Comment by J Van on August 24, 2011 at 7:11pm

Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ, could be it, my Dad read the same book and can't stop pushing it.  I think having any sort of conversations about the existence of god with a believer would be impossible without actually trying to plant a seed of doubt. Otherwise why have that conversation at all?

Comment by Ed on August 24, 2011 at 9:55pm

That's it! The Strobel book. 

I wonder when she finishes it if she will make an offer to lend me the book. I kind of doubt it as I am so resolute in my atheism.

Has anyone read the Strobel book? What fallacies does it push?

 

Comment by Brian Pansky on August 24, 2011 at 10:41pm

I have not read it entirely.  But it isn't convincing unless the supernatural is assumed real, and even then I was christian at the time and I thought it was pathetic.  I'll try to find my copy to relay some quotations, chapter titles, whatever.

 

I'm not so sure how well I'll be able to point out the specific fallacies it has...

Comment by Godless Conservative on August 24, 2011 at 11:09pm

Yeah Strobel, and I've read it.  I don't see that the guy ever really actively disbelieved in a god though.  He talks like he was totally apathetic about it all, not that he actively didn't believe.  It seems to me that he's exaggerating the position now for credibility.

 

You won't find anything all that convincing in it.  Just excuses for not having actual evidence.

 

http://godlessconservative.com

Comment by Brian Pansky on August 24, 2011 at 11:53pm

Found it.  Yes, it seems to be very much FOR christians.  Though maybe slightly a different brand than I previously was, hence I thought it was made to manipulate minds while pretending to be intellectual.

 

The first chapter of Part One is "The Eyewitness Evidence"

 

We all know that no amount of testimony can give credibility to magic/miracles.  How does the book handle this crucial first chapter?  Well, it seems to assume no one who is reading it will care for evidence that laws of nature were violated.  Only that the readers care that *Real people Said This Actually Happened*.  Following I have presented (and used bold in some areas) some copying of the text (I think the very first conversation investigating christianity in the book) :

----------------------------------------------------------------------

First Interview: Craig L. Bloomberg, PH.D.

 

"Tell me this," I said with an edge of challenge in my voice, "is it really possible to be an intelligent, critically thinking person and still believe that the four gospels were written by the people whose names were attached to them?"

 

Bloomberg set his cup of coffee on the edge of his desk and looked intently at me.  "The answer is yes," he said with conviction.

 

(Bloomberg briefly describes the characters the 'gospels' are named after, next question)

 

"How uniform was the belief that they were the authors?" I asked.

 

"There are no know competitors for these three gospels," he said.  "Apparently it was just not in dispute."

 

Even so, I wanted to test the issue further.  "Excuse my skepticism," I said, "but would anyone have had a motivation to lie by claiming these people wrote these gospels, when they really didn't?"

 

------------------------------------------

 

I would go on, but I'm sure we can see that the wrong questions are asked, leading to gymnastics of little interest.  I'm surprised to find my bookmark is at the start of chapter three: "were jesus' biographies reliably preserved for us?".

 

Part three is "researching the resurrection" and "was the resurrection a hoax" is in there.

 

-----------------------------------------

 

"Whoa--here's where skeptics have a field day,"  I told him.  "The gospels tell us he began to sweat blood at this point.  Now c'mon, isn't that just a product of some overactive imagination?"

 

Unfazed, Metherell shook his head.  "Not at all," he replied.  "This is a known medical condition called hematidrosis.  It's not very common, but it is associated with a high degree of psychological stress. 

 

(describes how the hematidrosis works.  I'll point out Physically, not a miracle as the book neglects to care about actual miracles even at this point)

 

(Huge description of every part of the crucifixion.  Basically 'proving' it Would Kill him.  I'll point out: If it actually happened)

 

(later, someone else is being interviewed.  I'm skimming, seems like the whole thing is inconsequential, finally the "[establishment] that the resurrection is a historical event" is asked about.)

 

"here's how I look at the evidence for the resurrection:  First, did Jesus die on the cross?  And second, did he appear later to people?  If you can establish those two things, you've made your case, because dead people don't normally do that."

 

(cue 1 Corinthians 9:1)

" ' Am I not

Comment by Ed on August 25, 2011 at 7:16pm

Thanks Brian. It will be interesting to see what material from the book my mom may bring up in conversation. Evidence from two thousand years ago is gonna be hard to put one's finger on. Historical evidence of jesus and his antics is a weak area for me. Evidence aside you either believe the bible or not. One thing my mom said the other day when I asked about his walking on water was that some things in the bible you don't take literally. So I asked how do you know which parts to believe and which parts are made up or embellished? She didn't like my line of questioning and I could see her headache coming on.  :^ )

 

 

Comment