Is Thor a more reasonable alternative then?
God can be “documented as fictitious” just as much, given that there’s zero actual evidence for him being possible, much less existing. Everything about him it drawn from old writing, old stories, or people’s unsupported word; if that isn’t “fictitious”, what is?
As for “intended as such”; would Darth Vader become more likely to actually exist if Lucas had gone around telling people that Star Wars was a documentary created from visions sent to him by the Force?
I disagree, unless you consider the only form of revelation to be direct revelation from God. And if that’s the case, you’d have to throw out the scriptures, the prophets, the patriarchs, the prayer books, the theologians and the evangelists.
Evangelicalism believes that God can and does reveal himself* through all of these channels, so I see no reason why apologetics should be any different.
The real problem with both apologetics and evangelism is that they are approached as an unpleasant duty and are forced onto unwilling or uninterested audiences. True evangelism starts with loving people, as individuals with specific cares, problems and desires. It’s only in the context of a legitimate relationship that anyone will listen or care about what you think about God.
*or herself
Also, “Evangelical” is a poorly-defined word. I gather we are not talking about fundamentalists or literalists, and I don’t think the word usually includes Catholics. So are we limited to conservative-but-not-fundamentalist Protestants? Just Christians who self-identify as Evangelicals? Do mainline denominations (Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans) count? Or maybe conservative mainliners but not the women-ordaining, gay-marrying ones? We need to define our terms.
I’d have to say that it depends on your point of view. I"m going to try and explain in a gentler manner my position. Evangelism cannot be considered anything but ignorant because it is based upon nothing but faith. Faith however, is just that. It is based upon believing in something regardless of evidence. Talking about religion though, it’s not just a case of lacking evidence, it is an overwhelming case of evidence to the contrary. There simply is no rational reason to believe. It is far more logical to have faith in bigfoot then in god. Understanding this, it is very hard to call evangelism anything but ignorant.
If “apologetics” means preaching, you can do that in GD, but anyone who disagrees with you can counter-preach and you need to be prepared for that. It’s that simple.
Very true, and even the smartest people often hold irrational or factually unsupportable beliefs. Richard Dawkins, noted evolutionary zoologist and ardent atheist, has steadfastly maintained the existence of memes as physical and replicable structures within the brain even as neurological research has pretty much eliminated the possibility of transmissible or repeated neurological features, and Hitchhiker’s author Douglas Adams, also a vocal atheist and close friend of Dawkins, espoused the belief in the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis despite manifest objections including a complete absence of any supporting information in the fossil record.
Evangelicals are obnoxious in their proselytizing, and their reflexive objection in demonstrated facts that contradict their world view, but I don’t know that they are especially more ignorant than anyone else. Michael Behe, a biologist and proponent of Intelligent Design, is clearly not ignorant; he is conversant enough with evolution to anticipate scientific objections to his pet theories and present cogent if often inaccurate refutations. One suspects that he knows on some level that he is aware his positions are untenable but he has some fundamental beliefs that are beyond fact justifying his manipulation of scientific jargon to his own ends.
Stranger
Do not make personal attacks in Great Debates.
[ /Moderating ]
No. Indeed I see many atheists who are ignorant of Christian doctrine even when debating Christianity-not knowing what Arminianism or thinking that all Evangelicals follow Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.
Eh, it seemed to me to be questioning the asserted “well-schooled” claim.
I kind of doubt that anyone who was genuinely a humanist would ever say “I used to be a secular humanist.” That’s pretty much just a prejudicial label favored by some religious organizations to demonize their opponents. IMHO, if a real humanist converted, he’d regard himself as a religious humanist, not a former humanist. God’s not going to make him inhumane.
For that matter what about Greg Boyd? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Boyd_%28theologian%29 Again don’t agree with him much at all (except maybe on theistic evolution)
TV evangelists get on my nerves. I can’t imagine how people who want to have a relationship in a religous way, watch TV and not go to church and do charity work, or some such. i don’t understand evangelicals at all.
Weel thats like calling a small child ignorant for believing in Santa Clause. Are they ignorant or just trusting? The believe because sombody the trust told them its so and thats all they need to believe. To believe in a god requires Hope and Faith to sustain the belief, And with a support group you have truth by consensus. If everyone believes it well it must be true.
Much like science and the world is flat scenario.
Science in the same manner has a fatal flaw. If a principle gets acepted then it becomes built upon. Much like the global warming of a few years ago. Now they realized its just climate change caused by the polar displacement. But the masses are still turning off light bulbs and doing carbon friendly things.
The evangelicals who run the retail outlets know religion is a commodity that is sold to those who feel they need it and for some it gives peace of mind, is that a bad thing? JUst look at all the wieght loss thing for sale on the TV when all you need do is put in less food than you burn. Simple math if you bure 2000C a day and eat 2100 a day your going to gain wieght. But people will spend money for an abblaster and hope it works which it will not if you keep up the 2100C a day.
Peope believe simple fact… Believe Comes from Beli-eve or unborn child completely dependant on mother for everything never having to think or do for themselves how many believes are there both evangelical and science. Who just believe everything science tells them what control over the masses would that have?
Belief needs faith and hope
Fact needs proof and evidence
Truth needs belief in the facts
Knowledge needs reason and logic
Wisdom needs Truth and Knowledge
and only a wise man can see that
Hmmmm that was quite profound I usually say stupid shit 
Really? Can you provide a cite this?
No, he may compartmentalize his mind so that he doesn’t recognize the disconnect between his belief and the world. Happens all the time.
And, if you were a well-schooled secular humanist, you should be able to tell us what the theory of evolution says. You must have accepted it, and I trust it was not because of a revelation by Darwin.
I suppose someone could be a devout evangelical and have an extensive knowledge of Star Wars…
I have actually met evangelical Star Wars fans.
Evangelical Trekkies too, but they’re a bit sad really.