Thunderf00t definitely needs to work on his confidence and appearance of knowledge when answering questions. Half the Creationist technique is asserting something so confidently that when the debate opponent has to say, "well, wait a minute, you just presumed a premise as an answer to the question", it makes it look like the interviewee is equivocating.
I stopped watching the video after TF kept dodging the "do you have all the knowledge in the universe" question, which obviously leads to "well then how do you know that God is not real?" question.
The answer to that is not to worry about definitions, but to let them walk into the trap they have set:
"Okay, I will accept your premise for the purpose of this question. No, I don't have all the knowledge. Yes, God could exist. Since your question is simply saying there are things we don't know then that means anything is possible, then any god could exist, including the invisible pink dragons I mentioned earlier, or Krishna, or Thor. But instead, let's focus on what we do know. I cannot falsify invisible beings, but I can falsify your proposed deity. Want to know how?"
See, Fundies think that if they shift the atheist onto the ground of admitting that God is possible, it's a win for THEIR God, not realizing it means all gods/goddesses/unicorns/dragons. So let that one go, while saying that it makes God exactly as possible as unicorns. Then it's trivial to begin to utilize the physical impossibilities in the Bible to show that, while other gods might exist, the God of the Bible is demonstrably just the imagination of Bronze Age tribal sheepherders who didn't know much about science.
Through the door of their fairytale lies a corridor that dumps them right into the realm of the real world, where it tends to shrivel in the bright daylight of logical investigation. And by looking like you're not afraid to walk down the corridor of their fairytale (which is the point of Hovind Jr.'s question, to make atheists look afraid of it), it makes them look afraid to deal with real science.
After that, you simply have to deal with the Gish Gallop, of which the Hovinds are quite fond. The key to that is to not let them go on to the next question by being pushy, after you have answered a previous one which destroys their credibility. You have to say, "hold up, let's talk about that last one, first".
Face to face debates like that are a politician's game, of manipulating human psychology and observer biases to make one person seem more reasonable than the other, and confidence is a big part of it. It's why Donald Trump can say the most insane things you could imagine, but with confidence, and people nod their head and say, "Man, what balls on him. That guy tells it like it is!" The Hovinds are good at it. They really are. It's why they like targeting scientists, who are typically unskilled at it. If one wants to engage them, you must be at least as good as they are at the game. Facts matter to an audience, but much much MUCH less than appearances and perceptions.
I stopped watching the video after TF kept dodging the "do you have all the knowledge in the universe" question, which obviously leads to "well then how do you know that God is not real?" question.
The answer to that is not to worry about definitions, but to let them walk into the trap they have set:
"Okay, I will accept your premise for the purpose of this question. No, I don't have all the knowledge. Yes, God could exist. Since your question is simply saying there are things we don't know then that means anything is possible, then any god could exist, including the invisible pink dragons I mentioned earlier, or Krishna, or Thor. But instead, let's focus on what we do know. I cannot falsify invisible beings, but I can falsify your proposed deity. Want to know how?"
See, Fundies think that if they shift the atheist onto the ground of admitting that God is possible, it's a win for THEIR God, not realizing it means all gods/goddesses/unicorns/dragons. So let that one go, while saying that it makes God exactly as possible as unicorns. Then it's trivial to begin to utilize the physical impossibilities in the Bible to show that, while other gods might exist, the God of the Bible is demonstrably just the imagination of Bronze Age tribal sheepherders who didn't know much about science.
Through the door of their fairytale lies a corridor that dumps them right into the realm of the real world, where it tends to shrivel in the bright daylight of logical investigation. And by looking like you're not afraid to walk down the corridor of their fairytale (which is the point of Hovind Jr.'s question, to make atheists look afraid of it), it makes them look afraid to deal with real science.
After that, you simply have to deal with the Gish Gallop, of which the Hovinds are quite fond. The key to that is to not let them go on to the next question by being pushy, after you have answered a previous one which destroys their credibility. You have to say, "hold up, let's talk about that last one, first".
Face to face debates like that are a politician's game, of manipulating human psychology and observer biases to make one person seem more reasonable than the other, and confidence is a big part of it. It's why Donald Trump can say the most insane things you could imagine, but with confidence, and people nod their head and say, "Man, what balls on him. That guy tells it like it is!" The Hovinds are good at it. They really are. It's why they like targeting scientists, who are typically unskilled at it. If one wants to engage them, you must be at least as good as they are at the game. Facts matter to an audience, but much much MUCH less than appearances and perceptions.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
