Al apparently hasn’t read through the column archive:
So for you to brag about how you’d kick ass in a debate with someone on the “other side” is greeted with cheers from your squirrels, and derision from those who think your position is merely another subjective opinion.
That’s because those on the other side haven’t read through my case yet. What you have seen written in my columns and on the blog is far from the substantive case I am making against Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens. That’s merely the starting point from which I began my research and I’ve since learned that the empirical evidence is even stronger against them than I had hoped.
You can be as skeptical as you want, but I note that Sam Harris has already ignored the invitation of the Northern Alliance guys to debate me on their radio show. Given how poorly Hitchens faired against Wilson’s logical assault, he has absolutely no chance whatsoever against my primarily empirical and historical approach. Harris is a hopeless case, as my atheist editor said after reading the chapter devoted to him, “okay, you got him.”
Dawkins, being surprisingly evasive in his language, is a little harder to effectively destroy.
There’s something going on here that very, very few of you realize; I doubt one in a thousand of the Christians and atheists interested in this subject even understands the underlying purpose of these attacks on religious faith in general and Christianity in general.
In fact, I have no doubt that there will be more than a few atheists, perhaps even a majority, who will find themselves in much stronger agreement with my general position than with Harris despite my theism and their atheism.
If you doubt me, then by all means encourage Mr. Harris, Mr. Dawkins or Mr. Hitchens to debate me, whether it’s now or after the book comes out. I’d be perfectly content to have fair-minded atheists in the mode of Brent Rasmussen judge who won; I somehow doubt the New Atheists would be as comfortable in having an evangelical Christian do the same.