Dr. Bill Craig's Debates: Why do Atheists lose/run away from debating him?

[Mister Agenda]

Hitchens also committed a blatant or elementary logical fallacy in the midst of the debate. Here are his words:

Hitchens: "There's no claim I know to make that "Atheism is True", because Atheism is the proposition that a certain proposition isn't True".

Let's say P is the proposition that "it is raining outside" and Q is the proposition that ["a certain proposition"] P isn't true, i.e. it is not raining outside.

P: "It is raining outside".
Q. "It is not raining outside".

Does it in any way follow that, because Q is the Proposition that P is not true, therefore Q cannot have a Truth Value itself? I mean, that's an elementary logical fallacy, a non sequitur. 

What really follows is that either P or Q must be true, they are mutually exclusive etc. Good reasons for P being true are good reasons Q is not (because one of them must be true), and so on.

Jesus Christ Himself, when it was necessary to establish to the Pharisees the Truth that Christ was the Son of God and a Divine King, and not a mere son of David or human king, as they thought, debated with the Pharisees to establish that Truth: "While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?” They said to Him, “The Son of David.” He said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”? [Psa 110:1] If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He [just] his Son?” And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore." (Mat 22)

Whether it's the Pro-Life issue, or the God question, or other such matters, Christians engage in debate and discussion on those subjects because saving Lives or important Truths are at stake. 

If someone after diligently considering all the arguments is not convinced, ok, that's his or her prerogative. All Christians would do is amicably disagree. That debate took place in a Christian University, IIRC, Biola. Yet no one harassed or hassled Hitchens in the slightest, just responded to his arguments. Respectful disagreement is important. 

Why are there debates in most countries before elections? Because a proper ideology based on Truth and Righteousness should be able to defend and explain itself to the public when facing challenging questions.

If one is a public spokesman for Atheism, and has written books attacking Almighty God, as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris et al did, then it is reasonable that Christians who are Professors or public speakers, like Craig and others are, are going to challenge that. Not only Craig, but others like Alvin Plantinga, J.P Moreland et al have done that. And if you want to challenge something in the Bible, or something about Christ, or something that Christian wrote, that's the place to do that also. Harris, Hitchens et al did do that with Craig. Dawkins didn't. But he did debate with lesser known Christian speakers. I'm sure there's a reason for that. Lol.

God Bless.

Hi, Nishant. Hitchens' mistake was stating that atheism is a proposition. It isn't, and neither is theism. They are states of mind. There is a God and there is no God are propositions, but most atheists (in my experience), don't go so far as to state that there is no God; most of us are content to state that we are not convinced there is a God; and are more or less confident in that depending on which God is being proposed.

Perhaps the Pharisees found Jesus incomprehensible; speaking from experience, it can be difficult to formulate a cogent response to incoherent statements.

On-stage debates aren't a good way to determine which speaker is correct, but it's an excellent way to determine which speaker is a better orator. I think email debates are more useful, because both sides have time to marshal their thoughts and information rather than depending on the facts they have to mind and their stage presence. There are numerous techniques a debater can use to stymie someone who is actually more correct, like the Gish Gallop (raise so many questions that your interlocutor can't address them all in the time they have). An email debate disable Gish Galloping nicely.

There are debates in most countries before elections because debates give each side the chance to show how their guy or gal does in a debate. It's better than nothing.