marking
This is a good summary of debating. There might be any given subject and the participants might be assigned to debate either side of the subject. Thus, one MUST study and understand both sides of an idea in depth in order to debate it intelligently.
Honest debates would defeat neoliberalsim like crazy. Too bad honest debate has died in our schools, universities, fraternals, government, politics and media. IMO, it seems to primarily exist in the www (so far).
It is a matter of faith to conclude that “there is nothing”.
Hitchens and others go beyond denying the existence of God. He denies that Jesus ever existed (at least in any context more real than the Athurian legend) and asserts that the world would be a much better place without Christians. This is an anti-theistic/anti-Christian approach. It goes beyond decided for himself that there is no god and that he can go about his own business with a clear conscience. He pushes to convert people to his belief system. His no god god. He insists that your God is the false god and his is the genuine god of ‘mankind’ as supreme being.
By the way, Hitchens isn't dumb enough to make the same broad assertions against Islam. He knows that there would be jihadists waiting to slit his throat if he publicly travelled the world telling everyone that it was a lie that Mohammed ascended into heaven on a horse. Their religion of peace is likewise not condemned with a statement that the world would be a better place without muslims.
considering all the removal of religion from public places, the war on Christmas, and the assault on “under God”, it say Christians are even worse debaters.
If the atheists were that lousy, the results don’t bode well for our abilities either.
You can’t debate with a religious person because faith isn’t based on logic, “god” means anything and everything, the Pope is infallible, the Bible is absolute truth.
No one can debate under those circumstances. The debate rules only apply to the atheist, not the Christian. Case in point.
C: Complex things require a designer.
A: Who designed God?
C: God doesn’t need a designer.
Atheists foolish enough to engage in this non-debate deserve what they get. Dinesh is an expert in this stuff.
I wish to remark again that these atheists never take on or publicly attack the superstitions of non-western “indigenous pipples,” just as “opponents of Western Civilization” never demand that Darwin’s books be removed from study because he is a “dead white male.”
When pressed on the millions of people killed by avowedly atheist regimes in the USSR, China, and elsewhere, they will attempt to claim that those regimes in fact practiced a "religion"! (Evidently militant atheistic socialism qualifies as a "religion", if atheists think they can use it to score points.)
That last tack is beyond logical fallacy and into insane territory.
The glaring fallacy is the category error. Nobody has ever been killed in the name of religion, just as nobody has ever painted a house "color". Religion and color are categories, not entities.
People have been killed in the name of specific religions, just as houses can be painted specific colors. However, if 1, 10, or a million people have been killed in the name of religion "A", that proves absolutely nothing about the truth or falsehood of religion "B". (Strictly speaking, it's not a slam-dunk that it proves anything about the truth or falsehood of religion "A", either.)
That from the article. IMO, Christians are weak opponents in general because they just don't exercise the defense of their faith. The few that do aren't supported. Sitting on hands with mouth closed -- the typical posture for the great majority of Christians. Is end time prophecy the cause of such apathy?
Douglas Wilson left Hitchens looking like something that just came out of the shredder.
Have you seen this?
There's a link to D'Souza's book and a podcast of him speaking on this topic at the link above.
Thanks for posting.