Evangelical Apologist Randal Rauser is a Dishonest, Dirty Debater

Can We Prove that God Exists? (Randal Rauser) - YouTube


I have been asking evangelical apologist Randal Rauser the following question, over and over again on his blog, but he refuses to answer it. He complains that I have not worded my question properly, but when I re-word it, he refuses to answer the re-worded question. The truth is obvious. Dr. Randal Rauser is terrified to answer this question:

Do you believe that you have a personal relationship with Jesus, and if so, why?

I’m tired of asking. I left this statement on Rauser’s blog:

To Randal Rauser, evangelical apologist,

I don’t think you have any intention of answering my question no matter how I re-word the question. You are using the same dirty, dishonest debate tactics used by Fox news host, Tucker Carlson: Denigrate the character and intelligence of your debate opponent while persistently avoiding answering your opponent’s questions.


You are smart enough to know that the following would be the conclusion to our discussion, if you had engaged in it, a conclusion which you want to avoid at all cost: 

How can someone objectively evaluate the very extra-ordinary claim of a resurrection of a brain-dead first century peasant if he believes that the man in question “lives in his heart” and is his “best friend”??

It is not possible!

You can object all you want to my use of the terms “peasant” and “man”, but that is exactly what Jesus was unless YOU prove that he was something more. Disputed eyewitness testimony from partisan sources and your subjective personal feelings, intuitions, and perceptions are NOT sufficient evidence for most educated, modern, non-Christian adults to buy into the historicity of this ancient tall tale.

That is why Dr. Randall Rauser is NEVER going to answer this question.

You are a dishonest man, sir.

Rauser’s response: So your response to the charge that you’re obnoxious and strident is to be … wait for it … obnoxious and strident. I think it’s time that you move on.

Gary’s final response: I will go, but let every skeptic and Christian see the weakness in the apologetic defense of Randal Rauser: his subjective, irrational belief that he has a personal relationship with the creator of the universe…a creator who at one time was a first century peasant.

Your PhD and all your philosophical psycho-babble cannot compensate for this silly irrational belief which was ingrained into your brain as a gullible child. Let us all hope for the day when no parent teaches his or her innocent child these horrific ancient superstitions!







End of post.


46 thoughts on “Evangelical Apologist Randal Rauser is a Dishonest, Dirty Debater

  1. re: “How can someone objectively evaluate the very extra-ordinary claim of a resurrection of a brain-dead first century peasant if he believes that the man in question “lives in his heart” and is his “best friend”??”

    You say this question (above) would be the “conclusion”. But, how can a question be a conclusion?

    I think you mean to say “the conclusion would be that you cannot objectively evaluate the very extra-ordinary claim of a resurrection of a brain-dead first century peasant if you believe that the man in question “lives in your heart” and is your “best friend”.

    And, of course, this is a ground-breaking, earth-shattering conclusion. It’s not obvious at all.

    Good work! Lots of effort went into that. And all for a good cause!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. A man with a PhD who believes that he has a personal relationship with a first century peasant is either hopelessly brainwashed due to childhood indoctrination or an over-educated FOOL.

      I challenge Rauser to come onto this blog and prove me wrong…without engaging in philosophical word-salad. Just give us the evidence for your relationship with this first century man/god.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. @ Joe
      I feel sure that while Randal may not be able to hold his own, he will most assuredly appreciate your efforts in championing his cause and holding his end up, even though you do not have said appendage and its two relevant accompaniments.

      Well done, that man!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Joe is a “liberal” Christian who feels his master’s degree in theology makes him more intelligent than any skeptic on the planet. Crude, profanity-laced language is his trademark.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. I am not going to say “yes”, because I am not 100% sure, but I would place a large bet that it is. “Joe”: care to reveal your full identity?


              1. Again, I’m not sure of the full identity of “Joe”, but I will bet it is Joe Hinman of Metacrock blog. Joe and I have interacted many times over the years, including two weeks ago on Randal Rauser’s blog. Many times during our discussions he has used colorful, profanity-laced language and informed me how much of an idiot I am to question is superior intellect. So today’s comment certainly fits Joe Hinman’s past behavior. But maybe it is another “Joe”. Feel free to check out Joe’s blog but let’s not accuse him unjustifiably of the delightful “cock carrying” comment until we have more information.


                Liked by 1 person

      1. I asked Joe Hinman, author of Metacrock blog, if he left the “cock” comment. Here is what he said, full of typos:

        I hope it wasn’t me because it;s quite ride Bit it probably was as I have told Im a real piece of work. However I invite you t hang arouind and discuss, i promise I wont insult you.


  2. Sorry to see you go, Gary. I have also faced the situation in the past where RR refuses to give a direct answer to a simple question. When an intelligent apologist does that, it’s a fairly safe assumption that cognitive dissonance and an unwillingness to acknowledge a flaw in their epistemology are the driving forces.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Very true. It drives me nuts when apologists try to control the conversation on their blogs. It demonstrates to me that they are insecure in the strength of their beliefs.

      After he once again attacked my character after I had already said my “good byes”, I challenged him to a “polite, snark-free, philosophical-ese free” discussion regarding his belief that he has a personal relationship with Jesus. What do you think the chances are he will bite?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I think 0%.

        If it makes you feel any better, RR resorted to personal insults with me today, rather than deal with my actual point.

        The real shame is that the other Christians reading along never say anything about the behavior.


        1. I think the time has come to stop politely debating these people regarding “evidence” and simply laugh whenever they bring up their ancient resurrected corpse tale. People like Rauser crave credibility and respect. They do not merit respect. Anyone who peddles fear-based superstitions deserves as much respect as the tom-tom waving witch doctor in the deepest jungle.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Angry_Grasshopper,

          As an FYI, Randal took to his twitter account yesterday to attack someone who I am certain is you. He didn’t mention you by name, but I am certain he is referring to you. This recent thread has two tweets by Randal:

          You have spent a good bit of time on his blog. I don’t understand why you (apparently) place much value on his opinion. I’ve observed him insult you multiple times on his blog. He sometimes acts dismissive towards you. You also mentioned that you find it a shame that other Christians who know about his behavior don’t call him out. Well, one did… and often. His name was Steve Hays, though Steve passed away recently. There is a lengthy list of articles by Steve Hays on a site call Triablogue re. Randal. There may be over 100 of them. Steve understood Randal all too well (imo), and he didn’t hold his punches. If you want to know more about who you are dealing with re. Randal, read some of those articles. Steve believed Randal could be mean-spirited and vindictive. I agree wholeheartedly. He also displays (glaring) selective moral outrage on a variety of subjects. I think he needs to be called out and/or tuned out.



          1. I don’t know Gary, and I would not say we are part of the same tribe. I first encountered Gary on Randal’s blog fairly recently. I didn’t think Gary was being obnoxious. I thought Randal was being evasive, and Gary was determined to get a response. The behavior that Gary and Angry_Grasshopper have noted re. Randal is consistent with behavior I have seen from Randal for some time. They aren’t the first two folks to make note of it.

            Liked by 1 person

    1. I normally would not allow this misogynistic word to be posted on my blog but I am allowing the comments of Joe Hinman of Metacrock blog to demonstrate to the world the non-Jesus like behavior of many of Jesus’ most ardent followers and defenders.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. You quoted this on Rauser’s blog regarding Habermas.

    A majority of scholars believe there was an empty tomb: Habermas estimates it at 75% in his major survey of scholarship since 1975.

    I stand under correction, but as far as I am aware Habermas has never released details of this survey, so in effect all we are dealing with here is a claim .


    1. Yes, Habermas refuses to release the data. (I was quoting Randal.)

      I’m simply testing Rauser’s commitment to accept majority scholarly opinion on ALL issues not just the ones that help his side.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s