Religious Apologetics: Disagreement = Dishonesty

A religious apologist suggests that I am not "honest"...

1 Background

Religious Apologist: You do not honestly represent opposing viewpoints to yours and you never respond honestly on topic.

JimC: Can you provide an example?

Religious Apologist: The best way to recognize misdirects is to note the "verbiage" used in posits here and counter posits as well. If the verbiage used in links that are offered purportedly to substantiate a particular perspective uses loaded words rather than logical responses, again my challenge to all of you of perspectives opposed to mine is to challenge such on an honest basis!

You need not look any farther than posits currently visible on this board for examples of my point. Just for one example of such, note the exchange of dialog under the current visible heading of "Sin and self sacrifice." Note that I honestly responded in context to such posits and only referred to my and other perspectives as opinions.

Now note how JimC represented such discussions. He labeled my opinion as that of "religious apologists" and labeled his own opinion as "logic" without substantiation!  the exchange of dialog under the current visible heading of "Sin and self sacrifice." Note that I honestly responded in context to such posits and only referred to my and other perspectives as opinions. 

Ironically, when we look at the example the Apologist refers to, it seems the it is he who consistently fails to respond on topic, relying on a mixture of ad hominem, evasion, tu quoque and argumentum verbosium!

The conversation begins with observations from a pantheist...

Re: Sin & Self Sacrifice OK I think I've got this now God creates man & woman with original sin Man continues to sin. God destroys most of mankind for sinning God creates a human avatar of himself. This avatar martyrs Himself (to Himself) to save us from the sin He gave us Man continue to be born with sinful Man must accept God as his saviour (in the form of His human avatar) to relieve man of the sin God gave us. <puzzled face> Let me know if I missed anything 2 How Apologists & Politicans Avoid Awkward Questions 2.1 How Politicians Avoid Awkward Questions As we shall see later, the Religious Apologist immediately chooses not to engage specifically with the points made and responds by creating his own list of bullet points.  This is how politicians often avoid awkward questions: "Don’t answer the question you were asked. Answer the question you wish you were asked." - Robert McNamara, describing the lessons he learned during his time as Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War An interesting article on that subject can be found here… The Artful Dodger 2.2 How Apologists Avoid Awkward Questions It does seem to me there is a very fine line between Christian Apologetics and Politics, especially in the USA, but that is perhaps a different topic. In the meantime, some classic examples of a Christian Apologist avoiding direct questions are below.  Example 1 JimC: Why did the apostles doubt the initial reports of Jesus' resurrection when there had already been a mass resurrection of previously dead holy people who were still wandering around the city? Christian Apologist: A better question would be why did they meet in a locked room even after Jesus had appeared to them! Explanation Answering a "better question" just avoids the actual question. Example 2 JimC: Why did the author of Matthew not name any of the resurrected holy people or indeed provide a single jot of biographical information? Christian Apologist: The question ought to be that when names WERE actually mentioned--why so. They must have had some specific significance to readers at the time. Explanation What the Apologist thinks the question "ought to be" does not answer the actual question. Example 3 (from a debate about the meaning of the word “Creationism” JimC: What would be helpful is for you to provide your own dictionary definition of Creationism which resolves the issues you perceive in the OED definition. Christian Apologist: Let's just start with the Wikipedia one and discuss the matter from there JimC: An encyclopedia is a book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/encyclopedia A dictionary is a book or electronic resource that lists the words of a language (typically in alphabetical order) and gives their meaning, or gives the equivalent words in a different language, often also providing information about pronunciation, origin, and usage. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dictionary The fact that you are unable to provide an improved dictionary definition for Creationism illustrates my point, but if you do want to give it a try, then I suppose you could start with the Wikipedia entry for Creationism as inspriration. As it happens, the entry uses the OED definition as its opening sentence… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism A Creationist: Enough with the dictionary! Stop already! A Pantheist: Amen to that! JimC: :-) Christian Apologist: I love when JimC is caught flat footed on an indisputable point and still refuses to admit he is wrong. A Creationist: Just like in politics! Explanation The Christian apologist was trying to argue that the dictionary definition of Creationism was out of date, and so was asked to provide a better definition. Rather than respond to the challenge, he reverts to personal comments, supported by A Creationist who - ironically - brings up the topic of political evasion of questions!! 3 Apologist Avoidance of Questions - Masterclass But back to the mentioned in the introduction. Here is the response form the Christian Apologist. (In case you are wondering, the points raised by the Pantheist are, sadly, never mentioned again).       Re: Sin & Self Sacrifice How about this: --Humankind was given free will to choose to do good or evil. --All of humankind chose to act selfishly in one way or another. --The God who created us, gave us free will, and hoped that we would make the right rather than the selfish choices was disappointed. --God directly intervened in ancient history to prevent the annihilation of His people, either physically or spiritually. --God recognized our bad choices made on the basis of our own free will and how such separated us from His perfect presence. --God decided to live as a human and offer Himself as a perfect and blameless sacrifice for our sins, thus fulfilling His need for justice and holiness, which we corrupt humans don't possess. --God thus paved the way for us to enter into a meaningful relationship with Him should we choose to do so. --Anti-theists call Him a monster for intervening with power to prevent either the spiritual or physical annihilation of His people. --Anti-theists also call Him a monster when He doesn't take our free will away and refuses to extract us from the messes we get ourselves into. --God can do no good in the mind of anti-theists no matter what He does.

When the religious apologist's points are individually addressed, this is what happens... 

Religious Apologist	All of humankind chose to act selfishly in one way or another.
JimC	Everyone is likely to do some bad things and that's normal. That's human nature (we wouldn't know the difference between good and bad otherwise). But our species thrives because most people mainly do good things, which is the logical result of natural selection.
Religious Apologist	Everyone does bad things--true. Doing so (or witnessing such) helps define matters of good and evil--true. "Natural selection" leads most people to do good things--a completely unsupported statement and one which ignores my counter challenge: if a given individual is in a powerful enough position to ignore conventional morality and s/he and his/her progeny would benefit from her/him acting in selfish ways irrespective of the harm caused to others, what would prevent them from doing so? Such powerful people would be the leaders of a given society, and if that society lacked a HMFR-based shared morality, such an individual and a few others in power positions would exercise their power without restraint. Note the devolution into reigns of terror on the part of anti-religious societies.
JimC	Natural selection explains why the behaviour described would be dominant in our species if it provided an advantage. But it doesn’t, so it isn’t.
Religious Apologist	You merely ignored my example of when and how it works out otherwise.
JimC	Your response ignores the fact that the example you gave describes behaviour that is not dominant in our species (as explained by natural selection).
Religious Apologist	<See part 2>

Religious Apologist	The God who created us, gave us free will, and hoped that we would make the right rather than the selfish choices was disappointed
JimC	We all experience disappointment sometimes. It's a basic human emotion. But anyone who becomes a serial killer as a result is likely to have an extreme mental illness.
Religious Apologist	A completely non-logical response to the subject at hand.
JimC	Your response ignores the first point that God’s killings described in the Bible were a result of Him being “disappointed”. Then you ignore the second point that killing thousands of people as a result of being disappointed is not a good thing.
Religious Apologist	You ignore counter arguments to the contrary which have been posited here ad nauseum.
JimC	Again, you've failed to respond to the point that being “disappointed” does not justify killing millions of people.
Religious Apologist	<See part 2>

Religious Apologist	God directly intervened in ancient history to prevent the annihilation of His people, either physically or spiritually.
JimC	A perfect God who created the human race would have chosen everyone to be "His People" not just one tribe. Unless of course He designed that tribe differently.
Religious Apologist	That was God's ultimate purpose but He chose to interact with humankind as we are, based on the moral choices we have made, not as He would want us to be. He chose a tribe at the crossroads of most of the world which was far less brutal than neighboring tribes, and through His progressive revelation made Himself more and more known to them, culminating in His perfect revelation and self-sacrifice in the NT, made on behalf of all of humankind.
JimC	We would need to see evidence describing the relative brutality of every culture on earth to accept the apologist response. But If we do accept the assumption that the Israelites were chosen by God because they were "far less brutal" than neighbouring tribes, we have to ask why God brutalised them. According to the OT He commanded & rewarded them to become the most brutal, cold-blooded killing force in all of human mythology... http://tinyurl.com/RGFSMCL-030
Religious Apologist	Nothing new in your arguments there--and again you are ignoring these points: http://creation.com/evil-bible-fallacies http://christianthinktank.com/objedex.html http://www.gotquestions.org/is-God-evil.html
JimC	None of those links answer the question: Why did God brutalise the Israelites, commanding & rewarding them to become the most brutal, cold-blooded killing force in all of human mythology as described in the Bible http://tinyurl.com/RGFSMCL-030
Religious Apologist	<See part 2>

Religious Apologist	God decided to live as a human and offer Himself as a perfect and blameless sacrifice for our sins, thus fulfilling His need for justice and holiness, which we corrupt humans don't possess.
JimC	God's dramatic way of saying "Sorry for the inconvenience"
Religious Apologist	Your way of saying that you have no logical response to my above challenge. If you feel one can enter into a truly loving relationship with another without making sacrifices or rejecting other tempting alternatives please present your case.
JimC	Sending an immortal human avatar on a suicide mission is not a sacrifice. It’s a gesture. A sacrifice requires one to lose something one values. God lost nothing in the events you describe.
Religious Apologist	We cannot possibly know the depth of God's suffering in separating Himself from Himself for perhaps the first and only time ever, nor the real suffering that Christ endured through His torture and crucifixion!
JimC	Completely ignores the point regarding the meaning of sacrifice and fails to describe what God lost. Admits that God may (or may not) have suffered for about 30 years which is literally nothing compared to God's alleged age and His alleged non-temporal nature.
Religious Apologist	<See part 2>

Religious Apologist	God recognized our bad choices made on the basis of our own free will and how such separated us from His perfect presence.
JimC	God is perfect, and He deliberately designs & creates imperfect beings. How can a perfect God be disappointed in something He designed? He could have avoided disappointment by creating perfect beings.
Religious Apologist	You fail to define what "perfect" is and how anything created without options to do good or evil could possibly be capable of a loving relationship--with God or anyone/anything else.
JimC	The word “perfect” was part of your argument, therefore you should explain which definition of that word is being used.
Religious Apologist	You are the one redefining the word "perfect" in your initial response as well, but in fairness from my perspective, God's plan is "perfect" in that it is the only way to form a truly loving relationship with His creation. Love cannot occur without making painful and sacrificial choices.
JimC	You've changed the topic from "perfect presence" to "perfect plan". Still no explanation of which definition of the word "perfect" is being used.
Religious Apologist	<See part 2>

Religious Apologist	God thus paved the way for us to enter into a meaningful relationship with Him should we choose to do so.
JimC	Actually, the sequence of events described above suggests God is desperate to have a meaningful relationship with us.
Religious Apologist	Agreed! God wants to have a loving and meaningful relationship with us to a far greater extent than we are interested in a loving relationship with Him!
JimC	This type of one-sided love is a form of obsession and can be dangerous in extreme cases. It does explain God’s behaviour rather neatly. There’s a good overview here... http://www.medicinenet.com/confusing_love_with_obsession/views.htm
Religious Apologist	Your link refers to human relationships and is perfectly valid within that context. In spite of "romance" no two people are "perfect" for each other, and we all have our faults and incongruencies that interfere with that relationship. In God's case, He is our creator and we were created to have a close relationship with Him, should we choose to do so, and to dwell in a loving relationship with Him forever!
JimC	Ignores the point that God is more interested in loving human beings than human beings are interested in loving God. Ignores the point that this kind of one-sided love is a form of obsession and is decidedly unhealthy. Then changes the topic to “romance” which sounds like a fallacious straw man, except it is used to make the point that we all have our faults when it comes to relationships – which presumably means God has faults, despite being previously described as perfect.
Religious Apologist	<See part 2>

Religious Apologist	Anti-theists call Him a monster for intervening with power to prevent either the spiritual or physical annihilation of His people.
JimC	Anti-theists are people who oppose belief in God. There are all sorts of people who consider the God of the Old Testament to be the most unpleasant fictional character ever imagined. Those people could be anti-theists  atheists; agnostics or even theists who believe in different gods.
Religious Apologist	That doesn't address the point. You have presented arguments that do, indeed, suggest that the God of the Bible is just such a monster in His representation. You have not, of course, responded on topic to counter challenges that clarify such, nor do you do so now.
JimC	No arguments have been presented to suggest that God is a monster, only facts have been presented, i.e. the text from the Bible has been presented. This Biblical text describes monstrous acts attributed to God.
Religious Apologist	Again, you ignore situations of bad or worse options, just as you ignored the moral issues of the "blow up the bridge" scenario. I provided links which explain God's actions in context which you continue to ignore. Those links are posted above for those interested in rational discussions.
JimC	You attempt to use the limitations of human beings to justify the actions of God, as if God has the same options in a situation as human beings. You also rely on hypothetical examples instead of the examples in the Bible.
Religious Apologist	<See part 2>

Religious Apologist	God can do no good in the mind of anti-theists no matter what He does.
JimC	Everyone can do good, even serial killers, even the most evil dictators, and even God. But even having done good things, an evil, monstrous serial killer will still be placed in a secure environment for the good of society. (Or executed if he lives in the Bible Belt.)
Religious Apologist	Of course you only betray your own prejudice and unwillingness to even consider opposing perspectives with unfounded bitter and biased statements like that.
JimC	Does not address the point that even if God can do good, the fact remains that He is responsible for killing millions of people in horrendous ways, according to the Bible.
Religious Apologist	See all of the points made above which you continue to ignore.
JimC	You haven't responded to the point that even if God can do good, the fact remains that He is responsible for killing millions of people in horrendous ways, according to the Bible.
Religious Apologist	<See part 2>

Continued…

	Posted by	Discussion	Commentary
1	Pantheist	Re: sin & self sacrifice 19 Feb 2014 at 8:36AM logic, reason and religion don't make good companions
2	JimC	Re: sin & self sacrifice 19 Feb 2014 at 8:55AM "Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has" - Martin Luther
3	Atheist	Re: sin & self sacrifice 19 Feb 2014 at 1:22PM Bravo, Jim! I'll take reason and logic every time.
4	Religious Apologist	Re: sin & self sacrifice 25 Feb 2014 at 1:03AM  This is getting unwieldy. Isn't it time to take this to separate threads? All that said, I'm more than happy that you are now responding to my complete posits as the discussions progress, even though your label of "apologist" for my posits and "logic" for yours only betrays your own bald prejudices--and in a rather embarrassing manner to boot.  And--by the way--since I choose to present opposing perspectives as they are and respond to such, whereas you do not, you are in no position to lecture anyone regarding "straw man" arguments. I trust that all honest readers here are tired of your falsely accusing others of indulging in the same dishonest discussion and debate tactics that you employ, thus you are using a fallacious straw man argument.	There doesn’t appear to be anything in this essay that adds value to the debate or addresses any of the points raised thus far.  Unclear why the onus is on JimC to create separate threads when it is the Apologist who provided a list of 10 apologist arguments in a single post.  It seems to consist of ad hominem and the assertion that a straw man argument has been used, without providing any detail of what it might be.
5	JimC	Re: sin & self sacrifice 25 Feb 2014 at 7:01AM And so the points remain unanswered.  ... And still hoping this can help	Here is a worked example, using the Apologist’s own words to try and illustrate his misunderstanding of what a straw man argument is.
6	Religious Apologist	Re: sin & self sacrifice 27 Feb 2014 at 1:05AM They do--since you seem to have more allotted time to posit here than I do, please reconstruct those posits (honestly and completely) in a less unwieldy way and I will offer further responses--thanks!  And since the elaborate tautologies in your links tend to begin with a perfectly reasonable premise (which of course you fail to uphold in your further "reasoning," but that is beside the current point) let's address the section in your posit that DOES make sense on topic. You begin by stating that:  "A straw man is based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."  This quote from your posit makes sense as a stand alone description of a "straw man" argument. Agreed? I hope we're in agreement thus far, lest I be accused of "cherry picking" in the same way that you cherry pick some of my posits in ways that create a false impression without reference to my entire statement! If you agree that that is an accurate statement of a "straw man" argument then I basically rest my case. You do NOT quote me directly in your counter posits to mine as I do to yours, and you only "respond" to your false reconstruction of my posits!  So--once again--you are using a fallacious straw man argument.	The Apologist appears to be saying that he hasn’t answered any of the points related to the topic because he doesn’t have enough time.   But he does appear to have time to write hundreds of words of ad hominem and tu quoque which add no value to the debate at all.     Assuming that he is not a troll, the Apologist seems to think that his posits have been “reconstructed” in order to construct straw man arguments. But he seems unable to provide any examples to support his assertion.  In any case, there's certainly nothing on topic here.
7	JimC	Re: sin & self sacrifice 27 Feb 2014 at 7:27AM I was hoping you'd continue with the worked example at the bottom of the page on the link I provided…Here I think if we continue to work through that together, you will see why you need a proposition as the first step in identifying a fallacious straw man argument.	Another attempt to analyse a genuine example where the Apologist’s claim of a straw man was actually due to his forgetting of what his proposition was.   Again, this assumes the Apologist is not a troll.  And obviously, we have been off topic for quite some time now.
8	Religious Apologist	Re: sin & self sacrifice 13 Mar 2014 at 1:00AM That itself was a set-up and false construct, Jim! Still hoping that you agree that false representation + debunking of the falsehood of one's own creation is a straw man	The Apologist claims the attempt to explain his misunderstanding of a straw man is a straw man.  One has to assume the topic is now stone dead.
9	JimC	Re: sin & self sacrifice 13 Mar 2014 at 8:18AM Again - if you are willing to continue with the worked example Here (which is based on your own words) I think you will be enlightened and understand what a straw man argument is.