Televised debate? Please. Science is far too vast to be done justice in such a format. A theist needs only their holy book, while a scientist has literally billions of sources to sort through. Written debate is the only way to go, unless you're like me and have incorporated theist tactics into your strategies. Most scientists are too busy studying reality to do such, and get shocked speechless by theist delusions. Then they don't have time to present the thousand different studies proving an offhand comment for the ignorance it exemplifies.

Because you're taking so long to respond to my obliteration of your posts, I started to watch the vid. By the 1:39 point, I discovered a few things. First, that comments were turned off, thereby removing the possibility to respond. Second, that the debate took place in a location hostile to atheism (note two indicators: the opening graphic, and the silence greeting the introduction to the Freedom from religion foundation debator, following the applause for the theist debator).
One wonders just how much more will be discovered by watching the whole hour, let alone the second half of it. Lol. You really think this is going to help your case. We'll see how much I can watch before having more to say. And I'm just a layman. I shudder to think what will happen to your posts should any of the scientists and philosophers here decide my critique is lacking, and tackle your claims themselves.

I think you would disagree with the co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation on how this issue is best discussed. Science and the atheist theory of reality are not explicitly a part of this debate so I wouldn't voice your complaints too loudly on that.

There is a reason I posted this within this forum and not an area pertaining to science.

If so, I do disagree.

Televised debate has a place, but it is about winning a crowd with charisma and speech making tactics, not intellectual superiority.  Most televised debates have something like "15-15-5-5-4-4-Q&A" and that simply isn't enough time to tackle *any* argument, much less a debate between atheism and theism about the historicity of Jesus.  People write large books about that, you can't condense it that much for either side.

Debates like this don't convince people, they just confirm pre existing opinion. (I'm not even criticizing the theists here, I don't care who is debating what, if the topic is advanced and complex then televised debate is not appropriate to actually hash anything out.l

Normal 0 false false false EN-AU X-NONE X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

http://www.flamewarrior.com/barker_interview.htm

I think you'll like it....

This wasn't televised, only recorded if that makes sense.

It was well over 2 hours... You don't get something like that on TV.

Maybe you should watch it before giving your response.

Take care

For some reason, only atheists dislike formal debates it seems, why is that...

I think I know based on the ones I hear them partake in.

In so far as there may be some truth to that observation, it is maybe because the debate format advantages the side pushing the more easily expressed ideas, and reality is in fact very complex.

Also, scientific knowledge is typically not established with 100% proof, even when it is by far the most accurate match to observation, whereas the Theists can proclaim their nonsense with utter certainty.

Then there are the tactical games that are often employed, throwing claim after outrageous claim at the rational side, each of which may involve detailed arguments to refute. This leaves the Atheist apparently confused, simply because they don't even know which one to start addressing, and don't have nearly enough time, before another stupidity is thrown at them.

In short, serious Atheist/Rationalist thinkers find themselves typically up against debaters who have honed a largely unchanged set of arguments and become skilled at throwing them out in a manner best calculated to keep the other side off balance.

Lol.

Debates are helpful if you believe that you have something to offer intellectually, otherwise I join with you in their uselessness.

That being said, no Christian should debate merely to win, but to edify the body of believers.

This is all rather ironic coming from a guy who found it worthwhile for some reason to post over five thousand replies on the internet in hopes to discuss his worldview, most of which can be read in 30 seconds.

If a debate isn't even good enough to present positions on this topic, your entire being here is just not helpful so why waste your time?

Are you saying that part of the whole point of debates like this from your perspective is to expound your opinion (sorry, god's truth) to the infidel in the hope his seed might fall on receptive ground?

When we debate, we do so to defend the Truth of God.

Proof by Repeated Assertion much?

Virtually all Christian "debates" are based on willful mistranslations of original texts.  And that is far from the "Truth".  It's a lot more like another word.  One that starts with "L".  Or perhaps "D".

Gotta love the projection.

*** eXnihilo: Science and the atheist theory of reality ... snip ***

Greetings to the reader. Happy New Year.

This poster's remark betrays a misunderstanding of use of the "a" prefix. When a noun is prefixed with "a", the resultant meaning of negation connotes a not or without state, so atheism means to be without or not having theism. Theism is the unwarranted and unjustifiable fantasy of magical super beings somehow interacting with Homo Sapiens. Compare theism to deism. Deists believe magical super beings exist but that they do not interact with Homo Sapiens. Neither theists or deists can shoulder their burden of proof to show magical super beings exist.

Atheists lacks such silly beliefs, and hence makes no positive statement regarding magical super beings. This is often characterized as weak atheism or agnosticism and is contrasted with Positive or Strong Atheism. PA or SA do make positive claims that bear a burden of proof and can be justified via means of Metaphysical Naturalism or Objectivism.

The poster wrongfully suggests there occurs an atheist theory of reality. This is false. Weak atheism is simply a lack of belief while agnosticism is a lack of knowledge. Neither position make positive claims regarding the nature of reality. Strong or Positive Atheism is informed by Metaphysical Naturalism or Objectivism and do assert that magical super beings either do not exist or are impossible. In either case, however, no assertion of a theory of reality is made by answering the question of theism. The happy fact that information can be drawn from Metaphysical Naturalism and Objectivism showing theism/deism up as delusional fantasies is only a delightful side bar of proper rational philosophy. Metaphysical Naturalism and Objectivism offer scientifically validated coherent philosophical systems that include worldviews, metaphysics, epistemology, Aesthetics, Morality, and Politics. Theism or Deism only offer absurd mythology.

The poster misused the word “theory”. A scientific theory is not in any way speculative or uncertain. The word theory when used in context of methodological naturalism, The Scientific Method, means a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: e.g. Einstein's theory of relativity. The poster here employs a standard equivocation technique used by many religious writers to muddy the waters invoking a red herring.

Best Regards