To listen to this hour and forty-five minute debate see Justin's Reasonable Doubts podcast. To read a transcript of the debate see Max Andrews's site, where he says, "I was actually expecting much stronger arguments from Mr. Schieber." Max is intelligent, I'll grant him that. However, he reminds me once again of what Dr. Stephen Law wrote: “Anything based on faith, no matter how ludicrous, can be made to be consistent with the available evidence, given a little patience and ingenuity.” [Believing Bullshit: How Not to Get Sucked into an Intellectual Black Hole.]
(p. 75). If I were debating Max I would relentlessly attack the source of his faith in the Bible, which he treasures so much. I've written about this before. The reader can see how I actually do this in God or Godless?: One Atheist. One Christian. Twenty Controversial Questions.
This method of disabusing Christians of their faith is known as applying Hume's Stopper. It is a direct frontal attack against any possibility of deriving a natural theology from the unsolved mysteries of the universe. You can also see how I do it in my recent debate with Randal Rauser based on our book. [Here is the transcript of my opening statement]. Other than that, Justin did a good enough job with the arguments he chose to use. I just think there are more powerful arguments, that's all. Kudos to Justin are deserved nonetheless. Max was a strong opponent in bullshit. ;-)
(p. 75). If I were debating Max I would relentlessly attack the source of his faith in the Bible, which he treasures so much. I've written about this before. The reader can see how I actually do this in God or Godless?: One Atheist. One Christian. Twenty Controversial Questions.This method of disabusing Christians of their faith is known as applying Hume's Stopper. It is a direct frontal attack against any possibility of deriving a natural theology from the unsolved mysteries of the universe. You can also see how I do it in my recent debate with Randal Rauser based on our book. [Here is the transcript of my opening statement]. Other than that, Justin did a good enough job with the arguments he chose to use. I just think there are more powerful arguments, that's all. Kudos to Justin are deserved nonetheless. Max was a strong opponent in bullshit. ;-)
It looks really good. Despite the title it's a serious work of scholarship. Richard Carrier has written a comprehensive work to be published by a major academic press specializing in biblical studies, Sheffield-Phoenix, the publishing house of the University of Sheffield (UK). Read what he says about it 
went on Fox News to promote it only to asked ignorant questions by Lauren Green.
He is one of the few people I think bested William Lane Craig in a debate, which can be viewed 
McDowell will probably never mention Dustin unless asked. So ask him. See what he says. Frank brought together two former proteges of the two most famous evangelical Christian apologists. I liked it.
and David Eller's book, 
Upvotes would be appreciated.
Theologians cannot get it straight because the NT contains conflicting messages from a supposed divine mind, even though he should've known (or guessed) that 8 million Christians would slaughter each other in the wars following the Protestant Reformation over issues like this one. These issues were a matter of life and death to them. Be on the "wrong" side and you would be bludgeoned to death, along with your entire family. After four more centuries theologians still cannot get it straight. The only plus is that they're not killing each other over it. I'm here to remind them that they did. So Christian, sit in your comfy chair on your beachfront house porch and read it knowing these facts. Then decide which view best represents yours, or a combination of them, with the understanding that your life could be in danger from other Christians (heretics) if you got it wrong. Think also about the wisdom of that deity you worship.
let's now discuss what you're reading. What d'ya think?