I think Hitchens said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Actually, it was Carl Sagan, just to give the dear man his due. ;-)

Actually, to be really accurate, the expression originated with Nobel Physicist Murray Gell-Mann.

First, as noted here, one-on-one debates are largely hopeless, given the Teflon-coating of Christian theology ("The wisdom of the world is but foolishness unto God") and the sheer numbers involved. Second, I realize that the rank-and-file, run-of-the-mill Christian usually has a large emotional investment in their belief system. I'm not talking about the fire-breathers, whom I actually rarely encounter in real life, but the everyday practicing Christians I meet. For some of these people, their religion is as necessary as the air that they breathe, and I get a bad taste in my mouth at the thought of knocking the wind out of their lungs.

The other night I was watching "Twist of Fate," the Matt Lauer piece about the two Minnesota girls involved in a traffic accident that killed one of them; the other girl was hospitalized, but wrongly identified as the dead girl. For weeks the dead girl's family cared for the surviving girl, thinking she was their daughter. When the truth was finally revealed, it had to be emotionally the seventh circle of hell for them. What kept them going in the aftermath was their religious faith. Never mind that a truly good God would never let these things happen in the first place. Would I, if I had the chance, remind them of that point in an attempt to "convert" them? Even if they finally agreed with me, it would be a Pyrrhic victory indeed, for I would have robbed them of the one comfort they had left.

Furthermore, I just don't see much cost-benefit ratio in one-on-one debating; rather, I think we should concentrate our efforts on finding a really good public debate champion, someone to go toe-to-toe with the likes of William Lane Craig. I've had the misfortune of arranging a debate between Craig and a champion provided by the Internet Infidels; it was a rout for the other side. I think we should be looking for someone who can handle Craig easily, then go on to become a talking head for the cable news shows. Right now we seem to be providing them with Christopher Hitchens, who comes off as a pompous jackass, and Ellen Johnson, who is personable but misses on key debating points. Being able to succinctly and personably present our point of view in the mass media seems to me to afford a lot more opportunity for reaching the "lurkers" and fence-sitters who might be out there.

As for me, while I don't shirk away from a good debate, these days I have taken to starting off by telling my would-be opponent, "I'd be glad to debate you, but these things always end in one of three ways: 'I don't pretend to have all the answers', 'It all comes down to faith', or 'The Lord works in mysterious ways.' I'll consider any of those three answers a cry of 'uncle' and the debate will be over." Things rarely move beyond that stage, and my time is the better for it.

On another thread, someone proposed a religion which anoints with motor oil, Valvolinism. I say we establish sister sects, so that all can enjoy olive oil massages, good wine, and fast cars. I have no problems with ecumenical approaches to these things, do you, heliobates?

Let's face it, people are going to be offended by any presentation of a world view diametrically opposed to their core, foundational beliefs. That can't be helped. What we can help is going out of our way to offend just to be offensive.

Except to make the writer feel good, I don't understand how these crude ad hominem attacks contribute to the process of argumentation, other than to anger the one or ones being attacked, creating bad feelings all around. It disapoints me greatly to see such language from those who claim to rely on rational, empirical, scientific, logical, etc. thought processes. Maybe I'm being simple and too idealistic, but so be it.

I think Hitchens said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Actually, it was Carl Sagan, just to give the dear man his due. ;-)

Those who have said they converted from Christianity to atheism never prayed and studied The Bible in any systematic way, and if you read The Bible at all, you read it with a "carnal" mind, you weren't Christians at all. Since arriving at this site, I began to realize that you will unwittingly strengthen the Christian faith.

How much counterevidence would change your mind about that?

For my part, my assessment of the Bible went down upon reading it. Jesus Christ's cursing a certain fig tree I found appallingly immature. And the Book of Revelation? Was its author on drugs?

"Freethinkers," now if that isn't an oxymoron. You aren't free at all, you are in bondage. You are bonded to the carnal, temporal world - for you that is all there is.

If living in a fantasy world makes you happy, go ahead. But don't whine about how misunderstood you are.

I say line the floor with grapes, apply the oil for a good massage, sheen and lube and drink wine when all is said and done.

... and each claim victory for his sect. You must not miss the whole point of the exercise! This is an article of faith. There is no getting laid without getting righteous about it.

"A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets."
Arthur C. Clarke

Heliobates: Have you never stepped on the grapes that fall to the floor in the supermarket? I say line the floor with grapes, apply the oil for a good massage, sheen and lube and drink wine when all is said and done. It is an Olympic year after all. Go big.