{"id":2410,"date":"2011-07-28T07:28:59","date_gmt":"2011-07-28T12:28:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.dangeroustalk.net\/?p=2410"},"modified":"2011-07-28T07:28:59","modified_gmt":"2011-07-28T12:28:59","slug":"preparation-for-the-silverman-debate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.dangeroustalk.net\/?p=2410","title":{"rendered":"Preparation for the Silverman Debate"},"content":{"rendered":"

Yesterday I posted an article on Examiner<\/a> about an upcoming debate between Dave Silverman of American Atheists and Ann Coulter\u2019s ex-fianc\u00e9e, Dinesh D\u2019souza<\/a>. While some atheists feel comfortable writing off D\u2019Souza as a hack, the fact is that he is a very intelligent and skilled hack. So I thought I would help Dave prepare.<\/p>\n

D\u2019souza is an experienced debater\u2026 possibly even a master (snicker). He is intellectual enough for people to take him seriously and witty enough to not be considered stuffy. Silverman is less experienced and doesn\u2019t have the intellectual credentials that D’souza has. On the other hand, Silverman is also knowledgeable, passionate, and straightforward. He doesn’t take any bullshit either.<\/p>\n

First, D\u2019souza will almost certainly use what I call, the Carpet Bomb. He will fire off multiple issues and points of contention and expect Silverman to address them all. If Silverman doesn\u2019t address one of the points, D\u2019souza will call attention to how Silverman ignored his question or point. One way around this is to go first and to preempt the attack by either answering questions not yet made or Carpet Bombing him first.<\/p>\n

But if he goes first, then the best way to handle it is in four stages. First, call attention to it. Sam Harris often does this by saying, \u201cMy opponent has put a lot on the table.\u201d Second, address what you want to address. Third, refer people to the website for more detail on any issue you didn\u2019t have time to address. And forth, attack back!<\/p>\n

While the debate is titled, \u201cIs Christianity good for the world?\u201d D\u2019souza will quickly attempt to change the debate to, \u201cIs atheism good for the world?\u201d I think it is important to point out that atheism is simply a lack of belief. It isn\u2019t good or bad for the world necessarily. Humanism, reason, critical thinking, etc. are good for the world for obvious reasons. But I think it is also important not to get bogged down in this and to keep the focus back on the real question of the debate. It might even be wise to call attention to the fact that he creating a new debate which can be had at another time, but that today\u2019s focus is on Christianity.<\/p>\n

D\u2019souza has already hinted at one approach he will likely take. He is going to bring up Stalin, Pol Pot, and maybe even Hitler (despite the fact that Hitler was a Catholic) and hold these people up as the logical conclusion of atheism. Sam Harris had a good response to this type of argument when he said that those people had a religion of nationalism and that no one ever suffered for being too reasonable. But this might also be a good opportunity to talk about how some of the most atheistic nations in the world (Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, etc.) raked highest in quality of life indicators. Even in America, the states that are the most religious are also the states that rank worst in quality of life indicators.<\/p>\n

The final card D\u2019souza is likely to play is the moral monopoly card. This is where Sam Harris\u2019s book The Moral Landscape comes in handy. But Silverman could also use Hitchens here by pointing out how religious morality is actually pretty horrific.<\/p>\n

I have written a few short Examiner articles that I think might be useful:
\nHuman Rights: Religion vs. secularism<\/a>
\nAtheism 101: Is there moral grounding without God?<\/a>
\nAtheism 101: Is atheist morality grounded in evolution?<\/a>
\nAtheism 101: The Purpose of Life<\/a>
\nAtheism 101: The Problem of Evil<\/a>
\nAtheism 101: How atheist parenting differs from religious parenting<\/a>
\nAtheism 101: The \u201cNo True Scotsman\u201d Fallacy<\/a><\/p>\n

Related articles<\/h6>\n