Apologetic Best Practices?

[bluegreenearth]

Does the discipline of Christian apologetics have recommended best practices for its theistic practitioners?

If so, what are those best practices?

Are they demonstrably effective?

Could they be improved upon?

If so, what improvements are needed?

Do you have a recommendation for a new best practice or for improving an existing best practice?

All proposed answers to the above questions should be open for debate.

[bluegreenearth]

You guys do a poor job of policing up your colleagues on their follies, everything is geared towards proving religion wrong, and ganging up on believers.

And when I say "ganging up on", I do not mean in a malicious way....but in passive ways.

Admittedly, there is a tendency among skeptics on this forum to pay more attention to the arguments they receive from theists. This is predominantly due to the fact that the expressed purpose of the "Christianity and Apologetics" sub-form is to debate theistic claims.

Same answer as above. I've been watching you close enough on here. You ask some thought-provoking questions, which I dig.

However, you come across as a biased "reporter"...completely one-sided.

Is there a way to challenge apologetic arguments without coming across as a biased reporter?

It would be unwise and fallacious for me to establish Christianity or any proposed conclusion as the goal of my investigation because I've already learned through direct personal experience that such an approach will always fail to mitigate for the possibility of confirmation bias.

Details. Nothing "detailed", but a quick detailed account.

I used to believe the Implicit Association Test (IAT) was a reliable tool for detecting unconscious racial bias. However, I subsequently discovered credible research which demonstrated this belief is influenced by confirmation bias: https://www.thecut.com/2017/01/psycholo ... e-job.html

[We_Are_VENOM]

No. Critical thinkers whether atheist or not constantly have to consider the validity of their case. We have already done the question about active atheism.

Must of missed it, because my experience here says otherwise.

It is because of active theism, which is to say 'Religion'. 'Compromise' would be (I'd guess) 'let people believe what they like' which (as in tyour last comment) is Not what the religious side do. But rather they just want atheists to shut up and go away.

We will not shut up and go away, not all the time we don't have a Christian fundamentalist Theocracy. However thanks for the good laugh we got from seeing you offer to help us hobble towards Jesus. Take the ball and chain off your own feet before you offer to help out footwork.

First off, I already stated that I am against preaching unless it is to the choir...and I am against shoving religious beliefs in the face of unbelievers.

And I am also not aware of society saying or insinuating that unbelievers should "shut up and go away".

But hey, attack straw man if you must...and carrying over the "if you must" thing.... reject Jesus, if you must.

[TRANSPONDER]

No. Critical thinkers whether atheist or not constantly have to consider the validity of their case. We have already done the question about active atheism.

Must of missed it, because my experience here says otherwise.

It is because of active theism, which is to say 'Religion'. 'Compromise' would be (I'd guess) 'let people believe what they like' which (as in tyour last comment) is Not what the religious side do. But rather they just want atheists to shut up and go away.

We will not shut up and go away, not all the time we don't have a Christian fundamentalist Theocracy. However thanks for the good laugh we got from seeing you offer to help us hobble towards Jesus. Take the ball and chain off your own feet before you offer to help out footwork.

First off, I already stated that I am against preaching unless it is to the choir...and I am against shoving religious beliefs in the face of unbelievers.

And I am also not aware of society saying or insinuating that unbelievers should "shut up and go away".

But hey, attack straw man if you must...and carrying over the "if you must" thing.... reject Jesus, if you must.

You experience of Critical Thinking is hardly likely to have much to contribute to the discussion. And what you are aware of or not aware of (or so you say) is irrelevant. Just because you don't know of something, doesn't make it untrue, does it? Isn't that the way that Theist -think works? I don't care what you approve or disapprove of (though I note you are active enough here, shouting the odds) but the fact is that society is infected with a disease less treatable than the on in the news and I do what I can to pushback because there's "Some good in this world, and it's worth fighting for" but I don't feel as optimistic as I did when the PEW survey said that Irreligion was growing.

And you wouldn't be aware of theist apologists (not society) intending atheists to shut up and go away. But I've seen that behind much of the apologetics, just I have seen a need to Put the Other Side behind atheist apologetics. And I shall continue to attack (expose rather) strawman arguments (such as those you made above) and other fallacies where I see them, and will continue to reject Jesus -claims where (logically and evidentially) I Must.

[We_Are_VENOM]

You experience of Critical Thinking is hardly likely to have much to contribute to the discussion.

And neither does your Reading Comprehension, apparently.

And what you are aware of or not aware of (or so you say) is irrelevant. Just because you don't know of something, doesn't make it untrue, does it? Isn't that the way that Theist -think works?

No, it isn't. However, my position isn't..

"My position is true until it can be proven false".

Rather..it is..

"According to what I gather from my experiences in life (as it pertains to this discussion), the evidence has me leaning towards X way...and I will gladly retract any prior statements if there is evidence which conflicts with my position as it stands today".

Do you see the distinction. I am making an informed opinion, which is certainly up for change.

I don't care what you approve or disapprove of (though I note you are active enough here, shouting the odds) but the fact is that society is infected with a disease less treatable than the on in the news and I do what I can to pushback because there's "Some good in this world, and it's worth fighting for" but I don't feel as optimistic as I did when the PEW survey said that Irreligion was growing.

?

And you wouldn't be aware of theist apologists (not society) intending atheists to shut up and go away. But I've seen that behind much of the apologetics, just I have seen a need to Put the Other Side behind atheist apologetics.

And my point is, the "shut up and go away" mentality is not the mindset that anyone should have.

So, outside from the fact that I've never encountered nor heard of any apologist with such mindset, I agree with you in the error of such ways.

So, we agree? It is ok to agree, right?

And I shall continue to attack (expose rather) strawman arguments (such as those you made above)

Don't know what you are talking about here.

and other fallacies where I see them, and will continue to reject Jesus -claims where (logically and evidentially) I Must.

Please, be my guest.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Admittedly, there is a tendency among skeptics on this forum to pay more attention to the arguments they receive from theists.

Glad to see you acknowledge that. Mad props to you.

This is predominantly due to the fact that the expressed purpose of the "Christianity and Apologetics" sub-form is to debate theistic claims.

Yeah but that doesn't mean that your partners should get to say any old thing, no matter how fallacious, with no passive rebukes and with complete impunity.

Is there a way to challenge apologetic arguments without coming across as a biased reporter?

Sure, by challenging the arguments of skeptics as well.

A balanced repertoire is enough to beat the biasness out of you.

I used to believe the Implicit Association Test (IAT) was a reliable tool for detecting unconscious racial bias. However, I subsequently discovered credible research which demonstrated this belief is influenced by confirmation bias: https://www.thecut.com/2017/01/psycholo ... e-job.html

Trying to figure out what any of that has to do with Jesus, and it is an uphill battle.

[brunumb]

The way I see it, your statement is the apologist's attempt to win the debate by simply shutting down the opposition.

If there was no opposition, then apologists would be out of a job and at the unemployment office.

Shut up and move to the back of the bus.

Christ is the driver of the bus...when Christians board the bus, unbelievers have to move to the back of the bus so that the Christians can be seated next to the driver of the bus.
I mean, you don't have to shut up, but you certainly have to move.

Not sure you got what I was saying. What I actually meant was that questioning why atheists persist in these debates is, in my opinion, just a disingenuous way of suggesting that they go away or "shut up and move to the back of the bus". It happens quite a bit when apologists end up on the back foot.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Not sure you got what I was saying. What I actually meant was that questioning why atheists persist in these debates is, in my opinion, just a disingenuous way of suggesting that they go away or "shut up and move to the back of the bus". It happens quite a bit when apologists end up on the back foot.

Um, I understood exactly what you were saying, and I stand by my response.

[TRANSPONDER]

You experience of Critical Thinking is hardly likely to have much to contribute to the discussion.

And neither does your Reading Comprehension, apparently.

And what you are aware of or not aware of (or so you say) is irrelevant. Just because you don't know of something, doesn't make it untrue, does it? Isn't that the way that Theist -think works?

No, it isn't. However, my position isn't..

"My position is true until it can be proven false".

Rather..it is..

"According to what I gather from my experiences in life (as it pertains to this discussion), the evidence has me leaning towards X way...and I will gladly retract any prior statements if there is evidence which conflicts with my position as it stands today".

Do you see the distinction. I am making an informed opinion, which is certainly up for change.

I don't care what you approve or disapprove of (though I note you are active enough here, shouting the odds) but the fact is that society is infected with a disease less treatable than the on in the news and I do what I can to pushback because there's "Some good in this world, and it's worth fighting for" but I don't feel as optimistic as I did when the PEW survey said that Irreligion was growing.

?

And you wouldn't be aware of theist apologists (not society) intending atheists to shut up and go away. But I've seen that behind much of the apologetics, just I have seen a need to Put the Other Side behind atheist apologetics.

And my point is, the "shut up and go away" mentality is not the mindset that anyone should have.

So, outside from the fact that I've never encountered nor heard of any apologist with such mindset, I agree with you in the error of such ways.

So, we agree? It is ok to agree, right?

And I shall continue to attack (expose rather) strawman arguments (such as those you made above)

Don't know what you are talking about here.

and other fallacies where I see them, and will continue to reject Jesus -claims where (logically and evidentially) I Must.

Please, be my guest.

Some of what posted Was incomprehensible. If you are gong to retract your position n view of the evidence, assuming we ever get to discussing the evidence rather than do trashtalk, be my guest. The rest of the viewers will be lauging at your "?" because you will be one of the few to be at a loss.
h
We agree that the 'shut up and go away' game plan or mindset is unworthy, we agree on that. We clearly disagree that this is what the Bible apologist mindset and method oils down to in the end. And I don't ned you permission to expose fallacies and false reasoning. Say safe and have a great week

[Tcg]

Christ is the driver of the bus...when Christians board the bus, unbelievers have to move to the back of the bus so that the Christians can be seated next to the driver of the bus.

This reminds me of one of the funniest things I've ever read. On the now defunct Amazon forums a poster asked what the first thing posters will do once they get to heaven. Almost all those who answered said that they'd sit next to Jesus for a meal and a heart to heart chat not realizing of course that there'd be millions hoping the same thing. The fantasy of an intimate moment, in this version at the front of a bus, with Jesus is an absurdity. I suppose it brings some comfort to think their savior would recognize them as individuals. In reality, if such a fantasy were to occur, it'd be more like a book signing where the author has no knowledge of or true concern for those who they're signing the book for.




Tcg

[bluegreenearth]

Yeah but that doesn't mean that your partners should get to say any old thing, no matter how fallacious, with no passive rebukes and with complete impunity.

It is more often the case that some theist interlocutors are usually the first to inform those skeptics of where fallacies exist in their arguments. Therefore, I do not feel compelled to duplicate that effort.

Sure, by challenging the arguments of skeptics as well.

A balanced repertoire is enough to beat the biasness out of you.

If I were to encounter a fallacious argument from a skeptic that hadn't already been adequately refuted by a theist, I would do my part to target that skeptic with some critical thinking questions.

Trying to figure out what any of that has to do with Jesus, and it is an uphill battle.

My apologies but I must have misinterpreted your question. I thought you were asking me for an example of a time when a proposed conclusion was established as the goal of an investigation.