Silent Dave

Chris Smith and I have finished our formal debate concerning the existence of God. For a number of reasons -- not the least of which is Chris's statement that he has never lost a debate -- I thought it would be instructive to conduct a poll on whether he has lost this one (or, for that matter, whether anyone particularly cares).

EoG mods, if this is not the appropriate venue for this poll, please feel free to move it.

Infinite_Rules

I think it's kind of pointless to decide who won the debate by polling on a primarily atheist board. Post the same question at the Apologetics forum and you will get the opposite results.

Alf

Agreed. I am pretty sure that the folks at rapture ready have a completely different perspective on things compared to people at IIDB.

The hard truth is that few people change their opinions due to one debate. Most who convert do so after a long process which starts with them asking questions which their religion do not have a ready made answer for or for which the ready made answer do not feel satisfactory to the person asking the question. From then on it is usually a longer quest before they finally end up saying that they no longer believe.

On the other hand, I would assume it is easier for people to sway the other way by a suitably charismatic leader and provided they haven't gone to the unbeliever camp because they rationally has reached the conclusion but rather never thought about the issues beforehand. Hence revival meetings etc may have some effect on some people who did not previously believe and then converted to christianity. For atheists to start "revival meetings" would be just plain silly though due to the points I made above and so you never see those but see plenty of christian revival meetings.

Alf

Smith_87

Yes, that's a good point. Many are likely not to make any sudden descisions after one debate. But it does come down to matter of choice. I don't believe people are "converted" in a forceful manner. Everyone can accept or reject reasoning at their own will.

Silent Dave

I disagree, for two reasons. First, nontheists, by and large, tend to know the difference between thinking that X won a debate and agreeing with X's position. Here on II, in both the Library and the Forum, you will see reviews of, for instance, William Lane Craig debates in which atheists readily admit that Craig won the debate, at least in the style/rhetorical sense. Second, IIDB, while primarily atheist, is not exclusively so; there are Christians here (at least three of whom are moderators!), and they are as free to vote in this poll as the non-Christians. In either case, it is unlikely that people would vote for me if I didn't do well; I am not popular enough (or personable enough) to gain a universal "sympathy vote" from either camp.

So this poll can still be instructive -- as, indeed, can any poll where demographic skewing is a factor; the pollster simply has to allow for the skewing. But I don't think it's an overwhelming, or even particularly large, factor in this case.

By the way, Chris, feel free to vote in the poll yourself. I did.

Silent Dave

Bump.

Does *anyone* here think that Chris won the debate, or that it was even close? If you do, please don't be shy about it. (Not that we infidels tend to be shy, but I know there are some Christians and some "others" hanging around here...)

Agnostic Theist

Like you said, people here go by who won the debate, not who they'd like to have one it.

So, maybe the theists think you won

(Not me, I didn't particularly follow it - I think I was away when it commenced)

Smith_87

I'm afraid that's highly unlikily (and by "highly" I mean extremely to the furtherest extent), seeing that the very few who bothered to follow the debate were probably strong and firm infidels with a low sense of objectivity and an array of presumptions. Secondly, you can't be a moderator and be Christian according to the requirements. Lastly, given that during your debate, you displayed overwhelming emotion, sourceless rebuttals with nothing but nonprofessional opinions, and completely unnecessary and senseless gestures (referring to off-topic subjects outside the debate, purely out of attempting to debilitate my arguments/ betting 25$ during a formal debate/ countless fallacies of ad hominems and poisoning of the wells). Do you honestly believe that you were defending a case for a disbelief, or invested all your efforts in biasly examining my arguments in the most cynical way possiable...
I would say the few who did vote for you were likily your close infidel buddies rather than moderate debate analysts.

Silent Dave

That's just a nay-saying of what I said. The whole of the record will, I think, back up my position on the matter, not yours.


Tell that to seebs. Go on, I dare you.


Yes.

In fact it appears that you're the only person here, of any philosophical standpoint, who DOESN'T honestly believe that.

If you don't see how that can be so, then perhaps the problem lies with your "given that..." sentence. Or perhaps it's simply the case that a person can make an argument without doing all those terrible, horrible, no-good, very-bad things you accused me of doing, and still be philosophically inept. Or both.


Incidentally, you never did take me up on the $25 offer . . . never even tried . . .

Edited to add: For those who didn't follow the debate, Chris stated that "there are other accounts of the resurrection outside the New Testament." I responded that I would donate $25 to the Christian non-profit org of his choice if, after the debate, he opens a chat window to me and gives me one single reliable extra-biblical source for the Resurrection. Thus far he has not done so.

We infidels are smart enough to know that straight party-line voting in polls like these only does a disservice to the cause.

As for "close infidel buddies," except for Chicken Girl, I don't have any. In fact, I'm not even particularly well-liked around here. If I had truly done as poorly as you claimed, people would be sighing, shaking their heads and saying, "Honestly, can't we do any better than that? Now, here's what *I* would have said . . ." In fact, you'll note that more than one person DID do that, at least with respect to a particular argument or arguments that I made (see the peanut gallery thread). But they still voted for me, or at least didn't vote for you.

If you want to know why, then instead of looking for a nonexistent party-line voting conspiracy, I suggest you look in the mirror.

knotted paragon

Who's presuming here? You are mistaken.

Dave won the debate. Get over it.