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]

Again, back to my original point; nonbelievers should not concern themselves with the practices of apologists, nor anything related to theology.

If you are so gung ho about the nonexistence of god and dont view the Bible as credible and/or authoritative (and certainly uninspiring), then to spend any measurable amount of time on religious forums discussing and concerning yourself with such topics is..in my opinion, a waste of time.

That is just the way I feel.

I dont care anything for Star Wars or Star Trex...and the day I sign up to a forum related to the two or concern myself with either program is a day that will never come.

You people, on the other hand..

It is like "I dont believe in souls; but where do souls come from"?

Makes no sense.

I concern myself with the practices of apologists because challenging myself and other people to think more critically and skeptically about deeply held beliefs is an intellectually stimulating and entertaining hobby for me. Furthermore, if these types of questions function to help facilitate critical and skeptical thought in myself and other people, then everyone benefits from having exercised their intellectual capabilities. Finally, if the possibility for a deeply held belief to be false has not been ruled-out, then intellectual honesty should compel those people who tentatively hold that belief to invite and welcome any critical thinking questions which challenge them to identify and consider all the ways in which their belief could potentially be mistaken. If nothing else, we should model the behavior we would like to see exhibited by other people. Accordingly, I invite and welcome critical thinking questions about my own beliefs because I'm interested in discovering if any those beliefs are mistaken.

[TRANSPONDER]

Again, back to my original point; nonbelievers should not concern themselves with the practices of apologists, nor anything related to theology.

If you are so gung ho about the nonexistence of god and dont view the Bible as credible and/or authoritative (and certainly uninspiring), then to spend any measurable amount of time on religious forums discussing and concerning yourself with such topics is..in my opinion, a waste of time.

That is just the way I feel.

I dont care anything for Star Wars or Star Trex...and the day I sign up to a forum related to the two or concern myself with either program is a day that will never come.

You people, on the other hand..

It is like "I dont believe in souls; but where do souls come from"?

Makes no sense.

I concern myself with the practices of apologists because challenging myself and other people to think more critically and skeptically about deeply held beliefs is an intellectually stimulating and entertaining hobby for me. Furthermore, if these types of questions function to help facilitate critical and skeptical thought in myself and other people, then everyone benefits from having exercised their intellectual capabilities. Finally, if the possibility for a deeply held belief to be false has not been ruled-out, then intellectual honesty should compel those people who tentatively hold that belief to invite and welcome any critical thinking questions which challenge them to identify and consider all the ways in which their belief could potentially be mistaken. If nothing else, we should model the behavior we would like to see exhibited by other people. Accordingly, I invite and welcome critical thinking questions about my own beliefs because I'm interested in discovering if any those beliefs are mistaken.

Correct. This 'if you don't believe, why are you here?' ploy is an old and rather tatty one. If theism wasn't pushing and pushing to influence and persuade people, atheists wouldn't spend a moment on this stuff.

[bluegreenearth]

Correct. This 'if you don't believe, why are you here?' ploy is an old and rather tatty one. If theism wasn't pushing and pushing to influence and persuade people, atheists wouldn't spend a moment on this stuff.

Indeed. However, I must admit to feeling compassion for our venomous interlocutor here because it is my understanding that people of this type who exhibit such a scornful attitude towards members of a perceived out-group only do so because they are experiencing a great deal of suffering themselves. There was a time when I was also experiencing much internal suffering as a result of a deeply held belief in Christianity which was often externalized in the form of a hostile attitude towards anyone who challenged me to think more critically and skeptically about my belief. I'll never forget the tangible and overwhelming feelings of relief and peace which emerged from within me as the toxic burden of Christianity was finally and completely dissolved away by secular humanist values. Ironically, it was the strongest "religious" experience I had ever encountered.

[brunumb]

Again, back to my original point; nonbelievers should not concern themselves with the practices of apologists, nor anything related to theology.

Interesting. I wonder how far you extend that philosophy. For starters, how about non-scientists should not concern themselves with the practices of scientists, nor anything related to science. I'm sure we can take that a lot further.

The way I see it, your statement is the apologist's attempt to win the debate by simply shutting down the opposition. Shut up and move to the back of the bus.

[TRANSPONDER]

Correct. This 'if you don't believe, why are you here?' ploy is an old and rather tatty one. If theism wasn't pushing and pushing to influence and persuade people, atheists wouldn't spend a moment on this stuff.

Indeed. However, I must admit to feeling compassion for our venomous interlocutor here because it is my understanding that people of this type who exhibit such a scornful attitude towards members of a perceived out-group only do so because they are experiencing a great deal of suffering themselves. There was a time when I was also experiencing much internal suffering as a result of a deeply held belief in Christianity which was often externalized in the form of a hostile attitude towards anyone who challenged me to think more critically and skeptically about my belief. I'll never forget the tangible and overwhelming feelings of relief and peace which emerged from within me as the toxic burden of Christianity was finally and completely dissolved away by secular humanist values. Ironically, it was the strongest "religious" experience I had ever encountered.

Gloriousky, (as Mary -Sue put it). I am longing for a 'deconversion story' thread. I won't go into the details but observe with private amusement that the memes and images that Tolkien employs that are aimed by a Christian at secularism rather apply better the other way around.

"Breathe the Free air" when the Robed and bearded captor of the mind is flung out to polish the tiles with his face and the weary weight of subjection to mental captivity gives way to rejuvination, and the eyes see again what blinkered vision had excluded, Release and relief is how he will feel. And then the reborn atheist looks around for his sword.

"I've only ever sought to serve you!" whines the black robed paleface, playing the victim - card.

"Your leechcraft would had me crawling on all fours like a beast!"

The Believer cannot imagine how it feels to become a rational skeptic through atheism. And whatever kind of 'atheist' they purported to be before Jesus came into their lives and made them believe that a fetus could do a little dance of worship, tying a sheep to a stick painted with stripes could determine the animals' color or (apparently) that ballot paper are made in China from bamboo, it evidently isn't Our sort of atheism.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I concern myself with the practices of apologists because challenging myself and other people to think more critically and skeptically about deeply held beliefs is an intellectually stimulating and entertaining hobby for me. Furthermore, if these types of questions function to help facilitate critical and skeptical thought in myself and other people, then everyone benefits from having exercised their intellectual capabilities.

Yeah, all of that is fine and cute, but it is an unbalanced approach.

You don't (based on what I've seen from your activity on here) challenge your unbelieving colleagues to think more critically and skeptically as it relates to their skepticism of religion (particularly, Christianity).

All of your challenges and questions are geared towards religion.

Now, if you were doing all of that consistently across the board, then I'd be willing to compromise with you. However, that isn't the case.

Finally, if the possibility for a deeply held belief to be false has not been ruled-out, then intellectual honesty should compel those people who tentatively hold that belief to invite and welcome any critical thinking questions which challenge them to identify and consider all the ways in which their belief could potentially be mistaken. If nothing else, we should model the behavior we would like to see exhibited by other people. Accordingly, I invite and welcome critical thinking questions about my own beliefs because I'm interested in discovering if any those beliefs are mistaken.

Same response as above.

But with that being said, let me help you to the goal line....all of your beliefs are mistaken if it isn't a belief in Christianity.

Now, I pointed you to where the goal line is (Christianity). Now, walk over there...as Jesus Christ is standing behind the goal line.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Interesting. I wonder how far you extend that philosophy. For starters, how about non-scientists should not concern themselves with the practices of scientists, nor anything related to science. I'm sure we can take that a lot further.

False equivalency. You don't have to be a cosmologist to wonder or have any invested interest in how the universe works.

However, to not believe in souls but dare to ask the question "where do souls come from" is flat out ridiculous.

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.

[bluegreenearth]

Yeah, all of that is fine and cute, but it is an unbalanced approach.

You don't (based on what I've seen from your activity on here) challenge your unbelieving colleagues to think more critically and skeptically as it relates to their skepticism of religion (particularly, Christianity).

All of your challenges and questions are geared towards religion.

Now, if you were doing all of that consistently across the board, then I'd be willing to compromise with you. However, that isn't the case.

Your objection, while understandable, presumes there are an equal number of fallacious and poorly reasoned posts from skeptics in this community as there are from theists. Furthermore, you are also presuming I'm aware of all the posts you have in mind for me to have deliberately ignored them. So, if you are inclined to test my sincerity, then you are welcome to provide an example of fallacious and poorly reasoned argument from a skeptic that I should challenge accordingly.

Same response as above.

But with that being said, let me help you to the goal line....all of your beliefs are mistaken if it isn't a belief in Christianity.

Now, I pointed you to where the goal line is (Christianity). Now, walk over there...as Jesus Christ is standing behind the goal line.

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

[We_Are_VENOM]

Your objection, while understandable, presumes there are an equal number of fallacious and poorly reasoned posts from skeptics in this community as there are from theists.

You are correct, and I also presume that, although I may not know the exact amount, that there are more than a couple of fallacious and poorly reasoned posts from skeptics for you to have at least one challenge towards the skeptic(s).

However, I don't know of any.

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.

Meanwhile, I practice what I preach. Even though I look at JW's (or any other "Christian group I disagree with) in a higher "spiritual" regard than I do unbelievers, I am still quick to point out their folly as deem necessary.

No one is immune. Not even myself.

Furthermore, you are also presuming I'm aware of all the posts you have in mind for me to have deliberately ignored them. So, if you are inclined to test my sincerity, then you are welcome to provide an example of fallacious and poorly reasoned argument from a skeptic that I should challenge accordingly.

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.

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.

[TRANSPONDER]

I concern myself with the practices of apologists because challenging myself and other people to think more critically and skeptically about deeply held beliefs is an intellectually stimulating and entertaining hobby for me. Furthermore, if these types of questions function to help facilitate critical and skeptical thought in myself and other people, then everyone benefits from having exercised their intellectual capabilities.

Yeah, all of that is fine and cute, but it is an unbalanced approach.

You don't (based on what I've seen from your activity on here) challenge your unbelieving colleagues to think more critically and skeptically as it relates to their skepticism of religion (particularly, Christianity).

All of your challenges and questions are geared towards religion.

Now, if you were doing all of that consistently across the board, then I'd be willing to compromise with you. However, that isn't the case.

Finally, if the possibility for a deeply held belief to be false has not been ruled-out, then intellectual honesty should compel those people who tentatively hold that belief to invite and welcome any critical thinking questions which challenge them to identify and consider all the ways in which their belief could potentially be mistaken. If nothing else, we should model the behavior we would like to see exhibited by other people. Accordingly, I invite and welcome critical thinking questions about my own beliefs because I'm interested in discovering if any those beliefs are mistaken.

Same response as above.

But with that being said, let me help you to the goal line....all of your beliefs are mistaken if it isn't a belief in Christianity.

Now, I pointed you to where the goal line is (Christianity). Now, walk over there...as Jesus Christ is standing behind the goal line.

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. 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.