Brian Flemming thinks it's a good strategy to be a coward

This is old news but after doing a little research on Brian Phlegm-ming, I found this of interest...

Usually, when you have an opponent debate you, you may want to have a signed agreement, so there won't be any cheating or scandalous actions done. Atheist and Christ-mythicist Brian Phlegm-ming (the director of The God Who Wasn't There) has one of his own. In it, he says in order to debate him you must agree to the following:

I believe it is possible that Jesus did not exist.
I believe there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ that dates to the time of his alleged life.
I believe there are no written eyewitness accounts of the existence of Jesus Christ.
I believe the names of the Gospels were added well after their composition, and there is no good reason to believe that these names correspond to the original writers.
I believe there is no good reason to believe that any of the Gospels were written by disciples of Jesus Christ, or that any eyewitnesses to Jesus were involved in their composition.
I believe the Bible is not infallible.
I believe it is common for religious cults to make things up.
I believe it is common for religions to influence each other, and for young religions to be derived from older religions.
I believe that any claim can be part of Christian tradition and also be false.
I believe that no figures such as "God" or "The Holy Spirit" or "Satan" performed any supernatural actions that had any significant effect upon the formation of early Christianity.
I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.

I've read about some cowardly actions before, but this takes the cake! This is like a pro-choice advocate telling a pro-life advocate that if you want to debate him you must have a signed-agreement stating that abortion is OK!

Now, this is where it gets very peculiar. Phlegm-ming claims that this was all just a stunt:

The goal of this stunt was to provoke Christian leaders into getting indignant, link to the Statement, and thus expose unwitting Christians to a notion that is often hidden from them by Christian authorities -- that much of what they are taught about ancient history is flat-out wrong, and believed on faith in contradiction to the available evidence. And, boy, did this strategy work. [<-- I had to laugh at that line!] Another goal of the Statement was to outline for Christians just how frustrating it is to debate with someone who uses reason when it is convenient, but drops it and retreats to "faith" as soon as his argument falls apart.

This may be one of the worse ways to provoke somebody, because Phlegm-ming unknowingly did it in spite of himself! Also, if a Christian debater refused to sign the agreement, would it really make him look bad? Of course not. It'd make him look rational, because you'd have to be an idiot to sign the said agreement. Whatever Phlegm-ming was up to in this stunt of his, it sure didn't help him. All in all, this strategy made him look like a chicken. Thank you, Mr. Phlegm-ming, for making your "debate" policy public.

Now, I never heard or read a real debate Phlegm-ming was in. If you recall, his last sort-of debate with Centurion was not really a debate if you look at the structure. Phlegm-ming had the structure done where it was more of a discussion. All it was, really, was a Q&A! Check it out: part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7, part 8, part 9, part 10, part 11, part 12, part 13, part 14, part 15, part 16, part 17, part 18, part 19, part 20, part 21, part 22, part 23, part 24.


Related:

Brian Flemming and Debating by James White