Apologetics Works Because Its Audience Does Not Think Critically
Last edited Thu Feb 15, 2018, 05:36 PM - Edit history (1)
The tautological and logical error-laden field of Christian apologetics would seem to be so full of errors and falsehood that it should be exposed as nonsense universally. Yet, it is not. The reason for this, I believe, is that its audience has no critical thinking skills. Such skills are not encouraged among religious believers, and for obvious reasons.
Apologetics does not use formal logic. Instead, it proceeds from a faulty premise that colors everything. That premise is that "God exists and is all-powerful." That means that any argument can be turned back on itself to say that "God did it. God can do anything." That faulty premise is the core of apologetics.
This is why apologetics arguments cause all but believers to pull their hair out. No matter how carefully you point to logical flaws and errors in those arguments, believers will accept the "But God..." premise as the final word.
Without critical thinking, anything can be believed. And is.
Edit to add on 2/15/18: At the end of this thread, you will find a statement by me as the last post I made in the thread. If you have questions about this thread, or material quoted out of context from this thread, please scroll down or click this link to view that statement: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=271576
= new reply since forum marked as read
When you start at the default position that there IS no God, there IS no evidence, there IS no proof, there IS no valid argument that one will ever accept, you are merely taking the opposite stand you accuse the apologist of.
Apologetics makes the argument that faith in the absence of proof and evidence is rationally valid.
Believers will tell you they see and experience that proof and evidence everyday.
Many consider faith a gift.
Maybe, just maybe that default position has something to do with receiving that gift? 
And hearing incorporeal voices might not be the most positive thing to admit to here. 
I certainly would not rate that as valid evidence. I mean I have many voices in my brain, like when I read fiction and follow the thoughts of the characters in the narrative. But I don't think that Lisbeth Salander is a real person when I read The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, for instant.
Just saying.
Do you have anything else that you claim as evidence?
Asking respectfully.
there is NO evidence, NO proof, NO argument you will consider.
Therefore, there is NO point.
That also a common tactic of the theists, to straw man their perceived opponents.
Let's start with the true default position in science, commonly called the "null hypothesis". With regards to the existence of gods, that presumption has to be that they do not exist without evidence of their existence. That's not just a characteristic just of non-belief in gods, it is a primary characteristic of rational thinking, ergo science.
And if the heavens opened up and a white bearded old man presented himself (for instance) I certainly would count that as evidence. (After checking my LSD level, that is.)
The problem for me is that all the evidence presented by theists is not what I would call evidence at all. What one personally experiences is not evidence of any kind. That is called anecdotal evidence, which is universally rejected by science.
As an another example take the "god of the gaps" argument. Wherever science does not know the answers, that's where the gods dwell. In other words, gods are defined as a negative space of scientific theory. If one actually thinks of that a bit, why would one choose that argument? Yet, it is common by apologists.
Theists' claims of prayer, miracles, etc. are easily explained without resorting to the God explanation. William of Ockham applies. The null hypothesis is supported.
Theism? There's no there there that I can see.
Hope that you are well.
Divide, divide, divide. 
I damn sure didn't say anything like that.
But be sure and repeat it over and over and over and over and over, everyday, every thread. 
Now, I expect you have a degree of certitude in your remarks, but it's OK if I don't consider your opinion to be the Summa Theologica of our discussions? 
there are an awful lot of limbless people running around!
Faith IS subjective!
The 'apologetics' audience DOES think critically - as you continue to defend your position.
And we stand for tolerance and inclusion, and we don't bully people like that other party!
And their trembling in fear! 
Now if you want to propose that both parties are the same - good luck!
Of course you'd try to turn that around!
Isn't your argument Christians represent hateful rightwing ideology?
While the vast majority of Democrats are Christians?
The vast majority of people occupying this planet would disagree.
Then, one makes a choice.
I'm pretty sure off of proof and evidence we can dismiss ancient mythologies.
Of course, you want to argue there is no proof or evidence! ..and stickin' to it!
