All we ask is that just one theist pr...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#681 Sep 11, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
<quoted text>
I have often said, maybe not on this thread, but elsewhere, that religion IS bad. But Jesus did not establish a religion; He established a relationship and a one-and-only "way" to salvation. "Religion" is a manmade atrocity!
why do you lie so shamelessly?
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#682 Sep 11, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
<quoted text>
...religion IS bad.... "Religion" is a manmade atrocity!
Well, that much is right.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#683 Sep 11, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
<quoted text>
I have often said, maybe not on this thread, but elsewhere, that religion IS bad. But Jesus did not establish a religion; He established a relationship and a one-and-only "way" to salvation. "Religion" is a manmade atrocity!
PAUL man-made the Christian theology and RELIGION that you spout endlessly.

Virtually every point you make is a repetition of the religious dogma of the Paul religion you call "Christianity."

Jesus was a lifelong, Temple-sacrificing, Torah-observant Jew. That was his religion.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#684 Sep 11, 2013
http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/taylor-carrs-...

Taylor Carr's-Review-of-the-Case-for- Christ

...brief excerpts

When I was a young Christian seeking answers to questions of faith and struggling with challenges to my beliefs, The Case for Christ was the first recommendation I received that seemed like it might fit the bill.....an 'atheist' journalist's investigation into Christianity that resulted in his conversion.......Yet upon finishing my reading, I was left disappointed and disillusioned, because The Case for Christ is investigative writing at its worst.

.....it presents a terribly one-sided view of the discussion. Of all the scholars, historians, and experts that could have been interviewed, every single one of the thirteen featured in the book is an Evangelical Christian.

Strobel hand picks statements from a few skeptics to present to his conservative scholars, but much of the time the opposing view is given by the author himself, who often throws soft balls and sets up strawman arguments.

And what of the scholars consulted in The Case for Christ? Do they show an openness to all the facts or an aversion to uncomfortable ones? As already mentioned, all thirteen of them are Evangelical Christians, which provides a very narrow scope to begin with. But what's more is that Strobel assures us they are "leading authorities who have impeccable academic credentials" (p. 14). No attempt to justify this is made, perhaps because these are scholars of one particular denomination among the thousands within Christianity.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#685 Sep 11, 2013
Another Case not Made: A critique of Lee Strobel’s The Case for a Creator
http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/another-case-...

brief excerpts...

Strobel is overtly inflammatory when he writes that he chose experts who "refuse to limit themselves only to the politically correct world of naturalism and materialism." ..... Perhaps Strobel might have considered asking some scientists why supernatural explanations--even if true--do not generally make testable predictions, the first rule of science. The relevant issues here do not concern "political correctness," but a conflict between the inherent nature of science and supernatural explanations.

Strobel is frankly misleading about his experts' qualifications. While spending paragraphs touting each of his interviewees' "doctorate-level" educations, he fails to point out that most of them do not have doctorates in the fields dealing with the issues on which they were interviewed. Rather, most of them have doctorates in philosophy or theology, and perhaps undergraduate degrees in a related science. Strobel clearly meant to insinuate that he picked doctorate-level experts in the fields dealing with the issues they were interviewed about; but, with a few exceptions, this is not the case.

For the "Doubts about Darwinism" chapter, Strobel did interview a doctorate in a field relevant to the subject matter of the chapter. The interviewee, Dr. Jonathan Wells, has a doctorate in molecular biology from the University of California, Berkeley. But there is more to Wells' story than Strobel lets on.

Though Strobel reveals in a footnote that Wells is a member of Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church (the "Moonies"), he fails to mention that Moon funded Wells' doctoral studies for the express purpose of "destroying Darwinism." In "Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.," Wells writes:

Father's [Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.[1]

....Wells' motivation is certainly material to the claims that Strobel has made for his book. Imagine if an atheist wrote a book touted as a legitimate investigation into Christianity in which doctorates in Christian theology were interviewed, but failed to mention that one of his experts explicitly stated that he chose to pursue a doctorate in theology in order to "destroy Christianity." Certainly that would be relevant to assessing the impartiality of the expert chosen to represent a particular discipline.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#686 Sep 12, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
Funny in a way ... that is his best shot?
you always manage to beat yourself down further.
FollowerofChrist

Fairmont, WV

#687 Sep 12, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
You **had** to claim that-- your faith prevents you from actually **reading** his whole article.
And?
You are **lying**-- I looked, the site is not one you could "read a couple of his points"... it's too scholarly. After 15 minutes of looking it over, I was still only getting my feet wet-- and I had not really seen any major points.
That is not a criticism of the site-- it's an observation that the site is too deep for casual persual.
So you are **lying**-- you never even clicked on the link at **all**.
WHY DO YOU LIE IN SUCH AN OBVIOUS WAY?
I read what I needed to read to see that he was completely wrong on those particular points. If he's that far off on a couple points, then he's probably off on most or even all of the rest of it.

And as to my faith dictating what I must say/do, my faith allows me to know what is correct so that I can reason what is false. THAT is how I know his writing is erroneous, and it is the difference between me and you, since you only spout what you have had drilled into your head by other atheists, probably without even ever questioning/verifying any of it!
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#688 Sep 12, 2013
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/...

[Rebutting Lee Strobel's] The Case for a Creator: Atheistic Meteorology

[Creationists] demand scientific validation of their beliefs, demand that God be not just possible but necessary. But the question suggests itself – why, then, do they focus their ire on evolution? Doesn’t every other branch of science partake of the same atheistic, purposeless, undirected explanations that Strobel finds so distasteful?

After all, doesn’t geology teach that earthquakes and volcanoes occur due to the grinding of the Earth’s tectonic plates, and not because of God’s wrath against sinners? Doesn’t meteorology teach that lightning results from the buildup of electric potential around tall objects during thunderstorms, rather than resulting from divine smiting of the ungodly? Doesn’t quantum physics teach that atomic nuclei undergo radioactive decay at random times, and not when God sovereignly wills?
None of these branches of science clearly indicate the fingerprint of God, but insist that the natural phenomena they study are random and undirected, occurring without discernible plan or purpose. Aren’t they therefore opposed to an active, creative deity every bit as much as evolution is?

This is Strobel’s dilemma: he’s set himself not just against evolution, but against all of science. He demands that science pay proper deference to his religious beliefs, and when it stubbornly persists in discovering natural phenomena that occur without the need for divine intervention, he denounces it as the tool of atheists. It may only be when it comes to evolution that he perceives the conflict, but the problem is all around him whether he recognizes it or not.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#689 Sep 12, 2013
A chapter by chapter refutation of "Case for a Creator:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#690 Sep 12, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
<quoted text>
I read what I needed to read to see that he was completely wrong on those particular points.
Yet-- you cannot mention either one of those "points" you allegedly "read".

Riiiiiight.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#691 Sep 12, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
If he's that far off on a couple points, then he's probably off on most or even all of the rest of it.
A couple of "points" which you never actually ....**read*** at **all**...

<laughing my azz off at your LIES>

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#692 Sep 12, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
And as to my faith dictating what I must say/do, my faith allows me to know what is correct so that I can reason what is false.
Translation: you are so deeply brainwashed, you cannot see actual **reality** even if presented in the simplest of terms.

Sad for you.
FollowerofChrist wrote:
THAT is how I know his writing is erroneous,
SO YOU ADMIT YOU NEVER EVEN CLICKED ON THE LINK AT ALL.

Liar.
FollowerofChrist

Fairmont, WV

#693 Sep 13, 2013
Gillette wrote:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/d aylightatheism/2009/04/cfac-at heist-meteorology/
[Rebutting Lee Strobel's] The Case for a Creator: Atheistic Meteorology
[Creationists] demand scientific validation of their beliefs, demand that God be not just possible but necessary. But the question suggests itself – why, then, do they focus their ire on evolution? Doesn’t every other branch of science partake of the same atheistic, purposeless, undirected explanations that Strobel finds so distasteful?
After all, doesn’t geology teach that earthquakes and volcanoes occur due to the grinding of the Earth’s tectonic plates, and not because of God’s wrath against sinners? Doesn’t meteorology teach that lightning results from the buildup of electric potential around tall objects during thunderstorms, rather than resulting from divine smiting of the ungodly? Doesn’t quantum physics teach that atomic nuclei undergo radioactive decay at random times, and not when God sovereignly wills?
None of these branches of science clearly indicate the fingerprint of God, but insist that the natural phenomena they study are random and undirected, occurring without discernible plan or purpose. Aren’t they therefore opposed to an active, creative deity every bit as much as evolution is?
This is Strobel’s dilemma: he’s set himself not just against evolution, but against all of science. He demands that science pay proper deference to his religious beliefs, and when it stubbornly persists in discovering natural phenomena that occur without the need for divine intervention, he denounces it as the tool of atheists. It may only be when it comes to evolution that he perceives the conflict, but the problem is all around him whether he recognizes it or not.
This is an entirely fallacious argument. The Bible specifically states that God created the universe and life in a certain, miraculous way, and evo undermines that assertion. There is no argument that other forces/aspects of nature go about their ways without God’s direct influence (though He can certainly use them when He so chooses). Yes, plates shift and lightening strikes without God needing to direct them, but there is nothing in the Bible that is challenged by such facts. However, God’s creation is directly attacked by evo! Typical logically fallacious arguments from typically incompetent atheists!
FollowerofChrist

Fairmont, WV

#694 Sep 13, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
PAUL man-made the Christian theology and RELIGION that you spout endlessly.
Virtually every point you make is a repetition of the religious dogma of the Paul religion you call "Christianity."
Jesus was a lifelong, Temple-sacrificing, Torah-observant Jew. That was his religion.
Paul didn't create Christianity; He taught what the Holy Spirit guided him to teach. And he was only one of the authors of the NT.
FollowerofChrist

Fairmont, WV

#695 Sep 13, 2013
Gillette wrote:
http://www.caseagainstfaith.co m/taylor-carrs-review-of-the-c ase-for-christ.html
Taylor Carr's-Review-of-the-Case-for- Christ
...brief excerpts
When I was a young Christian seeking answers to questions of faith and struggling with challenges to my beliefs, The Case for Christ was the first recommendation I received that seemed like it might fit the bill.....an 'atheist' journalist's investigation into Christianity that resulted in his conversion.......Yet upon finishing my reading, I was left disappointed and disillusioned, because The Case for Christ is investigative writing at its worst.
.....it presents a terribly one-sided view of the discussion.(1) Of all the scholars, historians, and experts that could have been interviewed, every single one of the thirteen featured in the book is an Evangelical Christian.
Strobel hand picks statements from a few skeptics to present to his conservative scholars, but much of the time the opposing view is given by the author himself, who often throws soft balls and sets up strawman arguments.(2)
And what of the scholars consulted in The Case for Christ? Do they show an openness to all the facts or an aversion to uncomfortable ones? As already mentioned, all thirteen of them are Evangelical Christians, which provides a very narrow scope to begin with. But what's more is that Strobel assures us they are "leading authorities who have impeccable academic credentials" (p. 14). No attempt to justify this is made,(3) perhaps because these are scholars of one particular denomination among the thousands within Christianity.
(1) Well of course it is going to be one-sided, what good would it have done to get atheists' or agnostics' POV about a Christian subject?! Would any atheist use a Christian source to try to provide evidence for Madalyn Murray O'Hair, Bertrand Russell or Richard Dawkins?

(2) Um, because the opposition typically only HAS straw-men and softballs to offer!!

(3) Why would he need to justify his sources' credentials? Are they not named? Could one not easily verify them himself?
FollowerofChrist

Fairmont, WV

#696 Sep 13, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation: you are so deeply brainwashed, you cannot see actual **reality** even if presented in the simplest of terms.
Sad for you.
<quoted text>
SO YOU ADMIT YOU NEVER EVEN CLICKED ON THE LINK AT ALL.
Liar.
It is soooo funny to hear an atheist call a Christian "brainwashed." Talk about the pot calling out the kettle!

“Fortes Fortuna Juvat, ”

Since: Dec 09

Wichita. Ks.

#697 Sep 13, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
<quoted text>
It is soooo funny to hear an atheist call a Christian "brainwashed." Talk about the pot calling out the kettle!
why?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#698 Sep 13, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
<quoted text>
This is an entirely fallacious argument. The Bible specifically states that God created the universe and life in a certain, miraculous way, and evo undermines that assertion.
Correct.

Proof-positive your bible is wrong.

Good!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#699 Sep 13, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
<quoted text>
Paul didn't create Christianity; He taught what the Holy Spirit guided him to teach. And he was only one of the authors of the NT.
According to?

Your BuyBull(bible)! LOL!

And we have **already** proven your BuyBull(bible) is wrong, sooo...

... you cannot use the BuyBull(bible) to prove the BuyBull(bible)...

Silly!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#700 Sep 13, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
<quoted text>
It is soooo funny to hear an atheist call a Christian "brainwashed." Talk about the pot calling out the kettle!
You are so brainwashed? You cannot recognize anyone who isn't.

Sad.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 31 min Dogen 61,390
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Aura Mytha 28,322
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 14 hr Dogen 2,687
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) Fri IB DaMann 5,970
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) Mar 22 Eagle 12 452
Deconversion Mar 20 Eagle 12 138
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) Mar 18 Eagle 12 2,043
More from around the web