While I realize it's probably one of my lesser traits, I nonetheless tend to be dismissive of most apologists, but most especially religious apologists.

As was very rightly pointed out by @LatentumCattus, they don't exist to challenge
atheists, but to convince those who are questioning their religious beliefs.

To me, it's nothing more than a stop-loss tactic.
They can't defend the nonsense they espouse with factual evidence, so they
resort to emotional appeals and circular reasoning.

Yeah, they aren't trying to convince me of anything. They know I know they're
completely full of shit and they'd be wasting their time with me.
They're going after those who are starting to say, "Hey, wait a minute."
Their numbers are falling. The revenue streams are drying up.
People are turning away from the snake oil.
They're shitting their pants and scrambling to keep the flock in line.

Apologetics don't exist because atheists allow them. Apologetics exist to bolster up those who may be questioning their faith.

Apologists like William Lane Craig don't care about winning arguments against atheists (though it is but one means to an end); they only care about not losing membership. The preachers preach and the apologists "yes" them to validate the message to the masses. If that d00d says "This is the way it is" and the other d00d nods solemnly, the average believer will go with that is confirmation.

This is basic psychology. This is also why apologists gleefully accept the label (duh); it gives them even more 'humble credibility' to the masses.

"Addressing" apologetics is like saying we need to just get rid of war; like people are just gonna stop fighting.

Let them blather on, I say. The real battle is one of education. There is where we need to remain vigilant. Keep our education secular and free from religion - keep scientific information open and available - Keep them learning while they are young - eventually the evangelicals will wan, people will (and trending shows that they are, in record numbers) turn away from this nonsense. Eventually, such mythological thinking will be the rarity and not the norm and apologetics will be no more.

It won't happen in my lifetime, or even a century or two from now, but it IS coming. Undeniably. Inexorably.

I don’t actually give a rat’s arse what any of them say! They can defend their gods and make up apologetic arguments until they’re blue in the face, but I just say...”show me the evidence of god’s existence”. That usually stops them in their tracks and ends all argument.

Science needs no apologists.

I don't apologize for who I am, I am me take it or leave it otherwise fuck you

In my opinion , "Why bother ? " is a better question . Other than when they come knocking on my door , I try not to get into these debates with those of other religions . Sahira law aside , I choose to let others believe in whatever they believe . If their religion satisifies whatever their needs are , why try to strip them of whatever comfort they get from their religion ? It isn't for me , and for most of us on this site , that doesn't mean it doesn't satisify their needs .

The only person I can change and control is myself.

As an atheist since age 13, I have years of experience rebuffing Christians who try to convert me. Smart-aleck replies in my back pocket:

"I don't believe in an invisible being who resides somewhere beyond the clouds."

"We are ALL atheists here," I say, waving my arm to include the entire neighborhood.

"I stopped having imaginary friends at age four."

"I don't believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or invisible gods."

This shuts them up. Perfect. While they puzzle, I say goodbye and exit.

It's useless to argue with apologists because they can change their argument, and will, whenever they are pushed into a corner. It's all post-hoc attempts to justify beliefs that have zero factual basis.

Well...you may consider apologetics a silly endeavor but many Christians do not. I think you make a good point though, after all, I don’t need apologetics to prove my wife exists yet the creator of the universe is extremely elusive. He should be as obvious as Canada. But, If you want to intelligently debate, then you should know why their arguments are fallacious. I do understand if you’re not interested in that because to us it is so obvious there is no god. God is an absurd concept so why bother arguing something that is so obvious. Personally, I think though that knowing the various ideas in apologetics can be fruitful. It was for me. I was studying in seminary for a masters in Apologetics. As soon as I heard the flip side to apologetics, I stopped wasting my time and money on god. I credit Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris for helping me to see the light.

Humans in general seem to be overly protective of things they love or are attached to . They have this god that is Omnipotent, so why in theory would it need defense? Because this god of their’s does not show up to defend itself , they see themselves as it’s children or disciples , so they must defend him . Purely behavior of one caught up in ego .

I studied apologetics for years while making my way out of religion. They consistently use bad logic, and fail to provide any convincing evidence for their claims. Of course, I did not read all the apologetics that exist, and there is a slight possibility that there is some such book that makes sense. But no such reasonable apologetics book has come to my attention.

Actually.... They are apologizing for made up ghost ideas.

I agree..I don't get why agnostics and atheists bother to defend their beliefs or argue with religious nuts at all. Let them be ignorant. Vote them out of office, and please talk about something ELSE on this forum.
Agnostic members still want to find someone to date, right?

Holding forth about the foolishness of the religious to those already convinced, who have moved on to live their lives as they wish seems counter-productive. Doesn't anyone here have hobbies? Go on interesting trips?

You stated out by saying "Why atheist get it wrong when addressing apologetics." If you stated out with Why atheist get it wrong when addressing god then your point would make any argument moot. Point is, is that God (Yahweh, god or Allāh) is written to be infallible and pure. Without a belief in a higher being you can argue without bias. You can't be wrong with arguing with God apologetics unless you are wrong with arguing with the person.

Aren't you yourself apologizing for your "faith?"
Why do you care? It sounds for all the world like you're trying to convince YOURSELF of something!

Why generalize about atheists? Are we all alike? We have one thing in common: we don't believe there are any gods. If we have anything else in common it is coincidental. Some argue with apologetics and some walk away. I would wager that more religionists argue with each other about which religion or religious interpretation is right than atheists bother with religionists. They come after us often. We don't chase them down and demand that they stop believing -- and now i am generalizing and maybe some do but i have not encountered them.

g

Just because an argument is reasonable, doesn't make it right.

Maybe we could ask ourselves what are those Christians apologizing for? That's my take on apologetics.

You seem to blame atheists for everything, why are you in this site then?

...but you never explain your claim that 'atheists get it wrong when addressing Apologetics'. Was that a teaser? The few atheists who care see Apologetics as bad propaganda based on illogical arguments. It is tedious and useless to classify the various fallacies since the originators do NOT care about truth.

Your argument that Apologetics is self-defeating has some merit, but the immorality of Christian behavior is more effective for those that will listen.

I agree with you. I constantly kick back to theists that we are not debating complete solutions to life, the universe and everything. We are trying to determine if their religion is not as mythical as every other religion that has had its time and passed. All of the apologetic arguments are attempts to hide the leap of faith, or putting the cart before the horse and moving on to assertions based on an unproven founding assertion.

God is not my name, I really do exist. I have eaten a taco, I am not here apologizing for anything.