During some research to destroy some apologetics, I stumbled upon an excellent take down of the common attempt by Christians to use legal definitions to force their god into existence. It over on Infidels.org in their library. This is a great site to check out counter apologetics.
Critique of John Warwick Montgomery’s Arguments for the Legal Evidence for Christianity by Richard Packham
One of my favorite bits is: “The fourth test by which perjury can be detected is inconsistency or self-contradiction in the testimony. Montgomery adds nothing new to the traditional apologetic defense of the gospel contradictions: 1) agreement would point to collusion; 2) each writer had a different perspective; 3) no gospel was intended to be complete; 4) duplicate narratives probably represent actual duplicate events.
None of these arguments are based on any rule of evidence, but are rather intended to avoid the very valid rule of evidence that testimony which is inconsistent with other evidence, or contradictory, or self-contradictory, may be disregarded as unreliable. In fact, this very rule of evidence is affirmed in the New Testament: “For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together.” (Mark 14:56, 59) It is unfortunate for the Christian apologist that his best testimonies are contradictory, and that these are the best explanations he can come up with.”
Always fun when the bible itself admits that contradictory witnesses aren’t to be believed.
“5 Now the chief priests and the whole council were looking for testimony against Jesus to put him to death; but they found none. 56 For many gave false testimony against him, and their testimony did not agree. 57 Some stood up and gave false testimony against him, saying, 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” 59 But even on this point their testimony did not agree.” Mark 14
There are some “counter counter” apologetics against this and they are quite amusing, but you’ll have to search them out yourselves.
Club Schadenfreude 
At the heart of it is people should seriously consider that if any ideology needs to appeal to “tricks” to make itself more believable, there’s something fundamentally wrong with it.
LikeLike
Imagine religion without tricks? How would that even work
LikeLiked by 1 person
heh. Indeed, my friend. That’s all they have, their tricks that they use to gin up fear and get more recruits for their cults.
LikeLike
Psychological manipulation isn’t a trick, it’s a methodology. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s their MO
LikeLike
exactly. Alas, religion is intoxicating and we have a lot of addicts on our hands. Apologetics is the addict’s need for more and more and more “confirmation”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apologetics are overrated. Christianity’s one defense is Christ as a life-giver. And I’m to live the life he gave me.
LikeLike
and arnold nicely demonstrates that all apologetics, even his, are overrated. Like all Christians, he simply makes up what he wants.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m fairly certain your parents were involved somehow… You might want to talk to someone knowledgeable in these things.
LikeLiked by 2 people
🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person