Changes

{{cquote|What you clearly do not understand is that, [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/we_arent_angry_were_effective.php by his own admission], PZ relies heavily upon emotional arguments rather than logical ones when he cannot simply appeal to an established scientific consensus. "I'll also cop to the obvious fact that, knowing that reason will not get through their skills, I'm happy to use emotional arguments as well. Passion is persuasive." His tendency to rely upon emotional rhetoric and passion rather than reason is precisely why he is afraid to debate people who rely primarily upon logic, because his ability to present reason-based arguments is relatively low. His ability to utilize reason is simply not equal to the skill of others who make use of it more effectively. PZ is without question an effective preacher to the godless choir of science fetishists, but he is remarkably unskilled at presenting convincing arguments, let alone conclusive ones, to those who do not already agree with him. Unlike you, he knows he is not an effective evangelist.<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/08/can-one-dodge-dodger.html Can one dodge a dodger?]</ref>}}

{{cquote|What you clearly do not understand is that, [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/we_arent_angry_were_effective.php by his own admission], PZ relies heavily upon emotional arguments rather than logical ones when he cannot simply appeal to an established scientific consensus. "I'll also cop to the obvious fact that, knowing that reason will not get through their skills, I'm happy to use emotional arguments as well. Passion is persuasive." His tendency to rely upon emotional rhetoric and passion rather than reason is precisely why he is afraid to debate people who rely primarily upon logic, because his ability to present reason-based arguments is relatively low. His ability to utilize reason is simply not equal to the skill of others who make use of it more effectively. PZ is without question an effective preacher to the godless choir of science fetishists, but he is remarkably unskilled at presenting convincing arguments, let alone conclusive ones, to those who do not already agree with him. Unlike you, he knows he is not an effective evangelist.<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/08/can-one-dodge-dodger.html Can one dodge a dodger?]</ref>}}

==Anthony Flew and Dr. Gary Habermas Debate Regarding the Resurrection of Jesus Christ==

==Anthony Flew and Dr. Gary Habermas Debate Regarding the Resurrection of Jesus Christ==

An article hosted by Westmont College states the following regarding the debate between former atheist Anthony Flew (who has since become an ex-atheist) and Dr. Gary Habermas which focused on the issue of the [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus Christ]]:  

An article hosted by Westmont College states the following regarding the debate between former atheist [[Anthony Flew]] (who has since become an ex-atheist) and Dr. [[Gary Habermas]] which focused on the issue of the [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus Christ]]:  

{{cquote|Another helpful resource for judging the demonstrability of the resurrection is Terry L. Miethe, ed., Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate. It chronicles a debate between Gary Habermas and Antony Flew held at Liberty University in 1985:

{{cquote|Another helpful resource for judging the demonstrability of the resurrection is Terry L. Miethe, ed., Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate. It chronicles a debate between Gary Habermas and Antony Flew held at Liberty University in 1985: