Apologetic Word Play and Other Games
I freely admit that I am starting to get bored of the same arguments and word games employed by religious apologists. In defense of the creator of the universe, the apparently all knowing and almighty, apologists present us with broken arguments, flawed definitions and unknowable assertions.
An apologist might apply the concept of cause to the universe. Apparently god caused the universe to exist. In a typical example of a broken argument, turn to the next page and be told that god is eternal and just existed. An entity so complex, and able to create the universe, just exists. Apologists assert this as fact.
I ask what is on the outside of the universe, the container for all life and matter? In theory, nothing. In reality, who knows? Where exactly did god happen to exist before the universe existed? The apologist will always make a special "look the other way" case for their own absurd arguments.
Word games are also employed by apologists. Plug a word like "atheist" into Google or any online dictionary and choose the definition that suits your argument. An apologist will assert that an atheist knows there is no god. Sure, some atheist assert there is no god, but atheism is about a lack of belief in gods, not knowledge. Truly, no-one can know if there is or isn't a god. A theist can believe all they want. An atheist can disbelieve all they want. No-one has proven that god does or doesn't exist. It is far more intellectually honest to choose atheism.
Typically a theist would play the "you can't prove god doesn't exist" card. Effectively this argument is worth walking away from at this point. No-one can disprove the existence of a unicorn, Santa or the tooth fairy and no-one would be dishonest enough to assert that they do exist. Even if we could explain every physical aspect of the entire universe, a theist would move god into an unverifiable and unknowable plane in defense of this absurd argument.
In a typically circular fashion, the idea of god, that was constructed by men, an idea formed in the mind, meets it's final death throes in the mind. Essentially in the form of tired and often repeated arguments from apologists.
Apologists remind me of someone who cannot admit they are wrong. Based on reality and the evidence it is dishonest to say "I read this book. I have the answers. I am right". Instead, the apologist continues to argue and grapple with obscurities and absurdities which are unnecessary if they just said they didn't know.
Of course, I don't know if I'm right, but reality and the evidence are all pointing in the same direction. The arguments presented by apologists are boring, circular, flawed, unknowable and absurd.