This list was sent to me by Ed Babinski:
When John Loftus informed me that there is a “book length rebuttal” available on the net to The Christian Delusion I was expecting an intellectual challenge but instead what I found amounts to no more than relatively lightweight and easily dismissed assertions.
Killing children could sometimes be obligatory, according to Triablogue.
People believe and defend what they prefer to be true. This is an obvious and non-controversial fact. That's who we are as human beings. That's what we human beings do. That's what psychological studies have repeatedly shown us over and over.
I've been faulted for suggesting that the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) has force primarily against religious faiths. I think this because of the nature of them, how they were first adopted, the evidence (or lack thereof) that can decide between them, and so forth. To see why, check out the video below by Richard Dawkins. The sciences are in an entirely different league than faith:
I've argued for the
Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) but most believers like Paul Manata just don't get it. For people like him I've made a playlist of four short videos so he can see what he refuses to see because he's blinded by his faith.
Triablogue’s amateurs have compiled a supposed refutation of The Christian Delusion. Some uninformed bloggers are already hailing it as a “massive” and definitive refutation. Yet, even the most superficial look at Triablogue’s efforts reveals yet another instance of amateurs who don’t know enough to know that they don’t know enough about the topics they discuss.
Being merciful to DC’s readers, I will not provide an exhaustive catalog of Triablogue’s factual errors, illogical arguments, or misreadings of my chapters. I will provide a few samples within these categories:
A. The Credentials Card
B. Ill-read Reviewers
C. Misrepresented arguments
D. Misunderstood Arguments
E. The Ridiculous and the Mundane
Christians will object to the following dilemma, no doubt. On the one hand, if they cannot explain how a miraculous event took place, outsiders will deny it happened at all. On the other hand, if they can explain how it might have occurred, then outsiders can say it’s no longer a miracle. All I can say here is that this is the unavoidable nature of the case when it comes to reported miracles in the pre-scientific superstitious historical past. Outsiders need sufficient evidence of miracles in today’s world to accept the Christian faith. Without this evidence the Christian apologist will always have a near impossible time defending his faith, and as such, I think he should simply abandon this attempt. Without present-day evidence or present day miracles, Christianity probably cannot be adequately defended at all. [First posted 8/12/07]
Atheist author David Mills argues in this 47 minute video that there are ten reasons why we are approaching a "Golden Age of Atheism."
We've heard this escape clause so many times before. "My ways are not your ways," an ancient superstitious canonized Biblical text says of God. "How do we know what an omniscient God might do?" an apologist chimes in. It could be how God purportedly communicated to us in ways that are indistinguishable from anything else we see in the ancient world, or the tragedy of the Haitian earthquake, or a child suffering and soon to die from Leukemia. How can we judge an omniscient God's ways we're asked over and over, with an implied "We can't." The answer is obvious. We must be able to understand enough of God's ways to know that his ways are good and that he knows what he's doing. It's that simple. If God does not act as a loving person would do then all we can reasonably conclude is that God is not acting like a loving person would do. And if God does not respond in discernible loving ways when tragic events take place then it looks entirely as if tragic events happen randomly without his ever-watchful eye.
Here's a link to a wonderfully articulate, clear, and fascinating story of deconversion put together by a gentleman with the user name evid3nc3 on YouTube.
Background
I've been an faithful, fully-believing, daily-praying, personal-relationship-having Catholic for about 7 years. This past Christmas, out of the blue, I wondered if anyone wrote about Jesus other than the gospels. Doing what I always do, I googled it. I was not happy. I don't want to get into this, but suffice it to say that even if there are some who mention Jesus by name and refer to followers who thought reported to have seen him after death, I was still left with an immense chasm. The gospels told me about a verbally prolific man who traveled the country side for 1-3 years, healed sickness/blindness/demonic possessions, that news spread of him throughout the land, and that in the end he caused a heck of a commotion and died on a cross. On the other hand, I have reports of a man named Jesus and verification that he had posthumous followers. No reference to any miracles, confirmation of his brilliantly wisdom-filled parables and teachings or other facts about his life? It was enough to plant significant seeds of doubt.
Former Pastor Bruce Gerencser shares his deconversion story:
28) That God's punishments are good, right, and just, even though it means sinners are thrust into a surprisingly dangerous world and in death will be blindsided by an eternal punishment in hell, which is "Christianity's most damnable doctrine." In this world how do you think human beings first learned that venomous creatures like certain kinds of spiders, snakes, ants or scorpions could kill us? People/children had to die, lots of them. How do you think human beings first learned that polluted water or lead poisoning could kill us? Again, people/children had to die, lots of them. It was inevitable since God never told us what to avoid in order to stay alive. We had to learn these kinds of things firsthand. The same thing can be said for hell. People do not know their choices will send them to an eternal punishment in hell. For if we knew this, and if it was possible not to sin at all, we wouldn't sin. Do you doubt this? Then consider that if you knew with certainty that by crossing a line drawn in the sand you would get beaten to a pulp by a biker gang, you would not do it!
This video is quite funny!
26) That although it's claimed God got the attention of Abraham, Moses, the Pharaoh, Gideon, Mary, Joseph, and Saul (who became Paul) and that he knows how to get the attention of anyone and everyone, there is no objective evidence he's trying to get the attention of the billions of people who don't believe. In fact, Christians are much more concerned than God is that non-believers are converted. Just compare the lengths to which Christians will go in order to convert non-believers, with a God who has the means to convert everyone and yet does nothing to help them do this. If you say God is helping to convert non-believers then tell us how to objectively know God is actually doing this.
This video is an eye-opener:
Here is a fairly extensive list of links to the
Outsider Test for Faith for anyone who wishes to learn about it. You'll see how my defenses of the OTF have been improved with time as I received various criticisms of it. There is a lot to read here. No wonder I've decided to write a whole book about it!
. Since I don't want to repeat myself if you haven't already done so 
(Eugene Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2007). To illustrate our point, we shall examine almost every sentence in a section titled, “Jesus Frees Slaves,” and found on pages 144 to 148 of that book.
DC receives pennies on the dollar no matter what you buy at no extra cost and helps keep me Blogging. There are 
