"The New Evidence" by Josh McDowell (apologist)

Read any good books lately?
User avatar
1OvergroundMan
Poster
Posts: 164
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 4:13 am

"The New Evidence" by Josh McDowell (apologist)

Post by 1OvergroundMan » Wed May 01, 2013 3:56 am

So after recently sharing my unbelief in the faith of Christianity to my family, one of my family members presented me with a book that they wanted me to read and analyze. I acquiesced primarily to please them, but I am curious as to what this book has to offer for Christians. It's called, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, and it's written by the apologist Josh McDowell. It is quite hefty at close to 700 pages in length. I would like to read from it periodically, research every claim it makes, and notarize all of my findings and conclusions. I would like to post claims and arguments from the book onto this thread and get feedback from all of you. This would help with the research process and give me many different perspectives and I would greatly appreciate the help! Perhaps after pouring over this material so meticulously and writing my thoughts, my family will be more hesitant to challenge my reasoning.

I will probably post on the Introduction and its claims tomorrow and continue chapter-by-chapter from here on. I would greatly appreciate everyone's feedback as they have it! 8-)
"Oh, tell me, who was it first announced, who was it first proclaimed, that man only does nasty things because he does not know his own interests...Oh, the babe! Oh, the pure, innocent child!" Fyodor Dostoevsky

User avatar
fromthehills
True Skeptic
Posts: 10869
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: "The New Evidence" by Josh McDowell (apologist)

Post by fromthehills » Wed May 01, 2013 6:13 am

Cool. Sounds good, I look forward to it.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22728
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: "The New Evidence" by Josh McDowell (apologist)

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Wed May 01, 2013 8:03 am

Why not direct evidence? Stars aligned to spell out YHWH, or some such? The circularity of the faith argument is awesome to me.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25636
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: "The New Evidence" by Josh McDowell (apologist)

Post by scrmbldggs » Wed May 01, 2013 8:20 am

Perhaps the only thing needed: The god who regrets. :?
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12436
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: "The New Evidence" by Josh McDowell (apologist)

Post by kennyc » Wed May 01, 2013 11:02 am

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Why not direct evidence? Stars aligned to spell out YHWH, or some such? The circularity of the faith argument is awesome to me.



This is all that is really needed. Where is god if he exists. Why 700 pages of apologist krap when the answer is obvious through non-existance.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22728
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: "The New Evidence" by Josh McDowell (apologist)

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Wed May 01, 2013 12:08 pm

kennyc wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Why not direct evidence? Stars aligned to spell out YHWH, or some such? The circularity of the faith argument is awesome to me.

This is all that is really needed. Where is god if he exists. Why 700 pages of apologist krap when the answer is obvious through non-existance.

Ever see "Constantine"? He's talking to Gabriel, trying to explain why he should go to Heaven after having seen Hell first-hand. She scolds him:

"You don't have faith!"

"I believe!"

"You don't believe, you know. There's a difference."

I've often wondered what the {!#%@} that was supposed to prove.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12436
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: "The New Evidence" by Josh McDowell (apologist)

Post by kennyc » Wed May 01, 2013 12:17 pm

Looks like these guys have already done your work for you Mr. 1OvergroundMan:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... wder/jury/
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3616
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: "The New Evidence" by Josh McDowell (apologist)

Post by Lausten » Wed May 01, 2013 2:03 pm

Thanks for the link kennyc. I had a pastor who kept handing me books for every question I had. I finally said, how about I give you a book and you tell me what you don't like about it. He never took me up on that. He actually did apologize for not accepting my views on Liberation Theology because of something he read recently, but it was a small victory.

These 700 page tomes exist primarily to keep perplexed Christians busy. They rely on people's inability to understand historiography or even to think critically. Fortunately we have people like Richard Carrier out there. I can't tell you how many times I've been in a discussion about something like homosexuality in the Bible and someone says I just need to read some lengthy book and it would all be clear to me.

All this really is, is a silencing technique. It's "if you just understood things the way I did, you would agree with me" fallacy. It's used for national security or when your boss doesn't feel like explaining their latest idiotic decision. Good luck working through this.

You might start by honing your own skills by getting the hang of Bayes Theorem. Richard Carrier is using it to work on the question of Jesus' existence. It is a formula that forces you to include all possibilities and probabilities, not just the ones that sound good to you. Carrier's book recommends this link as an introduction http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22728
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: "The New Evidence" by Josh McDowell (apologist)

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Wed May 01, 2013 2:28 pm

Take nice thick book.
Put in pillow case.
Knot pillow case.
Beat McDowell savagely with book.
Refutation complete.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
angawawa
Regular Poster
Posts: 868
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 4:41 pm
Custom Title: A little strange

Re: "The New Evidence" by Josh McDowell (apologist)

Post by angawawa » Wed May 01, 2013 3:45 pm

My son likes to have the Mormons come over occasionally so he can debate with them about religion. He is still young and idealistic so he still believes he can turn at least one of them. I have found that no matter how logical your argument is, you are NEVER going to turn a devout believer into an atheist. For those who believe no proof is necessary and for those who don't believe no proof is enough. The belief "system" requires faith, and I think that was what was meant in "Constantine". Gabriel says that there has to be faith for the act of belief, and John needs no faith, has no "Faith", because he knows God is real and so is hell. Therefore he misses out, he gets jettisoned from the entire system because he has no faith.
If you keep your mind sufficiently open, people will throw all manner of garbage into it.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22728
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: "The New Evidence" by Josh McDowell (apologist)

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Wed May 01, 2013 4:00 pm

angawawa wrote:My son likes to have the Mormons come over occasionally so he can debate with them about religion. He is still young and idealistic so he still believes he can turn at least one of them. I have found that no matter how logical your argument is, you are NEVER going to turn a devout believer into an atheist. For those who believe no proof is necessary and for those who don't believe no proof is enough. The belief "system" requires faith, and I think that was what was meant in "Constantine". Gabriel says that there has to be faith for the act of belief, and John needs no faith, has no "Faith", because he knows God is real and so is hell. Therefore he misses out, he gets jettisoned from the entire system because he has no faith.

Faith and facts exist in different universes.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3616
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: "The New Evidence" by Josh McDowell (apologist)

Post by Lausten » Wed May 01, 2013 6:37 pm

angawawa wrote:I have found that no matter how logical your argument is, you are NEVER going to turn a devout believer into an atheist.

So either I wasn't devout or I don't exist. The "I wasn't a true Christiain" is a fallacy, so I guess I don't exist. And the organizations for ex-Mormons don't either. And over half the people who attend atheist events are just making up their past.

Unless by "NEVER" you mean not during an actual argument. To expect that is to not understand the roots of what it means to be liberal. And I don't mean the political definition of liberal we use today. I mean, 400 years ago when we started to throw off the ideas that Kings and Clerics knew everything. When we started to be able to talk to each other about questions that were considered blasphemous. We had to start to accept that no one is 100% right and no matter how smart someone is, no one can instantly form an opinion on everything. Being liberal means being charitable when presenting new information to someone, giving them time to absorb it.

Sorry, I've been dealing with a lot of crap lately, I'm sure you're a nice person angawawa.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
angawawa
Regular Poster
Posts: 868
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 4:41 pm
Custom Title: A little strange

Re: "The New Evidence" by Josh McDowell (apologist)

Post by angawawa » Wed May 01, 2013 8:51 pm

No, you're right, Lausten. I should not have said NEVER. I was a little aggravated having just come from a discussion about right-wing talk radio, which ALWAYS gets me going. I'd like to think I am charitable in my acceptance of non-like-minded people's opinions, but sometimes I just get pissed off when the other side is even less willing to be open minded and automatically thinks it's okay to try to bring me "back in the fold". I too was once a religious person, until at the age of 12 all the questions I had about religion, and Catholicism in particular came to a head for me. I actually thought I would grow up to be a nun. Wow, I had almost forgotten about that...
If you keep your mind sufficiently open, people will throw all manner of garbage into it.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22728
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: "The New Evidence" by Josh McDowell (apologist)

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Wed May 01, 2013 10:27 pm

angawawa wrote:No, you're right, Lausten. I should not have said NEVER. I was a little aggravated having just come from a discussion about right-wing talk radio, which ALWAYS gets me going. I'd like to think I am charitable in my acceptance of non-like-minded people's opinions, but sometimes I just get pissed off when the other side is even less willing to be open minded and automatically thinks it's okay to try to bring me "back in the fold". I too was once a religious person, until at the age of 12 all the questions I had about religion, and Catholicism in particular came to a head for me. I actually thought I would grow up to be a nun. Wow, I had almost forgotten about that...

You sound like you'd enjoy The Thinking Atheist podcast.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 33763
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: "The New Evidence" by Josh McDowell (apologist)

Post by Gord » Thu May 02, 2013 4:40 am

And also:

angawawa wrote:...and for those who don't believe no proof is enough.

I don't think that's true, either. In fact I'd say pretty much all searches for knowledge depend on it not being true.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

Wrestling Heretic
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:48 am

Re: "The New Evidence" by Josh McDowell (apologist)

Post by Wrestling Heretic » Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:02 am

Lausten wrote:Thanks for the link kennyc. I had a pastor who kept handing me books for every question I had. I finally said, how about I give you a book and you tell me what you don't like about it. He never took me up on that. He actually did apologize for not accepting my views on Liberation Theology because of something he read recently, but it was a small victory.

These 700 page tomes exist primarily to keep perplexed Christians busy. They rely on people's inability to understand historiography or even to think critically. Fortunately we have people like Richard Carrier out there. I can't tell you how many times I've been in a discussion about something like homosexuality in the Bible and someone says I just need to read some lengthy book and it would all be clear to me.

All this really is, is a silencing technique. It's "if you just understood things the way I did, you would agree with me" fallacy. It's used for national security or when your boss doesn't feel like explaining their latest idiotic decision. Good luck working through this.

You might start by honing your own skills by getting the hang of Bayes Theorem. Richard Carrier is using it to work on the question of Jesus' existence. It is a formula that forces you to include all possibilities and probabilities, not just the ones that sound good to you. Carrier's book recommends this link as an introduction http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes


Before anyone starts running to Eliezer Yudkowsky, take a look at this youtube video which is highly critical of Yudkowsky and his Lesswrong organization.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 33763
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: "The New Evidence" by Josh McDowell (apologist)

Post by Gord » Thu Jul 11, 2013 4:58 am

Wrestling Heretic wrote:
Lausten wrote:Thanks for the link kennyc. I had a pastor who kept handing me books for every question I had. I finally said, how about I give you a book and you tell me what you don't like about it. He never took me up on that. He actually did apologize for not accepting my views on Liberation Theology because of something he read recently, but it was a small victory.

These 700 page tomes exist primarily to keep perplexed Christians busy. They rely on people's inability to understand historiography or even to think critically. Fortunately we have people like Richard Carrier out there. I can't tell you how many times I've been in a discussion about something like homosexuality in the Bible and someone says I just need to read some lengthy book and it would all be clear to me.

All this really is, is a silencing technique. It's "if you just understood things the way I did, you would agree with me" fallacy. It's used for national security or when your boss doesn't feel like explaining their latest idiotic decision. Good luck working through this.

You might start by honing your own skills by getting the hang of Bayes Theorem. Richard Carrier is using it to work on the question of Jesus' existence. It is a formula that forces you to include all possibilities and probabilities, not just the ones that sound good to you. Carrier's book recommends this link as an introduction http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes


Before anyone starts running to Eliezer Yudkowsky, take a look at this youtube video which is highly critical of Yudkowsky and his Lesswrong organization.

Dear gadz: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/LessWrong

Still, as they say: "...the peculiarly focused interests of LessWrong's most prominent members has no reflection on the usefulness of some of its great resources. In other words: just because Eliezer Yudkowsky wants to be a robot doesn't mean that his explanation of Bayes' Theorem isn't interesting and well-written." I haven't bothered to read what he says about Bayes' Theorem, but I have brought the theorum up myself in past discussions, for example, when arguing contrary to the oft-expressed contention that "lack of evidence is not evidence of lack".
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?