Wrong Argument(s)?

[POI]

Many Christians did not reason themselves into becoming a Christian. Hence, it may not be reasonable to reason themselves out of Christianity.

Example:

If all (said topics) were to be debunked, to your own personal satisfaction, would you still be a Jesus/God believer? Or maybe then just a "generic deist", other?

(Said topics) would be the Kalam, the cosmological argument, morality, etc....

I became a Christian through personal experiences rather than these arguments, I remain a Christian, in large part, through these arguments because I think personal experiences can have rational defeaters.

******************************

In essence, the interlocutor admits none of the apologetics is what made him become a believer, but instead, reinforces his a priori belief.

For debate:

1) Being you were a believer before any of these arguments, what exactly lead you to believe your personal experiences were from the Christian God, as opposed to the self alone, or other?

2) Since apologetics is not really convincing much of anyone to go to the other side, why lead with, or emphasize these arguments at all, or ever? Why not instead lead with, or emphasize the topic(s) which can actually persuade people - (like personal experiences, other)? If the goal is to be persuasive, why lead with so many unconvincing arguments instead?

[TRANSPONDER]

It seems to me that one is appealing to an argument that persuades. That has to be evidence. Those of any missionary religion will use that - as indeed do atheists and politicians.

Appeal to Faith is a last resort as well as the clincher perhaps for someone swayed by the arguments. As I think has been shown, if one hears the other side (and can remember them) the proselytizing arguments will fail, but people don't get to hear them, let alone remember them. The Nativities are debunkable but who can remember all the arguments and counters to the 2nd census argument, for instance, and how many have even heard the 'two years later' objection?

Remember McDowell's book of crafty arguments? A source book for Christian apologetics. Maybe we need a handbook of refutations to the common religious arguments. In fact, we need a think -tank that could even produce such a book.

[1213]

1) Being you were a believer before any of these arguments, what exactly lead you to believe your personal experiences were from the Christian God, as opposed to the self alone, or other?

I want to be a disciple of Jesus because I think his teachings are good. For me it is not a matter of belief, but matter of understanding.

2) Since apologetics is not really convincing much of anyone to go to the other side, why lead with, or emphasize these arguments at all, or ever? Why not instead lead with, or emphasize the topic(s) which can actually persuade people - (like personal experiences, other)? If the goal is to be persuasive, why lead with so many unconvincing arguments instead?

If apologetics is useless, why are you here preaching your message?

My goal here is to give another view, so that this would not be so very one-sided. But, I don't believe certain people will change their mind, regardless of what happens. And that is fine, in a way this is also for the judgment day, if these things would not be said, people could say, "how could I have known, when no one said anything".

[The Tanager]

In essence, the interlocutor admits none of the apologetics is what made him become a believer, but instead, reinforces his a priori belief.

Do you mean a posteriori belief? A priori means independent of experience; my belief in God is not a priori. I became a Christian because of experiences that I believe were interactions with God.

1) Being you were a believer before any of these arguments, what exactly lead you to believe your personal experiences were from the Christian God, as opposed to the self alone, or other?

Initially, I felt they weren’t from me because they were telling me things I didn’t want to believe were true. I can give a quick cliff notes version, I guess. In high school, my friends and I began to drift apart, just with different interests and, being naturally introverted, I became pretty lonely. I tried to numb feelings of rejection with stuff like pornography and then tried to make sure people didn’t see I was feeling lonely and rejected. Eventually, the things I was turning to made me feel even emptier.

In history class (I think) we learned about Benjamin Franklin’s moral journal (or something like that) where he tried to work on his perceived moral failings and kept track of them. I decided to do the same. I didn’t do too well on my own and eventually (because of my grandparents) decided that the Bible might help me see how to be better morally. I set about to read it from start to finish. Ignoring the bits that didn’t seem relevant to my life (genealogies, how to act in wars, etc.), I felt the Bible didn’t really help either. I was still stuck and feeling empty from my moral striving. At this point I felt that either God existed and I was too messed up for Him, because God certainly would have standards of goodness, to want anything to do with me or He didn’t exist at all. I was tired of feeling bad, so I was moving towards atheism. I prayed that if God existed, He’d have to show me.

Eventually, I was reading some reflection on something in one of the gospels that changed what I thought of God. It spurred me into thinking that maybe God wasn’t waiting for me to be better, but that God loved me so much to make a way that we could be connected in spite of my messed-up-ness. I wanted God not to exist. I wanted to feel good about my actions. I wanted instructions on how to do it myself. This was offering none of that. And in that moment, I felt a Presence that I believed wasn’t me, that I hadn’t ever felt before, reassuring me of love and forgiveness and a way forward that wouldn’t be based on how good/bad I am at the moment.

At that point I didn’t even realize the Bible portrayed Jesus as God, although I understood that it was through Jesus’ death that God accomplished the reconciliation. I went to college about a month later and began studying the Bible more, with other Christians, and in some classes (it was a pretty liberal Christian school), beginning to answer more of the apologetic questions that I was beginning to have, as I tried to put more flesh, so to speak, on this God I believed I had an encounter with. I was confronted with various critiques, including the possibility that my experiences were from myself or something else. So, the “initially” was added to with these rational arguments. I see them as all united in the same thing, not as separated as you seem to be portraying them.

2) Since apologetics is not really convincing much of anyone to go to the other side, why lead with, or emphasize these arguments at all, or ever? Why not instead lead with, or emphasize the topic(s) which can actually persuade people - (like personal experiences, other)? If the goal is to be persuasive, why lead with so many unconvincing arguments instead?

I’m on this board because I’m a seeker of truth hoping to find other seekers of truth. I can’t give you personal experiences of God. I can’t get them from others. Our intellect is a key way we make sense of reality, including personal experiences we’ve had or can open us up to future personal experiences we may not already be open to.

[TRANSPONDER]

1) Being you were a believer before any of these arguments, what exactly lead you to believe your personal experiences were from the Christian God, as opposed to the self alone, or other?

I want to be a disciple of Jesus because I think his teachings are good. For me it is not a matter of belief, but matter of understanding.

2) Since apologetics is not really convincing much of anyone to go to the other side, why lead with, or emphasize these arguments at all, or ever? Why not instead lead with, or emphasize the topic(s) which can actually persuade people - (like personal experiences, other)? If the goal is to be persuasive, why lead with so many unconvincing arguments instead?

If apologetics is useless, why are you here preaching your message?

My goal here is to give another view, so that this would not be so very one-sided. But, I don't believe certain people will change their mind, regardless of what happens. And that is fine, in a way this is also for the judgment day, if these things would not be said, people could say, "how could I have known, when no one said anything".

A valid point, though not a new one. 'Nobody will change anyone else's mind' has been heard before, and an atheist apologist, relatively unknown but original and devastatingly handsome, given his age, hath said 'Nobody can convert a believer, they can only convert themselves'. And that is what happens - the doubts and questions grow until they have to change their own minds: Genesis becomes metaphorical, not literal, Moral and the problem of evil may lead to a doctrine of universal redemption, and that way lies the cafeteria of Christianity and the way out to irreligion and 'agosticism', if not atheism.

It obviously needs the doubts and questions, and many raise their own and change their minds on their own. But it can't hurt to have a few questions answered and a few more doubts raised. Yes, I think this is worth doing. And what would be a nice project would be an apologetics reference book or Dummies guide. Pick it up on your way to answer that Knock at the door.

[TRANSPONDER]

In essence, the interlocutor admits none of the apologetics is what made him become a believer, but instead, reinforces his a priori belief.

Do you mean a posteriori belief? A priori means independent of experience; my belief in God is not a priori. I became a Christian because of experiences that I believe were interactions with God.

1) Being you were a believer before any of these arguments, what exactly lead you to believe your personal experiences were from the Christian God, as opposed to the self alone, or other?

Initially, I felt they weren’t from me because they were telling me things I didn’t want to believe were true. I can give a quick cliff notes version, I guess. In high school, my friends and I began to drift apart, just with different interests and, being naturally introverted, I became pretty lonely. I tried to numb feelings of rejection with stuff like pornography and then tried to make sure people didn’t see I was feeling lonely and rejected. Eventually, the things I was turning to made me feel even emptier.

In history class (I think) we learned about Benjamin Franklin’s moral journal (or something like that) where he tried to work on his perceived moral failings and kept track of them. I decided to do the same. I didn’t do too well on my own and eventually (because of my grandparents) decided that the Bible might help me see how to be better morally. I set about to read it from start to finish. Ignoring the bits that didn’t seem relevant to my life (genealogies, how to act in wars, etc.), I felt the Bible didn’t really help either. I was still stuck and feeling empty from my moral striving. At this point I felt that either God existed and I was too messed up for Him, because God certainly would have standards of goodness, to want anything to do with me or He didn’t exist at all. I was tired of feeling bad, so I was moving towards atheism. I prayed that if God existed, He’d have to show me.

Eventually, I was reading some reflection on something in one of the gospels that changed what I thought of God. It spurred me into thinking that maybe God wasn’t waiting for me to be better, but that God loved me so much to make a way that we could be connected in spite of my messed-up-ness. I wanted God not to exist. I wanted to feel good about my actions. I wanted instructions on how to do it myself. This was offering none of that. And in that moment, I felt a Presence that I believed wasn’t me, that I hadn’t ever felt before, reassuring me of love and forgiveness and a way forward that wouldn’t be based on how good/bad I am at the moment.

At that point I didn’t even realize the Bible portrayed Jesus as God, although I understood that it was through Jesus’ death that God accomplished the reconciliation. I went to college about a month later and began studying the Bible more, with other Christians, and in some classes (it was a pretty liberal Christian school), beginning to answer more of the apologetic questions that I was beginning to have, as I tried to put more flesh, so to speak, on this God I believed I had an encounter with. I was confronted with various critiques, including the possibility that my experiences were from myself or something else. So, the “initially” was added to with these rational arguments. I see them as all united in the same thing, not as separated as you seem to be portraying them.

2) Since apologetics is not really convincing much of anyone to go to the other side, why lead with, or emphasize these arguments at all, or ever? Why not instead lead with, or emphasize the topic(s) which can actually persuade people - (like personal experiences, other)? If the goal is to be persuasive, why lead with so many unconvincing arguments instead?

I’m on this board because I’m a seeker of truth hoping to find other seekers of truth. I can’t give you personal experiences of God. I can’t get them from others. Our intellect is a key way we make sense of reality, including personal experiences we’ve had or can open us up to future personal experiences we may not already be open to.

I think he does mean a priori. That is a taught or accepted possibly Faithj that is the fons et origo of their belief and the apologetics come ex posterio. Or out of an apologetics book or website, anyway.

Your conversion story was most welcome and the last thing I want to do it cast nasturshiums at ti, but it does sound like a good example of pump - priming. Believer or not, if the Bible is the only moral guide put forward, one is going to inclined to see that as the way to go. (In Pakistan you might have gone to the Quran). It is why the other side needs to be put so that one might have begun asking what was so wrong with Ben Franklin that he wasn't entitled to a drink and a bit of levity. Dirty washing aside, Christianity's curtain -peeking censoriousness has always rather got up my nose

[The Tanager]

I think he does mean a priori. That is a taught or accepted possibly Faithj that is the fons et origo of their belief and the apologetics come ex posterio. Or out of an apologetics book or website, anyway.

I didn’t accept any teaching without the personal experience, though.

Your conversion story was most welcome and the last thing I want to do it cast nasturshiums at ti, but it does sound like a good example of pump - priming. Believer or not, if the Bible is the only moral guide put forward, one is going to inclined to see that as the way to go. (In Pakistan you might have gone to the Quran). It is why the other side needs to be put so that one might have begun asking what was so wrong with Ben Franklin that he wasn't entitled to a drink and a bit of levity. Dirty washing aside, Christianity's curtain -peeking censoriousness has always rather got up my nose

Yes, it could be pump-priming, hence the importance of pursuing different worldviews and rational arguments to test out our personal experiences and thinking. In that moment, I felt I experienced God, not that everything the Bible said is true. I didn’t accept the Bible as wholly true in that moment and have worked from there ever since.

[TRANSPONDER]

I think he does mean a priori. That is a taught or accepted possibly Faithj that is the fons et origo of their belief and the apologetics come ex posterio. Or out of an apologetics book or website, anyway.

I didn’t accept any teaching without the personal experience, though.

Your conversion story was most welcome and the last thing I want to do it cast nasturshiums at ti, but it does sound like a good example of pump - priming. Believer or not, if the Bible is the only moral guide put forward, one is going to inclined to see that as the way to go. (In Pakistan you might have gone to the Quran). It is why the other side needs to be put so that one might have begun asking what was so wrong with Ben Franklin that he wasn't entitled to a drink and a bit of levity. Dirty washing aside, Christianity's curtain -peeking censoriousness has always rather got up my nose

Yes, it could be pump-priming, hence the importance of pursuing different worldviews and rational arguments to test out our personal experiences and thinking. In that moment, I felt I experienced God, not that everything the Bible said is true. I didn’t accept the Bible as wholly true in that moment and have worked from there ever since.

That sounds fine. But the problem is a priori faith. It distorts everything because the basic faith is made the default. Thus all evidence and logic can be dismissed on any excuse, pretext or just not wanting to hear it, and Faith wins out; (could be an Axiom) and science and logic are just human opinion if it looks to counter the Bible, but science and logic, even if it done wrong and even untrue, becomes Scripture if it supports the Bible. You are going to struggle to be Objective in your approach to evidence and the deductive method. I know We goddless do it, too. But in fact the truth matters more than what we want to believe. The scientific (and deductive) method tells us what fits the data whether we like it or not. Jesus as a historical figure is (for me) supported by internal evidence, while much of the 'evidence' for a mythological Jesus is not good enough. The supposed Egyptian virgin birth and resurrection is not really the same, whether I'd like it to be or not. Though I'm pretty convinced that the Madonna and Child icon is derived through Ptolemaic and Roman Isis worship images from Horus and Isis. Isis was even called 'Star of the Sea', which should be evidence enough.

In short, in order to do the evidence and reasoning right, the apologist would have to be guided by science and logic, but that doesn't go where they want. So the game plan is to lead the evidence where they want it go. That is why basic errors like making a remote and far - fetched possibility the near -default hypothesis because it supports the Faith because the regular modus operandi of the Bible -apologist..

I swear on my mother's copy of 'how to make enemies' that Bible apologists do this, and is why they find it so hard to analyse data logically.

[Purple Knight]

The other side of this is just as important. In large part, I don't think atheists are atheists because of sound arguments either.

Some. Those born into fundamental, literal truth religious communities can end up rejecting their religion on the grounds of it being too impossible to believe. But this isn't everyone.

Just as an airplane is not in the air because of any convincing, one that did not take off required even less convincing to simply stay on the ground.

We're machines, like the airplane. We do, or do not do, whatever it is we do or don't do, because the machinery inside us inclines us to do so.

And the more slick and deceptive the typical sophist rhetoric becomes, it may win for a little while, but ultimately all it does is select out people who are actually convinced by arguments, because they buy shoddy products, fall for scams, and are exploited out of existence. It's not about intelligence. No matter how smart you are, there's someone smarter who can convince you of anything, if you trust him and listen to his arguments. The future of humanity is without suckers, even if that means they also reject what is true.

[1213]

...It obviously needs the doubts and questions, and many raise their own and change their minds on their own. But it can't hurt to have a few questions answered and a few more doubts raised. Yes, I think this is worth doing. ...

It would be nice, if they would same way doubt their own conclusions. But, for some reason atheists seems to never doubt their own ideas. Do you know why it is so?