From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org]
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 9:43 PM
To: 'Joe Haik'
Subject: RE: ROFL
I'm sorry a newbie like me has to disprove your theories with facts.  
What "facts"? You have not cited a single actual "fact" to support your claims in any of your first five flailing emails to me. (Your one alleged fact proffered below is wrong.)
I do feel sorry for you because you wasted your whole life or decades coming up with conspiracy theories, 
Hilarious. The only "conspiracy" I invoke is the one discussed in your own sacred scrolls - Mt 28. It only took me one day to come up with my theory that Mary Magdalene was likely a key figure in the origin of the Resurrection myth. In general, debunking Xianity has been merely an occasional hobby for me, time spent on which is justified by the combined ignorance of the billions of people like you.
and I know the facts and truth after a few months. Thats a lot of time wasted. 
Not only do you not know the truth, you don't even know how ignorant you are.
Anyone knows you can paste anything on the internet. Doesn't make it true.
Anyone knows you can cite any lame apologetics book in an email. Doesn't make it true.)
Anyone can paste webpages with lies, like you.
The arguments I linked to stand or fall on their merits. You either have answers to them, or you don't. When you call them "lies" with no evidence of having read them, it suggests you're afraid of facing these arguments. (Your fear is well-grounded.)
I'm still waiting for you to email me with the lies in his book.
No, _I_ am still waiting for you to come up with answers to the rebuttal against McDowell at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/index.shtml that I already pointed you to.
 
(I never said there were "lies" in McDowell's book. Knowing something is a "lie" requires knowing the private mental state of the liar. When you obsessively call a "lie" any argument you disagree with, it suggests you know you can't answer it, and so instead cling to the vain hope that the argument is somehow intentionally deceptive.)
Also, in the book Creation, if you do the math, you will see that Evolution doesn't hold up.
You obviously haven't looked at the math at the link I sent you: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/.
There is no proof. If you have any proof you better talk to the Archaeologists around the world because you would be famous! Still waiting for you to disprove the facts and archaeology of Christianity.
Your repeated bleating of the word "archaeology" is hilarious. In fact, fame is what awaits anyone who can convince a peer-reviewed mainstream scientific publication of the truth of Creationism or any other supernatural theory.
You do make me laugh, along with your liberal webcites.
I'm not a liberal, I'm a libertarian. You probably don't even know the difference.
I love hearing about conspiracy theories. Funny how they just don't hold water, unless 1 in a million is a chance?
Here's my analysis of the gospel probabilities: http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/GospelProbabilities.html. I defy you to point to a better one. Go ahead and try. Make my day.
So, I await for you to disprove the facts of Christianity and my authors.
Done: http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/Christianity.html
Also, McDowell has many people praising his book on amazon.com.
Fan praise on Amazon.com  is your standard of critical thinking? Color me unsurprised.
Interesting how you don't, unless that one response from yourself counts.
This is simply unintelligible. What "one response" are you talking about?
Sorry to Crush your arguments FLAT. Thanks for trying.
If you're "crushing my arguments flat", then please proudly tell me your real name so you will get credit for doing so when I post this conversation on my web site.
Oh, another little fact. If Christianity is a lie,
It's not a lie, it's a myth. It's apparent by now that you can't even bring yourself to face my actual position, let alone face my arguments for it.
how come 12 ordinary men preached the word after Christs death and RESURRECTION, and died for what they BELIEVED in.
This is your first attempted fact in this entire conversation, and it's indisputably wrong. Here's the actual fact, which you'd know if you had read my Arguments Against Christianity: Peter and James are the only alleged resurrection witnesses who the New Testament names (John 21:18,19, Acts 12:2) as martyrs, but there is no evidence that recanting their alleged belief in a physical resurrection could have saved them. They probably just died for their very sincere belief in some Easter-related experiences that they interpreted as evidence of a triumphant and vindicated Jesus. As far as we know, all other Christian martyrs died for what they were told about the alleged resurrection and not for what they witnessed about it.
Sorry to hit you with that proof.
Sorry to annihilate your so-called "fact/proof" by citing your own scripture back to you.
I await your conspiracy theory on that. Those men wouldn't die for a lie, one, maybe, but not 11.
LOL -- more evidence that you haven't even read my document above. See the part that begins "What probably happened is ..."
I and the entire Christian community await for you to prove the one and only religion which archaeology proves,
LOL. There isn't a single peer-reviewed mainstream archaeological reference work that says Christianity is "proved".
Last year I studied both, and the evidence totally swayed me to believing. The two I have read are only full of conspiracy theories, and made me laugh.
Tell me please what "atheist books" you "studied" -- I'm dying to see your list. For mine, see "Best Arguments For and Against Christianity and Theism", at http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/ChristianityIndex.html.
All help appreciated, no webcites please. Those made me laugh too.  
Arguments for and against Christianity stand or fall on their substance, not their publishing medium. If you automatically discount arguments available on the web, it suggests you're afraid of facing arguments whose authors are available online to personally rebut your feeble responses.