Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Starboy · 04-09-2003, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hedwig
I'm still trying to figure how how that has anything to do with it.

Apparently for Radorth argument from age is persuasive.

Shake · 04-09-2003, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cofffee
Hmm, I've never read the book, but here's an II section that critiques "The Case for Faith" - titled Objections Sustained!.

There's lots of other critiques in the II's apologetics section.

Thanks for these excellent links there, Cofffee! I'm only about halfway through reading Objections Sustained!, and it seems to me that now I don't have to read The Case for Faith unless I just want to get a good chuckle as I recall Gerkin's excellent ripping it apart!

luvluv · 04-09-2003, 11:07 AM

I'm a Christian and I've read both The Case for Faith and The Case for Christ. While I found the latter pretty informative, the former was pretty darn useless.

Strobel raises legitimate questions that he cannot possibly answer within the context of the conceptual premise of the book. It is one thing to ask a New Testament scholar about the evidences for the veracity of the gospels as historical texts. It is an entirely different thing to ask a New Testament scholar about whether or not children dying (in the Bible or otherwise) is somehow morally acceptable or spiritually beneficient. What precisely is there in the training for Biblical scholarship that allows someone to know the answer to such a question? The whole undertaking is dubious at the outset, IMHO, and Strobel would have been better off to either not ask the questions, or to be honest about the doubts such questions can leave with the believer. The glib answers he provides would not only discourage someone from ever having faith, but would give them legitimate grounds for doubting his motives and his honesty.

The questions he raises are serious, thought-provoking questions which cannot be answered by a so-called "expert" in the space of 25 pages. Particuarly when the answers are dumbed down for public consumption.

As I said, the Case for Christ gives the layman a good foundation for the arguments for and against Christ's existence, his life, his miracles, and his ressurection. Read in conjunction with a book which takes the opposite position, it can be useful and informative reading. The Case for Faith however is one of the more counter-productive apologetics books I have ever read. I happen to have read around a bit, and so I have heard much better defenses for the Problem of Evil and the like than the ones presented in this book. However if a person does not have any knowledge beyond what is presented in this book, if this book is their first foray into apologetics, that person is likely to think that the answers presented in this book are the best answers that Christian theists have. It being that that is not remotely the case, the book is in my opinion misleading and dangerous. I personally would not lose any sleep if every copy of it were to be taken down from the shelves. Whether you write from the theistic or the atheistic position writing a book so incomplete and so obviously full of holes and then mass-marketing it to the public (based, IMO, on previous sales of a similar book, not on the book's on merits) is simply irresponsible.

That having been said, I thought Why I am Not a Christian was one of the least impressive arguments against Christianity I have ever read. I've been more impressed with what some of the folks around here have had to say on the matter.

mike_decock · 04-09-2003, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv
It is an entirely different thing to ask a New Testament scholar about whether or not children dying (in the Bible or otherwise) is somehow morally acceptable or spiritually beneficient. What precisely is there in the training for Biblical scholarship that allows someone to know the answer to such a question?

This makes no sense to me. Why does a Christian study the Bible? It's supposed to be God's revelation to man about all things spiritual and moral. A Christian who is a NT scholar should be best equipped to address questions of morality.

The fact that Strobel fails to answer such a simple question indicates that the Bible is a deficient source for learning moral principles.

-Mike...

NOGO · 04-09-2003, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Radorth
Reminds me of The Case for Atheism, which runs on for 300 pages which can be summarized as follows:

"If you can't see it with your own two eyes, it isn't there. Jesus was mean to fig trees and pigs, and we would take personal responsibility for all our sins if we had any."

And who was the author of this book?
Radorth?

If Christians do not believe any other religion save Christianity, it is because they apply common sense and skepticism to other religions which they dare not apply to theirs.

But we atheists make no such discrimination. We must see to believe. How carnal?

NOGO · 04-09-2003, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Radorth
Most Christian scholars will admit some contradictions, interpolations and additions by God's little helpers, but they are well documented, and footnoted in study Bibles- that they are questionable. Meanwhile other variations do indicate that the four writers had independent sources.

Radorth, if you would spend as much time reading and understanding the many, many contradictions, errors, missed prophecies and just plain silliness in the Bible, as you do trying to defend it you would probably be an atheist by now.

Daggah · 04-09-2003, 06:37 PM

Hi NOGO,

I already asked Radorth about the author of this supposed "The Case for Atheism." Never responded. Go figure.

Celsus · 04-09-2003, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv
As I said, the Case for Christ gives the layman a good foundation for the arguments for and against Christ's existence, his life, his miracles, and his ressurection. Read in conjunction with a book which takes the opposite position, it can be useful and informative reading.

Piddlesticks. The Case for Christ gives a pathetic version of skeptical viewpoints. Case in point, not a single skeptic is interviewed (and Strobel takes it upon himself to be the token "skeptic," which even if sincere is a mismatch). Secondly, all his "skeptical" arguments are dated. For example, he cites Kirsopp Lake (1906?) in his interview with Craig on the resurrection, and it just so turns out that his source for Lake is Craig himself! Pathetic really.

Joel

Radorth · 04-09-2003, 09:09 PM

Yeah Gerkin is a riot alright.

Quote:

For starters, if God is omnipotent, couldn't he still achieve the long term good without the short term suffering?

How? Skeptics don't have a response which raises all sorts of other issues, so they just ask rhetorical questions.

Quote:

If he cannot, he is not omnipotent. To suggest that there are things God absolutely cannot do, is to suggest that there are laws which operate over and above God, that even He can't transcend. I have no problem with this,....

Well then, what's the point? Besides that, there are all kinds of things a righteous God cannot do without contradicting himself. A moment's reflection will reveal them

From objection #2

Quote:

Science rarely says things "cannot" be true. It's more like "based on all the evidence we have gathered, the universe seems to operate in this fashion, therefore, until we see some counter evidence, we are going to assume that's the way it is."

I thought an omnipotent God could do anything. This "journalist" doesn't take long to contradict himself.

(More later. This is fun)

Radorth · 04-09-2003, 09:27 PM

Kyle did OK on #3 although he of course has no idea how life originated, but somehow knows God did not contribute. First he says we have no way of knowing, then proceeds to tell us. Nothing like an unbiased journalist who follows hs own rules.

#4

Quote:

But there is a more fundamental concern with God's orders to kill. A God who commands murder opens a horrific set of floodgates. Suddenly, you've got any number of wackos who can claim as a motive for murder: "God told me so." In fact, whole nations channel this concept into "holy wars." Of course, almost everyone considers these people psychopaths but is that really a fair attitude for Christians to have? After all, how do they know God didn't command the slayings? He's done it before.

Yeah how is it all those Christians made up all those songs about love and peace, wanted the Roman bloodgames stopped, think you should not even argue with tendentious people, refused to do anything but drive ambulances in war, think the war in Iraq is ascriptural, and rebuild their enemies countries at enormous expense when they do fight?

Apparently God put the word "love" in the Bible one too many times, so we are all inadvertantly disobeying him.

Rad

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-09-2003, 11:07 AM	#23
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	I'm a Christian and I've read both The Case for Faith and The Case for Christ. While I found the latter pretty informative, the former was pretty darn useless. Strobel raises legitimate questions that he cannot possibly answer within the context of the conceptual premise of the book. It is one thing to ask a New Testament scholar about the evidences for the veracity of the gospels as historical texts. It is an entirely different thing to ask a New Testament scholar about whether or not children dying (in the Bible or otherwise) is somehow morally acceptable or spiritually beneficient. What precisely is there in the training for Biblical scholarship that allows someone to know the answer to such a question? The whole undertaking is dubious at the outset, IMHO, and Strobel would have been better off to either not ask the questions, or to be honest about the doubts such questions can leave with the believer. The glib answers he provides would not only discourage someone from ever having faith, but would give them legitimate grounds for doubting his motives and his honesty. The questions he raises are serious, thought-provoking questions which cannot be answered by a so-called "expert" in the space of 25 pages. Particuarly when the answers are dumbed down for public consumption. As I said, the Case for Christ gives the layman a good foundation for the arguments for and against Christ's existence, his life, his miracles, and his ressurection. Read in conjunction with a book which takes the opposite position, it can be useful and informative reading. The Case for Faith however is one of the more counter-productive apologetics books I have ever read. I happen to have read around a bit, and so I have heard much better defenses for the Problem of Evil and the like than the ones presented in this book. However if a person does not have any knowledge beyond what is presented in this book, if this book is their first foray into apologetics, that person is likely to think that the answers presented in this book are the best answers that Christian theists have. It being that that is not remotely the case, the book is in my opinion misleading and dangerous. I personally would not lose any sleep if every copy of it were to be taken down from the shelves. Whether you write from the theistic or the atheistic position writing a book so incomplete and so obviously full of holes and then mass-marketing it to the public (based, IMO, on previous sales of a similar book, not on the book's on merits) is simply irresponsible. That having been said, I thought Why I am Not a Christian was one of the least impressive arguments against Christianity I have ever read. I've been more impressed with what some of the folks around here have had to say on the matter.

04-09-2003, 06:37 PM	#27
Daggah Banned Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Deployed to Kosovo Posts: 4,314	Hi NOGO, I already asked Radorth about the author of this supposed "The Case for Atheism." Never responded. Go figure.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.