A few observations about Christian Apologists.
Why, when I think of the word ‘apologist’ do I immediately get a mental image of someone who is aware that what they are saying is nonsense, or that they regret having to say it? I suppose the image is apt when it comes to a certain type of faith head….
I’ve noticed several repeating traits when dealing with Christians online – firstly, they almost without fail will ONLY engage on their own turf, in the comments of the blogs they run, or the messageboards they host…I guess this is so that they can immediately delete anything that disagrees with them, or refuse to publish contradictory information altogether (hello, Stormbringer’s Thunder!). They also seem to time and time again accuse atheists of ‘intellectual dishonesty’ when the non-believers refuse to move the goals and accept even part of the theist’s position – in fact the theists seem to almost demand that the non-believer accept certain ideas before they are willing to discuss them, witness arch bullshitter Joe Cienkowski blocking people on Twitter if they won’t say that Jesus was a real, historical, character.
The claim of ‘intellectual dishonesty’ is also trotted out if a non-believer doesn’t agree that some piece of tortured non-logic makes sense. For example, in a recent exchange about the nature of god I was accused of just this for refusing to see the apologists argument as anything other than entirely circular.
It would seem that apologists are so thoroughly brainwashed by their belief in the supernatural that they’re unwilling to accept that anyone might have a differing opinion…and heaven help you if you’re a former believer! You’ll be accused of never having believed/understood/anything else the theist can think of to discredit you.
Ultimately, I’d found theists to be some of the lease honest people to debate with, which is weird considering honesty is one of their supposed virtues.