Brian Flemming shares his thoughts on the debate on his blog:

Well, in my estimation, I won the debate, although obviously it’s a bit of a hollow victory. My opponent had his blind commitment to a religious ideology tying one hand behind his brain, and that was painfully obvious throughout the discussion. So I’m not exactly surprised or jumping for joy that I beat someone who has self-crippled his capacity for reason. (Although that moment in the middle of Round 4 did give me a guilty chuckle.)

But I think I made the best of the opportunity to reach a Christian audience, given the time I had to spend on it. Maybe there’s a little more doubt in the minds of the indoctrinated now. Maybe.

Here is my totally unbiased, completely objective play-by-play/commentary:

INTRODUCTION:

Brian says hello to the Christian audience, and tries to portray himself as not evil.

ROUND ONE:

The Calvinist asks for a detailed, 325-year timeline of early Christianity from Brian.

Brian answers with a timeline for the 1st century, as his key claims are in that period. He explains why the specifics of the rest of Christianity’s development are not crucial to the Christ myth argument.

Brian asks, “Does it matter to you whether Jesus existed?”

The Calvinist answers yes, it’s a matter of “material consequence,” but doesn’t say why.

ROUND TWO:

The Calvinist invents his own summary of Brian’s claims, and, based on that straw man, asks if Brian believes that Socrates was also fictional.

Brian corrects The Calvinist’s summary, says there is better evidence for Socrates than Jesus, and identifies that better evidence.

Brian asks, “What are the ‘material consequence[s]’ if it turns out that Jesus is entirely a fictional godman character like the similar figures who were worshipped prior to the arrival of Christianity?”

The Calvinist responds with four paragraphs. The last is the only one that even partially addresses the question Brian asked. In the first paragraph, The Calvinist falsely claims that Brian’s question assumes that Jesus and prior gods are “meaningfully connected.” Brian may believe that, but the question said no such thing. The Calvinist uses this false claim as an excuse to argue against even more claims that Brian has made nowhere in the debate. In the second paragraph, The Calvinist discusses the literature of Mithraism, even though Brian has made no claims about Mithraism so far in the debate. Going even further afield in the third paragraph, The Calvinist argues for the uniqueness of the New Testament as literature. Finally, in the fourth paragraph, the shortest of the four, The Calvinist says that without the resurrection Christians are “the most pitiable of men.” In his entire answer, The Calvinist fails to list any “material consequences” of a mythical Christ.

ROUND THREE:

The Calvinist asks Brian if he can find a piece of literature that has certain qualities that The Calvinist lists at length, including genre, time period, style, theme, plot events and use of historical figures.

Brian admits, “No, I cannot point you to a piece of fiction that contains every item on your menu” and explains why this hypothetical literature is in no way necessary to prove the mythicist case. Brian points out similarities that are there between Jesus and prior characters.

Brian asks The Calvinist for one example of a belief he holds on faith, rather than on “sufficient evidence.”

The Calvinist answers that his belief in the Second Coming qualifies, as it hasn’t happened yet. He also says that “faith” is more complex than Brian’s question would suggest.

ROUND FOUR:

The Calvinist asks virtually the same question he asked in the previous round, but raises the bar even higher this time, describing a “side-by-side” technique used most often to demonstrate plagiarism.

(NOTE: At this point, The Calvinist emails Brian and expresses a sincere desire to understand what Brian is saying about this “raising the bar” stuff. Brian responds that his answer was clear enough in the last round, and he doubts The Calvinist’s sincerity. The Calvinist volunteers that Brian can lay out the Christ Myth case in as many words as he would like, to help The Calvinist better understand the argument. Brian says he accepts the offer.)

Brian answers with a post that first details the “raising the bar” fallacy and how The Calvinist employs it. Then he lays out a version of the Christ Myth argument step-by-step, demonstrating how an analysis of the available evidence increases the probability at each step that Jesus is fictional. He finishes by demonstrating the emptiness of The Calvinist’s “raising the bar” strategy by showing that by The Calvinist’s standards even Bat Boy: The Musical could be demonstrated to have no connection to the original Bat Boy.

The Calvinist unilaterally interjects with an unscheduled rebuttal. He “clarifies” that he wasn’t asking Brian to prove plagiarism. The Calvinist wonders aloud if maybe Brian wants to stop debating now.

Brian asks how The Calvinist would persuade Bat Boy worshippers to worship Jesus instead, in a future where The Calvinist is the last Christian left.

The Calvinist answers, “I’d preach the Gospel to them, Brian,” then quickly changes the subject. He implies that Brian has ignored the influence of the Old Testament on the gospel stories (even though Brian has mentioned the Old Testament first in his list of influences in Round 2 and in Round 3). At this point, The Calvinist is literally asking himself his own questions, and he actually asks a challenging one: “What do we make of this clear use of an ancient source in creating the more recent source?” Pulling out a gun and shooting his own foot, the Calvinist answers: The similarities are all proof of “the salvation God has promised.”

ROUND FIVE:

The Calvinist asks what Brian finds “beneficial or worthwhile” about Christianity, offering that he thinks atheism has “a fine view of science from a pragmatic standpoint, and it has a robust body of literature and art.”

Brian answers with an explanation of what he considers to be the most positive values in Christianity — including those at the heart of his own value system — but points out that these positive values have to be extracted from the parts of the doctrine that have inspired so much evil in the past.

Brian asks if The Calvinist will be happy in Heaven, even if he knows that people are suffering in Hell.

The Calvinist dodges the question by answering instead that the suffering in Hell won’t cause him to be happy in Heaven. He leaves the real question unanswered. He then implores Brian to “turn away from sin and toward the Savior.”

CONCLUSION

The Calvinist asks Brian to give the last word, per tradition at the DebateBlog.

Brian declares victory.

Well, it was kind of fun, and somewhat illuminating. As I discovered when I was looking into the JFK conspiracy community, there are always new, fascinating levels of crazy. Crazy will never let you down that way.

No, it won’t. As the Christian comments we’ll get on this thread will no doubt prove.