JX

I listened to enough...

Newdow imploded, I thought. He clearly did not understand his audience (largely Christians as I understood it), and he didn't have a clear purpose in mind. The worst thing that he could do in these debates was to sound like he's ranting angrily against God, and towards the rebuttal, he did just that. For sure, the preacher didn't do any better, but he was preaching to the choir, so to speak. Newdow had to pick and choose a few points that were reasonable enough to instill doubt, rather than going point for point with Knechtle. I thought he should have hammered home the problem of suffering. As a physician, he should have a wealth of personal anectodes that would've been effective. He should also have drilled Knechtle on the interpretative side of religions -- and pointedly asked the preacher why he thought he was any authority on Scriptures. Along that line, he should have also brought up the propensity of people to use religion for evil, if not dubious, ends -- citing 9/11, anti-abortionists, anti-homosexuals, Pat Robertson, etc. Newdow also failed to capitalize on Knechtle's over-reliance on the Bible, but he had admitted (one too many times) that he was not familiar with the Bible.

Coupled with his image as the 'Pledge' nut, I don't think this debate helped him or atheists any.

Toto

I caught the end of the debate on the link above and some of the questions. Newdow did pretty well from what I heard. Knechtle has a fundamentalist cadence to his voice, talks really fast. He keeps saying that there is "proof" of Jesus. He stays on message. But he keeps saying things that are wrong. Newdow made a lot of good points, but he didn't have the same hypnotic cadence to his voice.

A lot of the questions sounded like plants from the Christian side.

I think I heard that it would be rebroadcast, and there would be an ability to vote online, but I didn't catch the website.

Toto

They're berating Newdow because he sounds more like an agnostic to them, because he said only that he saw no evidence for God, not that he could prove that there is no God.

Knechtle is using the Dead Sea Scrolls as evidence of God.

I can't believe I'm wasting my time on this.

Toto

Big surprise- 92% of the church attendees thought that the Christian made the stronger case, as reported by the Christian vote counters.

You should be able to vote online later at:

<a href="http://www.ccnonline.net" target="_blank">www.ccnonline.net</a>

3:00p-5:00p or 5:00p-7:00p PT
4:00p-6:00p or 6:00p-8:00p MT
5:00p-7:00p or 7:00p-9:00p CT
6:00p-8:00p or 8:00p-10:00p ET

<a href="http://www.ccnonline.net/broadcasts/evt_08dec02/" target="_blank">www.ccnonline.net/broadcasts/evt_08dec02/</a>

Brian63

I'd have to agree that Newdow did pretty poorly in this debate. His opening statement was pretty good overall, but then his responses after that were very very bad.

The fundy guy had all the basic arguments lined up: first cause, design, moral, religious experience, and resurrection and glossed over them quickly. Newdow apparently was unfamiliar with many of them, and didn't know the right responses to follow with. He's very good at debating church/state issues, but he was in way over his head with the existence of God issue.

In general, I think anytime there is a public debate between an atheist and Christian on the existence of God, it'd be very hard for the atheist to come out worse at the end than he went in, but Newdow may have accomplished that here. I hope he does this again, but makes sure to study up a bit on the issue first.

On another note:

I find the 92/8% figure interesting. The commentator said that of the 279 churches that reported, those were the results. He made it sound as if they tallied the number of *churches* that voted "Atheism" and compared it to the number of *churches* that voted "Christianity," and came out with that figure. That would be surprising if 8% of *churches* believed that Atheism won here. He may have meant that 92% of the *respondents* (not churches) believed that Newdow presented the stronger case. Otherwise that would be just bizarre.

Brian

MacPrince

<a href="http://samaria.christianitytoday.com/surveydata/GreatDebate1.htm" target="_blank">Hmmmmm...</a>
No authentication required, and openly linked from the front page.

Anybody for innocently messing with the poll results?

Mecha_Dude

OH YES!!!
Find a church and start typing very large numbers for atheism.

The Admiral

I just got home from watching the not so great debate. I was very disappointed in Newdow. Knechtles opening statement was so weak that I thought Newdow would pulverize him but he really missed his chance.

The Admiral

RufusAtticus

The few times I've seen Newdow against fundies, he didn't come out well. He missed way too times to drive home counter points. He seemed way too antagonistic. I admire his conviction and balls for the cases he is bringing. I just wonder if he is getting too full of himself when he does such things as this.

gilly54

His admission that he is not a Bible scholar was his Achilles heel. Newdow should not have accepted to be in this debate. I think he has enough on his plate with CSS issues.

If he does accept to be in similar debates, he should go to any of the Bible errancy sites, like the SAB, and quote passages from Leviticus. Being a doctor,he should enjoy quoting God's ridiculous cure for leprosy (Lev.14) I agree that he missed so many times when he could have zinged his opponent if he had known the Bible better, or even history. Knectle when offering his third "evidence of God" as being the giver of morals, compared immoral Hitler to Mother Theresa. Newdow could have said four words: Hitler was a Christian, and backed it up with quotes from history books and Mein Kampfe.

I left the church when the commentators starting plugging books after the debate, which I guess, let people know of my beliefs. I had some nasty looks from some of these loving Christians as I left. I just smiled back at them.

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: gilly54 ]</p>