Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,865
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 173:
Line 173: + + + + + + + +
→Counter-apologetics
The atheist [[Luke Muehlhauser]], defines counter-apologetics as "a response to [[Christian apologetics]]...examining the claims and tactics of Christian apologists and then equipping [a thinker] with [[skepticism|skeptical]] responses to them"<ref>Muehlhauser, Luke (March 26, 2010), "[Counter-Apologetics: What is Counter-Apologetics?]", Common Sense Atheism (blog)</ref>
The atheist [[Luke Muehlhauser]], defines counter-apologetics as "a response to [[Christian apologetics]]...examining the claims and tactics of Christian apologists and then equipping [a thinker] with [[skepticism|skeptical]] responses to them"<ref>Muehlhauser, Luke (March 26, 2010), "[Counter-Apologetics: What is Counter-Apologetics?]", Common Sense Atheism (blog)</ref>
=== Inadequacy of counter-apologetics ===
The majority of philosophers of religion, or those who have extensively studied the issue of the [[Arguments for the existence of God|existence of God]], are [[theism|theists]] (72 percent).<ref>[http://www.strangenotions.com/atheist-scientists/ Does it matter that many scientists are atheists?]</ref>
There is a considerable body of evidence and argumentation for the existence of God and for the validy of [[Christianity]] (see: [[Arguments for the existence of God]] and [[Christian apologetics websites|Evidence for Christianity]]).
On the other hand, atheism and agnosticism lack proof/evidence and are unreasonable (see: [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism#Purpose of attempting to dilute the definition of atheism|Atheism lacks proof and evidence]] and [[Rebuttals to atheist arguments]]and [[Agnosticism quotes#Norman Geisler on complete agnosticism|Agnosticism lacks proof/evidence and it is unreasonable]]).
== See also ==
== See also ==