• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Defense of the Gospel a Legitimate Activity?

As an atheist, do you think doing apologetics is a legitimate activity?

  • yes

    Votes: 9 47.4%
  • no

    Votes: 10 52.6%

  • Total voters
    19

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
No problem with it.'

BUT I'd rather it not be taught as fact in schools.

We teach as fact that the universe created itself when it didn't exist, and for
no reason whatsoever.
And we teach that most of the values espoused in the bible are sexist,
racist, homophobic, transphobic, oppressive, patriarchal, imperialist,
superstition etc..
Religion IS taught in American schools - but it's a new form of religion,
state sanctioned.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I recently saw that standpoint in a debate.
An atheist called all apologetics from the Christian side flat out lying.
I think it is not, obviously.
But I wanted to ask the rest of the atheists here first.

That particular atheist has a strange idea of what constitutes 'lying'. I get that they think the other side is incorrect, but that doesn't equate to them 'lying'.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
We teach as fact that the universe created itself when it didn't exist, and for
no reason whatsoever.

Hopefully not as fact. But are you suggesting science is inappropriate to teach at school?

And we teach that most of the values espoused in the bible are sexist,
racist, homophobic, transphobic, oppressive, patriarchal, imperialist,
superstition etc..

At school? That seems strange. Who is wasting teaching time dissecting the Bible?

Religion IS taught in American schools - but it's a new form of religion,
state sanctioned.

There are lots of ways the education system should be reformed. But increasing support for Christianity wouldn't be one I would see as sensible or supportable.
Still, I have to ask...how does this relate to the OP?
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
Paul did say one could focus more on God if celibate....but that's not all.

He said it's better to marry for those that have desire, want a spouse.

Both. 2 messages, not just 1.


Thanks for proving my point.
Paul clearly said it's best to be like him, unmarried and celibate. The next best thing, according to him, was what god was telling people and animals to do from day one. He also did say women are not to "usurp authority" over a man and she is basically to shut up in church and fully submit to her husband.
The Bible is laughably inconsistent about this darkness, and furnace, or whatever the punishment that await those who do not obey. It's also hideously cruel, and makes god far more wicked, cruel, and demanding of absolute submission than any human dictator. But there is a never ending supply of Christian apologetics who try to excuse this heinous atrocity, often shrugging it off as "the righteous judgements of a god who's ways are not our ways."
 

Irate State

Äkta människor
I used to consider myself an irreconcilable atheist and was highly critical of all and any religion which believed in a God, especially Christianity.

Thank God the people I harassed for so long stood firm because to my horror, I discovered I had been gravely mistaken and now I uphold and defend all Faiths because I believe they are telling the truth.

How does it work all faiths telling the truth?
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Apologetics is the industry that -- because religious texts say a lot of things that they ought not to say and don't really support the religious beliefs that the apologist adheres to -- tries to explain away all the nonsense.

It is my view that if scripture is truly "inspired by God," then it cannot be wrong, and therefore needs no explanation. An omnicient deity can hardly be supposed to be so careless.

Therefore, again in my view, apologetics is finding ways to justify the lies that others have told. I've yet to find anything (even by the highly-vaunted apologist William Laine Craig) that I couldn't logically tear down as soon as I find out where the false axiom was inserted. (This is actually usually quite easy with Craig.)
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Hopefully not as fact. But are you suggesting science is inappropriate to teach at school?
At school? That seems strange. Who is wasting teaching time dissecting the Bible?
There are lots of ways the education system should be reformed. But increasing support for Christianity wouldn't be one I would see as sensible or supportable.
Still, I have to ask...how does this relate to the OP?

Science IS appropriate. It's super important too. Whether its taught or not
has a bearing upon what sort of nation you have.
But there's problems here: I read this the other day about Masada and the
Romans. Someone wrote in Wikipedia to the effect "There is no evidence
the defenders of Masada committed suicide." Now that's scholarly, sort of.
But like a lot of scholars this one is implying,or can be read as implying, that
such and such 'never happened.'
This is the problem with the tree of knowledge.
People don't have to 'dissect the bible', the course of knowledge taught can
do that without mentioning its name. To the point where you can't read a bible
without applying a different methodology altogether.
I am not advocating Christian education - that age has past, and the results
are starting to come in since about 1900 as to what sort of world we are
making for ourselves. Note my profile stats on this.
 

Psalm23

Well-Known Member
Not quite sure what you mean by "legitimate" in this context tbh....

If asked what I think of that activity, it is rather words like "pointless" and "waste of time" that come to mind.

Watching 2 theists quibble over scripture, to me, looks like 2 generals trying to fight a war with action figures.


View attachment 48006

If not for the caption of the picture, these two ladies in my opinion look rather peaceful and happy together. It is a beautiful thing to me when people of different religions can come together and share with each other in peace and love :blush::sparklingheart:
 

Irate State

Äkta människor
Context changes those meanings into something more rational. Starting with the 2nd: from context we get the message is it's only best for some to be celibate, those for whom this fits. That's clear in the context: "... if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. " Context clarified.

Next: not only is a woman to seek harmony over conflict, in her way, but also a man, in his way. *Both*.
Context expands helpfully: "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." It goes both ways.

Hell is the "second death" and those there "perish" and God "destroys body and soul" there -- these words don't sound like metaphor, because they are not.

And so on. Getting the full context helps a great many things become clear. It's just like if you were reading a poem -- to get it well, you'd have to read it completely.

So meta, an apologetic comment in a post about apologetics. Plus the good ole' run of the mill cherry picking.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Science IS appropriate. It's super important too. Whether its taught or not
has a bearing upon what sort of nation you have.

Agreed. As well as how it is taught.

But there's problems here: I read this the other day about Masada and the
Romans. Someone wrote in Wikipedia to the effect "There is no evidence
the defenders of Masada committed suicide." Now that's scholarly, sort of.
But like a lot of scholars this one is implying,or can be read as implying, that
such and such 'never happened.'

Scholarly, perhaps, but not scientific. And given Wiki's nature, perhaps not even scholarly.
However, I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Masada is an interesting topic, and there are issues with the original history of Flavius Josephus that I'm happy to articulate if you are interested. Not falling on any side of the controversy, really, but if you subscribe to the 'traditional' view of the defenders mass suiciding, and some of the other associated 'information' Flavius presented, there are some hard to reconcile considerations.

I'm not a scholar, though. But classical history is a hobby.

This is the problem with the tree of knowledge.

What's the problem? Not quite sure what you meant here, honestly.

People don't have to 'dissect the bible', the course of knowledge taught can
do that without mentioning its name. To the point where you can't read a bible
without applying a different methodology altogether.
I am not advocating Christian education - that age has past, and the results
are starting to come in since about 1900 as to what sort of world we are
making for ourselves. Note my profile stats on this.

There have recently been moves by conservative governments in Australia to better establish curriculum 'acknowledging our Judeo-Christian roots' and in some ways the argument amounted to the Bible and Christianity being profoundly impactful, and that because of this they could (and should) be studied as any other profoundly impactful movement and text would be. I find the whole thing completely disingenuous (studying them 'like other impactful movements and text' would raise plenty of controversies, and I think this is more about re-introducing biblical beliefs into secular schooling). Wasn't sure what you meant, and whether this is the kind of thing you are talking about.

I took the following from your profile, based on your comment earlier...
2001-2020 Gallop figures on approval rates for moral issues in USA:
Gay lesbian 40 to 72%. Baby outside marriage 45 to 66%. Casual sex 53 to 72%.
Divorce 59 to 77%. Polygamy 7 to 20%. Doctor suicide 49 to 51%.
Personal suicide 13 to 18%. Gambling 63 to 71%. Abortion 42 to 44%.
Married men having affairs 7 to 9%.

There is an element of self-fulfilling prophecy in this, though. The further the world moves from Christianity, the more opinion will move from Christian values. That doesn't mean the world is moving away from 'values' per se, though, or becoming less moral.

As a simple example, I see some of the treatment and segregation of LGBTQ+ people (in terms of laws, etc, as well as general treatment) as pretty immoral. So a move of approval/acceptance from 40 to 72% is a move to a MORE moral position, to me. I get that you disagree, and I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I am merely making the point that OF COURSE a society with decreasing levels of Christianity would move away from Christian moral values.

(I'm broad-brushing, and treating Christian's as homogeneous here, when they are obviously not, so apologies)

You also need to account for the willingness of people to volunteer information. 'Married men having affairs' is an interesting one. 9% suggest it's okay now, apparently. But more than 9% of married men have affairs. And that is NOT new. Heck, more than 9% of women do as well, so not sure why us masculine types are being singled out (but I'll assume it's just the poll question).
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
However, I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Masada is an interesting topic, and there are issues with the original history of Flavius Josephus that I'm happy to articulate if you are interested. Not falling on any side of the controversy, really, but if you subscribe to the 'traditional' view of the defenders mass suiciding, and some of the other associated 'information' Flavius presented, there are some hard to reconcile considerations.

The point with Masada (must go there one day) is the scholarly comment.
Kenneth Atkinson, no "archaeological evidence that Masada's defenders committed mass suicide" exists.

It's relevant to unpack such statements. This comes across as an attempt to sound academic, profound,
revisionist and contrarian. Most people who believe the story of the last stand at Masada don't expect to
find the remains of the last defenders, still with their knife wounds preserved. In fact there's no 'archaeological
evidence' for Caesar's assassination, Alexander's final day or the remains of Nelson, compete with the bullet
still in his back, bathed in brandy. It's enough to get the gist of what happened from historians. Saying 'there's
no evidence' is often meant as a sly way of saying 'it never happened.' And that's an abuse.

So yeah, science has its place, but some of it gets abused. "No evidence" doesn't mean what lots of people
think it means. And this is a problem with our education.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
The point with Masada (must go there one day) is the scholarly comment.
Kenneth Atkinson, no "archaeological evidence that Masada's defenders committed mass suicide" exists.

Okay...I think I understand your point, to some degree.

It's relevant to unpack such statements. This comes across as an attempt to sound academic, profound,
revisionist and contrarian. Most people who believe the story of the last stand at Masada don't expect to
find the remains of the last defenders, still with their knife wounds preserved.

It's a point worth making. At the same time, it is worth questioning people on why they believe what they believe. Why do people believe Elazar Ben Yair was a hero, for example? This isn't purely about archaeological evidence, but about the scarcity of any evidence. And whilst most people who believe the story of the last stand might not expect to find the remains of the last defenders, that is pretty much EXACTLY what Professor Yigael Yadin was looking for back in the 60's, at a very high cost.

People should be aware of why they believe things, and it's interesting to me in terms of the psychology involved. Why we accept some information and not other, about a topic we might be interested, or even invested in.

In fact there's no 'archaeological
evidence' for Caesar's assassination,

Not quite true, but pretty close to true. Still, a lack of 'archeological' evidence is not the same as saying a 'lack of evidence'. There are multiple sources who either describe the assassination (eg. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus) or who refer to it (eg. Cicero). Do you think it's credible to suggest it didn't happen?

Alexander's final day

There is almost no consensus on his final days. Anyone suggesting 'what happened' should realise this, and that their opinion is (at best) only loosely supportable by any evidence at all.

or the remains of Nelson, compete with the bullet
still in his back, bathed in brandy. It's enough to get the gist of what happened from historians. Saying 'there's
no evidence' is often meant as a sly way of saying 'it never happened.' And that's an abuse.

Hmm...my history on Nelson is a little weaker. I have never looked into the story about his body being preserved in brandy (although I've heard the tall tale about the brandy all vanishing from the barrel during the trip home, suggesting the corpse of Nelson was thirsty).
I'm also aware that there was a myth about the body being perfectly preserved, but that the surgeon had written to the Admiralty (I think?) to suggest it wasn't at all suitable for public viewing.

Sorry...not sure what the controversy is on that particular one, although I'm interested in such things if you have time to waste and want to explain it to me.

So yeah, science has its place, but some of it gets abused. "No evidence" doesn't mean what lots of people
think it means. And this is a problem with our education.

That might be a problem with our people, rather than our education. Not sure. Then again, I'm a former teacher, and some people I worked with had trouble with Grade 6 maths, so let's not pretend teachers are chosen for their academic rigour.
Still, I'd close with the point that 'science', including branches like archaeology, sociology, etc, are far more aware of the 'facts' than common folk are. Which is exactly the same as every other branch of science (eg. astronomy) and always has been. Are you suggesting that with a better education system, people would truly understand the conclusions and nuance within the various sciences? That seems to fly in the face of my understanding of people.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
He said it's better to marry for those that have desire, want a spouse.
That contradicts what god told everyone to do. He told everyone to be fruitful and multiply. Paul is the one who introduces this idea of celibacy and getting married if you have desires. That's basically just about everyone.
New Paul did say one could focus more on God if celibate....but that's not all.
And yet that is something god never promoted, and Jesus never taught it. God from day one, to animals and people, he said go forth and multiple. Disaster happens? Go forth and multiple. Global flood? Go forth and multiply. God also promised many descendants to Abraham. That can't happen if god puts celibacy over being fruitful and multiplying. Which clearly he doesn't because this idea celibacy getting someone closer to god is nowhere to be found until Paul. This is a direct contradiction of what the Bible commands earlier.
Apologetics are the only way around this one. And even then, it's shoddy logic and basically dishonest and you have to omit one to uphold the other.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
If not for the caption of the picture, these two ladies in my opinion look rather peaceful and happy together. It is a beautiful thing to me when people of different religions can come together and share with each other in peace and love :blush::sparklingheart:
Some have been known to take delight in the sinner/infedel being eternally punished by god. Sure, that's probably not what was going on in that picture, but those two religions have long been bitter enemies, and torturing and killing heretics is a traditional past time of both. And they go on rejoicing god's will is done.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Are you suggesting that with a better education system, people would truly understand the conclusions and nuance within the various sciences? That seems to fly in the face of my understanding of people.

Nah, just say'n we need to be careful with our knowledge, and wary of our 'scholars' and their
agendas. There's tons of that I encounter in biblical studies. I grew up being told 'There's no
evidence King David existed.' Only there is now, sort of. But the damage for many has been
done - the bible becomes little more than a myth.
Current ones include the population of biblical Israel (large) compared to 'archaeological'
assessments. This has been upturned by studies in the Timna valley. But again, the damage
is done.
We look to 'scholars' now, not the bible.
I try to talk to people about Genesis 1 and meet this brick wall of preconceived notions about
the subject.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Science IS appropriate. It's super important too. Whether its taught or not
has a bearing upon what sort of nation you have.
But there's problems here: I read this the other day about Masada and the
Romans. Someone wrote in Wikipedia to the effect "There is no evidence
the defenders of Masada committed suicide." Now that's scholarly, sort of.
But like a lot of scholars this one is implying,or can be read as implying, that
such and such 'never happened.'
This is the problem with the tree of knowledge.
People don't have to 'dissect the bible', the course of knowledge taught can
do that without mentioning its name. To the point where you can't read a bible
without applying a different methodology altogether.
I am not advocating Christian education - that age has past, and the results
are starting to come in since about 1900 as to what sort of world we are
making for ourselves. Note my profile stats on this.
I would consider most of your profile stats to be improvements in moral understanding of people.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
I would consider most of your profile stats to be improvements in moral understanding of people.

But in doing so you are confirming my point. In terms of traditional morality,
as expressed in religion, tribal, old rural and many immigrant's POV we are
today less moral than we once were.
I see our modern society as being largely TOXIC to children and much the
same for many women who want commitment and children. As many migrants
point out - Westerners are a lot harder and cynical than themselves.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
It looks that way to me as well, but I don't fault people for playing, say, Warhammer 40K, so I'm not going to fault apologists for doing it.

I'm more of a classic Warhammer kind of guy. I got a phat Lizard army lead by Lord Kroak in a cold blooded Temple Guard unit that is armed to the teeth! Ow yeah! :D
And a ridiculous amount of Skinks too, followed by a couple nasty beasts like Kroxigors and some dino's. :D

In my analogy though, the warhammer generals would have to be thinking that they are actually fighting an actual war, instead of playing a fantasy game. :)
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
If not for the caption of the picture, these two ladies in my opinion look rather peaceful and happy together. It is a beautiful thing to me when people of different religions can come together and share with each other in peace and love :blush::sparklingheart:

It's a photoshopped cartoon.
And you missed the point.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I let the thread speak for itself,
as for now, 4 atheists see defending one's faith as illegitimate.
6 voted for the legitimate option, but let's be focussed on the former for a while.

To me, their vote comes across as saying, there should be no defense against statements such as this one:
Google Image Result for https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ed/e8/34/ede834e8e8c815a2b58a3201304f4dba.jpg

(it's the famous quote by Dawkins saying "God is ..." and then he goes on calling Him names.)

I think quotes like this one for instance, shouldn't remain unchallanged by Christianity. Every Christian has the right to speak up against this.

I agree with that quote by Dawkins.
They are an accurate description of the character that is portrayed in the bible.
 
Top