A Christian Explains Why He Won’t Argue with Atheists Online Anymore

What a quitter, my girlfriend is a theist, and a trial lawyer, and likes to interrupt. Try arguing with someone like that!

Nathan claims “there are, in fact, external issues to take into account when deciding if a Christian is a Christian.”

Sure there are. Such as whether they wear a kilt or not.

(for the particularly clueless: that’s a reference to the No True Scotsman fallacy)

“Many Christians have tried and failed. Books have been written and debunked. If that’s all you have to offer, then you have nothing. ”

That is ALL they have to offer, the sooner they actually realise tht the sooner they’ll be free from the strictures of their medievalist (hell, Bronze Age Pastoralist) beliefs.

I was a little disappointed reading this article. I was really hoping the reason he would no longer argue online is that he became an atheist. Oh well.

funny about thing about “2. Being outnumbered makes actually engaging with arguments hard.” is that this dude lost sight of the first 300 years of the tradition. what we see here is a dude confronted with his own privilege of being in the majority and thus is uncomfortable in having to reason out his beliefs. it’s easier to be a lazy blogger, make claims and have them go unchallenged. things like “there is a God” “Jesus died for your sins” and “Jesus is God” are things rather widely accepted in most Christian circles. but if you question these presumptions often times the believer has no idea how to answer them.

that being said, i recognize that i myself do these things and i speak as being a Christian myself. i think what Beamstalk had to say is right on. he’s looking to convert whereas i’m looking for blindspots in my own worldview. i think that makes a big difference.

i do agree with “4. Atheists have no interest in nuance. They don’t pay any regard to context.” with some modification. i think some anti-theists have no interest in nuance and thus will just say no to anything a believer has to say. not all atheists are anti-theist hence the title of this blog which i have found to be true. also with bloggers like Sabio and Luke from Common Sense Atheism.

to make short claim and sum up the last paragraph: i dislike anti-theists who say no to everything just as much as i dislike anti-atheists who claim damnation for others and state that other Christians are not Christian. both get on my nerves. /rant

I will miss Nathan if he ends up only preaching to the choir. I found his arguments over time about the Christian perspective interesting (though not convincing).

For example, Nathan argues that the correct Christian position on morality is that something is good only if God says it is good and evil only if God says it is evil. And that since God is all powerful, He gets to make the rules. End of story. Any humanistic value system that departs from God’s law is sinful (missing the mark).

I appreciate that Nathan argues this point of view consistently without vacillating all over the place trying to have it both ways (conflating “good by human standards” with God’s law).

I appreciate Nathan’s view. I just don’t believe this is the way the world works (or should work even if there is such a God). Not even for a second.

I know that I was able to finally come out with my Atheism through reading ‘anti-Mormon propaganda’ (what the LDS church calls anything that paints them in a bad light) and Dawkins, and blogs by Atheists.

I think that is why I stay away from religious arguments. I have been on the other side of the fence and I know nothing would have shaken my faith because faith is not based on logic or reasoning.

I don’t think that most Atheists are “antitheists”, if you want to believe in gods or goddesses, fine. I think a lot of us do fall into being anti-religion. It’s usually the religious organizations who are trying to force bullcrap down our throats. Trying to write their beliefs into law, and having no regard for others who also live around them. Brainwashing their minions into starting ‘white only” blood banks and supporting discrimination, bigotry and hate. I think that is usually what ticks off normal, rational people; at least in my opinion.

Believe in whatever you wish, just don’t push it on others.

Atheists have no interest in nuance. They don’t pay any regard to context.

Really? He’s going to use the “LOL CONTEXT” gambit? He needs to look at every single time that a Christian has quoted Psalms or Revelation. And he needs to realize that there are many things in the Bible that make no sense at all no matter what context you put them in. The Old Testament God endorsing slavery and genocide is cruel no matter the context.

@Luke; I have never met an anti-theist that says “No to everything” without due reason.

It only appears that way because many of these anti-theists, such as myself, have heard the same stories from people like YOU and others hundreds of times, so when the words start to come out of your mouth, before you finish your sentence, we know what you’re talking about and where you’re going with it, so we interrupt you and give you the reasoning against what you’ve said, which leads you to think we don’t listen or don’t care what you’ve said – when in essence you haven’t given us anything new.

Religion is a dying failed science. Hop off that failed wagon now and be wiser for it.

Hemant – It’s nice to see your claws come out for a change. Not that I’d like to see you go all PZ on us, but sometimes you seem a little too friendly (for my tastes). This swipe at Nathan and you passive-aggressively sticking it to your mother the other day makes me smile. That was very reminiscent of my relationship with my mother. I don’t want to crush her with my atheism, but I don’t want her to forget it either.

Wow, this comment took a weird turn.

“(My screen name is ironic.)”

“But don’t let the name fool you, in real life I’m actually very big.” – Little John, from Robin Hood: Men in Tights.

Why argue at all? We have to use reason and logic to counter their ever changing myth? It’s not worth wasting one’s life, not even a few minutes!

Sounds like a LOT of other Christians I used to debate with and against. They were not interested in discussion or learning, but conversion or proving they were RIGHT. That alone causes me to become completely disinterested.

When I was still a Christian I was interested in understanding other people and attribute that to being the reason why I got along with so many Aggies and Athies as I used to call them. (Cheezey, I know). I wish there were more Christians with that mindset as it makes discussion SO MUCH MORE ENJOYABLE.

<3

The “outnumbered” thing is actually pretty real. I can manage one conversation. Or three. But from my own experiences with the Rational Response Squad a few years back, it’s a bit hard to discuss something when fifteen folks are calling you a doodoohead in fifteen different ways. Doable, but connecting with another human being in a gracious and rational way is tough with a flamewar going on around everything you say.

A UU minister I know holds a class about discovering the bible. I suggested that he rename it to Salvaging the Bible, and maybe that would get more people to attend. My requests to him to about what “good” things are in the bible that are not already revealed in previous history and what “good” things are presented in the bible that any caring and humane non-believer would not know already? I never seem to get an answer to these questions.

You damn well better know science, logic, or philosophy if you’re going to talk about them. To engage in a conversation and throw around terms without know what they mean is both dishonest and lazy. More than anything else, this one stuck out to me. One of the worst thing you can do in an argument is to let the conversation drift to an area you don’t know, but your opponent does. And then, as I’ve seen time and time again, the layperson actually challenges the expert on the subject. In internet vernacular, lulz were had.

If this is a christian, how sad the life of a christian must be!

Being outnumbered shouldn’t be a problem if there were good arguments to make.

Careful here. That’s your weakest point. Imagine dealing with creationists on their own forum. Even if you have good arguments, you can still get swamped with the B.S. from the other side.

I don’t understand why the whole “You’re an antitheist not an atheist” meme is so important to people like Nathan. I know a lot of atheists and not a single one of them wants to force religious people to believe anything other than what they want to believe.

Is it just because they feel attacked when they have no response to logic and science?

I just read the initial 5 things to make atheists seem more nice thing (and about 5 of the comments) and I have to say: that made me feel so angry I may have to make any extensive comment on this thread later.

This is a wonderful example of someone who does not want to discuss a subject, but rather wants people to agree with him, and tell him how wonderfully intelligent he is. Because he certainly seems to think he is the bees knees.

Well, no, he might not be like that, but that’s certainly the way he has come across from the two things of his I have read. Of course, we all know the dangers of misrepresenting people based from just a few comments on the internet.

Anyone who is so capable of generalising so completely a group of people, united only by not believing in one thing, as being smug is… Well. Wow. Words fail me.

I have noticed that in all subjects – not just theism – those people who have the least information backing them up are the quickest to call their opponents smug, rude, mean, and so forth. It often appears to be codespeak for: ‘I can say nothing that even starts to bring what you just said into question. True, I can’t back up anything I am saying, but there is no way I am going to change my mind.’

Please note that I do not mean by the above ‘people who argue against my views’ – I have seen this happen in plenty of arguments I have had no stake in.

I suspect he will not be particularly missed. And I know plenty of people who are theistic, and would be missed if they withdrew from intelligent discourse.

I’m reading his comments on this thread (http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/01/07/20207/) and wow this guy sounds like a broken record.

Also apparently we haven’t “disproved” Pascal’s wager (not sure how you disprove a wager, can I disprove a craps game?). Can’t wait to wake up in Muslim hell with him.

“Being outnumbered shouldn’t be a problem if there were good arguments to make.”

Not true. If five-hundred people are shouting nonsense, the one person making sense is still probably going to get drowned out. Also, the majority can split itself into two groups over a meaningless/fake difference and then pretend that its two wings represent the entire spectrum of discourse (e.g., consider the way the Democrats-and-Republicans party marginalizes all other political parties in the U.S.).

So, I’ve read the original post, and I can’t say I’m that impressed.

His point 1) is mostly accurate, but it’s lacking one key realization: he’s outnumbered *because* it’s our virtual turf. It’s like going to Madrid and complaining that everybody’s speaking Spanish there.

Something that he misses with point 2) is that the ‘victory from numbers’ is claimed when the visitor cherrypicks the insults and irritation that’s directed at him. It’s fair to say in a discussion that you’re only one person, but if a bunch of people are replying to you, reiterating the exact same question, you should probably answer that question. Also, given the example thread he links to towards the end, there were mainly two or three other people arguing against him, not the hundreds he claims he was facing.

In point 3), Nathan reveals that he thinks that Pascal’s Wager is a good argument that hasn’t been refuted, and claims to know what makes a True Scotsman. Yes, you can claim that a person doesn’t represent your specific sect of Christianity, but if you claim that a person isn’t a Christian at all because of some behavior or another, we’ll call you on it.

I can’t add anything about points 4), 5), and 6) that Hemant hasn’t already said – but I want to reinforce what Hemant has said:

Nathan claims “there are, in fact, external issues to take into account when deciding if a Christian is a Christian.” I’m sure there are… but every church/sect/denomination has their own set of rules. It’s usually, “We’re Christians and everybody else is not.”

You all do know that I’m not exactly dying of heartbreak, don’t you? 😉 There was definitely no love lost between ole Nathan and I and this example of his behavior is the reason why.

In short, he’s an annoying shit. Not because he says things that chip at your worldview but because it pisses him off that he doesn’t. He refuses that he has to but rather seems to assume you’re an ass if you don’t see the light when he keeps buzzing around like a mosquito after your blood. Hell, my apologies to mosquitoes. Those freaking little vampires are less annoying than Nathan is.

I’m glad you posted this Hemant but I’ve got to say I don’t really give two shits what Nathan thinks. Though I am fairly certain, based on past behavior, that he will come over here and quote mine the place for examples of mean Atheists for his blog. Being the bitch I am, he likes to take me out of context but I’m hardly alone and he does as bad to those who are much nicer and more considerate of him than I am.

That said, what I most resent is the anti-theist remark. Let me translate that Nathanese for you: “I can’t seem to save your soul. No matter how hard I try to, you persist on insisting you don’t have one. Therefore, you hate Christians.” Nathan very much subscribes to the theory whoever isn’t for me is against me. It’s rather paranoid and I resent it for I am most decidedly not anti-theist. To be anti-theist, I would have to give up one of my deepest held values — religious freedom. I treasure the freedom to believe or disbelieve any nonsense you choose.

I don’t give a flying fig what someone thinks. I think they’re mistaken and they think I am and I am perfectly fine agreeing to disagree with them. However, there are certain theists who are not fine with that. I tend to call them hypocrites and, yes, I tend to clash with them big time. So do my theist friends. Not the least of which are those who consider themself Christian (and I am willing to accept people as whatever they consider themself to be unless perhaps they claim to be Jesus Christ himself or the King of France.)

Hypocrites are those whose god is so weak that they feel he needs defending from mere mortals. Those whose faith has to be legislated. In short, those who have no more faith than I do and who are terrified by that fact because they do not have the self-confidence to stand tall and sort things out for themself and want a book of rules telling them precisely what to do and what not to do. If they truly trusted “god”, they’d trust him to judge for himself and would be all too glad to leave it to him as he instructed them to.

So, bah, to his first nonsense 5! Bah, humbug, to his subsequent 8. Triple phooey to his next set (I’m guessing 10 but maybe 11 or 15 or 13 for the unluckiness of it) of standards he thinks we should care his listing about us on his blog.

You do know what he can do with each and every one of his little listies, don’t you? 😀

@Ted,

If you stop them before they finish, it makes me wonder if you’re really listening. That would be poor manners in my book. as for “Religion is a dying failed science. Hop off that failed wagon now and be wiser for it.” i see that as a problem. i’ve never viewed religion as a science but as an art. that maybe a helpful distinction. and you would be correct in asserting (speaking of knowing what the other will or will not say/assume) that many theists see their religion as science, but i’m not one of them. my best to you and thank you for your response.

Maybe he just got bored?

8. I say this because, as my point in full said, this is the point at which Christianity lives or dies. Show me Jesus’ body, or come up with a plausible account for the rise of Christianity in the Roman empire. If we started crucifying atheists do you think more atheists would come out and say “I’m an atheist”… I’m yet to be convinced by any of these “debunkings”…

You just can’t seem to get it that when you make a claim, the ball is in your court, and only you coming up with evidence to back up your claim is going to hit it out of your court. After 2000 years, this tennis match is still waiting to start. You seem to think that the lack of Jesus’ body can only be “proof” of his resurrection. It could also just as well be evidence of his not having ever existed at all, or evidence that the body of a troublemaker executed by the Romans was not very well cared for. Show me Jimmy Hoffa’s body. Is the lack of a corpse evidence that he is still alive? That he rose physically from the grave directly into heaven? That he never existed at all?

The lack of evidence is the lack of evidence. All the talking about the lack of evidence doesn’t lend any weight or significance to the lack. Endlessly talking about a claim is not evidence for that claim. All it does is make people suspect that you just don’t have anything to offer but vibrating air.

I don’t know where you’re going with that bizarre remark about crucifying atheists. That just doesn’t make any sense at all.

Are you implying that the rise of Christianity in the Roman empire is some kind of evidence of the veracity of its claims? Then I suppose so is the rise of Scientology in the American empire. So is the rise of all the silly woo of hundreds of dead cultures, kingdoms and empires. People produce lots of crap, both physical and mental. Without something of substance to back up the claims of spooks and magic, it all eventually goes into the midden.

The popularity of a claim is not evidence of its veracity. The longevity of a claim is not evidence of its veracity. The eloquence of a claim is not evidence of its veracity. The emotional appeal of a claim is not evidence of its veracity. The good things that happen to someone making a claim is not evidence of its veracity. The number of books written making a claim is not evidence of its veracity. The claims offered as evidence for a claim, none of which have anything but yet even more claims to offer as evidence for their own veracity, is not evidence for the original claim’s veracity. Claims supporting claims supporting claims supporting claims supporting claims, all the way around the world back to the original claim in a 25,000 mile circle of claims is not evidence of any of their veracity.

Only actual evidence can give a claim veracity. We’ve been waiting for over 2000 years for the evidence, and people like you are still talking, talking, talking, wrapping claims around claims around claims, using an old, self-claiming, self-referring book, and insisting that all that gigantic midden of empty claims is the evidence.

I think you are very wise to finally stop arguing with atheists, because it is very apparent that you will never have the evidence that they need to believe your claims, and it is apparent that you will never understand why evidence is even important in making a claim.

By the way, regarding #8:

Your best bet in these situations is just to bring everything back to a question of the historicity of Jesus and his resurrection, this, after all, is the lynchpin of our belief. If they can disprove the resurrection then our faith is in vain. And it’s this argument that needs to be convincing. Questions of science and methodology are secondary.

If your arguments about the resurrection are not convincing, why on earth would you believe it in the first place? What sense does it make to assert that your claim is true, THEN try to find an argument to support it?

Hi all,

Like I said, I won’t really be addressing point by point questions here. While I love a good argument, and am always happy to answer genuine questions, I’d prefer this discussion to take place on my blog where my argument is presented in full.

I’ve updated the post to take Mike’s criticism into account – the one I’ve requoted below.

“Oh, and putting Christian in smarmy little “scare quotes” whenever you’re using it to describe a person whose actions you disapprove of? That’s what we call a “cop out.” The claim that YOUR interpretation of the Bible is flawlessly correct and that ANY judgment you make about whether a person is or is not a Christian places YOU in a position of purported omniscience. Talk about hubris!”

Is Nathan five years old? This sounds like he’s trying to prove to himself that he’s not going home and taking his ball with him just because he can’t win unless we play by his rules.

“Is Nathan five years old? This sounds like he’s trying to prove to himself that he’s not going home and taking his ball with him just because he can’t win unless we play by his rules.”

Perhaps, or perhaps I’d just prefer people to be engaging with everything I wrote rather than just the bits Hermant responded to (though they’re mostly representative of what I had to say – no complaints there).

Perhaps I just want what could be an animosity filled discussion to take place on my home turf, not elsewhere.

Perhaps I don’t want to put up with Muggle’s vitriol.

Either way, there are over 61 comments here, I’m not going to cherry pick which ones to respond to… if you want answers from me ask the questions on my original post.

Nathan:

An atheist should be open to thinking about each different presentation of a “god theory” in order to check their foundational premise.

The catch is that there are arguments that deal with whole swaths of “god theories.” Take, for example, the “god theories” that are supported by assorted fantastic, miraculous tales, which includes the Abrahamic religions, tribal religions, and many Eastern religions as well. These can be undermined by pointing out the problems that we tend to see in such tales, and the high burden of proof that is needed as a consequence of such problems. This is one reason why we don’t put that much stock in the Christian resurrection accounts. As I had put it, “Everything we know of the story is from biased reporters who have either committed known distortions of fact or, in the case of Paul, provide no details that would have been checkable by readers.”

An anti-theist is against any such premise by default – they prefer to talk about believers as deluded and their beliefs as ridiculous

I’m not too sympathetic to the sort of anti-theists that you talk about, but if you find it unacceptable to judge Christianity by treating its most obnoxious manifestations as if they were the norm, then you should find it similarly unacceptable to judge atheists by treating the more obnoxious ones as the norm. Yes, Dawkins has said some pretty stupid things from time to time, but as a gauge of the truth of atheism, this is a non sequitur.

after talking with Nathan and reading his original post, he really fleshed out some areas. my objection to #2 was met with ” I was saying it’s very hard to seem anything but disingenuous if you appear to be cherry picking the easy questions while ignoring the hard ones.” which is true.. we ignore the logs that we can’t get around and instead focus on the specks. or we resort to asking if the poster is “5 years old” when they disagree with us or can’t provide the necessary evidence to our continually changing rubric. it is much easier to poke holes in someone else’s claim than to make our own.

what i see happening on this site is a mob mentality setting in and y’all scape-goating Nathan who was trying to provide an alternative understanding to what he views. i think that would be helpful to y’all who are reviewing tenants of faith to have someone of faith speak and clarify. mob-mentality and the scapegoat mechanism is alive and well and atheists are just as subject to it as we believers are. such is the nature of the human condition.

Luke:

Nathan’s comment on #2 is true – thing is, it is true about any discussion on the internet that provokes even mild interest. You should always be outnumbered in a discussion – otherwise there is little point in actually having it. If you all agree with each other, and know it, then what exactly is the point?

It doesn’t strike me as a reason for not arguing with atheists, it strikes me as a reason for not arguing on the net.

By the way, I imagine the question about whether he was 5 years old was a reference to his throwing his toys out of the pram, which, unfortunately for him, both the posts mentioned in the article show him doing pretty dreadfully. (Incidentally, given his claim that PZ’s response to his initial ‘5 things…’ verified him, he obviously doesn’t realise how he came across. That alone would give me pause before engaging him in conversation.)

Indeed it is much easier to poke holes in someone elses claim than to make our own. That doesn’t mean that making a claim is somehow more deserving of respect.
Mob mentality, scapegoating? I’d really like to see you back that up. Just because a lot of people think he is spouting tosh doesn’t mean anything like a mob mentality is in effect. Especially seeing as the majority of the comments have actually addressed the issues, rather than jumping on bandwagons and repeating what the ringleaders are saying.

As for scapegoating… do you have a different definition of scapegoating to me? I always thought that scapegoating was the act of blaming someone for things someone (or ones) else had done. I could throw in an allusion to Jesus dying for people’s sins, but I suppose to avoid people taking offence I’d better not (oops, too late…). How exactly are we scapegoating Nathan? The people commenting are replying to the things he has written. I haven’t said much, incidentally, because as I inferred, all he appears to me is to be someone with far too high an opinion of himself, and closed to discussion. I don’t see anything coming from the dialogue, so why bother with it?

I’ll end by stressing that I don’t have anything against him because he is a Christian. For one thing, although I imagine he would call me an anti-theist (Because I think his arguments are weak), I’m not one – maybe because I live here in the UK, without the plethora of insane theists that appear to be across the pond – and my biggest gripes are with theism rather than theists.

Hate the sin and all that.

Edit: To Parse:

To be honest, I think my more pertinent points weren’t addressed to him, but rather generalisations – I was too irritated by the things he had written to make any particularly erudite comments! XD

Thanks tho’ 😉

Luke: Nathan is not trying to provide an alternative understanding for what he views. He is asserting that he is correct. There is a difference.

@plutosdad

sorry, but you can’t get away with dismissing a serious piece of scholarship by just labelling it ‘apologetics’ as if it were akin to Lee Strobel or something (and as if any kind of popular level apologetics book would sell at 700+ pages!) No, Wright is a legitmate, peer reviewed scholar, and this is a legitimate published scholarly work (although he has published several books aimed at a more popular level, this isn’t one of them), and so, I ask again for the specific scholarly reply that would nullify his extensive argument.
If one is going to suggest that there is no argument, then they carry the burden to produce the rebuttal of the most significant opposing arguments. Simply asserting a philosophical presupposition will not do as an answer to historical questions.
(and please don’t assume that I only read ‘apologetics’. I’m well aware of the work of people like Ehrman – I agree that it’s very important to read opposing views, which is why I ask for the rebuttal of Wright’s tome)

I find that most people are ignorant and bring ridicule upon themselves. Like

“Yes, there are a lot of annoying Christians out there. They make the same mistakes. They quote the Bible (in and out of whatever “context” Nathan thinks applies). They CAPITALIZE EVERYTHING as if their thoughts are more important than anyone else’s. They make comments that have nothing to do with the topic at hand”

Like athiests don’t do this. Please. When pressed with direct questions ignorant people give responses and change the point since they don’t know. I find a majority of people don’t know what the hell their talking about.

Please enlighten me ye ole athiests, how can an athiest stand for the U.S. Constitution when it declares that it is the duty of the governement to protect the God given Rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness?

If there is no God there is no God given Rights for athiests, there is only privileges granted and can be taken away by the government.

You’ve got it wrong, Swampfox.

how can an athiest stand for the U.S. Constitution when it declares that it is the duty of the governement to protect the God given Rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness?

It is the Declaration of Independence that uses the phrase “endowed by their Creator”, not the Constitution. The DoI says Creator, not God/Gods/Jesus/or any variation of the Divine thereof. Evolution, aliens or Isis could be construed as the Creator in this context.
The DoI was an open letter of intent to the leaders of all nations that the American colonies were going to secede from Britain and form a new nation. These leaders all ruled by Divine Right – they believed their authority to rule over their citizens came directly from God. The DoI, by declaring that men were naturally endowed to rule themselves, was a pointed slap in the face to that belief.
The US Constitution, which is the document that defines the government of the US, never uses any form of God, Creator, etc (the one lonely exception being that is is dated “in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven”.)
It starts out with “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Note that – We, the People……ordain and establish the Constitution – nothing about coming from God, ruling in His name or anything even close.
It is notable that the Presidential Oath of Office, as written in the Constitution, is “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” (Look, Ma, no “So help me God”!!)
It is also significant that, the men who wrote the Constitution, could have added all the “in the name of Jesus” and “under God” that they wanted – it was standard practice to do so in their time – but went out of their way to avoid any references to divinity.
Swampfox, you can brush up on the Constitution here: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
I think you need it.

@Parse

First page of search results produces this: Robert M. Price’s review. It seems pretty detailed, and contains a lot of sharp criticism. If you want me to expound on this I can, but you’re just as capable of reading the linked article as I am. Does this meet your criteria for a scholarly reply? If not, what would?

Thank-you for the link, it was certainly an interesting, if not frustrating read. I wouldn’t call it ‘scholarly’ however. Price is, no doubt a scholar (even if he sits on the fringe of scholarship and holds views that are rejected by mainstream scholars) but this piece has no references or quotes and has not been published in any kind of journal (as far as I can tell).
But perhaps worse is what you seem to call ‘sharp criticism’. The language he uses generally shows why it is unpublished – it is not the language of a careful scholarly review, but full of contemptuous, fallacious (lots of ad hominem) and derogatory remarks, and simply writes the whole thing off as merely apologetics.
Price’s main objection is that Wright doesn’t share his a priori rejection of miracles. Price also makes the mistake of taking pagan mythology, wrapping it up in the language of Christian resurrection and then acting as if he’s found some kind of borrowing, completely ignoring (or perhaps disregarding) Wright’s exploration of resurrection beliefs in both 2nd Temple Judaism and the other ‘Pagan’ concepts of the time.

nor am I about to spend my too-short free time reading it even if I would get it from the local library. I have better things to do with both.

If you’re happy enough to just assume it’s been ‘debunked’ because a fringe scholar says so, then fine… I don’t consider that review to be anywhere near sufficient to support the original assertion that there is no argument, as interesting as a few of the points were.

Additionally, I find it strangely suspicious that there exists only one negative review of the book on Amazon, and that several other reviews are in response to reviews that are no longer posted. I’d wager good money that Bishop Wright, or people who share his interests, take an active role in removing negative commentary from this book.

Tom Wright has better things to do then worry about a few negative reviews on the internet! I find it incredibly telling that you would prefer to make assumptions about his character then concede that most of the people reading the book find it useful.

And, in all fairness, I have yet to meet an atheist portraying themself pleasantly to someone they have reason to beleive is Christian.
Maybe that’s why Christians “hate” atheists so much. Don’t exactly make any efforts to make friends.