Reviewing Christian & Islamic Apologetics: Still as Dumb As Ever, Nothing New, Still Totally Ignorant of Reality!

It's been a while since I reviewed religious apologetics.

So I have been searching for anything new on the Theistic landscape.

So far, I've found absolutely nothing new in their arguments for God and for defense of their Faith in God.

I've been also viewing all the latest debates between Theists and others.

Again the Theist debaters, both Islamic and Christian offer nothing new.

The most intelligent Apologists appear to be those on the Islamic front line.

They leave the Christian Apologists well behind in cleverness and reasoning methodology, yet they all fall short of being Rational.

They are still relying on the same old Arguments From Ignorance Fallacies.

Namely the Cosmological Arguments (mostly the Kalam version), The Teleological Argument ( still the William Paley argument Darwin destroyed) and the Ontological Argument for God or can you imagine a Maximally Perfect Gandalf or Leprechaun? Well I can, but that doesn't make them exist.

A few years ago the Presuppositional Arguments for God gained big time promotion and many evangelical fundamentalists presented this argument to confuse and win debates against unsuspecting atheists.

The Presuppositional (circular reasoning, nonsensical) arguments appear to have ceased and died off, as it was realized that even if they win such a debate, it still doesn't show that they have proven their God exists, as it is no more proof for God than it is proof of Leprechauns or Tooth Fairies.

Even the very popular Christian Fundamentalist Apologist and Debater, William Lane Craig, who continually argues from extreme Ignorance, False Personal Authority, Personal Credulity, and several other common fallacies, refuses to accept Presupposition as a valid argument for God.  Craig produces so many fallacies every time he posts a blog or appears in a debate, that sometimes I wonder how he passed Secondary School Philosophy, let alone at university level, I suppose he must have bribed his lecturers..   

So, it looks as if Presuppositionalism is Dead.

This only leaves the old arguments from Ignorance and Special Pleading Fallacies that they have been rearranging and reinventing (badly) for centuries, that I have mentioned above.

Also their defense against the Atheist, argument from the existence of Evil, is also extremely Irrational, and they often try to throw the Burden Of Proof, back onto the atheist, as they truly have no answer as to why such evil exists in spite of an all loving, all knowing, all powerful god.

It is beyond them.

So far, Theistic Apologetics, still displays the most Irrational thinking possible by seemingly (supposedly) intelligent humans.

If Theistic delusion can produce such dumb, idiotic, irrational humans, regardless of their IQ, then there definitely must be something wrong with Theism.

I used to think that Apologists were fair dinkum believers in their idiotic apologetic arguments.

Though, after watching many of them in debates and how they twist and turn almost inside out under scrutiny, I'm beginning to believe that like many Young Earth Creationist authors, that they are truly just telling porkies for monetary support.

It appears that many Apologists are simply telling lies for money or support.

Since it was many years that I discovered that no truth in any form exists in Theistic Apologetics.

That hasn't changed, it appears to have become worse or more deceptive and decrepit.

The Proof is In the Nonsense Pudding Theistic Apologetics Produces!

Views: 257


You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Dyslexic's DOG on December 23, 2014 at 10:34pm

Here is a summary of Presuppositional Arguments for God.

If you Presuppose God does not exist, then you cannot know anything.

If you Presuppose God exists, then it is obvious that God exists.

That's it in its entirety.

Thus it is nothing more than Subjective Assumption and entirely Circular Reasoning (a Tautology).

Though many apologists like Sye Ten Bruggencate make the assumption an Assertion, which makes it even more nonsensical and thus completely fallacious.

Comment by Dyslexic's DOG on December 23, 2014 at 10:08pm

Oops, my mistake, Linguists can be scientists, if they study and experiment with the linguistic developments in humans and investigate possible linguistic forms in other species such as whales, dolphins and apes.

But, Mathematics is a skill and an art, but not necessarily a science, and since Lennox does not perform experimental analysis of his mathematics, only teaches it and makes bold claims for it, he is not actually applying it scientifically.  Thus, he is not and never will be a scientist.

Even teaching Science does not make you a scientist.

Ken Ham at least admits that much, when it suits him in debates.

Comment by Dyslexic's DOG on December 23, 2014 at 8:28pm

BTW: John Lennox claims to be a Scientist: No he is not, he is a Mathematician and Mathematics is not Science.

Mathematics is used in science, but it by itself is not science!

Physics is science , Biology is science, they employ Mathematics and Literature, but mathematicians are like Linguists, their work is useful in science but they are not scientists.


Comment by Dyslexic's DOG on December 23, 2014 at 8:23pm

Here is one of the newer forms of Christian apologists in fundamentalist scientists and mathematicians like John Lennox.

Though it is easy to spot the false assertions, appeal to popularity, genetic and straw man fallacies that Lennox presents as evidence for his childish delusion of God.

I could answer Lennox's question of: "Who created your creator?"  Answer: My Grandparents.

Lennox claims that a non-answer from a stunned victim of his Irrelevant, Idiotic Questions is an affirmation of his Delusional Position.  That in essence it presents a false dichotomy fallacy.

Another stupid part of Lennox's speech is when he claims to have outwitted a biochemist with a question regarding "The Meaning of Signs/Symbols" or "Semiotics", which is well outside of the scope of Biochemistry, thus he is creating a Strawman from this Biochemist.  

Had he asked an Anthropologist or a Social Anthropologist, or even now some Linguistic experts he would have had a valid answer on how evolution and the innately interpreted gestures of symbols give many humans a common perception, such as when the shape, color or movement of a sign, gestures movement towards the signaler it is like an invitation such as the words "Come Here" where the lips and hand signals usually give an inviting, inward moving gesture, or "Go Away" where the lips and bodily signals provide a pushing away gesture, which is interpreted the same by humans of any culture and language.

Thus a person of Chinese origins with no knowledge of English, can understand the symbols and what is being said, without the need for an interpreter.

John Lennox's extremely Fallacious Apologetics may appear rational to some, but, if you analyze it openly, all his attempts to Assert God are highly Irrational.

Just another Deluded Loon, with a Childish need for his Supreme Daddy Figure!

That is all Lennox's apologetics seems to be based on, his need for a father figure and hatred for the naughty scientists that want to take his big cuddly daddy away from him.

It's like science is trying to steal his teddy bear.

He spits his dummy in a few debates with truly rational people, which demonstrates clearly his extreme irrationality.  Michael Shermer has the pretentiously calm Lennox visibly upset in this debate:


Comment by Dyslexic's DOG on December 23, 2014 at 12:04am

Actually the wing argument is the same as the Watchmaker argument, only using something that has already been highly evolved instead of a human made device.

We all know the basics of wing formation from flying fish to the existence of feathers on early dinosaurs.

The fins on fish provide both the origins of front legs and wings, as to which evolved first is a chicken/egg argument.  Since flying dinosaurs have been discovered to exist, very early in the time scale, it is possible that front legs and wings evolved around the same period.

Possibly some of the amphibians used the width of their fins to assist in gaining lift by flapping them to hop upstream against the current and thus eventual enhancement led to flight.  Where others would crawl and thus developed strength and stability on land as limbs.

The more that is discovered, the more questions arise.

That is the beauty and the wonder of Science!

Aye M8!

Comment by Dyslexic's DOG on December 22, 2014 at 10:52pm

I forgot to mention that the problem with Presuppositional Apologetics is:


It is exactly like stating that the Bible is True, because the Bible Says So.

It is so true because God is Presupposed.

It is exactly the same circular reasoning.

Thus Fallacious and does not lead anywhere!

This is why William Lane Craig bags it.

It seems that somehow the rest of the laws of Philosophy seem to fly over Craig's head!

Because his arguments are based on every other Fallacy known in philosophy.

Comment by Dyslexic's DOG on December 22, 2014 at 10:38pm

So true Michael.

The Watchmaker argument from William Paley was answered by Darwin as he described the development of the eye, which even at his time was evidently a gradual progression from somewhat useful structures to refinement to more useful structures.

Such as from indentation on a light sensitive surface (skin) which allowed enough focus to figure out the direction of a light source and when a shadow such as a predator passed over, to a more refined cup shape to better focus light, all the way to the primitive pinhole camera of which all variations exist in some species, demonstrating clearly that it is a factual, verified progression.

The abilities and needs of each species also developed along with their ability to use light as a tool, for detecting prey, partners and predators.  

The watchmaker analogy should have ended with Darwin, so it is naive for Creationists to continue to kick into life such a long dead horse.  No kicking in the world will put muscle back onto fossilized bones.

Though it did make a come back with Michael Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" misconception.

For years they produced such nonsense as copying the popular television show's title in CSI to support their claim.  By making analogies based on Complex Specified Information calculations, of which there is no agreed scientific methodology they try to push that high CSI ratings have to be designed by a Supernatural Agency and low CSI structures could have evolved.

This sort of became a Begging The Question (Circular Reasoning) Fallacy.

As many structures within a high CSI organ are low CSI, so the question becomes, how did they become incorporated or is a high CSI organ, just an evolution of combining low CSI components?

It gets very messy!

This is why Occam's Razor comes to the rescue, in that their contrived explanations become far too complex to ever be simple or satisfactorily explanatory.

Many apologists now balk at trying the Watchmaker Argument by using Behe's Irreducible Complexity.

Because they have had their neurons burnt at the stake in the past by biologists like PZ Myers, who loves attacking Behe's nonsense.


Comment by Dyslexic's DOG on December 22, 2014 at 10:19pm

Yes Loren, Sye Ten Bruggencate is still breathing, but nobody is really listening to his nonsense.

He is ignored by everybody except some atheists who think they need to counter his arguments.

Sye doesn't realize that his arguments are self-defeating and really demonstrate nothing.

This is why he is even getting bagged by other Christian apologists, like Lane Craig.

I think we can safely put Sye and his arguments in the garbage bin.

We don't need to worry about presuppositionalist arguments, as they destroy themselves by their own extreme subjectivity.

It's the same as the Ontological Argument, we can imagine anything we want to and it won't make them exist, not God, nor other worlds.

Sye's arguments often get bogged down in modal logic, which is also nonsensical.

Imagining other worlds and defining rules for those other worlds are all arguments from Ignorance (without evidence, nor knowledge).

Just as much of Philosophy involves arguments from ignorance, Theology is only arguing from ignorance..

Comment by Michael Penn on December 22, 2014 at 10:16am

Recently I commented on a You Tube post where "Jim was an angry atheist" but he became christian. It went on a while back and forth and I'm telling this person that his Bible is not proof of anything. He now thinks that he has the high ground by demanding that I produce evidence.

I saw a Muslim arguing with a Christian once and using a house as an example for creation. He pointed out that the house was made of wood and it did not create itself. WTF?

People still want to use the bird wing and airplane wing in evolutionary arguments. Bird wings flap and airplane wings do not. Then if gets complicated when the apologist says "let's suppose that you found a wing." Apparently you are wondering around in a world of evolution and you just "find" a bird wing or airplane wing. STOP. Wrong, wrong, wrong!

The watchmaker argument is just as bad. These people want you to walk around and just find a bunch of gears somewhere waiting to be put together but it takes god to do that, etc. OK, do they think evolution works by walking along and finding a variety of arms and legs, hands, etc. just laying around and then they get put together? Certainly they do not understand evolution.

Theistic Apologetics is total bullshit!

Comment by Loren Miller on December 22, 2014 at 7:54am

So, it looks as if Presuppositionalism is Dead.

It'd be nice to think so, but if Sye Ten Bruggencate is still breathing, so is presuppositionalism.  I mean, that's Sye's baby, and he just LOVES his baby ... and it doesn't matter that his baby has been torn to shreds three ways from last Tuesday.

Sye's ignorance is very, VERY determined.

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service