If god is true, why are christians so terrible at debating?

[Jobar]

Thats what Stalin thought at first but judgement-day will be a surprise (i.e. for the wicked).

Just curious, do you ever worry that, when you arrive for judgement, that you may find a golden calf rather than pearly gates at the entrance?

Lol ... Never crossed my mind.

http://www.couldbeworse-comic.com/_2paneltales/_panels/051.png

 

[Learner]

Link noted Jobar

 

[Lion IRC]

If I were debating, and I had A FREAKIN' PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH GAWD on my side, I would never lose an argument.

I never lose an argument.
If you don't accept arguments for God you are the one who loses.

Yet Christians seem so _alone_ when they talk about proving their god..

Yeah. I've seen your version of 'debating' Christians who seem so alone.

 

[Rhea]

So... yeah. Um, exhibit A.

 

[braces_for_impact]

It's easy to win arguments if you keep your blinders on and never admit defeat when all you do is run away.

 

[Lion IRC]

Nobody who is winning an argument runs away.
Neither are they likely to simply cave in to an opponent who unilaterally claims victory.

 

[Lion IRC]

Rhea says Christians shouldn't lose debates if God is on their side.
And I agree 100%

So much so that I think the corollary would explain why atheists lose so many AvT debates.

 

[bilby]

That WLC is too dim to grasp when he has lost an argument is not support for your position; Quite the reverse.

Being popular is not the same thing as being right.

 

[Rhea]

Rhea says Christians shouldn't lose debates if God is on their side.
And I agree 100%

Nuance: Rhea said that if there was a personal relationship with a god, the arguments wouldn’t be stupid. Because presumably god would tell his followers wise and useful thing to share. So the christians’ debating skills would be better.

But I can see how you would just take that at face value and stop there.

 

[Rhea]

Rhea says Christians shouldn't lose debates if God is on their side.
And I agree 100%

So much so that I think the corollary would explain why atheists lose so many AvT debates.

I looked at the results of your link and saw this:

William Lane Craig is a master debater of the highest order and has probably debated hundreds. As for how many he has won, it depends what your criteria are. He is slick, he is glib, he has a shtick that fits perfectly to the rules of the debates he takes part in, and he is very good at convincing the sympathetic part of his audience that he won.

His methods, however, are distinctly dubious. He is taking part in competitive debate, unbound by any restriction like having to stick to facts. Or to changing his arguments once debunked - and debunking in the course of a debate takes longer than making the argument. He's quite open that his faith overrides his facts.

Therefore, as one of the most skilled users of dark side debating tactics around he doesn't get opponents who have a clue. Debating with him is like wrestling with a pig in mud - you get muddy and the pig enjoys it. There's no point debating with someone who is not interested in fact or truth, just in point scoring

And I’m wondering why you posted it, since it makes the point of Christians not being good at debating and having to resort to trickery.

But, you know.

Exhibit B, I guess.

 

[Lion IRC]

"...he is very good at convincing the sympathetic part of his audience that he won."
This seems like a tautology. It's basically the definition of winning the debate.

 

[Rhea]

"...he is very good at convincing the sympathetic part of his audience that he won."
This seems like a tautology. It's basically the definition of winning the debate.

Oh. You think “winning a debate” is equal to having your cheerleaders cheer.
But _that’s_ the tautology. Your cheerleaders cheer for you because they cheer for you. That’s not the same as winning a debate about a topic.

 

[Random Person]

"...he is very good at convincing the sympathetic part of his audience that he won."
This seems like a tautology. It's basically the definition of winning the debate.

Oh. You think “winning a debate” is equal to having your cheerleaders cheer.
But _that’s_ the tautology. Your cheerleaders cheer for you because they cheer for you. That’s not the same as winning a debate about a topic.

Cheerleaders don't cheer when their team loses.

 

[Rhea]

At any rate, when I wrote the OP I was not thinking of the dog-and-pony show that WLC calls a “debate”. I was talking about an actual exchange of ideas.

But, thanks for, Exhibit C.

- - - Updated - - -

Cheerleaders don't cheer when their team loses.

Yeah, they kinda do. LOL. (I’ve been a cheerleader - have you?). That’s part of the actual job description. (If you had a personal relationship with God, he’d have told you this)
And anyway, if they are christian cheerleader cheering for christians, 1000x.

 

[skepticalbip]

"...he is very good at convincing the sympathetic part of his audience that he won."
This seems like a tautology. It's basically the definition of winning the debate.

Oh. You think “winning a debate” is equal to having your cheerleaders cheer.
But _that’s_ the tautology. Your cheerleaders cheer for you because they cheer for you. That’s not the same as winning a debate about a topic.

Cheerleaders don't cheer when their team loses.

Then they are piss poor cheerleaders and should be replaced. Way back when I played football, the cheerleaders always cheered the players when they left the field, win or lose.

 

[Lion IRC]

William Lane Craig doesn't need to persuade me that God is real or get me to cheer
And he isn't winning debates by debating a ventriloquism dummy

 

[Random Person]

Cheerleaders don't cheer when their team loses.

Then they are piss poor cheerleaders and should be replaced. Way back when I played football, the cheerleaders always cheered the players when they left the field, win or lose.

Did they cheer when your team fumbled the ball or when the other team intercepted a pass? How about when the other team scored?

 

[Random Person]

At any rate, when I wrote the OP I was not thinking of the dog-and-pony show that WLC calls a “debate”. I was talking about an actual exchange of ideas.

But, thanks for, Exhibit C.

- - - Updated - - -

Cheerleaders don't cheer when their team loses.

Yeah, they kinda do. LOL. (I’ve been a cheerleader - have you?). That’s part of the actual job description. (If you had a personal relationship with God, he’d have told you this)
And anyway, if they are christian cheerleader cheering for christians, 1000x.

That's awesome. That sounds delightfully deranged.

 

[Rhea]

Cheerleaders don't cheer when their team loses.

Then they are piss poor cheerleaders and should be replaced. Way back when I played football, the cheerleaders always cheered the players when they left the field, win or lose.

Did they cheer when your team fumbled the ball or when the other team intercepted a pass? How about when the other team scored?

Are you serious? Do you not understand cheering or even supporting your team through thick and thin? How about parenting?


Five Ways to Cheer for a Team That ACTUALLY Loses

 

[skepticalbip]

Cheerleaders don't cheer when their team loses.

Then they are piss poor cheerleaders and should be replaced. Way back when I played football, the cheerleaders always cheered the players when they left the field, win or lose.

Did they cheer when your team fumbled the ball or when the other team intercepted a pass? How about when the other team scored?

That's just sad that you had a mother who jeered at you rather then encouraging you when you didn't perform perfectly.