Comments on: Lee Strobel Answers Your Questions, Part 3

By: Siamang

Siamang — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 07:36:12 +0000

Thanks, Colin.

Though I think the post should have been entitled “Lee Strobel Evades Your Questions.”

He didn’t answer mine, which was a direct indictment of his entire self-positioning as an “investigating journalist”.

By: Colin

Colin — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 07:18:00 +0000

I’m late to the party, but couldn’t help but read through your entire series with Lee Strobel. I was somewhat familiar with him from my days of listening to Christian radio, and I think its fantastic you got him to come on as a “guest blogger”. Though the commenters thoroughly disintegrated his arguments, the vast majority maintained the “friendly” tone that sets this blog apart.

Great work here!

By: St. Eutychus » Let there be light

St. Eutychus » Let there be light — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 12:03:47 +0000

[...] can find them here, here, here, and here. It’s a great example of respectful dialogue between two opposing [...]

By: NYCatheist

NYCatheist — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:28:06 +0000

Atheists don’t have a unified doctrine of belief regarding the origin of the universe. A quantum fluctuation is one idea explaining the Big Bang, but nobody knows for sure. Personally I like the colliding branes theory because it sounds cool.

I don’t think any atheist would say they “believe” that a random fluctuation caused the Big Bang. I would rather say “entertain the notion”. I don’t really find it very satisfying because still my brain yearns for a cause of that fluctuation no matter what the physicists claim about uncaused quantum events. (Or the origin of the flapping branes.) Basically the only two options I can imagine is either 1. Something always existed, or 2. Something came from nothing, but maybe that’s because I am locked into a temporal reality. I find both options to be absurd.

Short Answer: I don’t know.

PS: Although I agree with you to some extent that an atheist who expressed a belief in a universe birthing quantum fluctuation isn’t being 100% rational, I would have to say he or she is being more rational than someone who believes in some kind of “creator” assuming you are referring to a being with personality. I justify this claim with Occam’s Razor. “Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.” Besides we do have evidence for quantum fluctuations already.

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:09:54 +0000

Do atheists believe the universe is the result of quantum fluctuations (chance)? If so, does that make chance the creator? And why would this belief be any more rationinal than a belief that the universe was created for a reason?

Thanks for your time,

Paul

By: I’m at the 112th Carnival of the Godless

I’m at the 112th Carnival of the Godless — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:34:29 +0000

[...] for inclusion. Please check out my post and while your at it have a look at what others have said in reply to Lee Strobel over at the carnival. And for all you new people, please comment and let me know what you [...]

By: An Atheist Snipe Hunt

An Atheist Snipe Hunt — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:31:11 +0000

[...] as anyone familiar with christain apologetics would expect, but then he turned the tables and presented the Friendly Atheist with six questions from other christian thinkers for atheists. Ebonmuse, Greta Christina, and the good folks at [...]

By: Stagyar zil Doggo

Stagyar zil Doggo — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:07:48 +0000

Siamang: “Nerds prove Fonzie”

Dude, that was awesome!

By: Hank

Hank — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 05:24:01 +0000

Instead of huging-up your comments thread, I have posted my own list of questions aimed right back at the theopologists. Awaiting some good discussion! http://dangerousintersection.org/2009/02/02/i-ask-will-the-apologists-answer/

By: Lirone

Lirone — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 12:24:15 +0000

Question to Lee Strobel – “Utilizing each of the historical facts conceded by virtually all contemporary scholars, please produce a comprehensive natural explanation of [Allah's dictation of the Koran to Mohammed] [Buddha's enlightment] [Mithras' slaying of the bull] that makes better sense than [what these religions claim about its divine nature].”