Stupid Apologetic Arguements.

[rageaholic]

I'm sure we've all heard at least of few.  Apologists try to prove why the Bible is literally true using "logic" and "science" that can easily be refuted.  The latest few I've heard.

-"I may not believe in gravity, but just because I don't doesn't make me free from the consequences".  Comparing a tested scientific law to some mythological bullshit.  This does nothing to prove that God/Heaven/Hell/Sin exists, all it does is reinforce those who already believe it's true.  Also, God is supposed to be a living being

-"I believe the sky is blue because it's true"  Another false analogy.  We can point to the sky and say "see it's blue".  We can't do that with God or the Bible. 

-Lord Liar Or Lunatic brought to us by CS Lewis.  Since Jesus was a "great moral teacher" and claimed to be the son of god, he's either the Lord, a Liar, or a Lunatic.  If he was a liar or lunatic, he wouldn't be a great moral teacher, so by default he has to be lord.  So many false premises, many of which are covered in the wikipedia article.  There's a lot of assumptions (does the Bible paint an accurate description of Jesus?) and misses out a forth option "Legend".  Ultimately, it's a more clever way of saying "are you calling god a liar?". 

-"Where does morals/love/happiness/and anything else I can think of come from?", AKA the God of the Gaps.  One, it assumes a god is the necessary cause of what can't be explained.  Two, some things don't need to be explained (many can be explained as human constructs).  Three, even if a god was the cause of it, is there any reason to suggest it's the Bible God?  Talk about jumping to conclusions. 

[Old Viking]

Unfortunately, many centuries of having the snot kicked out of their "arguments" doesn't discourage apologists.

[rookie]

I
-Lord Liar Or Lunatic brought to us by CS Lewis.  Since Jesus was a "great moral teacher" and claimed to be the son of god, he's either the Lord, a Liar, or a Lunatic.  If he was a liar or lunatic, he wouldn't be a great moral teacher, so by default he has to be lord.  So many false premises, many of which are covered in the wikipedia article.  There's a lot of assumptions (does the Bible paint an accurate description of Jesus?) and misses out a forth option "Legend".  Ultimately, it's a more clever way of saying "are you calling god a liar?". 

That one made my head hurt.

[Yla]

God of the Gaps is even problematic from the apologetist's standpoint. Because its premise implies that Humanity defines God's limits. And every human discovery further diminishes God.

[TheL]

-Lord Liar Or Lunatic brought to us by CS Lewis.  Since Jesus was a "great moral teacher" and claimed to be the son of god, he's either the Lord, a Liar, or a Lunatic.  If he was a liar or lunatic, he wouldn't be a great moral teacher, so by default he has to be lord.  So many false premises, many of which are covered in the wikipedia article.  There's a lot of assumptions (does the Bible paint an accurate description of Jesus?) and misses out a forth option "Legend".  Ultimately, it's a more clever way of saying "are you calling god a liar?".

Ye gods do I hate this one.  I can think of several other possibilities off the top of my head:

- The apostles were liars, not Jesus himself, and being all in on the lie they were able to make the general outline agree;

- Jesus was deceived by someone else into thinking he was the Messiah;

- Jesus was based on other moral teachers of that time period;

- Paul made the story out of whole cloth.

In none of those three examples is Jesus Lord, liar OR lunatic.

Also, the general issue with "liar" is "people wouldn't die for a lie!" which is manifestly untrue.  People die for false causes all the time.

[myusername]

I hate the one where they assert that "if the Christian claims weren't true, people would have checked the facts and proved it wasn't true". It is related to the one about "dying for a lie" mentioned above.
The problem I have with it is it completely lacks historical context. Only a very, very tiny amount of the population would be educated; the vast majority could not read or write or think sceptically. The era was filled with tales of healers, quacks, preachers performing miracles, etc. Even if the miracles of Jesus did actually occur, there would be no reason for the very few educated men of the time would have to investigate the stories as stories like that were quite simply 10 a penny. When they add things like "When Paul talked about the visions to the 500 in Corinthians, the Corinithians could have investigated if it wasn't true" they are just getting ridiculous. Travel was highly lengthy and arduous in that era, and even if it wasn't as I already said most of the population were not educated and probably did not think sceptically about these claims.

"Luke was a high-class historian" - false, even by ancient standards. Someone like Thucydides was a much better ancient historian. Even some one like Tacitus who is considered to be a decent ancient historian reports things that are clearly legend.

[rageaholic]

Oh the dying for a lie one.  I suppose that also means Islam fundies are right, after all, those suicide bombers wouldn't have died for a lie, would they?  I realize that the only time these arguements will work is when someone who already believes is having doubts.  They involve horrible logic, but are clever in their own way, which can be appealing to those who aren't well versed in logic and reason.  For a site with horrible apologetics, check out God and Science

One enraging arguement preys on peoples fear of death.  He claims that if death was just ceasing to exist, we would have nothing to fear (FALSE, it's fucking scary), but that deep down we must know that god's judgement awaits. 

As someone who is prone to anxiety, fuck this guy.  Using irrational emotion is a cheap tactic and very common with apologetics.  Another one I heard (but can't find) preys on peoples guilt.  It doesn't prove anything, it's just trying to plant "what ifs" into people.  Cowardly fucks. 

[Yaezakura]

I'm pretty sure any apologetic argument by its very nature is stupid. When you're having to make excuses for why your holy book or dogma doesn't line up with reality, you've already lost long before you opened your mouth.

[Osama bin Bambi]

Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot/Robespierre was an atheist, therefore atheism leads to totalitarian governments. The Robespierre one is especially funny because he was actually an outspoken deist and tried to establish a "Cult of the Supreme Being" as the state religion.

Related: Atheism implies nihilism, and nihilism sucks balls so it can't be true.

[Qlockworkcanary]

One I always heard growing up was the "Holy Spirit" defense. Like, such-and-such person just doesn't have the Holy Spirit (especially referring to those of other religions and cultures). Like they were implying that God pre-destined who was going to believe in it or something. Oh, and you just had to have the Holy Spirit to understand the Bible. If you noticed things that didn't make sense, that was because you didn't have the Holy Spirit in you -like it was some kind of goddamned decoder ring.

[Yaezakura]

One I always heard growing up was the "Holy Spirit" defense. Like, such-and-such person just doesn't have the Holy Spirit. Like they were implying that God pre-destined who was going to believe in it or something. Oh, and you just had to have the Holy Spirit to understand the Bible. If you noticed things that didn't make sense, that was because you didn't have the Holy Spirit in you -like it was some kind of goddamned decoder ring.

Holy Spirits can easily be found in about one out of ten Cracker Jack boxes.

[Eniliad]

"Yeah, ok, maybe the Big Bang is a plausible theory. But who's to say God didn't just set it in motion in the first place?"
--Me, high school.

[Auri-El]

I don't think that's stupid. If one accepts the premise that an all-knowing, all-powerful higher being exists, then who's to say it didn't cause the Big Bang? Last I knew scientists don't know why the expansion happened, only that it did. Or is that no different than the fundies screaming "Goddidit" whenever science reveals uncomfortable answers? Okay, maybe you're right. *shrugs*

[Yaezakura]

I don't think that's stupid. If one accepts the premise that an all-knowing, all-powerful higher being exists, then who's to say it didn't cause the Big Bang? Last I knew scientists don't know why the expansion happened, only that it did. Or is that no different than the fundies screaming "Goddidit" whenever science reveals uncomfortable answers? Okay, maybe you're right. *shrugs*

You pretty much hit the nail on the head at the end there. Saying "God" is just another way of saying "I don't know". And even if the answer is some intelligent agent, the rational mind doesn't stop there, but continues on to "Okay, so what caused that?"

[Eniliad]

Yeah, Kali, I was referring to the "goddidit" answer to all science. I was one of THEM.