That's what one Christian who comments here said to me in an email:
In the sidebar it may look as if I think highly of myself. There seems to be a lot of self-promotion going on over there. The reason that you see it is precisely because I know I'm not that important. There are new visitors here every hour who have never heard of my work. So it's to introduce them to it. Until I make it on the cover of Time Magazine, or until I am the president of an atheist organization that has billboards all over California, or until I am interviewed on Nightline, not very many people in the over-all scheme of things know of my work, especially the people in Europe. And I don't think that will happen. My books have never been on the "New Books" table at any national chain bookstore. They sit on an atheism shelf in the back of the store, if there is an atheism shelf at all. I'm not complaining. That's just the way it really is. And since I have no new arguments defending metaphysical naturalism and have decided to kick a dead horse, evangelicalism, I'm only dealing with a small slice of the pie. I know that. But I want to get the attention of the people feasting on that slice of pie.
I am set for the express purpose of destroying the influence of evangelical Christianity in America and in the world at large. I hope atheists can appreciate this. I'm doing what I think it takes as a former evangelical insider. Whether I can do this is not the question, since I just want to be a part of what many others are doing. I embrace a multifaceted approach to accomplishing this shared goal of ours.
Well it feels like that anyway, for a donation. I'm moving so I need the money.
There are some doubts that Jesus was known as a miracle worker in his day. David Friedrich Strauss (1808- 1874 CE) was the first to systematically argue this case. Against the rationalist approach of explaining them all away naturally, and against the supernaturalist approach which took these claims literally, Strauss argued in what can be considered a book of its own (a chapter containing 121 pages), that these miracle stories were myths.1
Nine months ago at Randal's initiation we finished a book proposal tentatively titled: God or Godless: One Atheist, One Christian, and Twenty Irreverent, Interesting, and Somewhat Informative Debates. In it we each propose ten topics for debate. This has been a slow process but we finally got a contract from Baker Book House, a major Christian publisher.
Why didn't we get a choice in whether or not we would be born on earth? Wouldn't the reasonably good thing to do is to create us and then ask us if we would want to be born knowing the risks involved?
Christian apologists point out that the probability of a miracle is increased when it occurs in a “religious context” as opposed to one that is a merely an “anomaly.” William Lane Craig states that: “A miracle without a context is inherently ambiguous. But if a purported miracle occurs in a significant religio-historical context, then the chances of its being a genuine miracle are increased. For example, if the miracles occur at a momentous time and do not recur regularly in history, and if the miracles are numerous and various, then the chances of their being the result of some unknown natural cause are reduced.” Then he proceeds to argue that in the case of Jesus his resurrection took place in such a religious context.1
All a person has to do is make an interesting argument that provokes debate. If you have done that then you have done well. It furthers the discussion. The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) is such an argument. Here is a recent email and my answers to the objections.
Link. Atheist Jane Caro (at 35:15) expresses one of the main reasons I am against religion, the oppression of women. I loved what she said and silently cheered as she spoke! Atheist Russell Blackford (at 54:15) was excellent as well.
Well it feels like that anyway, for a donation. I'm moving so I need the money.
I understand why some people don't like debates. I really do. Only in an honest dialogue can we get at the truth. In a debate format you'll probably never hear one side admitting the other side has a good point, or retract a statement that was shown to be wrong. No one concedes anything in such a contest because the goal is to win for their side. Just the same, let me offer six reasons in defense of debates.
Some Christians think they have Biblical precedent to scoff, mock and malign those of us who are apostates from the faith because Jesus Paul and Elijah mocked their opponents. Let me try to reason with them.
Well it feels like that anyway, for a donation. I'm moving so I need the money. I also have no plans on writing something about the historical Jesus. For anyone interested in that issue these books should help for a donation.
Anyone care to step up and say "I do"? ;-)
My publisher has dubbed me "a leading atheist spokesperson." I didn't say this. I don't care if I am. They do it to sell books. So let's explore this. Am I? Let's take the issue of whether or not there is a historical person behind the Jesus cult, okay? Do I speak for you?
Around the web I have several detractors. They accuse me of a few things which I’d like to take the time to answer. I’m accused of being an egotistical self-promoting control freak who censors comments at DC and bans people off his Blog who disagree with me. I’m accused of wanting fame and financial gain. I'm accused of being childish and abrasive. Granted this comes from a small fringe of people but since their noise is discovered by search engines I should respond.
I’ve tried to resist responding to such ignorant and false drivel before. I know I cannot satisfy the people making such accusations. I also know that by responding I’ll give them more fodder. But here goes.
Christian apologists Gary Habermas and Michael Licona have proposed a "minimal facts approach" to the resurrection of Jesus. Along with William Lane Craig in his debates, they want to stress that which most scholars agree on as facts and then seek the best hypothesis that explains all of these agreed upon facts. They do not want “to be saddled with the task of first showing that the Gospels are, in general, historically reliable,” writes Craig.[20] Instead, Craig wants to establish “that the Gospel accounts of the discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb can be shown to be historically reliable without first showing that the Gospels are, in general, historically trustworthy.”[21] Habermas and Licona tell us about their own “minimal facts approach” in these words: “This approach considers only those data that are strongly attested historically that they are granted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject, even the rather skeptical ones…We present our case using the ‘lowest common denominator’ of agreed-upon facts. This keeps attention on the central issue, instead of sidetracking into matters that are irrelevant.”[22]
What follows is my four part defense of Bill Craig placed into one long post. I thought I'd put together all of the relevant posts and comments for further reference.
Just tell me I cannot do something. Tell me I shouldn't even try. Tell me to abandon my goals. Don't people know that one of the reasons I have done so well in putting together some great authors in anthologies with a popular blog is that I am a driven/passionate man? I said so in my book WIBA. Driven people get things done. It may be a fault with our types to get pissed off at naysayers, but then why fault the very thing that makes us who we are? Being a driven man is a double-edged sword. Without the one edge I wouldn't have the other. I have been proving naysayers wrong nearly all of my life. When it comes to my goal of debating William Lane Craig, I will show the naysayers wrong.
At Debunking Christianity I welcome most anyone to comment on what is written. I like the challenge of educated discussions between educated people. I think educated people can disagree agreeably. Only people not fully exposed to alternative ways of thinking will claim their opponents are stupid merely because they disagree. But not all Christians who visit here are educated. I get a lot of utterly ignorant and even some threatening comments from Christians ("You are going to hell Loftus.") These kind of comments will not be tolerated. Nor will I tolerate personal attacks against me coming from my side.
As you read this book keep in mind that Dr. Rauser has by-passed what I consider the proper protocol. He has unfairly placed himself in the so-called final championship game by jumping in line, as it were, bypassing other worthy religious contenders in order to debate me, an atheist.
A Christian friend of mine refuses to buy my book WIBA, as he explained to me in an email: "I do not refuse to read your book, I refuse to support the book and the publishing company by purchasing it. I do not have access to a library because of where I live. But if I could borrow a copy or someone gave me a copy, I would have no problems reading it." I've heard this kind of crap so often I need to respond to this idiocy.
Let's recap some of Bill Craig's stated reasons for why refuses to debate me. I think this might be instructive of what might be considered his underlying reason. You be the judge. I'm not asking anyone to respond for him. I'm asking Bill to respond himself should he choose to do so, for no one can really respond but him.
When I was a student of his he told his class something I thought was odd at the time. This was back in 1985 at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He said "the person I fear debating the most is a former student of mine." Keep in mind that Dr. Craig had only been teaching a few years before this to actually know of any student who might want to debate him. But that’s what he said. Again, he said "the person I fear debating the most is a former student of mine." He cannot deny saying this, and I don't think he will. If he does it shouldn't be too hard for me to contact former students in that class to confirm it.
Plantinga's EAAN argument is that "the combination of evolutionary theory and naturalism is self-defeating on the basis of the claim that if both evolution and naturalism are true, then the probability of having reliable cognitive facilities is low." Below you can find professor Stephen Law's critique of the EAAN along with him debating Plantinga on the program Unbelievable.
Okay, Okay, I'm putting some pressure on Bill to debate me. Why not? I've put up a poll question about this to the right. Comment below as you wish. Here are the results:
But take a look at how many times I post something compared to others, below:
When it comes to famous atheists (i.e., those who have been on the cover of Time Magazine as but one example), many Christians will attack their work and them as people. When it comes to atheists who are not so famous, whether or not many Christians attack their work and them as people depends. It depends on whether or not they are considered friendly or unfriendly to Christianity, and it depends on whether or not they are "preaching to the choir." I find that there are several books written by unfriendly non-famous atheists who preach to the choir that get many glowing reviews from other atheists but are ignored by Christians because they don't consider their works to be informed.
I am an unfriendly non-so-famous atheist who is not preaching to the choir. ;-) So my work and person gets attacked more than other non-famous atheists. I would hope atheists would understand this. Many do.
DC receives pennies on the dollar no matter what you buy at no extra cost and helps keep me Blogging. There are other ways to donate too. Thank you all so very much!
