Atheist George H. Smith afraid of Christian Lee Strobel?

[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]

Originally posted by 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?

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]

Originally posted by 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.

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]

Originally posted by Daggah
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.
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.

[Jack the Bodiless]

It's also possible that Smith "refused" to debate Strobel for the same reason that Stephen J. Gould "refused" to debate Kent Hovind.

Hovind claimed victory by default when Gould didn't show. Hovind had ensured this outcome by simply not inviting Gould to the debate. As Gould said afterwards, "I have never heard of the man".

I'm not saying this IS the reason, but I haven't yet encountered any limit to the depths of duplicity that certain Christian apologists will sink to.

[Harrumphrey]

Originally posted by Fiach
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.

I agree with you. Even if you succeeded in putting an idea in a theist's brain, you can't change the brain itself. The intellectual power required to think rationally and evade the psychological seductions of religion must be self-sustaining and inherent. Debating is pointless, you're right, excepting that it can be therapeutic as well as good mental exercise because it forces one to examine, refine and sharpen one's own thoughts and arguments.

[Gooch's dad]

So some pastor claimed that Smith refused a debate?

YAWN

Genesis, do you happen to have a better source for this claim than a pastor claiming this? I could find no reference on the web for anything about Smith refusing a debate with Strobel.

[Rhea]

I like the debates best in writing. To weed out the pollution as described above by audience "participation".

When a question is dodged in writing, the question remains, dangling like a signal flag on a ship. It can't be ignored, it must be addressed. Hubris is exposed by it's own glaring discord. Qotes can be justaposed with rebuttals - and with themselves. Handwaving, distraction, smoke and mirrors - all are hamstrung by the opportunity to reply to a written account.

Yes, a written debate is worth a hundred oral ones, IMO. An oral presentation of a written debate would be a grand thing.

[Beetle]

Originally posted by Fiach
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. I don't think the point of the debate is to change the thinking of the opponent. The attainable objective is to stir thinking in the audience. If that were truly pointless, there wouldn't be so many deconversion stories in the secular lifestyle forums.

[stryder2112]

Originally posted by 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.

Well, here are a number of highly unflattering reviews at the sec web:

here (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html), here (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_doland/strobel.html), and here. (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/kyle_gerkin/objections_sustained/index.shtml)

Stryder

[Fiach]

Originally posted by Beetle
I don't think the point of the debate is to change the thinking of the opponent. The attainable objective is to stir thinking in the audience. If that were truly pointless, there wouldn't be so many deconversion stories in the secular lifestyle forums.

That is interesting and enlightening. I saw the overwhelming Christian majority applauding the Fundy's barmy arguments and booing the Atheists cool rationality as frustrating. I admit I had not considered that the few Atheists allowed were irrelevent. What is important is that a several hundred fundies heard rational arguments for the first time. Or second time, and this could precipitate thinking. Thinking is the greatest enemy of fundamentalism and indeed of religion in general.

Good counterpoint.

Fiach

[Drew J]

I think perhaps this (http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_BAE.html) is why Smith declined.
And maybe also this (http://www.exchangedlife.com/skeptic/freethnk.htm) site also which talks about an alleged fine tuner.

[Yahzi]

Some writer in Free Inquirey (?Richard Dawkins?) discussed why debating with Christians is a waste of time and circumstances are stacked.
Micheal Shermer, of Skeptic Magazine, disagreed with him. Right up until he had his own debate with Dr. Kent "Dino" Hovind. And now he says the same exact thing you (and everybody else) says.

Skeptics are not afraid to debate theologians, creationists, etc. They do debate them, constantly: it's called science. It's the religious ones that recognize they are being crushed in that arena, and want a change of venue.

[Yahzi]

I think perhaps this (http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_BAE.html) is why Smith declined.
From that link:

I readily admit to ignoring this debate [on the existance of God], and taking for granted here a stance of basic Christian theism, and I make no apologies for this.

Hard to debate with that, isn't it?

[Yahzi]

[URL=http://www.exchangedlife.com/

From that site, on Noah's Ark:

...and it is also a fact that if you leave dogs to interbreed they will return to the common ancestor
:eek:

How can you possibly argue with someone this stupid?

As far as feeding each animal, that is also unnecessary. Observe wild animals during storms. Do you ever see birds flying and singing during a violent storm? Animals naturally find shelter and become dormant during adverse conditions.
Apparently you don't need to feed or water animals for forty days if there is a constant storm.

Hopefully this idiot isn't actually allowed to own animals.

And people wonder why we don't debate them?

[Newton Joseph]

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?

More propaganda from the religious right. Did your pastor read ‘Atheism a case against Go?’ Do you want to bet?
'This sounds like death bed confessions" by atheists
Christians will lie and distort information to gain favor they cannot be trusted

[Newton Joseph]

Some They dance around that and try to divert the argument into the worn out "Can a Boeing 747 assemble itself?" It isgatherer in Borneo.

Fiach


It this Christian saying that God built the 747s?
Your example proves my point. I think Christians have a thinking disorder (mentally disturbed)
:rolleyes:

[Drew J]

Please understand I own Smith's book and like it very much. I was just throwing those links out and playing devil's advocate.