Atheist Scientists Who Haven't Studied The Bible

[David Sklansky]

Several posters have brought up the point that even if brilliant people are more likely to be correct about subjects they have studied, few have studied the Bible and other pieces of evidence regarding Judaism and Christianity.

But that point is pretty irrelevant unless those posters believe that many of these brilliant atheists would change their tune if they did undertake such studies. Do they really think that?

[txag007]

Yes.

[arahant]

Didn't see that coming.
Kind of a pointless question.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

so take the "brilliant atheists" and take all of the ones who HAVE "undertake[n] such studies"

have "many" of them "change[d] their tune?"

surely you would agree that the answer is NO..right? (I obviously don't know this for sure depending on what "many" means, but I don't think many people would think otherwise..although I'm sure you might.)

so why is that? "hardened hearts?"...I find it hard to believe that those who have actively pursued such studies would be more likley than the average to suffer from the hardened heart syndrome.

on a side note...txag, do you ever feel like you are just spitting out the answer that a good follower of Christ would be expected to spit out, rather than actually forming your own opinion..because I can't see how reasonable person can give the answer of "yes" to that unless the above is the case

[BluffTHIS!]

Reading the Bible or Torah alone isn't sufficient as far as studying the subject, though I don't mean they need to take Pascal's Wager as far as actually living the religious life for a year. As far as the numbers who would change their tune if they did a more thorough study that I am talking about, it wouldn't IMO be any greater or smaller than for the percent of the population overall who comes to religious belief when not previously having same. But nonetheless, that number of them would be significant enough to notice and thus invalidate your argument. Remember that even with a more "liberal" standard for salvation that I have put forward as to sincere non-believers who follow the golden rule/natural law, I still don't believe a majority of men will actually be saved, primarily because of not following the part of the rule/law about helping those less fortunate than them, even if it would mean living a lesser lifestyle as a result.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder if you will enjoy our Bible Study thread that starts tomorrow...

[txag007]

I can think of several athiests who set out to prove the Bible false only to end up becoming a christian because God used that endevour to draw them to Him.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
I can think of several athiests who set out to prove the Bible false only to end up becoming a christian...

[/ QUOTE ]

how can you not see how worthless that statement is?

what % would you guess have had that result?

there is certainly a much greater % that have not become Christians

[ QUOTE ]
...because God used that endevour to draw them to Him.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's certainly just speculation..and is in any event not relevent to this particular discussion.

--it is certainly easy to say that those who have become christians were led by god in that way, and those who did not were not led by god in that way or didn't try hard enough or have hardened hearts or don't want to accept the truth...

still, these would not affect the argument

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't see that coming.
Kind of a pointless question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pardon the off-topic, but, arahant,

You are the spam, spam, eggs and spam of the frivolous, irrelevant reply.

Will you please make way for the customary heavyweight discourse of SMP and stop wasting bandwidth with silly garbage that is hardly worthy of a landfill? There are people here who are trying to write.

Thank you,

A Concerned Contributor

[JayTee]

[ QUOTE ]
I can think of several athiests who set out to prove the Bible false only to end up becoming a christian because God used that endevour to draw them to Him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone who sets out to "prove" the bible false probably isn't brilliant.

If anything, I would imagine that a brilliant person's atheism would be more likely to be reinforced after studying the bible. I wouldn't consider myself brilliant, but I am definately more intelligent than most of my peers and this is the effect it had on me.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Didn't see that coming.
Kind of a pointless question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pardon the off-topic, but, arahant,

You are the spam, spam, eggs and spam of the frivolous, irrelevant reply.

Will you please make way for the customary heavyweight discourse of SMP and stop wasting bandwidth with silly garbage that is hardly worthy of a landfill? There are people here who are trying to write.

Thank you,

A concerned contributor

[/ QUOTE ]

You've been making these types of posts a lot lately. Consider what this may be reflecting about yourself.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Didn't see that coming.
Kind of a pointless question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pardon the off-topic, but, arahant,

You are the spam, spam, eggs and spam of the frivolous, irrelevant reply.

Will you please make way for the customary heavyweight discourse of SMP and stop wasting bandwidth with silly garbage that is hardly worthy of a landfill? There are people here who are trying to write.

Thank you,

A concerned contributor

[/ QUOTE ]

aharant seems to me to be one of the most thorough and conscientious posters in this forum..not that his post in this thread isn't an exception. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Didn't see that coming.
Kind of a pointless question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pardon the off-topic, but, arahant,

You are the spam, spam, eggs and spam of the frivolous, irrelevant reply.

Will you please make way for the customary heavyweight discourse of SMP and stop wasting bandwidth with silly garbage that is hardly worthy of a landfill? There are people here who are trying to write.

Thank you,

A concerned contributor

[/ QUOTE ]

You've been making these types of posts a lot lately. Consider what this may be reflecting about yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Progress, no doubt, but it's been rough going.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Didn't see that coming.
Kind of a pointless question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pardon the off-topic, but, arahant,

You are the spam, spam, eggs and spam of the frivolous, irrelevant reply.

Will you please make way for the customary heavyweight discourse of SMP and stop wasting bandwidth with silly garbage that is hardly worthy of a landfill? There are people here who are trying to write.

Thank you,

A concerned contributor

[/ QUOTE ]

aharant seems to me to be one of the most thorough and conscientious posters in this forum..not that his post in this thread isn't an exception. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree somewhat, though he could stand improvement. For this reason I am holding him after school.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Didn't see that coming.
Kind of a pointless question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pardon the off-topic, but, arahant,

You are the spam, spam, eggs and spam of the frivolous, irrelevant reply.

Will you please make way for the customary heavyweight discourse of SMP and stop wasting bandwidth with silly garbage that is hardly worthy of a landfill? There are people here who are trying to write.

Thank you,

A Concerned Contributor

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I got that from you. If you start off looking at my early posts here, you'll see that i started off contributing clear and cogent arguments. I gradually realized that people like you and txag are just flat out [censored] idiots, totally incapable of realizing when their assertions or arguments have been refuted. I still respond with arguments when i see a new one, but "Yes" hardly qualifies as a response worth more than the reply i gave it.

You, in particular, post almost exclusively non-sensical one line responses to posts. In fact, as you'll recall, you even responded to a complete nonsense post. So, until you can manage to make a meaningful post of your own, it would be prudent to stfu on the quality of others'.

Thank You.

Edit: But you do have a point. I will make a resolution to abstain if my only response is smart-ass. TY (and slightly more sincerely) for pointing that out.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But that point is pretty irrelevant unless those posters believe that many of these brilliant atheists would change their tune if they did undertake such studies. Do they really think that?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know how many would become Christians. Some probably would. Some would no doubt change their attitude toward Christianity. Some would remain hostile. The issue isn't whether they would be convinced by the evidence, but whether they "ought" to be, which is only relevant if they have examined the evidence and then state why they reject it.

The real point is there is no substance to an attack on Christianity in citing an unamed group of "smart" people who reject it and claiming that is some kind of cogent argument.

The most objectionable part is your allegation that Christians are stupid for believing in, e.g., the resurrection simply because "smart" people don't.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
Reading the Bible or Torah alone isn't sufficient as far as studying the subject, though I don't mean they need to take Pascal's Wager as far as actually living the religious life for a year. As far as the numbers who would change their tune if they did a more thorough study that I am talking about, it wouldn't IMO be any greater or smaller than for the percent of the population overall who comes to religious belief when not previously having same. But nonetheless, that number of them would be significant enough to notice and thus invalidate your argument. Remember that even with a more "liberal" standard for salvation that I have put forward as to sincere non-believers who follow the golden rule/natural law, I still don't believe a majority of men will actually be saved, primarily because of not following the part of the rule/law about helping those less fortunate than them, even if it would mean living a lesser lifestyle as a result.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without going into TOO much detail, what do you think a skeptic should look at (given that the bible etc aren't sufficient)? Are there particular scholarly books that would be appropriate? I don't think talking to religious people, or living in a monastery, for example, would be applicable...If you give me something moderately accesible, i'll check it out.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Without going into TOO much detail, what do you think a skeptic should look at (given that the bible etc aren't sufficient)?


[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible "ought" to be sufficient, however, if you want to study some of the issues outside the Bible I can recommend as a starting point Josh McDowell's book Evidence That Demands a Verdict. You should understand that the book itself isn't designed to win people to Christ as is. It's basically a compilation of evidences with some brief discussion and is intended as a guide for Christians concerning what are the evidences and how to handle them. I find it very useful as a reference - it has an enormous bibliography for more detailed study, and it organizes the materials well, helping to identify the issues and some of the answers to non-Christians questions. For instance, it has an excellent introduction to the question of canonicity, that is, how did the Bible get put together in the first place?

On a side note, McDowell himself was a very hostile atheist in his college days in the 50's and was challenged to investigate for himself. He finally did so and became a Christian, and has spent his life dealing with evidentiary questions.

You should also note that the book is not intended as a scholarly academic work. The bibio contains a wealth of works of that kind, but this book is really more of a notebook, a kind of summary reference book.

[BluffTHIS!]

arahant,

Actually some of it would on be "moderately" accessible, but in addition to the bible would be scholarly theological commentary (which often involves facility in latin in many cases and another foreign language), general philosoply of religion, and actually reading the experiences of believers and their experience of the faith. Also included would be examinations of the claims of miraculous occurances, especially Marian ones like the miracle of the sun at Fatima (reported by anti-church newspapers as being seen miles away), and scientific examinations of the tilma of Guadelupe.

[MidGe]

Reading and studying the bible was greatly instrumental in my rejection of christian religion. I heartily recommend it to any one that has a minimal amount of intellectual capabilities and some compassion and understanding of the human condition.

[BluffTHIS!]

The OT gives anyone a very good understanding of the human condition and the NT gives them one of how to correct the negative aspects of same. The statement in Ecclesiastes that "there is nothing new under the sun" especially about the human condidtion rings true.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
The statement in Ecclesiastes that "there is nothing new under the sun" especially about the human condidtion rings true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. I am sure it is loud ringing too. From my observations, nothings stay the same or endures, nothing recurs. Luckily!

[txag007]

It's not speculation. You see, I have an advantage: I know Him. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
but I am definately more intelligent than most of my peers

[/ QUOTE ]
1. How do you know?

2. Reading comprehension isn't everything.

[txag007]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showth...rue#Post8254922 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Board=scimathphil&Number=82 54922&Searchpage=1&Main=8254922&Words=+txag007&top ic=&Search=true#Post8254922)

[BluffTHIS!]

arahant,

I want to add one more item to the list I gave earlier in regards to philosophy of religion. By this I don't mean only such writings by Christian theologians/philosophers, but also by some non-christians ones, especially Aristotle. Aristotles philosophy is the groundwork on which Aquinas built his rational arguements for the existence of God. I should note that this is a big difference between catholicism and fundamentalist protestantism, as catholicism teaches that there should be no conflict between reason and faith, and as a corollary, nor should there be between science and faith. This is crucial to understanding much of the basis for divergent theological views between catholicism and protestantism.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
arahant,

I want to add one more item to the list I gave earlier in regards to philosophy of religion. By this I don't mean only such writings by Christian theologians/philosophers, but also by some non-christians ones, especially Aristotle. Aristotles philosophy is the groundwork on which Aquinas built his rational arguements for the existence of God. I should note that this is a big difference between catholicism and fundamentalist protestantism, as catholicism teaches that there should be no conflict between reason and faith, and as a corollary, nor should there be between science and faith. This is crucial to understanding much of the basis for divergent theological views between catholicism and protestantism.

[/ QUOTE ]

The absence of anything approaching a slam dunk in this regard is conspicuous, because if there was a clearly articulable and cogent refutation of the existence of God, the constant going on about the issue could be summed up in a fortune cookie, but there's no such.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible "ought" to be sufficient

[/ QUOTE ]

If the bible is sufficient evidence, how is the Koran not equally sufficient? Maybe I'm retreading old points here but I've yet to hear a good answer on this from you folks.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Bible "ought" to be sufficient

[/ QUOTE ]

If the bible is sufficient evidence, how is the Koran not equally sufficient? Maybe I'm retreading old points here but I've yet to hear a good answer on this from you folks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure I'll give you one. The NT, while building on and departing from the OT in the sense of a new interpretation, didn't actually deny the OT as to basic theology (up to that point), but just as to various religious practices that were replaced/done away with. Whereas the Koran purportedly builds on the bible but in so doing denies the assertions of same that Jesus is God/saviour and only a prophet, and thus a lying twisting/perversion of same. PLUS the Koran was written by a pedophile with the result that Shari'a Islamic countries like Iran have an age of marriage for girls of NINE YEARS OLD (yeah yeah yeah save the "they don't really screw 'em til they're older crap, cuz blood flowing at 12 is still too young).

[David Sklansky]

"The most objectionable part is your allegation that Christians are stupid for believing in, e.g., the resurrection simply because "smart" people don't."

Are you saying that because smart people probably haven't studied the issue?

Or are you saying that my allegation remains objectionable even if I restricted it to smart people who have studied?

If the second statement is still objectionable to you, would it remain objectionable, if the the word resurrection was replaced by, say, "global warming"

I'm asking only because I want to clarify your position.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If the second statement is still objectionable to you, would it remain objectionable, if the the word resurrection was replaced by, say, "global warming"


[/ QUOTE ]

Would it matter to you if the scientist studying global warming worked for Exxon? What if he worked for Greenpeace?

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If the second statement is still objectionable to you, would it remain objectionable, if the the word resurrection was replaced by, say, "global warming"


[/ QUOTE ]

Would it matter to you if the scientist studying global warming worked for Exxon? What if he worked for Greenpeace?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a key difference is....
If I asked a person on either side of the debate to list their evidence pro or against the liklihood of global warming existing...

Then asked a person to list their evidence that Jesus died and was resurrected...

Smart people pro or against global warming can fill a library with information and research supporting their case.

People who believe in the ressurection pretty much just take the word of a more primitive tribe of man a couple of thousand years ago and the word of their parents who told them what religion they would 'believe.'

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
arahant,

I want to add one more item to the list I gave earlier in regards to philosophy of religion. By this I don't mean only such writings by Christian theologians/philosophers, but also by some non-christians ones, especially Aristotle. Aristotles philosophy is the groundwork on which Aquinas built his rational arguements for the existence of God. I should note that this is a big difference between catholicism and fundamentalist protestantism, as catholicism teaches that there should be no conflict between reason and faith, and as a corollary, nor should there be between science and faith. This is crucial to understanding much of the basis for divergent theological views between catholicism and protestantism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see your general point, but can you be more specific? I mean, surely you don't actually read ancient greek (or maybe you do...) so I assume you haven't read those. Somewhere out there there must be a few books that cover large parts of this material with a view toward theology. If i search on amazon for any of this, I get loads and loads of stuff, and I'm really not interested in reading 40 books on theology at the moment /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

People who believe in the ressurection pretty much just take the word of a more primitive tribe of man a couple of thousand years ago and the word of their parents who told them what religion they would 'believe.'


[/ QUOTE ]

The issue is whether there's evidence for or against the resurrection. Many people believe in global warming because the media tells them it's true. Many disbelieve because talk radio tells them it's false.

It's perfectly ok to form some beliefs based on concensus or other reasons. It makes no difference whatsover to this world, to this country, or even to me whether or not I believe in global warming. It makes all the difference in the world to me whether or not I believe in Christ.

And there is evidence for the resurrection. If a scientist making a scientific statement asserts that the resurrection definitely didn't happen, if 10,000 scientists agree with that conclusion, I want to know the basis for their opinion.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The statement in Ecclesiastes that "there is nothing new under the sun" especially about the human condidtion rings true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. I am sure it is loud ringing too. From my observations, nothings stay the same or endures, nothing recurs. Luckily!

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn’t Heraclitus and Parmenides have this “discussion” a few thousand years ago?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not speculation. You see, I have an advantage: I know Him. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

so do I..and He told me that what you said is not true

thank you for contributing nothing

[JayTee]

[ QUOTE ]
If a scientist making a scientific statement asserts that the resurrection definitely didn't happen, if 10,000 scientists agree with that conclusion, I want to know the basis for their opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the statement was supportive of the resurrection, would you be as demanding for an explanation?

[JayTee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but I am definately more intelligent than most of my peers

[/ QUOTE ]
1. How do you know?

2. Reading comprehension isn't everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Some things are blatantly obvious.

2. True. I guess it's easier to believe in the Bible when one doesn't understand it.

[David Sklansky]

I will make my question clearer. If 100 randomly chosen brilliant people are very sure of a subject that they have studied thoroughly, don't I have a right to conclude that those who disagree with them are probably wrong?

And if that subject happens to be the ressurection is that any reason to think differently?

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
I can think of several athiests who set out to prove the Bible false only to end up becoming a christian because God used that endevour to draw them to Him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can also think of several former believers that looked a little harder at their own religion and realized it didn't really make sense to them at all.

http://www.amazon.com/s/105-7100716-1226...Barker%2C%20Dan (http://www.amazon.com/s/105-7100716-1226819?ie=UTF8&index=books&rank=-relevance%2C%2Bavailability%2C-daterank&field-author-exact=Barker%2C%20Dan)

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
And there is evidence for the resurrection. If a scientist making a scientific statement asserts that the resurrection definitely didn't happen, if 10,000 scientists agree with that conclusion, I want to know the basis for their opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is coming up a lot on this forum. Can some people from both sides give us their evidence for and against the resurrection? Thanks!

[David Sklansky]

The biggest evidence against is something chezlaw and lucky me don't accept.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Can some people from both sides give us their evidence for and against the resurrection? Thanks!


[/ QUOTE ]

I've mentioned this book a couple times already. McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict is a good starting point. One of my posts has a more complete description.

[MidGe]

David,

The OP's question seems a bit bizarre to me. Should we go further and ask about those scientists that haven't "studied" numerology or astrology. If they had to "study" all these things, or if it would be in any way warranted, they may not have enough time to concern themselves with their own sciences?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If the statement was supportive of the resurrection, would you be as demanding for an explanation?


[/ QUOTE ]

Why would I be? I already believe it. Would you be as willing to accept what they said?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If 100 randomly chosen brilliant people are very sure of a subject that they have studied thoroughly, don't I have a right to conclude that those who disagree with them are probably wrong?


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure.

[Carded]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If 100 randomly chosen brilliant people are very sure of a subject that they have studied thoroughly, don't I have a right to conclude that those who disagree with them are probably wrong?


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have the right to believe whatever.

IF your definition of ‘brilliant’ is for people excellent in logic and mathematics and the subject they were studying was highly artistic in nature.

I think the brilliant people are more likely to be wrong, even to the point of being more incompetent than the average person you could pull off the street.

[David Sklansky]

"IF your definition of ‘brilliant’ is for people excellent in logic and mathematics and the subject they were studying was highly artistic in nature.

I think the brilliant people are more likely to be wrong, even to the point of being more incompetent than the average person you could pull off the street."

Even if this were true it would be irrelevant to the subject at hand. Coming to a conclusion about a question that has a definite answer.

[oneeye13]

[ QUOTE ]
I can think of several athiests who set out to prove the Bible false only to end up becoming a christian because God used that endevour to draw them to Him.

[/ QUOTE ]

i too have several made up examples

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Can some people from both sides give us their evidence for and against the resurrection? Thanks!


[/ QUOTE ]

I've mentioned this book a couple times already. McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict is a good starting point. One of my posts has a more complete description.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll check it out, but I need to know something first. I did a 2+2 search for evidence posts, and found repeated use of the following three points:

[ QUOTE ]

If Jesus did not rise from the dead, how do you explain the following:

1. Jesus staked his entire ministry on the fact that he would rise from the dead. Why would he risk destroying the entire movement of Christianity on a false prophecy?

2. The tombs of other religious leaders are visited and worshipped by many each year. This is true of Buddha, Confusious, Muhammad, and Joseph Smith. Why is the same not true for Jesus?

3. The disciples hid following the arrest of Jesus for fear of being put to death. After the alleged resurrection, the disciples suddenly began to preach without fear of death. Why?


[/ QUOTE ]

Is this what the book is going to cover? If it is, I am not going to read it. Evidence in the form of "this doesn't make sense, how do you explain it otherwise?" is not evidence to me. Apologies if that's not what the book covers, but I need a clear answer about this before I start studying up.

TO EVERYONE: PLEASE don't reply either bashing or supporting the points listed above. I just want to know if there is compelling evidence beyond those main points, as they are the ones that are brought up the most on this forum.


~MagicMan

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
arahant,

I want to add one more item to the list I gave earlier in regards to philosophy of religion. By this I don't mean only such writings by Christian theologians/philosophers, but also by some non-christians ones, especially Aristotle. Aristotles philosophy is the groundwork on which Aquinas built his rational arguements for the existence of God. I should note that this is a big difference between catholicism and fundamentalist protestantism, as catholicism teaches that there should be no conflict between reason and faith, and as a corollary, nor should there be between science and faith. This is crucial to understanding much of the basis for divergent theological views between catholicism and protestantism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see your general point, but can you be more specific? I mean, surely you don't actually read ancient greek (or maybe you do...) so I assume you haven't read those. Somewhere out there there must be a few books that cover large parts of this material with a view toward theology. If i search on amazon for any of this, I get loads and loads of stuff, and I'm really not interested in reading 40 books on theology at the moment /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]


Aristotle for example wrote a lot of stuff. And no I don't read Greek, though I briefly studied Koine and mostly forgot it. Also most stuff has been translated into English, except for some stuff in latin. You can google and find a synopsis of Aristotle's works and find which ones deal with what. The Summa Theologica of Aquinas is a foundational theological work, and also available in good translations, especially the one by the English Domincian priests if you can find it. He somewhat uses the Socratic method of a format of asking and answering questions (which David does as well actually /images/graemlins/smile.gif ).

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can think of several athiests who set out to prove the Bible false only to end up becoming a christian because God used that endevour to draw them to Him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can also think of several former believers that looked a little harder at their own religion and realized it didn't really make sense to them at all.

http://www.amazon.com/s/105-7100716-1226...Barker%2C%20Dan (http://www.amazon.com/s/105-7100716-1226819?ie=UTF8&index=books&rank=-relevance%2C%2Bavailability%2C-daterank&field-author-exact=Barker%2C%20Dan)

[/ QUOTE ]

I was reading some of the reader reviewers. There appears to be quite a few former theists who loved the book.

Though my favorite review was by someone who didn't like the book.

[ QUOTE ]
It's really no surprise that Protestantism ultimately leads to existentialism and atheism. If only this man had seen the blatant evidence provided by Our Lady of Fatima and the many Eucharistic miracles throughout the ages.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's the interfaith rivalry I love so much!

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
i too have several made up examples

[/ QUOTE ]
Josh McDowell

Frank Harber

C.S. Lewis

Lee Strobel