yet another failure to comprehend.

Let us look at this post of yours. (Please read s l o w l y)

FIRST:
S.d.B.: But for you?

Sartre: As for me, I don’t see myself as so much dust that has appeared in the world but as a being that was expected, prefigured, called forth. In short, as a being that could, it seems, come only from a creator; and this idea of a creating hand that created me refers me back to God. Naturally this is not a clear, exact idea that I set in motion every time I think of myself. It contradicts many of my other ideas; but it is there, floating vaguely. And when I think of myself I often think rather in this way, for want of being able to think otherwise.
So what can we deduce from the above statement (pay particular attention to the words I have highlighted in blue)? This statement says that Sartre did believe in God.

Did it say he believed in a Judeo-Christian God? No. He believed in a Creator God period. He has not completely extended this concept of God but it is evident in the quote you cited above that he did believe in a Creator God.

Also, note the stress on the one I highlighted in pink. Sartre is saying he can’t think any other way. Any other way than to believe that God created him.

SECOND
Nevertheless, immediately after this he goes on to reiterate his lack of belief in God and the freedom that this brings. He then says “I don’t need God in order to love my neighbor. It’s a direct relation between man and man; I don’t have to pass by the infinite at all. And then my acts have made up a life, my life, which is going to end, which is almost over, and which I judge without too many errors. This life owes nothing to God; it was what I wanted it to be and to some extent what I made it without meaning to. And when now I reflect upon it, it satisfies me; and I do not need to pass by God for that.”
So what is Sartre saying here? Is he denying his belief in the existence of God with this statement. No! What he is saying is that even though he may believe in God, this God has no impact on how he lives his life. He lived his life as he wished without any reference to whether God approves or disapproves of how he lived.

So your summation which goes:
What I make of this is that Sartre is saying, consistent with his life’s philosophy, that the idea of God is like a hangover that is hard to shake. It is analogous to the experience of distinctly remembering you turned off the stove, but turning the car around to go back and check anyway, because you can’t get over the nagging doubt that you didn’t. So, it is clear that this quote in 1974 did not come out of a conversion experience, and I am skeptical that there was one in 1980. As I said, Sartre was hardly lucid in his last years. Still, his rambling, musing about the feeling of being created is
remarkable.
is wrong.

Sartre believed in a Creator God but He did not allow this God to have any say in His life. And this is quite understandable. Because someone who comes to a belief in a creator God from a purely intellectual exercise does not have a reference point for the God of revelation. So perhaps Sartre can be said to be a deist but that does not diminish the fact that he believed in God.

Deists may believe in an impersonal God but they nontheless believe in God. Which, if you read her post properly, is all that Cinnette is trying to say.

You as usual jumped to conclusions because you read my and Cinette’s post (probably any believer’s post) with a particularly blinkered atheistic pair of spectacles.

If you will read our posts as we have written them and stop imputing your own bias into them, then you will understand what we are saying much better.
 
Aahh Surfmeister,
Yet another failure to comprehend.

Let us look at this post of yours. (Please read s l o w l y)

FIRST:

So what can we deduce from the above statement (pay particular attention to the words I have highlighted in blue)? This statement says that Sartre did believe in God.

Did it say he believed in a Judeo-Christian God? No. He believed in a Creator God period. He has not completely extended this concept of God but it is evident in the quote you cited above that he did believe in a Creator God.

Also, note the stress on the one I highlighted in pink. Sartre is saying he can’t think any other way. Any other way than to believe that God created him.

SECOND

So what is Sartre saying here? Is he denying his belief in the existence of God with this statement. No! What he is saying is that even though he may believe in God, this God has no impact on how he lives his life. He lived his life as he wished without any reference to whether God approves or disapproves of how he lived.

So your summation which goes:

is wrong
.

Sartre believed in a Creator God but He did not allow this God to have any say in His life. And this is quite understandable. Because someone who comes to a belief in a creator God from a purely intellectual exercise does not have a reference point for the God of revelation. So perhaps Sartre can be said to be a deist but that does not diminish the fact that he believed in God.

Deists may believe in an impersonal God but they nontheless believe in God. Which, if you read her post properly, is all that Cinnette is trying to say.

You as usual jumped to conclusions because you read my and Cinette’s post (probably any believer’s post) with a particularly blinkered atheistic pair of spectacles.

If you will read our posts as we have written them and stop imputing your own bias into them, then you will understand what we are saying much better.
Have you ever watched Friends? Are you familiar with the character Chandler?
Picture him saying this:
“Could you BE any more rude?” “Could you BE any more uncharitable?” “Could you BE any more combative?”
I don’t do drama. Sorry. Come back later in a better mood and I will be more than happy, willing and able to discuss this with you. Until then, peace and love. 😉
 
“…it is quite heartwarming that he believes in God.”
But did he? My research indicates that he didn’t. "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously.
Read and comprehend. Where did I say that the God that Einstein believed in is a personal God.

Assumptions again my dear.
 
What you see as argumentative I see as an expressed viewpoint in keeping with the title of this thread. If someone is using an argument known to be false or questionable in Apologetics, I personally believe that the argument should be held up an examined. I have always been grateful when my arguments have been revealed to be flawed. I don’t like being wrong.😉
But the title of this thread is actually wrong.

First, calling an apologetics argument dishonest means you are making a judgment on the intent of the apologist.

Bad i.e. illogical arguments are not dishonest arguments. What make an argument dishonest is if the apologist knows it to be untrue and claims it to be true. Even if the apologist knows that a liine of thought is illogical, it does not make the person dishonest. For at most all that person is doing is stating an illogical argument. He is not stating a lie.

If someone were to say that Einstein believed in God and used that as an apologetics argument, all that person is doing is falling into a fallacy, not dishonesty.

Even if that person were to keep repeating that line of argumentation, it will not make him dishonest becuase what he is saying is still true, that Einstein belived in God and Einstein himself wrote this.

To say that Einstein believed in God so therefore it must be true is bad argumentation (fallacious) but not dishonest.

You my friend have fallen into a lot of bad argumentation due to failure to comprehend. Now I could say that you are being dishonest if you are deliberately failing to comprehend. But of that I can only guess so I cannot really say you are being **deliberately **obtuse so therefore I cannot say that you dishonest:).

The only sad thing about that is, if one is not being dishonest, one is therefore not being deliberately obtuse. Which raises the question: is one simply, plainly obtuse? So that is like a Catch 22 situation.😉
 
Have you ever watched Friends? Are you familiar with the character Chandler?
Picture him saying this:
“Could you BE any more rude?” “Could you BE any more uncharitable?” “Could you BE any more combative?”
I don’t do drama. Sorry. Come back later in a better mood and I will be more than happy, willing and able to discuss this with you. Until then, peace and love. 😉
Hey, I am in a happy mood. I have finished all the work I needed to do and just had the longest sleep ever. 🙂

What does this have to do with your post that I rebutted?

Where is the drama in my post? I am merely stating the fact that the reason you keep coming up with a rebuttal like the one I responded to is because you do not read our posts thoroughly.

You come in thinking that we reason the same way you have heard other theists’s reason.

All I am trying to say to you is to start reading our posts and not read into them someone elses argumentation.

It is very wearying having to remind you of that.
 
See post #367, Page 25.
🙂
Again. What does this have to do with your post that I rebutted? I think you and me will get along just fine if you will stop atributing to me, statements that I have never ever made.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top