Common theist argument: "You know, I used to be an atheist myself..."

[Keith&Co.]

But the reason that it works as rhetoric and a marketing tool is because people do actually buy these arguments. There is no reason to assume that Strobel is not actually one of these people. He says that he was once an atheist and is now a Christian and these types of arguments for Christianity are the reason why and there aren't any indications I've seen that this is a lie on his part. There is a rather large difference between accepting bad logic and being dishonest.

But it's not just bad logic. My impression of his descriptions of atheism are not aimed at anything except theist preconceptions and biases against atheists. It's atheist caricatures tailored for a prejudiced audience.
They work among certain people because they're targeted. And anyone not buying the tale is not the demographic, anyway.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But the reason that it works as rhetoric and a marketing tool is because people do actually buy these arguments. There is no reason to assume that Strobel is not actually one of these people. He says that he was once an atheist and is now a Christian and these types of arguments for Christianity are the reason why and there aren't any indications I've seen that this is a lie on his part. There is a rather large difference between accepting bad logic and being dishonest.

But it's not just bad logic. My impression of his descriptions of atheism are not aimed at anything except theist preconceptions and biases against atheists. It's atheist caricatures tailored for a prejudiced audience.
They work among certain people because they're targeted. And anyone not buying the tale is not the demographic, anyway.

OK, but what I'm missing is why it is that you believe that Strobel is not also part of that demographic?

He claims to be and given that there is a large set of people who view these arguments as convincing, it's safe to assume that there is a subset who were actually convinced by them. Why would one not just accept that Strobel is in that subset?

 

[Keith&Co.]

He claims to be and given that there is a large set of people who view these arguments as convincing, it's safe to assume that there is a subset who were actually convinced by them. Why would one not just accept that Strobel is in that subset?

Because those arguments are not actually convincing.
And not just 'they don't convince ME.' They're incomplete as arguments.
He writes books of rationalizations that appeal to people who already believe, with quotes from believer experts, and no chances for any atheist experts to critique 'the answers' to the questions.
But everyone pretends that they're compelling arguments, fully researched and reported in a balanced manner.

He's not one among peers, he's predating on that sort of Christain.

And the saddest part is that his readers don't understand that there are holes in the tales presented, like math problems with a text page missing. So they try to whip those out to convince their atheist or agnostic or Jewish friends and family, and are unprepared for questions, comments, or rebuttals.
But they don't see that Strobel let them down, they figure they presented it wrong, and fall back to "You should read The Case For Christ! It's all in there!"

 

[Wiploc]

OK, but what I'm missing is why it is that you believe that Strobel is not also part of that demographic?

He claims to be and given that there is a large set of people who view these arguments as convincing, it's safe to assume that there is a subset who were actually convinced by them. Why would one not just accept that Strobel is in that subset?

I'm not familiar with Strobel, but I am familiar with people lying about having been atheists.

One of their worst arguments is, "I used to be an atheist because I hated god and wanted to do evil things without being punished by god."

If Strobel's arguments are of that quality, then he wasn't an atheist. He's just lying.

Why wouldn't Strobel be of the subset of atheists who were convinced by that argument? Because it's not an argument. Because atheists don't think that way, and when theists accuse atheists of thinking that way, they're just having fun lying about us.

Strobel might as well argue that he used to be a Jew until he got tired of sacrificing Christian babies.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

He claims to be and given that there is a large set of people who view these arguments as convincing, it's safe to assume that there is a subset who were actually convinced by them. Why would one not just accept that Strobel is in that subset?

Because those arguments are not actually convincing.
And not just 'they don't convince ME.' They're incomplete as arguments.
He writes books of rationalizations that appeal to people who already believe, with quotes from believer experts, and no chances for any atheist experts to critique 'the answers' to the questions.
But everyone pretends that they're compelling arguments, fully researched and reported in a balanced manner.

He's not one among peers, he's predating on that sort of Christain.

And the saddest part is that his readers don't understand that there are holes in the tales presented, like math problems with a text page missing. So they try to whip those out to convince their atheist or agnostic or Jewish friends and family, and are unprepared for questions, comments, or rebuttals.
But they don't see that Strobel let them down, they figure they presented it wrong, and fall back to "You should read The Case For Christ! It's all in there!"

See, this is where I fundamentally disagree with you. The one and only reason that he has an audience is because there are a large number of people who do find these arguments convincing and compelling. The fact that they're shit arguments doesn't matter if they're good enough for people to be convinced by them. If people only accepted arguments which fully researched and reported in a balanced manner, then there would be zero communists, libertarians, Christians, Muslims or Scientologists in the world.

You then seem to completely contradict yourself and say that the sad part is that his readers don't understand that there are holes in the tales he presents ... and yet somehow Strobel must see these holes himself ... or something. Why can't he have just missed these holes the same as his readers and find them as compelling as the people whom he passes them on to? I just don't see anything about him to suggest that he has not bought what he is selling.

There are a number of really bad arguments for atheism. Maybe he bought some of those and became an atheist. Then he went on to buy some really bad arguments for Christianity and became a Christian. Becoming an atheist for dumb reasons doesn't make one less of an atheist anymore than becoming a Christian for dumb reasons makes one someone less of a Christian. That is wholly different than the claim that he is deliberately lying about his life story.

 

[Keith&Co.]

See, this is where I fundamentally disagree with you. The one and only reason that he has an audience is because there are a large number of people who do find these arguments convincing and compelling. The fact that they're shit arguments doesn't matter if they're good enough for people to be convinced by them.

except they are NOT convinced by them. They're accepting rationalizations of the religion they already hold.
That's his target audience, people who already believe the conclusions he comes to, and buy multiple copies to send to insufficiently pious relatives and friends.

You then seem to completely contradict yourself and say that the sad part is that his readers don't understand that there are holes in the tales he presents ... and yet somehow Strobel must see these holes himself ... or something.

He claims to have been an atheist researching both sides of the question, but he only gives voice to one side. If he 'fell for' these arguments in the first place, as he claims, he must have either only researched one side, or only gave credence to one side. Meaning he was already a believer, not an atheist, when he started 'researching' the two sides.

 

[ronburgundy]

You call Lee Strobel intellectually dishonest in a thread where your best argument against him is;
He was probably never a real atheist, no true atheist thinks that...

No, I (and all of science) have plenty of arguments that show most of what he claims is false, and so obviously false that it is psychologically implausible that he is not aware of it (IOW, he is lying about much of what he says). This thread is about whether he is lying specifically about being an atheist. The fact that his claim serves his political and rhetorical goals, provides the motive that makes such a lie plausible. His track record of dishonesty and his incorrect characterizations of the atheist mindset he claims to have first hand experience with are relevant evidence that make it probable the claim is a lie.

It certainly is not definitive evidence he is lying, but it is far more evidence than you have that he is being truthful, which is zero. And no, the burden is not me, it is on those claiming he was ever anything other than what his current arguments show he is, a religious zealot devoid of reasoned thought on the subject. If you want to claim he was ever something other than the theist is clearly is now, then you need a basis to claim that. Him uttering the words, I was an atheist is no more evidence of it than me uttering "I was a alligator." is evidence that I was an alligator.

 

[ronburgundy]

I think Keith is saying that Strobel's comments show he doesn't actually know what atheists think, and therefore he wasn't one (otherwise he would know what they think).

Given the rampant intellectual dishonesty of almost everything Strobel says, it is highly plausible his atheism claim is just another of his lies. It is a rhetorical tactic used to make it seem like one's theism was the result of intellectual progress and that atheism is a result of ignorance.

Almost right. I don't think it's intended as rhetoric.

I think it's marketing. Saying, 'ah thinks these here argyments are pretty good' would sell fewer than 'these argyments is SO GOOD they turned me into a newt b'liever!'

But it does work as rhetoric. I once pointed out some problems in one of his tales and the counter that was offered was 'if the evidence was that bad, he wouldn't have been saved!'

But the reason that it works as rhetoric and a marketing tool is because people do actually buy these arguments. There is no reason to assume that Strobel is not actually one of these people. He says that he was once an atheist and is now a Christian and these types of arguments for Christianity are the reason why and there aren't any indications I've seen that this is a lie on his part. There is a rather large difference between accepting bad logic and being dishonest.

Actually, there is little that people are actually convinced by those arguments starting from an objective neutral position (IOW, a position of non-theism). In fact, there is evidence that the vast majority of people who uses such arguments were raised to be theist and that the vast majority of people raised theists, remain so. Thus, we know that most people who use such arguments were never atheists and discussions with them suggest they lack the intellectual honesty to have given such arguments reasoned consideration. Instead they "accept" the arguments based upon an a priori bias in favor of their theist conclusion, which they would have no motive to do unless they were already theists, even if they were somewhat less certain in their theism. Since we now that lifelong theists use these arguments as though they are the basis of their belief, but have little evidence of sincere atheists converting on the basis of such arguments, it is most probable that Strobel is among the theists who only accept the arguments b/c they had already accepted or were emotionally biased toward their theist conclusion.

The claim of have been an atheist "works" as marketing to sell the idea that his pseudo-intellectualism will provide people who are already faith-based theists with the cover they need to pretend they are not irrational for being theists. That is what Strobel (and others like Dembski and Francis Collins) are selling. They are not selling theism to skeptics or anyone is sincere need of a rational basis to decide the question. They are selling pseudo-intellectual cover for theists that are uncomfortable admitting their belief is based purely in irrational emotion.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

See, this is where I fundamentally disagree with you. The one and only reason that he has an audience is because there are a large number of people who do find these arguments convincing and compelling. The fact that they're shit arguments doesn't matter if they're good enough for people to be convinced by them.

except they are NOT convinced by them. They're accepting rationalizations of the religion they already hold.
That's his target audience, people who already believe the conclusions he comes to, and buy multiple copies to send to insufficiently pious relatives and friends.

You then seem to completely contradict yourself and say that the sad part is that his readers don't understand that there are holes in the tales he presents ... and yet somehow Strobel must see these holes himself ... or something.

He claims to have been an atheist researching both sides of the question, but he only gives voice to one side. If he 'fell for' these arguments in the first place, as he claims, he must have either only researched one side, or only gave credence to one side. Meaning he was already a believer, not an atheist, when he started 'researching' the two sides.

That seems to be extraordinarily flawed logic on your part. Why would it be that if you study both sides of an argument, you need to be convinced by the most reasonable and backed up arguments instead of the shittiest ones? If that were the case, there wouldn't be any global warming skeptics or 9/11 Truthers. Many of them DO look into it, research both sides of the argument but end up being convinced by the dumbest ones. They aren't lying about what they believe and they aren't lying about the fact that they researched both sides of the matter, they just ended up applying poor reasoning skills to that research.

If you became a 9/11 Truther because you thought that steel can't melt and therefore it must have been bombs bringing the buildings down, you're actually a 9/11 Truther. You're not some kind of fake conspiracy theorist because your reasoning is dumb. If you later read an article about how Illuminati members ended up losing a lot of money because of the attacks and think "Oh, well I guess that means they didn't really do it since they wouldn't make that type of mistake, so it looks like it was an Al Quaida attack", you are then actually not a 9/11 Truther at this point. You're still an idiot, of course, but you're not the type of idiot which a given label applies to.

Similarly, researching both sides of the Christianity/atheism question, there is no reason why somebody couldn't dismiss a hundred legitimate arguments because he simply doesn't personally find them compelling and then watch a clip of Bill O'Reilly saying "Tides go in, tides go out - therefore God" and think to himself "Oh ya. I hadn't considered the tides. That angry rapist makes a lot of sense. I guess God must be real after all". It would be a stupid piece of decision making, of course, but there's really nothing which prevents decision making from being stupid.

You're saying that Strobel didn't make stupid decisions, he lied. Your reasoning as to why this is the case seems to be very flawed.

 

[ronburgundy]

except they are NOT convinced by them. They're accepting rationalizations of the religion they already hold.
That's his target audience, people who already believe the conclusions he comes to, and buy multiple copies to send to insufficiently pious relatives and friends.

He claims to have been an atheist researching both sides of the question, but he only gives voice to one side. If he 'fell for' these arguments in the first place, as he claims, he must have either only researched one side, or only gave credence to one side. Meaning he was already a believer, not an atheist, when he started 'researching' the two sides.

That seems to be extraordinarily flawed logic on your part. Why would it be that if you study both sides of an argument, you need to be convinced by the most reasonable and backed up arguments instead of the shittiest ones? If that were the case, there wouldn't be any global warming skeptics or 9/11 Truthers. Many of them DO look into it, research both sides of the argument but end up being convinced by the dumbest ones. They aren't lying about what they believe and they aren't lying about the fact that they researched both sides of the matter, they just ended up applying poor reasoning skills to that research.

If you became a 9/11 Truther because you thought that steel can't melt and therefore it must have been bombs bringing the buildings down, you're actually a 9/11 Truther. You're not some kind of fake conspiracy theorist because your reasoning is dumb. If you later read an article about how Illuminati members ended up losing a lot of money because of the attacks and think "Oh, well I guess that means they didn't really do it since they wouldn't make that type of mistake, so it looks like it was an Al Quaida attack", you are then actually not a 9/11 Truther at this point. You're still an idiot, of course, but you're not the type of idiot which a given label applies to.

Similarly, researching both sides of the Christianity/atheism question, there is no reason why somebody couldn't dismiss a hundred legitimate arguments because he simply doesn't personally find them compelling and then watch a clip of Bill O'Reilly saying "Tides go in, tides go out - therefore God" and think to himself "Oh ya. I hadn't considered the tides. That angry rapist makes a lot of sense. I guess God must be real after all". It would be a stupid piece of decision making, of course, but there's really nothing which prevents decision making from being stupid.

You're saying that Strobel didn't make stupid decisions, he lied. Your reasoning as to why this is the case seems to be very flawed.

Stupidity is random. Intellectual dishonesty and emotionally biased faith is not. A person sincerely considering evidence and arguments can make errors, but they will be non-systematic and as likely to favor one conclusion as the other.
Strobel's irrationality is systematically biased to favor the conclusion of theism. That means he already had an a priori bias in favor of theism that was the cause of those "errors". By definition, an atheist does not have a bias in favor of theism, thus no atheist would should such non-random systematic biases that favor theist arguments, consistently against the evidence.

Plus, there are way more people who were raised and always been theists who use Strobel's same arguments than there are atheists in the world. Thus, from a simple probability standpoint, it is far more likely that Strobel was always a theist and is using the arguments as pseudo intellectual cover than that he was an ever an atheists (in itself unlikely) and then only became theist after encountering the arguments.

 

[Rhea]

This turns out to be a very interesting and thought provoking debate.

 

[skepticalbip]

And then there is the possibility that whether he is a theist or an atheist is pretty much irrelevant to the message he is giving in his books and speaking engagements. The books and speaking engagements provide him with a damn good income. There is much more income to be made by telling theists what they already believe and want to hear than appealing to atheists. It is apparent to me that many, if not most or all, televangelists do exactly this judging by how they actually lead their lives. I also feel certain that L. Ron Hubbard did not honestly believe the basis of the ‘religion’ he offered to his followers who were willing to part with their wealth to hear what they wanted to believe. The same for all the people writing books and giving speeches about UFOs and aliens.

For me, the question is if he honestly believes he is a converted atheist or if it is just a profit-making scheme.

 

[Atheos]

Since nobody is born theist, all theists used to be atheists.

<snip>

I had considered this as I was perusing the thread, but then after seeing this post and thinking about it I feel like things aren't quite as black-and-white as this sentence suggests. Technically if you go with the definition "lacking belief in any god or gods" we're all born atheist. But to me it seems that if one is born into a household where from one's earliest memories there is a constant barrage of praying, bible stories, etc., it is difficult to justify the use of the term. For such an individual the only world they know is one with a god. This is the world of my childhood.

But alas, I was cursed with skepticism which eventually won out, and for which crime I must spend eternity in torment. Too bad I wasn't just a serial ax murderer who believed in Jebus and could accept him into his heart and ask for forgiveness every time I "stumbled."

But I digress. Honestly I can see both sides of this debate. I believe (as Keith does) that Stroebel is nothing more than a sophisticated con artist taking advantage of people by selling them the very thing that keeps their addiction strong. But Tom Sawyer makes a good point that even if I think the arguments are blindingly stupid it is possible that Stroebel actually believes they're good, that he has done service to both sides of the debate and that he once lived a life consistent with the one he describes as that of an atheist. Millions of devout Mormons evidently believe the idiotic stuff Joseph Smith told them.

I don't often find myself agreeing with something Lion IRC wrote, but there has been at least one or two "No true atheist" fallacies in this discussion.

 

[Wiploc]

But Tom Sawyer makes a good point that even if I think the arguments are blindingly stupid it is possible that Stroebel actually believes they're good, that he has done service to both sides of the debate and that he once lived a life consistent with the one he describes as that of an atheist.

I don't know about Strobel, but I'm giving Duane Gish and William Lane Craig the benefit of the doubt when I assume they're lying.

I saw clip of Gish going on and on about how order doesn't come about spontaneously. Then, in the same session, for the same audience, he claimed that the order of the fossils resulted spontaneously from "hydraulic sorting."

You can't make that kind of contradiction night after night for years without people pointing it out to you. He was just lying.

He also said something like, "There is no fact, real or imagined, that cannot be used as evidence that God exists." He clearly cared about persuasion rather than truth.

I've seen WLC debate live, and he too can't be unaware of the flaws in his arguments.

If people have similar complaints about Strobel, they can be warranted in their belief that he is a conscious fraud.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

except they are NOT convinced by them. They're accepting rationalizations of the religion they already hold.
That's his target audience, people who already believe the conclusions he comes to, and buy multiple copies to send to insufficiently pious relatives and friends.

He claims to have been an atheist researching both sides of the question, but he only gives voice to one side. If he 'fell for' these arguments in the first place, as he claims, he must have either only researched one side, or only gave credence to one side. Meaning he was already a believer, not an atheist, when he started 'researching' the two sides.

That seems to be extraordinarily flawed logic on your part. Why would it be that if you study both sides of an argument, you need to be convinced by the most reasonable and backed up arguments instead of the shittiest ones? If that were the case, there wouldn't be any global warming skeptics or 9/11 Truthers. Many of them DO look into it, research both sides of the argument but end up being convinced by the dumbest ones. They aren't lying about what they believe and they aren't lying about the fact that they researched both sides of the matter, they just ended up applying poor reasoning skills to that research.

If you became a 9/11 Truther because you thought that steel can't melt and therefore it must have been bombs bringing the buildings down, you're actually a 9/11 Truther. You're not some kind of fake conspiracy theorist because your reasoning is dumb. If you later read an article about how Illuminati members ended up losing a lot of money because of the attacks and think "Oh, well I guess that means they didn't really do it since they wouldn't make that type of mistake, so it looks like it was an Al Quaida attack", you are then actually not a 9/11 Truther at this point. You're still an idiot, of course, but you're not the type of idiot which a given label applies to.

Similarly, researching both sides of the Christianity/atheism question, there is no reason why somebody couldn't dismiss a hundred legitimate arguments because he simply doesn't personally find them compelling and then watch a clip of Bill O'Reilly saying "Tides go in, tides go out - therefore God" and think to himself "Oh ya. I hadn't considered the tides. That angry rapist makes a lot of sense. I guess God must be real after all". It would be a stupid piece of decision making, of course, but there's really nothing which prevents decision making from being stupid.

You're saying that Strobel didn't make stupid decisions, he lied. Your reasoning as to why this is the case seems to be very flawed.

Stupidity is random. Intellectual dishonesty and emotionally biased faith is not. A person sincerely considering evidence and arguments can make errors, but they will be non-systematic and as likely to favor one conclusion as the other.
Strobel's irrationality is systematically biased to favor the conclusion of theism. That means he already had an a priori bias in favor of theism that was the cause of those "errors". By definition, an atheist does not have a bias in favor of theism, thus no atheist would should such non-random systematic biases that favor theist arguments, consistently against the evidence.

Well, having a bias is also very different from being dishonest. For instance, there were a number of disputed penalty calls (or non-calls) in the NFL games last weekend. How clear or unclear pass interference or keeping control of the ball was to various viewers was heavily correlated to which of the teams they were cheering for. They focus on the aspects which would be in their team's favour and discount the aspects which would not. This does not mean that one group of fans is lying about whether a call was good or bad, it's just that their biases subconsciously sway how they look at the data.

These biases can change over time. If you're cheering for the Patriots one year and the Rams the next year, your biases would lead you to viewing these things in different ways during different seasons. Similarly, if someone is going through an atheist phase, they can view atheist arguments more favourably than they do when they're going through a Christian phase. At no point would they not be "real" whatevers because they're something else later on and at no point would they be lying about which of the various arguments they find compelling at a given time.

Plus, there are way more people who were raised and always been theists who use Strobel's same arguments than there are atheists in the world. Thus, from a simple probability standpoint, it is far more likely that Strobel was always a theist and is using the arguments as pseudo intellectual cover than that he was an ever an atheists (in itself unlikely) and then only became theist after encountering the arguments.

Probabilities apply to groups, not individuals. This is like saying "Well, you're from Alabama so clearly you're lying about being a Democrat".

 

[Keith&Co.]

You're saying that Strobel didn't make stupid decisions, he lied. Your reasoning as to why this is the case seems to be very flawed.

This is the impression I take from the consistency of his arguments.
Kinda like when Lion pretends ignorance of the implications people infer from his posts. I suppose it's technically feasible that it's all sincere, but each instance make that less and less likely in my personal estimation.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You're saying that Strobel didn't make stupid decisions, he lied. Your reasoning as to why this is the case seems to be very flawed.

This is the impression I take from the consistency of his arguments.
Kinda like when Lion pretends ignorance of the implications people infer from his posts. I suppose it's technically feasible that it's all sincere, but each instance make that less and less likely in my personal estimation.

Your mileage may vary.

The impression I get from the consistency of his arguments is that Lee Strobel is an idiot. He believes dumb things and then passes those dumb things onto others.

There's an old adage that one should never ascribe to malice that which can be described by incompetence.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Which certainly explains Guliani's career this decade...

 

[Keith&Co.]

The impression I get from the consistency of his arguments is that Lee Strobel is an idiot. He believes dumb things and then passes those dumb things onto others.

I am suddenly reminded of a Representative we used to have in my home state.
Hansen got in trouble on his taxes, they told him to straighten up and fly right.
He got in trouble again, they took him to court. He defended himself...
After listening to his efforts to lawyer his own case, the judge finally found him innocent, saying 'He's not a tax cheat, he's just too stupid to fill out a tax form.'

Hansen took umbrage at the charge and appealed the acquittal.

He eventually went to prison for tax evasion, years later. The judge was less interested in being snarky and just threw him behind bars.

So all in all, malice and stupidity are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But malice requires intent. If you're going to claim that Strobel is deliberately lying to his customers in order to scam money out of them with a fake story, that's a higher bar required to demonstrate your claim since showing affirmative action on his part would be needed for it.

I haven't seen anything which clears that higher bar or isn't just as easily explained by the much lower bar of "Strobel is an unintelligent person who finds dumb arguments convincing due to a lack of ability to properly analyze things".