Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Apologetics

ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 4:24:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Does Apologetics need to be improved and enhanced, or is there a branch of apologetics or apologist who actually brings out a rational and reasonable approach to the questions of the skeptic.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 5:17:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 4:24:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Does Apologetics need to be improved and enhanced, or is there a branch of apologetics or apologist who actually brings out a rational and reasonable approach to the questions of the skeptic.

Some apologists do a good job, while others just plain suck.
I've seen some of the former and some of the latter.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 5:46:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Apologetics have failed to turn the tide of critics , skeptics and even biblical scholars who challenge the inerrancy of the bible. Their alternate explanations for the controversies and contradictions in the bible have raise more doubts about their own scholarship and competence.
From the Christian Apologetic Press.

"More Americans are moving toward an interpretation of the Bible as a book of fables, history, and moral precepts. ...Attempts at demythologizing the Bible that have been ongoing in the academy for years seem to be moving more and more from the classroom to the pews.... As recently as 1963, two persons in three viewed the Bible as the actual word of God, to be taken literally, word for word. Today, only one person in three still holds to that interpretation (1999, p. 36)."
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 8:12:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 5:46:52 PM, Harikrish wrote:
Apologetics have failed to turn the tide of critics , skeptics and even biblical scholars who challenge the inerrancy of the bible. Their alternate explanations for the controversies and contradictions in the bible have raise more doubts about their own scholarship and competence.
From the Christian Apologetic Press.

"More Americans are moving toward an interpretation of the Bible as a book of fables, history, and moral precepts. ...Attempts at demythologizing the Bible that have been ongoing in the academy for years seem to be moving more and more from the classroom to the pews.... As recently as 1963, two persons in three viewed the Bible as the actual word of God, to be taken literally, word for word. Today, only one person in three still holds to that interpretation (1999, p. 36)."

So metaphors or parables don't seem like a good explanation at reading the bible?
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 8:16:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 8:12:39 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/7/2015 5:46:52 PM, Harikrish wrote:
Apologetics have failed to turn the tide of critics , skeptics and even biblical scholars who challenge the inerrancy of the bible. Their alternate explanations for the controversies and contradictions in the bible have raise more doubts about their own scholarship and competence.
From the Christian Apologetic Press.

"More Americans are moving toward an interpretation of the Bible as a book of fables, history, and moral precepts. ...Attempts at demythologizing the Bible that have been ongoing in the academy for years seem to be moving more and more from the classroom to the pews.... As recently as 1963, two persons in three viewed the Bible as the actual word of God, to be taken literally, word for word. Today, only one person in three still holds to that interpretation (1999, p. 36)."

So metaphors or parables don't seem like a good explanation at reading the bible?

Wouldn't that make sense, considering this:

"These things I have spoken to you in a figurative language; an hour is coming when I will speak no more to you in figurative language, but will tell you plainly of the father."
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 8:23:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 8:16:31 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 1/7/2015 8:12:39 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/7/2015 5:46:52 PM, Harikrish wrote:
Apologetics have failed to turn the tide of critics , skeptics and even biblical scholars who challenge the inerrancy of the bible. Their alternate explanations for the controversies and contradictions in the bible have raise more doubts about their own scholarship and competence.
From the Christian Apologetic Press.

"More Americans are moving toward an interpretation of the Bible as a book of fables, history, and moral precepts. ...Attempts at demythologizing the Bible that have been ongoing in the academy for years seem to be moving more and more from the classroom to the pews.... As recently as 1963, two persons in three viewed the Bible as the actual word of God, to be taken literally, word for word. Today, only one person in three still holds to that interpretation (1999, p. 36)."

So metaphors or parables don't seem like a good explanation at reading the bible?

Wouldn't that make sense, considering this:

"These things I have spoken to you in a figurative language; an hour is coming when I will speak no more to you in figurative language, but will tell you plainly of the father."

Won't this refer to meeting Jesus in Heaven? Because we are nearing the end of the gospel and have already gone past the Old Testament at this point.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 8:25:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 4:24:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Does Apologetics need to be improved and enhanced, or is there a branch of apologetics or apologist who actually brings out a rational and reasonable approach to the questions of the skeptic.

It's all bunk. They all rely on creative and loaded language to smuggle in the ideas they are trying to justify.

One of the proofs of this in my view is presuppositional apologetics, where they seem to have realized that there is no solid argument to support the existence of God and decided not to even bother. They just declare victory at the outset and claim that any attempt you make to argue with them proves them right. Take a look at my sig... yea, that really happened.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 8:31:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 8:23:41 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:

Won't this refer to meeting Jesus in Heaven? Because we are nearing the end of the gospel and have already gone past the Old Testament at this point.

I meant the former part of the sentence, where he says how he spoke figuratively to us. In other words, interpreting it figuratively would make more sense than interpreting it literally. Unless I misunderstood, my bad.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 8:34:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 8:25:36 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/7/2015 4:24:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Does Apologetics need to be improved and enhanced, or is there a branch of apologetics or apologist who actually brings out a rational and reasonable approach to the questions of the skeptic.

It's all bunk. They all rely on creative and loaded language to smuggle in the ideas they are trying to justify.

One of the proofs of this in my view is presuppositional apologetics, where they seem to have realized that there is no solid argument to support the existence of God and decided not to even bother. They just declare victory at the outset and claim that any attempt you make to argue with them proves them right. Take a look at my sig... yea, that really happened.

There are less than logical people on both sides.
Today I was arguing with an atheist who said "There's no proof Jesus existed we never found his body".
Literally.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 8:37:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 8:34:54 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/7/2015 8:25:36 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/7/2015 4:24:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Does Apologetics need to be improved and enhanced, or is there a branch of apologetics or apologist who actually brings out a rational and reasonable approach to the questions of the skeptic.

It's all bunk. They all rely on creative and loaded language to smuggle in the ideas they are trying to justify.

One of the proofs of this in my view is presuppositional apologetics, where they seem to have realized that there is no solid argument to support the existence of God and decided not to even bother. They just declare victory at the outset and claim that any attempt you make to argue with them proves them right. Take a look at my sig... yea, that really happened.

There are less than logical people on both sides.
Today I was arguing with an atheist who said "There's no proof Jesus existed we never found his body".
Literally.

HaHa HA... I can only imagine.
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 8:39:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 4:24:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Does Apologetics need to be improved and enhanced, or is there a branch of apologetics or apologist who actually brings out a rational and reasonable approach to the questions of the skeptic.

As an atheist I have yet to hear an argument that is actually any good concerning the existence of a god. I've gone as far as listening to an apologetics course from a Christian university. It was terrible. Terrible arguments and of course atheist are completely misrepresented. But, you can only do so much with no evidence.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 8:51:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 8:25:36 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/7/2015 4:24:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Does Apologetics need to be improved and enhanced, or is there a branch of apologetics or apologist who actually brings out a rational and reasonable approach to the questions of the skeptic.

It's all bunk. They all rely on creative and loaded language to smuggle in the ideas they are trying to justify.

One of the proofs of this in my view is presuppositional apologetics, where they seem to have realized that there is no solid argument to support the existence of God and decided not to even bother. They just declare victory at the outset and claim that any attempt you make to argue with them proves them right. Take a look at my sig... yea, that really happened.

Pressupositional Apologetics is not apologetics. It's a bunch of cowards who raised the white flag. It refuses to answer questions to skeptics and they also claim that skeptics know these answers. This is pathetic.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 8:55:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 8:51:17 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/7/2015 8:25:36 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/7/2015 4:24:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Does Apologetics need to be improved and enhanced, or is there a branch of apologetics or apologist who actually brings out a rational and reasonable approach to the questions of the skeptic.

It's all bunk. They all rely on creative and loaded language to smuggle in the ideas they are trying to justify.

One of the proofs of this in my view is presuppositional apologetics, where they seem to have realized that there is no solid argument to support the existence of God and decided not to even bother. They just declare victory at the outset and claim that any attempt you make to argue with them proves them right. Take a look at my sig... yea, that really happened.

Pressupositional Apologetics is not apologetics. It's a bunch of cowards who raised the white flag. It refuses to answer questions to skeptics and they also claim that skeptics know these answers. This is pathetic.

I agree, but like I said, one good indicator that apologetics is bunk it is the fact that people so dedicated to defending their faith had to resort to this.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 9:01:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 8:39:25 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/7/2015 4:24:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Does Apologetics need to be improved and enhanced, or is there a branch of apologetics or apologist who actually brings out a rational and reasonable approach to the questions of the skeptic.

As an atheist I have yet to hear an argument that is actually any good concerning the existence of a god. I've gone as far as listening to an apologetics course from a Christian university. It was terrible. Terrible arguments and of course atheist are completely misrepresented. But, you can only do so much with no evidence.

Here's the problem I am seeing in the modern day school of apologetics from RZIM Ministries and Reasonable Faith Ministries. They teach by using satirical representations of atheists to make Christians seem on top. Here's what an atheist needs to be defined as.

Atheist: A person who simply lacks belief (or if you don't want to offend them at times, somebody who just doesn't have a belief since some think lacking means something bad.)

Anti Theism: The position that theism is bad and horrible.

We shouldn't destroy the agnostic label because some prefer to be called an agnostic. I say call yourself whatever.

The next phase in apologetics is to admit there is no evidence of God, but the claims do exist. The bible is a claim, but is not evidence. So what one must do is not use philosophy or thinking to make premises like William Lane Craig to offer proof, but to offer reasons why faith or a belief in a deity might be something worth pursuing in.

Then the final question is using the bible and secular rationality to answer the toughest questions in life. Why does pain and suffering exist if the god of the bible exists? If God exists and wants us to believe, why doesn't he show himself? We need to get people to not just be interested in taking up the want to have a master to teach them the ways of apologetics, but the individuals must learn to be seekers of truth. If God is real, I believe he would reveal his wisdom and truth in more than just one book involving the message of the gospel and salvation.

I hope this reply shows apologetics is somewhat evolving. If not, then I can only just keep trying.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 9:05:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 8:55:56 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/7/2015 8:51:17 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/7/2015 8:25:36 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/7/2015 4:24:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Does Apologetics need to be improved and enhanced, or is there a branch of apologetics or apologist who actually brings out a rational and reasonable approach to the questions of the skeptic.

It's all bunk. They all rely on creative and loaded language to smuggle in the ideas they are trying to justify.

One of the proofs of this in my view is presuppositional apologetics, where they seem to have realized that there is no solid argument to support the existence of God and decided not to even bother. They just declare victory at the outset and claim that any attempt you make to argue with them proves them right. Take a look at my sig... yea, that really happened.

Pressupositional Apologetics is not apologetics. It's a bunch of cowards who raised the white flag. It refuses to answer questions to skeptics and they also claim that skeptics know these answers. This is pathetic.

I agree, but like I said, one good indicator that apologetics is bunk it is the fact that people so dedicated to defending their faith had to resort to this.

I don't know. I doubt that's the reason why. If you notice some of these people, they mainly do it for the use of publicity. Real and honest apologetics that stick to their foundations will be humble and not even demand money. If I were to start an apologetics ministry, I would simply put a donate page on my website and people can donate, but I will not emphasis it or advertise for it. Even if I write books or do videos. People already have this concept of wanting to donate or support a cause. So they'll do it if they want. The more a pastor told me to give him a credit card, I said "No way Jose." We must be humble. I will be willing to answer all the tough questions to the best of my ability.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 8:28:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 8:34:54 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/7/2015 8:25:36 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/7/2015 4:24:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Does Apologetics need to be improved and enhanced, or is there a branch of apologetics or apologist who actually brings out a rational and reasonable approach to the questions of the skeptic.

It's all bunk. They all rely on creative and loaded language to smuggle in the ideas they are trying to justify.

One of the proofs of this in my view is presuppositional apologetics, where they seem to have realized that there is no solid argument to support the existence of God and decided not to even bother. They just declare victory at the outset and claim that any attempt you make to argue with them proves them right. Take a look at my sig... yea, that really happened.

There are less than logical people on both sides.
Today I was arguing with an atheist who said "There's no proof Jesus existed we never found his body".
Literally.

Lmao!
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 10:53:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 9:01:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/7/2015 8:39:25 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/7/2015 4:24:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Does Apologetics need to be improved and enhanced, or is there a branch of apologetics or apologist who actually brings out a rational and reasonable approach to the questions of the skeptic.

As an atheist I have yet to hear an argument that is actually any good concerning the existence of a god. I've gone as far as listening to an apologetics course from a Christian university. It was terrible. Terrible arguments and of course atheist are completely misrepresented. But, you can only do so much with no evidence.

Here's the problem I am seeing in the modern day school of apologetics from RZIM Ministries and Reasonable Faith Ministries. They teach by using satirical representations of atheists to make Christians seem on top. Here's what an atheist needs to be defined as.

Atheist: A person who simply lacks belief (or if you don't want to offend them at times, somebody who just doesn't have a belief since some think lacking means something bad.)

Anti Theism: The position that theism is bad and horrible.

We shouldn't destroy the agnostic label because some prefer to be called an agnostic. I say call yourself whatever.

The next phase in apologetics is to admit there is no evidence of God, but the claims do exist. The bible is a claim, but is not evidence. So what one must do is not use philosophy or thinking to make premises like William Lane Craig to offer proof, but to offer reasons why faith or a belief in a deity might be something worth pursuing in.

Then the final question is using the bible and secular rationality to answer the toughest questions in life. Why does pain and suffering exist if the god of the bible exists? If God exists and wants us to believe, why doesn't he show himself? We need to get people to not just be interested in taking up the want to have a master to teach them the ways of apologetics, but the individuals must learn to be seekers of truth. If God is real, I believe he would reveal his wisdom and truth in more than just one book involving the message of the gospel and salvation.

I hope this reply shows apologetics is somewhat evolving. If not, then I can only just keep trying.
Apologetics has been around for thousands of years. It is always evolving. The struggle to get people to believe in something with no evidence is a struggle for the theistic side. "To god one day is a thousand years and a thousand years is one day." forget which passage this is in, but I think this is early Christian apologetics. Mark 9:1, Mark 13, and Paul's known authentic letters (IMO) clearly point to a first century end of the world. I think that passage I quoted was to address objections by those who wearing saying to early Christians, "you were here last year telling me the world was about to end." William Lane Craig is a good debater. There is no denying that. But most of his success is rhetorical in my opinion. I watched the Craig/Sean Carroll debate. Carroll destroyed Craig in that one. For the Christian apologist, I think you probably have gone as far as you really can. I suspect the apologist will never have actual evidence. So they must rely on the moral argument, fine tuning, Kalam, ext. They all have flaws and the apologist really can't get around that.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 12:01:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 10:53:56 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/7/2015 9:01:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/7/2015 8:39:25 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/7/2015 4:24:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Does Apologetics need to be improved and enhanced, or is there a branch of apologetics or apologist who actually brings out a rational and reasonable approach to the questions of the skeptic.

As an atheist I have yet to hear an argument that is actually any good concerning the existence of a god. I've gone as far as listening to an apologetics course from a Christian university. It was terrible. Terrible arguments and of course atheist are completely misrepresented. But, you can only do so much with no evidence.

Here's the problem I am seeing in the modern day school of apologetics from RZIM Ministries and Reasonable Faith Ministries. They teach by using satirical representations of atheists to make Christians seem on top. Here's what an atheist needs to be defined as.

Atheist: A person who simply lacks belief (or if you don't want to offend them at times, somebody who just doesn't have a belief since some think lacking means something bad.)

Anti Theism: The position that theism is bad and horrible.

We shouldn't destroy the agnostic label because some prefer to be called an agnostic. I say call yourself whatever.

The next phase in apologetics is to admit there is no evidence of God, but the claims do exist. The bible is a claim, but is not evidence. So what one must do is not use philosophy or thinking to make premises like William Lane Craig to offer proof, but to offer reasons why faith or a belief in a deity might be something worth pursuing in.

Then the final question is using the bible and secular rationality to answer the toughest questions in life. Why does pain and suffering exist if the god of the bible exists? If God exists and wants us to believe, why doesn't he show himself? We need to get people to not just be interested in taking up the want to have a master to teach them the ways of apologetics, but the individuals must learn to be seekers of truth. If God is real, I believe he would reveal his wisdom and truth in more than just one book involving the message of the gospel and salvation.

I hope this reply shows apologetics is somewhat evolving. If not, then I can only just keep trying.
Apologetics has been around for thousands of years. It is always evolving. The struggle to get people to believe in something with no evidence is a struggle for the theistic side. "To god one day is a thousand years and a thousand years is one day." forget which passage this is in, but I think this is early Christian apologetics. Mark 9:1, Mark 13, and Paul's known authentic letters (IMO) clearly point to a first century end of the world. I think that passage I quoted was to address objections by those who wearing saying to early Christians, "you were here last year telling me the world was about to end." William Lane Craig is a good debater. There is no denying that. But most of his success is rhetorical in my opinion. I watched the Craig/Sean Carroll debate. Carroll destroyed Craig in that one. For the Christian apologist, I think you probably have gone as far as you really can. I suspect the apologist will never have actual evidence. So they must rely on the moral argument, fine tuning, Kalam, ext. They all have flaws and the apologist really can't get around that.

I disagree with the fine tuning, Kalam and Ontalogical arguments. But there are better ways to argue for the case.
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 12:36:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 12:01:30 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 10:53:56 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/7/2015 9:01:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/7/2015 8:39:25 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/7/2015 4:24:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Does Apologetics need to be improved and enhanced, or is there a branch of apologetics or apologist who actually brings out a rational and reasonable approach to the questions of the skeptic.

As an atheist I have yet to hear an argument that is actually any good concerning the existence of a god. I've gone as far as listening to an apologetics course from a Christian university. It was terrible. Terrible arguments and of course atheist are completely misrepresented. But, you can only do so much with no evidence.

Here's the problem I am seeing in the modern day school of apologetics from RZIM Ministries and Reasonable Faith Ministries. They teach by using satirical representations of atheists to make Christians seem on top. Here's what an atheist needs to be defined as.

Atheist: A person who simply lacks belief (or if you don't want to offend them at times, somebody who just doesn't have a belief since some think lacking means something bad.)

Anti Theism: The position that theism is bad and horrible.

We shouldn't destroy the agnostic label because some prefer to be called an agnostic. I say call yourself whatever.

The next phase in apologetics is to admit there is no evidence of God, but the claims do exist. The bible is a claim, but is not evidence. So what one must do is not use philosophy or thinking to make premises like William Lane Craig to offer proof, but to offer reasons why faith or a belief in a deity might be something worth pursuing in.

Then the final question is using the bible and secular rationality to answer the toughest questions in life. Why does pain and suffering exist if the god of the bible exists? If God exists and wants us to believe, why doesn't he show himself? We need to get people to not just be interested in taking up the want to have a master to teach them the ways of apologetics, but the individuals must learn to be seekers of truth. If God is real, I believe he would reveal his wisdom and truth in more than just one book involving the message of the gospel and salvation.

I hope this reply shows apologetics is somewhat evolving. If not, then I can only just keep trying.
Apologetics has been around for thousands of years. It is always evolving. The struggle to get people to believe in something with no evidence is a struggle for the theistic side. "To god one day is a thousand years and a thousand years is one day." forget which passage this is in, but I think this is early Christian apologetics. Mark 9:1, Mark 13, and Paul's known authentic letters (IMO) clearly point to a first century end of the world. I think that passage I quoted was to address objections by those who wearing saying to early Christians, "you were here last year telling me the world was about to end." William Lane Craig is a good debater. There is no denying that. But most of his success is rhetorical in my opinion. I watched the Craig/Sean Carroll debate. Carroll destroyed Craig in that one. For the Christian apologist, I think you probably have gone as far as you really can. I suspect the apologist will never have actual evidence. So they must rely on the moral argument, fine tuning, Kalam, ext. They all have flaws and the apologist really can't get around that.

I disagree with the fine tuning, Kalam and Ontalogical arguments. But there are better ways to argue for the case.
What arguments do you find strong? Not wishing to debate, just curious.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 12:59:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 12:36:50 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/8/2015 12:01:30 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 10:53:56 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/7/2015 9:01:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/7/2015 8:39:25 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/7/2015 4:24:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Does Apologetics need to be improved and enhanced, or is there a branch of apologetics or apologist who actually brings out a rational and reasonable approach to the questions of the skeptic.

As an atheist I have yet to hear an argument that is actually any good concerning the existence of a god. I've gone as far as listening to an apologetics course from a Christian university. It was terrible. Terrible arguments and of course atheist are completely misrepresented. But, you can only do so much with no evidence.

Here's the problem I am seeing in the modern day school of apologetics from RZIM Ministries and Reasonable Faith Ministries. They teach by using satirical representations of atheists to make Christians seem on top. Here's what an atheist needs to be defined as.

Atheist: A person who simply lacks belief (or if you don't want to offend them at times, somebody who just doesn't have a belief since some think lacking means something bad.)

Anti Theism: The position that theism is bad and horrible.

We shouldn't destroy the agnostic label because some prefer to be called an agnostic. I say call yourself whatever.

The next phase in apologetics is to admit there is no evidence of God, but the claims do exist. The bible is a claim, but is not evidence. So what one must do is not use philosophy or thinking to make premises like William Lane Craig to offer proof, but to offer reasons why faith or a belief in a deity might be something worth pursuing in.

Then the final question is using the bible and secular rationality to answer the toughest questions in life. Why does pain and suffering exist if the god of the bible exists? If God exists and wants us to believe, why doesn't he show himself? We need to get people to not just be interested in taking up the want to have a master to teach them the ways of apologetics, but the individuals must learn to be seekers of truth. If God is real, I believe he would reveal his wisdom and truth in more than just one book involving the message of the gospel and salvation.

I hope this reply shows apologetics is somewhat evolving. If not, then I can only just keep trying.
Apologetics has been around for thousands of years. It is always evolving. The struggle to get people to believe in something with no evidence is a struggle for the theistic side. "To god one day is a thousand years and a thousand years is one day." forget which passage this is in, but I think this is early Christian apologetics. Mark 9:1, Mark 13, and Paul's known authentic letters (IMO) clearly point to a first century end of the world. I think that passage I quoted was to address objections by those who wearing saying to early Christians, "you were here last year telling me the world was about to end." William Lane Craig is a good debater. There is no denying that. But most of his success is rhetorical in my opinion. I watched the Craig/Sean Carroll debate. Carroll destroyed Craig in that one. For the Christian apologist, I think you probably have gone as far as you really can. I suspect the apologist will never have actual evidence. So they must rely on the moral argument, fine tuning, Kalam, ext. They all have flaws and the apologist really can't get around that.

I disagree with the fine tuning, Kalam and Ontalogical arguments. But there are better ways to argue for the case.
What arguments do you find strong? Not wishing to debate, just curious.

I see it like this. If the God of the bible is using figurative language of paradise, then at least Sheol is what is possible. Sheol is what atheists describe as what happens after death. Blackness. The end.

I see the bible is a good book of philosophy as well.
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 1:29:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 12:59:09 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 12:36:50 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/8/2015 12:01:30 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 10:53:56 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/7/2015 9:01:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/7/2015 8:39:25 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/7/2015 4:24:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Does Apologetics need to be improved and enhanced, or is there a branch of apologetics or apologist who actually brings out a rational and reasonable approach to the questions of the skeptic.

As an atheist I have yet to hear an argument that is actually any good concerning the existence of a god. I've gone as far as listening to an apologetics course from a Christian university. It was terrible. Terrible arguments and of course atheist are completely misrepresented. But, you can only do so much with no evidence.

Here's the problem I am seeing in the modern day school of apologetics from RZIM Ministries and Reasonable Faith Ministries. They teach by using satirical representations of atheists to make Christians seem on top. Here's what an atheist needs to be defined as.

Atheist: A person who simply lacks belief (or if you don't want to offend them at times, somebody who just doesn't have a belief since some think lacking means something bad.)

Anti Theism: The position that theism is bad and horrible.

We shouldn't destroy the agnostic label because some prefer to be called an agnostic. I say call yourself whatever.

The next phase in apologetics is to admit there is no evidence of God, but the claims do exist. The bible is a claim, but is not evidence. So what one must do is not use philosophy or thinking to make premises like William Lane Craig to offer proof, but to offer reasons why faith or a belief in a deity might be something worth pursuing in.

Then the final question is using the bible and secular rationality to answer the toughest questions in life. Why does pain and suffering exist if the god of the bible exists? If God exists and wants us to believe, why doesn't he show himself? We need to get people to not just be interested in taking up the want to have a master to teach them the ways of apologetics, but the individuals must learn to be seekers of truth. If God is real, I believe he would reveal his wisdom and truth in more than just one book involving the message of the gospel and salvation.

I hope this reply shows apologetics is somewhat evolving. If not, then I can only just keep trying.
Apologetics has been around for thousands of years. It is always evolving. The struggle to get people to believe in something with no evidence is a struggle for the theistic side. "To god one day is a thousand years and a thousand years is one day." forget which passage this is in, but I think this is early Christian apologetics. Mark 9:1, Mark 13, and Paul's known authentic letters (IMO) clearly point to a first century end of the world. I think that passage I quoted was to address objections by those who wearing saying to early Christians, "you were here last year telling me the world was about to end." William Lane Craig is a good debater. There is no denying that. But most of his success is rhetorical in my opinion. I watched the Craig/Sean Carroll debate. Carroll destroyed Craig in that one. For the Christian apologist, I think you probably have gone as far as you really can. I suspect the apologist will never have actual evidence. So they must rely on the moral argument, fine tuning, Kalam, ext. They all have flaws and the apologist really can't get around that.

I disagree with the fine tuning, Kalam and Ontalogical arguments. But there are better ways to argue for the case.
What arguments do you find strong? Not wishing to debate, just curious.

I see it like this. If the God of the bible is using figurative language of paradise, then at least Sheol is what is possible. Sheol is what atheists describe as what happens after death. Blackness. The end.

I see the bible is a good book of philosophy as well.
I don't remember blackness before my birth. I think death is exactly like pre-birth. You didn't say what you think are good arguments for the existence of a god. Not really wishing to press the point here, but I am curious if you yourself find one (or some) as strong or solid arguments. Do you find any convincing ones yourself?
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 2:03:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 1:29:41 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/8/2015 12:59:09 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 12:36:50 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/8/2015 12:01:30 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 10:53:56 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/7/2015 9:01:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/7/2015 8:39:25 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/7/2015 4:24:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Does Apologetics need to be improved and enhanced, or is there a branch of apologetics or apologist who actually brings out a rational and reasonable approach to the questions of the skeptic.

As an atheist I have yet to hear an argument that is actually any good concerning the existence of a god. I've gone as far as listening to an apologetics course from a Christian university. It was terrible. Terrible arguments and of course atheist are completely misrepresented. But, you can only do so much with no evidence.

Here's the problem I am seeing in the modern day school of apologetics from RZIM Ministries and Reasonable Faith Ministries. They teach by using satirical representations of atheists to make Christians seem on top. Here's what an atheist needs to be defined as.

Atheist: A person who simply lacks belief (or if you don't want to offend them at times, somebody who just doesn't have a belief since some think lacking means something bad.)

Anti Theism: The position that theism is bad and horrible.

We shouldn't destroy the agnostic label because some prefer to be called an agnostic. I say call yourself whatever.

The next phase in apologetics is to admit there is no evidence of God, but the claims do exist. The bible is a claim, but is not evidence. So what one must do is not use philosophy or thinking to make premises like William Lane Craig to offer proof, but to offer reasons why faith or a belief in a deity might be something worth pursuing in.

Then the final question is using the bible and secular rationality to answer the toughest questions in life. Why does pain and suffering exist if the god of the bible exists? If God exists and wants us to believe, why doesn't he show himself? We need to get people to not just be interested in taking up the want to have a master to teach them the ways of apologetics, but the individuals must learn to be seekers of truth. If God is real, I believe he would reveal his wisdom and truth in more than just one book involving the message of the gospel and salvation.

I hope this reply shows apologetics is somewhat evolving. If not, then I can only just keep trying.
Apologetics has been around for thousands of years. It is always evolving. The struggle to get people to believe in something with no evidence is a struggle for the theistic side. "To god one day is a thousand years and a thousand years is one day." forget which passage this is in, but I think this is early Christian apologetics. Mark 9:1, Mark 13, and Paul's known authentic letters (IMO) clearly point to a first century end of the world. I think that passage I quoted was to address objections by those who wearing saying to early Christians, "you were here last year telling me the world was about to end." William Lane Craig is a good debater. There is no denying that. But most of his success is rhetorical in my opinion. I watched the Craig/Sean Carroll debate. Carroll destroyed Craig in that one. For the Christian apologist, I think you probably have gone as far as you really can. I suspect the apologist will never have actual evidence. So they must rely on the moral argument, fine tuning, Kalam, ext. They all have flaws and the apologist really can't get around that.

I disagree with the fine tuning, Kalam and Ontalogical arguments. But there are better ways to argue for the case.
What arguments do you find strong? Not wishing to debate, just curious.

I see it like this. If the God of the bible is using figurative language of paradise, then at least Sheol is what is possible. Sheol is what atheists describe as what happens after death. Blackness. The end.

I see the bible is a good book of philosophy as well.
I don't remember blackness before my birth. I think death is exactly like pre-birth. You didn't say what you think are good arguments for the existence of a god. Not really wishing to press the point here, but I am curious if you yourself find one (or some) as strong or solid arguments. Do you find any convincing ones yourself?

I think the sense of morality is a good argument. A ton of people can think about good that is almost universal, but the approach to achieving that common good can be different. Some want to save lives through pacifism and others choose violent means. It's what leads to multiple interpretations. But I think the sense of morality and philosophy can lead to thinking of God as a possible option. People who I have heard from that say they have conversions or spiritual experiences, they always involve morality, nature or the beauty in works of art and patterns. So I say it's about enlightenment and passion.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 2:24:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 2:03:14 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 1:29:41 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/8/2015 12:59:09 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 12:36:50 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/8/2015 12:01:30 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 10:53:56 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/7/2015 9:01:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/7/2015 8:39:25 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/7/2015 4:24:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Does Apologetics need to be improved and enhanced, or is there a branch of apologetics or apologist who actually brings out a rational and reasonable approach to the questions of the skeptic.

As an atheist I have yet to hear an argument that is actually any good concerning the existence of a god. I've gone as far as listening to an apologetics course from a Christian university. It was terrible. Terrible arguments and of course atheist are completely misrepresented. But, you can only do so much with no evidence.

Here's the problem I am seeing in the modern day school of apologetics from RZIM Ministries and Reasonable Faith Ministries. They teach by using satirical representations of atheists to make Christians seem on top. Here's what an atheist needs to be defined as.

Atheist: A person who simply lacks belief (or if you don't want to offend them at times, somebody who just doesn't have a belief since some think lacking means something bad.)

Anti Theism: The position that theism is bad and horrible.

We shouldn't destroy the agnostic label because some prefer to be called an agnostic. I say call yourself whatever.

The next phase in apologetics is to admit there is no evidence of God, but the claims do exist. The bible is a claim, but is not evidence. So what one must do is not use philosophy or thinking to make premises like William Lane Craig to offer proof, but to offer reasons why faith or a belief in a deity might be something worth pursuing in.

Then the final question is using the bible and secular rationality to answer the toughest questions in life. Why does pain and suffering exist if the god of the bible exists? If God exists and wants us to believe, why doesn't he show himself? We need to get people to not just be interested in taking up the want to have a master to teach them the ways of apologetics, but the individuals must learn to be seekers of truth. If God is real, I believe he would reveal his wisdom and truth in more than just one book involving the message of the gospel and salvation.

I hope this reply shows apologetics is somewhat evolving. If not, then I can only just keep trying.
Apologetics has been around for thousands of years. It is always evolving. The struggle to get people to believe in something with no evidence is a struggle for the theistic side. "To god one day is a thousand years and a thousand years is one day." forget which passage this is in, but I think this is early Christian apologetics. Mark 9:1, Mark 13, and Paul's known authentic letters (IMO) clearly point to a first century end of the world. I think that passage I quoted was to address objections by those who wearing saying to early Christians, "you were here last year telling me the world was about to end." William Lane Craig is a good debater. There is no denying that. But most of his success is rhetorical in my opinion. I watched the Craig/Sean Carroll debate. Carroll destroyed Craig in that one. For the Christian apologist, I think you probably have gone as far as you really can. I suspect the apologist will never have actual evidence. So they must rely on the moral argument, fine tuning, Kalam, ext. They all have flaws and the apologist really can't get around that.

I disagree with the fine tuning, Kalam and Ontalogical arguments. But there are better ways to argue for the case.
What arguments do you find strong? Not wishing to debate, just curious.

I see it like this. If the God of the bible is using figurative language of paradise, then at least Sheol is what is possible. Sheol is what atheists describe as what happens after death. Blackness. The end.

I see the bible is a good book of philosophy as well.
I don't remember blackness before my birth. I think death is exactly like pre-birth. You didn't say what you think are good arguments for the existence of a god. Not really wishing to press the point here, but I am curious if you yourself find one (or some) as strong or solid arguments. Do you find any convincing ones yourself?

I think the sense of morality is a good argument. A ton of people can think about good that is almost universal, but the approach to achieving that common good can be different. Some want to save lives through pacifism and others choose violent means. It's what leads to multiple interpretations. But I think the sense of morality and philosophy can lead to thinking of God as a possible option. People who I have heard from that say they have conversions or spiritual experiences, they always involve morality, nature or the beauty in works of art and patterns. So I say it's about enlightenment and passion.

Morality developed from our need to live together and thrive. Actions or attitudes that are detrimental to the individual and the society are seen as bad, actions that promote the welfare of individuals or the society are seen as good.

Morality has developed and changed over time. The Christian holy book provides rules to keeping slaves, both those of your own people and those of other lands. It allows you to beat a slave as long as they survive at least one day afterward. Slavery today is seen, by the vast majority, as an immoral and reprehensible act. If there were a deity and he was perfect then his morality would be perfect and never need to change. I'm afraid your argument for morality as evidence for a god is not convincing.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 2:32:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 2:24:49 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/8/2015 2:03:14 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 1:29:41 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/8/2015 12:59:09 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 12:36:50 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/8/2015 12:01:30 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 10:53:56 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/7/2015 9:01:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/7/2015 8:39:25 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/7/2015 4:24:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Does Apologetics need to be improved and enhanced, or is there a branch of apologetics or apologist who actually brings out a rational and reasonable approach to the questions of the skeptic.

As an atheist I have yet to hear an argument that is actually any good concerning the existence of a god. I've gone as far as listening to an apologetics course from a Christian university. It was terrible. Terrible arguments and of course atheist are completely misrepresented. But, you can only do so much with no evidence.

Here's the problem I am seeing in the modern day school of apologetics from RZIM Ministries and Reasonable Faith Ministries. They teach by using satirical representations of atheists to make Christians seem on top. Here's what an atheist needs to be defined as.

Atheist: A person who simply lacks belief (or if you don't want to offend them at times, somebody who just doesn't have a belief since some think lacking means something bad.)

Anti Theism: The position that theism is bad and horrible.

We shouldn't destroy the agnostic label because some prefer to be called an agnostic. I say call yourself whatever.

The next phase in apologetics is to admit there is no evidence of God, but the claims do exist. The bible is a claim, but is not evidence. So what one must do is not use philosophy or thinking to make premises like William Lane Craig to offer proof, but to offer reasons why faith or a belief in a deity might be something worth pursuing in.

Then the final question is using the bible and secular rationality to answer the toughest questions in life. Why does pain and suffering exist if the god of the bible exists? If God exists and wants us to believe, why doesn't he show himself? We need to get people to not just be interested in taking up the want to have a master to teach them the ways of apologetics, but the individuals must learn to be seekers of truth. If God is real, I believe he would reveal his wisdom and truth in more than just one book involving the message of the gospel and salvation.

I hope this reply shows apologetics is somewhat evolving. If not, then I can only just keep trying.
Apologetics has been around for thousands of years. It is always evolving. The struggle to get people to believe in something with no evidence is a struggle for the theistic side. "To god one day is a thousand years and a thousand years is one day." forget which passage this is in, but I think this is early Christian apologetics. Mark 9:1, Mark 13, and Paul's known authentic letters (IMO) clearly point to a first century end of the world. I think that passage I quoted was to address objections by those who wearing saying to early Christians, "you were here last year telling me the world was about to end." William Lane Craig is a good debater. There is no denying that. But most of his success is rhetorical in my opinion. I watched the Craig/Sean Carroll debate. Carroll destroyed Craig in that one. For the Christian apologist, I think you probably have gone as far as you really can. I suspect the apologist will never have actual evidence. So they must rely on the moral argument, fine tuning, Kalam, ext. They all have flaws and the apologist really can't get around that.

I disagree with the fine tuning, Kalam and Ontalogical arguments. But there are better ways to argue for the case.
What arguments do you find strong? Not wishing to debate, just curious.

I see it like this. If the God of the bible is using figurative language of paradise, then at least Sheol is what is possible. Sheol is what atheists describe as what happens after death. Blackness. The end.

I see the bible is a good book of philosophy as well.
I don't remember blackness before my birth. I think death is exactly like pre-birth. You didn't say what you think are good arguments for the existence of a god. Not really wishing to press the point here, but I am curious if you yourself find one (or some) as strong or solid arguments. Do you find any convincing ones yourself?

I think the sense of morality is a good argument. A ton of people can think about good that is almost universal, but the approach to achieving that common good can be different. Some want to save lives through pacifism and others choose violent means. It's what leads to multiple interpretations. But I think the sense of morality and philosophy can lead to thinking of God as a possible option. People who I have heard from that say they have conversions or spiritual experiences, they always involve morality, nature or the beauty in works of art and patterns. So I say it's about enlightenment and passion.

Morality developed from our need to live together and thrive. Actions or attitudes that are detrimental to the individual and the society are seen as bad, actions that promote the welfare of individuals or the society are seen as good.

Morality has developed and changed over time. The Christian holy book provides rules to keeping slaves, both those of your own people and those of other lands. It allows you to beat a slave as long as they survive at least one day afterward. Slavery today is seen, by the vast majority, as an immoral and reprehensible act. If there were a deity and he was perfect then his morality would be perfect and never need to change. I'm afraid your argument for morality as evidence for a god is not convincing.

I am more pro Christian. If I lived in that time, I would've rejected him and found him to be a moral monster. At least I would've hoped to avoid slavery. But even though it says you can punish them, I would've told them to use the punishment that doesn't injure or make their lives hell. So it's mainly the New Testament that enlightens me to the idea of a God who is seen as somebody who though has no remorse or regrets over what he has done in the past, he tries to make it up.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,909
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 2:46:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 8:23:41 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/7/2015 8:16:31 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 1/7/2015 8:12:39 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/7/2015 5:46:52 PM, Harikrish wrote:
Apologetics have failed to turn the tide of critics , skeptics and even biblical scholars who challenge the inerrancy of the bible. Their alternate explanations for the controversies and contradictions in the bible have raise more doubts about their own scholarship and competence.
From the Christian Apologetic Press.

"More Americans are moving toward an interpretation of the Bible as a book of fables, history, and moral precepts. ...Attempts at demythologizing the Bible that have been ongoing in the academy for years seem to be moving more and more from the classroom to the pews.... As recently as 1963, two persons in three viewed the Bible as the actual word of God, to be taken literally, word for word. Today, only one person in three still holds to that interpretation (1999, p. 36)."

So metaphors or parables don't seem like a good explanation at reading the bible?

Wouldn't that make sense, considering this:

"These things I have spoken to you in a figurative language; an hour is coming when I will speak no more to you in figurative language, but will tell you plainly of the father."

Won't this refer to meeting Jesus in Heaven? Because we are nearing the end of the gospel and have already gone past the Old Testament at this point.

Malchi 4: 5; "But before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes, I will send to you the prophet Elijah."

If we have already gone past the point of the OT at this point, then we who are still awaiting our Messiah "ELIJAH" have missed something.

You don't know what you're talking about punk.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 2:49:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 2:32:07 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 2:24:49 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/8/2015 2:03:14 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 1:29:41 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/8/2015 12:59:09 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 12:36:50 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/8/2015 12:01:30 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 10:53:56 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/7/2015 9:01:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/7/2015 8:39:25 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/7/2015 4:24:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Does Apologetics need to be improved and enhanced, or is there a branch of apologetics or apologist who actually brings out a rational and reasonable approach to the questions of the skeptic.

As an atheist I have yet to hear an argument that is actually any good concerning the existence of a god. I've gone as far as listening to an apologetics course from a Christian university. It was terrible. Terrible arguments and of course atheist are completely misrepresented. But, you can only do so much with no evidence.

Here's the problem I am seeing in the modern day school of apologetics from RZIM Ministries and Reasonable Faith Ministries. They teach by using satirical representations of atheists to make Christians seem on top. Here's what an atheist needs to be defined as.

Atheist: A person who simply lacks belief (or if you don't want to offend them at times, somebody who just doesn't have a belief since some think lacking means something bad.)

Anti Theism: The position that theism is bad and horrible.

We shouldn't destroy the agnostic label because some prefer to be called an agnostic. I say call yourself whatever.

The next phase in apologetics is to admit there is no evidence of God, but the claims do exist. The bible is a claim, but is not evidence. So what one must do is not use philosophy or thinking to make premises like William Lane Craig to offer proof, but to offer reasons why faith or a belief in a deity might be something worth pursuing in.

Then the final question is using the bible and secular rationality to answer the toughest questions in life. Why does pain and suffering exist if the god of the bible exists? If God exists and wants us to believe, why doesn't he show himself? We need to get people to not just be interested in taking up the want to have a master to teach them the ways of apologetics, but the individuals must learn to be seekers of truth. If God is real, I believe he would reveal his wisdom and truth in more than just one book involving the message of the gospel and salvation.

I hope this reply shows apologetics is somewhat evolving. If not, then I can only just keep trying.
Apologetics has been around for thousands of years. It is always evolving. The struggle to get people to believe in something with no evidence is a struggle for the theistic side. "To god one day is a thousand years and a thousand years is one day." forget which passage this is in, but I think this is early Christian apologetics. Mark 9:1, Mark 13, and Paul's known authentic letters (IMO) clearly point to a first century end of the world. I think that passage I quoted was to address objections by those who wearing saying to early Christians, "you were here last year telling me the world was about to end." William Lane Craig is a good debater. There is no denying that. But most of his success is rhetorical in my opinion. I watched the Craig/Sean Carroll debate. Carroll destroyed Craig in that one. For the Christian apologist, I think you probably have gone as far as you really can. I suspect the apologist will never have actual evidence. So they must rely on the moral argument, fine tuning, Kalam, ext. They all have flaws and the apologist really can't get around that.

I disagree with the fine tuning, Kalam and Ontalogical arguments. But there are better ways to argue for the case.
What arguments do you find strong? Not wishing to debate, just curious.

I see it like this. If the God of the bible is using figurative language of paradise, then at least Sheol is what is possible. Sheol is what atheists describe as what happens after death. Blackness. The end.

I see the bible is a good book of philosophy as well.
I don't remember blackness before my birth. I think death is exactly like pre-birth. You didn't say what you think are good arguments for the existence of a god. Not really wishing to press the point here, but I am curious if you yourself find one (or some) as strong or solid arguments. Do you find any convincing ones yourself?

I think the sense of morality is a good argument. A ton of people can think about good that is almost universal, but the approach to achieving that common good can be different. Some want to save lives through pacifism and others choose violent means. It's what leads to multiple interpretations. But I think the sense of morality and philosophy can lead to thinking of God as a possible option. People who I have heard from that say they have conversions or spiritual experiences, they always involve morality, nature or the beauty in works of art and patterns. So I say it's about enlightenment and passion.

Morality developed from our need to live together and thrive. Actions or attitudes that are detrimental to the individual and the society are seen as bad, actions that promote the welfare of individuals or the society are seen as good.

Morality has developed and changed over time. The Christian holy book provides rules to keeping slaves, both those of your own people and those of other lands. It allows you to beat a slave as long as they survive at least one day afterward. Slavery today is seen, by the vast majority, as an immoral and reprehensible act. If there were a deity and he was perfect then his morality would be perfect and never need to change. I'm afraid your argument for morality as evidence for a god is not convincing.

I am more pro Christian. If I lived in that time, I would've rejected him and found him to be a moral monster. At least I would've hoped to avoid slavery. But even though it says you can punish them, I would've told them to use the punishment that doesn't injure or make their lives hell. So it's mainly the New Testament that enlightens me to the idea of a God who is seen as somebody who though has no remorse or regrets over what he has done in the past, he tries to make it up.

Unfortunately even Jesus said that he did not come to replace the law but to enforce it. (I'm paraphrasing here, so I apologize if it's not exact wording). That being the case and the fact that he was Jewish would indicate that he supported all the Levitican laws, including those regarding slavery, stoning adulterers and rebellions children to death, and forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist. I cannot countenance that as moral in any way.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 2:51:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 2:46:38 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 1/7/2015 8:23:41 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/7/2015 8:16:31 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 1/7/2015 8:12:39 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/7/2015 5:46:52 PM, Harikrish wrote:
Apologetics have failed to turn the tide of critics , skeptics and even biblical scholars who challenge the inerrancy of the bible. Their alternate explanations for the controversies and contradictions in the bible have raise more doubts about their own scholarship and competence.
From the Christian Apologetic Press.

"More Americans are moving toward an interpretation of the Bible as a book of fables, history, and moral precepts. ...Attempts at demythologizing the Bible that have been ongoing in the academy for years seem to be moving more and more from the classroom to the pews.... As recently as 1963, two persons in three viewed the Bible as the actual word of God, to be taken literally, word for word. Today, only one person in three still holds to that interpretation (1999, p. 36)."

So metaphors or parables don't seem like a good explanation at reading the bible?

Wouldn't that make sense, considering this:

"These things I have spoken to you in a figurative language; an hour is coming when I will speak no more to you in figurative language, but will tell you plainly of the father."

Won't this refer to meeting Jesus in Heaven? Because we are nearing the end of the gospel and have already gone past the Old Testament at this point.

Malchi 4: 5; "But before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes, I will send to you the prophet Elijah."

If we have already gone past the point of the OT at this point, then we who are still awaiting our Messiah "ELIJAH" have missed something.

You don't know what you're talking about punk.

Elijah was before the lord came. What's your point?
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 3:48:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 2:03:14 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 1:29:41 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/8/2015 12:59:09 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 12:36:50 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/8/2015 12:01:30 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 10:53:56 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/7/2015 9:01:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/7/2015 8:39:25 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/7/2015 4:24:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Does Apologetics need to be improved and enhanced, or is there a branch of apologetics or apologist who actually brings out a rational and reasonable approach to the questions of the skeptic.

As an atheist I have yet to hear an argument that is actually any good concerning the existence of a god. I've gone as far as listening to an apologetics course from a Christian university. It was terrible. Terrible arguments and of course atheist are completely misrepresented. But, you can only do so much with no evidence.

Here's the problem I am seeing in the modern day school of apologetics from RZIM Ministries and Reasonable Faith Ministries. They teach by using satirical representations of atheists to make Christians seem on top. Here's what an atheist needs to be defined as.

Atheist: A person who simply lacks belief (or if you don't want to offend them at times, somebody who just doesn't have a belief since some think lacking means something bad.)

Anti Theism: The position that theism is bad and horrible.

We shouldn't destroy the agnostic label because some prefer to be called an agnostic. I say call yourself whatever.

The next phase in apologetics is to admit there is no evidence of God, but the claims do exist. The bible is a claim, but is not evidence. So what one must do is not use philosophy or thinking to make premises like William Lane Craig to offer proof, but to offer reasons why faith or a belief in a deity might be something worth pursuing in.

Then the final question is using the bible and secular rationality to answer the toughest questions in life. Why does pain and suffering exist if the god of the bible exists? If God exists and wants us to believe, why doesn't he show himself? We need to get people to not just be interested in taking up the want to have a master to teach them the ways of apologetics, but the individuals must learn to be seekers of truth. If God is real, I believe he would reveal his wisdom and truth in more than just one book involving the message of the gospel and salvation.

I hope this reply shows apologetics is somewhat evolving. If not, then I can only just keep trying.
Apologetics has been around for thousands of years. It is always evolving. The struggle to get people to believe in something with no evidence is a struggle for the theistic side. "To god one day is a thousand years and a thousand years is one day." forget which passage this is in, but I think this is early Christian apologetics. Mark 9:1, Mark 13, and Paul's known authentic letters (IMO) clearly point to a first century end of the world. I think that passage I quoted was to address objections by those who wearing saying to early Christians, "you were here last year telling me the world was about to end." William Lane Craig is a good debater. There is no denying that. But most of his success is rhetorical in my opinion. I watched the Craig/Sean Carroll debate. Carroll destroyed Craig in that one. For the Christian apologist, I think you probably have gone as far as you really can. I suspect the apologist will never have actual evidence. So they must rely on the moral argument, fine tuning, Kalam, ext. They all have flaws and the apologist really can't get around that.

I disagree with the fine tuning, Kalam and Ontalogical arguments. But there are better ways to argue for the case.
What arguments do you find strong? Not wishing to debate, just curious.

I see it like this. If the God of the bible is using figurative language of paradise, then at least Sheol is what is possible. Sheol is what atheists describe as what happens after death. Blackness. The end.

I see the bible is a good book of philosophy as well.
I don't remember blackness before my birth. I think death is exactly like pre-birth. You didn't say what you think are good arguments for the existence of a god. Not really wishing to press the point here, but I am curious if you yourself find one (or some) as strong or solid arguments. Do you find any convincing ones yourself?

I think the sense of morality is a good argument. A ton of people can think about good that is almost universal, but the approach to achieving that common good can be different. Some want to save lives through pacifism and others choose violent means. It's what leads to multiple interpretations. But I think the sense of morality and philosophy can lead to thinking of God as a possible option. People who I have heard from that say they have conversions or spiritual experiences, they always involve morality, nature or the beauty in works of art and patterns. So I say it's about enlightenment and passion.
Seems to me you are identifying things and than simply attributing them to the notion of a god. I think the question would be, is that justified? If I find beauty in a sunset, why does a god need to exist for that? Why couldn't I find beauty in a natural universe? I think if I could, then beauty doesn't prove much of anything. And of course beauty is subjective which is an added problem, I think. Morality is somewhat interesting. I think authority driven morality is ultimately subjective, regardless of the authority. The common sense of morality seems to me to be very similar to the perspective of beauty. If I can find sympathy for my fellow humans, that leads to morality. So is sympathy something that can arise naturally. I see no reason it cannot. You can find empathy in the animal kingdom, grooming in primates, mourning in primates, a dog staying with an injured dog. I also think selfishness could give rise to empathy. "I don't want that to happen to me. I should stop that from happening to them." Short story. I was walking along a side walk. Two me talking. One says, "Isn't it amazing that god created trees to give us shade in the summer and sunlight in the winter." I thought to myself, "really?" This person is just attributing things to a god without good reason. One, some places trees don't grow, yet people live there, deserts. Some trees don't lose their leaves (needles). So they don't fit his conclusion. It just seemed to me, "I'm going to notice that, and just attribute it to a god." I think we should do a bit better than that.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 4:06:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 2:49:12 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/8/2015 2:32:07 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 2:24:49 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/8/2015 2:03:14 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 1:29:41 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/8/2015 12:59:09 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 12:36:50 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/8/2015 12:01:30 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 10:53:56 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/7/2015 9:01:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/7/2015 8:39:25 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/7/2015 4:24:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Does Apologetics need to be improved and enhanced, or is there a branch of apologetics or apologist who actually brings out a rational and reasonable approach to the questions of the skeptic.

As an atheist I have yet to hear an argument that is actually any good concerning the existence of a god. I've gone as far as listening to an apologetics course from a Christian university. It was terrible. Terrible arguments and of course atheist are completely misrepresented. But, you can only do so much with no evidence.

Here's the problem I am seeing in the modern day school of apologetics from RZIM Ministries and Reasonable Faith Ministries. They teach by using satirical representations of atheists to make Christians seem on top. Here's what an atheist needs to be defined as.

Atheist: A person who simply lacks belief (or if you don't want to offend them at times, somebody who just doesn't have a belief since some think lacking means something bad.)

Anti Theism: The position that theism is bad and horrible.

We shouldn't destroy the agnostic label because some prefer to be called an agnostic. I say call yourself whatever.

The next phase in apologetics is to admit there is no evidence of God, but the claims do exist. The bible is a claim, but is not evidence. So what one must do is not use philosophy or thinking to make premises like William Lane Craig to offer proof, but to offer reasons why faith or a belief in a deity might be something worth pursuing in.

Then the final question is using the bible and secular rationality to answer the toughest questions in life. Why does pain and suffering exist if the god of the bible exists? If God exists and wants us to believe, why doesn't he show himself? We need to get people to not just be interested in taking up the want to have a master to teach them the ways of apologetics, but the individuals must learn to be seekers of truth. If God is real, I believe he would reveal his wisdom and truth in more than just one book involving the message of the gospel and salvation.

I hope this reply shows apologetics is somewhat evolving. If not, then I can only just keep trying.
Apologetics has been around for thousands of years. It is always evolving. The struggle to get people to believe in something with no evidence is a struggle for the theistic side. "To god one day is a thousand years and a thousand years is one day." forget which passage this is in, but I think this is early Christian apologetics. Mark 9:1, Mark 13, and Paul's known authentic letters (IMO) clearly point to a first century end of the world. I think that passage I quoted was to address objections by those who wearing saying to early Christians, "you were here last year telling me the world was about to end." William Lane Craig is a good debater. There is no denying that. But most of his success is rhetorical in my opinion. I watched the Craig/Sean Carroll debate. Carroll destroyed Craig in that one. For the Christian apologist, I think you probably have gone as far as you really can. I suspect the apologist will never have actual evidence. So they must rely on the moral argument, fine tuning, Kalam, ext. They all have flaws and the apologist really can't get around that.

I disagree with the fine tuning, Kalam and Ontalogical arguments. But there are better ways to argue for the case.
What arguments do you find strong? Not wishing to debate, just curious.

I see it like this. If the God of the bible is using figurative language of paradise, then at least Sheol is what is possible. Sheol is what atheists describe as what happens after death. Blackness. The end.

I see the bible is a good book of philosophy as well.
I don't remember blackness before my birth. I think death is exactly like pre-birth. You didn't say what you think are good arguments for the existence of a god. Not really wishing to press the point here, but I am curious if you yourself find one (or some) as strong or solid arguments. Do you find any convincing ones yourself?

I think the sense of morality is a good argument. A ton of people can think about good that is almost universal, but the approach to achieving that common good can be different. Some want to save lives through pacifism and others choose violent means. It's what leads to multiple interpretations. But I think the sense of morality and philosophy can lead to thinking of God as a possible option. People who I have heard from that say they have conversions or spiritual experiences, they always involve morality, nature or the beauty in works of art and patterns. So I say it's about enlightenment and passion.

Morality developed from our need to live together and thrive. Actions or attitudes that are detrimental to the individual and the society are seen as bad, actions that promote the welfare of individuals or the society are seen as good.

Morality has developed and changed over time. The Christian holy book provides rules to keeping slaves, both those of your own people and those of other lands. It allows you to beat a slave as long as they survive at least one day afterward. Slavery today is seen, by the vast majority, as an immoral and reprehensible act. If there were a deity and he was perfect then his morality would be perfect and never need to change. I'm afraid your argument for morality as evidence for a god is not convincing.

I am more pro Christian. If I lived in that time, I would've rejected him and found him to be a moral monster. At least I would've hoped to avoid slavery. But even though it says you can punish them, I would've told them to use the punishment that doesn't injure or make their lives hell. So it's mainly the New Testament that enlightens me to the idea of a God who is seen as somebody who though has no remorse or regrets over what he has done in the past, he tries to make it up.

Unfortunately even Jesus said that he did not come to replace the law but to enforce it. (I'm paraphrasing here, so I apologize if it's not exact wording). That being the case and the fact that he was Jewish would indicate that he supported all the Levitican laws, including those regarding slavery, stoning adulterers and rebellions children to death, and forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist. I cannot countenance that as moral in any way.

It's paraphrasing and not entirely the same. He did not come to abolish or destroy the law (getting rid of it), but he came to fulfill it (be the messiah who had to meet the requirements asked by the law.) He eventually dies on the cross, therefore abolishing the old covenant. A covenant has rules and said we would be bound to a new one.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 4:11:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 3:48:22 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/8/2015 2:03:14 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 1:29:41 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/8/2015 12:59:09 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 12:36:50 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/8/2015 12:01:30 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 10:53:56 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/7/2015 9:01:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/7/2015 8:39:25 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/7/2015 4:24:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Does Apologetics need to be improved and enhanced, or is there a branch of apologetics or apologist who actually brings out a rational and reasonable approach to the questions of the skeptic.

As an atheist I have yet to hear an argument that is actually any good concerning the existence of a god. I've gone as far as listening to an apologetics course from a Christian university. It was terrible. Terrible arguments and of course atheist are completely misrepresented. But, you can only do so much with no evidence.

Here's the problem I am seeing in the modern day school of apologetics from RZIM Ministries and Reasonable Faith Ministries. They teach by using satirical representations of atheists to make Christians seem on top. Here's what an atheist needs to be defined as.

Atheist: A person who simply lacks belief (or if you don't want to offend them at times, somebody who just doesn't have a belief since some think lacking means something bad.)

Anti Theism: The position that theism is bad and horrible.

We shouldn't destroy the agnostic label because some prefer to be called an agnostic. I say call yourself whatever.

The next phase in apologetics is to admit there is no evidence of God, but the claims do exist. The bible is a claim, but is not evidence. So what one must do is not use philosophy or thinking to make premises like William Lane Craig to offer proof, but to offer reasons why faith or a belief in a deity might be something worth pursuing in.

Then the final question is using the bible and secular rationality to answer the toughest questions in life. Why does pain and suffering exist if the god of the bible exists? If God exists and wants us to believe, why doesn't he show himself? We need to get people to not just be interested in taking up the want to have a master to teach them the ways of apologetics, but the individuals must learn to be seekers of truth. If God is real, I believe he would reveal his wisdom and truth in more than just one book involving the message of the gospel and salvation.

I hope this reply shows apologetics is somewhat evolving. If not, then I can only just keep trying.
Apologetics has been around for thousands of years. It is always evolving. The struggle to get people to believe in something with no evidence is a struggle for the theistic side. "To god one day is a thousand years and a thousand years is one day." forget which passage this is in, but I think this is early Christian apologetics. Mark 9:1, Mark 13, and Paul's known authentic letters (IMO) clearly point to a first century end of the world. I think that passage I quoted was to address objections by those who wearing saying to early Christians, "you were here last year telling me the world was about to end." William Lane Craig is a good debater. There is no denying that. But most of his success is rhetorical in my opinion. I watched the Craig/Sean Carroll debate. Carroll destroyed Craig in that one. For the Christian apologist, I think you probably have gone as far as you really can. I suspect the apologist will never have actual evidence. So they must rely on the moral argument, fine tuning, Kalam, ext. They all have flaws and the apologist really can't get around that.

I disagree with the fine tuning, Kalam and Ontalogical arguments. But there are better ways to argue for the case.
What arguments do you find strong? Not wishing to debate, just curious.

I see it like this. If the God of the bible is using figurative language of paradise, then at least Sheol is what is possible. Sheol is what atheists describe as what happens after death. Blackness. The end.

I see the bible is a good book of philosophy as well.
I don't remember blackness before my birth. I think death is exactly like pre-birth. You didn't say what you think are good arguments for the existence of a god. Not really wishing to press the point here, but I am curious if you yourself find one (or some) as strong or solid arguments. Do you find any convincing ones yourself?

I think the sense of morality is a good argument. A ton of people can think about good that is almost universal, but the approach to achieving that common good can be different. Some want to save lives through pacifism and others choose violent means. It's what leads to multiple interpretations. But I think the sense of morality and philosophy can lead to thinking of God as a possible option. People who I have heard from that say they have conversions or spiritual experiences, they always involve morality, nature or the beauty in works of art and patterns. So I say it's about enlightenment and passion.
Seems to me you are identifying things and than simply attributing them to the notion of a god. I think the question would be, is that justified? If I find beauty in a sunset, why does a god need to exist for that? Why couldn't I find beauty in a natural universe? I think if I could, then beauty doesn't prove much of anything. And of course beauty is subjective which is an added problem, I think. Morality is somewhat interesting. I think authority driven morality is ultimately subjective, regardless of the authority. The common sense of morality seems to me to be very similar to the perspective of beauty. If I can find sympathy for my fellow humans, that leads to morality. So is sympathy something that can arise naturally. I see no reason it cannot. You can find empathy in the animal kingdom, grooming in primates, mourning in primates, a dog staying with an injured dog. I also think selfishness could give rise to empathy. "I don't want that to happen to me. I should stop that from happening to them." Short story. I was walking along a side walk. Two me talking. One says, "Isn't it amazing that god created trees to give us shade in the summer and sunlight in the winter." I thought to myself, "really?" This person is just attributing things to a god without good reason. One, some places trees don't grow, yet people live there, deserts. Some trees don't lose their leaves (needles). So they don't fit his conclusion. It just seemed to me, "I'm going to notice that, and just attribute it to a god." I think we should do a bit better than that.

Let me ask this then.

Would you find it moral for a woman to save a scorpion from drowning, even though the scorpion is doing it's best to harm the woman.