Counter-Apologetics

There is a difference between respecting someone's right to believe what they wish and respecting what they actually believe. If you were to tell me that 1 and 1 are 3 is it not more respectful to tell you that you are wrong then to nod approvingly?

just as there is a difference between being respectful and having a trollish avatar. there are those here who advertise themselves as troll without even typing one letter. they use avatars designed to tease and taunt christians. All i am saying is be truthful, don't say one thing that is an obvious lie. except i am not telling you that. all i am saying is that avatars like the ones from dwise or taz are offensive, and are offensive on purpose. I don't have issue with having an avatar like that (they are both hilarious). my issue is when these people lie and say they are respectful of others, and are atheist, when the truth is they are taunting and are anti-theists.much like you would let someone know the 1+1 is not 3, I am letting the liars know that they are lying.

I think I would look at the whole issue of respect and respectfulness in three different contexts, when it comes to EVC and its associated debates:1. If (as a non-believer), I debate with a YEC and they were to maintain that despite all of the evidence and all of the science, their belief remains solid that the YEC narrative is correct (as an article of faith, and perhaps as a result of a "godddidit" line of reasoning), then I can respectfully disagree with that view. It's their life, their belief and their right to believe. I will try to avoid language like "you're wrong and I'm right", since that implies superiority and inferiority - I will focus on agreement and disagreement instead.2. If I debate with a YEC, and they were to seek to twist, invalidate or invent the science, or fail to provide evidence for a scientific proposal which they cite in support of the YEC narrative, then language like "you're wrong and I'm right" will come into it. I can still respect their right to their belief, but I have very little respect for attempts to derail scientific enquiry and advances, in order to try to dress the YEC narrative in something verifiable.3. If I debate with a YEC, and they argue that the YEC narrative is not only scientifically supported, but should also be taught in schools as valid science, then the language is going to be "HELL NO ! That may be your belief, but you are not lumping that claptrap onto anyone else's children and calling it science !"In all three scenarios, I will always respect the other person's right to their belief. But the respectfulness of the terms of the debate will vary, dependent upon whether the person seeks to damage scientific advancement or children's educations, in order to make them feel happier about their belief.

When they turn up on debate sites wanting to talk about it.---Knock knock.
Who's there?
Atheists.
Atheists wh ---
Just kidding, we don't go round knocking on doors.

Good point.But I target ringo, here. He seems to have a problem with apologetics in general...citing them as simply wrong.I dunno...I've heard some good ones lately...one I shared with ICANT at the GD thread.

Apologetics is too often an exercise in deception. And that includes the superficial videos that you linked to in the other thread.I think that that is something that should be apologised for.

There is only one...the video by ravi zacharias. What do you find incredulous about his point? I thought it well done.

Only one? By Ravi Zacharias ? What about the series of six by Craig Parson that you linked here Message 38. Aren’t those the ones you meant ?

no, although those two are a counterargument, in my opinion. Richard Carrier does not impress me.
A Response to "Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story". The counter-apologists use an entirely different set of facts and I intuitively question their overall motive for what they attempt to do.
Jesus Did Exist: A Response to Richard Carrier. I suppose I'm picking on Carrier specifically, but he does annoy me with his claims.
Dawkins is harmless...rather amusing, actually and I like him.
Sam Harris uses some persuasive cultural arguments which should be entertained...if but to provide a broader perspective of reality.Quid Pro Quo, Dr.Lector. What dont you like about Parson?And what I wanted you to listen to is the one video by Ravi Zacharias.
here.(post 39) Its short.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

quote:

---

no, although those two are a counterargument, in my opinion. Richard Carrier does not impress me.

---

I find Carrier’s work a very mixed bag, but those videos are certainly not a response to his arguments. From the first two, at least, they seem to be meant for naive and uninformed believers to try to pretend that there are good reasons to trust the Bible.

quote:

---

A Response to "Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story". The counter-apologists use an entirely different set of facts and I intuitively question their overall motive for what they attempt to do.

---

That article is worse than anything I’ve seen from Carrier. And really, if society is filled with dishonest propaganda for beliefs you don’t share, why wouldn’t you want to counter it ?The videos from Parson are, as I said superficial and while the audience are told they are the jury the opposing case isn’t even mentioned in the two that I watched. It’s just a recital of the usual apologetics - even starting with the standard bit about numbers and dates of manuscripts without even mentioning that that is only ever about preservation of the original text (or that the really early manuscripts are tiny scraps of papyrus). Sheesh!

Well I watched the Ravi Zacharias video. I can’t say anything good about it. If you think that there are any good arguments in it let me know so I can properly shred them.

You and i must be miles apart!
Granted you see no reason for religion or belief at all so i understand your position somewhat. To me Ravi is honest. His arguments appear rational to members of the choir. You see no reason to sing so i cant persuade you there. Our worldviews share little in common. I fail to see why his argument is bad however. Edited by Phat, : Spelling

quote:

---

Granted you see no reason for religion or belief at all so i understand your position somewhat. To me Ravi is honest.

---

My first encounter with Ravi Zacharias was reading about his attempt to blame atheism for the Holocaust. That was a vile thing to do - especially when Christianity has a long history of pogroms.But no, you don’t understand my position. I have done my own investigations and Zacharias and his colleague are making false claims and omitting facts. I know that the alleged prophecies of Jesus aren’t. I know that 1 Corinthians does not mention people interacting with the risen Jesus. I know that there are clear signs of legendary development in the Gospel accounts relating to the Resurrection.

quote:

---

Our worldviews share little in common.

---

Apparently, I care about the truth and you don’t.

quote:

---

I fail to see why his argument is bad however.

---

Which argument? I’m quite happy to take on any argument from that little video. If the points above don’t cover it just tell me what the argument says - or any other apologetic argument you think good. Text is so much better for debate than video.

I may mount an argument/discussion with you regarding these matters. I'll likely lose on points--your arguments are well presented.When I tackle an opponent, my main thrust is to discern their motive for argument. Broken down, it simply means that believers want people to see why they believe and that belief is rational. You seem content with challenging this assumption. I would dare to ask you why? Do you honestly believe that people are better off believing--based on inconclusive evidence thus far--that Jesus was at best mortal and historical and that the God of the Bible...or any other religion---simply likely does not exist? Your conclusions, if I understand them correctly, are premature. In addition, I see nothing useful that could be gained through your argumentative persuasion for readers to think as you do.So to begin, I would ask you why you believe in your argument? I can see why a Christian apologist would defend their faith. What I don't see is why you defend yours?Here is a rough breakdown of the points presented in the video:

quote:

---

When I tackle an opponent, my main thrust is to discern their motive for argument. Broken down, it simply means that believers want people to see why they believe and that belief is rational. You seem content with challenging this assumption. I would dare to ask you why? Do you honestly believe that people are better off believing--based on inconclusive evidence thus far--that Jesus was at best mortal and historical and that the God of the Bible...or any other religion---simply likely does not exist?

---

My motive is to get at the truth. Now I think that there is a good case that people are not better off in thrall to deceivers, but that is secondary.The motives behind an argument - at least when dealing with truth claims are not a good guide to whether the claims are true. There may be good reasons for deception, there may be bad motives for telling the truth. Your guesses as to the motives of others is even less reliable. For instance GDR may have had good reasons for claiming that Jesus was not talking about the End Times in Mark 13, but the allusions to Daniel’s End Times prophecies argue otherwise. I would question that it is true that Any point of view is exclusive of all other points of view - points of view can obviously intersect, and I see no reason why one point of view cannot be a proper subset of another. I question whether Destiny is a relevant issue at all. I certainly question whether it is possible to know the truth about it. I have to say that I think that they must be applying the first criterion quite loosely. I have to say that option 3 includes drastically different worldviews, including (at least some forms of) Buddhism and Deism - and many others - as well as the Abrahamic faiths. I don’t think you can get a coherent set of answers to their questions out of it, so how can it qualify as a worldview ?