Yong Xi wrote:Apologetics is hopeless. So is the critic of Mormon Apologetics. Don't we all know that but continue anyway? We just go in circles.
I wouldn't be so sure. Never forget the lurkers... (If your talking about forums like these...)
Yes, I've had a few PM's by lurkers that have told me that I make a lot of sense. Much more than the apologists do.
I'm sure some apologists have received the same thing, calling me an idiot that can't keep a thought straight.
amantha wrote:Funny you should bring up circles because that was my last post on that thread (as of now).
Are you talking about the Apologetics in Insincere thread? Oh LORD...that was a painful thread.
Yeah, that was a painful thread. People have been supplying evidence against religious claims for years. Not that some kind of faith is bad. On the contrary, I think we need faith in the form of a working hypothesis. However, I didn't and don't see any point in trying to supply some kind of "evidence" to an apologist. Nothing is "evident" to them except that whatever evidence there is, either supports their faith or can be explained away with doubt which is faith reinforcing. That's a ridiculous position to put yourself in.
Religious Apologetics is not about the evidence, that is what science is about. Religious apologetics is about doubt, not faith. It uses evidence to create faith supporting doubt. Yuck.
Anyway, I enjoyed your comments on the thread. I think you are a very sincere person.