Inside the Mind of the Christian Apologist

[Jagella]

Question for Debate: What goes on inside the mind of the Christian apologist?

The Christian apologist adheres to these nine fundamentals:

• 1. The Christian god certainly exists.
  2. The Christian god is the sole creator of the entire cosmos, and this creation clearly demonstrates his existence as well as his purpose, intelligence, and goodness.
  3. He has also revealed his intentions to humanity in a collection of books known as the Bible.
  4. That Bible has no errors in it, or if it does, then those errors are trivial and are to be blamed on human error.
  5. Jesus Christ is the son of the Christian god and is a divine or semi-divine being who walked the earth in the early first century.
  6. God and Christ were and are always right in both a factual and moral sense. They cannot err or do anything evil in any way.
  7. All people are guilty of sin and cannot be righteous due to their own goodness but must seek righteousness from Christ.
  8. Christian faith grants the Christian eternal life in paradise, and all those who are not granted this eternal life will either be annihilated or suffer eternal torment in hell.
  9. Unbelievers are willfully blinded to these truths by sin so none of their criticisms of the basic truths of Christianity can be correct.

It is important to understand that these fundamentals are arrived at through faith. Reason is at best a way of trying to make these fundamentals more appealing to rational persons in the hope that they will remain in the faith or convert to the faith.

So if you debate Christian apologists, you can expect those apologists to hold to these fundamentals. Regardless of what reason or evidence you present to them, they will not waiver these claims.

[Elijah John]

Moderator Action

Thread moved to Random Ramblings. No real point of debate. Yes, there's a question, but the OP answers his own question with the 9 points, and leaves no real room for debate. And besides, the points (as well as some of the subsequent remarks) are full of blanket statements and assumptions. Many of the remarks amount to a kind of "what's the use" mild rant.


______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 6 by Mithrae]

The OP is simply ad hominem, without even the pretense of any rational or empirical merit; just some guy venting in great detail what he imagines goes on in the minds of Christian debtors. Perhaps one day there'll be some attempt at justifying and quantifying at least some of those accusations but, so far, what we saw in the third post was just further speculation, this time about my character and motives for not indulging the mind-reading game.

I challenge your claim. I find that experience on this very site supports these OBSERVATIONS.

I've often wondered what impartial observers might think about how Mith is arguing. Even those who have merely a familiarity with Christianity would know that what I posted is essentially accurate. Mith's denials speak loudly about what goes on in the mind of the apologist. When Christianity's fundamental beliefs are exposed, it is often embarrassing for apologists who will deny those beliefs to save face.

Is it not like the story of Peter who when he realized he would be recognized as a follower of the abducted Christ, denied Christ three times?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 12 by Jagella]

Looks like you drew blood, you'll have to rephrase and repost, a frequent fate of a non-theist who has made a point religious folks can't refute.

[Jagella]

Looks like you drew blood, you'll have to rephrase and repost, a frequent fate of a non-theist who has made a point religious folks can't refute.

Apologists obviously cannot tolerate defeat.

As I see it, the issues raised about apologists are well stated and make a very valid and important point. I am hoping that much more debate is presented because many things are left unsaid. I've made many specific and detailed remarks that apologists should respond to.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 14 by Jagella]

Not on the "Random Ramblings" section my friend.
Either you will re-write your topic, or no one will see it again.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 9 by Mithrae]
J's claims are well founded.
You have made a new claim, if you can't back it up, withdraw it, or, back it up.

Them's the rules of debate.

I can tell you that every single one of the eleven claims made in the OP is incorrect.

No, you can't tell anything. We are under NO obligation to believe you.
That is why things need to be backed up.

Of course you're not under any obligation. If you want to believe the OP's claims about what goes on inside the minds of apologists for Christianity, you can. And given Jagella's repeated insistence that I am one of his apologists for the purpose of this thread, and my assurance that his imagination of what goes on inside my mind fails on every single count, if that's a fact which you find uncomfortable and want to ignore you can surely do so. Believe whatever you want about my mind, it's hardly going to affect me any. Just don't expect these random ramblings to be taken seriously by any rational individual.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 16 by Mithrae]

So, which of J's nine points would you say that a Christian would refute?
Which are not in their minds?

You are seriously making me laugh.
Especially when you cherry pick my statement so you can avoid the key point.

I think you should review:viewtopic.php?t=36143

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 16 by Mithrae]

So, which of J's nine points would you say that a Christian would refute?

The OP contains eleven claims about what goes on inside the mind of "the Christian apologist"; we are not told which apologist for Christianity this is referring to, but in subsequent posts readers are repeatedly informed that it is me, apparently Why do you find it so difficult to accept the fact that the OP is wrong on all eleven counts? What goes on inside the mind of the apologist against Christianity, to make it so eager to see falsehoods as somehow being true?

In addition to being 100% wrong regarding the chosen exemplar, me, it's a pretty safe bet that essentially all Christian apologists will reject the eleventh claim of the OP (that "Regardless of what reason or evidence you present to them, they will not waiver these claims") and likely a majority would reject the tenth also. Such claims are understandable, perhaps, due to frustration borne of a perpetual inability to successfully persuade others of things which just seem so darn obvious to the irreligious apologist. But that inability neither substantiates those claims, nor justifies the OP's decision to give up on the difficulties of discussing arguments and instead attack the persons themselves.

But perhaps what makes these claims of the OP most obviously the kind of stuff that you'd otherwise expect at the bottom of the barrel, is the blindingly obvious fact that several of the most prolific Christian posters on this forum clearly reject some of the supposed 'fundamentals' that the OP attempts to accuse them of harbouring in their minds. In one case, at least three of those supposed 'fundamentals' are rejected in the signature line to every single post made by a Christian who is more active than you and Jagella combined! Naively, I'd been kind of hoping that one of you might notice such obvious proofs against the OP claims, particularly after the decision by the moderation team offered a golden opportunity to pause and rethink these ramblings a little. But no such luck. It really is difficult to overstate the level of binary thinking and tunnel vision which would be required for anyone think that the OP is either fair or accurate. A flailing, desperate attempt to pigeonhole and smear the persons in the absence of convincing arguments? Perhaps. But accurate or fair or rational... no, it clearly is none of those things.

I guess it's given me a bit of a laugh while it's lasted, so at least there's that silver lining
Best wishes to you!