A while back, I asked:
…shouldn’t an atheist limit themselves to belief in brains only?
John W. Loftus took a stab, and here’s what he concluded:
I’ve been commenting at Debunking Christianity since the beginning of this year. As I did with Common Sense Atheism, here is the index of my substantial conversations there [substantial meaning more than just a passing comment or two]. As was the case with the CSA index, this list is not exhaustive, and I’ll be updating as the discussions proceed. I provide these lists for a few reasons: 1) They help me keep track of my arguments and meta-debate; 2) They provide an easy reference for anyone who wants to investigate my arguments; 3) They indicate good faith and confidence in my own arguments. I want to be held accountable, and a list such as this is an invaluable aid to anyone interested. So, I encourage people to make the most of it. Let me know where I do well. Let me know where I do bad. Let me know whether you think comments like this and this respect the art of critical thinking. Get involved, that we might all learn!
1. What Positive Evidence is There for God’s Existence? 1-13-2011
2. Quote of the Day, by Desertbarry 1-15-2011
3. The Mind/Brain Problem 1-15-2011
4. The Debunking Christianity Challenge, Part 2 1-17-2011
5. CFI Extraordinary Claims Panel: Christ 1-22-2011
6. A Listing of Cognitive Biases 1-25-2011
7. Why Religion is Persuasive by Adam Lewis 1-25-2011
10. Deceptive Apologetic Strategies 2-09-2011
11. Quote of the Day 2-12-2011
A few months ago, John Loftus claimed that science debunks Christianity.
I’m not a fan of these types of claims, which are essentially sweeping generalizations that contain what I’ve referred to in the past as “the precision of 2×4.” Of course, any (a)theist who’s spent even in a minute in the trenches knows that both science and Christianity are often emotionally charged keywords that carry more baggage than a bellman at Luxor Grand. The author’s choice of words literally begs the reader to plunge headlong into a frenzy of racing and polarized analysis, fueled on reaction determined by the color of one’s glasses. Talk about fodder for the culture wars!