Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Evangelion · 12-08-2002, 09:04 PM

Hell's teeth, isn't there any way to skip that nauseous music at the start?!

I haven't even made it through to the debate yet, and already I'm in danger of putting a fist through my speakers. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: Evangelion ]

Seeker630 · 12-09-2002, 02:18 AM

I went to a local "Bible" church here last night to see the alleged debate, which I think it was not. Newdow was clearly not up on basic debating skills, and missed several opportunities to chew up his opponent, which could have been easily done. Knechtle kept insisting on the definition of an atheist as someone who positively states that there is no god for one thing. He also allowed the guy to keep dumping on him the burden of proof.

At the end Knechtle tried to make a big deal out of agnosticism as opposed to atheism. He is clearly not well versed in such matters. he also spent nearly half of his 20 minute opening argument, and parts of his rebuttals, delivering a sermon and not offering anything new or definitive by way of items to be discussed. He did a lot of physical activity on the stage in typical tent-preacher fashion, true to his backround. But as a matter of fact, he offered nothing but the same tired old apologetics, and didn't offer anything approaching "proofs".

Newdow's problem, as I saw it, was that he went in unprepared to a debate in which his opponent had the theatrics and experience of dealing with an audience and he did not.

That the vote was so lopsided is no surprise, and I don't think it would have been any much different had the atheist been a seasoned speaker with all the good arguments. Remember that this was an almost exclusively Christian crowd, and mostly fundamentalist at that from what I've seen so far. I was there with 3 other atheists and I felt like we were slabs of tuna hanging over a barracuda tank. I mean it was complete with people shouting out "amens" whenever the preacher said something they liked.

Nothing surprising about it-- I should have gone to the movies instead.

beejay · 12-09-2002, 04:05 AM

The online voting seems to be 65% God, 34% no God with 184 responses at this point.

I didn't add my vote since I think it would be unfair to do so without listening to the debate...and I'm not willing to give up that much of my life for a meaningless vote.

Evangelion · 12-09-2002, 05:55 AM

Did anyone here watch the Craig/Zindler debate of '93? Was I the only one who expected better from Zindler?

As a Christian, I don't think I'm being unduly critical when I say that Zindler wasted most of his precious airtime with ad hominem attacks and immature comments about Christianity in general, and the Bible in particular. Frankly, I was disappointed to see this.

As an atheist, Zindler was supposed to be representing the more reasonable position; instead, he gave a pretty fair impression of the class clown. That's hardly going to advance the image of atheism as "the rational alternative" in the minds of Christians and other theists. (But to be fair, Craig floundered hopelessly when confronted with questions from the floor. A few penetrating enquiries about the deity of Christ and - if I remember correctly - the purpose of hellfire, had him on the ropes in no time. Still, these are not sufficient, of themselves alone, to disprove Christianity.)

There are plenty of Christian apologists who have had their noses rubbed in the dirt after foolishly accepting a challenge for which they were ill-prepared. I expect to see this, because Christians are usually militant in a way that atheists are not, and their (our) self-confidence often gets the better of them (us.) But from atheists, I expect a more sophisticated approach; I expect to see on stage, the hard-hitting, well-reasoned, tightly-argued rebuttals that I so frequently read on the Internet.

When a debate ends in an unsatisfactory result for the atheist side, I tend to read excuses for the atheist proponent, to the general tune of:

"He should never have done it; he just wasn't prepared; it wasn't his area of expertise; the other guy is a professional; he's a biologist, not a philospher, so I wasn't really surprised..."

This doesn't actually resolve anything. All it does is to beg the question "Well, if this guy was so obviously out of his depth, why in the world did he take up the challenge - and why didn't anybody suggest a more competent substitute?"

It's just bizarre. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: Evangelion ]

Sandslice · 12-09-2002, 08:04 AM

Debates are useless, really, and don't prove much other than who's got more mojo. Whyso? Here are my thoughts (read: opinions.)

1) In the majority of these debates, it tends to be whoever is more capable of wielding the "weapon of the civilised warrior." Even if such wielding is through dirty tactics and Zorro-like ad-hom taunting.

2) The setting of a debate tends to bias the audience toward one side or the other; even little things like the positioning of the referee can have an impact on the debate and the perceptions thereof.

3) The bias of the audience itself must be considered in the same light; four hundred xians attending a debate will usually vote for a particular side, especially if they're the flock of the debater on that side.

4) Going with the other two points, the advertising of the debate can skew opinions even before the debate ever happens. It can even happen that a debater's pre-debate spin doctoring of the event can win the debate for him!

5) Intelligence (and other similar traits) and rhetorical ability are not always parallel. Consider what would happen in a debate with, oh, Kent "Dr. Dino" Hovind. Many of us here are more intelligent, educated, and reasonable folk than Hovind. However, even with a reasonably neutral audience, how many of us wouldn't get swept under the table by the Dinoman's whirlwind rhetoric, subtil ad-homs, and appeal to ignorance? (Be honest now...

(These examples may apply equally to debates favouring ANYTHING, not just xianity vs. atheism.)

Rusting Car Bumper · 12-09-2002, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandslice:
Debates are useless, really, and don't prove much other than who's got more mojo. Whyso? Here are my thoughts (read: opinions.)

Agreed. You assemble a who crowd to give opinions about things that they have already decided about and further they won't change thier opinions even if they learn something new.

DC

The Admiral · 12-09-2002, 08:52 AM

Disagreed

So nobody wins a debate. That Doesn't mean the endeavor is useless. Since last night there are now a number of christians who realize that there are a consideraable number of Atheists in the world. There were quite a few young people, some kids of 12 or so, in attendance at the church where I viewed the debate. Who knows, maybe this debate will spark some curiosity in their minds. The church may have made a tactical error in sponsoring this debate. At least it did no harm to our cause.

The Admiral

-RRH- · 12-09-2002, 09:18 AM

I have trouble with in-person debates. It's too easy to freeze me up. All you need to do, is be completely irrational in a way I haven't seen before, and click, my brain seizes.

I've been trying to work on that.

Rusting Car Bumper · 12-09-2002, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Admiral:
Disagreed

So nobody wins a debate. That Doesn't mean the endeavor is useless. Since last night there are now a number of christians who realize that there are a consideraable number of Atheists in the world.

OK. But why only debates? Their seems to be this blind allegiance to debates flaoting around.

All of the positive characteristics you describe can be had without fostering an attitude of "I am right and you are wrong" about a bunch of arguments that really have nothing to do with the root cause of their belief or disbelief anyway.

They can be had in other types of discussions and settings as well.

DC

The Admiral · 12-09-2002, 11:18 AM

Okay, I can equate to that, but could you be more specific? Could you describe what you have in mind?

How about a discussion? Take two people of opposite positions but instead of the 20 minutes for you 20 minutes for you format, seat them in comfortable chairs and just let them converse with each other in front of an audience. Matter of fact, that doesn't sound like to bad an idea.

I lingered after the debate and talked for about 20 minutes with one of the pastors. A nice enough young man but full of himsef and with the unconcious arrogance typical of such people. I mentioned to him that one of the things that troubled me was the total lack of any historical comtemporary mention of Jesus. He immediately said, oh but there is, I'll dig up a bunch of it for you, give me your name and phone mumber and I'll get back to you. He either did not understand what I said, or he has a big surprise in store. He will never get back to me, but I will get back to him.

The Admiral

12-08-2002, 09:04 PM	#21
Evangelion Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Walsall, UK Posts: 1,490	Hell's teeth, isn't there any way to skip that nauseous music at the start?! I haven't even made it through to the debate yet, and already I'm in danger of putting a fist through my speakers. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> [ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: Evangelion ]</p>

12-09-2002, 05:55 AM	#24
Evangelion Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Walsall, UK Posts: 1,490	Did anyone here watch the Craig/Zindler debate of '93? Was I the only one who expected better from Zindler? As a Christian, I don't think I'm being unduly critical when I say that Zindler wasted most of his precious airtime with ad hominem attacks and immature comments about Christianity in general, and the Bible in particular. Frankly, I was disappointed to see this. As an atheist, Zindler was supposed to be representing the more reasonable position; instead, he gave a pretty fair impression of the class clown. That's hardly going to advance the image of atheism as "the rational alternative" in the minds of Christians and other theists. (But to be fair, Craig floundered hopelessly when confronted with questions from the floor. A few penetrating enquiries about the deity of Christ and - if I remember correctly - the purpose of hellfire, had him on the ropes in no time. Still, these are not sufficient, of themselves alone, to disprove Christianity.) There are plenty of Christian apologists who have had their noses rubbed in the dirt after foolishly accepting a challenge for which they were ill-prepared. I expect to see this, because Christians are usually militant in a way that atheists are not, and their (our) self-confidence often gets the better of them (us.) But from atheists, I expect a more sophisticated approach; I expect to see on stage, the hard-hitting, well-reasoned, tightly-argued rebuttals that I so frequently read on the Internet. When a debate ends in an unsatisfactory result for the atheist side, I tend to read excuses for the atheist proponent, to the general tune of: "He should never have done it; he just wasn't prepared; it wasn't his area of expertise; the other guy is a professional; he's a biologist, not a philospher, so I wasn't really surprised..." This doesn't actually resolve anything. All it does is to beg the question "Well, if this guy was so obviously out of his depth, why in the world did he take up the challenge - and why didn't anybody suggest a more competent substitute?" It's just bizarre. <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> [ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: Evangelion ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-09-2002, 02:18 AM	#22
Seeker630 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: North America Posts: 1,624	I went to a local "Bible" church here last night to see the alleged debate, which I think it was not. Newdow was clearly not up on basic debating skills, and missed several opportunities to chew up his opponent, which could have been easily done. Knechtle kept insisting on the definition of an atheist as someone who positively states that there is no god for one thing. He also allowed the guy to keep dumping on him the burden of proof. At the end Knechtle tried to make a big deal out of agnosticism as opposed to atheism. He is clearly not well versed in such matters. he also spent nearly half of his 20 minute opening argument, and parts of his rebuttals, delivering a sermon and not offering anything new or definitive by way of items to be discussed. He did a lot of physical activity on the stage in typical tent-preacher fashion, true to his backround. But as a matter of fact, he offered nothing but the same tired old apologetics, and didn't offer anything approaching "proofs". Newdow's problem, as I saw it, was that he went in unprepared to a debate in which his opponent had the theatrics and experience of dealing with an audience and he did not. That the vote was so lopsided is no surprise, and I don't think it would have been any much different had the atheist been a seasoned speaker with all the good arguments. Remember that this was an almost exclusively Christian crowd, and mostly fundamentalist at that from what I've seen so far. I was there with 3 other atheists and I felt like we were slabs of tuna hanging over a barracuda tank. I mean it was complete with people shouting out "amens" whenever the preacher said something they liked. Nothing surprising about it-- I should have gone to the movies instead.

12-09-2002, 04:05 AM	#23
beejay Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Richmond IN Posts: 375	The online voting seems to be 65% God, 34% no God with 184 responses at this point. I didn't add my vote since I think it would be unfair to do so without listening to the debate...and I'm not willing to give up that much of my life for a meaningless vote.

12-09-2002, 08:04 AM	#25
Sandslice Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: SE Wisconsin Posts: 80	Debates are useless, really, and don't prove much other than who's got more mojo. Whyso? Here are my thoughts (read: opinions.) 1) In the majority of these debates, it tends to be whoever is more capable of wielding the "weapon of the civilised warrior." Even if such wielding is through dirty tactics and Zorro-like ad-hom taunting. 2) The setting of a debate tends to bias the audience toward one side or the other; even little things like the positioning of the referee can have an impact on the debate and the perceptions thereof. 3) The bias of the audience itself must be considered in the same light; four hundred xians attending a debate will usually vote for a particular side, especially if they're the flock of the debater on that side. 4) Going with the other two points, the advertising of the debate can skew opinions even before the debate ever happens. It can even happen that a debater's pre-debate spin doctoring of the event can win the debate for him! 5) Intelligence (and other similar traits) and rhetorical ability are not always parallel. Consider what would happen in a debate with, oh, Kent "Dr. Dino" Hovind. Many of us here are more intelligent, educated, and reasonable folk than Hovind. However, even with a reasonably neutral audience, how many of us wouldn't get swept under the table by the Dinoman's whirlwind rhetoric, subtil ad-homs, and appeal to ignorance? (Be honest now... (These examples may apply equally to debates favouring ANYTHING, not just xianity vs. atheism.)

12-09-2002, 08:52 AM	#27
The Admiral Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Racine, Wi. USA Posts: 768	Disagreed So nobody wins a debate. That Doesn't mean the endeavor is useless. Since last night there are now a number of christians who realize that there are a consideraable number of Atheists in the world. There were quite a few young people, some kids of 12 or so, in attendance at the church where I viewed the debate. Who knows, maybe this debate will spark some curiosity in their minds. The church may have made a tactical error in sponsoring this debate. At least it did no harm to our cause. The Admiral

12-09-2002, 09:18 AM	#28
-RRH- Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Winnipeg Posts: 2,047	I have trouble with in-person debates. It's too easy to freeze me up. All you need to do, is be completely irrational in a way I haven't seen before, and click, my brain seizes. I've been trying to work on that.

12-09-2002, 11:18 AM	#30
The Admiral Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Racine, Wi. USA Posts: 768	Okay, I can equate to that, but could you be more specific? Could you describe what you have in mind? How about a discussion? Take two people of opposite positions but instead of the 20 minutes for you 20 minutes for you format, seat them in comfortable chairs and just let them converse with each other in front of an audience. Matter of fact, that doesn't sound like to bad an idea. I lingered after the debate and talked for about 20 minutes with one of the pastors. A nice enough young man but full of himsef and with the unconcious arrogance typical of such people. I mentioned to him that one of the things that troubled me was the total lack of any historical comtemporary mention of Jesus. He immediately said, oh but there is, I'll dig up a bunch of it for you, give me your name and phone mumber and I'll get back to you. He either did not understand what I said, or he has a big surprise in store. He will never get back to me, but I will get back to him. The Admiral

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.