46 posts / 0 new
Last post
mykcob4's picture

In a recent thread, AJ777 offered a video of a so-called doctor that proposed that christians should be "apologist".

Just what is an apologist?

From Google:

a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.
"an enthusiastic apologist for fascism in the 1920s"
synonyms: defender, supporter, upholder, advocate, proponent, exponent, propagandist, champion, campaigner; informalcheerleader
"one of Eisenhower's better-known apologists"

Notice two things that are significant.

1) Informal cheerleader
A person that is a cheerleader in the sense that they are agog, avid, for their side. Not rational, just "pro" their side.

2) Propagandist
Basically, a liar.
Check out this pro-christian website that also recruits christian to become "apologist". They actually call it science and art even though that is the farthest from the truth.


If we, as humans, seek the truth, we cannot be influenced or swayed by the apologist. We must allow the facts to dictate what is real and true.
I always suspected christians of being apologist, actually even know that they are, but I never expected them of admitting it. Even FOX calls itself the "No Spin Zone" a blatant lie, but at least they know that spinning is dishonest.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Burn Your Bible's picture
when you have no good

when you have no good evidence to support your belief in a god you have to turn to lying... there are people in this world sadly that will not actually fact check anything as long as it fits their world view.

watchman's picture


Appologetics .... I think is the reason that the exchanges we have mainly follow the same general plan.... it seems they have a "blue-print"....

I found a lot of info about apologetics on the CARM website..... its all laid out there....the preferred method of approach.... suggested themes etc....


If you check out the apologetics links there.. you'll recognise the patterns of the conversations....

One good thing on this site is the section called "Bible Difficulties"... which deals with the stuff they, themselves find difficult to handle.

The site it self is the work of one Matt Slick ...... who gained some notoriety when his daughter came out as atheist....


mykcob4's picture
Thanks, Watchman, good

Thanks, Watchman, good information!

mykcob4's picture
Notice how NO non-atheists

Notice how NO non-atheists will even touch this issue? They know that they are liars!

Burn Your Bible's picture
the truly sad thing is they

the truly sad thing is they think they are telling the truth. at least a liar that knows he is lying is honest.

AJ777's picture
Burny, by the definition you

Burny, by the definition you posted aren’t you a supporter or advocate of atheism?

mykcob4's picture

What does that have to do with anything? Least of all this thread. I know that you would like to hijack the thread, but I am not going to let that happen. The fact is that christians have been told and taught to be "Apologists" which is actually "Liars". That is the theme of this thread. You even submitted a video that proves that to be the case.
So christians not only LIVE a lie, in their effort to perpetuate that lie on others they are taught to be professional liars.

ZeffD's picture
It is also misleading to

It is also misleading to think in terms of "advocating atheism" and the term is revealing about how religionists often view those who disagree with them. Religionists call me atheist. I don't "advocate atheism", I criticise religionism. Religionists insist on trying to perceive atheism as some sort of alternative religion instead of just seeing people who don't believe in god(s), or who criticise religion(s).

Keith Raye's picture


You get the same sort of thing thrown at you for 'advocating' or 'promoting' homosexuality. The simple answer is that you can't. Sexuality isn't a choice. You can no more 'convert' a heterosexual to homosexuality than you can 'convert' a homosexual to heterosexuality. Some far-right christian zealots say they've done it, but it's the usual bullshit. Every single reported instance of 'conversion' is a stage-managed con trick.

AJ777's picture
Mycob, would it be wrong to

Mycob, would it be wrong to hijack a thread?

mykcob4's picture
Again AJ777 Your question is

Again AJ777 Your question is not on topic so I won't answer it!

AJ777's picture
Ok, here’s a question. What

Ok, here’s a question. What is the purpose of your posts on an atheist website if you are not in favor of, defending, or in some way partial to atheism? Also, you may want to do some reading on the different types of worldviews.

mykcob4's picture

You are making some wild assumptions. You think I haven't read or been exposed to "worldviews". I am 60 years old. I have had a 22-year military career. I have a Masters degree. I have been around the world many times. I have been to places that YOU aren't even allowed to go. I own my own business. That might clue you into me knowing something about "worldviews" or not!
Atheists are no different than other people. We like to seek out like-minded people and share experiences. It is natural, especially given how few our numbers are.
I don't have to defend "atheism". I "defend" my civil right.
No one is asking YOU to defend your god, all we ask is that you PROVE your god. It can't be that hard if he is real?
But here's the kicker. You have to prove your god with REAL facts, not obfuscation, lies, propaganda.

AJ777's picture
What is the difference

What is the difference between defending a belief that God exists, and a demand to prove that God exists. Your appeals to education, or authority based on age have no relevance in discussing the truth or error of Gods existence.

mykcob4's picture

Don't you know the difference? There is a HUGE difference in defending if god exists and demanding prove thereof. When someone is demanding proof they aren't making an unsubstantiated claim. That is the difference.
If I said that I can get a million bucks from thin air, most likely you would not believe me. You might ask me or demand me to prove it. Now I can act like believers and say "you just have to have "faith" that I can do it", but THAT is the cop-out!
That is exactly the situation with christians that profess a god. We atheists or I, say "PROVE IT"! You never do. Instead, you embark on all manner of distractions. You attack evolution even though it is MORE than proven. You offer pseudo-science like intelligent design which has no basis in fact. Observation is one step it isn't an entire body of research. You engage in revisionist history, which still proves diddly squat.
You recite bible verses from a book compiled 1700+ years ago that is nothing more than post era authorship of events that have hearsay 2nd hand witness testimony and wouldn't even be allowed in a court of law. Also, EVEN IF and it is a big "IF", parts of the bible are true it doesn't qualify the whole book.
Yes, there is a Euphrates River, but that doesn't mean a jesus was ever there for example!
You don't even acknowledge the flaws in your bible, you just justify them which is in fact lying and being an apoligist...spinning the facts to fit a narrative.
The Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest bible on record and it doesn't even have the resurrection. The resurrection is the cornerstone of christianity. No resurrection no basis for christianity.
You eluded to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Well, there is no mention of jesus and absolutely no resurrection in them.
Your position is unattainable. Your proffers are empty. Your narrative is flawed. Your god is unproven.

Aposteriori unum's picture
In one case you are defending

In one case you are defending claims that aren't demonstrably true and in the other you are requesting that the claimant demonstrate. All argument would cease if you but demonstrate.

If apologists had a point it would have been made.

I've been told: "I've got evidence for god. "
I said: "okay great, let's see it. "
And no evidence had yet been produced.
Either you have it and you won't share it or you don't actually have it. Are apologists intentionally lying or are they so misled themselves that they have no idea how to deal with opposition?

AJ777, what does have relevance to God's existence?

AJ777's picture
Sometimes what we think we

Sometimes what we think we know is harder to change opinion on than what we don’t know at all. You are incorrect about the codex not containing the resurrection.


Read the codex for yourself if you don’t trust the article. The gospel is there. The Dead Sea scrolls contain portions of the Old Testament. How does this disprove the resurrection. Talk about spinning a narrative. What proof or evidence would you be willing to accept that God exists?

mykcob4's picture
The section of the article

The section of the article proves my point. Plus that is not exactly what the Codex says
I didn't say that the dead sea scrolls disprove the resurrection I said there is no mention of it.
I didn't spin anything.

You keep asking "What proof or evidence would you be willing to accept that God exists?"
As they say in the court of law, Asked and answered. How many times do you want this question answered?

Burn Your Bible's picture
A testable claim

A testable claim

AJ777's picture
Testable by what method?

Testable by what method?

mykcob4's picture

Now you are just being childish. You know what method/s.
Peer-reviewed by independent means.
Verified, substantiated by credible sources.
Tested by independent means that get the exact same results no matter how many times tested.

AJ777's picture
So are you saying the

So are you saying the scientific method is the only way to arrive at truth?

Burn Your Bible's picture
The scientific method IS the

The scientific method IS the most reliable way.

AJ777's picture
So you’re saying the

So you’re saying the scientific method is not the only way to know truth? Can you scientifically verify that the scientific method is the most reliable? I’ll answer that for you and it’s a no because that is a philosophical statement not a scientifically testable one.

Burn Your Bible's picture
Aj777 you are sad. You make

Aj777 you are sad. You make me very sad. Please I am all ears ( ok eyes) what is the best method to know if something is true or not?

AJ777's picture
“The scientific method is the

“The scientific method is the most reliable way”(to find truth) is a self defeating statement as this is a philosophical statement not testable by the scientific method.

Burn Your Bible's picture
Aj777 your new theme song

Aj777 your new theme song
Sheryl Crow "run baby run"

mykcob4's picture
AJ777 is obviously an

AJ777 is obviously an apologist. He keeps avoiding proving his god and asking us if we said something that isn't even close to what we said.

AJ777's picture
Burny and mykob4, http://www

Burny and mykob4, http://www.reasonablefaith.org/are-there-objective-truths-about-god
Circumstantial, direct, eyewitness, logical and philosophical truths, first premises, personal experience are all other ways we can come to know truth.

Burn Your Bible's picture
No no no no no it hurts my

No no no no no it hurts my head this is 100% apologetics!!!! How do you not understand!!!!


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.