Believers are scrambling to find a way of escape from the Outsider Test for Faith(OTF), which calls upon them to test what they were led to believe from an outsider's perspective with the same level of skepticism used to reject all other religions. All that believers need to do is consider how they evaluate the other religions they reject. Once they do they'll see quite plainly what is required of them. They merely assume these other religions are false. That's all it takes. Just assume they are false.
Vic responded to this question recently and I think it's a fair answer:
25) That although God's supposed revelation in the canonical Bible is indistinguishable from the musings of an ancient, barbaric, superstitious people, the Bible is the word of God.
Hey, why not? I'll start work on it before too long. I have plenty of material. I'll combine into one book everything I've written about it. I would tell how I first came up with it, why it is objective and fair, why it's needed, who should take it and what it requires of people. I'll also provide some examples of how Christian apologists critique the religions they reject. Then I'll decisively answer every objection to it in some detail, and end the book showing what it does to the Christian faith. While I'd like to have it titled: The Outsider Test for Faith, and I may do so, I was wondering if there is a more catchy title that would better tell the reader what the book is about. Any suggestions?
24) That although the only method we have for determining the truth in factual matters is methodological naturalism, which assumes a natural explanation for any phenomena, and although this method is the hallmark of the sciences, the phenomena of the Bible can be exempted from this method as applied through Biblical Criticism, and believed anyway.
I've written a lot about this question already, but let me add a few things.
Yep, that's what I think and I can demonstrate this.
Christians do not believe in God, you see. The God they're supposed to believe in, Yahweh, is dead. He was a mean tribal cultural god who died a long time ago.
Dr. Randal Rauser has recently criticized my Outsider Test for Faith. I appreciate him doing so even if I disagree.
How evangelical Christians defend their faith is annoying to me for the most part. They don't realize how inconsistent their approach is and how that same approach is used by people of other faiths. They don't connect the dots.
Many believers have said I'm ignorant, not only here at DC but on other Blogs I visit, and via email. It's a common complaint against former believers who leave the fold who then argue against it. Since apostates are seen as such a big threat against Christian theism believers must try to find a way to discredit the force of our testimonies. If they can do this it makes them feel better about staying inside the fold. After all, surely God would not allow us to walk away once he's gathered us up under his wings like a mother hen does to her chicks; surely if we just properly understood the Christian faith we wouldn't want to do so; and surely if there are good reasons to believe we couldn't turn around and subsequently reject our faith. Right? There must therefore be something wrong with us. What could that be? Perhaps we never had a personal relationship with God in the first place? Perhaps all we did is have some sort of mental assent without a heartfelt faith? Perhaps we never properly understood the Christian faith? Let me answer such nonsense...
My wife took two of our grandchildren to see the newly released kids movie, "How to Train Your Dragon." The movie is in 3-D at select theaters but this one did not have 3-D technology. One grandchild asked the owner in the lobby if the movie is in 3-D and he went off for ten minutes telling them that watching movies in 3-D is bad for their eyes. This is a case in point for how people can justify whatever brings them money, power, or sex. Of course he thinks that. Why? Because his movie theater does not have that technology. Get it? Just imagine what he would think if he had that technology! Then he would change his tune. My contention is that Christians feel empowered by their faith. After all, they actually think God is their helper in times of need, and that they will see him and their loved ones when they die. So of course they'll defend their beliefs just like this theater owner does. One would think that precisely because believers prefer their faith to be true they should be skeptical of it, but no, they don't see this. Maybe they can learn something as outsiders listening in to that theater owner and get the point. But then probably not.
Here's an email I received from a man named Robert:
22) That Jesus is the Son of God even though the textual evidence in the New Testament conclusively shows that the founder of the Jesus cult was a failed apocalyptic prophet who prophesied that the eschaton would take place in his generation, which would involve a total cosmic catastrophe after which God inaugurates a literal kingdom on earth with the "Son of Man" reigning from Jerusalem over the nations.
The history of human understanding shows us that human understanding evolves in each generation in a respective culture. Sometimes there are set backs but it continues to evolve. I cannot prove that this means Christianity in all of its forms is a delusion. I can only point out that theology parallels other disciplines of learning since it too has evolved down through the generations, and it has, making Christianity nothing more nor less than a cultural phenomena created by human beings for other human beings.
Yep, that's right, well, at least we're going to be putting together some things to propose in hopes of publication. I'll let you know who it is later. It'll be a discussion/dialogue where we share why we disagree with each other. He's an expert on a few issues that I'll have to read up on, which means getting some expensive books. I don't even have any of his published books. That's why I recently put a "ChipIn" link in the sidebar for interested people to donate so I can get them. Thanks in advance for anything you can do. Co-writing this book helps introduce me to more Christian readers, and that can't be bad. They are my target audience.
It's argued that I reject Christianity because I prefer to live my life apart from God. Balderdash! Do I really prefer to live in a universe that is cold and uncaring, having only blind indifference toward me as a human being in which I can count on no divine help from outside of it, and no hope of an eternal life with my loved ones? Not a chance. Do I really prefer to reject the dominant religion of my culture to be ostracized by believers and hated for what I believe? No, not at all. Given the idealized version of Christianity that believers accept and defend (minus the ugly and incoherent stuff in the Bible) I would prefer the fantasyland of belief to the hard realities of life if given that choice. The problem is that I must be honest with the evidence and the evidence is that I live in a universe that is cold and uncaring, having only blind indifference toward me as a human being in which I can count on no divine help from outside of it, and no hope of an eternal life with my loved ones.
I was once a believer like most believers today. I did not want to lose my faith just like they do not. The evidence forced me to leave the fold against my preferences.
This new Blog contains "The post-faith musings of a former Christian College professor and writer for Christianity Today. One of the most interesting Blog posts so far is this one:
As a former Christian, especially soon after I first converted, I thought I knew the answers to the riddle of existence. The answers were all in the Bible. And I thought I could also understand the Bible well enough to know, especially before I had any advanced learning. Initially I was a Bible Thumper. My motto was: God said it. I believe it. That settles it. All of the answers were to be found in the Bible, and I thought I knew them--all of them. So without any education at all I soon had the confidence to speak to college professors I met and not be intimidated at all. And I did. I remember walking away from some conversations thinking to myself how ignorant that professor was. Yep. That's right. At that time I was what psychologists have dubbed "Unskilled and Unaware of it." And it appears to me many Christians who comment here are just as I was. They come here with the answers. Some of them do not even have a college education. And yet they offer nothing but ignorant comments. I can't convince them otherwise. They are like I once was.
Looking back on those initial years I could see clearly that I was not able to think through the issues of the Bible, especially hermeneutics, until after gaining a master's degree. I would have told you upon receiving my first master's degree that I was ignorant before then. But I kept on learning and studying. Age had a way of teaching me as well. It seems as though as every decade passed I would say I was more ignorant in the previous one. As every decade passed I see more and more wisdom in Socrates who claimed he was wise because he didn't know. According to him the wiser that a person is, then the less he claims to know. Awareness of our ignorance only comes with more knowledge.
20) That while scientific tests on petitionary prayers have produced at best negligible results and at worst completely falsified them, God answers these kinds of prayers anyway.
19) That although there is no cogent theodicy that can explain why there is such ubiquitous and massive human and animal suffering if a perfectly good omnipotent God exists, God is perfectly good and omnipotent anyway.
That's one of my claims in chapter 4 of The Christian Delusion (p. 89). I had previously argued that Christians use the naturalistic scientific method when they debunk the religious faiths they reject (p. 86), and later on in that same chapter I argued that without a better alternative method this is all we have (p. 94). I mean, really, is there any comparison to accepting blindly what we learned on our mama's knees, or through an "inner witness of the Holy Spirit," or the poor evidence of historical evidence, or a the warming of the bosom? Come on. Let's get real.
18) That although historical reconstructions of the past are are notoriously difficult because they depend on the poor evidence of history, and even though historians must assess that evidence by assuming a natural explanation for it, and even though historical evidence can never establish how to view that evidence, the Christian faith can be established historically anyway. My argument is that when it comes to miraculous claims, yesterday’s evidence no longer can hold water for me, for in order to see it as evidence, I must already believe in the framework that allows me to see it as evidence. In other words, in order to see yesterday’s evidence as evidence for me, I must already believe the Christian framework that allows me to see yesterday’s evidence as evidence for Christianity.
, 
DC receives pennies on the dollar no matter what you buy at no extra cost and helps keep me Blogging. There are 
