Inside the Mind of the Christian Apologist

Pointless Posts, Raves n Rants, Obscure Opinions

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Contact:

Inside the Mind of the Christian Apologist

Post by 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.

Online
User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 3849
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia

Re: Inside the Mind of the Christian Apologist

Post by Mithrae »

Jagella wrote: Question for Debate: What goes on inside the mind of the Christian apologist?
One can only speculate what goes on inside the mind of any apologist, be they Christian or critic. But one of my recent posts seemed to ring quite true for a few of the Christians on the forum, and seems relevant to this thread also:


[Replying to post 5 by Jagella]

The term ad hominem is occasionally a source of confusion.

What it is:
  • Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"),[1] short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]
    ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
An excellent example of fallacious ad hominem would be a thread which posits a dichotomy along the lines of 'theists are either ignorant of logic or deliberately dishonest, because all their arguments are fallacious' without ever showing that all such arguments are fallacious and, indeed, hedging and attempting to shift the burden of proof when asked.

What it is not:
  • It should also be noted that an ad hominem fallacy occurs when one attacks the character of an interlocutor in an attempt to refute their argument. Insulting someone is not necessarily an instance of an ad hominem fallacy. For example, if one supplies sufficient reasons to reject an interlocutor's argument and adds a slight character attack at the end, this character attack is not necessarily fallacious. Whether it is fallacious depends on whether or not the insult is used as a reason against the interlocutor's argument.
    ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_homine ... th_insults
For example if a debater habitually adopted an openly combative/hostile approach to discussion, regularly making posts and new threads suggesting bias, bigotry, deception and ignorance among those with a contrary view, a consequent degradation of civility in those exchanges - while unfortunate - most likely would not be fallacious. Not that I personally think there's anything particularly wrong a slightly more robust style of discussion, on occasion (and forum rules aside), but if the original antagonists then went on to start playing the victim card it would be a little off-putting.

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Contact:

Re: Inside the Mind of the Christian Apologist

Post by Jagella »

[Replying to post 2 by Mithrae]

Thanks for the response, Mith. It helps us to understand what goes on inside the mind of the apologist. I see that you've dodged all the issues laid out in the OP and have gone off on a tangent arguing the definition of an ad hominem. By doing so you have attempted to divert attention away from the issues you are not willing to address. Christian apologists will very often avoid any topics that may clearly expose weaknesses in Christianity, and the OP does expose those weaknesses in Christianity.

So Mith, it's best to let you know that if you dodge issues, then your dodging those issues may say a lot more about your apologetics than if you had addressed those issues directly. You've posted a tacit admission that to sensibly address the OP is to engage in a battle that you have no hope of winning. Apologists fear looking bad, so they will often refuse to engage any topics that they know will make them look bad.

Online
User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 3849
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia

Re: Inside the Mind of the Christian Apologist

Post by Mithrae »

[Replying to post 3 by Jagella]

Judging by this response, I may not have expressed my answer to the OP question clearly enough: To help clarify, the word 'speculate' means to "form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence." In this case we lack any evidence that the OP (and post #3 for that matter) come from a source that is in fact able to read minds, and the same will hold true for any further posts purporting to answer the OP question unless from Christian apologists themselves.

Obviously, since the topic lacks any rational or evidentiary merit, it must be analysed primarily as the fallacious ad hominem attempt that it is; a tendency continued in the third post which, rather than justifying the dubious knowledge claims of the OP or addressing anything else in my response, simply indulges in some laughably erroneous speculation about my character and motives.

User avatar
Tcg
Prodigy
Posts: 4162
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone

Re: Inside the Mind of the Christian Apologist

Post by Tcg »

Mithrae wrote:
But one of my recent posts seemed to ring quite true for a few of the Christians on the forum, and seems relevant to this thread also:

That post "rang true" for three theists, if my math is right. Upon that you are building an Appeal to Popularity argument.

You cry foul, but use a logically fallacious argument to support it. This is not a terribly convincing argument for those of us not part of your total of three.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

Online
User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 3849
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia

Re: Inside the Mind of the Christian Apologist

Post by Mithrae »

Tcg wrote:
Mithrae wrote: But one of my recent posts seemed to ring quite true for a few of the Christians on the forum, and seems relevant to this thread also:
That post "rang true" for three theists, if my math is right. Upon that you are building an Appeal to Popularity argument.

You cry foul, but use a logically fallacious argument to support it. This is not a terribly convincing argument for those of us not part of your total of three.
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 debators. 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 do appreciate the interest in my humble attempt at a segue, but that's all it was ;)

User avatar
Willum
Under Probation
Posts: 8510
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: The formerly Great US of A

Re: Inside the Mind of the Christian Apologist

Post by Willum »

[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.

Can you back it up please?

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Contact:

Re: Inside the Mind of the Christian Apologist

Post by Jagella »

Mithrae wrote:To help clarify, the word 'speculate' means to "form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence." In this case we lack any evidence that the OP (and post #3 for that matter) come from a source that is in fact able to read minds, and the same will hold true for any further posts purporting to answer the OP question unless from Christian apologists themselves.
It is incorrect to say that we must speculate about what motivates Christian apologists. They often say what their motivations are. The "nine fundamentals" I posted in the OP are either implied or explicitly stated in the Bible as well as Christian theology and apologetics.
Obviously, since the topic lacks any rational or evidentiary merit, it must be analysed primarily as the fallacious ad hominem attempt that it is...
I've already explained that the topic of this discussion is what motivates apologists. Since you are an apologist, it is very germane and proper for me to examine what motivates you to act as an apologist.
...a tendency continued in the third post which, rather than justifying the dubious knowledge claims of the OP or addressing anything else in my response, simply indulges in some laughably erroneous speculation about my character and motives.
You have every opportunity to respond to whatever is said about what motivates you. After all, that's what we are discussing. If you think something said about you is wrong, then explain why it is wrong.

Anyway, I've noticed that apologists are very adept at dancing around tough issues. They often engage in denial of what is very obviously true if those truths belie their beliefs. If the issues get too tough, they will complain that they are being hurt. Apologists cherish their beliefs, and if those beliefs are jeopardized, they may respond emotionally.

Online
User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 3849
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia

Re: Inside the Mind of the Christian Apologist

Post by Mithrae »

Willum wrote: [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.

Can you back it up please?
Is not up to others to prove the accusations of the OP wrong. That's not how burden of proof works.

However in the spirit of charity - and since Jagella has consistently decided that I as a non-Christian am nevertheless one of his apologists - I can tell you that every single one of the eleven claims made in the OP is incorrect. You'd almost expect one or two to be right by sheer dumb luck, but no, whatever fevered imagination dreamed up that list of accusations was wrong on every single count. It would of course still be ad hominem even if partly correct, a focus on the persons involved in discussion rather than on the merit of their arguments, but with such egregious falsehood the claims could be considered both offensive and libelous too... at least if they weren't so laughably wrong as to perhaps be passed off as some kind of parody :lol:

User avatar
Willum
Under Probation
Posts: 8510
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: The formerly Great US of A

Re: Inside the Mind of the Christian Apologist

Post by Willum »

[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.

Or should I take your spirited post and return one in kind...
For example, you state...
You'd almost expect one or two to be right by sheer dumb luck, but no...
So, let's take the first one... you deny that
[Christians claim] 1. The Christian god certainly exists.
you deny that...
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.
Etc.!

Oh my goodness, let's hear you justify any of your claims!
Last edited by Willum on Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply