jmsr

Hi everyone, James here again:

Well, I had my debate last week, and it went quite well. Here's my report for your edification.

First, I want to thank everyone who gave me advice on how to prepare for this debate, but especially Mageth and Clutch (from the internet infidels message board) who showed me my opponent's debating strategy. That really helped me prepare.

On wednesday, january 22nd, Campus Crusade for Christ (UBC) hosted a debate on the question "Does God Exist?" Arguing for the affirmative on behalf of CCC was Kirk Durston. Arguing for the negative was James Rosso (me), representing The UBC Humanists' Society. The debate was moderated by the UBC Debating Society. CCC videotaped the debate, and said that they'd make it available online, so keep your eye on their website at http://www.ams.ubc.ca/clubs/campuscc/ . What follows is the debate, to the best of my memory.

We talked beforehand, and Kirk and I agreed that I could go first (his style seems to be invariant, but I needed to go first; otherwise I would have had too much to think about). I spent the first ten minutes of my intro discussing some clarifications, argument structure and the burden of proof. I stated that public debates are a poor way to decide anything and are basically a form of entertainment. If anyone wanted to decide one way or the other, they should do as much research as they can on their own. I explained that atheists lack god belief, agnostics lack knowledge, and defined what freethinkers and humanists were. I went over the requirements of a good argument (that it be valid and have true premises) and gave some examples of good and bad arguments. Then I firmly established the burden of proof on the theist.

However, I knew this might not be good enough for our (mostly christian) audience, and I didn't want to be entirely negative...so in the next ten minutes I outlined the problem of evil and the problems with some of its objections. All except the problems with Durston's solution to it.

In his 20 minute intro, he went over the first cause argument (the kalaam cosmological argument) and the fine tuning argument. He briefly went over his version of ID (shannon equations and whatnot), and he used the historical argument for jesus being god. Sprinkled throughout was his presentation was the argument from 'some scientists believe in god'. It basically followed this format (http://waterloo.ivcf.ca/oldsite/reso...nd_science.pdf) but with his version of ID as well. A nicely done powerpoint presentation, complete with animations and testimonial quotes.

In my 10 minute rebuttal, I used my prepared overheads to show the problems with the first cause and fine tuning arguments, which impressed some people. I can't quite remember what I said about ID, but that no scientist accepts it, or that it wasn't scientific. After stating that I'm no bible scholar, I pointed out that the most expert group to deal with the question whether jesus was god or not (and whether the prophecies were fufilled or not) were the jews, and that if they had a problem, then so did I! (got a laugh there). Then I stated that the bible has been used to support slavery, a flat earth, the opression of women and homosexuals, and that I could use it to show that jesus wasn't resurrected. I finished by pointing out that it didn't matter how strong these arguments were, the fact stands that the words of a deity shouldn't be twistable in this manner (at least I think I did - I don't know if I did or not).

In his 10 minute rebuttal, I think he remade his points about the fine tuning argument and stated that 'some jews believe in jesus' (quotes again). He also stated that the traditional objections to the solutions to the PoE don't work, and he outlined his solution - namely, that god can see all the possibilities and arranges reality so that evil is minimised. For example, one little girl might get raped instead of 8 or ten, and she gets compensated in heaven anyway, and mindwiped of the bad experience to boot!

After this was a 12 minute question section (90 seconds to ask, 3min to answer) moderated by the debating society. This was kinda uncomfortable as it was new to both of us. Basically, I harped on him about how he "sacrificed god on the altar of utility," and he grilled me on absolute morality (unfortunately, my position is a little too complicated to outline in a debate, so I essentially said yes - something of a mistake).

For my 8 minute close, I was unprepared so I winged it (I have since learned that you can prepare your intro and conclusion in advance, as they will need little modification). I reiterated that this was not the place to decide these issues, and I read a quote from George A Smith's 'Atheism: The Case Against God" p299-300 where he quotes a 19th century children's book passage about hell.
For his close, he stated that he wasn't trying to prove that god exists; rather that god has left us just enough reasons to have faith (this kinda ticked me off). And I forget what else.
The question period is also a blur, but I remember that someone asked him what if hitler's mother had gone to sleep in a slightly different position (a play on his PoE argument about Winston Churchill's mother that got laughs). Also, someone asked if I would prefer a life w/out free will as long as i was perfectly happy (I would), and what would happen to me after I died (I'll rot).

All in all, not a bad evening.

jmsr

Amergin

"Such evil deeds could religion prompt."

Lucretius (96 BC - 55 BC), De Rerum Natura

wordsmyth

It sounds like you did quite well considering you were up against an experienced debater.

Please let us know when they post the video online. I for one would be interested in seeing it.

Would you do it again? What would you do differently the next time?

NightWatchman

Yes

it is light, photons, ehich are angles of light, which are messenger particles. einstein

Jobar

Glad to hear all that, jmsr. It sounds to me as if you did quite well- in fact, since he was forced to admit that he did not *prove* the EoG, I'd call it a victory for you. Were there any sort of results given by the debating society- that is, did they critique the arguments presented?

I still want to see how a theistic debater would meet my own 'argument from the Invisible Pink Unicorn'. Mayhap one day I'll get to present that one!

Theli

Hmmm... did anyone say "contradiction"?

jmsr

Hi everyone. Thanks, I think I did ok as well, but as you know, each time he made a statement I thought of several different responses, all of which I didn't have an opportunity to make because of the format.

One thing I would have done differently would be to take the time to explain my position on morality. Also, I would have challenged his use of quotes ("use an argument, not an authority!"), because that ticked me off.

I'll let you know when the video goes online. I just sent them an email bugging them about it.

Until then, I'll post a photomontage that someone made and posted to the humanist list. The 'where's your god now' quote isn't entirely appropriate, but since it's the first photomontage I've been in, I guess I can't complain.

here we go:

Jamie_L

For future debates, if you choose:

I've always had a fondness for the Argument from Non-Belief with respect to the non-existence of the Christian God. Although not as emotional as evil, I think it's actually a stronger arguement because there's lots and lots of scriptural support for the notion that God wants us to believe in him above anything else.

Check out the articles in the SecWeb Library here.

Jamie

Biff the unclean

When they pull that "absolute morality" nonsense I like to say that morality is cultural and changes with time and place. Then I drag out Father Abraham, the guy is claimed by all three major religions and was the most holy and therefore moral man of his time.
However, he whored out his wife to Pharaoh's court. He was a slave master. He rapped one of his slaves--in that a slave has no say so over her own body so any sexual relations are technically rape. Of course there's the attempted murder of his own son followed by the thief and mutilation of livestock. Were he alive today, in any of the cultures that claim him, he would be a wanted man. The police, child welfare board and the SPCA would all be after him.
The very same actions that made Abraham the most moral man of his time and place would make him a criminal in this time and place, because morality evolved.

jmsr

Wow, that's even better. But where does it claim that he's the most holy? I did a quick search on SAB and only found the fact that he was a slave master, but none of the rest that you say.

jmsr