Atheists Are Such Lousy Debaters

[CaritateDei]

Let me know what you think of them. In debates, I try to pretend, as all who watch debates should, that I have no preconceived notions. Whoever makes the best points and counters the other points wins...end of story.

Dennett and Shermer get schooled by D'Souza, and Hitchens and D'Souza are at least even.

[secondeve]

even if i acknowledge your opinion that they are not the top 3, i stick by my stance; namely, that they are representative. the very fact that they are well known and publicized would ensure that. i.e. they must be getting wide readership.

This is false logic. I might as well argue that because Dan Brown features prominently at the top of the best-seller lists and is widely read, his actual writing is superb. In fact, his writing is absolute trash. Hype isn't everything; and even where a wide readership is known, that doesn't vouch for the quality or judgement of said readership. Gossip magazines have massive readerships and are exceedingly well publicised, but that doesn't mean they accurately represent the majority of the female populace.

we do not know if they were chosen at random or purposefully.

Journalists don't pull names from a hat when writing articles about prominent figures. They choose.

secondly, one would not be reasonable in saying that they have set out to stack the statistics in their favor. in fact, it is the very opposite.

I don't see how you can run this line. The writer set out to make a point that atheists are poor debaters, and chose examples which, in his estimation, fit that description. If there's a different definition of bias, I'd like to hear it.

She can afford to be closedminded, 'cause she's right.

Closemindedness is never justified. If you're right, then there's nothing to lose by being open-minded; and if you're wrong, there's everything to gain.

Closemindedness can be quite justified. There are still those who believe the earth is flat and as result reject any notion that man has been to outerspace.

Why would I need to be openminded toward them about their assertion that the earth is flat? There are lots of other issues about which closemindedness toward any other position is quite justified.

I can afford to be closeminded where God is concerned, because I know Him, and He knows me. If you tried to convince me God does not exist, it would be analagous to me trying to convice your friends that you are just a figment of their overactive imagination.

As I recall (to take your example) it was the Church who persisted in believing the Earth was flat, and they were, at the time, of the distinct opinion that God's infallability made them right. And the reason they proved so difficult to argue with is precisely because they were closeminded.

In essence, you're advocating a double-standard. You want everyone else to be open-minded towards your beliefs, but reject such open-mindedness for yourself. Which, I would say, is a fairly textbook example of hypocricy. I wasn't aware Christianity boasted a 'do as I say, not as I do' policy among its many offerings; rather, I thought that Christians were meant to lead by example. Consider that illusion suitably undone.

[CaritateDei]

Just to clear up, no Christian has ever taught the earth was flat.

[secondeve]

In essence, you're advocating a double-standard. You want everyone else to be open-minded towards your beliefs, but reject such open-mindedness for yourself. Which, I would say, is a fairly textbook example of hypocricy. I wasn't aware Christianity boasted a 'do as I say, not as I do' policy among its many offerings; rather, I thought that Christians were meant to lead by example. Consider that illusion suitably undone.

I believe the word you're looking for, secondeve, is 'polemicist' rather than 'debator'.

?

Not sure how your comment relates to mine.

Just to clear up, no Christian has ever taught the earth was flat.

Are you making a distinction between the Catholic church and Christianity?

[Guest shiloh357]

As I recall (to take your example) it was the Church who persisted in believing the Earth was flat, and they were, at the time, of the distinct opinion that God's infallability made them right. And the reason they proved so difficult to argue with is precisely because they were closeminded.

The midieval Church was less Christian and more political. It had nothing to do with God's infallibility but the preceived infallibility of the church. The church was the government when the two were combined with its own sense of infallibility added to mix, it led to a great deal unchecked corruption, persecution and so forth. It really was not representative of the genuine New Testament faith.

In essence, you're advocating a double-standard. You want everyone else to be open-minded towards your beliefs, but reject such open-mindedness for yourself.

That is a value you are assigning to me, and not anything I have said or implied.

I mean we approach this same principle in other contexts. Which is greater: A drug that treats the symptoms of Cancer or the drug that cures the disease? Which would you want if you Cancer? Why would you go harking back to the drug that only cures the symptoms if you also had the cure

Truth is greater than theory, hypothesis or opinions. This is not only true is the secular arena, but it is true where spiritual issues are concerned, as well. Why would I want something less than the truth when I already have the truth? In that respect, openmindedness is a step backwards.

I know the truth, because the truth is not concept or a point of view or an opinion. The truth is a person. Jesus is the Truth, the Way and the Life. He does not leave room for equal consideration for anyone or anything else as a possbile alternative. Jesus demonstrates extreme exclusivity in His claims. He does not claim to be one of many equally valid choices. Such exclusivity demands a singular, undivided and absolute level of committment to the exclusion of all other possible choices. Jesus offers Himself as the ONLY way to God (John 14:6) He does not leave room for openmindedness, whatsoever.

I have the truth and you dont. Why would I want to be like you? I know Jesus and He knows me. Accusing me of being "closedminded" where this issue is concerned is on par with accusing me of being closedminded for not being willing to entertain the possiblity that 2+2 might actually equal 5.

Which, I would say, is a fairly textbook example of hypocricy.

I wasn't aware Christianity boasted a 'do as I say, not as I do' policy among its many offerings; rather, I thought that Christians were meant to lead by example. Consider that illusion suitably undone.

Again, this is just more of the same. Evidently, you cannot really address this issue without trying to project on to me things I did not say and values or motives that I neither possess or have expressed.

[secondeve]

I mean we approach this same principle in other contexts. Which is greater: A drug that treats the symptoms of Cancer or the drug that cures the disease? Which would you want if you Cancer? Why would you go harking back to the drug that only cures the symptoms if you also had the cure

Truth is greater than theory, hypothesis or opinions. This is not only true is the secular arena, but it is true where spiritual issues are concerned, as well. Why would I want something less than the truth when I already have the truth? In that respect, openmindedness is a step backwards.

I know the truth, because the truth is not concept or a point of view or an opinion. The truth is a person. Jesus is the Truth, the Way and the Life. He does not leave room for equal consideration for anyone or anything else as a possbile alternative. Jesus demonstrates extreme exclusivity in His claims. He does not claim to be one of many equally valid choices. Such exclusivity demands a singular, undivided and absolute level of committment to the exclusion of all other possible choices. Jesus offers Himself as the ONLY way to God (John 14:6) He does not leave room for openmindedness, whatsoever.

I have the truth and you dont. Why would I want to be like you? I know Jesus and He knows me. Accusing me of being "closedminded" where this issue is concerned is on par with accusing me of being closedminded for not being willing to entertain the possiblity that 2+2 might actually equal 5.

Shiloh, the point is that while you believe yourself to be 100% correct, I also believe the same about my position. And as neither of us is a likely convert, this leaves no room for debate of any kind - nor even discussion - unless one or both of us is willing to be open-minded about the other person's beliefs. I think it was Aristotle who praised the ability to understand someone's point of view without accepting it yourself: this is what I am advocating, and what I ultimately mean by open-mindedness. When you boil the beef right down to the bones, I think you're wrong. I do not believe in Christianity, and if you put a gun to my head and told me to pick a theory for the universe, I'd say there are no gods, and never have been. But the reason I'm on Worthy is because I don't live day to day with that gun at my head: I have the intellectual freedom to try and understand other people, even where I fundamentally disagree with them. Because, ultimately, it's the only way humanity has ever learned anything.

Edited January 11, 2008 by secondeve

[Grungekid]

Why Atheists Are Such Lousy Debaters

by Dinesh D'Souza

UPDATE: If you haven't seen my debates with Christopher Hitchens, Michael Shermer and Daniel Dennett, you can watch them here. I am waiting for Shermer to post our Cal Tech debate of December 9, which was recorded by his Skeptic Society.

I watched the movie "The Great Debaters" last night, and it helped me to understand why atheists are such bad debaters. The movie portrays four students from a little black college in Texas, and shows how, under the tutelage of their pugnacious coach, they went on to defeat Almighty Harvard. Denzel Washington, who plays the coach, says early in the movie that debate is a kind of bloodsport. It's great virtue is that it puts rival ideas up against each other, as argued by people who passionately espouse those ideas, and then it lets the truth emerge through a kind of gladiatorial elimination.

For about three years, it appeared as though the leading atheists were formidable debaters. But the reason was that Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens were selecting weak opponents and then generally giving them a public whipping. In one staged encounter, hardly a debate, Richard Dawkins ambushed televangelist Ted Haggard for a film Dawkins was making. Not only did Dawkins control the format, he also controlled what was shown on film. No wonder Dawkins got the better of that encounter. Harris took on pastor Rick Warren in Newsweek, where Harris made outrageous allegations and Warren basically said that Christians are nice people because they help AIDS victims in Africa. Again, this was hardly a fair fight. Hitchens promoted his book God Is Not Great by traipsing through the South taking on local pastors. Now your typical pastor is not used to debating a versatile and suave character like Hitchens. A few months ago Hitchens embarrassed theologian Alister McGrath in Washington D.C. One problem is that Hitchens has the Richard Burton accent and McGrath sounds like he just came in from shooting birds in the Scottish highlands. Another problem is that McGrath couldn't handle Hitchens' vitriolic accusations and came off looking conciliatory and weak.

Unlike the characters in "The Great Debaters," I was never part of a debate team. I got my debate practice through confronting critics of my various books. Mostly I learned by taking on such seasoned debaters as presidential candidate Walter Mondale, the literary scholar Stanley Fish, and a whole series of civil rights activists from Cornel West to Jesse Jackson. Prior to my debate with Hitchens, he described me as "one of the most formidable debaters on any topic." Richard Dawkins seems to agree: the great Haggard-slayer has somehow gotten cold feet when it comes to debating me. I guess he's afraid that I'll make him look as ridiculous as Haggard.

Then there's Sam Harris, who tells me that debate is not a very useful medium to arrive at the truth. He didn't seem to think that previously, but now it seems that he too is afraid of looking like a public fool. Harris wants to engage in a written debate, and I've agreed, but it should be noted that written debates allow each side to consult experts and therefore they don't reflect the true spirit of debate, which is the clash of ideas embodied in the most articulate representatives of those ideas. I've suggested to Harris a couple of weeks ago that we do both a written and an oral debate, and I'm waiting to hear his response.

Why are the atheists faring so badly in these debates? I think the main reason is that they are so arrogant. Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and Hitchens really think that their position reflects pure reason and that my position reflects "blind faith." If this were really true they should win every single debate, for the same reason that a round-earth advocate should never lose to a flat-earth advocate. In reality there are good arguments on both sides, and I as a believer know this. I know it's hard to make the case for an invisible God and for an afterlife. In short, I know the strength of the argument on the other side. Leading atheists, however, simply do not expect to hear good counterarguments to their position. When they do, they have no idea how to answer them. So they either erupt into jejune name-calling (all to familiar to readers of this blog) or they slowly fall apart (witness what happened to Daniel Dennett).

In reality, I don't have to win debates against atheists; I merely have to draw. Just by coming out even, I defeat the atheist premise that atheism is the position based on reason and religion is the position based on unreason. Even a tie shows that both positions are reasonable. By defeating atheists in debate, however, I have totally exploded the atheist self-pretense. I have shown atheists to be the unreasonable ones, and this is why leading atheists like Dawkins and Harris are now going into hiding. But if these guys are scared to debate me, even in secular university settings where the audience is largely on their side, what does this say about them and about the soundness of their positions? Perhaps Dawkins and company should go and see "The Great Debaters." They might get some useful tips, and they might also get their nerve back.

http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/01/0...lousy-debaters/

I don't know what to think about the title, but that sounds depressingly accurate. And I thought I was a pessimist.

[Grungekid]

She can afford to be closedminded, 'cause she's right.

Closemindedness is never justified. If you're right, then there's nothing to lose by being open-minded; and if you're wrong, there's everything to gain.

Humillity is important. But in the modern world, many have been forced to desperate ends just to try and get their story across. There is so much information out there, with so much skepticism, and everyone says there right; I fear that an agressive approach may be the only way to get anywhere these days.

[secondeve]

She can afford to be closedminded, 'cause she's right.

Closemindedness is never justified. If you're right, then there's nothing to lose by being open-minded; and if you're wrong, there's everything to gain.

Humillity is important. But in the modern world, many have been forced to desperate ends just to try and get their story across. There is so much information out there, with so much skepticism, and everyone says there right; I fear that an agressive approach may be the only way to get anywhere these days.

Perhaps, though, being different to the aggressive norm might be more effective? Otherwise, the cycle becomes self-perpetuating: people being aggressive spawn people who want to be heard being aggressive, which spawns other people who want to be heard being aggressive...

[kari21]

This is, perhaps, the worst justification in the known universe for taking a certain tone with one's opponents. If you really take issue with said tactics and dislike their use against you, stooping to them yourself not only makes you childish, but a hypocrit.

If one wants to play with the pigs, you gotta get in the mud with 'em.

Nice Christian approach.

The Bible calls those who reject the Gospel "swine" and "dogs."

"Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." (Matthew 7:6)

If you don't like it, take it up with God, Fido.

Put those verses into historical context, kari. And if you and Fido are just going to nip at each other's heels, take it somewhere else, please.

It means, "Do not waste good things on people who will not appreciate them." And it is just as valid today as it was then.

I am a nipper, I do admit. And I'm all out of chew toys...