Atheists Are Such Lousy Debaters

[CaritateDei]

Right: apologies. Just realised I got confused initially: was thinking about the Earth not being the centre of the solar system, which the Church did advocate. Probably some Christians back in the day did think the Earth was flat, but you're correct - I have no information to say it was an official position.

It is not your fault, SecondEve. A great number of folks, thanks to the Columbus myth and fellas like Andrew Dickson White and John William Draper, point to the early Christians as ignoramuses who believed the earth was flat. This was never an official Christian position. The round earth was accepted because it was easy to figure out. A man watching a ship set sail could see the hull of the ship disappear before the mast. This certainly implied a round earth.

As for the heliocentric theory, Galileo himself could not prove it at all. It went against the science of the time, and even Galileo would admit that it was bad Science. It is why he still chose to remain in the Church. It is also why his fellow scientist, Tyco Brahe, looked at Galileo's "evidence," part of which concluded that the motion of earth causes tides (he was wrong...the motion of the moon causes tides), and came to his own conclusions that it was more reasonable to accept the Geo-centric theory.

He was put under house arrest in his palace for a few years and then died peacefully in his bed, wishing to be buried at a Cathedral in Florence.

[Grungekid]

Right: apologies. Just realised I got confused initially: was thinking about the Earth not being the centre of the solar system, which the Church did advocate. Probably some Christians back in the day did think the Earth was flat, but you're correct - I have no information to say it was an official position.

It is not your fault, SecondEve. A great number of folks, thanks to the Columbus myth and fellas like Andrew Dickson White and John William Draper, point to the early Christians as ignoramuses who believed the earth was flat. This was never an official Christian position. The round earth was accepted because it was easy to figure out. A man watching a ship set sail could see the hull of the ship disappear before the mast. This certainly implied a round earth.

As for the heliocentric theory, Galileo himself could not prove it at all. It went against the science of the time, and even Galileo would admit that it was bad Science. It is why he still chose to remain in the Church. It is also why his fellow scientist, Tyco Brahe, looked at Galileo's "evidence," part of which concluded that the motion of earth causes tides (he was wrong...the motion of the moon causes tides), and came to his own conclusions that it was more reasonable to accept the Geo-centric theory.

He was put under house arrest in his palace for a few years and then died peacefully in his bed, wishing to be buried at a Cathedral in Florence.

Truth makes a comeback.

[Candi770]

boy do those guys like to debate-they sure come back for more!! Gotta love um'!!

[Observer of dreams]

I am a christian BTW. Your principle argument comes from a broad generalization and is based on attacking the character of the atheists. It isn't valid, there are no facts backing it up.

Gee...I guess just like the "broad generalizations" that atheists afford Christians.

And the author backs up his words with his experiences debating atheists.

To the first point, that doesn't matter what atheists do to us it still doesn't justify the argument.

To the second point his experience with atheists is just that, HIS experience. A better way to make a logically valid point and a sound argument would be to say that the atheists he has debated did not know what they were talking about.

The argument that atheists are lousy debaters is a provocative topic. It is attacking their character because even though debating is a skill the generalization qualifies all atheists as incapable of attaining said skill.

This is how his logic goes;

Bob is a bad debater

Bob is an atheist

Fred is also an atheist

Therefore Fred must be a bad debater

It is inductive nonsense at best. In order for induction to work all parts of the inductive statements must be cogent, if they are not, then the statement is invalid.

For instance I could make the inductive statement, "I love spring, everyone must be as happy as me during springtime!" The problem is this is not cogent because there are people that like the cold, people that have allergies, and people that basically hate everything.

In conclusion since your statement has no validity and is not sound it is your own opinion that you are indeed entitled to and nothing more than that.

[CaritateDei]

I am a christian BTW. Your principle argument comes from a broad generalization and is based on attacking the character of the atheists. It isn't valid, there are no facts backing it up.

Gee...I guess just like the "broad generalizations" that atheists afford Christians.

And the author backs up his words with his experiences debating atheists.

To the first point, that doesn't matter what atheists do to us it still doesn't justify the argument.

To the second point his experience with atheists is just that, HIS experience. A better way to make a logically valid point and a sound argument would be to say that the atheists he has debated did not know what they were talking about.

The argument that atheists are lousy debaters is a provocative topic. It is attacking their character because even though debating is a skill the generalization qualifies all atheists as incapable of attaining said skill.

This is how his logic goes;

Bob is a bad debater

Bob is an atheist

Fred is also an atheist

Therefore Fred must be a bad debater

It is inductive nonsense at best. In order for induction to work all parts of the inductive statements must be cogent, if they are not, then the statement is invalid.

For instance I could make the inductive statement, "I love spring, everyone must be as happy as me during springtime!" The problem is this is not cogent because there are people that like the cold, people that have allergies, and people that basically hate everything.

In conclusion since your statement has no validity and is not sound it is your own opinion that you are indeed entitled to and nothing more than that.

Again, this was his BLOG. He was not out to prove anything here. Read his book, then make the judgment.

[Grungekid]

Again, this was his BLOG. He was not out to prove anything here. Read his book, then make the judgment.

Look at all the atheist blogs bragging about how they think they have disproven God, for evidence that blog to occasionally have offensive material, and Christians certainly aren't the only ones with a problem.

[Physicsfreak]

I am a christian BTW. Your principle argument comes from a broad generalization and is based on attacking the character of the atheists. It isn't valid, there are no facts backing it up.

Gee...I guess just like the "broad generalizations" that atheists afford Christians.

And the author backs up his words with his experiences debating atheists.

This is how his logic goes;

Bob is a bad debater

Bob is an atheist

Fred is also an atheist

Therefore Fred must be a bad debater

Well, I'm kinda new here, but reading the responces you all gave, it seams that everybody should learn something about debating. From a christian point of view: there is not one valid reason to debate anyway I guess; the main issue of any debate is to make a agreement between two people/organisations.

When Jesus was in the desert for 40 days, the devil was there, more then just one time. Jesus was not negociating with the devil. He was firm.

And so should we, I think

[Arthur Durnan]

I saw the debate too, a non-contest really in that D'Souza's forthright intro & continual right-on responses to Hitchens caused the self-concocted "atheist" to appear as one reed short of a basket. The only thing Hitchens had going for him was his gravelly British accent which made him sound somewhat "Churchillian"....but that's about it. Then, too, many of Hitchens' arguments were essentially take-offs of Richard Dawlins' fairly mindless drivel called "The God Delusion," all of which are quite adequately answered, & I might add, silenced by Alister & Joanna Collicutt McGrath, both of Oxford, in their blockbuster response, "The Dawkins Delusion: Atheist Fundamentalism & The Denial Of The Divine," Veritas Forum Books, 2007. I chalked up a huge WIN for D'Souza and a big ZERO for Christopher Hitchens & Rich Dawkins while underscoring my decision with Atheist Michael Ruse's comment in his "Darwinism & Its Discontents", which reads: "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist, and the McGraths show why." Among many other things, Ruse says that the recent Deity-deniers "lose credibility because they refuse to grant religion any positive attributes." And he adds, "Paradoxically, at the end of his work, David Hume has to admit that there might indeed be something to the God business after all." Beyond a doubt, our atheist friends have some of the very best minds of the 1930s!

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

[CaritateDei]

I saw the debate too, a non-contest really in that D'Souza's forthright intro & continual right-on responses to Hitchens caused the self-concocted "atheist" to appear as one reed short of a basket. The only thing Hitchens had going for him was his gravelly British accent which made him sound somewhat "Churchillian"....but that's about it. Then, too, many of Hitchens' arguments were essentially take-offs of Richard Dawlins' fairly mindless drivel called "The God Delusion," all of which are quite adequately answered, & I might add, silenced by Alister & Joanna Collicutt McGrath, both of Oxford, in their blockbuster response, "The Dawkins Delusion: Atheist Fundamentalism & The Denial Of The Divine," Veritas Forum Books, 2007. I chalked up a huge WIN for D'Souza and a big ZERO for Christopher Hitchens & Rich Dawkins while underscoring my decision with Atheist Michael Ruse's comment in his "Darwinism & Its Discontents", which reads: "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist, and the McGraths show why." Among many other things, Ruse says that the recent Deity-deniers "lose credibility because they refuse to grant religion any positive attributes." And he adds, "Paradoxically, at the end of his work, David Hume has to admit that there might indeed be something to the God business after all." Beyond a doubt, our atheist friends have some of the very best minds of the 1930s!

You hit it on the head. McGrath's works in response to Dawkins (The Twilight of Atheism, Dawkins' God, and The Dawkins Delusion) are all very well done. He gains credibility in that he was an atheist at one time.

Good stuff.

[Gerioke]

Arrogant "Christians" embarass me. This article implies that you must be Christian to be a good debater, yet scriptures tell us we are to refrain from debates.

Besides that, I've seen plenty of Christians fall flat on their faces when involved with a debate. Perhaps it's "people" who are lousy debaters.