April 25, 2009

Advice for Debating William Lane Craig, part 5

Posted in Advice for Debating..., Atheism, Debates tagged , , , , at 9:32 am by Andrew

You can find the previous posts in this series here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and
Part 4, or you can click on the “Advice for Debating…” tag.

1. One of the most important things you should be doing to prepare for any kind of formal debate — and I can’t believe I didn’t mention this earlier — is to practice debating the other side. Atheists, that means you should find the best debater you know (other than yourself) and set up a practice round in which they come in with a case for atheism that you haven’t seen, and you play the role of William Lane Craig.
Read the rest of this entry »

April 23, 2009

Advice for Debating William Lane Craig, part 4 (answering Loftus)

Posted in Advice for Debating..., Atheism, Debates tagged , , , , at 1:14 pm by Andrew

In the comments section to part 3, John Loftus — who would like to debate Craig — weighs in again:
Read the rest of this entry »

Welcome, Pharyngulites!

Posted in Atheism, Personal tagged , , , at 10:35 am by Andrew

In addition to my evaluation of the ICR’s recent lawsuit to which PZ linked, hopefully you’ll stick around and find some other posts of interest. Here’s a sample to get you started.

In addition to being a lawyer, I’m a former debate coach, and I wrote a three-part series on advice for atheists who want to debate William Lane Craig: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

I’ve also weighed in on the Matt Dillahunty-Matt Slick pseudo-debate over the Transcendental Argument for God and presuppositionalism generally: Part 1; Part 2; and Part 3.

I think I give a pretty unique atheist’s take on the argument from morality here.

I evaluate the so-called “minimal facts” model for the Resurrection here.

My personal story of “Why I Am Not A Christian” (to borrow a phrase) begins here.

Enjoy!

April 17, 2009

Advice for Debating William Lane Craig, part 3

Posted in Advice for Debating..., Answering Apologists, Atheism, Debates tagged , , , , , , , at 12:27 pm by Andrew

Another prominent atheist has chimed in on my posts offering advice for debating William Lane Craig (Part 1 is here and Part 2 is here); this time it’s Christopher Hallquist, whose stuff I also typically enjoy.

As with John Loftus’s response, I find myself puzzled by Hallquist’s overall evaluation — here, he says that my advice is “somewhat misguided.” This is strange, since as far as I can tell, Hallquist and I agree on virtually everything I said! Let’s take a look:
Read the rest of this entry »

April 16, 2009

Advice for Debating William Lane Craig, part 2

Posted in Advice for Debating..., Answering Apologists, Atheism, Debates tagged , , , , , , , , at 10:29 am by Andrew

My first post on this subject went to number one on Google and attracted the attention of Richard Carrier (who has previously debated Craig) and John Loftus (who would like to). Let me expand on my previous remarks.
Read the rest of this entry »

April 13, 2009

Advice For Debating William Lane Craig

Posted in Advice for Debating..., Answering Apologists, Atheism tagged , , , , , , , , , at 11:31 am by Andrew

In light of the panel discussion with Christopher Hitchens as well as recent (disappointing) accounts of William Lane Craig’s debates with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Carrier, I thought I would post some unsolicited advice from a former debater, debate coach, and practicing attorney to anyone thinking of tackling Craig in a debate.
Read the rest of this entry »

April 10, 2009

Hitchens v. Strobel, Craig, et al.

Posted in Answering Apologists, Atheism, Debates, Interviews, Science tagged , , , , , , , at 3:19 pm by Andrew

Courtesy of the Christian Booksellers’ Association, and it’s a fair summary of the common apologetic arguments and the way in which they fall on atheistic ears.

I continue to be stumped — even angry — when the supposed “leading lights” of the Christian apologetics movements (Strobel, Craig) can repeat obvious scientific falsehoods with a straight face. Make whatever argument you want, but when you stand in front of several hundred people and affirm that “information in DNA requires an intelligent source,” you are spouting nonsense at best and outright lies at worst. I’m shocked more Christians don’t disavow these sorts of tactics.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 36 other followers