# Honest Question



## DouglasB. (Jan 25, 2011)

Ok... So I read this section fairly often... yet I never post.

One thing I've wondered for awhile now... A lot of you complain about how the religious post here so often, and post with their views.... My question is.... if they didn't post here, what would the very small collection of Athiests we have here talk about? What would be your day to day conversation?


"Hey Bill... you still believe there is no God?"

"Yep Steve, I sure do."

"Ok Bill... see ya next month."

Seems like that would fit the bill.


----------



## TTom (Jan 25, 2011)

It's not christians coming in to post that is the issue for most of us non christians.

If they come in and post Apologetics thoughtfull intellectual examinations that support the idea of the God of the Bible. That are based on REASON.

Most of us only decry those that come in post scripture as if it settles the matter for everyone else too. It doesn't scripture can be used to support a reasoned argument and reasoned arguments can be used to support scripture. I'm good with either of those.

However if people think that the definition of apologetics is fulfilled by posting something as insipid as The Bible says it I believe it that settles it. Then I and more than a few others are gonna call them on it.

By definition apologetics must have reason based arguments to support their belief in God.


----------



## DouglasB. (Jan 25, 2011)

Fair enough.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 25, 2011)

TTom said:


> It's not christians coming in to post that is the issue for most of us non christians.
> 
> If they come in and post Apologetics thoughtfull intellectual examinations that support the idea of the God of the Bible. That are based on REASON.
> 
> ...



Noone gets to specify what tool I use to argue with. I believe the Bible to be reasonable, so using it for apologetics makes sense. If you believe science to be reasonable, then use that too. (I can't think of anything more insipid than science)


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 25, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Noone gets to specify what tool I use to argue with. I believe the Bible to be reasonable, so using it for apologetics makes sense. If you believe science to be reasonable, then use that too. (I can't think of anything more insipid than science)



You still don't get it.

Watch a debate between some of the most prominent christian apologists and atheists and see how much they rely on scripture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics



> Apologetics (from Greek απολογία, "speaking in defense") is the discipline of defending a position (usually religious) through the systematic use of reason.





> Christian apologetics is a field of Christian theology that presents a rational basis for the Christian faith, to defend the faith against objections and misrepresentation, and to expose error within other religions and world views.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 25, 2011)

Atlas - you could count the times I have quoted scripture on this forum on one hand. Please pay attention.


----------



## TTom (Jan 26, 2011)

I can only tell you that your argument does or does not fit the definition of Apologetics and respond to it in the appropriate way.

The forum says apologetics, if your argument does not fit I reserve the right to tell you exactly that your reply does not fit the definition. And again in context scripture alone is not a reasoned argument.

Scripture might support a reasoned argument, scripture might be supported by reason. I said that in my original post. 

But you seem to want to make as if I said something different.

By itself scripture does not now, never has and never will qualify as apologetics.

Use toenail clippers (or any other tool) for all I care but don't call it apologetics unless it uses and is supported by reason.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 26, 2011)

TTom said:


> I can only tell you that your argument does or does not fit the definition of Apologetics and respond to it in the appropriate way.
> 
> The forum says apologetics, if your argument does not fit I reserve the right to tell you exactly that your reply does not fit the definition. And again in context scripture alone is not a reasoned argument.
> 
> ...



See post #6.


----------



## TTom (Jan 26, 2011)

WHAT? 

Who said you did quote scripture here? Maybe you should pay attention?

It was not an accusation, I have been speaking about a practice if you don't practice it then what is your point in replying to my post as if we have a disagreement? Although your jumping up to defend the practice says to me  that you consider it a valid one.

Nobody said you couldn't use any tool you please even though
you wanted to try to make it look like they had.

(Here again you should take your own advice here and pay better attention)

What was said 3 times and you have steadfastly avoided this basic point. The practice of posting scripture alone or something like The Bible says it that settles it does not qualify as a reasoned approach, and by definition fails to qualify as apolgetics.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 26, 2011)

TTom said:


> WHAT?
> 
> Who said you did quote scripture here? Maybe you should pay attention?
> 
> ...



If we can't use scripture, than you guys can't use YouTube or Wikipedia, and you must wear red and march in a straight line, while we can wear camo and hide behind stuff.


----------



## DouglasB. (Jan 26, 2011)

Even a simple question causes arguements..... Sad....


----------



## TTom (Jan 26, 2011)

You really don't pay attention do you?

How big a font does it need to be in before the words

ALONE or By Itself works it's way through the skull?

46 point font?

8732 point font?

Letters the size of the grand canyon?

Although I believe it to be in vain as you seem to intentionally distort what is being said. It would be a lie to say that anyone so far in this thread says you can't use scripture.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 26, 2011)

TTom said:


> You really don't pay attention do you?
> 
> How big a font does it need to be in before the words
> 
> ...



I think you missed the point of my analogy.

You don't get to dictate the rules of engagment.


----------



## TTom (Jan 26, 2011)

You don't get to redefine "reason" or "apologetics" either.

Webster set the definition not me, the dictionary not you or me is generally considered the final arbiter of such things. 

When you convince them that a book filled with miracles, which defy reason by definition somehow fits the definition of reason then you'll have a case. 

Until then I'll continue to call whoever trys to pass off scripture alone without support of a reasoned argument as meeting the definition of Apologetics full of marshmallow fluff.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 26, 2011)

TTom said:


> You don't get to redefine "reason" or "apologetics" either.



Post of the day.


----------



## VisionCasting (Jan 27, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> you guys can't use YouTube or Wikipedia



Come on now?  Would you really prevent them worshiping the god-of-wiki-and-youtube?  <sarcasm on> Afterall, if it's in the Bible it must be wrong, but if it was put on the interwebz by a 48 year old that lives in his grandma's basement it is inerrant!   <sarcasm off>


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 27, 2011)

I must have missed where it was claimed that youtube is authoritative and inerrant. You fellas wouldn't be kicking around a straw man would you?


----------



## ADB (Jan 27, 2011)

In other news: "The world is dying and going straight to Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- and we are arguing the same old talking points". My how Lucifer has his hand in these things.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 28, 2011)

ADB said:


> In other news: "The world is dying and going straight to Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- and we are arguing the same old talking points". My how Lucifer has his hand in these things.



I agree, but there is not much we can do for the world except try and help out a few athiests and agnostics to find their way to salvation!


----------



## JFS (Jan 29, 2011)

Maybe you guys can rally folks for another Inquisition to get things back on track.


----------



## vowell462 (Jan 29, 2011)

JFS said:


> Maybe you guys can rally folks for another Inquisition to get things back on track.



Now that's good stuff!


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 29, 2011)

JFS said:


> Maybe you guys can rally folks for another Inquisition to get things back on track.



I'm pretty sure that was a Catholic thing. I can't speak for others, but I ain't Catholic.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 29, 2011)

A witch hunt perhaps?


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 29, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> A witch hunt perhaps?



What also floats?   Very small rocks!  Ducks!


----------

