Counter-apologetics 101

The purpose of this thread is to educate anyone who does not know how to counter religious/theistic arguments effectively. Here, you will learn useful facts by asking me questions about particular arguments you're involved in. There are many excellent websites to utilize for counter-apologetics and arguments against the existence of gods. I'll provide links upon request.

reply to post by Condemned0625


I've found that countering apologetics is often pretty easy but getting the person you're debating with to realize their point has been refuted is more difficult especially when dealing with someone very anchored in their faith.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


Yes, I agree. That's the most difficult part. Now I'm wondering why they moved my thread to the religious section when there's nothing religious about it. It's simply countering arguments (with logic) that are religiously based.

Probably because it's a forum for Faith, Religion, and Theology. Of which this is, that is Theology. The study of religion, or lack thereof.

Originally posted by Awolscout
Probably because it's a forum for Faith, Religion, and Theology. Of which this is, that is Theology. The study of religion, or lack thereof.

No. This is strictly the rejection of religious, theological and faith-based claims. Rejection and counter arguments are not religious positions, they're rather skeptical positions that reject religious positions. This thread is not religious, not theological and definitely not faith-based. It simply counters proposals that are presented as those three positions.

"Religion, Faith, And Theology: Discuss all things spiritual and share your own faith-based experiences."

Do you see the problem? Seems like the moderator forgot that skepticism is neither spiritual nor faith-based. Anyways, back on topic. Time for counter-apologetics.

I have only one question.

Why are atheists all over the Faith and Theology Forums, I don't get that, what's wrong with you guys?

Piece of advice numero uno: Read the Bible/Qu'ran/whateverholybookyou'llbearguingagainst

This is the most important step for one simple reason, the person you're arguing with will actually be supporting this book as absolute fact, making your points from it will be seen as giving them more weight.

Unfortunately, some theists (at least one on this forum) will say that you're interpreting things incorrectly because you're not a theist.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Piece of advice numero uno: Read the Bible/Qu'ran/whateverholybookyou'llbearguingagainst

Actually, I would suggest that a counter-apologist not stop there, but needs to understand the theology and philosophy of a faith, not merely the source document. While I find that most atheists are better versed in the Bible than many Christians, they both often lack an understanding of theology, which is where a reasoned apologist (as opposed to a pre-suppositionalist apologist) finds his basis.

But, as such an apologist, I have to question the "why" of this sort of argument? I am not an evangelist -- I don't really care if you believe in God or not -- but an apologist, who defends, from a rational basis, what my faith is. It isn't really a matter of proving or disproving anything, but attempting to dissuade those who would misrepresent what Christianity is or teaches. That applies not only to non-believers, but to believers, as well. If someone claims to be a Christian, but says that God teaches us to hate homosexuals, that is contrary to the teachings of Christ and misrepresents Christianity.

I live my life by Christ's teachings, I don't force my beliefs on anyone else, and I don't understand why those who disagree with me feel the need to be "evangelical atheists", every bit as annoying as any other type of evangelist. Why being an apologist, and standing up to the corruption of what I believe, makes me some sort of enemy that needs to be shouted down or convinced of the folly of my ways, I don't get that bit, at all.

I recognize that my perspective is not a widely held one, but it pains me to see that, in matters of faith, which are deeply personal and generally positive, both believers and non-believers are so committed to breaking the will of others, of making them doubt themselves, of achieving some sort of moral or intellectual superiority.

In the realm of defence against evangelical types, I've personally found that a polite "thank you, I'm not interested" is a more effective deterrent than trying to convince them that they are wrong.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
I have only one question.

Why are atheists all over the Faith and Theology Forums, I don't get that, what's wrong with you guys?

Seriously? I have to explain this again? I mean, it's not the first time, nor is it the tenth time, I'm probably edging my way into triple digits with the answer to this question:

Because we have something to say on the matters.

Do you think we should instead be segregated into an 'atheism' forum? As long as we keep it civil, we should be allowed to comment on any discussion. And I can't believe this drivel actually got some stars...

reply to post by adjensen


I agree on the reading up on theology and history of religion and a broader basis, but you can't really start out there. It's only step one, not the whole process.

Anyway, I think the whole issue with counter-apologetics isn't the evangelizing of atheism, but the furtherance of the discussion with the non-evangelists and the countering of the non-evangelists. I mean, how can an atheist who has little in terms of resources on unbelief possibly discuss on equal ground with an apologist who has mountains of apologetics to fall back on? Hell, apologists (well, the informed ones like yourself, because certain internet pretenders at the term have hardly any knowledge on the issues) have specific arguments in favor of their position that are specifically against the atheistic one.

Atheists just need to be informed on the philosophical counterpoints to these as well as the philosophical underpinnings of atheism. Not just to argue but to inform them as to what they're really saying by claiming to be an atheist.

Addendum: I'd also like to add that anyone on either side should realize that the other person is probably trying to do what's best, rather than being some evil person for one reason or another.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
I have only one question.

Why are atheists all over the Faith and Theology Forums, I don't get that, what's wrong with you guys?

A moderator moved this thread into that forum and it doesn't belong there.

reply to post by Condemned0625


Ok, Condemned, a soft ball to get you started.

How can you counter Christian claims that a total eclipse of the sun occurred while Jesus was on the cross?

Iron Chariots Wiki:

Christian apologetics can be divided into three categories:

Thomistic/classical

This method of apologetics relies on philosophical arguments to support the existence of a god and builds upon those foundational arguments with additional arguments designed to support specific Christian claims. An example of Thomistic apologetics is the natural-law argument.

Evidentialist

This method relies on empirical evidence (historical evidence as well as archeology, cosmology, biology and other sciences) to build arguments which attempt to justify belief in God, miracles and other supernatural claims of Christian theology. A good example of evidentalist apologetics is the myriad arguments for a young earth or universe.

Presuppositional

This method asserts that belief in god and the truth of revealed scripture (The Bible) are foundational assumptions. Beginning with those assumptions, the presuppositionalist attempts to rationally justify Christianity, defend Christianity from attack, and attack perceived flaws in other worldviews. An example of presuppositional apologetics is the avoidance of hell argument.

Iron Chariots Wiki

Originally posted by Kailassa
reply to post by Condemned0625

 

Ok, Condemned, a soft ball to get you started.

How can you counter Christian claims that a total eclipse of the sun occurred while Jesus was on the cross?

Are you saying it couldn't have been a coincidence or couldn't have been planned by someone, like the Romans?

reply to post by Condemned0625

Are you saying it couldn't have been a coincidence or couldn't have been planned by someone, like the Romans?

Lol wuuuut? The Romans planned a solar eclipse?

reply to post by NOTurTypical
No, planning the execution on the day of a solar eclipse because they had such methods back then. They knew how to map the stars and probably even knew how to predict astronomical events like the Mayans. Either that or it was a coincidence. Don't you find it suspicious that Krishna was born on the same day, did the same things, died the same way and "rose to heaven" after 3 days? That story predates Jesus and so does the religion. Christianity is an edited copy of a religion that predates it by thousands of years.

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

No, planning the execution on the day of a solar eclipse because they had such methods back then. They knew how to map the stars and probably even knew how to predict astronomical events like the Mayans. Either that or it was a coincidence. Don't you find it suspicious that Krishna was born on the same day, did the same things, died the same way and "rose to heaven" after 3 days? That story predates Jesus and so does the religion.

If these represent actual beliefs that you hold, you really have your work cut out for you.

Why would the Romans kill Jesus to coincide with a solar eclipse, particularly if, as seems fairly evident, they didn't think that he was anything more than a zealot who had ticked off the local Jewish religious authorities?

Why do you think Krishna was born on December 25? Why do you think that Jesus was? Christmas is a festival to celebrate his coming, not because the church believes that he was born that day. They held it then to coincide (ie: replace) pagan solstice celebrations (and nothing particularly evil there -- it makes sense that if you are going to tell people to stop doing something, you give them something else to do instead.)

I've heard no credible evidence that Krishna was crucified, or that he ascended into heaven three days later.

Next you'll be telling me that Constantine personally selected the New Testament, discarding "over 80 Gospels" in the process.

No, planning the execution on the day of a solar eclipse because they had such methods back then.

But they didn't have methods for making a solar eclipse, which requires a new moon, at the time of Passover, which takes place at the full moon.

Don't you find it suspicious that Krishna was born on the same day, ...

What day was Jesus born on? Krishna was born in the late summer,

timesofindia.indiatimes.com...

Googlebing Janmashtami. Zeitgeist is not your friend. Kersey Graves is nobody's friend.

died the same way

Jesus was shot in the foot by a hunter?

www.indianetzone.com...

reply to post by Kailassa


Well, then either he was crucified on 19 March 0033 or 24 November 0029, neither of which corresponds with the Biblical crucifixion. Jesus would have had entered Jerusalem around the 27th of March. November is just right out.

Sooooo that's one.
Here's a source for that

Oddly enough, they include:

Crucifixion of Christ?

Next to each date

Condemned0625, facts are your friends. Look them up. Examine the initial basis for the claim prior to making a refutation. If someone claims that there was an eclipse at the time of the crucifixion, check the eclipse dates.

reply to post by adjensen


I don't hold beliefs. You and other theists need to stop asserting that I have "beliefs". I never said I believed the things I mentioned. I stated they were possibilities and alternatives to the "divine" story. There is such credible evidence that Krishna, Horus and other god concepts were said to have been born on December 25, performed similar miracles, died and rose up into "heaven". You obviously haven't done enough research and you seem to be defending christianity with presuppositional apologetics. Spare the ignorance for another time until you can demonstrate that your claims are true.