But more to the point, atheism is not a belief system. To term someone an "atheist" only speaks of what they don't believe - it says nothing about what they do believe. That's why I am careful not to identify myself as an atheist (although I am one). Instead, I identify myself as an "advocate of reason". It makes no sense to identify ourselves in terms of what we don't believe.

I am an advocate of reason, and a firm opponent of faith. I don't know if there is a single word which encapsulates that particular belief system, but if there is, that's what I am. I'd be astonished to hear of someone who *advocates reason and opposes faith* converting to christianity.

But saying "I was an atheist, now I believe in god" says nothing. Claiming to be a former atheist does NOT identify what his belief system was, or if he even had any at all, prior to his conversion to christianity. If his belief system was based on anything other than reason as a primary absolute, it is no surprise that he eventually converted.

I do agree with most of what's been posted here though, that Stroble was probably raised in an athiestic/agnostic household, instead of de-converting from another religion. Mainly because his journey of faith sounds similar to the way I came to believe(with a major difference, I explored most all mainstream religions, he apparently only examined Chrisitanity).

But even if thats the case: how does that make him not a 'true athiest.' Isnt the only requirment to be an athiest to not believe in god(s)? I find it hard to believe that anybody reading his stateemnts can come to the conclusion he believed in some sort of divine being.

What do you suppose the odds are that the new testament writers actually manufactured all those claims?

Probably not as good as the odds that someone just made up that number to begin with. But no matter, I'll go with it.

In that video, Strobel states that his atheism was causing marital difficulties because his spouse was a devout Christian.

Also, he made one point that I felt was a slam-dunk AGAINST the Christ myth, but he felt was helping his "case". He claimed that, according to some college level math students, the odds of all of the biblical prophesies that Christ supposedly fulfilled was 1 out of

10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

(There should be 156 zeros).

What do you suppose the odds are that the new testament writers actually manufactured all those claims?

That out of the way, the question of Strobel's type of atheism isn't the problem, so much as it's problematic, as it lead to loading a "skeptics" book with distinctly non-skeptical (William Lane Craig's "infallible witness of the Holy Spirit" is pretty much the antonym "skepticism"), most if not all of whom are speaking of subjects wildly out of their expertise (yes, experts can be wrong. No, that's not a valid reason to ignore people who know what they're talking about).

Now, if you will excuse me, I have an appointment to use my relative morality to corrupt those around me. If there is time, I might visit Planned Parenthood to get this month's abortion or deface the Ten Commandment monument down at the courthouse. Moo ha-ha!

So, yeah, Strobel probably was an atheist of this type at some point; however, he's taken it to a whole 'nother level with his "atheism so I can lead a sinful lifestyle" thing. In Case for a Creator, not only does he say it repeatedly, many of his interview subjects state this about themselves as well. Now, it could be as Erika says, where they are viewing their past selves in light of their current outlook, but I wouldn't discount the pure shyster explanation either.

Strobel was highly recommended as a leading apologist by the group leader at the Alpha Course I attended.

Btw, I initially started my blog years ago with the intent of reviewing Case for a Creator when I, like Ebon, noted that there was little out there skeptical about it (except for Doland's thing). That never took off because I couldn't force myself to wade through the stupid a second time. Once was plenty.

We are not hyper-rational robots incapable of inductive thought.

Exactly. Perhaps the "free" in "freethought" has escaped their attention. I don't have to back up every whim or suspicion with regards to minor issues of personality with an annotated treatise just because when it comes to making up my mind about MAJOR, LIFE-DECISIONS I do, in fact, prefer evidence.

The guy's claims of atheism ring hollow for me based on a hunch, instinct, experience with other atheists, whatever you want to call it. But, so what? I may very well be wrong. My judgment has no meaning beyond the realm of the personal and certainly hasn't cost Strobel any book sales. And they were my dimes and time that went into his books.

Most hilarious blog ever. Atheists trumpet that atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in God but when a Christian apologist doesn't react in the way you think an atheist should they're deceptive. What nonsense is this?

Atheists, like all other human beings, are free to and do speculate on things. We are not hyper-rational robots incapable of inductive thought.

I think Strobel attracts suspicion because, in my opinion, his arguments lack creativity. When I read The Case for Christ, I didn't find much more than standard apologetics. That's not wrong or bad in and of itself, but to me the arguments were standard enough that I was surprised Strobel hadn't already been exposed to these arguments (and, therefore, been swayed by them). But, of course, I don't consider that conclusive, it's just something I think about whenever I hear about Strobel. It doesn't surprise me that others feel the same way and are commenting on it.

Most hilarious blog ever. Atheists trumpet that atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in God but when a Christian apologist doesn't react in the way you think an atheist should they're deceptive. What nonsense is this?

YES, and they fancy this "freethought..." I also find it hilarious, and thank you for your candid criticism.

Atheists trumpet that atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in God...

You've got a better definition? "Trumpet" is an interesting choice of words. I don't think I've ever had cause to 'trumpet' anything that can be read in a dictionary.

...but when a Christian apologist doesn't react in the way you think an atheist should[,] they're deceptive.

The problem isn't that Strobel's reactions to the violence are unbecoming of an atheist, it's that they're unbecoming of a human being. "Violent riots, you say. What a quaint fringe superstition." is not a sentence that gets much used by anybody, which is why his account of these events doesn't ring true. He may or may not have been an atheist in the past, but the fact that he almost certainly did not react in the way he says he did to the textbook riots is grounds for suspicion.