Hello 2+2,

I usually only read posts on 2+2 because I spend the majority of my time on another site. But, I came across this sub-forum and thought I should put this out there. So, here is a rare post for me...

If you are honestly considering whether or not Jesus Christ was born, died, and rose again for your sins then please pm me your address and I will have a FREE copy of "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel shipped to you. This book was written by a former atheist and would probably answer a lot of questions you may have about Jesus Christ. Please only ask for a copy if you sincerely intend on reading it.

In addition, we can use this thread as a place for discussion about topics in the book or not in the book. I was ordained as a minister in 2002. Please keep in mind that I do not have every answer. But, I will do my best to get them for you.

Sincerely,


-YW

Disgusting.

Daniel Negreanu has been giving this book away for free for years. He sent me one at least 3-4 years ago.

Great book....most of Lee's have some great information in them.

love the highlighted "former atheist" cause this changes everything, once you turn Christian after being "atheist" this adds to the validity of his arguments and proves Jesus is real...

I thought the bible was the case for Christ.

Have you seen the movie version? I didn't think it was substantive at all. He went around interviewing exclusively Christians and they talked about Christianity as if it were obviously true. It's not unbiased, I mean.

Although the book probably contains actual arguments and not just appeals to emotion.

Hey, I never pass up a free book! (And there's this girl I really wish was not into moralistic religion...she's mentioned Strobel a few times, so I need a copy on hand to ensure my skepticism is targeted precisely.)

PM sent.

Case for Christ is really poor, even as apologetics go. Its laced with hasty conclusions, unsupported assertions, and very questionable logic (the "why die for a lie?" defense, which has been debunked on this very forum, is particularly shoddy). Strobel himself, as far as I'm concerned, crossed the line from apologist with an eye for history to a hard-core fundamentalist in Case for a Creator, which has a large section "critiquing" evolution and praising the "merits" of ID.

At the very least, though, the book features probably the worst-ever performance of forum-favorite William Lane Craig, who engages in probably the most awesome false dilemma fallacy of all time ("either Jesus' body was missing because there was no Jesus, or he was resurrected. The A is unlikely, therefore B." LOLs).

The movie was uninformative, although the book was more substantive.

From DN's blog:

I wonder if you order this book from this guy, does he send a bunch of door knockers to your house?

Well if you and five other people want the book but don't want to give this guy your address, you could order a six pack from Amazon and have everyone pitch in $4 for their copy.

http://outreachjudaism.org/mp3/Way_of_the_radio.mp3

MM

It does in fact increase the chances his arguments are valid (before you know what they are).

I'd actually be very interested in reading something from a "true" former atheist. But these people who just lived secular lifestyles during their early 20s do not qualify.

But then he'd just be swapping religions, rather than finding religion for the first time.

Makes me fearful of picking up an astrology book. The a-astrologists that became astrologers ....
Then there are the catholics that became Buddhists... hmmm
Oh, wait, maybe those are canceled by the Buddhists that became catholics.
Nah, I'm going back to "let me see the argument please" and not care if he was an skilled mathematician before he wrote the unibomber manifesto.

If you are a bookie taking bets before you or anyone else sees the argument you should shade the line if you find out the arguer is a convert. The other poster implied otherwise and he was wrong. Obviously I was speaking only in this technical sense, since Strobel once being an atheist shades my line very minutely.

Hey now. The Unabomber Manifesto made some reasonable points.

No it does not.. I can claim I was a buddhist without really understanding the position of buddhism and then become a christian and how does this add to the validity of my conversion.. adds nothing.. It's a different think when a physicist tells me something about physics and when a religious person tells me something about their conversion and presenting me with no evidence why his new position is valid..


Anyone read "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" Norman L. Geisler (Author), Frank Turek (Author), David Limbaugh (Foreword) ? It has some good reviews... considering reading it ..

You're adding details, though. Taking those other details into consideration, the expected validity of the arguments may be low. But that doesn't tell you how the detail of past atheism affects the situation (independent of these other factors).

The following is all I know about persons A and B:

Person A was once an atheist, is no longer an atheist, and has just made some arguments regarding religion.
Person B is not and has never been an atheist, and has just made similar arguments.

Whose arguments (absent all other information, remember) are more likely to be the smarter arguments?

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.. since i know he cannot present me with any , i will take his claims as seriously as anyone elses, hence i wouldn't take think his arguments have any more validity in his conversion..

going back to the example of Sklansky, if you are a bookie and someone comes in and tells you he can kick a ball 30 miles are you going to "shade the line?" in the favor of his claims? why would you , if you know his claims cannot be backed up by any evidence, since it's rather impossible to do so.

If he's willing to bet $1 million on his ability to kick the ball 3 miles I would obviously believe him more than someone who claims to but only bets $1.