Best Christian apologist today?

[TheWall]

Havent heard of tim wallace. Lots of familiars in this thread. I really want to get Copan's when "God goes to Starbucks"

[KingsGambit]

Also, Glenn Peoples (though he's not as widely known).

[Roy]

Hard one.
Willy craig. Mr Holding. Mr peters. Craig Blomberg. Lee strobel. Dinesh D'souza. Ravi Zacharias. David Wood. There are a lot of good ones.

Lee Strobel???

[Roy]

Then there's Michael Behe, Dembski, Meyer, and Gonzalez/Richards.

Subtle.

[Tassman]

Subtle.

Lee Strobel, Michael Behe, Dembski???

This has got to be Poe's Law.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe

[guacamole]

Rogue and Carrikature,

Feet are tasty. You don't like feet?

Intelligentdesign,

Tassman just showed you how to post a link. It's not too hard.

[Sparko]

My favorite apologists are Tassman and Firstfloor. They make atheists look so stupid that people will want to turn to Christianity instead.

[shunyadragon]

It appears Twebers are just listing apologists without describing the differences and why they consider one better then others. For example: I consider W L Craig rather cookbook simply trying to give extensive arguments for rather standard apologetic arguments. I consider CS Lewis naive and presents rather soft generic arguments. It has been a while since I read J.P. Moreland, but as I remember he does try to tweak apologetic arguments to update them with an intellectual emphasis.

Probably my least favorite is Plantinga, who is the modern proponent of the ontological argument proposing vaguely that religious belief is properly basic and foundational. The problem with Plantinga's argument is that it could be applied to every imaginable belief systems and still be valid.

[guacamole]

It appears Twebers are just listing apologists without describing the differences and why they consider one better then others. For example: I consider W L Craig rather cookbook simply trying to give extensive arguments for rather standard apologetic arguments. I consider CS Lewis naive and presents rather soft generic arguments. It has been a while since I read J.P. Moreland, but as I remember he does try to tweak apologetic arguments to update them with an intellectual emphasis.

Probably my least favorite is Plantinga, who is the modern proponent of the ontological argument proposing vaguely that religious belief is properly basic and foundational. The problem with Plantinga's argument is that it could be applied to every imaginable belief systems and still be valid.

That's a good point remembering Plantinga. Some Christians wouldn't count him as a bona-fide apologete because much of his work supports theism in general, rather than Christianity in particular. At least I am unfamiliar with anything that is specific to Christian apologetics.

fwiw,
guaca.

[shunyadragon]

That's a good point remembering Plantinga. Some Christians wouldn't count him as a bona-fide apologete because much of his work supports theism in general, rather than Christianity in particular. At least I am unfamiliar with anything that is specific to Christian apologetics.

fwiw,
guaca.

Agreed highlighted

[seer]

The problem with Plantinga's argument is that it could be applied to every imaginable belief systems and still be valid.

It could unless there is a clear defeater. But as he says: "What the Reformers meant to hold is that it is entirely right, rational, reasonable, and proper to believe in God without any evidence or argument at all; in this respect belief in God resembles belief in the past, in the existence of other persons, and in the existence of material objects."

[Adrift]

It could unless there is a clear defeater. But as he says: "What the Reformers meant to hold is that it is entirely right, rational, reasonable, and proper to believe in God without any evidence or argument at all; in this respect belief in God resembles belief in the past, in the existence of other persons, and in the existence of material objects."

shunyadragon doesn't really understand most of the things he's against. He's so out of his depth on most topics on this forum that I can't help but have second hand embarrassment just reading some of his posts. Basically, he's against Christianity on principle (or any argument he suspects might be slightly Christian positive). That's about it. There's not really any rhyme or reason to the things he's against, which makes his interactions with folks like robrecht, or Kbertsche somewhat entertaining, but ultimately frustrating.

And bar none, he's got the worst reading comprehension of anyone on the forum (even compared to folks like Gary), and is constantly owned by his own quickly googled sources. If I were him, I'd be so embarrassed by being proven wrong so routinely (by others on the forum, and by his own sources), that I'd hide my face in shame and never come back to the forum, but for whatever reason, he simply knows no shame. He's such a peculiar individual. I can honestly say I've never met anyone like him before, on or off line.

[Tassman]

shunyadragon doesn't really understand most of the things he's against. He's so out of his depth on most topics on this forum that I can't help but have second hand embarrassment just reading some of his posts. Basically, he's against Christianity on principle (or any argument he suspects might be slightly Christian positive). That's about it. There's not really any rhyme or reason to the things he's against, which makes his interactions with folks like robrecht, or Kbertsche somewhat entertaining, but ultimately frustrating.

And bar none, he's got the worst reading comprehension of anyone on the forum (even compared to folks like Gary), and is constantly owned by his own quickly googled sources. If I were him, I'd be so embarrassed by being proven wrong so routinely (by others on the forum, and by his own sources), that I'd hide my face in shame and never come back to the forum, but for whatever reason, he simply knows no shame. He's such a peculiar individual. I can honestly say I've never met anyone like him before, on or off line.

Is there any purpose for this Trump-like vindictive little burst against shunya other than to poison the well? This sort of thing seems to count as debate among some. It isn't.

My favorite apologists are Tassman and Firstfloor. They make atheists look so stupid that people will want to turn to Christianity instead.

...and then they see how Christians behave and turn away.

[Adrift]

Is there any purpose for this Trump-like vindictive little burst against shunya other than to poison the well? This sort of thing seems to count as debate among some. It isn't.

Trump-like? I don't really follow Trump, so I honestly don't know what you're on about. But no, not well poisoning. Just pointing out the obvious.

[Sea of red]

Is there any purpose for this Trump-like vindictive little burst against shunya other than to poison the well? This sort of thing seems to count as debate among some. It isn't.



...and then they see how Christians behave and turn away.

No kidding.

I've seen some dysfunctional websites and crazy people on the internet, but I've never come across so many people that are so willing to dish out bile, and yet fancy themselves as morally superior to any and all that oppose them.

Of course, what's even more humorous is that while Adrift concerns himself with the opinions of Gary, Starlight, and Shunny, he's own flock does more damage in how they represent his religion than any skeptic could. It's always fun to show Christians I known in real life the posts of lilpixieofterror and CowPoke and hear their gasps when they realize they are moderators.