Religion?

[pilyin 10+ year member]

what don't you like about it? i thought it was pretty good, an easy read, but u may need something on a higher level. that strobel book is mainly like a book for beginners. try ravi zachariasm alister mcgrath, r.c. sproul ( may be too light for u) or josh mcdowell

The Resurrection Factor might be more what you're looking for by him.

 

[FoxPro5 5,000+ posts]

2) Why does God care about us rather than all the stars and galaxies?

God doesn't care. He cannot both care and have be unconditional at the same time. Unconditional = no conditions. Caring is not an "act" of God, it's a confusion of the delusional God-believer.

3) You state God does not answer prayers.

God doesn't care. Pray all you want, you're only talking to yourself. By definition, God is no thing. If you want something to happen, pray to nothing. Some call this meditation. You can call it prayer if you want. In the end, it's just intention ruled in consequence by the Law of Attraction.

 

[FoxPro5 5,000+ posts]

The Christian/Catholic Church is the largest, weathiest corporation in the world. They have the most land and the most money out of anyone or any thing. Home is their very own, sovereign nation called the Vatican City.

Something this big took centuries of fear-based programing and murder to build. Boats this big do not like to be rocked.

The ideas in the Christian holy book are based on stories that have been told for thousands of years. There is nothing revolutionary or holy about the Bible. You are not special if you've read it.

Religion is not the creed you profess, it is the life you lead. Stop being religious and start living your own life accepting no less than 100% responsibility for your self.

 

[IamDeMan 5,000+ posts]

Wrong. My religion is much larger.

Meism is very big nowadays.

 

[FoxPro5 5,000+ posts]

It's not a religion, it's a business. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif No one cares about your religion until you get your checkbook out.

 

[IamDeMan 5,000+ posts]

True. Yours is probably larger too.

That's what I think, therefore tis fact.

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

what don't you like about it? i thought it was pretty good, an easy read, but u may need something on a higher level. that strobel book is mainly like a book for beginners. try ravi zachariasm alister mcgrath, r.c. sproul ( may be too light for u) or josh mcdowell

I'm actually at the chapter right now where he's interviewing Ravi Zachariasm //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

Anyways.....just a few of my issues thus far;

I don't agree with many of their leaps in logic or conclusions drawn from what they apparently consider to be logical progressions. For example, they consider the idea of god to be rational while dismissing some scientific ideas (such as a multiverse) as being irrational and improbable. How can you get anymore irrational and improbable than an omniscient, omnipotent supernatural intelligent creator //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif

Many of their arguments rely on faith-based events being held as "true". For example a couple chapters ago the main crux of pretty much the entire chapter relied on the Resurrection being a true event. Without that truth, their entire argument would fall apart. To summarize that chapter; "If the Resurrection is true, then obviously there is a god who can work supernatural, divine miracles."

Strobel pretends the book is written from an unbiased, investigative journalist POV. He opens with what he considers to be "damning" evidence against faith....and then pretty much gives up and plays along with their charades. The interviewee will give some subjective and/or fairly irrational or illogical response, and Strobel will simply reply with "That was some pretty solid evidence. It's all really starting to make sense to me now."

Also they use very subjective terms as "evidence". For example, one of the interviewee's kept using subjective terms and phrases like "many scientists are abandoning that theory" or "more and more scientists are realizing there's an Intelligent Designer." Really? Define "many more" for me. How many is "many more"? What are the statistics? Last statistics I saw showed that faith in scientists, while it existed, was quite scarce in relation to the number who were atheist. What little scientific evidence they have presented thus far does a very weak job of (or doesn't really at all) trying to support their claims.

Maybe, as you say, he's just not digging very deeply as this is supposed to be a "beginners guide". I don't know. But the only "case" The Case for Faith is making for me thus far is why I made the correct decision in becoming atheist //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

While I'm on the topic, I wish those who convert from atheism to Christianity would quit using that as some form of evidence. One of the quotes at the beginning of a chapter has someone labeled as an "atheist turned Christian" or something along those lines. And Strobel (and those who promote him) always promote his former atheism as some form of evidence for the "truth he speaks". I even believe right here on this forum someone once told me "yeah, well Lee used to be an atheist and now he's a Chrsitian...what do you think about that?!" That's not evidence of anything! I would gander a guess that the majority of atheist were at some point in their life trained under or followed some religion. Does their transition from faith to atheism prove there is no god?

 

[elementxero 10+ year member]

I'm actually at the chapter right now where he's interviewing Ravi Zachariasm //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif
Anyways.....just a few of my issues thus far;

I don't agree with many of their leaps in logic or conclusions drawn from what they apparently consider to be logical progressions. For example, they consider the idea of god to be rational while dismissing some scientific ideas (such as a multiverse) as being irrational and improbable. How can you get anymore irrational and improbable than an omniscient, omnipotent supernatural intelligent creator //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif

Many of their arguments rely on faith-based events being held as "true". For example a couple chapters ago the main crux of pretty much the entire chapter relied on the Resurrection being a true event. Without that truth, their entire argument would fall apart. To summarize that chapter; "If the Resurrection is true, then obviously there is a god who can work supernatural, divine miracles."

Strobel pretends the book is written from an unbiased, investigative journalist POV. He opens with what he considers to be "damning" evidence against faith....and then pretty much gives up and plays along with their charades. The interviewee will give some subjective and/or fairly irrational or illogical response, and Strobel will simply reply with "That was some pretty solid evidence. It's all really starting to make sense to me now."

Also they use very subjective terms as "evidence". For example, one of the interviewee's kept using subjective terms and phrases like "many scientists are abandoning that theory" or "more and more scientists are realizing there's an Intelligent Designer." Really? Define "many more" for me. How many is "many more"? What are the statistics? Last statistics I saw showed that faith in scientists, while it existed, was quite scarce in relation to the number who were atheist. What little scientific evidence they have presented thus far does a very weak job of (or doesn't really at all) trying to support their claims.

Maybe, as you say, he's just not digging very deeply as this is supposed to be a "beginners guide". I don't know. But the only "case" The Case for Faith is making for me thus far is why I made the correct decision in becoming atheist //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

While I'm on the topic, I wish those who convert from atheism to Christianity would quit using that as some form of evidence. One of the quotes at the beginning of a chapter has someone labeled as an "atheist turned Christian" or something along those lines. And Strobel (and those who promote him) always promote his former atheism as some form of evidence for the "truth he speaks". I even believe right here on this forum someone once told me "yeah, well Lee used to be an atheist and now he's a Chrsitian...what do you think about that?!" That's not evidence of anything! I would gander a guess that the majority of atheist were at some point in their life trained under or followed some religion. Does their transition from faith to atheism prove there is no god?

That sounds like a maddening read given that you cannot respond to the written word in real time, and can also be assured that someone, somewhere is reading that stuff, nodding, and breathing a sigh of relief that "Finally someone is explaining why my faith is correct!"

Oof. I would be clawing at my chair and taking swigs of bourbon between chapters.