Shai Reads The Case for Christ
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-02-2017, 01:52 PM
RE: Shai Reads The Case for Christ
(22-02-2017 10:57 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I'm really more appalled that they're still pushing this, "I was a skeptical atheist and then I researched The Truth™ and found Jayzus" line of propaganda.

Appalled? It's a good meme for the church. Bolsters belief. Implies that anyone who "examines the evidence" (of course only their approved stuff counts) and doesn't conclude Jesus is either a. super deluded to the point of idiocy b. cunningly doing the devil's work. Doesn't help that there are legions of dickheads out there preaching to church audiences about how "I used to be an atheist but after examining the evidence blah de fucken blah".

I had a mate who did a 3 year zoology degree and stood up on his hind legs in front of the church congregation to tell them that they could trust him that after having looked closely at it, evolution was bullshit - scientific consensus be damned, some fuckhead who's studied it for 3 years knows better Rolleyes Fucken ignorant twerp. I shoulda socked him one. Except he was a lot more ripped than me, so it woulda ended badly...

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like morondog's post
27-02-2017, 05:32 PM (This post was last modified: 27-02-2017 05:39 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Shai Reads The Case for Christ
(26-02-2017 01:52 PM)morondog Wrote:  I had a mate who did a 3 year zoology degree and stood up on his hind legs in front of the church congregation to tell them that they could trust him that after having looked closely at it, evolution was bullshit - scientific consensus be damned, some fuckhead who's studied it for 3 years knows better Rolleyes Fucken ignorant twerp. I shoulda socked him one. Except he was a lot more ripped than me, so it woulda ended badly...

You should have asked him how he could take even a Junior-level course in Invertebrate Zoology (the class, second only to Genetics that same year, that absolutely and utterly convinced me that evolution was unquestionably a clearly-visible* reality) and not realized that the evidence was beyond overwhelming for evolution.

Majoring in zoology should have been even more pro-evolution than generic biology!

I don't see how he could honestly come to the conclusion he did. You would have been better "socking him" with pointed questions about his conclusions and analysis of the evidence than hitting him with your fist.

* Edit to Add: I say "clearly visible" because, in Invertebrate Zoology, you study the many other phyla that make up the diversity of life on earth, and only at the end do you get to Vertebrata, the phylum that contains (among other things) the critters with bones. Along the way, you can see in those other phyla--in creatures that mostly still exist on the earth--the developmental stages of most of the systems that make up all modern-day animals, from the nephridic system (kidneys) to digestive tract to the "weighted nerve cord" that would develop into anterior brains atop a spinal cord. It's all there, and it's all still around to be examined. You can see that we inherited the same genes to do the same things. There is simply no way to deny this stack of evidence-- so much of it that I had a hard time getting a good grade in Invertebrate Zoology, since I don't memorize very well (good long-term memory but poor short-term) and there was so much of it. To have someone in that specific concentration say they reject evolution utterly floors me. It's "as plain as the nose on one's face", if you actually bother to look.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
27-02-2017, 09:04 PM
RE: Shai Reads The Case for Christ
Thanks Robvalue! And OrganicChemist, may have to give it a look! Smile

No update yet on our discussion, because my partner in literary crime has gone and developed the flu unfortunately. Sad Right now the limits of our conversations have been "my head hurts", "I don't think the Nyquil is working", and "I hate being sick".

Need to think of a witty signature.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Shai Hulud's post
28-02-2017, 01:02 AM
RE: Shai Reads The Case for Christ
(27-02-2017 05:32 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I don't see how he could honestly come to the conclusion he did.
Delusion is strong medicine.

Quote:You would have been better "socking him" with pointed questions about his conclusions and analysis of the evidence than hitting him with your fist.
But a. pointed questions etc would just make him more defensive. b. I would feel more satisfied hitting him... Not that I'm a violent man. Maybe I'd spill my chips on him and not apologise.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
01-03-2017, 01:48 PM
RE: Shai Reads The Case for Christ
(24-02-2017 11:27 PM)Shai Hulud Wrote:  Is every chapter going to start with this sort of heartstrings tugging story for you to be made emotionally weak in some manner prior to him spouting off his stuff?

Yes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
01-03-2017, 02:56 PM
RE: Shai Reads The Case for Christ
(23-02-2017 06:29 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  You can forgive someone easily for presenting logical fallacies first time round, they may have never thought about them before. But once you go through it in detail and they just ignore you, it becomes willful dishonesty, surely.

One of the most disheartening aspects of posting in the Amazon forums was how often theists ignored our very clear explanations of what we thought. The fact that we were atheists meant, to them, that nothing we said could be considered honest or accurate, even if we were describing our own opinions. Their prejudices overwhelmed most attempts at discussions. They were trying to convert us or drown out our voices. We were trying to convey accurate information about atheism. So we were at cross-purposes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Thoreauvian's post
01-03-2017, 03:13 PM
RE: Shai Reads The Case for Christ
(25-02-2017 12:22 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  I don't accept that anyone believes in Christianity on the strength of the "evidence" presented in the bible. They believe for altogether different reasons, and I respect people more when they just admit this rather than trying to cobble together a rational defense based on the bible. No one would ever pick up this book, without ever hearing about it, and go, "Seems legit, I'll believe all of this".

From our own personal experiences we know that Christians use social pressures, including the indoctrination of children, to gain converts. So it's straightforward to conclude that most Christians believe because they were taught to believe by such methods. The questionable rationalizations we hear therefore most likely come from people trying their best to make sense of what they were taught to believe early on, before their critical thinking skills were engaged.

If atheists used the same methods, as they likely do in China for instance, we could similarly conclude that such atheism would be more about rationalizing one's early training than about thinking through the issues in question.

In the end, it all comes down to what makes the most sense given what else we know. Not all that many people learn to evaluate such issues impartially, since cultural conditioning makes so many people into cogs in some machine.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Thoreauvian's post
01-03-2017, 03:33 PM
RE: Shai Reads The Case for Christ
Absolutely, yeah.

The thing is, you don't need to indoctrinate someone to produce an atheist. You just don't indoctrinate them not to be one.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Robvalue's post
01-03-2017, 07:20 PM
RE: Shai Reads The Case for Christ
(01-03-2017 03:33 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  The thing is, you don't need to indoctrinate someone to produce an atheist. You just don't indoctrinate them not to be one.

While I understand what you mean, I do think atheists greatly underestimate the amount of information and education it takes to be an atheist. After all, if you didn't know how big and how old the universe actually is, how evolution works, how the big bang and the stars created the elements, how chemical bonds work, how self-organization of material substances occur and so on, you might look at our highly evolved planet and assume it must have had a creator, then jump to all sorts of other conclusions because of that assumption.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Thoreauvian's post
05-03-2017, 07:10 PM
RE: Shai Reads The Case for Christ
Chapter Three: The Documentary Evidence or there's a reason after each chapter Steve Shives eyes look more and more dead inside after each chapter and I'm feeling it too, it's not like I ever wanted to be an Evangelical again or anything...

Chapter three begins with another pat on his own back, which is how he's responsible for photocopying the memos about the Ford Pinto killing people by exploding into a fiery mess. Anyhow, "When I hold a Bible in my hands, I essentially hold a copy of ancient historical records" - page 59. Umm...please...explain...this...Lee...then again, don't. You're an Evangelical who holds on the whole inerrancy thing.

I feel like page 60 is less of a biography and more of a product placement for Dr. Metzger's books on the New Testament, though must admit on page 61 to liking the guy as a person at least. Anyone who keeps the ashes of their work that was torched for being "Communist" is hilarious. Feel like I should elaborate on this point; apparently a Fundamentalist preacher torched one of the revised Bible editions one of Metzger's predecessors in his post had worked on, and they changed a single word in Hebrews from "fellows" to "comrades" and the Red Scare took over and a Bible got bonfired for being Communist.

Page 64, he's discussing how after the New Testament, the closest we have in sheer number is Homer with 650 fragments...but neglects to mention that writing was rather more prolific, centralized, and there was the combined effort of several civilizations (once Christianized) to preserving the thousands of Biblical fragments we have. He also mentions Josephus and how many different languages we have copies of his works in, but fails to mention that Josephus refers to Christ only as the One the Christians believe in.

One of thing of interest is that he notes a fragment of John, 5 verses in all, was dated back 60 years prior to the old understanding of when it was written, 160AD to 100AD, but then acts as if it's now a contemporary of Jesus. Considering Jesus is generally accepted to have died around 33AD, give or take a few years...not, really? (Also yes, I say 'generally' despite those who hold the Mythicist position.)

Page 71 he mentions the Jesus Seminar offhand, never to return to it again probably. And he does so in a manner that scoffs at them as liberal theologians who disagree with experts like his that he's interviewing, failing to acknowledge they are experts. He also blithely dismisses the Gospel of Thomas as being written far later, when in fact the dating of it is varied (as are the Gospels themselves) and is more likely excluded due to proceedings at the Council of Nicaea than anything else. It's also intriguing he tries downplay the slow acceptance of some books, like Revelation, as the early church being careful with the canon, rather than having things change over time.

Page 74 begins with, "Metzger had been persuasive. No serious doubts lingered concerning whether the New Testament's text had been reliably preserved through the centuries." This is a rather sweeping generalization of a statement and shows Strobel's intense level of bias. He also says "there has never been any serious dispute about the authoritative nature of twenty of the New Testament's twenty-seven books" and then brushes it aside that 1/9th of it has been challenged seriously.

When referring to other non-canonical works on page 75, he states that, they don't, "contribute anything meaningful to my investigation, having been written as late as the fifth and sixth centuries, and their often mythical qualities disqualify them from being historically credible." First, Lee...qualities and disqualify should not be directly adjacent in a sentence, the flow is screwed by it. Maybe this is just because I've been grading papers and I'm being pedantic, but still. Second, and darn you for making me take this position to be intellectually honest, but let's apply John Loftus's Outsider Test of Faith here, or as I like to call it, why the Catholic student group never invited me as a speaker ever again in grad school. There were too many mythical elements to be seriously considered in these things. This implies that even as a 'skeptical atheist' you were accepting a man dying and rising from the dead, endless food supplies, healings, and casting out of demons to not be overly mythical? Like I seriously don't get your viewpoint here. It's so intellectually confusing or dishonest as to make me facepalm. I'd actually respect you if you said "there were supernatural things in there, but I excluded them because of [insert decent intellectual reason]" instead; because dude, our faith isn't a fully natural based thing, there are supernatural events in the texts you defend! That's part of why one accepts things on faith. And you're essentially saying here, that you were already accepting things on faith, even though you claimed to not be.

Reading list is again, entirely pro-Strobel's position, and question section, sorry, "Deliberations" is slanted to be almost entirely one sided as long as no one raises any questions.

I apologize for not breaking this down, as in the previous section, by bolded subtitles in the chapter, but I had so little to say, and there was so little of substance, that it seemed to not be worth it for a few sentences for each section. Reading buddy and I should be talking about both chapters later tonight.

Need to think of a witty signature.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Shai Hulud's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: