Atheists, Christians, and Private Debates

[liamconnor]

I have found that personal requests for private debates, either by PMs or one-on-ones, are typically refused by skeptics and atheists, yet advanced by Christians. I have PMd non-Christians to take me on in a one-on-one and have always been answered with something to the effect "oh, I don't do one-on-ones with Christians; it is a waste of my time."

I just now came across a public correspondence where a Christian invited a one-on-one and the skeptic denied it.


Qs for Debate:

Is the refusal in fact equal on this site: do atheists and agnostics request as many refused public one on ones as Christians? If so, is there documented testimony?

If the request/refusal pattern is in fact one-sided, what does this suggest? Is one party (Christian or Other) nervous? Is the shy party simply sick of debating poor sparring partners? Or is that answer itself a cop-out?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 5 by marco]

I am not sure what your point is. Are you willing to discuss a topic to publicly debate me or another Christian member here in?

[liamconnor]

I haven't met a Christian yet who has a rational position to argue.

In your case specifically, all you do is argue repeatedly that the resurrection of Jesus was a historically verified event that cannot be denied. That argument is absurd.

So why would I bother sitting down with you in private when I already know that what you intend to argue for is utterly absurd and groundless?

I may as well sit down with someone who claims that the earth is flat, and is never going to change their mind no matter how many facts to the contrary they are given. It would be just as senseless.

Sounds like a very clever way of evading a public challenge. Imagine a Christian making the same claim on the reverse side: oh, I won't engage a one on one cause atheists are all scared of logic and history; they cling to their outdated Hume who has been discredited long sense."


In fact, the question arises, have requests like mine been made on the atheist's side, and met with the atheist's answer?

It is starting to sound like like the skeptic and atheist are scared to face a Christian on a one on one. I propose the proof will be, how many Christian challenges are made to non, and how many non-Christian challenges are made to Christians.

It seems pretty simple to me. If non-Christians are not even willing to discuss public debate subjects, then...

If Christians are not willing to even discuss public debate subjects, then....

[marco]

[Replying to post 5 by marco]

I am not sure what your point is. Are you willing to discuss a topic to publicly debate me or another Christian member here in?

I am impressed that you feel capable of debating any religious topic, with such D'Artagnanesque confidence, Liam. There are many areas where even the angels of God would fear to go. It is good to know one's limitations.

Of course if one's adversary is supported by the weight of the Holy Spirit it would be an interesting game.... but not for me. I find that I am already in one-to-one debates in some threads and after many exchanges, they become dull and pointless. I may be depriving myself of a phenomenal revelation of truth and esoteric enlightenment, but I'll take that chance. I hope you find the right Solomon with whom to display the facts you have acquired from your religious and historical studies.

[benchwarmer]

It is starting to sound like like the skeptic and atheist are scared to face a Christian on a one on one. I propose the proof will be, how many Christian challenges are made to non, and how many non-Christian challenges are made to Christians.

However, as already pointed out, there is no way to get the numbers you are after.

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that you could get the numbers and they do indeed show that non theists refuse one on one debate more than theists. So what? Other than perhaps some personal sense of "we're better than they are" what does it prove or even imply? It has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the arguments of either side.

In your case in particular Liam, we've all witnessed both your debating style and the arguments you have on the resurrection of Jesus. You've created and abandoned countless threads on it. What point would there be engaging you in a one on one on the exact same topic?

In addition to all this, how does engaging in a one on one make anyone more fearless or less 'scared' than engaging in open, public debate? In public threads, everyone can pile on and attempt to rip one's points apart. This seems more scary to me than just dealing with one person.

I've seen this line of 'attack' from theists before. They can't seem to make their point in public debate, but are sure they can convince/defeat your points in a private debate. Are there some special arguments being saved just for private debates??

[Divine Insight]

It is starting to sound like like the skeptic and atheist are scared to face a Christian on a one on one.

Are you kidding me? They do this all the time on these forums. Have you forgotten about the Head-to-Head debate forum?

Not only this Liamconnor, but do you realize that you are actually using your religion to create an artificial division between people?

You keep wanting to claim that you are a "Christian" who is having debate wars against so-called 'skeptics' and 'atheists'. You have already created an adversarial relationship in doing that.

Why not view is as simply two humans offering different views on a specific topic?

I'm a human, and you are a human. We are equal, not adverse enemy soldiers on different sides of a Holy War.

As a human you tell me why you think Christianity has merit, and as a human I'll tell you why it see it as having no merit at all.

Let's stop the nonsense of trying to accuse the other person of being unable to understand the religion simply because they don't buy into it.

Let's stop accusing, or labeling the other person as being a 'skeptic', or 'atheist' for simply pointing out the flaws in an ancient collection of tales.

You are the one who creates this animosity. and then you seem to want to place the responsibility of your imagined perceptions onto everyone else.

I was a Christian. I believed in the nonsense of Christianity just like you do. I have since come to recognize that it's neither rational, nor logical, nor believable in any defensible way.

I actually discovered this precisely because I had chosen to teach it. Once I chose to teach it I had no choice but to dot all the i's and cross all the t's so that I could give convincing rational answers to those who had questions. It was when I set out to achieve this goal that I discovered that it cannot be achieved. There is no rational excuses for this religion.

There is no need to label me as a 'skeptic' when that's not even true label. I'm not a 'skeptic'. I'm a Christian who, after having studied the Bible, I have discovered that there is no possibly way to apologize for all the self-contradictions and utter absurdities that it contains.

That's hardly being a "skeptic".

I also haven't come to the conclusion that there cannot exist some type of God. So I can hardly be called an atheist either.

After all, you most likely don't believe in Zeus and Apollo (no doubt for the very same reasons I don't believe in the stories of Yahweh and Jesus).

Does this make you an 'Atheist' because you don't believe in Zeus?

Does this make you a "skeptic" of Greek mythology? Or would you rather assert that you have simply come to rational conclusions that the religion cannot possibly be true?

In short, Liamconnor, whatever you consider yourself to be with respect to Greek mythology, there's a fair chance that this is my position on Hebrew mythology.

So would you like to be continually labeled a "skeptic" and "atheist" because you have decided that Greek Mythology makes no sense?

Hebrew mythology is just another mythology. In fact, Christianity (the specific offshoot of Hebrew mythology that you argue for) is clearly only one possible offshoot of that mythology. Yet you act like as if it holds some special significance. But it doesn't.

Your arguments that the resurrection of Christ is a verified historical fact, clearly fail. If that were the case it would be taught in history classes as an actual historical event. It's clearly not accepted by historians to be a verifiable historical event.

Therefore even this historians clearly disagree with you. So you are actually arguing against the entire historical community on that one. Convince them first, then come back and start accusing non-believers of Christianity as being "skeptics" and "atheists".

And if you were to actually try to do that I know you would never be back because there's no way that any credible historian is going to accept you arguments that the resurrection of Jesus is a historically verified fact. That's never going to fly.

Are you then going to accuse all the historians of being "skeptics" and "atheists"?

Even many Christian historians recognize that it's impossible to historically verify the resurrection of Christ. Most Christians accept that this needs to be believed entirely on faith.

What are you do? Label all those Christian historians as "skeptics" and "atheists" just because they realize that it cannot be historically verified that Jesus rose from the dead?

[Mithrae]

I've seen this line of 'attack' from theists before. They can't seem to make their point in public debate, but are sure they can convince/defeat your points in a private debate. Are there some special arguments being saved just for private debates??

Maybe there are Or maybe it's a question of defining terms and parameters as much as anything else. If the point under discussion is "I do/do not believe that" then there's never likely to be any kind of winner, but one of (if not the) most commonly-raised claims by atheists is that there is no evidence of X, Y or Z. That, perhaps, is a claim which is no so easily defended in a setting where formal rules take priority over rhetoric and popularity.

Obviously I myself don't have much if any higher regard for the traditional religious perspectives either: But the thing is that religionists (or at least Christians) can always fall back on the view that we've got a sinful nature and the way to salvation is narrow. Atheists could say something similar about the allure of religious delusion of course, but the quasi-evangelical mission of 'new atheism' (presently exemplified in terms of thread numbers at least by Jagella) seems to be presenting atheism as basically and completely reasonable rather than some kind of abstract, ivory tower concept. That is why the "no evidence" rhetoric has gained such currency, I suspect - admitting any serious reasonableness in an alternative perspective seriously begs the question of why atheism has any merit whatsoever compared to agnosticism.

This reminds me of a thread I posted a few years back:

I just watched/listened to a debate between William Lane Craig and the late Christopher Hitchens (2 hours on Youtube). Hitchens doesn't fare too poorly, but overall the debate reminded me of some pages on CommonSenseAtheism.com which someone posted in this forum a while back:

• http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1437
  Richard Carrier? Austin Dacey? Quentin Smith? Bart Ehrman? You are not qualified to debate William Lane Craig. Louise Antony? Christopher Hitchens? Eddie Tabash? You are not qualified to debate William Lane Craig.
  
  http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=392
  William Lane Craig is a prolific Christian philosopher, apologist, author, and public debater. He is the best debater – on any topic – that I’ve ever heard. As far as I can tell, he has won nearly all his debates with atheists. When debating him, atheists have consistently failed to put forward solid arguments, and consistently failed to point out the flaws in Craig’s arguments.
  
  I’m not the only one who thinks Craig has won nearly all his debates. For some atheists, it is rather maddening.
  
  Craig is a skilled debater, an encyclopedia of facts and quotes, and a careful rhetorician. If you make a logical mistake, Craig knows exactly how to skewer you for it (and for this, I respect him). He holds prepared and persuasive responses to everything an atheist might say, and atheists usually fail to clearly point out the logical flaws in what Craig has to say. Also, Craig does a great job of summarizing the points and counterpoints that have been raised during a debate, and presents them in a way to show he has decisively won. His opponents are never that organized or clear.

The other William Lane Craig debate I've watched was with agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman (from the 2nd link above) regarding the resurrection, yet even here - in his own field of expertise, and when there's folk going around questioning Jesus' very existence - from memory Ehrman scarcely even disputes Craig's points, focussing mostly on the inadmissibility of the 'supernatural' into the historical method!

What disturbs me about all of this is not anything particularly good or persuasive about Craig's arguments, but the comparatively poor quality of his opponents' presentation. The articles above make the excellent points that public speaking and live debating is a skill which Craig has been honing for decades, which could be a significant advantage against less well-practiced counterparts. But it also points out that Craig's arguments are always the same, entirely predictable - you don't even need to know about Craig to guess at least three of them, or indeed quite probably all five!

Amusingly, in googling to find those CommonSenseAtheism articles, I also came across one on the Guardian website by another prominent atheist Richard Dawkins entitled Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig. Dated 20th of October 2011, the sub-header says that "I would rather leave an empty chair than share a platform with him," which I found quite ironic since next to the Chris Hitchens debate was a Youtube video uploaded 23rd of October 2011 in which Dawkins and two others debated with Craig and two others - held in Mexico from what little I watched of it, so not likely known to most British readers Dawkins' explanation begins by describing Craig (and his PhD in philosphy from Birmingham university) as "He parades himself as a philosopher" and, despite Dawkins' professed moral indignation against sharing a stage with Craig, does not improve much from there.

While Bart Ehrman might be a lesser known name, Christopher Hitchens and especially Richard Dawkins are probably better known as opponents of conservative religion than William Lane Craig is known as a proponent. And particularly in light Cnorman18's recent thread Shooting Fish in Barrels, all of this leads me to wonder about the intellectual health of the atheistic community in general.

Probably the most common meme among atheists (a term I encountered from Dawkins, albeit 2nd hand) is the deceptively simple claim that there is no evidence to justify belief in God. Occasionally I've seen it phrased as 'no compelling evidence' or the like, but if anything might be considered an article of faith for most debating atheists (particularly given the fact of strong debators such as Craig) it must surely be that atheists do not affirm a position, nor even deny a position, but simply find no reason to believe a theistic position. To acknowledge reasonableness in the theist's arguments or to acknowledge plausibility in a theistic interpretation of the world, in other words, is to no longer be this type of 'weak' atheist but more of an agnostic - a term which Christopher Hitchens deplores in the debate linked above.

Now I'd be very, very far from the first to say that there's a strong intellectual community beneath the type of theism of which Craig is a prominent representative. But if the best of atheism come off second-best even against Craig, and if this central meme of contemporary atheism is one which all but demands (and certainly propagandistically reinforces) rejection of any theistic argument, what can we infer about the intellectual community associated with atheism?

[benchwarmer]

I've seen this line of 'attack' from theists before. They can't seem to make their point in public debate, but are sure they can convince/defeat your points in a private debate. Are there some special arguments being saved just for private debates??

Maybe there are Or maybe it's a question of defining terms and parameters as much as anything else. If the point under discussion is "I do/do not believe that" then there's never likely to be any kind of winner, but one of (if not the) most commonly-raised claims by atheists is that there is no evidence of X, Y or Z. That, perhaps, is a claim which is no so easily defended in a setting where formal rules take priority over rhetoric and popularity.

I agree with your point, but I would not go so far as to say "there is no evidence" of various things like the resurrection of Jesus, but I will say "there is no credible/convincing evidence".

Just as an example, Liam has in the past brought forward the claim that there were 500 witnesses to Jesus's resurrection. This sounds like pretty strong, convincing stuff until one actually analyzes what's going on here. What we really have is a single claim from a religious promoter (who himself was not a witness) that there were 500 witnesses. So we've gone from 'strong evidence' to 'barely evidence'. I wouldn't consider an unsubstantiated, single claim from a very biased source to be worth much in terms of being convincing or credible.

The only debate terms where this has any hope is if the participants agree to the inerrancy of the text where this claim is made. That's not going to happen with a non theist involved.

The real problem for Liam, in particular on this very specific topic, is that all cards have already been "laid on the table" in previous threads. Thus, it should not be shocking that no one who's been around for a while would want to go rehash this in a one on one discussion. What's the point? If there are some new arguments or more convincing evidence, then just start yet another thread and lay it out.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

I have found that personal requests for private debates, either by PMs or one-on-ones, are typically refused by skeptics and atheists, yet advanced by Christians.

I don't doubt me that many a Christian'd prefer to debate outside of the eyes and ears of others. That they'd come to a public debate site and complain about the lack of private debates sounds as sketchy to me as when I tell the pretty thing I was drinkin' me a glass of water, and don't it beat all, it turned it right into wine. Or liquor, as the case may be.

I have PMd non-Christians to take me on in a one-on-one and have always been answered with something to the effect "oh, I don't do one-on-ones with Christians; it is a waste of my time."

I prefer to view / hear / read all sides of an argument, as opposed to a more narrow field of such.

I just now came across a public correspondence where a Christian invited a one-on-one and the skeptic denied it.

Well don't keep it private, link to it so's we can get us all contexty.

Is the refusal in fact equal on this site: do atheists and agnostics request as many refused public one on ones as Christians? If so, is there documented testimony?

Don't know, don't care. The fact remains I've yet to find me the first Christian that can put 'em truth to their supernatural claims. Whether they tell it in close quarters, or broadcast it to the world.

If the request/refusal pattern is in fact one-sided, what does this suggest?

Suggests to me some folks love to 'if' 'em an argument.

Is one party (Christian or Other) nervous?

I'm only nervous about folks being able to legislate, or otherwise negatively impact the life of others, based on their belief that a god they can't show exists has him an opinion they can't show he does.

Is the shy party simply sick of debating poor sparring partners? Or is that answer itself a cop-out?

'Nother don't know, don't care.


I propose if the Christian could actually show a god's there, and they know 'em the mind of him of it, there'd be no reason to debate - publicly, privately, one-on-one, in a group, or otherwise.

And so, here we are.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 5:

...
A cat may look at a king but the king is not obliged to play with the cat.
...

Anyone who has 'em the opportunity to play with 'em a cat, who don't then do it, they ain't earned 'em no crown to begin with.

You, good sir, are out of line.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 8:

I don't the statistical numbers.

I think you accidently'd a word.

Suppose i was simply trying to get more skeptics to engage more Chrisitians in one on ones?

If we're supposin', I propose we suppose folks have grown 'em tired of maybe 'em some Christians' inability to show they speak truth regarding various supernatural claims.

I promise I will never, ever, deny a one on one on regards to the historical question of the resurrection of Jesus.

If it was historical, how on God's green earth could it be it a question?

I suppose it is, some folks don't feel 'em the need to debate folks who are so assured of their own position.

Heck, one of the first things I tell myself when I debate is that I could be wrong in my position, for it is, I got me married that time there.

So then...

So then, I suppose folks don't wanna debate some Christians privately, or one-on-one, 'cause it is, they don't believe a word they say, and don't wanna lend 'em no credence to 'em any of 'em it is that they do.