Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jmsr · 01-09-2003, 10:22 AM

Hi everyone, james here:

First, to introduce myself. I'm a long-time browser of the II site, but this is my first post. I'm a secular humanist and past president of the UBC Humanists Society here at UBC, Vancouver, Canada. I'm 27 years old and worried that I just got myself in over my head...

Okay. Long story short, in a couple weeks time I will be debating a representative of CCC (Campus Crusade for Christ) - an imported speaker - on the topic "Does God Exist". Turnout should be huge: last year there were probably 1000 people there.

Which is why I am doing this. Last year, their outside speaker beat the local boy - a grad student in the philosophy department - because he was utterly unfamiliar with the arguments and essentially unprepared. He got the audience to like him, but was unable to present the problems with the arguments, never mind showing a defense. Both me and my friends were all kinda like "oh come on, say []". We could'a done a better job. So this year, we wanted to organise a student debate on the same topic with a christian club. Unfortuantely, CCC wasn't interested and the only club we did get interested backed out a few days ago. Fortuantely, it seems that CCC couldn't find an opponent and/or decided to take us up on our offer (don't know which). They also wanted us to bring in an outside speaker, but we didn't have the inclination or the resources to do so. I AM so inclined, and am familiar with the arguments, but I have little debating experience and am not quick on my feet, so I intend to compensate by being extra-prepared. Which is why I am posting here.

I will be debating on wed jan 22 at 7pm PST against Kirk Durston (sp?) representing CCC on the topic "Does God Exist". The coordinator from CCC said that he will be emphasizing history and the scientific evidence for god's existence (whatever those mean) wheras I will be discussing the problem of evil and pascal's wager, because the first is a strong argument against existence, and the second is usually a last pitch defense that I hear a lot. As for history, well, I guess I'll go with "a great many people believe a foolish thing does not make it a foolish thing" and "religion was born out of fear of death - we are the only species concious of our inevitable demise". As for 'scientific evidence', well I don't know what to make of that. Maybe he'll bring up the fine-tuning of the universe argument or something - thoughts?

Anyway, since this is my first really major foray into atheist activism, I'd like some help to be prepared. If the members here could post anything helpful, I'd appreciate it. Specifically, a short, snappy rebuttal to each of the major three arguments would help, but I'll take anything. Heck, if you've seen this guy debate before, I'd like to konw what his style and content is!

whew.
thank goodness I'm not off on rotation this month!

jmsr

Mageth · 01-09-2003, 10:26 AM

Hopefully, you've read through the SecWeb Library (see the link above). It contains a number of very good articles that deal with the subjects you mentioned.

In particular, look at the Arguments for the existence of God page and the Arguments for Atheism page.

Mageth · 01-09-2003, 10:37 AM

BTW, I did a google search for Kirk Durston and got quite a few hits, including this paper by Mr. Durston which appears to outline at least some of his arguments, this page which advertises a debate he participated in (and which links to this article by Mr. Durston), this report on a Durston debate, and many others which you can browse if you wish. Durston appears to be an experienced debater.

Not to be insulting or anything, but if you're not an experienced debater and are not really up on the subject matter(s), I'm afraid you may have bitten off more than you can chew. Are you sure you can't bring in a "ringer" to debate him?

callmejay · 01-09-2003, 10:45 AM

Also, remember that most people aren't very logical, and even if you can point out a logical flaw in his argument, it won't do much good unless you can persuade the audience that you are right.

Clutch · 01-09-2003, 10:48 AM

Hey, James, I did this back when I was a grad student, and got lucky -- I did about as well as I could have, all things considered.

You should do some Google work to see if your opponent's m.o. can be learned. For instance, this pdf document might be useful. It appears to reveal most of his "arguments", and gives you ample opportunity to prepare discussions of the most dreadful gaps in reasoning (though determining the worst out of so many examples may be difficult).

You should prepare yourself to decide just what to focus upon and what to dismiss, because he's probably going to disgorge about twenty crappy arguments and hope that something will stick.

And of course Mageth is right -- you should generally prepare some tidy potted responses to the classic dismal theistic fallacies.

Good luck. If you'd like some more specific input as you review your preparations, feel free to PM me.

Mageth · 01-09-2003, 10:50 AM

And welcome James!

Let me say that I think it's a bit unethical for CCC to bring in an experienced outside speaker to debate a "local" inexperienced debater when they know the opponent org can't afford to do the same.

Clutch · 01-09-2003, 11:18 AM

Agreed, Mageth. The CCC at my grad school brought in William Lane Craig, then came around and found me, a grad student, to take him on. (I had no idea who the guy was, and I was shocked when hundreds of people showed up at the event.)

Mageth · 01-09-2003, 11:22 AM

Well, if it happens once, it's an accident. If it happens twice, it's a strategy.

Darwin's Finch · 01-09-2003, 11:32 AM

Hi James. Welcome to II.

What debate format have you agreed to? Having glanced through the sources Mageth provided, I would say that your biggest problem will be in dealing with the sheer amount of shit this guy is prepared to throw against the wall. Taken on their own, none of his points are particularly strong, but taken together they could "seem" compelling to your audience, especially if time constraints prevent you from responding to each of his arguments.

His "scientific" arguments for the existence of god basically boil down to the cosmological argument and the argument from design. He might challenge you to explain what caused the Big Bang and will leave it to your audience to draw their own conclusions if you fail to answer the question, trusting that they will not see through the inadequacy of invoking a deity to account for the same event. He seems especially fond of arguing that organisms exhibit too much "information" in their genomes to have come about without intelligent design. When preparing for your debate, make sure you are well versed with such arguments as they will form the core of his position. (You can't very well establish the existence of the Christian god if the ground hasn't already been prepared for the acceptance of deity as such.)

His historical evidences are basically the same, tired stuff we see here all the time: OT prophecies allegedly fulfilled by Jesus, archaeological finds that allegedly confirm parts of the Bible, etc. Though it will be important for you to be somewhat familiar with this line of argumentation, I would say that it is less important than the scientific/philosophical arguments if only because his historical evidence must logically follow more general considerations.

If you have the opportunity to go first in the debate, I would suggest pulling the rug out from under him. Knowing that he will invoke particular arguments, you can beat him to the punch and provide the refutations of his position in advance. At the very least, he would be forced to adopt a defensive role.

Still, I don't envy you. Preparing to debate a seasoned debater will require a lot of work. Good luck! Let us know how it goes.

braces_for_impact · 01-09-2003, 11:35 AM

Helpful advice on how to debate creationists and debate accounts of dirty tricks they use are here

I would recommend reading a few of these.

01-09-2003, 10:22 AM	#1
jmsr Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Vancoucver, BC Posts: 8	Help! Turkey on the block here! Hi everyone, james here: First, to introduce myself. I'm a long-time browser of the II site, but this is my first post. I'm a secular humanist and past president of the UBC Humanists Society here at UBC, Vancouver, Canada. I'm 27 years old and worried that I just got myself in over my head... Okay. Long story short, in a couple weeks time I will be debating a representative of CCC (Campus Crusade for Christ) - an imported speaker - on the topic "Does God Exist". Turnout should be huge: last year there were probably 1000 people there. Which is why I am doing this. Last year, their outside speaker beat the local boy - a grad student in the philosophy department - because he was utterly unfamiliar with the arguments and essentially unprepared. He got the audience to like him, but was unable to present the problems with the arguments, never mind showing a defense. Both me and my friends were all kinda like "oh come on, say []". We could'a done a better job. So this year, we wanted to organise a student debate on the same topic with a christian club. Unfortuantely, CCC wasn't interested and the only club we did get interested backed out a few days ago. Fortuantely, it seems that CCC couldn't find an opponent and/or decided to take us up on our offer (don't know which). They also wanted us to bring in an outside speaker, but we didn't have the inclination or the resources to do so. I AM so inclined, and am familiar with the arguments, but I have little debating experience and am not quick on my feet, so I intend to compensate by being extra-prepared. Which is why I am posting here. I will be debating on wed jan 22 at 7pm PST against Kirk Durston (sp?) representing CCC on the topic "Does God Exist". The coordinator from CCC said that he will be emphasizing history and the scientific evidence for god's existence (whatever those mean) wheras I will be discussing the problem of evil and pascal's wager, because the first is a strong argument against existence, and the second is usually a last pitch defense that I hear a lot. As for history, well, I guess I'll go with "a great many people believe a foolish thing does not make it a foolish thing" and "religion was born out of fear of death - we are the only species concious of our inevitable demise". As for 'scientific evidence', well I don't know what to make of that. Maybe he'll bring up the fine-tuning of the universe argument or something - thoughts? Anyway, since this is my first really major foray into atheist activism, I'd like some help to be prepared. If the members here could post anything helpful, I'd appreciate it. Specifically, a short, snappy rebuttal to each of the major three arguments would help, but I'll take anything. Heck, if you've seen this guy debate before, I'd like to konw what his style and content is! whew. thank goodness I'm not off on rotation this month! jmsr

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

01-09-2003, 10:26 AM	#2
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Hopefully, you've read through the SecWeb Library (see the link above). It contains a number of very good articles that deal with the subjects you mentioned. In particular, look at the Arguments for the existence of God page and the Arguments for Atheism page.

01-09-2003, 10:37 AM	#3
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	BTW, I did a google search for Kirk Durston and got quite a few hits, including this paper by Mr. Durston which appears to outline at least some of his arguments, this page which advertises a debate he participated in (and which links to this article by Mr. Durston), this report on a Durston debate, and many others which you can browse if you wish. Durston appears to be an experienced debater. Not to be insulting or anything, but if you're not an experienced debater and are not really up on the subject matter(s), I'm afraid you may have bitten off more than you can chew. Are you sure you can't bring in a "ringer" to debate him?

01-09-2003, 10:45 AM	#4
callmejay Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 466	Also, remember that most people aren't very logical, and even if you can point out a logical flaw in his argument, it won't do much good unless you can persuade the audience that you are right.

01-09-2003, 10:48 AM	#5
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	Hey, James, I did this back when I was a grad student, and got lucky -- I did about as well as I could have, all things considered. You should do some Google work to see if your opponent's m.o. can be learned. For instance, this pdf document might be useful. It appears to reveal most of his "arguments", and gives you ample opportunity to prepare discussions of the most dreadful gaps in reasoning (though determining the worst out of so many examples may be difficult). You should prepare yourself to decide just what to focus upon and what to dismiss, because he's probably going to disgorge about twenty crappy arguments and hope that something will stick. And of course Mageth is right -- you should generally prepare some tidy potted responses to the classic dismal theistic fallacies. Good luck. If you'd like some more specific input as you review your preparations, feel free to PM me.

01-09-2003, 10:50 AM	#6
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	And welcome James! Let me say that I think it's a bit unethical for CCC to bring in an experienced outside speaker to debate a "local" inexperienced debater when they know the opponent org can't afford to do the same.

01-09-2003, 11:18 AM	#7
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	Agreed, Mageth. The CCC at my grad school brought in William Lane Craig, then came around and found me, a grad student, to take him on. (I had no idea who the guy was, and I was shocked when hundreds of people showed up at the event.)

01-09-2003, 11:22 AM	#8
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Well, if it happens once, it's an accident. If it happens twice, it's a strategy.

01-09-2003, 11:32 AM	#9
Darwin's Finch Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Gardnerville, NV Posts: 666	Hi James. Welcome to II. What debate format have you agreed to? Having glanced through the sources Mageth provided, I would say that your biggest problem will be in dealing with the sheer amount of shit this guy is prepared to throw against the wall. Taken on their own, none of his points are particularly strong, but taken together they could "seem" compelling to your audience, especially if time constraints prevent you from responding to each of his arguments. His "scientific" arguments for the existence of god basically boil down to the cosmological argument and the argument from design. He might challenge you to explain what caused the Big Bang and will leave it to your audience to draw their own conclusions if you fail to answer the question, trusting that they will not see through the inadequacy of invoking a deity to account for the same event. He seems especially fond of arguing that organisms exhibit too much "information" in their genomes to have come about without intelligent design. When preparing for your debate, make sure you are well versed with such arguments as they will form the core of his position. (You can't very well establish the existence of the Christian god if the ground hasn't already been prepared for the acceptance of deity as such.) His historical evidences are basically the same, tired stuff we see here all the time: OT prophecies allegedly fulfilled by Jesus, archaeological finds that allegedly confirm parts of the Bible, etc. Though it will be important for you to be somewhat familiar with this line of argumentation, I would say that it is less important than the scientific/philosophical arguments if only because his historical evidence must logically follow more general considerations. If you have the opportunity to go first in the debate, I would suggest pulling the rug out from under him. Knowing that he will invoke particular arguments, you can beat him to the punch and provide the refutations of his position in advance. At the very least, he would be forced to adopt a defensive role. Still, I don't envy you. Preparing to debate a seasoned debater will require a lot of work. Good luck! Let us know how it goes.

01-09-2003, 11:35 AM	#10
braces_for_impact Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In a nondescript, black helicopter. Posts: 6,637	Helpful advice on how to debate creationists and debate accounts of dirty tricks they use are here I would recommend reading a few of these.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.