Commentary on the Richard Carrier vs. David Marshall Debate

Earlier this year Christian apologist David Marshall debated Richard Carrier over the question, "Is the Christian Faith Reasonable?" After watching the debate I and most other commentators thought that it was about as decisive of a win as Carrier could have gotten, and Marshall has been continuously ridiculed about this debate ever since. For quite some time I considered the idea of giving a blow by blow account of why Marshall's arguments failed in the debate, having refuted the entirety of one of his books as well as a few other essays and blog posts, but eventually I scrapped the idea.



I recently came across a blog post by the infamous J.R. Fraser, David Marshall's sidekick on the Amazon.com forums, who was one of the most vile and dishonest individuals I've ever come across while debating on online fora. In a post dating from March 26, 2013, titled David Marshall v. Richard Carrier debate Fraser does his best (and that's not saying much) to defend Carrier's scathing arguments and rebuttal's to Marshall's arguments during the debate. The only argument covered in this post is Carrier's initial opening statement dealing with the Problem of Evil. You may want to watch the above video before reading on.

What follows will be the entirety of Fraser's post in blockquotes with my responses following immediately after.

Richard Carrier offers an argument against the reasonableness of the Christian faith based on a form of the problem of evil. Carrier argues that Jesus failed to inform people about things like germs, parasites, and proper sanitation and thus it is not reasonable to believe that Jesus is God as Christianity claims. The basic form of the argument can be summarized this way: “if Jesus had been God, he would have done X, Y, and Z; Jesus did not do X, Y, and Z; therefore Jesus was not God.” The fatal flaw in this argument is in justifying the first premise, but that issue can be set aside for the moment. Let’s start by looking at Carrier’s specific examples of what Jesus “should have done.”

Carrier argues that in order to prevent centuries of unnecessary deaths, Jesus should have taught people about germ theory, parasites, and proper sanitation. First, there is a considerable amount of naivety in such a statement. Even modern missionaries who travel to tribal cultures in today’s world can require years to communicate basic concepts of modern medicine to people from non-Western cultures, and that's only after said missionaries have had extensive training in cultural anthropology. While it’s easy to assume that things like modern medicine and science are culturally neutral and value-free, anthropologists know that this is not the case. So the idea that Jesus should have given lectures on germ theory strikes me as misguided. It would not have been understood. On the other hand it might have been a great strategy for him if he wanted to be followed and remembered by nobody.

I must object to Fraser's argument here, since it doesn't even begin to answer the argument Carrier was making. Fraser argues that Jesus could not have given his disciples and other peoples the necessary information about sanitation because it can take “years to communicate basic concepts of modern medicine to people from non-Western cultures, and that's only after said missionaries have had extensive training in cultural anthropology. While it’s easy to assume that things like modern medicine and science are culturally neutral and value-free, anthropologists know that this is not the case. So the idea that Jesus should have given lectures on germ theory strikes me as misguided.”

What's so horribly wrong-headed about this argument? It is the fact that if Jesus is supposed to be god then Jesus should have all of the knowledge god has, which is about everything. Therefore, it stands to reason that, armed with this knowledge, it would have been a simple thing for Jesus to inform others about the benefits of doing something as simple as washing one's hands after certain activities, or simple methods of sanitation. This argument does not at all require any “modern” knowledge since god is supposed to know everything, after all. If god is supposed to be omniscient, gracious and all loving, then certainly such a god would happily provide his creations with this necessary information. God allegedly gave his creations laws and codes of conduct, why not information to help them avoid disease by something as simple as sanitation? Or even simpler, as Carrier opines, simply eliminating said germs and parasites.

Fraser might argue that this argument is illogical because Carrier and I don't really know what god would do. However, this cuts both ways, since Fraser cannot say with any certainty what his god might do. I do think Carrier's argument is more powerful because Christians supposedly know what kind of being god and Jesus are. I just cited a few of the attributes, and given these few alone, there is no reason why a loving god who knows everything would not want to share his knowledge with his creations.

Finally, I will nitpick something he said. Fraser wrote, “Carrier argues that Jesus failed to inform people about things like germs, parasites, and proper sanitation and thus it is not reasonable to believe that Jesus is God as Christianity claims.” [emphasis mine] Carrier never said this, nor even implied it. Quoting from Carrier's opening speech, this was Carrier's argument summed up: “Notably, nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus or god impart any correct knowledge or information about the world, that wasn't already known to men at the time. Thus apparently, Jesus and his god were as ignorant as every other first century human.” Later he says, “Jesus and his god didn't do anything god-like. Just as their knowledge was ignorantly human, so was their ability.” This argument is one of his justifications for his larger point: “The Christian religion is simply not believable in the face of this evidence. Neither Jesus or Christianity as a whole has exhibited any special source of information about the world. Nothing distinctive of actual divine communication. They didn't know about germs, they didn't know about parasites. Christians have no more evidence of having a pipeline to a kind and all-knowing god than any other religion in history has, and that's the principle point, here. The fact that it took Christians 1800 years -- do the math on that, 1800 years -- to figure out that germs and parasites even existed, and it might be a good idea to kill them before they kill our kids -- proves that Christianity is a man-made religion, and not something received from any real god.”

But even supposing that this knowledge could have been accepted and understood by those first century Jews (which is simply not realistic), so what? Would these apostles of good hygiene have then been responsible to take that message to the Romans, and would the Romans have been expected to adopt it themselves? Perhaps in Carrier’s mind, if God had wanted to come to earth as a human being he would have done so as something other than an ancient Jew. Perhaps God should have made himself into a time-travelling 21st-century Westerner, because that’s what Richard Carrier would do. This appears to be the honest force of Carrier’s words.

Fraser provides no reasons why Carrier's scenario is “not realistic.” He has not provided any reasons why, given the attributes I cited, a loving god would not want to provide the knowledge to save countless thousands from death. Fraser's digression, asking whether or not Jesus' disciples would have taught the Romans, completely misses the point. And it seems obvious that Fraser is still unable to grasp the argument Carrier was making. There would be no need of time travel since god is all knowing. He already has the knowledge. Therefore, Fraser's argument is pointless.

Thus the premise that if Jesus had been God that he should have done X, Y, and Z has the dubious foundation that it simply starts from Carrier’s own assumptions about what God should do – and of course one of those assumptions is that teaching about things like repentance, sin, faith, reconciliation to God, and life after death don’t matter because – well, presumably because Carrier doesn’t think those things are real or rational. If Carrier DID think those things were real, he would probably have a correspondingly higher view of how important they are – and perhaps a different evaluation with regard to whether or not Jesus did what he should have done. If Jesus’ mission was to prevent as many premature deaths as possible, then perhaps Carrier is right, and Jesus should have taught about germs (even given the likelihood that such a teaching could never have been effective in the cultural context). If, however, his mission was something else (such as inaugurating the kingdom of God), then it’s possible that Carrier is totally off base. Rather than being a strong argument against the reasonableness of Christianity, Carrier’s argument turns out to be simple question-begging.

Richard Carrier did not state explicitly the attributes of god to give his argument its foundation, which I believe is justifiably implied, since I think Carrier's argument is just another derivation of the argument of evil, which takes into account god's allegedly loving nature. Given this foundation, this argument is anything but “question-begging.” Due to Fraser's lack of reasonable criteria or reasoning why he doesn't believe god would provide such information, I think he could be accused of question-begging.

Fraser's argument is irrational and goes against the very attributes his god is supposed to have: omniscient, gracious and all loving, among others. So, according to Fraser, his god and Jesus would rather preach their beliefs and try to convert people, rather than save childrens' lives.

There are other problems with Carrier’s argumentation which are more nitpicky. Carrier alleges that Jesus said “nothing we put into us can harm us,” and implies that this is simply wrong because of course germs can make us sick. My best guess is that Carrier is doing a botch paraphrase of Mark 7:15-23 or the parallel passage in Matthew 15:11-20. However, Jesus does not say that nothing we put into us can harm us, he says that no food can make anyone “unclean,” meaning in the Old Testament ceremonial sense.

This is a bit of a surprising gaffe by Carrier – any lay person who has attentively read the Old Testament will have noticed that there are a lot of foods which are “clean” and others which are “unclean” for the Jews. This is known as kosher. Jesus was certainly not saying that nothing we eat can harm us, he was saying that food does not defile a person spiritually. This is a significant theological point but it has nothing to do with what Carrier seems to think it does, namely physical health.

Carrier also says that according to Jesus not even poison can hurt us (although the verse actually only applies to believers), but this verse is found in the long ending of Mark which almost all scholars agree is not authentic. Carrier should know that full well.

I will deal with Fraser's first two paragraphs. Had Fraser more closely listened to Carrier's opening statement he would have known that Carrier specifically mentioned how Jesus is claimed to have said in the Gospel of Mark that “nothing we put into us can harm us.” He then cites the passage in Mark 16:18 where Jesus tells his disciples that “they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all.”

Fraser is simply being disingenuous because it's obvious that Carrier is discussing sanitation, but Fraser argues that the passages are not referring to this specifically. I'm sure Carrier is well aware of this. However, his point is that many others during the time washed their cups and other utensils (Mark 7:4), but Jesus tells his disciples not to do this. Yes, it was for religious reasons, but if Jesus is god and god is all knowing, then surely stopping the spread of disease is more important than mere religious ritual. If not, that is just immoral. That is Carrier's point.

Finally, so what if the endings in Mark are known to be unauthentic? Unauthentic or not, it was basic Jewish practice not to wash their hands and utensils, but had Jesus or god told their followers that this can lead do disease, he would have saved many lives. Even if the passage was added much later it would still not change these facts. These rituals existed despite this passage.

Carrier charges Jesus with incorrectly teaching people to eat without washing their hands in spite of the unhygienic nature of such advice. Clearly, argues Carrier, Jesus could not have been God and have made such a statement. Again Carrier’s argument flops because of his evident lack of understanding of rabbinic Judaism. The neglect of hand washing which the Jews who charged Jesus with(actually the charge was against Jesus’ disciples) was not simple hand washing for hygiene. It was the ritual hand washing that they believed good Jews were supposed to practice before, during, and after meals. Without the ritual hand washing, they believed the disciples were ceremonially unclean.

I've already anticipated and responded to this disingenuous argument. I wrote: Carrier's point is that many others during the time washed their cups and other utensils (Mark 7:4), but Jesus tells his disciples not to do this. Yes, it was for religious reasons, not hygienic, but if Jesus is god and god is all knowing, then surely Jesus and god are well aware of how to stop the spread of disease. When they saw their disciples not washing their hands, surely this thought must have crossed their minds, but they said nothing. It appears that mere religious ritual is more important than saving countless lives. If so, that is just immoral.

A bit of background is necessary here. The rabbinic system of ritual hand washing is not found in the Torah, but was later developed by the Jews. Thus Jesus responds to the challenge by challenging them: why do they break the commands of God because of traditions made by men? Jesus’ response to the question of hand washing was that food doesn’t defile a person spiritually, rather it is evil desires which motivate evil actions which defile a person. The entire discussion of hand washing (which is found in only one passage in Mark and Matthew) has to do with ceremonial cleanness and the theological discussion about the status of the Torah, a discussion which continued into the early church. Again, it’s an important theological point, but it has nothing to do with the use that Carrier wants to make of it. The idea of washing your hands for simple hygiene is not even in view. Carrier is misreading a theological discussion as a medical one.

I've already responded to this above.

Carrier’s entire argument also fails in principle. The argument is based on the premise that if a good human being would do X if it was in his or her power, then God should also do X. However, unlike human beings, God sees “the end from the beginning.” He is not so limited in his perspective as to see only the immediate effects of some action or inaction. We can make an analogy from parenthood. Very often as a parent I have to make a decision, sometimes painfully, to not do what my children would like me to do or to make them do what they do not want to do. Because I fail to do what they would do if they were in my position, from their perspective it would appear that I have fallen short of their moral standard. Often when this happens they announce, “No fair!” However, as a (hopefully) wise parent, I am able to make judgments about what is best which they are not yet able to make.

This argument is just plain ridiculous. Fraser actually argues that “God sees 'the end from the beginning'. He is not so limited in his perspective as to see only the immediate effects of some action or inaction.” In fact, it is precisely because god is able to see so far into the future that he would have known about the lives Jesus could have saved had he or Jesus mentioned these facts about the germ theory of disease and simple concepts of sanitation. Essentially, Fraser has utilized an entirely immoral argument, because he's just admitted that god and Jesus condemned millions to death and that this was the most “wise” decision. I beg to differ, and I think anyone with a properly working moral compass can also clearly see this.

The analogy to God is imperfect, because God’s wisdom is not merely significantly different in degree from ours in the way that mine is from that of my children. My children will grow up and in a few short years reach the level of understanding of an adult and perhaps one day become parents themselves. God’s wisdom, however, will always be above us, so it is not certain that anyone knows what God should do in any given situation. It’s even conceivable that they might be way off, possibly coming to a conclusion which is the opposite of the truth as God sees it.

Thus the basic form of the argument as it stands is not effective for the simple reason that it begins with the very dubious premise that Richard Carrier knows exactly what Jesus should have done if he had been divine. It’s a variation on any number of skeptical arguments from evil – if there is a God, he should have done X, or he should have prevented Y from happening. The basic justification for the premise is that any good human being would have done X or prevented Y if it was in his or her power, so God should do the same, most often accompanied by an emotional appeal which Carrier also makes heavy use of. It seems to me that it is rather more likely that if God exists (which I am convinced that he does), that he would do things which nobody would expect. A God who only did what humans expected or thought he should do would be no god at all.

Once again, had god or Jesus known of these scientific advances they could have prevented millions of deaths. I'm playing devil's advocate here, but surely Jesus and god are well aware that murder is a sin, according to god's own laws? The sixth commandment is “Thou shalt not kill,” but through their inaction they have violated their own laws. Given this fact, clearly both god and Jesus are aware that killing is wrong (it's right there in the ten commandments!) and surely all sane human beings are aware that killing is wrong, so we can easily surmise that god and Jesus would not want to willingly put innocent people to death. Given these facts, Fraser's argument that we cannot know what god or Jesus would have done is not supported by the facts, so long as they adhered to their own principles and laws that they laid down.

Obviously, they did not follow their own commandments and this is easily seen throughout the bible in both the cases of god and even Jesus. This leaves only three possibilities: either the Christian god and Jesus are immoral, or they did not and do not exist. The final option would be – and this was Carrier's entire point – that this is strong evidence that Jesus and all other persons from that time period had only the knowledge from that time period, and had no connection to any divine source of information, and further casting doubt upon other supernatural claims of Christianity. Therefore, the Christian faith is unreasonable because it is incoherent and doesn't even follow from its own premises.

Like every argument I've seen from J.R. Fraser, this post was all too easy to refute. He failed to state any logical premises from which he drew his conclusions, and he seemed to misunderstand some of Carrier's arguments. Fraser might fancy himself as some knowledgeable Christian apologist, but the fact of the matter is that his arguments are just as factually flawed and irrational as every other Christian apologist out there.

David Marshall and I: The Saga Ends

A few days ago I noted a few comments about me and my review of The Truth Behind the New Atheism in the comments of David Marshall’s blog. I responded to Marshall on my blog and exposed his factual errors about his counter-argument, his hypocrisy, and his immature attitude.

Prior to this, in November of 2010, I had emailed Marshall in an attempt at trying to resolve our long-standing feud and I never received a much deserved apology from him, even though I apologized for my role in the dispute. Seeing his personal attacks and smears against me on his blog (his mentioning of the name change on Amazon.com and how I’ve supposedly “attacked” him all over the internet) reminded me of the emails and his false accusations greatly upset me, especially since I had apologized to him for my part in all of the drama. My hopes of resolving our dispute were badly let down when Marshall responded with a curt reply and refused to apologize to me for all of the rudeness and countless smear campaigns he’s subjected me to.

While I am very angry that Marshall refused to apologize to me, I was glad that he removed several of his very dishonest statements about me allegedly posting “pornographical posts” and other things and he apologized for the error. Though I don’t believe that single act can undo all of the ill will he’s shown me the last three years since we began our correspondence on the Amazon.com forums.

I apologized for my part in the disputes and he accepted my apology but doesn’t apologize to me. That really upset me. All I can say is that I tried to be the bigger man, apologize, and resolve our issues, but my hope that Marshall would act in kind was proven wrong with his reply.

Here is the email I wrote to him on November 13, 2010 titled “Truce.”

Mr. David Marshall,

This is probably long over due but I'd like to apologize to you for any wrong you might feel I've done to you. I admit that blurting out that you were a liar in some of our first discussions was not the smoothest way to handle the situation. I believed (and still do) that you weren't being honest in admitting some of your mistakes and I wanted to call you out on it. Looking back I should have handled the situation more delicately and I apologize. It seems to me that it was that particular situation that caused things to get out of hand and unfortunately we've never resolved it.

Despite my poor judgment you escalated the situation by beginning to call me a fool, among other put downs, and then you resorted to trying to harm my credibility by various means. Spreading around the fact that I made a mistake (which when it was pointed out to me I apologized immediately) in believing you had edited your post after the fact. Then, of course, your false claims that I'd never posted any arguments from my review on the Amazon forums. J.R. Fraser started this falsehood and you followed suit. Then, you've got your most recent statements I've found where you claim I've been sending you hate messages and something about “pornographical posts” on John Loftus' blog. I'm sorry, but I have not done anything like that. This is the only time I've emailed you so if someone is writing you obscene messages, I'm sorry, but it is not me. And as far as “pornographical posts” what in the world are you referring to?

Either someone else wrote you and you believe it's me, or you're outright lying. Unlike before, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I do not appreciate these dishonest things being spread about me. I also think the proper thing to do would have been to write to me first and ask about them instead of publicly posting these slanders.

I fully accept all responsibility for my name calling in retaliation for your above behavior and again I apologize. We are both to blame here so I would hope you'd accept responsibility for your actions towards me and apologize in kind. I do not know why you feel the need to continually spread these falsehoods but I'd like you to stop. I did nothing to deserve this behavior from you and it's obviously gotten out of hand.

We both allowed things to escalate to this level and I should have written you sooner, but with these newer statements you've been spreading about me I felt I had to intervene and confront you personally because this has to stop. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate untruthful things being spread about you, so I'd hope you'd understand that I don't either. I'd be more than willing to talk about it and maybe I could even help you track down the person. No promises but I can do my best.

I'm willing to set the past aside and wipe the slate clean. Where we go from here I do not know. I just hope in the future we can move past all this and you can leave out the name calling and slanders when and if we ever correspond again. I wouldn't mind conversing with you, or even discussing issues in your book, but all I ask is that you treat me with respect and you will get respect in return. That is all I've ever asked for. That's not too much to ask is it?

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the matter and hopefully we can resolve this amicably.

Sincerely,

Ken

Marshall replies to me on November 14, 2010:

Ken,

Thanks for apologizing.

I'll take your word for the fact that those messages came from someone else. I hope you can see why I thought it was you -- you have used a number of names to post, one of which was quite similiar to the one these were posted under, you have shown yourself clever about finding new on-line forums in which to attack me (and that is the right word), you have used foul language from time to time, I thought you were on the thread, and while going a bit further than you have in the past, perhaps, it was reminiscent of your worst comments to JR.

But I do not want to falsely accuse anyone. If you can remind me where I said that, I'll gladly delete or alter those comments.

I also apologize for getting this wrong, as apparently I did.

Considering all the vitriolic attacks you have posted against me in different forum on the Internet, I think that's about as far as I can go at the moment.

All the best,

David Marshall

I responded on the same day and I never received a reply. I wrote back:

Mr. Marshall,

Thanks for the reply. The two messages can be found here, one on Amazon and one on John Loftus' blog. Those are the two that I know of anyway. I haven't seen any others.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2UGL9J4POFWMC/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&cdMsgNo=6&cdPage=1&asin=1414317085&store=books&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=MxO6FP0F8KEPQL#MxO6FP0F8KEPQL

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=21219785&postID=1846579974736732117

I appreciate your willingness to delete these. You mentioned a forum? What forum are you referring to? I'm curious to see these posts for myself and what handle the person was using. I was assuming someone emailed you and said these things.

I'm perplexed about your accusation since I've never “attacked” you. You've made this accusation many times and I do not understand why you think this. However, I think you are referring to the times I posted my review of your book on a few online forums, which I posted with my blog name, Arizona Atheist, and not any other so I don't know what you mean when you say I've used other names. I[n] fact, I believe there are only three places where I've posted my review of your book. On a forum called Network54.com, Amazon.com, and Richard Dawkins' old forums, which are no longer. As far as changing my Amazon handle twice in the last three years I even mentioned the name changes in my profile and never denied changing my name. Because of this I find it hard to believe how you could think I did it maliciously in order to attack you.

In these posts all I ever did was ask people to critique my review...that's it. I never “attacked” you or any such thing. I wanted to get feedback on my review so I could correct any possible errors.That's the only reason I did it. Why you believe posting a review of a book to get feedback is an “attack” I just do not understand.

And, like I said in my first email, I'm sorry for my language but I was responding to your many insults and dishonest things you've spread about me and I simply got tired of it and lost my temper. The same with J.R. since he was the one who began that outright lie to begin with. My actions were in response to his attacks (and insults) against me.

I would really appreciate a sincere apology since I do fully believe I deserve one. I'm willing to put the aside the past and I don't see any reason why you can't do the same.

This is why I feel we must discuss this like men. You are accusing me of something (attacking you) when I've never done such a thing. My posts about you on Amazon were either 1. An attempt to have a debate with you; or 2. To expose the several false and misleading things you (and J.R.) spread about me on Amazon. There were no attacks, only several attempts to have an actual, civil discussion with you, and to set the record straight. If anyone has attacked anyone I'd say you've been attacking me for the last few years with the your actions I recounted in my first email.

Now, maybe you feel these are somehow attacks against you but I just explained my motivations. I also tried to make that clear in the posts themselves but for whatever reason you continue to feel differently.

Why?

I truly would like to resolve this.

Ken

In the links above Marshall did apologize on John Loftus’ blog and Amazon but his “apologies” were more of a defense of his actions than a true apology and he continued to post other false things about me, such as me wishing for the “death” of my opponent. This is just complete nonsense since the very person I supposedly said this to even admitted in a discussion I never said this!

On John’s blog Marshall wrote:

Note: It appears that I was partially wrong in something I said in this forum about another poster: “Angry Atheist" aka Ken?) A guy who, when confronted (not just by me) with the absurdity of his arguments, those he is willing to show, that is, laspses into fantasies about the death of his opponent, pornographical posts, and obscurity of the kind we all know and love -- I'm right because no one is going to follow me to THIS web site and prove me wrong? Ken tells me he is not Angry Atheist. If so, then he is not the one responsible for the pornographic hate mail. (He was, however, responsible for that other stuff I described.) There were reasons for thinking it was him, but I accept his word, and apologize for my error. I am glad to know Ken did not make those posts.

On Amazon Marshall said:

Ken: If you say it wasn't you, let's assume that's true. I apologize for my apparent error.

The apparent mistake was, let me point out, easy to make, since the pseudonym was similar, Ken has used several, the tone was similiar, and the posts came from a source that Ken participated in.

The rest of what Ken says underlines why the mistake (assuming it to have been one) was easy to make.

Anyone can do a word search for ¨David Marshall¨ and ¨Arizona Atheist¨ and see who has been ¨smeering¨ whom, and who has been (mostly) ignoring whom. Note, to begin with, the first article cited, dated well before the comment Ken objects to here.

Having corrected the error, I'll be happy to ignore Ken's posts again.

I responded to him on Amazon with the following:

I appreciate the willingness of Marshall to accept responsibility for *some* of his behavior but as for the post I linked to (which is in response to the post Marshall is referring) it's clear that post I had written called, I believe something like, the Lies and Distortions of Marshall, were again IN RESPONSE to several inaccurate and outright false claims spread by Marshall. As always my posts were in response to the distortions of facts that have been spread about me all over Amazon by Marshall and two of his buddies. While Marshall manned up and accepted responsibility for SOME of his actions he did not claim full responsibility for all of them. That is very telling.

His refusal to apologize has very much upset me. I tried to be the bigger man and tried to come to some kind of agreement, at least some kind of understanding where at the very least he stops his untruthful smears against me. I suppose all I can do now is to avoid making those mistakes again by not losing my temper and simply let Marshall, Fraser, and whoever simply flap their gums and make themselves look like the idiots throwing out insults and smears, and allow their actions to speak for themselves, rather then allow myself to get sucked into their petty and immature game. Anyone can view the evidence for themselves to see what happened and they can witness Marshall’s many unprovoked smears and outbursts over a number of years.

The Lies, Distortions, Hypocrisy, and Immaturity of David Marshall, et al.

Introduction

It's an unfortunate fact of life that there are people in the world like the ones I am about to introduce any readers of this post to. It's often been argued that atheists are very often more moral than Christians, and I've seen several studies backing up this fact. Other than these studies, however, I unfortunately also have first hand experience with a small group of Christians who have no apparent moral fortitude whatsoever. The identities of these three individuals are as follows. (As a quick note, the following discussions took place on the public Amazon.com customer discussion forums so people are free to choose their handles, which don't always represent their true identity. However, two of the three individuals I have confirmed that their handles on Amazon are their real names.)

The first person I'm going to introduce you to is David Marshall. He is an obscure Christian apologist and author of the 2007 anti-New Atheism book titled The Truth Behind the New Atheism.









The next is another person who on Amazon.com goes by the handle J.R. Fraser, but his full name is John Fraser and to the left is a picture of this individual as it currently appears on his blog.












The third, and the one whose name I cannot confirm, is Bruce Bain.

The first two of these individuals began a dishonest character assassination campaign against me, which started sometime in early 2008, and about a year or two later Bruce Bain, an irrational fanboy of Marshall's, joined in.

Both David Marshall and J.R. Fraser are two very rude and immature Christian missionaries whose behavior borders on the pathological due to their habitual dishonesty and lack of civility during discussions with most people.

In this post I am going to expose these individuals' dishonest personal attacks against myself and expose their agendas and their hypocrisy.

– April 15, 2012

In the Beginning

In late 2007 I was looking for books to read that opposed the New Atheism. I wanted to read critical books about them and their arguments so I could gain a more balanced perspective so my views would not be one-sided about them. The first one I came across was titled The Truth Behind the New Atheism, by David Marshall.

After receiving the book I read it and found the book to be appalling. I believed that the author was highly illogical and made some very poor arguments. In some cases I believed he had written some outright falsehoods. With such misinformation being published I decided to write an on-line review expressing my thoughts about the book and exposing the errors committed by this author. About a month later I finished my review (it can be read here) and I posted it to my blog, Arizona Atheist, on October 22, 2007.

Afterward I was proud of what I had written and wanted to share it with others. I also wanted to subject it to a form of “peer review” so I could improve any possible mistakes. I posted it on numerous on-line discussion groups and forums asking people to read it and give their opinions. The feedback I had received was all very positive, so I believed I had done my homework well, and had written a very good response to the book.

On January 24, 2008 I decided to contact David Marshall, the author of the book, so I could ask him if he'd like to read my review and engage in discussion about it. I did this on the Amazon.com customer discussion forums where people can come and discuss the books they've bought. Each book on Amazon currently has its own forum for discussion so I created a post addressing Marshall titled ATTN: David Marshall at the forum for his book, The Truth Behind the New Atheism.

Below you can view a screenshot taken of the message I left for Marshall. My initial message was,

Hello, Mr. Marshall, I have read your book (and yes I really have) and wrote a review of it. Would you care to comment on it?

It's located here:

http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2007/10/review-of-book-truth-behind-new-atheism.html

Thank you.

Prior to leaving this message I had browsed the Amazon forums and other reviews of Marshall's book and found that he was often in discussions with others who had read his book. In a few cases he seemed civil but in most other discussions he seemed pretty rude, often complaining of people not understanding his arguments and/or not reading his book (hence the above comment that I did read his book). I thought perhaps I might have a nice discussion with him and he replied to me. However, if you look at the picture to the left this message is conspicuously missing. Marshall decided to delete this comment he'd made on October 1, 2008. I'm not sure why, but I believe it's because of what he had written and he wanted to delete the evidence that he had insulted me and was rude to me at the outset. Here is my reply to him,

Mr. Marshall, thanks for the reply.

I'm flattered that you had read my review. Yes it was a review of your book, and I'll leave the quotes off. A review can also pertain to what the writer wrote about, and not necessarily how well, and what was wrong with what the writer said. Your statement that this review says something about me seems like a personal attack. I'm sorry you disliked the review, though I gave sources for my information, and many of the things you said were, I'm sorry to say, just plain ludicrous. One example is about evolution. Next time, please read up on it, before trying to write about it.

My goal in getting your book, actually, was not to refute it, but to learn what "the other side" had to say. When I read it, I saw so many badly argued points, I thought it wise to write something about your errors. I never go into reading a book with a negative state of mind. I read it, and take what the writer says in consideration. Just because I wrote many negative things, doesn't mean I didn't read the book. I read it, and I reread it. Your seemingly personal attack doesn't negate the truthfulness of my review, or the fact that I actually read it. Seems as if the only defense you can muster for your book, of those who give negative reviews, is to claim they didn't actually read it.

By the way, if you actually read the whole review, I did give you kudos on a few things I felt you were correct on. But as I said, I kicked you when you were down, when you were wrong. I am tough, but I am fair.

I don't apologize for my sometimes rude statements in my review. Willful ignorance should not be rewarded with kindness, not when there is a sea of truthful information out there, which one can research.

Have a good day.

As you can plainly see I responded to a few personal attacks against me. From memory I will try to paraphrase what he said. “I read your 'review' a few months ago. I apologize for the quotes but it badly need them.” He placed quotes around the word review because he believed it was so badly written and it allegedly misconstrued his book so badly that it didn't qualify to be called a review. He then proceeded to disparage me and my review by saying that my review “says something about” me, which I rightfully took as a personal attack.

These are the only aspects of the comment I can recall since it happened so long ago but it should be clear, Marshall initiated with the attitude and insults towards me right from the start. Of course, I decided to play it cool despite the personal attack and try to respond in as a polite a manner as I could.

The Rudeness Escalates

Despite the initial rude reply I received from Marshall I still wanted to try to discuss the errors I'd found in his book and I wanted him to read my review and comment on it. Surely, if it was as bad as he'd said it wouldn't be hard to point out where I went wrong. He refused, so I proceeded to post some of the errors I had written about from my review to the Amazon discussion forums so I could get Marshall to comment on them. Most of these early discussions have been deleted from the forums but I managed to copy a handful of these earliest discussions to my blog. This link takes you to a copy of a now deleted Amazon.com blog Marshall had for a while. He often used it to respond to criticisms of his book and in one of them he singled me out.

I must admit that in my initial review I did get a handful of things wrong. I misread a few things in Marshall's book and in this blog post he is correct about a few of my errors. However, one thing he is not correct about is his criticism of my argument that science isn't “narrow-minded.” In my first review I wrote, “I don't see what is so narrow minded about science. What is wrong with accepting things only when there is evidence?” Here we have a plain old misunderstanding. This criticism of mine is actually correct and Marshall is simply being downright anal about words. In Marshall's book, The Truth Behind the New Atheism, he writes that “we've been bamboozled into accepting (in the name of science, though not always from scientists) a lie about truth and how to find it, an untruth that narrows life and hands truth to tunnel-visioned specialists [emphasis mine] (p.16).

In Marshall's blog he claims that I put words in his mouth. He replied, “Neither do I call science 'narrow-minded.' My actual point is that science is a limited way of testing reality: a point scientists in the audience (when I speak) often affirm. I also argue that broader ways of knowing, such as history, are a crucial part of any rational search for ultimate truth.”

This was actually my point and I did understand what he was arguing. I think the issue here was 1) my inability to clearly communicate my views on the issue and 2) Marshall's bias, in believing that not a single person has understood his book.

Another case of this can be found in my criticism of his book when I write in my first review, “He is saying that we should trust what is written in the gospels, because people wrote them, and we're supposed to trust other people.” In response on his blog Marshall writes, “Arizona is largely desert, no doubt subject to mirages. This appears to be one of them. I defy readers to find any such statement in any of my writings. Some people, of course, are not trustworthy at all – including, unfortunately, Arizona Atheist.”

In reaction to this, I admitted that I had misread a few things in his book but not all of his criticisms were correct. I argued these points with him and he continued to claim that I can't read or understand the English language and that I put words in his mouth. I responded by calling him a liar. At the time I believed that no one could possibly be that anal and close-minded and came to the conclusion that he was outright lying because he didn't want to admit any errors in his work.

The truth is Marshall did say that. He believes that because we must place our trust in what he calls “human testimony,” we must trust the word of other people, and this includes written documents, including the bible. This is his basic argument that the biblical gospels can be trusted.

But here, rather than trying to explain what he meant he simply insults me. It was here that the discussion began to turn nasty because, as I said, I accused him of out outright lying and this is also where his tone begins to get even more disrespectful and he proceeds to insult me even more during our exchanges.

In hindsight I do agree that I didn't handle the situation in the best manner. I should have tried to reason with him but I was so infuriated by his rudeness and his intellectual dishonesty that I basically blew my top and called him out on his dishonesty in a not so tactful way.

The Shit Hits the Fan

After this discussion the dialogue between Marshall and I pretty much broke down. He was angry over my calling him a liar, and I (in that oh so tactful manner!) accused him of misrepresenting his arguments and refusing to deal with criticisms in an honest manner.

In a later discussion I ended up being very careless. It was at this point that the discussion became very heated and I didn't really think much before I replied and my responses were mostly emotional. Even if I did try to explain myself, due to my emotional state, my words did not come across as clearly as I would have wanted. Well, one morning I got up and went to the Amazon.com forums where Marshall and I had been fighting back and forth and I quickly read his reply, but didn't have the time that morning to respond. When I got home later that day I was an idiot and failed to reread his comment, which he had actually edited prior to my reply.

Because I didn't bother to read the new comment (I responded to what I could recall from memory) I ended up responding to things Marshall didn't exactly say. Marshall responds and says that I didn't respond to his comments. When I read this I went back to read the initial comment and I noticed that there was a notification saying that Marshall had edited his comment. I had believed that he edited his comment after my reply and I believed he was falsely accusing me of not reading him correctly. At this, I lost my temper again, believing he was being dishonest and I called him a liar again. Well, it turns out that another person, J.R. Fraser, enters the conversation and he very rudely and with much attitude informed me that Marshall edited his post before my reply. He pointed me to the timestamps on Marshall's post that tell you when the post was initially written and when any subsequent edits are made. I was so wrapped up emotionally in wanting to respond right away that I didn't take a good look at Marshall's comment and didn't notice the timestamps.

After this I apologized to Marshall for the mistake and he accepted my apology. However, after this episode both Marshall and Fraser proceeded to mention this fact in every discussion I had with them, seemingly trying to discredit me in the eyes of other forum participants. It was at this point when neither Marshall or Fraser would actually discuss or debate me on anything. They simply began smearing me and they tried to discredit me by making it seem as if I was just some confused person who shouldn't be listened to about anything, including the errors Marshall had made in his book.

I believe I should have been more careful, but I believed (and I still do) that it was highly unethical for Marshall to graciously accept my apology and then proceed to stab me in the back by trying to discredit me with this information every chance he got.

After nearly a year of being insulted, talked down to, dismissed, and smeared I decided to write a separate post in the Amazon forums on November 22, 2008 titled ”The Lies and Distortions of David Marshall.” In it, I make my case that Marshall failed to honestly receive criticisms about his book and I tried to defend myself from the many smears Marshall had made against me.

About a month later things got very bad when David Marshall pointed me to a new thread J.R. had written about me on December 17, 2008 titled “What "Gifted Writer" doesn't want you to know.” My handle on Amazon at that time was 'The Gifted Writer.'

I believe this was Fraser's attempt to “get me back” for exposing Marshall to everyone on the Amazon forums with the above posting of mine. Of course, the difference between the two was that mine was truthful, and his was not. Fraser accused me of doing nothing but making false accusations against Marshall and refusing to honestly debate him and discuss his book. In this post he also made use of the one incident above about my lack of attention when replying to Marshall.

Needless to say, I completely lost it. My response was mostly ad hominem as I tried to clear my name. Needless to say, I believe Fraser's smear worked and my hate-filled response didn't help my credibility much either. Of course, I get Fraser back much later on, but I'll get to that.

It was then that rather than debate me Fraser and Marshall would point people to the thread J.R. had written in their ever increasing discrediting campaigns. In hindsight Fraser's smear is ironic and hypocritical because it was actually Fraser and Marshall who had almost always refused to honestly discuss the issues in Marshall's book, and they were the ones spreading dishonest things about me.

This is pretty much how things go over the next year or so and in nearly every discussion I have with either Fraser or Marshall. Though, there are a handful of times when they actually try to debate me, but it always inevitably turns into the same old thing. They begin insulting me and try to discredit me.

Even David Marshall engaged in this outright lie. See these screenshots:





Sweet Vengeance

When Marshall and Fraser would continually spout their dishonest claim that I refuse to debate and discuss issues in Marshall's book I would continually state the opposite and accuse them of lying. I had assumed that anyone viewing these discussions would have seen Marshall and I's earlier discussions (if you call a grown man calling someone else names a discussion) and known that they were lying. However, later on I decided that maybe I should try to gather evidence of their lies because not everyone who viewed these false accusations against me would have seen these earlier discussions. A little over a year after the smear campaigns started I finally got my wits about me and thought of a way I might be able to disprove Fraser's completely dishonest post about me. I recall all of the past discussions I had with Marshall and Fraser and think to myself that there must be several examples of our discussions prior to Fraser's dishonest post. I ended up searching the Amazon forums for any past discussions with both Marshall and Fraser and I find several, some an entire year before Fraser's post, and others that were mere days before Fraser wrote his dishonest smear. The following are a few examples.

To the left is a screenshot of a discussion I started on October 10, 2008 titled ”A Short Review of The 'Truth' Behind the New Atheism.” I'd written this because I wanted to rewrite my Amazon.com review of The Truth Behind the New Atheism and after I deleted the old review my new one would not get posted. After having my review rejected for whatever reason by Amazon I decided to post it as a separate thread to create a new discussion about Marshall's book in the hopes that he would actually respond to my criticisms.

It was at this point that I had rewritten my review of Marshall's book at my blog in order to correct those old errors and to improve the review overall.



Marshall's reply can be seen to the left. In it he does manage to make a few half-assed counter-arguments (which are all completely wrong. I also never argued that he said all atheists are like Stalin) but it should be apparent how he tries to discredit me by mentioning the past discussions I've explained above. You can also view his nonsense about how I allegedly “misunderstand” his arguments. This is utterly false. Sadly, that is a common debate tactic he uses when his arguments are shot to hell.









Another example was my book review of The Truth Behind the New Atheism on Amazon.com. Here I had debated Marshall about evolution prior to Fraser's dishonest post about me. To the left is a screenshot I had taken previously of part of the discussion with the date highlighted on when it occurred. Notice the date of December 11, 2008, while J.R's post was dated December 17th, 2008.








A final example are the screenshots I took of discussions I had with David Marshall an entire year prior to Fraser's smear. Here are three screenshots taken of David Marshall's now defunct Amazon.com blog. Note the date of my reply of February 5, 2008.






If You Can't Beat 'Em, Smear 'Em!

I've exposed a few of David Marshall's and J.R. Fraser's dishonest attempts at discrediting me. Now, I want to show you a few more examples of their dishonest character assassinations. Mind you, I'm not the only person Marshall has attacked in this manner. Among others, he has also attacked the famous biblical scholar Hector Avalos. On his blog David Marshall smeared Avalos. See the screenshot to the left. It turns out that these accusations are actually false.








In the picture to the left you can see Marshall quoting an earlier version of this document when I didn't exactly hide my true feelings about what had happened to me. A few years after all this began the smears began to spread to other websites, like this one at John W. Loftus' blog Debunking Christianity'









In the comments section of one of my now deleted book reviews Marshall commented on my review in order to discredit me in the eyes of anyone who came across my review.











Assholes All Around

It's a sad fact that not only have I had to deal with David Marshall's and J.R. Fraser's many attempts at character assassination, but they continually insult both myself and other forum members without provocation. It seems the only thing people need to do to earn themselves an eye-full of insults from these two is to disagree with them! The following are several examples of this towards myself and others.

A few years after all this began Marshall actually apologized to me once.



However, about a week later he shows his true colors again by insulting me, not once, not twice, but three times in a single reply! I've actually copied this discussion to my blog.



Here are a few insults from Fraser towards myself and others.

This next screenshot depicts a few insulting remarks towards myself during a discussion that I've copied to my blog:



In this screenshot J.R. is not only insulting me but engaging in his and Marshall's very familiar smear campaign. This is another lie they would often use, and oddly enough this lie contradicts their other lie! First they argue that I refuse to engage in debate. Then they claim I delete old posts in order to “hide” the several ass-kickings they claim to have given me in past debates with them! Well, you morons, which is it?! Furthermore, the reason I deleted my initial review of Marshall's book was not to “hide” anything but because I wanted to erase it in order to write a better review. If I was truly trying to “hide” things I wouldn't have placed many of these discussions I had with them on my blog!

The fact of the matter is that I've eviscerated these individuals on several occasions in debate, but obviously they will never admit to that. The other discrediting tactic they make use of quite often is the fact that I've changed my handle on Amazon.com twice over the years. This is just pathetic, childish bullshit. Yes, I changed my handle on Amazon.com – about two years after their smear campaign started. This accusation is nonsense since the first time I changed my handle I changed it to Arizona Atheist! How in the world could I be trying to “hide” from anything when I used the pen name I'm most known by?! The second (and final) time I changed it I changed it to PrimeTruth to reflect my new philosophical ideas and to avoid any potential bias by people reading my old reviews on Amazon.com. I did this because I was worried readers of my reviews may happen to dislike atheists, since us atheists are still often discriminated against. Even when in discussions with others after this second name change I said who I was, that I was Arizona Atheist writing under a new name. Yeah, I guess I can see how I was being very secretive, huh? [Sarcasm] The fact is people change their handles all the time on Amazon.com and many times people delete old posts but because they're assholes who like to smear their opponents they wrongly claim I did so for some nefarious purpose in their numerous attempts at discrediting me.

Hypocrites All Around

In the last screenshot above I exposed J.R.'s hypocritical statement about my alleged “running away” from their oh so powerful arguments and domineering debating styles! Give me a damn break! But wait! I thought they said I never debated them?! They need to get their story straight before they try to smear someone who's smarter than they are. First they leave all the evidence on the Amazon forums where I can prove they're lying. Then their accusations actually contradict one another!

This isn't the only hypocritical behavior I've seen from these two, however. David Marshall, in a discussion I was not part of, said, “I tend to think most real education is self-education.” He also said in the same discussion, “Most important, though, what's the point? Arguments stand or fall on their own merits. If you think my writing stinks, then what would it matter if I were Regius Professor of All Human Knowledge at Cambridge? If (as happens) my arguments have merit, what would it matter if I dig ditches for a living?” (Screetshots below)





Why are these statements hypocritical? For the very simple fact that Marshall has continually berated me over the fact that I don't have any advanced schooling in the subjects I often write about. He also claims that because he has allegedly studied this or that his views automatically trump mine! What nonsense! As even he said himself, it doesn't matter how much formal education someone has, but how good their arguments are and if those arguments can stand up to the facts! Here is an example of Marshall touting his authority in a discussion we had:



Enter Bruce Bain

The final individual I will discuss is the ever illogical Bruce Bain, likely the most annoying individual I have ever met. Despite his mentally challenged demeanor, Bain also has a vicious vindictive streak (how Christian of him!). Along with Marshall and Fraser he has taken it upon himself to smear me all over Amazon.com (I've been able to get some of his posts removed but several remain). In fact, he is responsible for smearing me to an even greater degree and for a much longer time than either Marshall or Fraser. Below is a screenshot of an example of his smears:



Yes, I am ashamed to say it but I did say these things. Quite simply, I was outright furious about Fraser's blatant lies and smears about me and at the time those comments were made I had been getting horribly weary of the continuous onslaught of insults and put-downs by Marshall and Fraser that had been ongoing for nearly a year. During one particular discussion Fraser was at his worst again with his insults and I simply lost it and attacked him with some pretty vile comments (As a matter of fact, the second screenshot above of Fraser's insults depict part of the same exchange that caused me to blow up. The entire paragraph was nothing but a bunch of personal attacks and lies. I hope people can see why I got so angry.). To be honest Bain doesn't even list the worst ones I said to Fraser here.

Needless to say Bain, Marshall, and Fraser used these comments against me from that point on. Bain was the worst, posting my comments in the manner above all over Amazon.com, making use of the same lie that the other two liars did: the lie that all I do is insult people and never engage in honest debate and discussion. Well, I believe I've refuted that bogus charge completely. But, after thinking about it, I find this smear ironic for the simple fact that for nearly four years I worked on an over one-hundred page chapter-by-chapter response to Marshall's book, which I linked to on numerous times on Amazon.com and offered anyone, particularly David Marshall, J.R. Fraser, and Bruce Bain, a chance to respond to it! I am dumbfounded how that could be construed at somehow trying to avoid a discussion! But that just demonstrates to you the immense idiocy that I've been dealing with for the last few years.

If it's not apparent by now, I'd like to point out something interesting. Look at the examples of insults from me provided by Marshall and Co. They all come from a brief period in 2008 when their smears and insults were at their peak and I finally cracked and lashed out. However, look at all of the examples I've provided over a span of many months and even years, by both Marshall and Fraser. They have a definite history of calling others names and belittling them, while my outbursts were isolated incidents, driven entirely by their immature and outlandish behavior. While I take full responsibility for my comments, and I regret them very much, this proves undeniably that these three have been caught in a web of deceit when they continually claim I am the one with the “problem” or that I am the “immature” one. I'm sorry, but the evidence is in and these man-children are the ones with the problems, not I. Theirs is entirely a case of projection. They continually delude themselves into seeing the vile, hate and invective in others that they themselves put forth on a near constant basis.

Conclusion

I've rewritten this post so as to present my case in a much stronger fashion than I had previously. When writing this post before I had gotten very emotional seeing all of these comments towards me and about me again. It has not been easy this time either. I've had to take a few breaks from this childish idiocy I've been subjected to for several years. Though, I firmly believe I can finally rest my case. I have exposed David Marshall's, J.R. Fraser's and Bruce Bain's illogical, dishonest, and immature character assassinations for what they are: BOLD FACED LIES.

Before I end this post I wanted to save the best for last. In late 2009 on Amazon.com I confronted J.R. Fraser with the above evidence.

In this discussion I completely eviscerate him and reduce him to a blathering idiot. Have fun reading Fraser's desperate backpedaling as he foolishly tries to distort his own sentences in order to deny his lies. It was actually comical to watch. I never let him off the hook and pointed out his absurdities. He got so flustered that he left the discussion and the roughly two years since, I've only seen Fraser two or three times on Amazon.com, when previously I'd see him on a near constant basis, insulting and belittling others on the forums. Maybe this was because I so badly kicked the crap out of him and embarrassed him? Who knows. But true to form, enter David Marshall who attempts a last ditch effort to rescue his butt buddy, when he writes, “JR: I remember Ken repeatedly refusing to post an argument on this site too, of course. But maybe we're engaging in a conspiracy against poor old Arizona Atheist. :- )”

What utterly pathetic and shameful bile that is.

It is now that I rest my case. David Marshall, J.R. Fraser, and Bruce Bain have been completely exposed and rebuked. Case closed.

Related Posts:

1. When You Can't Beat 'Em...Smear 'Em II

2. Rant: ON - Another Smear Campaign???

3. Hypocrisy at its Worst

4. Amazon.com's Favoritism Toward Christians

David Marshall's Attempted Rebuttals

Edit - 3-22-10: I wanted to edit this post to include some comments in light of my second reading of Marshall's book and the more extensive 100 + page refutation I've since written. These comments will be in italics. No other changes have been made to the original post.

I have just read the following on Marshall's amazon.com blog where he wrote a few critiques of my review. I will once again destroy his silly arguments.

His post "Marshall is a Liar I" is a redundant post, and does nothing to refute my arguments. As I've said before, I can be harsh but fair. There are a few times in my review where I applaud Marshall's honesty on a very few topics. His is a gross misrepresentation of my review.

Now on to his attempted rebuttal, in his post "Marshall is a Liar II":

He claims I "misrepresent" his book in several ways. I do not, and his claims that I do are pathetic. I did make a few mistakes in parts of my review, which I have now edited, to make it easier to understand and took out my few mistakes. Though to put it in perspective, I only had to make 4 changes total to the whole review. Hardly a 'gross misrepresentation'.

I will have his comments in bold with my response afterwards.

(1) Contrary to AA's suggestion, I offer no "hype about destroying the atheists' position" here. My goals are more limited: to refute Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens. I also argue that there is good evidence for Christianity (and give a little), and that the Gospel has changed the world dramatically for the better. I do not attempt to formally refute atheism in this 210 page book.

His goal was to show why the "new atheists" are wrong and christianity is better then is often portrayed. Who cares about how I word his goal? In essence that was his goal to refute the prominent atheists! This is no argument whatsoever and is just arguing over wording. I'd also like to point out that I never did say that Marshall hyped his book as destroying the atheists' position. I simply said that was what the reviews I read said about the book; nothing Marshall said. Marshall claims that I didn't really read his book, and yet he seems to be a hypocrite once again because he didn't seem to even read my review (even though I actually did read his book)!

(2) I don't say that "skeptical historians" accept the miracles described in the Gospels as "strong evidence" for their historicity. I’m not even sure what that means.

Oh wow... don't play dumb. On pages 17-18 Marshall says, "Second, jesus often did miracles, calling them 'signs', which (even skeptical historians often admit) show strong evidence of historicity."

He is claiming that even historians admit that jesus' miracles are proof of the bible's historical truth, which is false, as I stated in my review. Now, please, tell me. Does this, or does this not, say that??? That's a direct quote.

Marshall accuses me of being affected by mirages, but his accusation has no basis. Marshall, however, seems to be suffering from amnesia because he apparently can't remember what he wrote in his own book.

In the above case in the sentence about jesus I may or may not have misread anything. I don't feel Marshall has been honest with me about it and so I do not trust his claims. Either way, I left out this passage since it's not a very important passage in his book. I go on to refute his more important claims in my review.

(3) Neither do I call science "narrow-minded." My actual point is that science is a limited way of testing reality: a point scientists in the audience (when I speak) often affirm. I also argue that broader ways of knowing, such as history, are a crucial part of any rational search for ultimate truth.

Yes he does say that science is narrow minded. He does not use that exact phrase, but he says how "we've been bamboozled into accepting (in the name of science, though not always from scientists) a lie about truth and how to find it, an untruth that narrows life and hands truth to tunnel-visioned specialists (page 16)." (Emphasis added)

He is saying that science is narrow minded...narrow in it's application, which I rebut in my post and say why it's not narrow minded...or "tunnel-visioned" since Marshall seems so anal about words. But that is how science is done, and the best way to get reliable results. Once again, I was correct in my interpretation of what Marshall was talking about. It seems that Marshall is so close-minded and clearly didn't read what I wrote that he couldn't understand that I was correct in what his argument was, and of course throws out his usual round of insults for no reason!

As I said above, I did even then understand his argument, but just as he's always done he argues against a strawman version of my counter-argument. So, despite Marshall's delusion regarding this case, I did understand his argument. I think anyone can see this. Is it any wonder I called Marshall a liar in our earlier discussions?!

(4) Nor do I say there is anything "wrong" with accepting things only on evidence! My point is just the opposite.

This is a strawman. I never said such a thing. I simply said that we accept many things without a lot evidence and I cite some examples, and I tried to show how everyday faith is different from religious faith. However, I think I know where he was mistaken about where I said, "What is wrong with accepting things only when there is evidence?" I was simply talking about how science is done...not talking about something that Marshall said specifically.


(5) I don’t assume, as AA claims, that "we can trust every word" of the Bible. That's not the sort of argument I make: I'm an empiricist, and prefer what John Polkinghorne calls a "bottoms-up" approach to understanding the Bible.

The reason I stated this was because of the many statements that Marshall makes about the reliability of the bible. He doesn't ever seem to say that the bible has any real flaws.

This comment was prompted by Marshall's claims in his book about the reliability of the gospels and the supposed accuracy and trustworthiness of them and the testimony contained therein. Again, Marshall didn't even bother to engage my actual argument.

(6) AA reports: "(Marshall) is saying that we should trust what is written in the gospels, because people wrote them, and we're supposed to trust other people."

Arizona is largely desert, no doubt subject to mirages. This appears to be one of them. I defy readers to find any such statement in any of my writings. Some people, of course, are not trustworthy at all – including, unfortunately, Arizona Atheist.


In the section where he is talking about the bible (page 18) and how historians accept miracles as evidence of the factual nature of the bible, Marshall writes, "Is it rational to believe things on the basis of human testimony (Emphasis added)? It'd be a pity if it weren't, because as Samuel Johnson put it. most of our knowledge is based on 'implied faith' in other people."

Because this statement was tied into the part talking about the bible, it appears that he was referring to the bible. But either way, I show in my review why this kind if thinking is not rational. If it's not referring to the bible, this sentence seems out of place, because what else could it be referring to? He is talking about the bible before and after this sentence. Also, the bible is human testimony.

And once again, Marshall uses a personal attack, instead of anything of real value and substance.

Is Marshall once again being deceptive here, or does he simply not know how to properly write a book?

Edit: See below my evidence to show why I strongly think Marshall was either outright lying about what he says in his book, or was simply attempting his theological bullshit in an attempt to make me somehow look foolish since he continuously likes to argue how I cannot read so didn't want to admit my correct interpretation. - This was an original edit made earlier, but I have nothing further to add, except to ask the reader to take note of Marshall's very evasive attitude. On about each and every point he claimed I hadn't understood his argument when it should be obvious to any rational person I did.

(7) True, I do argue (as AA reports) that in the Christian vocabulary, faith doesn't mean what Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett represent it as meaning, belief unsupported by evidence. Rather, faith "begins 'with the conviction of the mind based on adequate evidence'." AA disagrees, accusing the Christian theologians I cite (including Justin Martyr and Thomas Aquinas) of "a bit of a word game because faith, to my knowledge, has always meant 'belief without logical proof,'" even "as far back" as 1906. AA is free to disagree with Justin and Aquinas. (Though he should do so cautiously.) The problem is, he doesn’t appear to realize that Justin wrote in the 2nd Century, and Aquinas in the 13th. How can theologians play "a word game" by distorting a definition that would not be written for seven or seventeen centuries after their deaths?

Yes I consider it a word game, not for past theologians but modern theologians. Sorry I didn't make that clear, but either way, even in bible times, the bible's definition of faith, found in Hebrews 11:1, is "faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith). My point was that even in the early 1900's faith seems to have always had that meaning, and not the one which theologians wish it had, and I wanted to know when it ever held the one they claim. It sure didn't even back as far as the early 1900's, or even bible times apparently.

Actually, as I've shown in my updated version of the review it seems Marshall is misinterpreting the texts to say something they do not, and these christians actually say the opposite.

(8) Arizona Atheist calls me a "hypocrite" for saying that churches sometimes "set young people up to lose their faith by teaching bad science." He has persuaded himself (somehow) that this is meant as a rebuke of scientists. It is actually (of course) meant as a (gentle, I hope) rebuke of some of my fellow Christians.

After rereading this section of his book I did misinterpret it when I did my review. Though, even in my original review, I state that I'm not exactly sure what Marshall is trying to say, but I think he might be saying such and such. I was tentative in my rebuttal. And, yes, Marshall is a hypocrite in several parts of his book. I detail this in some parts of my review.

This is simply one out of the very few unintentional mistakes I had made in the first draft of the review, but it has been corrected since this was pointed out to me and I reread the passage in question.

(9) Nor do I claim that the Trinity is easy to understand, or that I have a perfect handle on it. My actual point is that a quote on the Trinity by an ancient Christian thinker, which Dawkins mocks for its obscurity, seems to me both clear and lucid. I leave the reader to consider the passage for herself, and make up her own mind about the justice of Dawkins' comments. But the reviewer has (yet again) completely botched mine.

I felt that Marshall's defense of the trinity was pointless, as this is an absurd concept to begin with, and is nothing more then the historical belief in multiple gods which has not been squared away in modern christianity. At least this is my view, from my reading about the history of religion.

This comment about the trinity I left out of the updated critique of the book since it's not important.

Marshall did nothing to refute my points. He didn't seem to even understand half of what I wrote. This was a pitiful "rebuttal". Sorry for the quotes, but it seriously needs them : - )

He didn't bother to rebut even half of my points. This was just a sloppy, and poor attempt at refuting my arguments, which he didn't even come close to doing.

I also find it funny that he said that "Love of truth is something that Christians and sincere skeptics should share in common", because truth is not something religion is good for, and his book is a poor representation of the truth. If that were true religion would not have murdered so many for nothing more then telling the truth! Once again, I expose his inaccuracies about several things in my review.

I don't have much else to add. I still agree with what I said. I will add, however, this relevant point. These very few unintentional mistakes that were made a good two years ago at this point have all been fixed and not one person (even Marshall or his cohorts) have pointed out a single mistake since I fixed them. Arguments and claims to the contrary I've soundly refuted here and on Amazon.com. On the other hand, look at the tons of mistakes and misreadings that theists have made in reading Dawkins' The God Delusion or Sam Harris' The End of Faith for example. The theists' books that I've reviewed I've exposed probably about five times more errors in their books than I ever made in my initial review - and they are honestly more formally educated than I am and have more writing experience! I think that says a lot even about my very first attempt at a critique, but my most recent PDF edition firmly puts all this nonsense about errors to rest.

Below are screenshots of his blogs on amazon for reference:





UPDATE 5-21-09

Previously I had posted my evidence against David Marshall here at the end of this post, but I have decided to delete all of the pictures to save room on my Blogger account because I have copied the entirety of the evidence of Marshall’s hypocrisy and lies here.