So you want to debate me...

UPDATE 3-1-07: As you may have guessed, the requirement laid out below was made somewhat tongue-in-cheek. In the months since this entry was written I have actually gone on several radio shows (many in hostile territory) and participated in other public conversations to defend The God Who Wasn't There, and I will likely participate in a somewhat high-profile formal debate or two later this year. I'm even facing off with the head of Liberty University's theological seminary tomorrow night. I don't actually require the signed and notarized Statement of Belief, which I don't expect that any Christian will ever sign. The goal of this stunt was to provoke Christian leaders into getting indignant, link to the Statement, and thus expose unwitting Christians to a notion that is often hidden from them by Christian authorities -- that much of what they are taught about ancient history is flat-out wrong, and believed on faith in contradiction to the available evidence. And, boy, did this strategy work. Another goal of the Statement was to outline for Christians just how frustrating it is to debate with someone who uses reason when it is convenient, but drops it and retreats to "faith" as soon as his argument falls apart.

So you would like to challenge me about the claims I make in The God Who Wasn't There?

No problem. But please understand that I get a lot of these requests -- whether for a one-to-one conversation or formal debate -- and I can't waste my time arguing with people who are not open to changing their minds or who haven't developed enough familiarity with the material.

So just download and sign this "Statement of Belief" PDF, have it notarized, then mail it to Beyond Belief Media. Then we can talk.

If you are unable to sign the Statement, we cannot talk any further, for one or both of the following reasons:

1) You are not familiar enough with the facts to be ready for a meaningful discussion at this time.

2) Your capacity to understand the facts is so compromised by your religious ideology that a conversation with you would be pointless.

UPDATE: Someone brought to my attention a comment thread at centuri0n's blog that perfectly illustrates the necessity for a filter like this Statement.

A member of the flock named Darel says to centuri0n:

Ok, You answered Brian's "essay" and responded only to his first point. Which is fine I suppose, but I would have imagined you would have pointed out the "drive-by" he did throughout the rest of the essay.

To most observers, silence is usually seen as assent. And I know that you don't assent to the claim that "No one who had physically met Jesus wrote about him".....

So what's the deal with that?

And centuri0n responds to Darel (emphasis in the original):

The high-end conservative Christian response to that is "Brian -- Matthew and John were apostles." The problem -- in the context of this debate -- is that this assertion is based on tradition and not on archeological evidence. Strictly speaking, the 4 Gospels are anonymous documents from an archeological standpoint.

Translation: That the Gospels were written by disciples is something we encourage Christians to believe ("tradition"), even though it isn't true ("evidence").

This is the kind of false belief that Christian debaters wish to rest on when they enter into a conversation about their religion. They're lazy that way, and I suppose they have good reason to be.

I would guess that about 90% of Christians believe that at least two gospels were written by former disciples -- and are unaware that the evidence isn't there to support this belief. Darel is all too representative of most Christians. Ignorant -- by design.

Christians like Darel are encouraged to believe that only the supernatural claims of Christianity are supported by faith alone. Unless they inquire, they have no idea how many ordinary assumptions are also supported by faith alone -- such as that anyone who actually saw Jesus wrote something down.

When Christian leaders come clean with their people about what in Christianity is supported by evidence and what is supported by faith alone, perhaps they will be able to qualify to debate outside the bubble of deception that is modern Christianity.

The Statement is as much for average Christians being deceived by their leaders as it is for my side.