I'm not interested in using the comments section of an incidental post on my blog to have a debate with you about the truth or otherwise of Christianity or any other religion. If you want to preach to atheists, you can do it somewhere else. I've heard it all before pal. Further posts preaching your faith will not be published.
Oh, dropping a remark about an atheist who, unusually enough, knows enough history to be mistaken for a Christian by the other ones, and then answering what amounts to deliberate clumsiness on his part is "preaching to atheists"?
Well, that is how I judge him, a man deliberately being dishonest about as much history and historical debate as he needs to keep up his atheism. And no more than that, in all other matters than rejection of religion and of crusades being justified back in 1089 or 1098 or so, historically very honest. And knowing it enough to get edgy for a side remark.
Well, here is the post on which I commented:
which leaves you in a position to see if I or he is the one being wrong.
And here is what I like him for:
Did that involve his comments about two people arguing Christianity evolved after Christ before claiming resurrection? Will check, one of his posts did involve those and since Dan Barker has similar claims, God willing and weather permitting, will be answered.