Always Ready Ministries, a Skyline College-based group of Christian apologists, hosted this debate on the Skyline College campus, billing the debate as "David Fitzgerald (Atheist) vs. Chang Yuon (Christian)."
Chang won the coin toss and began his opening remarks with an acknowledgement that the burden of proof was on his side. He knows his Bible, and he pointed out many examples of how the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) "harmonize' with each other by offering different takes on the life of Jesus. Dave, however, hammered away with example after example of how the Gospels contradict each other (and not just on some minor points). Chang accused Dave, as an open atheist, of having a "bias" against the Bible. Dave agreed, and promoted the idea that bias is a good thing: approaching everything with a critical eye is important. Dave asked if Chang, and the Christians in the audience, approach, say, The Book of Mormon and the Bhagavad-Gita with bias.
In closing arguments, Dave very effectively asked Chang to repeat one of his closing arguments that implored people to read the Bible with strong faith and to not let the contradictions keep them from the underlying truth -- but to replace mention of "Bible" with "Book of Mormon." The point was made without Chang having to do that at all.
Is The New Testament Reliable? I came in thinking "no," and left with the same conviction.
18 comments:
You Americans have funny ways to spend your time ...
I'm wondering if that thing about your atheist association is a way to build a new non theist religion ? Is that need of "meeting" a specific american habit ?
I'm (as many french people) living my atheism alone, with readings (and your site and links are a good provider), but no "physical" nor "official" association.
Please note that those are really questions and are not "aggressive" as my poor english writing may suggest ...
Too often we see bias in other's arguments but not our own. I liked his suggestion of replacing the other guy's "bible" for "book of Mormon" to demonstrate the bias.
I really like these debates about the Bible, because is the best novel ever written. I was grown in the Catholicism and maybe because that I don't buy it. Once in a while I like also to hear the different points of view, but still I think is kind of a SCI_FI novel.
Last week I was reading some part of the Old Testament (Genesis--Abraham's life) and I was amazed, because I didn't remember the whole story: infidelities, violence, sons out of the marriage, multiple lovers, rapists, revenge, wealthy, assassins, etc... is written there.
We don't need to see soap operas or to be amazed about the news. It is everything already written there, giving ideas to the good Catholics. :D
Have a nice day.
Was this debate more interesting than the current US Presidential candidate debates?
Just dropping in with a smile and hug to say hello!
~xo
Lee Ann
The Bible, tells you that there will be many false witnesses, and false testomony's. Do not waste your time with the book of Mormon.I have a hard time trying to understand, when most people do know right from wrong, and most know what a sin is and what there personal sins are. How can one ever be an atheist. It just does not make sense to me.
Cool post. I went to a speakers even about this back when I was in college.
You are officially tagged for the 8 random facts. Sorry
Happy Fourth of July!
Religion can be the root of all evil or the root of all that is good. One thing that is always made clear, regarding religion, is you have the freedom of choice. You have the freedom to think and act as you wish. You don't need to heed the word of God. He gave you free will . So free thinker you are right on. Keep thinkin free and someday you and I will know what the right way of thinking got us. Which is it...your way or mine???
Dios mio! You have been absent for as long as I have! San Francisco has a way of keeping us thriving in real life and away from the blogosphere now doesn't it?
*grins* YEP! I am BACK!
I believe it is reliable, based on my faith.
Thanks for dropping by my blog. :)
I'd just add that it's a wonderful world in that we have the option to believe and practice (or not) as we choose. I am a little confused as to what precisely is the point of this sort of debate, mainly because I just think people should be free to be who they like, and not feel it necessary to foist their beliefs on others. This goes for the religious in any form and atheists.
All I have to say is that Dave Fitzgerald fellow is a honey!
Franssoit ~ Thanks for sharing your French perspective. Things are different here in America. Religion is pervasive, even here in San Francisco. It can be lonely when you are an atheist and virtually everybody else is off living in a supernatural world (churchgoing, praying, God-this, God-that, etc.). I'm not sure if Americans meet/associate/congregate more than the French, but it's nice to socialize with others of like mind, especially when that "like mind" is a minority like not believing in gods!
VV ~ Yes, Chang was really dumbfounded when Dave suggested Chang implore people to read the Bible with strong faith and to not let the contradictions keep them from the underlying truth -- but to replace mention of "Bible" with "Book of Mormon."
Espe ~ Isn't it interesting to read the Bible with an independent mind? There's lots of ugly stuff in there. Yes, there's some nice stuff too, and it may be considered sci-fi -- but not-very-good sci-fi.
Mademoiselle ~ Oh, yes, this debate was much more interesting. The US Presidential candidate debates are not really debates at all: They are joint press conferences.
Lee Ann ~ Smiles and hugs back at'cha!
Anonymous ~ But you were born an atheist. We all are! Atheism is 100% natural. What's wrong with that?
MyUtopia ~ I wish there were more debates like this beyond colleges ... like outside academia or even in lower grade levels.
Bonzo ~ Sorry, got your "tag" too late I fear ...
Grandma ~ We have free will not because a god gave it to us -- it's a natural right. Of course we have freedom of choice. That's not even an issue. The issue is, are we making the right choice?
Miz B ~ You know it! It's easy to get distracted in this city! (((Big welcome hugs home!!!)))
Skittles ~ OK, but is it reliable based on your reasoning?
Liv ~ This debate was developed by a group of Christians. You'd have to ask them what the point was. Of course "people should be free to be who they like" -- no one argues with that.
"Foisting beliefs on others" is one thing; advocating your position is another. Don't you try to encourage people towards certain behaviors you feel are good? Actually, Christians are commanded to proselytize by their Bible; and an atheist may simply want to share the benefits of his/her naturalistic life, free of dogma and superstition.
Zhadi ~ Yep, Dave is one righteous dude!
Franssoit ~ I must share with you an article that appeared in today's Wall Street Journal that offers more insight to your puzzlement of the pervasive religiosity in America:
Our Religious Destiny
By ARTHUR C. BROOKS
August 20, 2007; Page A11
Recently the presidential campaigns have been turning to talk of the candidates' religious faith. Barack Obama proclaims a "personal relationship" with Jesus Christ. Democratic candidate John Edwards is on the religious offensive, speaking for Jesus himself when he tells an interviewer he thinks Christ "would be appalled" by our current policies regarding poverty and the war. Even the candidate who is arguably the least religious of the frontrunners -- Rudy Giuliani -- feels compelled to defend himself publicly on questions of whether he is "Catholic enough."
The salience of religion in our presidential politics perplexes Europeans, who generally see religion as a weird relic from the pre-scientific past. If Angela Merkel or Nicolas Sarkozy had made public statements during their campaigns about their personal relationship with Jesus Christ, it probably would have ended their political aspirations right then and there. As the head of a French think tank put it, "The biblical references in politics, the division of the world between good and evil, these are things that [Europeans] simply don't get. In a number of areas, it seems to me that we are no longer part of the same civilization."
This is now hyperbole. According to data from the 2002 International Social Survey Programme, an American is four times likelier than a Frenchman to attend a house of worship regularly, and eight times likelier than a Norwegian. Europeans are more likely to disdain faith openly: In 1998, the average Dane was seven times likelier than an American to agree that, "Religions bring more conflict than peace."
Many secular Americans envy the nonreligious Europeans and look expectantly to the day our presidential candidates finally abandon once and for all tortured religious rhetoric and focus on the earthbound business of human politics. This is not just evident from the lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of public manifestations of religiosity. The free market reveals it as well -- witness the best selling success of recent books that make the case for atheism and rail against religion in public life, such as Richard Dawkins's "The God Delusion" and Christopher Hitchens's "God is not Great."
Markets don't lie: Lots of Americans are obviously sympathetic. Yet in all likelihood religion will grow as a social force in American culture and politics over the coming decades. The reason: A secular nation needs secular citizens. And nonreligious Americans are outstandingly weak when it comes to the most efficacious way to achieve this: by having kids.
If you picked 100 adults out of the population who attended their house of worship nearly every week or more often, they would have 223 children among them, on average, according to the 2006 General Social Survey. Among 100 people who attended less than once per year or never, you would find just 158 kids. This 41% fertility gap between religious and secular people is especially meaningful because people tend to worship more or less like their parents. According to data collected in 1999 by Gallup, 60% of adults who were taken to church at least once per month as children grew up to attend at least this often; only 15% stopped attending as adults.
The demographic implications are even more profound for the political left, where a disproportionate number of secularists are located. Religious people who call themselves politically "conservative" or "very conservative" are having, on average, an astounding 78% more kids than secular liberals. Studies show that people are even more likely to vote like their parents than they are to worship like them. The secular left, therefore, has to rely on the tough slog of bringing people from the political and religious middle over to their views. The religious right simply has to keep having lots of babies.
In short, unlike Europe, there is no indication that the competitive market for souls will shrivel any time soon. And candidates likely will be demonstrating their religious credentials for many elections to come.
I wish I saw that debate!
Awesome.
Cousin Dave,
Love you, man!
Post a Comment