Why I DESPISE Apologetics | Casually Debunked

--

[louisnemzer]

The goal is not truth.
The goal is to make troublesome cognitive dissonance go away

[ottz]

Apologists: “We mortal beings can never understand God”

the same apologists: “Here’s what God meant when he said this”.

[XEndlessSteelX]

Sagan makes a simple point
Apologist 1 is confused and baffled by it
Apologist 2 repeats point and adds a silly twist to it
Apologist 1 is enlightened

What the hell is this facade these people are putting up?!

[loriw]

“Apologists hide behind a veneer of civility”

Well said!!

[Mswordx]

Sagan: **Says something completely coherent and easily understandable.**
Cameron: Whoa, you're going all over the place!
Craig: I agree with Sagan, but he's still stupid for some reason!

[Gorgovoid]

Carl Sagan: "There are too many gods to answer clearly!"
Apologist: "Ahaa! But have you considered that there are too many gods to answer clearly?"
Kill me now.

[leonardpaulson]

This really hits the nail on the head nicely. It’s why I feel like engaging apologists in public debate may no longer be constructive for non-believers. They don’t respect our perspective and they won’t concede anything. You will likely find yourself playing by their rules by wasting time addressing every nonsensical argument they throw at you while they tell you how you’ve misunderstood what they said. It’s like confronting a narcissist and it’s exhausting.

[Ichabod_Jericho]

Apologetics is the most elongated way of not admitting you may be mistaken or misinformed. It’s reserved for the people who really think they have it all figured out. Too many get lost in the what ifs instead of being concerned with the what is/isnt.

At some point you need to realize, if something exists, I don’t need 5 pages of argument of conditional definitions & nouns describing it existing.

[Phoenix]

So, here's the transcript if Cameron and Bill were honest and genuinely interested in avoiding long-windedness.
Cameron: "So, let's get to the clip here."
[play clip of Carl Sagan]
Cameron: "OK Dr Craig, what is your response?"
WLC: "Dr Sagan makes an excellent point. Clarifying definitions is vital if we are to avoid misunderstanding."
Cameron: "Well said. Without clarifying definitions, we risk just talking past one another."
Cameron: "Let's now take a look at the next clip ..."

[ProphetofZod]

This was a great sample of hair-splitting apologetic pettiness. Also, it was interesting to see that Craig actually has a mic but just sits halfway across the room from it.

[paddyola]

even when i was in primary school, i sat thinking "what a load of rubbish", I mimed to the hymns and when being in prayers I'd just be thinking of something else.

[AwkwardSegway]

When asked if they believe in god:
Carl Sagan: gives a good explanation for why that's a complicated question.
Jordan Peterson: "What do you mean 'do'? What do you mean 'you'? What do you mean 'believe'? And what do you mean 'god'?"

[rumraket]

Craig has this uncanny similarity to the "Hide the pain Harold" meme.

[sergehychko]

Apologetics is never about "saving soles" or providing proof for an argument. It's about making the gullible feel less silly about archaic ridiculous beliefs; period.

[RafaelKeveluk]

The worst part is that they're smug about missing the point every single time. And I don't know if it's just stupidity or willful ignorance.

[jimmygravitt]

If there is an omnipotent omniscient god then it does not want me to believe in it. If it did, I would.

[rabbitpirate]

In both of your videos on this I have been amazed at how badly they have misunderstood Carl’s very clearly stated point. As you suggested, it’s almost like they are doing it on purpose.

[BladeValant]

That was a major question that I first asked right when I deconverted. What is even a god. A question very few people don't even ask.

[janerkenbrack]

William Lane Craig is a dishonest interlocutor. He has (many times) misrepresented other's statements by twisting words, re-defining meanings, and outright lying about what others have said. He's a scoundrel, really. One who is completely incapable of accepting error in any argument.

[dionettaeon]

"Once an honest creationist is presented with the facts, they will very quickly be faced with a life-altering choice: whether to remain honest or remain creationist. Because it will no longer be possible to be both. They either start conceding things they did not want to admit, or they're going to have to start lying about it. And that's what apologetics is. An apologist is someone who has already come to that fork and taken the wrong turn." -- Aron Ra