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.

[Tcg]

Yes. It is not an Arq Axiom but I used to say that God was the self, inflated to divine level. And you make the very good point that doubt and question can be deflected with 'Ask Jesus when you get to heaven'. This is utterly dismissive, as the first thing that comes to mind (if, that is, it has not been switched off) is 'when I have doubts and questions like this, won't that keep me out of heaven? Doesn't Jesus know that an answer now will confirm my belief? Right now, I'm on the edge of losing it'. Of course the choice is Faith or doubt. That's one reason why debunking the ludicrous belief in heaven and hell is an important apologetic, as it is and has always been a way of terrifying people into Church, ever since they stopped being able to burn people before they die, for religious backsliding.

There are other debts to pay as well in the present. Some religious branches practice very strict shunning. For others shunning happens, but in a less formal way. I've lost numerous relationships with both friends and family due to my deconversion. Some might say that's because I'm an atheist and now living a life of hedonism or the like. The fact is other than my lack of belief, I'm pretty much the same guy.

I've often thought that apologetics are mostly consumed by believers. There may be the claim that they are to defend the faith to the unfaithful, but I don't see much of that. I think they function to convince the believers that there are answers to difficult questions. It is of course not difficult to convince those who believe to believe.


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. It is not an Arq Axiom but I used to say that God was the self, inflated to divine level. And you make the very good point that doubt and question can be deflected with 'Ask Jesus when you get to heaven'. This is utterly dismissive, as the first thing that comes to mind (if, that is, it has not been switched off) is 'when I have doubts and questions like this, won't that keep me out of heaven? Doesn't Jesus know that an answer now will confirm my belief? Right now, I'm on the edge of losing it'. Of course the choice is Faith or doubt. That's one reason why debunking the ludicrous belief in heaven and hell is an important apologetic, as it is and has always been a way of terrifying people into Church, ever since they stopped being able to burn people before they die, for religious backsliding.

There are other debts to pay as well in the present. Some religious branches practice very strict shunning. For others shunning happens, but in a less formal way. I've lost numerous relationships with both friends and family due to my deconversion. Some might say that's because I'm an atheist and now living a life of hedonism or the like. The fact is other than my lack of belief, I'm pretty much the same guy.

I've often thought that apologetics are mostly consumed by believers. There may be the claim that they are to defend the faith to the unfaithful, but I don't see much of that. I think they function to convince the believers that there are answers to difficult questions. It is of course not difficult to convince those who believe to believe.


Tcg

Good post. I have have got sucked into apologetics by believers simply because I was not. Of course neither the believers nor I knew much about it but we'd been spoonfed the gist. The arguments weren't subtle and would end up with 'I don't care what you say, I still believe...' Which was ok as Despite what they could say, I still didn't and they were trying to convert me. I wasn't trying to deconvert them.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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.

Yet, another question from an unbeliever about what believers of said religion are doing (or can do).

SMH.

[bluegreenearth]

Yet, another question from an unbeliever about what believers of said religion are doing (or can do).

SMH.

Unless I'm mistaken, the "SMH" (i.e. "shake my head") suggests that you are conveying some kind of objection to the OP. Would you be so kind as to elaborate on what it is, exactly, that you find objectionable? Thanks.

[TRANSPONDER]

If you were to put a blunderbuss loaded with scrap metal to my head and demand that I guess, I'd say ''Blanket dismissal of any Question of Godfaith', as the next best thing to silencing atheists altogether. They know very well that Theist dogma, apologetics and Godsplaining (which is the same thing but I needed the 'rule of three' there ) can be VERY effective and persuasive, for those who don't know better, and I didn't know myself until I became familiar with it. But those who have doubts can access the Other Side which is why the Internet was the kick - start for the atheist pushback against Creationism (that is, the heavy armour out front of the Christian Fundamentalist crusade) and how both sides know that control of education and information is vital. Shutting out the other side of the argument (I am a very good boy...I integrated three footnotes here, and only because no 3 got to para. length).....
yes. Biblewaggers know that they have to stop atheist apologetics undermining their spiel, and secularism knows that we have to keep our side up. 'Why can't you let people believe what they want?' (aka known as 'Please shut up, atheists, and go away') is transparently (one of the few things that Christian apologists are transparent about) not about letting people believe what they like, but the evangelists having a clear field for making people believe what they preach..

And, while we're at it, this 'teach the controversy' nonsense.... I hate to call a US president a monumental wally, but One of them actually publicly argued for this, but then he was a monumental wally. There is no controversy - not in science. There is ongoing discovery, and filling out, and even altering, the details, but that is no more controversy about the basic fact of evolution than discovery that Pluto was not actually a planet but one of the Kuiper objects upset the Copernican solar system, much less make the Biblical bronze -age snowdome Cosmos a valid alternative.

At Dover v Kitzmiller, Behe (defending his IC argument) had to admit that, if teaching Irreducible Complexity argument for Intelligent Design should be taught as an alternative theory, then so should astrology. Otherwise it's 'pick your favourite fantasy (and pretend it's probable)' which is where 'you can't disprove this possibility' falls down. What is not known is not known, it is not a gap for God (2). This is why 'Which god' is a very important counter and too often overlooked.

I know.... compared to the apparent broadly reliable historical record of the Bible, Hinduism, for instance, looks just a lot of mythology. But in fact, the demonstrable Theistic Spin of the Bible makes Biblegod no more credible than any of the Hindu gods; and Buddha and certainly Muhammad look quite credible, in comparison. 'Letting people believe what they like' has Never been the aim of the Christian proselytising (1) campaign.,

(1) took me 3 goes to spell that right.

(2) what I dubbed the Venomfang fallacy (3) but is 'appeal to unknowns' - correctly 'argumentum ad ignorantium' which term is best not used, especially in translation, as the Religious apologists take it personally.

(3) I'm on a roll - down the slippery slope but this is from vid 30 (possibly) of 'the why do people laugh at Creationists' series. It was refuting an apologetic based on the appeal to unknowns.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Unless I'm mistaken, the "SMH" (i.e. "shake my head") suggests that you are conveying some kind of objection to the OP.

You catch on quick my guy.

Would you be so kind as to elaborate on what it is, exactly, that you find objectionable? Thanks.

I object to unbelievers concerning themselves with the practices of believers.

[Difflugia]

I object to unbelievers concerning themselves with the practices of believers.

Do you also object to people that watch sports or do crossword puzzles? Or is there something in particular about our specific pastime that challenges you?

[benchwarmer]

I object to unbelievers concerning themselves with the practices of believers.

If believers were only using apologetics to 'preach to the choir' with other believers, then I say have at it. However, we all know that the ultimate goal of apologetics is to convince the unbeliever to become a believer. At that point, it becomes the concern of the unbeliever. Especially those of us who see through the smoke and mirrors and have been on the other side.

[bluegreenearth]

I object to unbelievers concerning themselves with the practices of believers.

The term "best practices" refers to any techniques which have been accepted as superior because they consistently achieve superior results and have become recognized as a reliable operating standard. So, the OP is not inquiring about the public or private ceremonial religious practices of believers if that is what triggered your objection. Does that clarification resolve your concern?

[We_Are_VENOM]

Do you also object to people that watch sports or do crossword puzzles?

No.

Or is there something in particular about our specific pastime that challenges you?

I do believe I explained my position.