The History of Common Sense Atheism

by Luke Muehlhauser on November 29, 2009 in Indexes

traffic graph

On  November 30, 2008, I launched this blog with three posts:

  1. What Do You Mean, “Common Sense Atheism”?
  2. My Story
  3. The History of Historical Jesus Research

The next month saw only 8 posts. But to be fair, two of them were massive: 500+ Atheism vs. Theism Debates and 90+ Free Audiobooks About Religion, both of which I still update at least once a month.

2009

January 2009 saw the launch of my podcast, Conversations from the Pale Blue Dot, including my 2.5-hour debate with Christian apologist Mike Licona. It was also the month I first interviewed Alonzo Fyfe, whom to my great surprise persuaded me to completely change my moral worldview, from error theory to desirism.

February 2009 offered two of my all-time favorite posts, my harsh review of Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus and The Explosion of Early Christianity, Explained.

In March 2009 I began blogging my way through Richard Carrier’s worldview-in-a-box for atheists: Sense and Goodness Without God. Today, I’m half-way through the book. I also published a 40-page ebook explaining desire utilitarianism (aka desirism), and launched my Intro to Logic series. Traffic to my site really exploded during this month, which closed with my most-commented article up to that time: The Wrong Test for Ethical Theories.

In April 2009, my review of the William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens debate was linked from all over the web, including the Evangelical Philosophical Society. I also launched my largest project yet, Mapping the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and published my list of 100+ Living Philosophers of Religion and Their Best Work, both of which I continue to update.

In May 2009 I launched my Intro to Ethics series and published one of my best posts to date: Part 1 of my review of Mark Linville’s moral argument for the existence of God.

In June 2009 I published 46 posts – quite an improvement from the eight of December 2008. The highlight of the month for me was a summary of how my readers had changed my mind during my first 6 months writing Common Sense Atheism. I also completed a 40-hour project: my list of 2000+ gods you don’t believe in. Later, I made it a poster.

In July 2009 I rushed forward in all of my open post series, and also published one of the most shocking posts on the site: Living Without a Moral Code.

In August 2009 I launched my Ultimate Desirism F.A.Q., which I continue to update. I also launched my Arguing About Evil series, a careful and fairly technical review of the philosophical literature on the problem of evil since 1955. One of my favorite posts was Society Without God, a summary of the research showing how healthy atheistic societies are compared to religious ones. Another was a fan favorite: My Fondest Memories of God. This month also saw my first guest post, from Dave Chaffee: Craig’s First Premise in 1979 and 2009.

In September 2009 I began my exchange of letters with Christian blogger Vox Day. Besides that, the most popular post was a very simple one: Happiness and Purpose Without God.

In October 2009 I began my exchange of letters with Christian pacifist Mark van Steenwyk of The Jesus Manifesto, and also with Tom Gilson of Thinking Christian. This month saw two of my best podcast episodes: interviews with major moral philosophers Stephen Finlay and Don Loeb. I also invited Alonzo Fyfe to write a weekly column for my blog. His first post was: Are Creationists Worthy of Moral Condemnation?

November 2009 was a busy month. My review of the Craig vs. Ayala debate became my most-commented article yet, and I began blogging my way through Vox Day’s The Irrational Atheist. My favorite post of the month was The Enchanted Naturalist’s Guide to Reality. Another favorite was a guest post: Doubting Jesus’ Resurrection. My debate with Tom Gilson ended when I insisted that Jesus is Magic by simple definition. After a flurry of discussion I was persuaded that “magic” was not the best term with which to describe Jesus’ supernatural powers, and wrote a post entitled Jesus is Not Magic. Finally, I began my Intro to Religion series.

In December 2009, the lightning rod post seemed to be What Do Most Philosophers Believe, about the largest ever survey of professional philosophers. The results? It turns out most philosophers agree with me on most major issues. (Or rather, I agree with them). My readers also like two more personal posts, The Current State of My Atheism and How I Told My Family I Was an Atheist. Other popular posts were The Inner Witness of the Holy Spirit, My Own Scale for Dumb Theistic Arguments, and Are You a Sympathetic Atheist? I also began my letter exchange with Christian blogger Tim Challies.

2010

In January 2010 I did four episodes of my podcast. I began a series criticizing Richard Dawkins’ main argument for atheism, and trying to see if it could be rescued in any way. I offered my Ultimate Truth-Seeker Challenge, and began tracking the people who took up the challenge. Many people enjoyed 16 Sexiest Female Atheists, but the highlight of the month was my rebuttal to a popular atheistic retort: Who Designed the Designer? I also began my Ask the Atheist series, and my Letters on Theism and Naturalism series.

In February 2010 I upped it to eight podcast episodes in a single month! I also listed my all-time favorite posts on Common Sense Atheism, finished my series on Mark Linville’s moral argument, published my booklet Atheism in 15 Minutes, and began building my massive index of Arguments for and against Christian Theism. But the most important post of the month, and perhaps of the entire blog up to this time, was Sean McDowell and Theistic Morality.

In March 2010 I produced another 9 episodes of my podcast and began another one, Counter-Apologetics. I offered an Easy Version of my Ultimate Truth-Seeker Challenge, and a massive bibliography on simplicity and complexity. Some of the most popular posts include Religion and Suicide Terrorism, I Don’t Care if God Exists, Top 10 Atheism Quotes, What I Think of the New Atheists, and Sam Harris vs. Sean Carroll on Science and Morality.

In April 2010 I invited another guest blogger to Common Sense Atheism: John Danaher of Philosophical Disquisitions. His first post series summarized and commented upon a paper by Erik Baldwin concerning Plantinga’s Warranted Christian Belief. I invited a third guest blogger, too: Ken Pulliam of Former Fundy. His first post was Does Penal Substitutionary Theory Make Sense? The most popular article of the month was William Lane Craig on Debating Atheists, in which I argued that Christian debater Bill Craig usually gave better arguments than his atheist opponents. I also published an excellent pamphlet by Mark Davis called Is God a Moral Monster? Finally, I launched my instructional series How to Produce an Interviews Podcast and published 6 more episodes of my podcast. April 2010 was my most productive month ever, at 74 posts.

In May 2010 I produced 7 episodes of my podcast, including “11 Responses to Fine-Tuning” with Luke Barnes. I was invited to give a speech at University of California San Diego: Why the New Atheists Failed, and How to Defeat All Religious Arguments in One Easy Step. The firebrand post of the month was Many Atheists are Hypocrites About Morality. I liked my post Greg Boyd’s Godless Sermon very much, and also published a bibliography of faith and reason.

In June 2010 I published another 8 episodes of my podcast, including one with Richard Carrier, and also one of the most influential interviews upon my own views: Konrad Talmont-Kaminski. I also published my first mini-book in the Painless Introductions series, Pre-Socratics: A Painless Introduction. The most popular post of the month was a very simple question posed to a Christian apologist: Dr. Craig and Objective Morality. I expressed shock at Richard Carrier’s performance in his debate with Mike Licona.

In July 2010 I published 7 more episodes of my podcast. Major comedy relief came from Top 15 Quotes from Kent Hovind’s Ph.D. Thesis. I also wrote Desirism and the Singularity and The Existence of God Means Nothing for Theists. The major event of the month came after my post 15 Sexy Scientists. A huge section of the atheist/skeptical blogosphere descended on me in wrath, prompting me to ask: Am I Sexist? Most of my critics had lots of hot air but not much argument, prompting me to seek good arguments in the work of a famous feminist philosopher – but I did not find them there, either. Finally, Alonzo Fyfe explained what was morally wrong with my initial post, and I apologized.

In August 2010 I finished blogging through Richard Carrier’s Sense & Goodness Without God. The most popular post was Why Atheists Lose Debates. I also reviewed two books on naturalism: Encountering Naturalism and Understanding Naturalism. I also launched a second podcast: Why Christianity is False.

I began September 2010 with a summary of my philosophical positions. Two popular posts were James Lee, Atheist Terrorist and Matt Flannagan on the Genocide of the Canaanites. I launched a series on The Fine-Tuning Argument, another series on Time and the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and also launched a third podcast: Morality in the Real World. I wrote a guide for how students and academics can use the Amazon Kindle. My favorite post was The Greatest Objection to Desirism, parts 1 and 2. The Conversations from the Pale Blue Dot podcast continued unabated, with 7 more episodes.

In October 2010 I revisited the blogosphere record of my deconversion in LiveBlogging My Deconversion. I also reviewed Sam Harris’ The Moral Landscape and Stephen Hawking’s The Grand Design, and published three important episodes of my main podcast in a row, with Lydia McGrew, Tyler Wunder, and Michael Bishop. I also wrote a brief bibliography of Historical Jesus Theories.

In November 2010 I launched my Philo-Explainer series and my Reading Yudkowsky series, gave A Chronology of My Life’s Paradigm Shifts, finished the first season of Morality in the Real World, and produced a map of Craig & Sinclair’s 2009 Kalam Cosmological Argument. My favorite Conversations episode of the month was with Robert Gressis on Christian Theism vs. Naturalism.

In December 2010 I released the video and transcript of my speech at Colorado State University, The Science of Morality: No Gods Required. I launched a series on The Absurdity of Life Without God, and gave some controversial advice on How to Do Philosophy Better. I closed out the year with Death is a Problem to Be Solved and a tutorial on Bayes’ Theorem.

Previous post:

Next post:

{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }

Mark November 29, 2009 at 5:20 pm

Well Luke, congratulations. You have somehow gained a respectable following of people simply by bashing Christianity and regurgitating centuries-old anti Christian rhetoric.

I’m going to jump off this bus now. I’ve seen enough to know this web site is not going to teach me anything new. Here is a parting note I posted to another one of your posts. I will also email you something I would really like you to read… and I hope you will resist the temptation to bash it, ridicule it, or caricature it to pump up your stats even more. I think the true test of your value to the conversation would be to see if you could get those kind of numbers without ridicule and heckling.

As posted in response to one of your earlier posts:

Tom, I wouldn’t dare debate Luke because his various ideas have all the stability of a plane of fault lines. A Lukeprog idea is not only subject to change, it’s subject to transform in the way a cat might come back reincarnated as a parrot. In other words it would be a waste of my time to debate him, as it is most definitely a waste of yours.

Furthermore, I also think this blog is not so much a quest for truth as it is Luke’s personal pulpit for decrying the Christian faith (and the people who pushed it on him) as FRAUDULENT. Luke clearly believes he was hoodwinked and bamboozled, and his writing tone betrays this in nearly every post from “about me” to his latest and greatest Jesus bash. I believe this is his way of exacting revenge on the faith that he believes failed him without directly offending the folks in his family who raised him on it.

That doesn’t mean I’m judging Luke. I’m not. Luke can believe whatever the heck he wants to believe. I LOVE that we live in a country founded on liberty that affords him that right. I just take exception to the false pretense under which this blog operates, and I feel its been a worthwhile investment of my time to address since–after all–it IS a public web site and Luke is–after all–attacking my little invisible Lord and savior, Jesus Christ.

Yes the passion of Luke is Christ. His words don’t lie. Notice he doesn’t beat up on other religions. That is very telling. It’s the Christian religion that really chaps his arse. It is the one most deserving of his borrowed cartoons and buffoonish caricature, while the figures of other so-called mystical religions get an all access pass. That makes Luke’s religion not atheism, but what I will coin “retaliatheism.” In fact I think a more appropriate title for the blog would be “common sense retaliatheism.” At least THAT would be honest.

Luke doesn’t know what he believes. I probably would have never commented in the first place if he was an agnostic in search of the truth.

Peace and love to all,

Mark

  (Quote)

eheffa November 29, 2009 at 6:04 pm

Mark,

Having stability in your viewpoint is fine if you value dogma (as you seem to as a professing Christian); but, revising your opinion on the basis of new evidence or a new look at old evidence is the mark of one who values truth over dogma. The problem with Christianity is that it honors those who remain loyal to dogma over truth and to those who will hang onto untenable assertions in the name of God. When you find out that what you once believed is actually nothing more than pious bullshit, would you have the courage to admit it publicly?

-evan

  (Quote)

lukeprog November 29, 2009 at 6:37 pm

Yeah, that’s one of many, many problems with some religions. They praise and encourage those who remain “faithful” to dogma rather than those who are willing to change their mind in response to new evidence or a new look at old evidence.

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer November 29, 2009 at 7:48 pm

Mark

It is certainly possible you’ve, what was it, “jumped off this bus already”, but in the event that you didn’t and happen to be compulsively checking in to see who has responded to your post and what type of sentiments were expressed in it’s regard, I have some questions for you:

“I think the true test of your value to the conversation would be to see if you could get those kind of numbers without ridicule and heckling.”

You came to an atheist’s website wherein he discloses his intent in several biographical post’s to discuss the illogicality and deleterious effect of the intransigent nature with which most theist’s adhere to their beliefs, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. Your distaste stems from the ridicule he heaps upon your favorite illiterate Jewish carpenter. Is ridicule and heckling such a foreign element in discussions of this sort? Were you hoping through the duration of time that you did stay “on the bus” that you could introduce some neighborly love so that we can drop all this meanie-headed Jesus talk and start trading kite making secrets instead? When one happens upon some of the more RIDICULous aspects of theism in general or Christianity in particular, (both provide a profusion) is it not often warranted to RIDICULe it?

“Tom, I wouldn’t dare debate Luke because his various ideas have all the stability of a plane of fault lines. A Lukeprog idea is not only subject to change, it’s subject to transform in the way a cat might come back reincarnated as a parrot. In other words it would be a waste of my time to debate him, as it is most definitely a waste of yours.”

I read this several times. SEVERAL times, dude. I can’t believe the issue you’ve taken with Luke, is that the guy possesses the wicked capacity of mind-changing. Which you articulated as an indication of intellectual infirmity. Are you serious? Is this not the predictable, however disappointing end result of dogmatism? Obstinacy rivaled only by fucking gravity itself demarcated by a clinical inability to be persuaded by the theistically lethal combination of argumentation and evidence. According to the quoted paragraph it is “a waste of time” to debate Luke because his ideas are “subject to change… [or] transform”? So the criterion then is that the individual you engage is as obdurate as you? That should be fun for whatever readers you’re able to obtain.

“Furthermore, I also think this blog is not so much a quest for truth as it is Luke’s personal pulpit for decrying the Christian faith (and the people who pushed it on him) as FRAUDULENT. Luke clearly believes he was hoodwinked and bamboozled, and his writing tone betrays this in nearly every post from “about me” to his latest and greatest Jesus bash. I believe this is his way of exacting revenge on the faith that he believes failed him without directly offending the folks in his family who raised him on it.”

Talk about not contributing anything novel to the conversation. This is the same intellectually stale misrepresentation of an atheist’s motives for “decrying Christianity” that all theist’s lean on. If I might rephrase this platitude a bit;

“Luke is sad that God let him out of his faith without a fight. Luke cried big tear balls. Now Luke angry at God. God’s a doody-head with fart sprinkle’s on top.”

Is it not possible that Luke, although disheartened to be sure, left his faith on account of the paucity of the evidence supporting it in the first place? Did Luke move out of Daddy’s house because he hated Daddy or because it was time to get out of Daddy’s house and be a big boy?

“Yes the passion of Luke is Christ.”

I don’t necessarily have a lot to add to this line. I just can’t in good conscience not include it in this discussion. In case anyone had read thus far and thought, “Now, Jake, this guy is making perfect sense”.

You then appear surprised that Luke “exacts revenge” primarily on Christianity. Is it so shocking that Luke concerts his time and energy on exposing the religion currently adopted by his friends, family, and his younger self over, say, Jainism? Let me ask you, Mark: When you make references to heroic leaders of the past, do you call upon Washington and Jefferson with greater frequency then, say, 14th century Asian generals and regional African leaders? Some nerve you must have. What are you some kind of fucking racist or something?

“Luke doesn’t know what he believes.”

That you think he should harbor some compunction about this, or that you think it fair to dismiss this statement ambivalently as if, since you have a belief (however nonsensical), that you are, therefore in possession of the upper-hand makes me want to kick the window in next to your seat and throw you off “this bus” myself.

Booyah,
J.

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer November 29, 2009 at 7:50 pm

Lucas,

If during my critique of Mark’s post, I’ve misrepresented your beliefs by the assumptions I made therein, I apologize.

J.

  (Quote)

Jeff H November 29, 2009 at 8:31 pm

I don’t have much to add since Jake so eloquently summed it all up, but I just had to point out one thing:

Tom, I wouldn’t dare debate Luke because his various ideas have all the stability of a plane of fault lines. A Lukeprog idea is not only subject to change, it’s subject to transform in the way a cat might come back reincarnated as a parrot. In other words it would be a waste of my time to debate him, as it is most definitely a waste of yours.

Isn’t part of the point of a debate the idea that you could (at least theoretically) convince the other person that you’re right? What better definition of a “waste of time” could you have than two people who are equally as unwilling to budge, debating an issue? Can I just say that’s plain stupid and leave it at that? Now obviously we like a bit of consistency, but pointing out willingness to listen and change one’s mind as a flaw is just…just…ridiculous.

Mark, I’d also like to just mention…I don’t know how long you’ve been kicking around here, but Luke’s blog is usually a little more intellectual than what it has been in the past few days. He’s been harping on this “Jesus is magic” thing quite a bit, but that’s not his usual fare. Just thought I’d point that out.

  (Quote)

Mark November 29, 2009 at 11:56 pm

eheffa: When you find out that what you once believed is actually nothing more than pious bullshit, would you have the courage to admit it publicly?

Yes. I already did. I am a third generation Lukeprog.

eheffa said: revising your opinion on the basis of new evidence or a new look at old evidence is the mark of one who values truth over dogma.

Oh please. Let me guess: You–the radical skeptic–have the corner-market on truth because you think, therefore you are. Hmm..where have I heard that one before? Once again, more cherry picking.

You would do well to read the fathers of your radical skepticism. They have all lived and died. There is nothing new under the sun.

There is Rene Descartes, devout Catholic, father of modern philosophy and scientific methodology who wrote “for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences – can we trust our senses and logical thought processes.”

There is Isaac Newton who wrote: “The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being.”

There is Albert Einstein who wrote: “I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.”

There is Kelvin, the father of 20th century physics and one of the greatest scientists who ever lived who stated (among other things):

“Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us.”

“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.”

“The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.”

“The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I do not see how I can put it in words.”

There was Sir Francis Bacon, who established the scientific method based on inductive reasoning (of which Lukeprog is so fond) who stated: “”It is true, that a little philosophy inclines man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy brings men’s minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looks upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholds the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must succumb to Providence and Deity.”

Sorry but you young radical skeptics don’t know anything about truth. To say you are concerned with it, and at the same time call yourself an atheist (rather than an agnostic) is so feverishly immature and–as Einstein would put it–”LAME” it is nonsensical.

You would all do well to do as Descartes did and clear your philosophical plates entirely and start your quests anew. Assume NOTHING is true, and go from there. I posit you will end up in either one of two places: faithful or insane.

My .02

  (Quote)

Lee A. P. November 30, 2009 at 1:46 am

Dear Mark,

Christians think they have most all of the important answers to questions of the Universe and that these answers involve believing in very hard to believe supernatural elements and in beings not detectable by nomrmal sensory input data. They also believe that all others who disagree with them will be eternally tormented or annihilated from existence.

Christians hold much more offensive opinions about others than atheists do about them. Sure, we think the supernatural is akin to magic and that its silly. And you believe we may be eternally tormented for it.

Christians hold the trump card when it comes to harsh and offensive opinions of others beliefs! Not only do they think others are wrong, but that they may be tortured eternally for it!

Why should we beat around the bush, tiptoe around the tulips about these issues? There is a time for being blunt.

It is utterly amazing that Christians constantly get passes for believing in ouright hateful things because it is a part of their dogma/theology. In no other discourse would this be tolerated. Your decrying of the mean ole atheists is full of hypocrysy.

So boo fucking hoo Mark. Its hard to feel sorry for you. After all you are on the right team. You hold the right beliefs. You and Jesus get to rock out in heaven while the Bible is clear that you can see us mean ole atheists down there being tormented, begging for water and getting butt raped by demons with jagged ding-a-lings.

but go ahead and make a few more “final posts” of outrage. By all means.

  (Quote)

Alex November 30, 2009 at 2:51 am

This has nothing to do with your post, Luke, but remember that question you posed to Craig a while ago on intrinsic value? He’s answered it over on his website.

Also, could you help me with a technical difficulty? Whenever I go on a really big page (like the 400+ atheism debates page) the whole post vanishes, leaving only the background. Do you have any idea what’s causing it, or how to fix it?

  (Quote)

Derrida November 30, 2009 at 2:53 am

Wow, this blog has really grown into something immense.

I hope this doesn’t mean you’ll start resting on your laurels, Luke! I’m waiting avidly for you to start the Intro to Religion series, and show Mark that it isn’t all about Christianity.

On an aside, I’ve just found another “argument for atheism” to add to the pile:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H04TCVKvbL8

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer November 30, 2009 at 3:07 am

Mark

Jesucristo, mi amigo. Talk about not adding anything to the dialogue. You spent a half-dozen paragraph’s quoting people (one, quite speciously) whose beliefs are already well documented. Congrats. You’ve officially proved that very smart people can believe very stupid things i.e. Newton in alchemy, Kelvin’s belief that the world could be as young as 20 million years old (not exactly on par with the monumental stupidity bred in Y.E.C.’s but still off by a remarkable degree) amongst other superstitious dogma’s and related concepts predicated upon nonsense believed by most or all of the inordinately intelligent men you quoted. You also know, I have no doubts, that each of these men have quotes which could be used to support our side of the divide, i.e.

“The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable [sic], but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”
– Albert Einstein, in a letter responding to philosopher Eric Gutkind

You should also know, as I’m sure you do, how insalubrious to one’s career, property, and physical well-being even their very lives it was to claim anything other than a strict, literal adherence to the testament’s. Shocking then, that you were able to find men who claim exactly that. This must have taken you hours.

There is a palpable, redolent air of authoritarianism in this post. (“I’m a third-generation Lukeprog.”) The “trust me, youngins’, back in my day a pack of gum was only a penny and the milk came delivered to my doorstep with foam on top”, angle. This, in combination with the disconcerting argument from authority employed in your most recent post is quite a disappointing method to suede those into your favor.

You use the term “radical skepticism” with some derision as I imagine it serves to distinguish you from “us”. However, not all atheists are among the Hitchen’s “anti-theist” brigade. Some are simply without belief. Skeptic in deed, however, hardly radical.

You reply to Evan, who made several lucid points in his paragraph however, you don’t find a single thing to respond to in my entire essay? Mark, you hurt my feelings.

You conclude your second post with: “Assume NOTHING is true, and go from there. (This seems a little anachronistic in a post denigrating “radical skepticism”.) I posit you will end up in either one of two places: faithful or insane.”

I would like you to elaborate a bit on the distinction between those two results; specifically how one may properly identify the difference between them.

Watch those hips,
J.

  (Quote)

lukeprog November 30, 2009 at 8:28 am

Alex,

Try another browser (Chrome, Safari) and let me know if that works.

Where on his website did he answer my question?

  (Quote)

Alex November 30, 2009 at 9:28 am

Thanks for the suggestion.

If you click on the latest question in his Q and A, he’s got 14 ‘quickfire’ questions, starting with Jerry Coyne. Yours is the sixth one down.

  (Quote)

RA May 11, 2010 at 1:18 pm

Luke,

Just out of curiosity, what was it that you think caused your blog to receive a huge spike in traffic?

I noticed with your early posts you were pretty much an anonymous blogger as you were with your Christian site. Most of the comments came much latter. Even the Licona debate managed just one comment initially.

Also, did you have an intermediary site between your Christian site or did you take a time out from blogging then? Hard to imagine you went over a year without doing it.

  (Quote)

lukeprog May 11, 2010 at 3:06 pm

RA,

I think my review of the Craig/Hitchens debate, which was widely quoted, was the first time I started receiving traffic. Even Lee Strobel quoted that one. Then people discovered my debates page and that sends me steady traffic, as well as many other posts.

I don’t remember about blogging… I think it was probably about a year between ‘What God Taught Me Today’ and ‘Common Sense Atheism.’

  (Quote)

RA May 11, 2010 at 4:04 pm

Luke,

I think the debates have been your biggest driver. That’s how I got here. But you stated in your history that your traffic exploded in March 2009 and your Hitchens post was not until April so I wondered what the cause was.

Looks like the first time you started receiving a substantial number of day of comments was your Atheism & The Burden of Proof with cartesian. It was onward and upward from there apparently. Must have started getting some outside references to the blog at that point.

I’m sure you don’t remember or care. It interested me for some reason. I guess just because your success has been so unlikely and I was curious to know how it happened.

  (Quote)

RA May 11, 2010 at 4:32 pm

Actually Dennett-DSouza was your first post to get a substantial amount of attention on March 10. I’m tracing it to that. Several must have linked to you at that point and your content kept them around.

  (Quote)

Leave a Comment