“G.Z. Jordan's story of conversion from atheism to
Christianity makes him a possible member of a rare species: an atheist having
long-term experience with both side's arguments who
later converted to Christianity purely because of comparing those arguments. He
writes (initially, in the third person):
“But in his description of his conversion, Jordan
concentrates less on the competing arguments and more on the behavior of
Christians and atheists. By examining his story, one can conclude that his
exposure to atheist polemics may not have been very deep, and his subsequent
conversion to Christianity is tainted by at least six of the twelve potential
confounding factors I describe in my survey.
My, this is going to be fun.
“Jordan
seems to take bad Christians as evidence against the truth of Christianity:
“Jordan
seems to take bad atheists as evidence against the truth of atheism:
“Jordan
seems to take nice Christians as evidence for the truth of Christianity:
Steve Locks (http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/debates_files/1_contact.htm)
deduced in his de-conversion story that Christianity could not be real
considering the bad fruit it produced. It works for atheists but not for
Christians? Nonetheless, Christian or atheistic fruit is irrelevant to whether
Christ resurrected.
“Jordan
confesses a history of personal problems:
Wrong—Jordan
shared a particular personal problem many years behind him. Personal problems
afflict persons of either theistic persuasion. It is not indicative of veracity
of either persuasion. Frankly, I am a member of a rare breed, indeed,
considering I conquered an illness that most do not conquer. That is actually
character strength, not character weakness. Sadly for all those persons who are
not Brian Holtz, his model childhood, teens and adulthood escaped them. Oh, if
only a God could exist powerful enough to make all of Brian’s underlings so marvelous as Brian.
“Jordan
claims to have been a well-learned atheist:
Oh? Where did I claim that? What exactly is a
“well-learned,” or poorly learned, atheist? Generally, when an atheist claims I
was poorly learned, it is because my freethinking atheism led me to believe in
Christ’s resurrection; therefore, I must have been poorly learned in atheism.
Prior to my conversion my fellow atheists considered me well learned. Go
figure.
“There is no book that a true freethinker would avoid
reading so resolutely as to ban it from his home. Jordan
later admits (below) that while "learning so much" he managed to
never look up for himself the Bible quotes cited by the atheists he read.
And your point behind that is…? Does that mean Christ
did not resurrect?
“Jordan
seems to think that the current state of morality in America
has some bearing on the truth of the gospels' claims about events in
first-century Palestine:
Bingo! Indeed, I do.
“The unfairness of Jordan's
blaming Jesus simply is not evidence that Jesus was divine.
Correct, now about that resurrection thingy…
“If dying for a belief can show the belief is true, then the
kamikazes of Japan
showed that Emperor Hirohito was divine. Note that Peter
and James are the only alleged resurrection witnesses who the New Testament
names (John 21:18,19,
Acts 12:2) as martyrs, but there is no evidence that recanting their alleged
belief in physical resurrection could have saved them. All other Christian martyrs
died, like the kamikazes, for what they were told and not for what they
witnessed.
“They [disciples] were precisely both.
"Fanaticism" doesn't require "youth indoctrination",
and "cultism" doesn't require prophecy. Nevertheless, early
Christians were definitely "convinced of a future happening"; the
details of that happening merely became more vague as
it became clear that Jesus' "this-generation" Olivet prophecy had not
come true.
“Most of his [Jesus] followers probably had no knowledge of
how the his body had been made absent by purely human
means.
“No non-trivial prophecy in the Bible has both a) been
documented as having been made before the predicted event and b) had its
fulfillment documented independently of the Bible itself.
“Jordan
doesn't specify whether this "advice" was from Jordan
or from an actual "psychiatric professional", and instead leaves a(n intentionally hurtful?) implication
of mental illness.
Yes, Jordan
specified “professional psychiatric advice.” What part of that is unclear?
“One wonders how a "psychiatric professional"
might interpret the above self-report, or how Jordan's
now-ex-Christian ex-wife might re-interpret the shared experience described
above.
My, how ad hominemhominem of you.
“Here are about a hundred citations of biblical passages
that Jordan
might want to look up:
http://humanknowledge.net/Thoughts.html#ArgumentsAgainstChristianity
“Thus Jordan
was evidently not the sort of well-versed skeptic whose later deconversion would be of interest to my census of experienced atheists who later convert.
“Typical Christian apologetic conspiracy-think: if seemingly
rational people disagree with me, it's because they "lie" and
secretly have the same sort of religious faith that I have. Faith must indeed
be an embarrassing epistemological crime if its only defense is that everyone
is guilty of it.
“This sums it up perfectly: Jordan's
conversion to Christianity seems not to have been based very much on a rational
evaluation of the historical and scientific evidence.
Apparently, Holtz missed a few of my pages. The rationale behind my
conversion is as my opening page presents:
My
Position
Nearly all New Testament scholars, regardless of
their theological leanings, agree:
a. Jesus Christ
existed.
b. He faced
crucifixion.
c. By Godly hook, earthly crook, or whatever, there is no
body.
d. Jesus' followers
saw SOMETHING they believed to be a risen Jesus.
Theistic,
non-theistic, and anti-theistic scholars agree on the above points. Who amongst
us possesses greatest insight?
About Scholarship
I have presented "New Testament scholars."
Scholars are individuals whose works are read, used, and learned from by
academia, not pop readership. Also, they are fully studied in the archaeology,
languages, anthropology, and history pertaining to New Testament times. By
these criteria, Dan Barker, Pat Robertson, Josh McDowell, and MadalynO’Hair are not New
Testament scholars, unlike William Lane Craig (Christian) and GerdLüdemann (non-Christian), with whom colleagues
of various theistic persuasions agree regarding the above four points. Anyone
arrogant enough to claim superior knowledge to the scholars hails from an
interesting breed indeed.
Rules
of Engagement
Non-Christians are welcome to challenge my position
and be included in the debates section. The rules of engagement follow:
1. Stick with the
Resurrection. It is pivotal.
2. Read the current
debates in their entirety to avoid repeating
issues already debated.
3. Do not criticize
my referenced material you have not read in its entirety.
4. Avoid ad hominem (personal) and red herring (diversionary) tactics.
5. Do not apply a
double standard. Apply the same rules of measure to both positions.
6. Only one debate
will be undergone at a time.
Holtz is welcome
to debate if he follows the rules. He will have to stop the character attacks,
read the previous debates, etc. or take a hike.
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Brian Holtz" brian@holtz.org
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 200320:50:41 -0800
” . .truth of Christianity vs. atheism depends only on the strength of their
best arguments. Investigating conversion stories might help uncover better
arguments than one has seen (or appreciated) before, but it of course cannot
settle the question of which side's best arguments are right.
”If "learn[ing] so much" after joining
American Atheists did not leave you a ‘well-learned atheist’, then feel free
to tell me how well- or poorly- learned an atheist you were. By
calling you ‘well-learned’ I'm giving you the benefit of the
doubt. If you did not know very much about atheism before
converting to Christianity, then your conversion story is not the sort of
example I'm trying to analyze.
”Can you give more details on how much you knew about atheism, Christianity,
and philosophy? Do you have any examples from when you were an atheist of
writings by you on atheism?
”Obviously, that your learning as an atheist seemed not to include first-hand
familiarity with the text of the Bible.
”. . .it
means that you may not be a good example of "an atheist having long-term
experience with both side's arguments who later converted to Christianity
purely because of comparing those arguments." (This is what I meant
about not reading what you quoted at the top.) For the sake of argument let us consider I was an extremely poorly
learned atheist with an I.Q. of about 70. After converting, my ignorance
quantum leaped and my I.Q dropped to 20. Now, about that resurrection thingy.
. .
”A facile charge of "ad hominem" can be
lobbed at any study of the potential non-rational factors confounding a
conversion. Your self-report is well within bounds for evaluating such
factors, and your ex-wife's perspective would obviously be very helpful in
understanding your conversion. I'm sorry if these questions about your
witness make you uncomfortable. You, Sir, do not have the power to make me uncomfortable; do not
flatter yourself. My ex-wife’s illness is her story. In the course of our
marriage, two psychologists and one psychiatrist found me quite mentally
healthy. Her illness is a matter of public record in the local courthouse.
”I indeed have not read your entire site. I've read your "opening page",
your conversion story, much of your debate with Locks, and (now) some of your
debate with Beal.
”Your opening page describes this as your "position", and does not
say it is the "rationale behind your conversion". One's current
"position" may be quite unrelated to the processes involved in
one's conversion. Your page's discussion of your being "saved" and
your "acceptance" of Jesus is several paragraphs removed from this
presentation of your "position", and surrounds a link to your
"personal testimony". Your conversion story in fact
reiterates your "position" as #8 of the 10 things you
"determined" during your conversion, and I quoted the heart of that
determination in my analysis.
”For the record, would you mind answering for each of my potential confounding
factors which you would agree is in your conversion story prima facie
discernible (but presumably not confounding)?
”My stated and narrow purpose here is "to investigate whether atheists
having long-term experience with both sides' arguments ever later convert to
Christianity purely because of comparing those arguments." This
necessarily involves discussion of your personal experience, and if you don't
wish to discuss that, then our interaction will presumably be short-lived.
”I'm trying to resist debating you, because I want to focus my critiques
against the best Christian arguments extant, and as good as you may think
yours are, they aren't the best. :-) I agree with your Rules 1 and
5, but (as demonstrated above) your ability to apply Rules 2 and 3 is
questionable. And of course, you might consider my stated purpose to be a
violation of Rule 4. Indeed, it is clear that you avoid debating the issue of Christ’s
resurrection. Quit beating around the bush and dancing in circles. All of
your concerns can be met by your simply debating the points of Christ’s
resurrection. Any other mail will be deleted. If you debate and follow MY
rules not yours, you will be added to the debates section. My rules are fair,
healthy, and maintain focus.
Date: Tue,
14 Jan 200319:54:09
-0500
To: "Steve Locks"slocks@globalnet.co.uk
Subject: Re:
Hi Steve,
As far as, "Just one comment - I am surprised that you are
still claiming scholarly consensus and particularly that Lüdemann
agrees with your "4 points." Given that I have already quoted him as
disagreeing about an empty tomb at http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jreply2.html#maet
why do you think he agrees with you?"
He agrees that there is no available body. That's the item I hold at
issue.
Subject: RE: atheist deconversion
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 200307:57:03 –0800
Now, refute the points of my
position or stop interrupting my reading time.
Since (as I demonstrated re: 500, martyrs, kamikazes) you seem unable to
discern whether the points of a position have even been addressed (let alone
refuted), I'm not inclined to try to meet whatever idiosyncratic criteria you
might have for considering something a refutation. At any rate, in addition to
the rebuttal -- unanswered anywhere in your oeuvre -- I already offered
regarding the 500, martyrs, and kamikazes, I note that your
"position" on the resurrection is among the Christian claims answered
in my book at http://humanknowledge.net/Thoughts.html#ArgumentsAgainstChristianity.
> I remind you:
>
> "Holtz is welcome to debate if he follows the rules. He will have to
stop the character attacks, read the previous debates, etc. or take a
hike."
And I remind you:
1) analyzing your conversion does not constitute a "character
attack"; and
2) your material will have to be somewhat more impressive before it merits a
specific rebuttal from me. (For example, your site's essay on the stolen body
never even considers the obvious possibility that most disciples did not know
it was stolen.)
I will, however, be interested to see whether you have the intellectual courage
(i.e. character) to post the full contents of our exchange on your site.
No, you post the full text at Your
site, ideally at the link I provided above to your initial G. Jordan post.