I imagine nobody really cares too much about this—then again, the thread in question received over 120 comments so maybe I’m wrong—but either way there are some things that need to be clarified about the recent fiasco with JT Eberhard. First I’d like to post all of our emails that I could find:
What would JT do? Well, suppress intelligent dissent just like the others who couldn’t hang. I don’t get it. Here we have a self-touted “freethinker” who feels the need to resort to censoring rational inquiry. I tried to leave a comment on JT’s blog, to no avail. So, I guess I’m banned.
“Free speech,” they cry at the top of their lungs any other day.
“Unless of course it comes from an intelligent dissenter,” reads the subtext.
Eh, oh well. I’m going to follow through on my end of the engagement anyways. Meaning, I’m going to publish a systematic dismantling of JT’s arguments just as I would have had he not scurried off with his tail between his legs. I guess in their world it’s only acceptable to be “confrontational” or “annoying” if you’re an atheist, eh?
So JT Eberhard has agreed to an exchange. We are still working out the details of the exchange, but I’d like to go ahead and post everything we’ve exchanged in our emails so far, creating an absolutely transparent public record of all dialog (because it’s a good practice in general, but also to give a certain hater even less to hate on). It began with this post on JT’s blog, where he said he was looking for “someone to exchange emails with on the existence of God.” I shot him an email, and here was his first response:
Accepted (was hoping for you or Jayman). If we’re doing the existence of God, you wanna go first?
Out with the old, in with the new, right? We have Daniel as one confirmed (Christian) judge, and I’ve sent out a few calls to others (though I fully understand if nobody wants to touch DBT02 with a ten-foot-pole). What, dear audience, are you interested in seeing us debate (and by “us” I mean either Peter Hurford and I, or any other willing party)?