Does apologetics "work"?

[HitchSlap]

Every humans is responsible for the trajectory of their unique soul. No one can convince another adult of something except for the unique adult. We all have to make the decision.

Exactly! I take full responsibility for my actions and life.

No sacrifice needed (immoral IMO).

Sounds like we agree (sans the soul part).

 

[Kaon]

Exactly! I take full responsibility for my actions and life No sacrifice needed (immoral IMO).

Sounds like we agree (sans the soul part).

Perhaps. Atheism and agnosticism is a natural step in the pursuit of "enlightenment" - especially because human institutions seem to have no choice but to misinform continuously. However, anyone faced with truth (not a dogmatic institutional declaration or axiom) has two options: accept it or deny it. By truth, I mean what humans call "undeniable evidence" of something.

It's straight-forward to be atheist or agnostic with respect to religion because the human representatives don't do what they are supposed to do. But, those humans shouldn't keep you from your Redeemer, or Father. In fact, if someone does cause you to miss your redeemer (i.e. stumble), you may get your recompense, but those who caused you to stumble will get an even worse charge.

Finally, know that if you are from the Father, you cannot backslide enough to get away from Him. Now, you may be stuck in "hell" until you "wake up", but if you are His, He will not leave you in hell (Acts 2:27, Psalm 16:10). But also, no amount of ritual, incantation or rite will manually get you to Him.

I am all for people making their own decisions about the spiritual trajectory of their soul. You do not need another soul for the revelation of the Father except for the Redeemer.

 

[Caliban]

You have repeatedly answered your own question(s) about the validity of apologetics to you.

I have said nothing about validity. I have asked for evidence for the claim. No one seems to have any. I do not believe things without evidence.

 

[Caliban]

Every humans is responsible for the trajectory of their unique soul. No one can convince another adult of something except for the unique adult. We all have to make the decision.

You can't convince them, but you can provide compelling evidence to assist their confidence level that the claim is true. It's really simple.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you apply this same approach to other, non religious contexts?

Oh, man! It's too bad you haven't hung around here consistently over the past couple of years because I've answered this same question multiple times ...

... but don't worry, I know John Loftus' argument of the Outsider Test for Faith only all too well. (I mean...I do have his books, y'know! I've also had more than one university class on Eastern Philosophy and World Religions...... too. )

I know. I know. Everyone is just looking for that 'chink' in my armor ... well, good luck in finding it.

 

[Kaon]

I have said nothing about validity. I have asked for evidence for the claim. No one seems to have any. I do not believe things without evidence.

You are asking for something that will validate what you do/not believe via apology - whether it is possible and whether it is functional. Evidence is subjective; what I consider evidence is not evidence to you.

You would need to tell us what evidence would best suit you, and an argument can be presented to you. After that, it would still be up to you whether you accept or reject the argument. But, the conversation will be aimless if you expect strangers to know what type of evidence will satisfy you in the long run.

 

[Kaon]

You can't convince them, but you can provide compelling evidence to assist their confidence level that the claim is true. It's really simple.

It is not that simple: the compelling evidence is likely only compelling to you (or whoever is asking for the evidence). Evidence is subjective, so it depends on your mind rationalizing what you receive to determine whether or not it is compelling to you.

Some people don't want to nurse adults into belief in something said adults would just argue about anyway. If a learned person is arguing with a fool, the learned person is indistinguishable from the fool. This is why apologetics are meaningless: they are purposed to assuage psychology rather than express truth. Adults will need to come to a decision themselves, instead of abdicating spiritual responsibility to other adults.

 

[HitchSlap]

Oh, man! It's too bad you haven't hung around here consistently over the past couple of years because I've answered this same question multiple times ...

... but don't worry, I know John Loftus' argument of the Outsider Test for Faith only all too well. (I mean...I do have his books, y'know! I've also had more than one university class on Eastern Philosophy and World Religions...... too. )

I know. I know. Everyone is just looking for that 'chink' in my armor ... well, good luck in finding it.

Sounds a bit narcissistic, as I don’t to think people care as much as you think they do. It sounds like you’re trying really hard to get us to accept your epistemology as sound.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sounds a bit narcissistic, as I don’t to think people care as much as much as you think they do. It sounds like you’re trying really hard to get us to accept your epistemology as sound.

Actually, you've misunderstood me. I'm not here to assert an "epistemology." I'm here to tear them a new hole. I'm here to skewer each supposed epistemological framework for the gap jawed vampire that each epistemological notion is ... Kapeesh?

In addtion to that project, my second project is to continue to continually assert, in an ever ongoing, repeated, never-ending fashion that: If we want to land on the Moon, that will require one set of epistemic notions. But if we want to touch the face of God, that will require a different set of epistemic notions.

See? Simple.

 

[HitchSlap]

Actually, you've misunderstood me.

I don't think I have.

I'm not here to assert an "epistemology."

Seems like you are.

I'm here to tear them a new hole. I'm here to skewer each supposed epistemological framework for the gap jawed vampire that each epistemological notion is ... Kapeesh?

Is that what you think people think of you? Sorry, I admit I missed where you've done this.

In addtion to that project, my second project is to continue to continually assert, in an ever ongoing, repeated, never-ending fashion that: If we want to land on the Moon, that will require one set of epistemic notions.

Ok.

But if we want to touch the face of God, that will require a different set of epistemic notions.

Here's where you fail. As I alluded to earlier, I don't care what you believe. That you've convinced yourself a god exists and you know him personally, and really want us to understand your reasons for belief don't concern me. Please tell me, what "epistemic notions" you considered before becoming a Christian?

See? Simple.

If you say so.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think I have.



Seems like you are.



Is that what you think people think of you? Sorry, I admit I missed where you've done this.



Ok.



Here's where you fail. As I alluded to earlier, I don't care what you believe. That you've convinced yourself a god exists and you know him personally, and really want us to understand your reasons for belief don't concern me. Please tell me, what "epistemic notions" you considered before becoming a Christian?

If you say so.

If you're not here to listen to us "apologize" for the Christian Faith, then YOU have no business being here. IF you don't "care," then why is coming onto CF and making challenges (or offering smirks) important enough to waste time with? I don't find your purpose for being here legit, really. Of course, unfortunately, you're "free" to be ... here, nevertheless.

 

[HitchSlap]

If you're not here to listen to us "apologize" for the Christian Faith, then YOU have no business being here.

No I get where you're coming from. However, I'm a vestige from the 'Erwin' days, when I used to be a Christian, and I'm truly interested in genuine conversation. I just find you to be a bit of a sophist, that's all. It's no skin off my nose if you don't respond or put me on ignore.

IF you don't "care," then why is coming onto CF and making challenges (or offering smirks)

See above.

I don't find your purpose for being here legit, really.

Back at ya'.

Of course, unfortunately, you're "free" to be ... here, nevertheless.

Likewise.

 

[Caliban]

Oh, man! It's too bad you haven't hung around here consistently over the past couple of years because I've answered this same question multiple times ...

... but don't worry, I know John Loftus' argument of the Outsider Test for Faith only all too well. (I mean...I do have his books, y'know! I've also had more than one university class on Eastern Philosophy and World Religions...... too. )

I know. I know. Everyone is just looking for that 'chink' in my armor ... well, good luck in finding it.

I don't approach any conversation by looking for weak spots in a persona armor. I am legitimately asking questions to have a dialogue. I think there is a lot of anxiety on this forum about feeling like people need to protect themselves from the attack of others. When I ask a question, I may be exploring the persons ideas in order to understand and strongman them. Or, I might be asking questions socratically to follow the logic of their idea to its natural conclusion. Either way, no one should avoid discussion on a discussion forum. But it is actually difficult to get a real conversation going with anybody here. Everyone is so scared of ideas. That is my personal experience and I hold my opinion conditionally.

I think Loftus is right about the Outsider Test.

 

[Caliban]

You are asking for something that will validate what you do/not believe via apology - whether it is possible and whether it is functional. Evidence is subjective; what I consider evidence is not evidence to you.

No, validity has to do with the logical structure of an argument or syllogism. You are using it in the colloquial sense. That's normally fine, but in a philosophical discussion is a bit confusing.

Evidence is not subjective if it is relevant and factual. You have had every opportunity to provide evidence and still you don't--I think you have none and are aware of it.

 

[Caliban]

It is not that simple: the compelling evidence is likely only compelling to you (or whoever is asking for the evidence). Evidence is subjective, so it depends on your mind rationalizing what you receive to determine whether or not it is compelling to you.

Your intellectual anxiety about you faith claims is now obvious; you do not have good reasons for your claims--you just take them on blind faith. That is my conclusion after asking you repeatedly for evidence and having you respond with obfuscation.

 

[Kaon]

Your intellectual anxiety about you faith claims is now obvious; you do not have good reasons for your claims--you just take them on blind faith. That is my conclusion after asking you repeatedly for evidence and having you respond with obfuscation.

So, you already had your answer right?

 

[Kaon]

No, validity has to do with the logical structure of an argument or syllogism. You are using it in the colloquial sense. That's normally fine, but in a philosophical discussion is a bit confusing.

Evidence is not subjective if it is relevant and factual. You have had every opportunity to provide evidence and still you don't--I think you have none and are aware of it.

Define relevant and factual - especially in this post-truth world. You are over-intellectualizing everything you have encountered when it is blatantly clear that you want to hear what you want to hear. That is fine, but just don't pretend you are on a noble pursuit of absolute truth: you want to be vindicated in part and told something you will believe in general.

As I told you it is not the job of a Christian or layperson to convince another adult of something: everyone is responsible for their own spiritual trajectory.

You are free to interpolate what you believe I am saying; it won't get you closer to an acceptable apology. You have been given the answer to your questions several times, but your own mind prevents you from realizing you already have what you need. You are fighting the air. Remember, you are the one who is asking the question:

My longer form question is: given all the above, should Christians engage non-believers on this forum by engaging in apologetics and by attempting to make compelling arguments for their claims as a way to convince them those claims are true?
​

And your own behaviour should be a huge sign to you the answer to your question: apologetics are futility. Maybe if you make a list of all the evidence acceptable to you, the boundaries of what you believe and accept and how you view the world around you someone will be able to make an argument. But, for example, you didn't even believe the election was true when you were a Christian - despite the dozens of verses that explicitly detail both the election and predestination by prophets, the disciples and Christ. So, you have a long way to go before you transform your (completely unnecessary) hyper-intellectualism into an open mind capable of understanding spiritual things. If you ignore the meat for syntax (or if you don't realize a word, for example, is rooted as a verb *ahem*) then you handicap your own progression, and prevent yourself from gaining kernels of truth. Atheism and agnosticism should be a step in enlightenment; staying at this step just enhances the salt and vinegar chip on your shoulder.

But good luck to you; remember what was said about the fool and learned person arguing...

 

[HitchSlap]

But good luck to you; remember what was said about the fool and learned person arguing...

Probably a bit like playing pigeon chess?

 

[Kaon]

Probably a bit like playing pigeon chess?

More like a human playing a pigeon in chess - and pigeon has check: which one is the fool and which is the learned one?

Edit: I am not saying any specific one is the ignorant, less-equipped one, I am just saying one of us needs to stop, or both of our messages are lost. I have no problem conceding, because at base I am debating other avatars and text: it is nothing to emote about.

 

[Caliban]

As I told you it is not the job of a Christian or layperson to convince another adult of something: everyone is responsible for their own spiritual trajectory.

Then I am finished conversing with you. Done.