Not seeing the purpose of this piece. The evidence for Jesus resurrection is horrifically weak, and I say this after critically examining the works of Licona, Habermas and W.C. Craig. Paul said if Jesus did not rise from the dead, he is still in his sins, and is a false witness.
The fact that you can find a certain crazy subgroup among your opponents, does precisely nothing to hurt the argument of your opponents, otherwise, an atheist could conclude Christianity is false, because the idiots who play with snakes in their churches are clearly stupid.
I'm an atheist. I agree with most Christians that the "new atheists" are more concerned about flaming and rhetoric than argument. But I'm not seeing how the errors of "new atheism" somehow beat down normative atheism, anymore than the errors of KJV Onlyism somehow beat down normative Christianity.
You are not surviving skeptical attacks on the resurrection of Jesus (Christianity's essential doctrine) by pointing to the errors of "new" atheists. You need to worry about the atheists who trounce your faith, and can do it without resorting to brouhaha and political rhetoric.
https://turchisrong.blogspo...
