Debate video

[steve]

Someone made an unofficial, amateur video of the atheism debate and posted it at youtube. It can be seen in multiple parts, which automatically play in sequence (link below). The audio is poor, having been recorded from a microphone on the video camera, which was in the audience. An audio recording was also made, which I assume will be clearer, as it was recorded through the P.A. system. I was promised a copy of this audio recording, and hope to post it what I get it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6bsZlcw ... playnext=1

[Jason]

Steve, you made some good arguments in this debate but I don't think your style is well suited to formats with strict time constraints. You strike me as an impressive expositor and typically such people don't make good sound-bite artists. This is one reason I don't particularly like professional debates, even though I listen to lots of them. The rules will always favor the the one who makes best use of concise, emotional arguments (without respect to rationality). It's clear to me that when people start judging God, they have abandoned the use of reason so trying to be even more logical with them can have diminishing results as it makes you look cold. It's so ironic that in debates like this, the Christians often come off as logical to a fault and the atheists appear more emotionally-inclined with their arguments. It's reason versus rhetoric and in shallow formats like professional, timed debates, the Christian don't always look as good.

By the way, the guy in the audience wearing the black shirt simply wanted to make you look stupid and had no interest in hearing your answer. His body language alone made that clear, as did his excessive hogging of the mic and interruptions. Did you talk to him after the debate? It was an interesting subject but not at all suited for a two minute response or whatever it was you guys had. It's so frustrating when people ask a loaded question and get angry when you don't give them a ten second response that removes all objections.

[steve]

I agree with all that you have said. However, I don't regret having even a brief opportunity to speak to atheists in the audience, or even to establish a rapport with an opponent (BIll and I are beginning what I hope will be an on-going dialogue by email). The belligerent questioner did talk with me afterward, and I was surprised to see less cockiness in his attitude when he was not talking publicly in front of his atheist friends and professors. The smirk was gone, and, whether he went away convinced or not, he seemed to go away more humbly than he arrived. Friends of mine overheard grudging compliments of my presentation from atheist students in the informal conversations after the debate.

As far as my being ill-disposed to giving sound-bite answers...nothing could be more obvious. I had prepared to make nine points in my initial presentation. I got to mention two of them, briefly. I don't believe in short answers, unless a question can be answered adequately with a short answer. Most questions of any consequence can not. Nonetheless, debates like this have been known to bring antagonistic audience members into my radio audience, where they can hear longer answers and consider them privately (without the social pressure of their friends sitting with them in the debate audience). Sometimes, even when the hearer does not follow-up by seeking more information, there is a seed planted that eventually pesters them into the kingdom.

I just learned that one of the biggest fans of "The Narrow Path" is an atheist woman who actually works at the secular station that will be carrying my new program "The Road to Find Out." She works for a secular station, but spends her lunch break listening to me on a Christian station! I am planning to have her be a guest on the opening program this Sunday night.

Thanks for your observations. I can not disagree with your concerns.

[karenp]

I am currently viewing the video, and think that I may like to make a comment at some point.

[Jason]

Friends of mine overheard grudging compliments of my presentation from atheist students in the informal conversations after the debate.

I'd be curious to know what complaints they had. Do you mind sharing a couple? Bill seemed like a nice enough guy but his only real ammo (as with Chris Hitchens) came from pronouncing moral judgments on the God of the Bible. It's seriously all they've got. Once you shoot down their "rational arguments" they fall back on this trump card. Your views on the subject (especially the problem of evil) will never be popular because I'm not sure someone on the outside (as C.S. Lewis puts it) could understand. Lewis argued that some things can only be understood from the inside - and the problem of evil is one of them!

I did appreciate your controversial analogy and would love to hear you explore that further. It DOES sound blasphemes upon first hearing but only because we Christians think of sex as a dirty word.

[Michelle]

I did appreciate your controversial analogy and would love to hear you explore that further. It DOES sound blasphemes upon first hearing but only because we Christians think of sex as a dirty word.

Okay.....what?!?

[steve]

Jason,

You wrote:

I'd be curious to know what complaints they had.

I think you read me wrong. I said "compliments"...not "complaints."

Michelle,

Jason is referring to my saying that, because of my intimate experience with God, whenever I hear atheists making theoretical arguments against God's existence, it conjures up in my mind the picture of a guy, embittered by his failure ever to get to first base with a woman, making arguments attempting to convince a happily married man that there is no such thing as orgasms (I prefaced my sharing this analogy by saying that, while I feared the analogy would offend both atheists and prudish Christians, it had the merit of being a biblical analogy, since the sexual relationship between a husband and wife was created by God to correspond to His intimate relationship with His people). Despite the offense, I think it is an essentially perfect analogy, and no more inappropriate than things I have read in Ezekiel 16 or the Song of Solomon.

[Jason]

I think you read me wrong. I said "compliments"...not "complaints."

You're right. I don't think I've ever heard the term "grudging compliments" so my mind jumped over the second word! That's what happens when you stay up past your bedtime and try to make a post.

Now I'm even more curious to hear what kind of positive comments you were getting from Athiests in the audience. Despite my reservations about these kinds of debates, you should do more of them if they are bearing fruit.

[JasonK]

Steve made some very good points, and I generally enjoyed the debate, but they kind of talked past each other.

Steve presented evidence that there has to be a god based on information and obvious design and the atheist spent most of his time talking about his complaints about the Bible and religion and how the God of the Bible didn't do things they way he would, and barely addressed Steve's points.

The atheist said he grew up as a Christian, but I thought the United Methodist Church for the most part was closer to atheism than Christianity.

[darinhouston]

The atheist said he grew up as a Christian, but I thought the United Methodist Church for the most part was closer to atheism than Christianity.

Ouch! I'm not sure I'd go that far -- I was raised in both the United Methodist (Father) and Southern Baptist (Mother) churches.