-
Apology Not Accepted
- Common Sense Refutations for Nonsensical Apologetics
- Narrado por: Gregory Blount
- Duração: 9 horas e 12 minutos
Falha ao colocar no Carrinho.
Falha ao adicionar à Lista de Desejos.
Falha ao remover da Lista de Desejos
Falha ao adicionar à Biblioteca
Falha ao seguir podcast
Falha ao parar de seguir podcast
Assine e ganhe 30% de desconto neste título
R$ 19,90 /mês
Compre agora por R$ 51,99
Nenhum método de pagamento padrão foi selecionado.
Pedimos desculpas. Não podemos vender este produto com o método de pagamento selecionado
Sinopse
Apology Not Accepted is a no-holds-barred critique of common Christian apologetics. Blount is direct, informative, and highly entertaining.
From the preface:
I appreciate the intentions of fairness in a debate, as each party deserves the opportunity to present their case. I am also a huge fan of Christian apologetic debates.... What I feel is missing is the opportunity to interrupt a bad argument or false representation of the point being made to thoroughly analyze it.
Live on stage, it would be rude to cut somebody off in the middle of their argument, but it is still a very fruitful endeavor to play back the video, stopping it as necessary, and giving their statements the proper criticism they deserve. It is for this reason I have made this audiobook; to provide the analysis that is simply not feasible in a debate format.
This is not to say the representatives of atheism or science have not adequately outperformed the Christians in the actual debates. I would say they clearly have, but as Aron Ra stated in the Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism, “[I]t takes longer to refute a lie than to tell one”. So, I feel more can be said against the obsequiously bad arguments of Christian apologetics than is ever allowed in a debate format.
As the edgy comedy cartoon South Park has stated on its show: “All celebrity voices are impersonated...poorly.”
To provide a contrast between my own personalized comments and the narratives by the apologists, I felt it was necessary to use different vocalizations. If I did not do this, then I fear the audiobook would become confusing as to where their comments stop and where mine start.
There may be times when I appear to be mocking the apologists, but I hope I have presented their arguments in the same tone they have in the debates. It is not my intention to demean their case by merely mimicking them; I intend to do that with my own common-sense response to their arguments.