Talk:Christian apologetics

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Apologeticians

this article has problems in content and style. It feels like a ad for a certain website. Apologetics has a historry of 2000 yeras, so the must be more than a website to refer to. -- Order 13 March 21:54 (AEST)


This article needs huge work. It tells me nothing about apologetics, and gives the results of a debate like a soccer game. This website should be able to do better. I don't know enough about the topic, although if someone wants to teach me, I'll do the writing, although I'd rather that someone who knows more does it.JoyousOne 22:41, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
Still pleading for help here.JoyousOne 20:00, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

What do you think about adding content headings for some of the major issues in apologetics such as proofs for the existence of God, the innerrancy of the scripture, the problem of evil, etc. I would like to work on this page to expand on the issues covered by apologetics, but would they be better served on separated pages? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KDS1972 (talk) August 2007

Speaking of the work that needs to be done, can we get an etymology section? Well, perhaps that's the wrong term, perhaps something explaining the use of the word apologetics/apologist. Was that term derived from Greek "apologia"? Did that word (apologia) have broader meaning than simply expressing fault, and did apologetics derive its name from that broader meaning? Or is it, quite possibly, used in the same context as the modern definition? I can't find ANYTHING (and I have looked), so I'm thinking this should be included somewhere. The name, to the average...idiot...would seem to provide them with all the leverage in the world to say something like "See!? They're apologizing for lying about Jesus." I know this because I have a "friend" who said this, and have heard similar anecdotes from others. Seriously. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LinusWilson (talk) July 2008

I think this article needs a lot of work to. not only are there so few arguments, there are some flaws in the ones already made. For example, in the telelogical argument, an atheist could argue that the watch has evolved throughout time, not by means of sexual reproduction, but my clockmakers making a time-telling device, and bringing more favorable traits to the next time-telling device they create. First there were sundials, then clocks which relied on weights, then wall clocks, and finally moving onto a pocketwatch. There has been a lot of work put forth into the evolution of a pocketwatch. In the cosmological argument, you give no reason as to WHY nothing could have been there for an eternity. You just state it. Work needs to be done there. Also, in the arguement for morality, you state that all humans are given common morals. I don't really get that. Some tribes in indonesia are cannibals. Many people around the world rape other human beings. Still others kill, torture, and fornicate. I don't see a common set of morals. What are they? State them in the article. Alot of work needs to be put into this article. There are still many flaws in the arguments. I'm not trying to christian-bash, im just trying to make sure you know where atheists would attack this article. This page should really be flaw free if it's here to convince! Itsafineday 20:00, 14 Aug 2010

Thank you for that constructive criticism. --Ed Poor Talk 21:27, 14 August 2010 (EDT)
Itsafineday, "an atheist could argue". That's a good one. I see you have a sense of humor. We all know that prominent atheists/evolutionists are afraid to debate creation scientists (after losing debates to them in the 1970s) and that Richard Dawkins is afraid to debate Dr. William Lane Craig, Rabbi Boteach (a second time after losing the first debate and denying the videotaped debate took place) and Dinesh D'Souza (see: Atheism and Debate and Daniel Came). In addition, PZ Myers refuses to debate Vox Day. When is atheism going to evolve a spine? conservative 17:28, 13 June 2011 (EDT)
"For example, in the telelogical argument, an atheist could argue that the watch has evolved throughout time..." not only that, but one could argue that one would only think the watch was created if they have seen other objects known to be created by humans to compare it to. And that complexity has nothing to do with creation. Is God not complex? Wouldn't that mean he was created according to that logic?--Jasonb242 14:41, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
""an atheist could argue". That's a good one..." I don't see you trying to refute any of his points, or change the article to make up for these flaws in logic. Instead you just post links to conservapedia's latest featured articles and resort to ad hominem attacks on atheism. Wheres that spine God gave you?--Jasonb242 14:50, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
Added material to cosmological argument section so input was helpful. Second, I find your ad hominem attack on atheism remark to be strange since atheism is not a person. Third, a great many people ignore atheists when they do not make points but engage in a lot of hand waving. In many countries, atheism is not even on most people's radar since atheism is such an absurd religion. Conservative 01:47, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

The Cosmological Argument is presented in a way which seems to contradict itself right now. First it says that everything has a cause, and then in the next sentence it states there is something that is not caused. If that's true then there is no reason to assume that everything has a cause. It's very confusing the way it's laid out right now. --Glenwing 1:35, 7 May 2012 (MST)

Personal tools