Acknowledging points on the other side doesn't even require granting legitimacy to theism or to Christianity. You made the argument that Christian apologetics in response to other religions either appeals to biblical authority (which is NOT question-begging to the extent that the other religion in question accepts biblical authority), or appeals to methodological naturalism in a way that would undercut Christian apologetics if applied to Christianity. I pointed out, using a fairly pedestrian Christian anti-Islamic website, that this appears to be demonstratably false. There were no appeals to biblical authority, there was no appeal to Humean views on miracles, there was no appeal to the principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. No, there was just the argument that, using three evidential tests, the Bible stands on far firmer historical ground than does the Qu'ran. This was a conclusion that an atheist could easily draw and remain an atheist. This was a reason you were giving for why Christianity couldn't possibly pass the outsider test, and it look fairly obvious to me that it flew in the face of the evidence. The website looked clearly to applying the same standard of evidence to each religion. It would hardly be the end of atheism for you to just acknowledge the point. You didn't. In fact you said my claim was laughable. But yet you want to set yourself up as my "guide" in viewing my religious beliefs from an outside perspective, someone who can be truly impartial because he isn't religiously committed? It's like saying Rush Limbaugh can be objective about the Democratic Party because he's an outsider.
The fact is that Christian apologists reject religions like Mormonism and Scientology, because, to be quite honest, Joseph Smith looks like a charlatan using ordinary evidence. ECREA isn't necessary to the argument, and is never, so far as I know, invoked.
Bald assertions claiming that your opponents are ignorant is another thing that does nothing and accomplishes less for your cause. Here at Dangerous Idea I have worked to establish an atmosphere of fairness for our discussions. That's the culture here, and people on both sides of the Christian debate recognize it. I have a reputation for fair-mindedness that I believe I have earned. You come in shooting from the hip, and you aren't going to persuade anyone. You shoot from the hip, and all you will hit is your own foot, over and over again.
Unfortunately, you have hyped and hyped and hyped the OTF to the point where I feel I need to bring it back down to earth. In its place, and within limits, it is a fine idea. What I object to is all the tendentious stuff piled on top of it. It's because of all that other stuff that I have to concur with Steve Hays (whatever our differences may have been in the past), that by the time you get through with it, the Outsider Test for Faith becomes the Insider Test for Infidels.
Someone who deconverts and spends all his time attacking Christianity is not a real outsider. He is a partisan. He is a player in the language game of Christianity. There are plenty of people who grew up as Christians and deconverted, and are now sworn enemies of what they once embraced. Psychology has a name for it, it's called "reaction formation."
Your OTF, what's legitimate about it, appeals to fair intellectual play, but you don't practice it in the way you conduct debate. That's on thing I find stinkingly hypocritical about the whole project.
You actually appeal to Feldman, and yet assert with absolute certainty what your academic superiors deny. That's blatant hypocrisy.
I think one appeal atheism has for some people, something that they look for from fundamentalism, is the need for absolute certainty. They can't tolerate living with doubt, with the possibility that they might be wrong. They start doubting the Bible, or Christianity, and then Richard Dawkins or John Loftus come along and say, "Sure, you can have absolute certainty, or almost absolute certainty. Just deconvert and become and atheist." It appeals to people emotionally. But, in my view, that's what's really delusional.
