Genesis

A pastor told me that atheist George H. Smith, author of
'Atheism: The Case Against God', was challenged to a debate
by famous pastor Lee Strobel, author of 'The Case For Christ',
but that Smith refused!!

Is this true? If so, why did he refuse? Or is this account just
wishful thinking by Christians?

Jobar

Let's put this in GRD.

Daggah

Maybe he, like many others, recognizes the futility of debating with Christian apologists who are dishonest (which Strobel certainly is). That's the only reasonable explanation; Strobel certainly has made no points in his writings that are worth "fearing."

hezekiah jones

Maybe he was too busy watching paint dry.

Beetle

Strobel is dishonest? How so? I've heard him and his apologetics described in many unflattering ways, but I've never heard him accused of dishonesty before.

Fiach

Some writer in Free Inquirey (?Richard Dawkins?) discussed why debating with Christians is a waste of time and circumstances are stacked.

Back during my time in the USA in the 90s they had a Dan Barker debate with some Christian whose name I forgot. It is typical of nearly all such "debates".

First, the audience, ususally on a college campus, is packed with Fundamentalists who may be brought in by bus from various churches. There is a small handfull of atheists in the mass of chanting "Jesus Loves You" christians.

Every rational point made by the Atheist is met by boos or if not allowed, by a general audience shaking of heads and mumbling. The christian making some of the most ridiculous comments is greeted by applauds.

At the one I attended, several fundies came up to my wife and I, angry, with such comments, "Why do you hate Jesus?", "Jesus loves you." "God gave his only begotton son...."

The debate was clearly won by Dan Barker, who made the most rational points debating Christian claims. The Christian made little sense and his argument was poorly structured and incoherent. But the mob left shouting that they had won.

I agree. It is just like our debates here. We have read the comments of some posters here from the Christian side. We all know to whom I am referring. I need not mention their names. Debating them is a waste of time. I have debated one chap with a discussion of evolution, the mechanisms of evolution, the methods of studying it, the cross checking of the methods, the evidence of isotope chronology, and genetic evidence.

And the responses indicate either that he didn't comprehend my comments or simply ignored them and made outrageous comments such as "Atheist world view" of which there is no such thing. Atheism is just not having a belief in God. It is not a positive statement affirming anything. It is simple. It says "I don't believe in gods." That is not a debatable comment.

All of these tangential comments get away from the primary point. If there is a God, what evidence is there apart from the Bible. They dance around that and try to divert the argument into the worn out "Can a Boeing 747 assemble itself?" Which is a simple minded comment avoiding the complexities of the real mechanisms which are known. But the fundy audience goes wild.

It is a waste of time, the two debators speak on totally different planes of thinking. You might as well discuss the internet with a stone age hunter-gatherer in Borneo.

Fiach

Daggah

Well, first of all, how do you know when an apologist is lying? His mouth is moving.

Seriously though, Strobel's "I was an atheist who started my investigation leading to this book, which is an objective look at both sides of the argument" while only interviewing people supporting his side is pretty blatantly dishonest IMHO.

Beetle

I just chalked it up to shoddy workmanship and/or laziness, but I certainly see your point.

Infidelettante

Given the number of Christians praying to God for one thing or another I should think that the odds are one will hit it now and then. Kind of a cosmic lottery if you will.

Gary Welsh

I read Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ." On the back of my copy is the blurb: "A Seasoned Journalist Chases Down the Biggest Story in History." I suppose the impression one is supposed to get is that this is serious journalism, in which all sides of the issue are going to be investigated and reported. But as I read the book, I realized that every "expert" that was "cross-examined" by Strobel's "tough, point-blank questions" was on the theist side. The experts he interviews were:

*

Craig Blomberg, professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary

Bruce Metzger, professor emeritus at Princeton Theological Seminary

Edwin Yamauchi, professor of history at Miami University in Ohio

John McRay, professor of New Testament and archaeology Wheaton College, near Chicago

Gregory Boyd, professor of theology at Bethel College and pastor at Woodland Hills church

Ben Witherington III, professor at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky

Gary Collins, formerly a professor of psychology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

D. A. Carson, research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Louis Lapides, taught in the Bible department of Biola University, worked for Walk Through the Bible seminars and Chosen People Ministries, talking about Jesus to Jewish college students

Alexander Metherell, physician, former research scientist who taught at the University of California

William Lane Craig, professional speaker and Christian apologist with a doctorate in theology

Gary Habermas, chairman of the Department of Philosophy and Theology and director of the master's program in apologetics, at Liberty University

J. P. Moreland, professor who teaches the master's program in philosophy and ethics at the Talbot School of Theology

*

In each of these interviews, great care is taken in listing the academic and published credentials of the person being questioned. Nearly all of them are professors, or former teachers, who have written works about or in support of Christianity.

Does this look like objective journalism to anybody? Or a "riveting quest for the truth"? If Lee Strobel wanted to present a fair piece of journalism, then why didn't he interview George Smith or other prominent non-believers and publish the interviews in his book? That is why Strobel is viewed as dishonest. He presents himself as a skeptical journalist who is only interested in the facts. Yet he only presents "experts" from one side of the case. Reading this book, I felt like I was in a jury that only ever got to hear witnesses for the defense. "Objections" or "difficulties" that were raised were not argued by non-believers, but only brought up as token road-blocks easily overcome and dismissed by the Christian expert witnesses.