As an atheist i find religious apologists vague and stultifyingly tedious. Am I being unreasonable?

Question

Ah yes, one of you mentioned evidence. I see.

I said religious apologists, not christian apologists. Sheesh!

Answer 1

Not "unreasonable." I don't see how anybody can level that charge at you. Theism is NOT reasonable - no getting around that. Whether you believe in "Jesus" or not, the idea that he rose from the dead (e.g.) is not in line with the principles of reason. It's a question of "faith." "I believe it because it is absurd," quoth Tertullian. At least he was honest about that much!

Answer 2

The problem of trying toanswer a question accurately requires at times a large amount of time and research. I would agree this can be a tedious task coupled together with the point some people really don't want to consider what you are saying. In my opinion I see some really vague answers offered by many different perspecitves of both believers and non-believers. Often I see vague accusations with little atempt to prove these accusastions factually in most cases and in some the cite a web page as if it was an authority. Web pages can contain great sources but even they need to be checked as the can contain misinformation. Hope this wasn't to tedious or vague. I find my own typos to be tedious.

Answer 3

Probably. But it's not your fault, you're just not aware of this true story. Some months ago, a well-respected team of creationist scientists (who were examining some of the oldest rocks on earth - about 6000 years), came across a suspicious talking serpent. When asked if it found religious apologists vague and stultiyingly tedious, the serpent lied, as all serpents do, by saying "Damn straight".

The serpent was quickly captured and whisked away for further interrogation and, after a few days of effective, yet completely humane "stress positions", the serpent cracked and finally started telling the truth. As you can imagine, most of the details are classified, but I can tell you this. When asked again if it found religious apologists vague and stultifyingly tedious, the serpent responded with "The Trinity Broadcasting Channel is all one needs to stay entertained and fully informed". Did you hear that loser? Fully informed.

This is important news. Why does the liberal atheist media refuse to pick it up?

Answer 4

I'm a Christian, and have occasionally found religious apologetics (even within my own belief system) a tedious field. However, as in any other discipline, some people are better writers than others. Some are able to present their points in a more readable fashion. As for vague and stultifying, I've also found a few pamphlets and books penned by atheists to be precisely the same way. Some people are more gifted with words than others, and it's writing skills that are the issue rather than the religion or disbelief of the writer. If one is gifted in the language arts, he or she can put across a point, whatever it might be, in a way that is readable, interesting, and worthy of further discussion.

Answer 5

Nope. It's not unreasonable to expect people to be specific, rather than vague, with a subject that anyone who calls himself (or herself) a Christian Apologist should have a consuming passion for. If they are cornering you and beating you about the head and shoulders with Christ, then I can understand your finding them tedious. I would feel the same if someone approached me in the market and started lecturing me on chartered accountancy.

But if you really do want to discuss Christian Apologetics, don't torture yourself with vague pomposity. Go find someone who is passionate about Christ and the explanation of Christian Theology and engage them in an enthusiastic discussion. I don't know that Yahoo Answers is the best place to find one, but it's a start.

Answer 6

Stultifying? I guess I'm not smart enough to understand that one. Your own opinion is never unreasonable, that being said... as an atheist aren't you a bit biased towards the "religious" anyway. You reference "religious apologists" as if anyone religious is an apologist. That implies bias and means you do not open your mind on the subject.

Answer 7

If religion was the truth, there would not be any need for apologists. They are funny to me, trying to come up with rationalizations(excuses) to defend a belief.
You are not being unreasonable, you are being normal.

Answer 8

A religious apologist is equivalent too a habitual liar. An example is Matt Slick from CARM (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry). I single-handedly refuted one of his attempts to debunk what he claims atheism represents - and he said I "couldn't" use that "kind" of logic to refute his nonsense. Seems to be a common trend, as I've seen him do it too others.

Answer 9

Atheism means the rejection of religious beliefs. For an atheist, like most atheists you seem preoccupied with religion and its followers which to me defeats the object.

For instance, if one does not like pork, one does not eat it. One does not spend ones time going round eateries telling people off for cooking or eating pork. It would be complete rubbish. Live and let live. Each to their own.

Answer 10

When some of the world's greatest intellectuals (eg Johann Keppler, C.S.Lewis) have been Christians the 'tedious' bit seems a most inapposite choice!
Probably 'unREASONable' is about right.
But you are entitled to your views.