Difference between revisions of "Refutations of the Arguments for the Belief in God"

From Smiting Shepherds
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(26 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
[[File:Pirsig.png|center]]
 +
 
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics Apologetics] is the branch of theology devoted to rationalizing religious belief. This is intrinsically difficult, since religious belief is based on faith, which exists independently (and in spite) of evidence. As such, apologists tend to rely on philosophical, metaphysical, and historical arguments. The scholarship of these claims is dubious at best:  anecdotes -- even those of anonymous persons -- are uncritically accepted as data; and historical events and scientific theories are intentionally misrepresented to their advantage.  
 
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics Apologetics] is the branch of theology devoted to rationalizing religious belief. This is intrinsically difficult, since religious belief is based on faith, which exists independently (and in spite) of evidence. As such, apologists tend to rely on philosophical, metaphysical, and historical arguments. The scholarship of these claims is dubious at best:  anecdotes -- even those of anonymous persons -- are uncritically accepted as data; and historical events and scientific theories are intentionally misrepresented to their advantage.  
  
Be aware that Christians are notorious for intentionally not defining their terms, so they can move the goalposts to suit their needs. Getting them to define their terms is necessary for a proper discussion -- and automatically grants you a quantum of victory, since defining things limits them.   
+
Be aware that Christians are notorious for using intentionally undefined terms, so they can [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts move the goalposts] to suit their needs. Getting clergymen to clearly define their terms is necessary for a proper discussion -- and it automatically grants you a quantum of victory, since defining things limits them.   
  
'''Again, do not argue with the clergyman. Our strategy is not one of confrontation; but of malicious cooperation.''' Victory will be determined by the length and fruitlessness of your conversations. Arguing will revel yourself as a troublemaker, and you will be denied any further opportunity to consume their time, ending your journey. Besides, you can’t directly de-convert a priest; they’re [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost pot-committed]. '''De-conversion and burnout are processes of erosion.''' However, discussing these issues in front of others can aid in their de-conversion processes.
+
'''Again, do not argue with the clergyman. Our strategy is based on  malicious cooperation, not confrontation.''' Victory will be determined by the length and fruitlessness of your conversations. Arguing will reveal yourself as a troublemaker, and you will be denied any further opportunity to consume their time, ending your journey. Besides, you can’t directly deconvert a priest; they’re [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost pot-committed]. '''Deconversion and [[The_Church%27s_Weaknesses#Burnout|burnout]] are processes of erosion.''' However, discussing these issues in front of others can aid in their deconversion processes.
  
Refutations for the most common arguments for the belief in God are provided below. This is not an exhaustive list, but it should be more than sufficient; most seminarians are not required to study apologetics, and those who do often take a single 3-credit course.
+
Refutations of the 10 most common arguments for believing in God are provided below. This is ''not'' an complete list, but it should be sufficient; most seminarians are not required to study apologetics, and those who do often take a single 3-credit course. There arguments are:
  
*[[First_Mover_(Kalām)_Argument|First Mover (Kalām) Argument]]
+
*[[Cosmological Argument|Cosmological (First Mover) Argument]].
*Arguments from Design
+
*[[Teleological Argument]] (Argument from Design, or "Intelligent Design").
*[[Pascal%27s_Wager|Pascal’s Wager]]
+
*[[Pascal%27s_Wager|Pascal’s Wager]].
*Ontological Argument
+
*[[Ontological Argument]].
*Argument from Common consent (e.g., the bandwagon; argumentum ad populum)
+
*[[Argument from Common Consent|Argument from common consent]] (i.e., the bandwagon argument).
*The existence of souls and the “spark of life”
+
*[[There_is_no_Afterlife|The existence of souls and the “spark of life”]].
*Argument from the idea of God
+
*[[Argument from the Idea of God|Argument from the idea of God]].
*Argument from contingency
+
*[[Argument_from_Miracles|Argument from miracles]].
*[[Argument_from_Miracles|Argument from Miracles]]
+
*[[Argument_from_Beauty|Argument from beauty]].
*Argument from time
+
*Belief in God somehow [[Preventing_Totalitarianism|prevents totalitarianism]].
*Argument from religious experiences
 
*Argument from desire
 
*Existence of Moral law
 
*Authority of the conscience
 
*Existence of saints (Galilleo & Bruno?  Are martyrs suicides?)
 
*Argument from beauty
 
*Argument from the meaning of life.
 
*Argument from love.
 
 
----
 
----
  
 
{{Template:Navigation}}
 
{{Template:Navigation}}

Latest revision as of 17:13, 23 May 2020

Pirsig.png

Apologetics is the branch of theology devoted to rationalizing religious belief. This is intrinsically difficult, since religious belief is based on faith, which exists independently (and in spite) of evidence. As such, apologists tend to rely on philosophical, metaphysical, and historical arguments. The scholarship of these claims is dubious at best: anecdotes -- even those of anonymous persons -- are uncritically accepted as data; and historical events and scientific theories are intentionally misrepresented to their advantage.

Be aware that Christians are notorious for using intentionally undefined terms, so they can move the goalposts to suit their needs. Getting clergymen to clearly define their terms is necessary for a proper discussion -- and it automatically grants you a quantum of victory, since defining things limits them.

Again, do not argue with the clergyman. Our strategy is based on malicious cooperation, not confrontation. Victory will be determined by the length and fruitlessness of your conversations. Arguing will reveal yourself as a troublemaker, and you will be denied any further opportunity to consume their time, ending your journey. Besides, you can’t directly deconvert a priest; they’re pot-committed. Deconversion and burnout are processes of erosion. However, discussing these issues in front of others can aid in their deconversion processes.

Refutations of the 10 most common arguments for believing in God are provided below. This is not an complete list, but it should be sufficient; most seminarians are not required to study apologetics, and those who do often take a single 3-credit course. There arguments are: