Agnosticism does not attack Christianity; if anything, much the opposite.
The agnostic position is simply "there is no conclusive evidence that proves or disproves God" - they might think there is despite the lack, they might think there isn't because of the lack.
Many agnostic theists are in fact Christians. Hence, there is nothing to defend against.
Alternative AnswerI am agnostic, and you're probably looking for a way to put across to the person that Christianity is correct. An agnostic can only say why he is not a Christian in terms of Atheistic beliefs, so he might say that he does not know whether God created the world because of Big Bang theory. Therefore what you are defending against is and can only be Atheism. Therefore you could read one of many books to find the answer. In order to defend, your knowledge must be comprehensive, so it is no good me telling you defences against such theories, as they can just come up with more atheistic beliefs.
The core belief of Agnosticism is not one which opposes any religion. The only defence you need give is your faith. An agnostic who does not know God should understand that for ones self, faith is evidence enough that God exists, and this is how you 'know' that God exists. Therefore, you only need to attack their beliefs. Agnosticism is based on uncertainty, yet nothing is certain. Even the most basic mathematical proofs, I am told, are not certain. 1 does not, apparently, have to equal 1. Therefore, what is certain? You must have faith in one thing to know anything, for all belief systems must have a fundamental belief, which is held as fact, but requires faith. If one does not know if anything is for certain, there is no reason to live, as the truth can only be revealed after death. Yet if they have chosen wrongly and have not followed God, they will suffer in Hell forever, which keeps them alive. Surely by this logic, the only way to find the meaning of life is to have faith? What this faith is in is up to them, but they are unlikely, having been agnostic for some time, to be an atheist at the end as they are likely to always have the nagging feeling that God might exist. The only way out is Christianity.*
I hope this has helped. I always, contrary to the above answer, debate religion, which involves 'attacking' it. However, at the end of the day, both arguments do, to some extent, cover all topics. All unknown is explained by "God knows" or "We will find out, by science", and thus both are comprehensive...
Pick a side.
*By this I re-emphasise that they are unlikely going to be able to break the habit of uncertainty, but if they find faith, they will have no need for uncertainty. Therefore an agnostic who becomes an atheist is unlikely to truly be an atheist as they still doubt the certainty that there is no God.
Christianity Atheism Agnosticism Scientology
Anglican christianity Roman Catholic christianity Islam Judaism Hinduism Sikhism Atheism Agnosticism Hedonism
Christianity is the belief that there is one god in the form of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and is based on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as laid out in the Bible. Agnosticism, on the other hand, is the belief that it is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence or nature of god(s), and so claims neither belief nor disbelief in deities or the spiritual world. In short: Christianity - There is an all powerful, all knowing, all loving, ever present God. Agnosticism - I don't know if there is a god(s) or not.
they defend against infection and viruses
does agnosticism count? if so, His agnosticism prevented him from accepting any form of religion.
There is no scientific evidence or claim that Shakeology can defend against cancer.
Their attacks were hard to defend against
what two organ stysems that defend the body against infection are
An Argument Against Abolishing Christianity was created in 1708.
For the most part, no, Christianity was not illegal. It was only against the law during the persecutions.For the most part, no, Christianity was not illegal. It was only against the law during the persecutions.For the most part, no, Christianity was not illegal. It was only against the law during the persecutions.For the most part, no, Christianity was not illegal. It was only against the law during the persecutions.For the most part, no, Christianity was not illegal. It was only against the law during the persecutions.For the most part, no, Christianity was not illegal. It was only against the law during the persecutions.For the most part, no, Christianity was not illegal. It was only against the law during the persecutions.For the most part, no, Christianity was not illegal. It was only against the law during the persecutions.For the most part, no, Christianity was not illegal. It was only against the law during the persecutions.
The preposition "against" typically follows the verb "defend." For example, "She defended herself against the accusations."
A:A theologian is a person who studies Christianity and uses his knowledge the defend the faith. A theologian can be compared to a religious scholar who studies Christianity, seeking to establish the facts whether or not they are favourable to Chistianity. However, some theologians can be regarded as religious scholars. A:Apologist with a capital A refers to any of the Christian writers, primarily in the 2nd century, who attempted to provide a defense of Christianity against Greco-Roman culture. Greek Apologists include Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria. Latin Apologists of the 2nd century include Tertullian.Many of their writings were addressed to Roman emperors and were submitted to government secretaries in order to defend Christian beliefs and practices.Apologist with a small a refers to a person who tries to explain and defend something, especially a political system or religious ideas.Also apologetics is the branch of theology concerned with the defense or proof of Christianity.