Apologetics You're Unlikely to Hear

[Cassia]

So many times I wind up thinking someone is a real dick weed and then they turn out to be a big time xtian

[Baruch]

It's based on John 13:35, which says, "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." If there's one thing Christians are not known for, it's their love. But of course, they say, "They aren't real Christians! But claiming that most Christians don't count only proves my point.

Pontius Pilate should have asked ... "What is love?"

[Mike Cl]

One thing I learned long ago is if there is a sign something like this in a business window, 'Christian Business', I will not go in.  that is a sure sign that they will fuck you without hesitation. 

[SoldierofFortune]

There is a common claim as to why the majority of Islam countries are underdeveloped: It's not because of Islam, It's because of Muslims. That is, Islam is not problem, the problem is with Muslims ...

[Baruch]

One thing I learned long ago is if there is a sign something like this in a business window, 'Christian Business', I will not go in.  that is a sure sign that they will fuck you without hesitation.

How many Chinese products have you bought over the last 25 years?  You are a round eye Barbarian ;-)

[Baruch]

There is a common claim as to why the majority of Islam countries are underdeveloped: It's not because of Islam, It's because of Muslims. That is, Islam is not problem, the problem is with Muslims ...

The blame game is ... prejudicial.  Arab Muslims would say, the problem is with non-Arab Muslims, including Turkish Muslims (see WW I).  For example, the reason there are problems with the Indian reservations ... is it because of their relationship with the Federal government, because of their religion/culture or because they are Native Americans?  One party would blame "fire water".  Arabs originally had small scale desert oasis society in Arabia.  They had to be hardy to survive at all.  Yemen had successful irrigation by dam, but an earthquake destroyed that dam and it was never rebuilt.  And they conquered in the name of Islam, like any other nomad society, off of the backs of prior successful farmers/ranchers.

I think it depends on the location (see Guns, Germs and Steel).  Agriculture (and favorable weather) is the basis of prosperity, so location, location, location.  Egyptian agriculture was very good until the building of the Aswan Dam by Nasser.  But Iraqi agriculture has been underperforming since the Persian Empire.  Both exist in deserts, but the Nile rejuvenated Egyptian crop land, but this doesn't happen with the Tigris/Euphrates.  Why is that?  Because the Nile did its annual silt deposit without human aid.  Subsequent irrigation has to happen with manpower.  This silt deposit doesn't happen in Iraq.  Ancient Iraq had massive manpower every year to keep up the irrigation, but the soil became increasingly saline/infertile.  After 3000 years of irrigation, it was played out. 

Anatolia on the other hand, has had agriculture as long as Egypt and Iraq ... but doesn't even have massive rivers.  Agriculture was small scale, and local flat areas were divided up by mountains.  Already in the late Bronze Age, the Hittite Empire starved.  The Indus Valley civilization failed even more quickly, by the Middle Bronze Age, because of changing monsoon patterns.  Their cities depended on rain fed cisterns.  China has had massive populations always, because of rejuvenating flooding of the Yellow river, and irrigation off of it ... the Yangtze river doesn't flood, but you can irrigate some off of it ... and massive rains in S China (necessary for rice farming) eventually contributed.

Iron age agricultural kingdoms and empires did prosper, though of course they had problems with weather, warfare and plague.  In particular, the Crusades didn't set back Islam by much, it was the much more damaging destruction by the Mongols, that destroyed the whole Eastern half of Islam (as it existed then).  Do maybe blame those Central Asian nomads, like the Turks ;-)

[Jagella]

It's based on John 13:35, which says, "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." If there's one thing Christians are not known for, it's their love. But of course, they say, "They aren't real Christians!" But claiming that most Christians don't count only proves my point.

I think the argument goes like this:

I maintain that Christians can never be hateful because they are led by God.
Some professed Christians are hateful.
Such Christians are not real Christians because "no true Christian" would be hateful.
Therefore, Christians can never be hateful.

So I think the fallacy here is that the problem of Christians being unloving is being "solved" by defining away the problem. It would be like saying that pit-bull terriers don't bite, and if any of them do bite, then just say that those dogs aren't "true" pit bulls.

Anyway, Christians are like any other group of persons--some are good, and some are bad. I think a real God could do better.

[Jagella]

There is a common claim as to why the majority of Islam countries are underdeveloped: It's not because of Islam, It's because of Muslims. That is, Islam is not problem, the problem is with Muslims ...

That sounds like the claim that Christ is not the problem, but some Christians are the problem. So Christianity, like Islam, can survive with corrupt followers but not with a corrupt founder. That's why Christian apologists are so adamant that Jesus cannot be blamed for the inquisition or the witch hunts. And did you notice that Christian apologists rarely attack individual Mormons but tend to aim at Joseph Smith or Brigham Young? The excesses of Mormonism, as far as apologists are concerned, are to be blamed on its founders. If you get a "head shot," then the whole body will die.

[Sal1981]

The Argument From the Character of Christians:
If you skeptics want to see why God is real, then just look at the character of us Christians. Only the indwelling of the Holy Ghost can explain our superhuman honesty, trustworthiness, and sensible behavior.

You don't even need to invoke atheistic "inspired" behavior or even sophisticated  modal logic to negate this argument. Anyone that isn't a Christian, yet moral, will negate this argument by Proof By Contradiction.

The Argument From Substantive Presentation (We will show you.):
If a jumble of words does not convince you, and you want to actually see God, then just lookee here--here he is!

Well, I don't know about you, but I'm still waiting to be convinced ...

The Argument from Knowledge:
I can tell you anything you want to know because I'm talking to God, and he will tell me.

I usually respond to these "divinely" inspired relays with "If god wants me to believe in him, let him tell me, not you."

The Argument From Testing Prayer:
God's power is granted through prayer, so go ahead and test prayer to see if what I'm saying is true.

Easy to experiment with. Pray for some event to happen that otherwise would not happen (defies natural laws) and sit down and wait within a reasonable time frame. I'm confident jack shit will happen. And I reckon they'll respond with "god cannot be tested", or some shit which is quite convenient when you realize a bunch of people have been left with disappointment  throughout the millennia.

The Argument From Read the Bible and See
We are so confident that the Holy Bible is the word of God, that we ask you to read it and come to your own conclusions regarding its divine authorship. We will accept any conclusion you come to and will treat you with respect even if you disagree with us.

I already have. 5 times even. I'm an apostate because of it. Which I reckon they'll respond with I never believed or I wasn't really a Christian or some similarly scuffed response.

The Argument from Miraculous Demonstration:
1 Corinthians 12 clearly promises us Christians the power to heal miraculously, and I will prove it to be true. Get those TV cameras ready, and assemble the skeptics to be eyewitnesses. Now, see this amputee over here? Just watch me go restore his legs in the name of Jesus!

Nothing short of someone appearing to me and claiming they were god and doing genuine miraculous stuff would convince me at this point - yet even that I would be skeptical about, because what if it was some advanced alien taking the piss of an earthling?

[Baruch]

Don't ask an advanced but dirty minded alien, to piss on you!

[Jagella]

You don't even need to invoke atheistic "inspired" behavior or even sophisticated  modal logic to negate this argument. Anyone that isn't a Christian, yet moral, will negate this argument by Proof By Contradiction.

Obviously, any people led by a perfectly good God should exhibit exemplary moral behavior. Obviously, since such behavior is sorely lacking among Christians generally, apologists do not dare argue that it is not lacking.

Well, I don't know about you, but I'm still waiting to be convinced ...

Sure, but I'm betting that actually seeing God rather than apologists merely arguing him would be a step in the direction of your being convinced that God is real.

I usually respond to these "divinely" inspired relays with "If god wants me to believe in him, let him tell me, not you."

If a Christian could tell you what you dreamed last night, would you believe God told that Christian what you dreamed?

Easy to experiment with. Pray for some event to happen that otherwise would not happen (defies natural laws) and sit down and wait within a reasonable time frame. I'm confident jack shit will happen. And I reckon they'll respond with "god cannot be tested", or some shit which is quite convenient when you realize a bunch of people have been left with disappointment  throughout the millennia.

You have probably noticed that many Christians go to great lengths to rationalize failed prayers. Whether prayer works, or whether it doesn't, God always wins.

I already have. 5 times even. I'm an apostate because of it. Which I reckon they'll respond with I never believed or I wasn't really a Christian or some similarly scuffed response.

The reason no Christian apologist will argue "the Argument From Read the Bible and See" apologetic is because they know that the Bible is not going to convince everybody. Apologists also won't promise to respectfully accept the reader's judgment of the Bible because they want the option of telling the person how wrong she is if she does not accept the Bible as the word of God.

Nothing short of someone appearing to me and claiming they were god and doing genuine miraculous stuff would convince me at this point - yet even that I would be skeptical about, because what if it was some advanced alien taking the piss of an earthling?

Apologists criticize some skeptics as refusing to believe no matter what evidence those skeptics might see. As you say here, though, even apparent miracles may not be actual evidence for God but evidence for something else. Christians have basically created a God that cannot be proved or disproved even in principle.

And that's their problem--not ours!

[Baruch]

But what will atheists offer in place of a magic wishing tree?  Communism?

[Blackleaf]

But what will atheists offer in place of a magic wishing tree?  Communism?

Yes, Baruch. You've figured it out. We're secretly Communists.

[SGOS]

we can know Christians by their love.

Or their lack of it.  Most Christians I have known, are more judgemental than loving.  My closest friends where I now live are Christian, and they are also devout fundamentalists.  The fact is, from my personal experience they are exceptions to the norm.  I have never known Christians like this before who actually love others without setting conditions for their kindness.  But it seems to me that for such people, love comes from a place far deeper from within them.  It comes from a core of goodness that has little to do with their religion.  Their Christianity is just something they have added to their lives, but it's not a part of that inner core that makes them decent.

We know people of decency by their love.  Occasionally, some may be Christians. But it is hardly the norm.  George Bush was a Christian.  He murdered hundreds of thousands, maybe most of whom were innocent, and then he strutted around like King Kong.  Bush wanted to legislate how people loved, but he had no loving core.  Christianity?  I'm not that impressed.  Religion is the sheep's clothing that hides the wolf.  It is not the cause of love.  Islam and Christianity are just different suits of clothing.

[SGOS]

Yes, Baruch. You've figured it out. We're secretly Communists.

Baruch guides himself through life by channeling Joe McCarthy and other dead icons of the far right, so he comes off a bit weird most of the time.