Essay:Are apologists really trying to convert?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Essay.svg This essay is an original work by TemplarJLS.
It does not necessarily reflect the views expressed in RationalWiki's Mission Statement, but we welcome discussion of a broad range of ideas.
Unless otherwise stated, this is original content, released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or any later version. See RationalWiki:Copyrights.
Feel free to make comments on the talk page, which will probably be far more interesting, and might reflect a broader range of RationalWiki editors' thoughts.
I have recently come across a site called "gotquestions.org" which claims have all the answers for the questions about the bible, which puts it on par with all the other denominations. I came across some questions about common questions atheism asks. Not only does it give refuted answers, but the logical fallacies are abundant enough tolaugh at it... at least until I realized that apologetics just might not be to convert atheists, but to keep current believers. I'm going through a question it answers to show my point.

With all the religions in the world, how do I know which is the right one?[edit]

It's answer begins by claiming that science and logic can be both used in religion and it was a lie to say we can't. When an apologist says that using logic and rationality will show the one true god, then you know they've screwed up right from the start for this reason: It's repeating the same arguments refuted a long time ago!
It starts by claiming that absolute truth exists because 2+2=4 and nothing else. We can't make it equal 5. I believe personally that arguing over absolute truth is a red harring for this reason: It has NOTHING to do on whether religion is true or not true. It's also circular in the fact that We need to use absolute truth to prove absolute truth, or absolute truth to prove it doesn't exist, so I avoid the absolute truth argument. Anyways after he does this, he then says agnosticism and Skepticism are false positions. First of all, Agnosticism is when someone believes that no one can know if god exists until we die. It never denies absolute truth. Skepticism is compatible with absolute truth, skeptics just need evidence (But now that I think about it, if he refutes skeptics, then people won't question what he said. So he has full control!)
He then claims to have refuted Atheism using the cosmological argument. That's been refuted too many times to count, so he's either in denial, or hoping to his god that the people reading will never see the refutation.
Then he claims to have ruled out Buddhism and Hinduism because Pantheistic religions are false, because the universe isn't eternal. Bullshit. Hinduism is Polytheistic, and Buddhism is an atheistic religion.
He then claims to have only left the monotheistic religons(What about the polytheistic religions?): Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, completely forgetting there are far more monotheistic religions out there.
And then guess what? Apparently Christianity is true because it answers why we live and the meaning of life, and without Christianity we wouldn't have a meaning! That's wishful thinking, and is also God of the Gaps.
Not only that, but the vast amount of Historical Evidence, Archaeological evidence, and personal experiences people had! About historical evidence, if there was any, then why are academic Historians a wide variety of faiths? If there was evidence, then they would all be Christian. Archaeological evidence: Lying for Jesus. lso even is there was, it wouldn't prove the miracles in the bible. Just that the writers knew their culture well.

=Conclusion[edit]

I really have come to the conclusion that Christian apologetics is just a way to keep currnt believers in. Every website says the same refuted crap.