| Line 123: |
Line 123: |
| | On August 28, 2011, Vox Day declared concerning Myers: | | On August 28, 2011, Vox Day declared concerning Myers: |
| | {{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>Day, Vox (August 28, 2011). [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/08/can-one-dodge-dodger.html "Can one dodge a dodger?"] Vox Populi website. Retrieved on May 15, 2015.</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>Day, Vox (August 28, 2011). [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/08/can-one-dodge-dodger.html "Can one dodge a dodger?"] Vox Populi website. Retrieved on May 15, 2015.</ref>}} |
| − |
| |
| − | ==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]]:
| |
| − | {{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:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | All parties agreed ... to limit the debate to a single issue, that of the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus. The debate was not to be concerned with issues such as God's existence, revelation (such as the Bible), or miracles in general. These issues could, however, be addressed in the question and answer session following the formal debate.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Because audiences are perennially interested in who the experts choose as the winner of a public debate, we organized two panels of experts in their respective areas of specialty to render a verdict on the present subject matter. One panel consisted of five philosophers, who were instructed to judge the content of the debate and render a winner. The second panel consisted of five professional debate judges, who were asked to judge the argumentation technique of the debaters. All ten participants serve on the faculties of American universities and colleges such as the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Virginia, Western Kentucky University, James Madison University, George Mason University, Randolph-Macon College (Ashland, Virginia), Sweet Briar College, and Liberty University. We attempted to choose persons of a wide spectrum of views and persuasions.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The decisions of our judges were as follows. The panel of philosophers, judging content, cast four votes for Habermas, none for Flew, and one draw. ...<ref>Keathley, J. Hampton, III (June 2, 2004). [http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=639 "Evidences for the resurrection"]. Bible.org website. Retrieved on May 15, 2015.</ref>}}
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The panel of professional debate judges voted three to two, also in favor of Habermas, this time regarding the method of argumentation technique.<ref>Work, Telford (November 2, 2002). [http://www.westmont.edu/~work/faq/resurrection.html "Theological FAQ: Is the resurrection of Jesus historical"]. TelfordWork.net. Retrieved on May 15, 2015.</ref>
| |
| | | | |
| | ==Kai Nielsen versus J.P. Moreland debate== | | ==Kai Nielsen versus J.P. Moreland debate== |