Jun 17, 2010

Here's What Happens When You Ask an Atheist to Debate...

Here's What Happens When You Ask an Atheist to Debate...

Recently I asked a 'semi-notorious' Internet atheist to debate me on some very important issues he had raised during the course of a conversation we were having on a message board (mainly in regard to the resurrection and the overall integrity of the the Gospels). Here was my e-mail to him (yes, the names have been changed)...

Dear Mr. "A" -

Perhaps we could set up a debate between us on some of the issues you raised?

If so, I would like for it to be via YouTube or mp3 files,
as opposed to a written debate because you already have so many articles.

Do you have the ability to record via Webcam or a PC mic?

vocab

Here was his rather terse response back to me ...

Hi,

I am not a public speaker.

What is there to debate? Debating Christians is like debating Moonies or Muslims. All you have is an Old Book you claim is true , despite the fact that it looks like every other religious text - a pack of lies believed in by people brought up to believe in it.

Regards,
Mr. "A"

I wrote back with this (I have changed some of the wording so he can remain anonymous if he desires) ...

Mr. "A" -

Then why did you go on that one radio program?
It was live and you were being recorded.
And you later said your opponent got 'roasted'.

An mp3 or YouTube debate is even easier - less 'pressure'.

And why you are being so mean-spirited in your e-mail back to me, Mr. "A"?
I mean, no one is around and I am approaching you humbly - I just don't understand your attitude.

Lastly, why do you say there is nothing to debate but then you are constantly on Forums doing just that? What about a written debate, then?

vocab

I sent this several days ago (twice) and still I have not heard back from him ... sigh ...

vocab

3 comments:

  1. You already refused to defend your own sources.

    Here is your challenge again, which you ducked.

    I said at the time that your refusal to defend what you say means you are not worthy of a debate.

    I would LOVE to see Vocab defend what he says is a great article.

    Until Vocab defends the following argument of Miller, we will know that Vocab is not interested in rational debate, and not even interested in defending his own arguments.

    Here is what Miller says :-

    ‘As a matter of fact, the ONLY points of continuity are (1) the mention of a ‘hand’ (even there it is used quite differently in each story!); and (2) the general motif that God can take on large armies with smaller armies (a general pan-cultural theme in no way implying borrowing!). At most we have a very vague similarity with the biblical passage.’

    Miller is talking about the following two passages.

    Notice Miller says the ONLY points of continuity are ‘the mention of a hand’ and size of armies.

    See how nuts Miller is and how desperate Vocab is when you look at the actual passages Miller is talking about.

    Then the Lord said to Gideon, “The people are still too many; bring them down to the water and I will test them for you there. Therefore it shall be that he of whom I say to you, ‘This one shall go with you,’ he shall go with you; but everyone of whom I say to you, ‘This one shall not go with you,’ he shall not go.” 5 So he brought the people down to the water. And the Lord said to Gideon, “You shall separate everyone who laps the water with his tongue, as a dog laps, as well as everyone who kneels to drink.” 6 Now the number of those who lapped, putting their hand to their mouth, was 300 men; but all the rest of the people kneeled to drink water. And the Lord said to Gideon, “I will deliver you with the 300 men who lapped and will give the Midianites into your hands; so let all the other people go, each man to his home.”‘

    Compare that with the Koranic passage below which Miller and Vocab claim ‘have a very vague similarity with the biblical passage.’

    ‘So when Talut departed with the forces, he said: Surely Allah will try you with a river; whoever then drinks from it, he is not of me, and whoever does not taste of it, he is surely of me, except he who takes with his hand as much of it as fills the hand; but with the exception of a few of them they drank from it.’

    Notice that the nutcase Miller claims the ONLY points of continity are ‘the mention of a hand’ and the size of the armies.

    I quote Miller’s absurd ‘refutation’ of me ‘At most we have a very vague similarity with the biblical passage.’

    Nutcase!

    Which sane person can read those passages and claim there is only ‘a very vague similarity’?

    And this nutcase job is what Vocab think refutes me!

    Until Vocan defends Miller’s absurd claim that these stories ‘have a very vague similarity’, we will only have even more confirmation that Vocab is not interested in debate, only in ‘answering atheists’ ie saying anything which sounds like an answer, no matter how bad an answer it actually is.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ok, I don't usually get involved in these flame wars, but it does look like YOU ran away from the debate. Perhaps it wasn't intentional but your ignoring Steven and then posting this on your blog really sends the wrong message. Anyway, just my humble opinion. *Sinks back into the soundings*

    ReplyDelete
  3. Is this a flame war? I hope not (I mean it) - I hate those things! Lord, help me!

    Eric-
    Thank you for your input and humble attitude - it is greatly appreciated. I do want to sorta disagree that I ignored Steven over @the Resurrection debate on BTF.com.

    Let me qualify that: I ignored his posts that were unrelated to the topic at hand and responded to those that had something to do w/the resurrection. He really didn't like any of my responses, though. He really didn't seem to hear what I was trying to say, though, either.

    Steven -
    You can’t simply jump into a debate midstream, link to your articles and say “disprove them all or you lose” – especially since they are not even on topic.

    This is why I only answered the relevant questions you raised … and you pretty much ignored my answers and instead chose to resort to NAME CALLING AND YELLING (caps yours).

    I figured since you wanted to debate a different topic, we could do that – so I asked you via e-mail and you, true to form, responded with mockery. So, I thought it would be good for folks to see the kind of behavior we have to put up with. In the post, I never named your name so you could have remained anonymous. I even changed the wording so as not to violate your privacy – but you outed yourself.

    Once again I ask, would you like to do a separate debate, with rules, on one of the topics you brought up? If so, we can figure out a mutually acceptable format, topic and rules by e-mail or IM or something. If we debate, we can discuss the content of the articles (as you say you desire) but I’m not gonna go back and forth with you in a blog comment section dedicated to a debate on the resurrection! Doesn’t that seem reasonable?

    Please let me know …
    vm

    ps - this is a re-post from the BTF site...

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for your comment!

Follow by Email

Share it

CONTACT INFO:

To find out more about the ministry of BACKPACK APOLOGETICS or to schedule a speaking event at your church or school, contact Vocab:

E-mail: vocab@vocabmalone.com