Critics, Research, and Obsessions
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
One of the most common complaints that Christian apologists have is that our critics rarely do their homework. Many cannot be bothered to do actual research, insisting that we're wrong without even reading (or in some cases, reading at but not understanding) the material. Research for the purpose of meaningful discussion? Naw, don't pay it no nevermind, just spout off with the hate and say you slapped down them st00pid dumb Xtians with "reason".
Atheists and anti-creationists are notorious for this kind of behavior, then they wonder why they get banned or have their comments moderated. In addition, these owlhoots complain about "censorship" when they can't say what they want, where they want, even though they don't understand what censorship really is.
By the way, I've been the victim of what those people would call "censorship" myself. Comments have been deleted, a site that lists science-related materials refused to include this site, a remark I had made during one of my recent interviews had been edited out before the broadcast, and more. Did I go on a "poor me, you censors hate me" posting and letter-writing campaign? Not hardly.
Here's a hint for people who want to spend time "debating" with people like this: Keep them on-topic — but be ready for personal attacks, dredged-up links "refuting" you, all kinds of side issues and the like.
Unfortunately, some professing Christians indulge in this sort of behavior. I wrote "Hell, Creation and Side Issues", discussing how some people elevate their own pet doctrines to unhealthy levels and look down on people who disagree with them. One of my examples was annihilationism (Hell is not eternal), and some annihilationists attacked me personally. Ironically, they proved me right. (No, I'm not giving them publicity.) When focusing on a side issue so much, people get their theology and thinking out of whack. I know of one guy who was an apologist, and the last I knew, he was so wrapped up in contending with Christians about annihilationism that he dropped off the radar, no longer being effective in apologetics.
Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries is a scholar and debater, and if you want to slap leather with him, you'd better have your intellectual guns in good working order. He was getting challenged on the topic of theonomy (dominion theologgy); there are different levels of this some are moderate, others are extreme). His critics were acting like atheists, evolutionists, and cultists, not doing their homework, resorting to cheap attacks, obsessing over their pet doctrines, and using sidewinder-level logic. Dr. White did a podcast/video, and he was not feeling nearly as playful as I've heard in the past. The first 27 minutes or so are dealing with the nonsense of certain theonomists, including how they don't do their reseach. You can listen to or watch that podcast here.
So, I reckon that anti-creationists and atheists tend do use bad logic, personal attacks, and ignore research efforts more than other people, Christians do some of that, too. Is it just human nature? I don't know. But for creationists and other apologists, keep your opponent's feet to the fire (keep him or her on-topic, insist that they do their homework), and don't be worried about cutting them off when they become obstreperous.
One of the most common complaints that Christian apologists have is that our critics rarely do their homework. Many cannot be bothered to do actual research, insisting that we're wrong without even reading (or in some cases, reading at but not understanding) the material. Research for the purpose of meaningful discussion? Naw, don't pay it no nevermind, just spout off with the hate and say you slapped down them st00pid dumb Xtians with "reason".
 |
| Atheopath keyboard warrior using fallacies and ignoring the content of the article. |
By the way, I've been the victim of what those people would call "censorship" myself. Comments have been deleted, a site that lists science-related materials refused to include this site, a remark I had made during one of my recent interviews had been edited out before the broadcast, and more. Did I go on a "poor me, you censors hate me" posting and letter-writing campaign? Not hardly.
Here's a hint for people who want to spend time "debating" with people like this: Keep them on-topic — but be ready for personal attacks, dredged-up links "refuting" you, all kinds of side issues and the like.
Unfortunately, some professing Christians indulge in this sort of behavior. I wrote "Hell, Creation and Side Issues", discussing how some people elevate their own pet doctrines to unhealthy levels and look down on people who disagree with them. One of my examples was annihilationism (Hell is not eternal), and some annihilationists attacked me personally. Ironically, they proved me right. (No, I'm not giving them publicity.) When focusing on a side issue so much, people get their theology and thinking out of whack. I know of one guy who was an apologist, and the last I knew, he was so wrapped up in contending with Christians about annihilationism that he dropped off the radar, no longer being effective in apologetics.
 |
| Dr. James White rockin' his bow tie better than Bill Nye (and much smarter than Nye, too). |
So, I reckon that anti-creationists and atheists tend do use bad logic, personal attacks, and ignore research efforts more than other people, Christians do some of that, too. Is it just human nature? I don't know. But for creationists and other apologists, keep your opponent's feet to the fire (keep him or her on-topic, insist that they do their homework), and don't be worried about cutting them off when they become obstreperous.