Thank you, #stevelikes2curse, for taking on #LeeStrobel’s #TheCaseforChrist in “An Atheist Reads The Case for Christ: Chapter 1”!

One of the hunks of bullshit Steve Shives takes on is the notion of the so-called eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ life, ministry, and miracles.

“Apparently, biased testimony is okay, even when the account you’re reading is written by someone who was a follower of the subject of the account, who believes that that subject was a miracle worker…”

This is one of my favorite points Shives makes as, in almost all encounters I’ve had with the religious, they want to have it both ways. They claim in one hand that you should believe their supernatural claims because they have “facts” to support them. But then when you find reason or facts that at least cast doubt on these claims, if not outright disprove them, or you simply challenge these claims, that’s usually when they drag out that old, rusty trusty “faith.” Either the supernatural claims are true or they aren’t. If they are, there should be some way of objectively evaluating them that’s more effective than simply trusting a story about them. If there isn’t, then there simply is no reason to trust them until such a way is possible.

But this is simply something that many religious don’t ever get about objectively verifiable claims. They say that one should trust a claim if it seems trustworthy, comes from a trustworthy source, or the like. They say that the assumption of veracity should be first, then the attempt to disprove should come later. But this is the definition of confirmation bias. The only way veracity can be found is to doubt the claim first and attempt to falsify it through multiple, testable, reproducible means. And even if the claim stands up to that scrutiny, it should always be regarded as subject to new evidence.

2 Responses to “Thank you, #stevelikes2curse, for taking on #LeeStrobel’s #TheCaseforChrist in “An Atheist Reads The Case for Christ: Chapter 1”!”

  1. Steve shives is nothing more than a lightweight pseudo-skeptic. Don’t get me wrong, beating up creationists is funny and all, but this guy thinks hes king shit of turd island!

    Owning n00bs does not distinguish yourself as a deep thinker. His diatribe against the 911 truth movement was particularly weak, and he rightly took alot of flak on it.

    • Anton A. Hill Says:

      Hey Kesler,

      I can’t comment on Steve’s 9/11 piece as I haven’t seen it, but I’ve enjoyed his Lee Strobel stuff.

      I wonder what you mean by “pseudo-skeptic.” Seems to me, one’s either a skeptic or one isn’t. Maybe there are varying degrees. I haven’t thought about it a lot.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: