As many of you may be aware, Richard Dawkins has taken the position that it is counter-productive to debate Christians about the validity and merits of their beliefs. His reasoning is simply that the debate itself lends undue credibility to their views, and he compares the merits of the debate to the merits of debating flat earthers about the actual shape and dimensions of the Earth.

I disagree with Dawkins reasoning, and here is why:

While his comparison of flat earthers to Christians is valid, his failure to acknowledge the common perception of the matter is lacking. The vast majority of the world's people agree that the earth is round and spherical. Such is not the case when it comes to god. The majority of the world's people believe in some sort of active god who takes a significant interest in man's struggle and well being. And 33 percent of that population believe in the Christian god, Jehovah (or Yahweh).

For that reason, and that reason alone, the issue is worth arguing.

Perhaps Dawkins isn't the right person to argue the matter for the Atheist side. If so, that's okay. Clearly Dawkins is a highly intelligent individual, but debate is an art, and not everyone is skilled at it.

But Dawkins should not discourage other more skilled debaters from engaging in very meaningful debate over this very important issue. The world needs more rational minds, and we should try and accomplish that by demonstrating the flaws inherent in theistic religion.

With that in mind, Atheist should keep a few things in mind regarding debate with Christians:

#1. Do not agree to take the position of an Atheist, but rather that of a non-theist. While these terms basically mean the same thing, too much of the debate will center around the meaning of Atheism if the debate is billed: Atheist vs. Christian.

You want the focus of the debate to be on the validity of your opponents claims, not vice versa. Which brings us to:

#2. Do not agree to argue the existence of god, but rather the existence of your opponent's god. Arguing against the existence of god leaves far too much room for your opponent to pursuade the audience with unsolved mysteries and mathematical paradoxes. Those things are meaningless to your opponent if he actually faces the challenge of validating his own personal religious claims.

Atheism (or non-theism) does not have all the answers, and doesn't claim to. Religious people make those kinds of arrogant and bold claims. Don't let the audience lose sight of that fact.

#3. Focus the debate on morality. The reason the debate is worth having in the first place is the fact that religious people are constantly trying to force their beliefs and morals on others. For that reason, people need to understand the moral dilemmas and attrocities that Christianity (and religion in general) promote.

Remind the audience that we are all human beings, and that our one clear common goal should be the survival and success of that species.

Humanity will eventually face great opposition to it's existence in the way of natural scientific occurences. Whether that comes in the form of a huge meteor hitting the planet, the sun expanding and exploding, a deadly epidemic of some sort, or another ice age, it is inevitable that something will eventually threaten our existence.

It's time to stop believing in and promoting fairy tales and an imaginary spiritual existence beyond the grave, and start focusing on our own shared humanity and the struggle we face to perserve it.

We have a long way to go, and Christianity is one of the bigger obstacles standing in the way.

Ummmm, not to throw piss on your post, but Dawkin's specifically refers to creationists, not to Christians when he says he won't debate them.

(April 3, 2013 at 5:22 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Ummmm, not to throw piss on your post, but Dawkin's specifically refers to creationists, not to Christians when he says he won't debate them.

Dawkins specifically turned down an offer to debate William Lane Craig, who is a well known Christian apologist.

I'm aware that Dawkins position is more universal than that, but it's the debate with Christians that stands to put the biggest dent in theistic religion in general.

Many religions have either a direct or indirect connection to Christianity. For that reason, Christianity represents a foundation of sorts for more than half of the world's religious population.

I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.

Yah, Dawkins has debated Bishops. I might agree with him debating a creationist, but the creationist challenger should have to defeat one of the master's students, first, in an online debate.

(April 3, 2013 at 5:30 pm)smax Wrote: Dawkins specifically turned down an offer to debate William Lane Craig, who is a well known Christian apologist.

I think you are misinformed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uaq6ORDx1C4

(April 3, 2013 at 5:34 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(April 3, 2013 at 5:30 pm)smax Wrote: Dawkins specifically turned down an offer to debate William Lane Craig, who is a well known Christian apologist.

I think you are misinformed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uaq6ORDx1C4

This was an open forum debate involving members of all different beliefs.

More recently, Dawkins was invited to a one on one debate in England and he flatly refused.

And, since that open debate, Dawkins has made his position on debating creationists clear.

Dawkins refuses to debate Craig

Spotted something in your outline that won't fly.

"Remind the audience that we are all human beings, and that our one clear common goal should be the survival and success of that species. "

-Sir, you are wrong, our one clear and common goal should be to serve and worship our creator.
egment of the audience erupts in cheer - game, set, match:

He flat-out refuses to debate creationists, not Christians. Sure, he may choose not to debate specific Christians, but he doesn't hold back from arguing with them as a whole.

To take a recent example, he debated Rowan Williams (ex-Archbishop of Canterbury) in my city just a couple of weeks ago.

Who cares about these debates?
I've listened to quite a few and ever since the first I thought that the format was rubbish.
One guy stalks and talks and talks.
Then the other guy talks and talks and talks.... while trying to address some of the points in the first guy's account.
Then the first can argue with the points of the second guy.... but has less than half the time of his opening statement.
Then the second guy argues with the points of the first guy... but, as it is with humans, will basically address what the guy said in the second part.
Then, with even less time, the first guy can answer back...
Then the same for the second guy...

And that's it.

There's no discussion of ideas, only two people trying to convince the audience of a given point of view.

To me, a debate involves a discussion of ideas and the standard "formal debate" format is anything but a discussion. It's a match of rhetoric skills. Who manages to have the better rhetoric, wins... yea...

I enjoy much more listening to the guy sat the atheist experience answering the callers, or a few interviews on "news" channels, than these "formal debates".
And this is why I didn't dislike the HamzaVsKrauss debate... Krauss tried to make it a conversation... too bad Hamza didn't follow through.


About Dawkins: Dawkins is not versed in rhetoric. He's versed in biology. As such, he finds the "formal debate" format stupid, while clearly acknowledging that most theologians are well versed in the art of rhetoric and will always appear to beat him.... Of course, pre-debate bias counts a lot, and on average, throughout the world, the audience will be 20% atheist, 80% theist... a discouraging crowd, to say the least.

(April 3, 2013 at 5:49 pm)smax Wrote: This was an open forum debate involving members of all different beliefs.

More recently, Dawkins was invited to a one on one debate in England and he flatly refused.

And, since that open debate, Dawkins has made his position on debating creationists clear.

Dawkins refuses to debate Craig

I'm not sure what your objection is exactly, since what I said to start with is that Dawkins will debate Christians but not Creationists.