Atheists Are Such Lousy Debaters

[Guest Simian]

all generalisations are wrong, including this one

:-p Christians are lousy debaters has as much evidence as anything said about atheists

atheists have good and bad debaters..just like christians have good and bad debaters...you cant compare kurt cameron to richad dawkins

[Fraught]

QUOTE (Fraught @ Jan 8 2008, 10:56 PM) *

i don't quite accept your argument. it is standard practice to accept a few of any category as representative. consider polls - a random sampling to represent the whole. this article is even more than fair, as the writer has chosen the top 3 to represent the whole.

By whose definition are Dawkins et al the "top three" atheists? Yes, they are well known and well publicised; they have written books and participated in public debates. But the fact of this prominence does not automatically mean they are the most representative of atheists as a whole, nor that all atheists - or even a majority - view them as such. To take Dawkins, while I naturally agree with some of what he says, I intensely dislike his arrogance and manner of delivery.

I am also skeptical of the idea that a sampling, while certainly representative of the whole, is always an accurate such representation. Besides which, the key element of such a study - that it is, as you say, random - is absent here; the writer has chosen his sample. One might therefore be reasonable in saying that they have set out to stack the statistics somewhat in their favour.

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. we do not know if they were chosen at random or purposefully. either way, my argument sticks that they are representative. (if there were no agreement among other atheists, they would not continue to maintain their following.)

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.

[Guest shiloh357]

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.

[Guest Simian]

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.

that doesnt mean that some people dont have friend who are 100% figments of their imagination..it just means you refuse to look at any ideas contrary to what you beleive..and doesnt make you or the people who have imaginary friends at 55..any less crazy

[The Lorax]

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

Boy am I tired of this flawed and childish reasoning--I've heard it from both sides, atheist and Christian.

If you really believe you are correct, shiloh, and you further believe your correctness makes you exempt from listening to people and arguments that disagree with you, then I wonder what you are doing here, in a forum for debate. You, my friend, would be a lousy debater.

[AndrewA]

With regards to the opening original post. I have seen a number of videos of debates involving likes of D'ouza and Hitchen.

Actully its a bit foolish for Douza to be claiming a few things, forgetting the actul content of the debate Hitchens is a very skilled and clever debater and Dinesh Douza is a bit nieve. In one video, Hitchen manipulated Douza in a clever way that left Hitchen speaking through almost all the time allocated to cross exchange.

I am suprised at this article and it just seems to be no better than what athiests do when bashing Christians, it seems like Douza is battle weary and burning out and fed up with "getting nowhere" . Any kind of debate about "does God exist" and evolution with athiests etc is simply futile and pointless, neither camp will be swayed and both stand 100% by what they beleive.

[ollkiller]

If the topic was Why are Christians lousy debaters i would say that is not true and i'm athiest. Some are and some aren't. It's a ridiculous article for a ridiculous premise.

[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.

[CaritateDei]

I think that those who read this article think it sums up Dinesh D'Souza in his entirety. This is one blog on one day. Take this as we should all things in context, and you find that Dinesh has a lot of ground that he stands on.

Dinesh is actually a very intelligent man who has engaged in public debates with Shermer, Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett. The Atheist community has labeled Dennett and Hitchens as part of the "Four Horsemen of Atheism," with Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins as the other part.

Hitchens and Dennett, in their public debating had yet to be beaten. I can be very objective when it comes to this. D'Souza definitely beat Dennett and Shermer, and he at least tied if not beat Hitchens.

To label him as an Ann Coulter-esque type is way too extreme. Dinesh never speaks for fundamentalism, and saying that you would want to debate Coulter and Jack Chick would not really be any threat to Dinesh. If an atheist were to take on a well-educated Champion of traditional Christianity and win, then Christians would have to look at that as some kind of accomplishment.

In my opinion, Dinesh's new book, "What's So Great About Christianity" should be one of two books that Christians carry around with them. The other one is the Bible.

Do not read that as me saying that Dinesh D'Souza is inspired by God. He meets attacks on Christianity at their doorstep, and he has not lost in his debates yet. Dawkins and Harris refuse to debate him so far. Two out of four ain't bad, especially since the four horsemen as of late have been unchallenged until D'Souza. They even had large chunks of the media and the entertainment world on their side.

In the end, D'Souza has publicly shown in his debates that truly, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'"

Faith is not foolish. Christianity is not foolish. Finally, D'Souza has shown that.

[The Lorax]

On the other hand, you just proved that closedmindedness isn't justified, because people who believe the earth is flat are closed minded people. They'd have to be, with all the information available, such as television and internet.

I was thinking the very same.

Dinesh is actually a very intelligent man who has engaged in public debates with Shermer, Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett. The Atheist community has labeled Dennett and Hitchens as part of the "Four Horsemen of Atheism," with Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins as the other part.

Hitchens and Dennett, in their public debating had yet to be beaten. I can be very objective when it comes to this. D'Souza definitely beat Dennett and Shermer, and he at least tied if not beat Hitchens.

D'Souza is a very intelligent man. As is Dennett. I don't know about Hitchens. Anyway, I'm aching to see these debates but currently I'm saddled with a slow internet connection. Most of the debates I've watched are young Earthers vs. evolutionists and they almost always leave a bad taste in my mouth even though the evolutionists tend to "win." Biology is a very broad, deep, technical discipline, and these qualities actually turn out to be disadvantages in the arena of debate. Things like evidence hardly enter into debate at all; instead it's all about rhetorical points. I've seen people like Hovind "win" debates simply by making requests of biologists that could not possibly deliver within their allotted time limits. (He would basically challenge evolutionists to "prove" modern biology and geology within the course of the debate.) When it came to evidence, Hovind would just deny, deny, deny. If the debate were, say, a week long, all of his false claims could be rebutted with copious evidence, but debates are usually just a couple of hours, and since it takes longer to rebut a false claim than it takes to make a false claim, he would often appear the winner to the clueless audience. Now, atheism vs. theism might be a better debate since I suppose it would be less technical. As soon as my internet picks up I'll check youtube.