Why the Atheists Always Lose to Good Theist Debaters

[Buddy Christ]

Eh. You must not be familiar with the concept of "Rick Rolling"

Tis a time honored internet tradition that I refuse to let die.

[Birdguy1979]

What makes theist debators especially those classified as apologists hard to defeat is they have something to lose. They make large amounts of money and are always defending religion, because that is what pays for them. Most of us atheists don't have a carrier of fleecing people riding on our ability to defend our position.

[Xinoftruden]

I must say this, if any of you catch me arguing with unbeliever could you please link this thread. It will save me the embarassment as all my points are destroyed one by one.

[Endurance Swimmer]

As a general rule of thumb i disagree with the assertion that Atheists loose to good Theist debaters. I've watched many a debate on the subject of religion and can only think of one religious apologist who i would consider a strong debater - William Lane Craig. In almost every single other instance the Atheist almost without fail has come up trumps. Even with Craig, his arguments are actually pretty weak when one strips them down but being what one could consider a professional debates he uses lots of tricks, takes full advantage of the standard adversarial debate format and normally debates infront of audiences sympathetic to his cause. In an intellectual conversation format without time limits and moderators i seriously doubt even Craig would stand up to the better Atheist personalities because when you strip his arguments down far enough most come down eventually to opinions held on faith.

Admittedly i conduct searches looking for Atheist personalities that are good speakers and have a solid understanding of science and normally scripture and its inherent issues and contradictions. Those individuals are well placed to wipe the floor with their Theist counterparts, whereas lesser known Atheists may not be so articulate. But generally speaking having a host of evidence on your side always makes for better ammunition that superstition and bronze aged religious scripture.

[DLJ]

Reading this old thread was an odd experience.

History repeats itself much.

I would say that Vos is a strong contender as the new Unbeliever.

And what happens to atheists when they 'unregister'? Do they put down their arms against the sea of troubles?

[Buddy Christ]

I also reread this whole thing.

I'm STILL blown away that someone using the internet has never heard of Rick Rolling.

[Leela]

wow... just wow. This was before my time, but as I see, same arguments even then... Still the same arguments.
And everyone who brings these arguments (always with slightly different wording of course) thinks, they are the first to have ever thought of it....
Actually kind mindblowing, isn't it?

[Logica Humano]

It is a shame the cowardly Christian never returned to finish his pathetic argument. It would have been much more entertaining for me to read this archive had he done so.

[Vosur]

(26-12-2012 03:34 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  It is a shame the cowardly Christian never returned to finish his pathetic argument. It would have been much more entertaining for me to read this archive had he done so.

Unfortunately, that's what peeps who argue with the legendary Unbeliever usually do.

[Erxomai]

(26-12-2012 12:43 PM)Vosur Wrote:  

(26-12-2012 03:34 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  It is a shame the cowardly Christian never returned to finish his pathetic argument. It would have been much more entertaining for me to read this archive had he done so.

That's what usually happens to peeps like him when they get into an argument with Unbeliever.

It's a shame that he's no longer around.

That's why he can make a claim like he did in the Title. He doesn't stick around to hear what the atheist has to say. He just declares himself the winner after posting his "irrefutable" argument.