Need to discuss religion with an atheist for apologetics class

42 posts / 0 new
Last post
Calilasseia's picture
Has this individual been back

Has this individual been back to report on the results of this exercise? Inquiring minds would like to know what happened ...

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Cali

@ Cali

Either she got cold feet ( a common occurrence with these people) or she actually got a PM and has been in correspondence with them.

They are a common hazard of these forums and seem to have exactly the same presuppositional questions to ask.

Cognostic's picture
@Calilasseia: Apparently,

@Calilasseia: Apparently, just a spirit passing in the night.

Sheldon's picture
It's a long established

It's a long established methodology, where apologists demand answers but refuse or are unable to give any.

Apologetics 101, control the debate, citation to (Breezy), by insisting atheists justify their non belief. Never under any circumstances acknowledge theism has an epistemological burden of proof.

They breeze through here hoping a pre prepared list of cliched apologist questions will trap and expose atheism as a belief there is no foundation for. Then probably submit the results in a heavily edited format to get an A+ in their apologetics class. I think it's fair to infer that these classes, like religious apologetics itself, are not remotely interested in questioning or debating the existence of any deity, which they consider a foregone conclusion. If only the stupid heathens would stop and listen to all the "evidence" mun, they'd realise their "belief" was false, but Satan has laid a trap for them and they are blind to the "truth".

It's tedious but everytime I ask the same opening question, what objective evidence can anyone demonstrate for any deity?

The resulting reticence, and evasion, combined with known logical fallacies linked up in tandem, can only have one rational inference.

Calilasseia's picture
Indeed, you only have to

Indeed, you only have to observe presuppositionalists such as Sye Ten Bruggengate in action, to realise that in the hands of so many supernaturalists, apologetics is nothing more than a rampant abuse of the rules of discourse, in order to try and generate a fake "symmetry" between evidentially supported postulates and their made up shit. Though at times, it's difficult to know which are the more dishonest - presuppositionalists, the "neo-Thomist" brigade that are fanboys of Edward Feser (the diligent will soon discover the level of mendacity he's willing to stoop to) or the assorted pedlars of creationist lies and bullshit.

The sort of antics these people engage in, would result in their instant dismissal from any genuinely rigorous academic institution. The tendentious hypocrisy and sleazy, underhand duplicity exhibited by the professional liars for doctrine, would make them unsuitable for any career involving honest appraisal of facts, construction of properly testable hypotheses, or development of genuinely rigorous arguments. Though there's plenty of openings for such people in the world of right-wing politics ...

xenoview's picture
Did angieb contact anyone for

Did angieb contact anyone for a private one to one?

LogicFTW's picture
No idea if its true, just a

No idea if its true, just a guess on my part, but.. putting on the tinfoil hat...

They have them post here, say PM's only, then staff/teacher of that class/school send them the pm's under a pseudonym, avoiding having them talk to us, and stay within their own sheltered echo chamber. Knowing most if not all of us actual regular atheist would not bother to send pm's.

The last few times these sort of post come up, the student and us would get way off topic on questions and start raising real questions their apologetic class professors could not easily answer.

Just a hypothetical on my part :)

Tin-Man's picture
@Logic Re: "...but.. putting

@Logic Re: "...but.. putting on the tinfoil hat..."

...*puzzled look*... *feeling around on top of head*... Hey! Give me back my hat, you thief!

LogicFTW's picture
Dang it... I thought I would

Dang it... I thought I would be quick enough for you not to notice it was your tinfoil hat I was using.

Tin-Man's picture
In the unlikely event any

In the unlikely event any apologetics students are still amongst us, I offer this little pinch of food for thought...


Attach Image/Video?: 

Cognostic's picture
@Logic - "Exactly" Way

@Logic - "Exactly" Way off topic. The reason for me suggesting "One question for each thread." Most theists have difficulty staying on one topic. Frankly; we don't help out much. Often our responses roam around the block a bit as well. One of the best ways to deal with theist garbage is to force them to stay on the topic and not allow them to squirm away until they are either defeated or win their point of view.

Sheldon has the best line on the site when he simply says "What demonstrable / empirical evidence do you have for the existence of your god." There is no statement being made by anyone that is more direct and straight to the point. You just keep asking the same question over and over and over until the theist eventually runs out of ammunition. And they will run out of ammunition as there is no objective, empirical, demonstrable evidence for the existence of God or gods.


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.