Apologist arguments ARE convincing

[Zzyzx]

.
Apologist arguments ARE convincing -- to people who already believe religious stories and claims. However, they are NOT convincing to those not predisposed to believe.

It is not surprising that people accustomed to hearing and voicing religious stories and claims in church environments or among fellow believers may be shocked, dismayed, disoriented and perhaps hostile when encountering challenges to favorite (unsubstantiated) religious stories and claims as is likely in public debate.

What arguments can Apologists present when the Bible is not considered authoritative or proof of truth -- when testimonials are regarded as nothing more than hearsay -- when 'Take my word for it (or his or this book)' isn't accepted?

[Divine Insight]

.
Apologist arguments ARE convincing -- to people who already believe religious stories and claims.

Are you sure about that?

I have seen very strong evidence to the contrary. Even back when I was a young Christian hoping to gain a solid understanding of the Bible I quickly discovered that even pastors within the very same church and denomination of my church were not in agreement with each others apologetic arguments for questions I would bring up.

It was interesting to watch actually watch them in their after-dinner talks. Several of my uncles were pastors so I was treated to them often coming to dinner at our house and often bringing other pastors with them as guests. After dinner then would often sit around discussing religious issues. Also some of my uncles were skeptics who would ask questions. The first first thing I notices is that even the pastor would offer different, often quite conflicting answers for the same questions.

The pastors did not argue over these between themselves as they seemed to be quite happy to pleasantly agree to disagree or hold different views. In the meantime, neither I, nor my skeptical uncles would see where any of the apologies were compelling.

But clearly these different apologies were not compelling to the pastors either. They did seem to be happy with their own personal apologies however. But they WEREN'T convincing each other.

As I grew older I realized that this is true not only of the any given single denomination, but it's even more vividly true of disagreeing denominations. They clearly can't convince each other of their apologies. For if they could they could settle on just ONE consistent denomination that has no internal disagreements.

Clearly they can't even do that.

So I don't see were apologies are even convincing to religious folk. Clearly they can't even convince each other.

[benchwarmer]

.
Apologist arguments ARE convincing -- to people who already believe religious stories and claims.

Are you sure about that?

I'm with DI on this one although I do see the original point somewhat. I would agree with a more narrow version of the original premise: Apologist arguments are convincing to people who already believe EXACTLY what the apologists are claiming.

Clearly different apologists agree on very little when it comes down to details of the overall dogma they are apologizing for. That is what happens when there is no verifiable evidence to back up one's claims and all one has are some stories to interpret as one sees fit.

[Derrrpp]

I was researching today about miracles and briefly began to read about the work of F. Schleirermacher..."The Christian Faith". I gather that his work is influential to the progress of the Protestant movement which, as he describes religion, has it is own evolving expression once separated from HRCC. So it is no wonder, in Protestantism, that various dogmas are in disagreement with each other but if they dont hold to certain rules of development cannot be Christian....so some of the above conclusions from observations of disagreeing Christians are actually real, acceptable divisions, but the conclusion of what that says about Christianity is inept judgement of fact.

[Blastcat]

So I don't see were apologies are even convincing to religious folk. Clearly they can't even convince each other.

Then perhaps we should say that to SOME Christians, apologetic arguments are convincing. I remember in high school, we would have a round table of kids talking about religious matters. ( Christian high school ) Those discussions were so lame...

Of course, not one of us had a CLUE that there even existed "apologetics", not even ( weirdly ) the religious people who were facilitating. It was a Catholic school, so maybe that's why. Who knows? I only heard apologetic arguments for the first time about 5 years ago. I was shocked by how bad they were.

People STUDY apologetics, and theology. Is that really the BEST that they can do after two thousand YEARS of practice?

Shocking.

But the people in here.. those with whom we debate seem pretty happy with the arguments, don't they?