• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

best atheist debaters

Hammer_of_Thor

Thinker
Hammer_of_Thor
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
164
Many people in here agree that Dawkins is not the best person to debate the subject of god. Dawkins though is seen by some believers as the leader of the atheist army. As I have the atheist debate with my brother and other people on different occasions, who can I pattern my debating style after? Who has very good arguments for the atheist view?
I dont really care for the RRS even though I agree with them and Dawkins seems to just get lost when his is debating.
Sam Harris is one that I think does a good job at getting his point across without raising his voice and insulting.

thanks all
 
Sam Harris is a strong debater. I think his composure sets a great example. Though, I think he tends to oversimplify things.

Honestly I don't see either of the two -- Dawkins and Harris -- as ideal spokespeople for atheism. Dawkins can misrepresent himself; Harris oversimplifies. But they're not terrible. They'll do, until they get assassinated.
 
They all have very good arguments but if you want to make a believer's head spin, act like Hitchens.

Shermer isn't bad either.
 
Yeah, I came here to say what KingMerv said. Shermer is very good, and I hope he steps up to the debate podium more frequently.

As for making the case against religion via pure entertainment, I'll go with Lewis Black or George Carlin. Hell, let's dig up Bill Hicks while we're at it.
 
Matt Dillahunty

He's the host of The Atheist Experience TV show that airs on a community access channel in Austin, and the audio is also podcasted. Listening to Matt is good for clarifying your own approaches for explaining your lack of belief. When I was watching the debate on ABC the other night, I just kept thinking about how much better Matt would have been.
 
Let me expand on the possible debaters:

P&T
Pro:Can be fun to listen to.

Con: Some people are annoyed by them and their comments focus more on entertainment than enlightenment.

Michael Shermer
Pro: Relaxed. Seemingly impossible to anger. Accurate.

Con: Might lack killer instict.

Christopher Hitchens
Pro: Amazingly eloquent and poetic. Very intelligent. Has no fear. King of killer instinct.

Con: Has a bad habit of saying nasty things that anger his opponents. Has flipped off the audience at least once.

James Randi
Pro: Good speaker. Polite while debating.

Con: Maybe too friendly.

Richard Dawkins
Pro: Good speaker. Knows his subject matter.

Con: Has no respect for religion and does not hide it. Can anger the fence-sitters.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand what problem people have with Dawkins. I like Sam Harris a lot but I've been a bit put off by his wooish views on other paranmormal crap.



Cello Man said:
Hell, let's dig up Bill Hicks while we're at it.
Click to expand...


Love Hicks but he had some pretty daft beliefs.
 
As a counter point: who do you think is currently the strongest theist debater?
 
Cello Man said:
Yeah, I came here to say what KingMerv said. Shermer is very good, and I hope he steps up to the debate podium more frequently.

As for making the case against religion via pure entertainment, I'll go with Lewis Black or George Carlin. Hell, let's dig up Bill Hicks while we're at it.
Click to expand...

George Carlin

I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it.

I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.

Religion convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's 10 things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll go to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you! ...And he needs money! He's all powerful, but he can't handle money!
Click to expand...
 
Part of my requirements for a "good" debater is persuasiveness. To be honest, I haven't seen anyone in either camp who is able to persuade the believers in the opposite camp.

Theist debaters either rely on emotion, which skeptics already have a deeper philosophical opposition to, or faulty science, which doesn't persuade skeptics either.

Atheist debaters rely on solid science, which does not appeal to the emotional theists. Atheist debaters almost never use an emotional tactic, because they feel it is beneath them... but it is the quickest way to a theist's heart.

Of the atheists listed so far, only Penn and Shermer have even made slight forays (as far as I know) into the appeal to emotion tactic.

The debate won't be won by presenting facts. The debate must be won by questioning the underlying philosophies.
 
Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, or Shermer...who's a better theist debater than any of them?
 
Shermer thinks skepticism is science. Dawkins puts everything in terms so he will never be wrong ("perinormal", "grand intelligence"), and Hitchens is probably too noisy to be taken seriously.

I'm not sure about Harris.

Out of those, probably Shermer is the best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom