First Thread Ever - Invisibility Crisis - Can you see this?

Thanks for asking! Nobody's ever asked me before.

I was very active for several years; then I fell away for a while; recently I've come back again. I'm pretty sure there was a period there where there was no Apologetics forum for debate between Christians and nonbelievers, so I'm happy to see it back again.

I've been exposed to a great many arguments from apologists, and I have learned that all of the arguments, very nearly without exception, are deeply dishonest. Now, it's not nice to have to say this, and I don't want to imply that all apologists are deeply dishonest, because that would certainly not be accurate. But every single argument for god that I've ever encountered has been based on fallacies, and the art of apologetics is itself dishonest.

This is, really, to be expected. If God does not exist, but if you are determined to prove that He does exist, then you are faced with the problem of having no evidence. So, the evidence must be manufactured, problems overlooked, and allowances made. This becomes very easy for the apologist in a sense, because they know that God exists and that their religion is incorrect, and so any mistakes in their apologetics either don't count or must not be mistakes at all.

This makes it difficult to pin apologists down. Some of them will wriggle, some of the will will change the subject, some of them will deny point-blank that they just lost the topic, and some of them will get indignant with incredible ease. Pinning them down is an interesting exercise!

Agnos said:

Fell on deaf ears - A phenomenon in which my relationships are ridden by and were not even concerning theology!

I'm impressed that you stay committed. Your story aligns with the questions I've been wanting to ask. How do you have the patience to deal with that many logical fallacies? xD Couldn't write this in public in fear of offending strong believers.

And how many gnostic theists have you decimated in an argument? ッ rhetoric. It's unfortunate that apologetics don't commonly concede. Has blind faith prevented them from enlightenment? I wonder sometimes if deep inside they actually know they're in denial and lying to themselves or really really just brainwashed beyond return - the same way I still wonder if my parents are secretly aware of their abusive behaviours. "Are they capable/incapable of conscience and logic? And if so, why or why not? What is their real justification to keep insisting the unprovable?" I could think of a few though I guess everyone has their own reasons. Having that said, did you manage to convert anyone to a more honest theist nonetheless?

Too many people don't understand that while questionable, some atheists are totally cool if they to want to believe in a God, a santa, you name it. However it is blatant dishonesty to persist knowledge that no human actually possess. I get what you mean. Maybe some day we will find out with certainty. But for now it would be nice to remain honest about what we know and what we don't know.

Can you imagine Science adopting gnostic-theists' definition of "evidence"? Hehe, we'd be screwed.

You probably can see now why I'd rather not post this on a thread.. Blasphemy! xD Will I be spared from witch-hunt had I commented this on the forum? I'm not too sure what is and what is not acceptable around here. Where do they draw the line? I figured some would not take the above very kindly; they don't understand how silly some arguments are from a rational standpoint and often confuse claim or faith as evidence. Problematic if ever so slightly, hard fact offends. It's usually impossible to persuade and reason with people who already hate you. Nothing gets across! And you'll be avoided like germ. :')

#posted it anyway!

Yes, it's difficult when honesty, curious controversies and constructive criticisms are often misunderstood as "animosity" when in truth, those are the necessary components for love.

"The thing is that love gives us a ringside seat on somebody else's flaws, so of course you're going to spot some things that kind of need to be mentioned. But often the romantic view is to say, 'If you loved me, you wouldn't criticise me.' Actually, true love is often about trying to teach someone how to be the best version of themselves." ― Alain De Botton

For theists: When was the last time you had someone who disagrees with you over something significant but willing and curious enough to stay to listen, communicate, educate, and resolve differences? Rare isn't it? It's extremely easy to give up on people because of dissimilarity and walk away; it's not easy to fight for another person on the other end of the spectrum under the best intentions. Get to know people better and you will realise that everyone is difficult. We're all different, with our own kind of crazy. Nobody is perfect. The good news is, we don't need people in our society/relationships to be perfect, we need them to have a handle of their imperfections. And strive to do their best anyway.

Love is curious, tolerating, understanding and patient. People who disagree with you but remain (well-mannered), to explain and listen are the best kind. It's beautiful to be so exceptionally caring and fascinated; you could sincerely show, "I want to spend my time learning, educating, and growing better together with you.".

And you, sir, you fascinate me for being just that!

Click to expand...

Truthfully, I had a good lesson in politeness myself from a Christian just recently. We were getting quite snarky with each other, and he made an apology to me. Since then, I have found myself much more restrained in my opinions which is, I think, a good thing.

You're very kind! Well, like I said, my most recent posts have been more polite. Honestly, I'm quite enjoying it, and hope I can continue. I can sometimes be rather sarcastic. And sometimes I look back on my writings after a while and feel a bit embarrassed afterwards.

Perhaps this is the true art of snarkiness - it's much more fun to be quiet and reasonable. Don't give them the satisfaction of being able to get into an argument. Keep pinning them down.

Agnos said:

I try to be. Not everyone perceive it that way however!

Hmm, I might have to look into your older and other posts. Did any ever get you suspended?

I have a little something for Counterphobia, but my (generally) taciturn bum is not posting enough to get there...

Happy Valentine's Day!

Click to expand...

Feel free to look into my older posts. Yes, I did get suspended once. I believe it was because I said some critical things of the Christian God. I'd not realised that this was against the rules of the forum. You're allowed to mount arguments against Christianity, but not to actually say nasty things about God Himself.

Happy Valentine's Day!

Agnos said:

I hope you had a great one. I had a blast rewatching Atkinson's sketches on Valentine's. Yes, yes, Atkinson for some reason...

What about this?

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, ...

Thus we have a contradiction, and so premises (1) through (6) do validly imply (7). - From <The Problem of Evil (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)>

Are arguments like that allowed? Have you ever brought it up? No good counter arguments to that either, I'm assuming?

Click to expand...

Ah, the problem of evil! Yes, arguments like this are certainly allowed. Perhaps you'd like to have a look through the Apologetics forum and see some of the things we've been talking about lately. I recently had a problem of evil debate that ended most satisfactorily.