johnsummers348
Unregistered User
(4/12/04 2:07 pm) Reply
Holding's "tactics"
I believe on of Holding's best tactic is too simply outwork the skeptics in terms of the material he writes. In regards to specific Bible issues you will find Holding's material is at the top of the search engines and one of the reasons is that they are in depth and the search engines tend to reward in depth articles. Of course, I would not deny that populuarity is also used in terms of the search engines and that popularity is not the same thing as truth. I think, however, that if one compares Holding's articles with his leading opponents you will find Holding has much more extensive articles. Of course, length of articles does not equal truth either but it does show that Holding puts more effort into his articles. At the same time, however, many skeptics tend to be on the lazy side and think they can just rely on the definition that atheism is merely "a lack of belief in God or gods" ( I realize that there is more than one definition of atheism).
I do not think, however, that laziness is a way to effectively argue a point. I think the atheist/philospher debator Dr. Anthony Flew found that out when he debated the resurrection with Christianities strongest debator Dr. Gary Habermas. The judges ruled that both on tecnique and on content Flew lost to Habermas. Dr. Flew especially lost on content (the judges spead was more marked here) I believe, because there is excellent evidence for the resurrection. Here is a summary of the debate:
I you want to read about the debate in greater length I would recommend this book: Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?: The Resurrection Debate
by Gary R. Habermas, Antony G.N. Flew
Perhaps one of the reasons that Holding works harder on specific issues than most of his skeptical counterparts is that Holding is very convinced he is right and thus searches for answers because he believes they exist. One must consider that to my knowledge there are no materialist martyrs so it is at least a valid question on whether or not a specific professed atheist truly lacks a belief there is a God. There is certainly no real empirical evidence that professed atheists truly believe there is no God. Sartre, the most famous professed atheist of the 20th century said he sometimes had the thought that he was the result of a Creator. A website declares Sartre as saying in Harper's magazine:
"As for me, I don’t see myself as so much dust that has appeared in the world but as a being that was expected, prefigured, called forth. In short, as a being that could, it seems, come only from a creator; and this idea of a creating hand that created me refers me back to God. Naturally this is not a clear, exact idea that I set in motion every time I think of myself. It contradicts many of my other ideas; but it is there, floating vaguely. And when I think of myself I often think rather in this way, for wont of being able to think otherwise."
I believe the evidence is strong though that Sartre professed to be an atheist. Here is a education website's information below:
"Jean Paul Sartre was a well known French philosopher who lived from 1905-1980. His thought was influenced heavily by philosophers Heidigger and Husserl. He became one of the early proponents of existentialism, which emphasizes among other things, the ultimacy of human freedom. He considered himself an atheist existentialist (as opposed to a Christian existentialist) and eventually included Marxism and humanism in his philosophy."
johnsummers348
Unregistered User
(4/12/04 2:11 pm) Reply
clarification
I realize that a materialist would have no incentive to become a martyr. At the same time the lack of materialist martyr does raise the question on whether or not professed atheist truly believe there is no God and I do find Sartre's testimony revealing (Sartre was the most famous professed atheist in the the 20th century).
I would also say it appears that the Christians have afforded more tolerance to the atheist when they have been in power if one looks at history (read the history of North Korea, Soviet Union, China, Eastern Europe, etc).
johnsummers348
Unregistered User
(4/12/04 3:38 pm) Reply
clarification
I do not know exactly why Holding's articles seem to be longer than the skeptics articles in general in regards to specific cases and why they seem better researched. Nor am I saying that Holding's articles in every single case are the longest or even better researched. I certainly believe that given the truthfullness of Christianity Holding has a lot more ammunition to fire than the skeptics!
I have noticed, however, that even the most vociferous professed atheist, seem to be largely ignorant when faced with information that supports Christianity. There are very few atheist that have a broad scope of knowledge regarding the entire atheist/Christian debate. Most skeptics seem to concentrate on the creationist/evolutionist debate ( I discuss creation/evolution) in other section of this debate board. Although I would state that Pascal's wager has some flaws (for example, it is a two worldview scenario) I would say that putting all your chips on the creationist/evolutionist debate in terms of the atheist/Christian debate is a foolhardy thing to do given the consequences of being wrong if Christianity is true. There is certainly some wisdom in diversification and being somewhat knowledgeable in other arenas of the debate (history, archeology, etc). Now am I saying that a person should be the greatest of experts in all the arenas of debate. Clearly, this would be impossible. It just seems though that a skeptic who uses due diligence would at least be aware of Habermas's arguments, for example, since he is often cited as the strongest debator of the resurrection.
Also, I would concede that many people who consider themselves Christians are not ready to defend their faith in terms of Bible knowledge, etc.
Lastly, I would say that guessing the motivations of specific professed atheists or JP Holding is conjecture at best. I do see evidence via the web that Holding does seem to put more effort into his material, however. Given the evidence of Holding's dedication on specific issues versus his main/many critics I did offer some reasons that I believe these differences existed. I also did offer support for my position on the whole "psychology front" via evidence in another section of this debate board. I certainly think psychology has its limitations but even here Christianity does well!
johnsummers348
Unregistered User
(4/12/04 3:57 pm) Reply
addendum
I realize that guessing motivations of JP Holding or his specific critics is conjecture at best. I did, however, speculate on this matter given that Holding's articles seem to be better researched and more in depth in general. More importantly, I did show in another section of this debate board (Holding/psychology) that psychology appears to be no friend of atheism when one looks at the evidence carefully. I also discussed some to the limitations of psychology.
I still do think that that looking at the evidence is the acid test and often times when a person cannot effectively win a debate he turns to matters of tactics of his opponents and the psychology of his opponent. Now am I saying that "foul play" is to be totally ignored or that psychology is totally useless. No, I made no such claim. I do think, however, that this board spends entirely too much time on tactics and that it does not even do so effectively as I believe I have shown.
I do recommend the various Christian apologetic (an apologetic is a defense of something) sites which can be easily found via typing: christian and apologetics via the search engines.
johnsummers348
Unregistered User
(4/12/04 5:06 pm) Reply
re: tactics
When I spoke about this board spending too much time on tactics I was alluding to the fact that Holding has chosen not to link to certain skeptics articles and this websites owner's complaint regarding this which seems to be a central complaint of his. I discuss why I have no problem with this policy and I also demonstrate why the owner of this site is not consistent regarding the issue of links at these strings: pub149.ezboard.com/ftekto...ID=1.topic and pub149.ezboard.com/ftekto...ID=1.topic
I might be mistaken but I seem to have read at www.theologyweb.com that Till was doing something annoying to Holding and Holding told him that if he did not cut it out that there would be no links to his articles anymore. Till persisted and then Holding lowered the boom. I might be entirely wrong about this and the account might not even be true which was given by one of TWEb's members. I just remember this being the case. At any rate, given the low quality of Till's material and his evasive manner in which he cites material (which I demonstrated at: pub149.ezboard.com/ftekto...ID=1.topic ) I hardly think it is a great loss and so I do not frankly care why Holding does not link to Till's material.
Quote:I discuss why I have no problem with this policy and I also demonstrate why the owner of this site is not consistent regarding the issue of links at these strings: pub149.ezboard.com/ftekto...ID=1.topic and pub149.ezboard.com/ftekto...ID=1.topic
So you are claiming that because I have not yet made hotlinks to some quotes on my quotes page, that means I am being "inconsistent" in criticizing Turkel for not linking to the replies of the people he debates with. This is your charge.
Do you know why I do not have those links up yet? If so, please tell me the reason(s) why.
Thanks.
Brooks
johnsummers348
Unregistered User
(4/13/04 12:09 pm) Reply
reply to Broxident
Dear Broxident:
Yes, I do think you were being hypocritical. What's more I think I had a good reason for not giving you a blank check in regards to your unreferenced quotes. Please read: "WHY THIS SITES OWNER WAS HARD TO BELIEVE" at pub149.ezboard.com/ftekto...ID=2.topic
Quote:Yes, I do think you were being hypocritical. What's more I think I had a good reason for not giving you a blank check in regards to your unreferenced quotes.
It is too bad you feel that way about me, but it is also too bad that you believe in young earth creationism.
Do you post on TWEB, and if so, what is your name on TWEB?
Brooks
"Just admit you have no answer and save yourself decades of painful embarassment and the huge zit of being reamed by me further from the face of your existence." 12/30/03
johnsummers348
Unregistered User
(4/14/04 1:20 pm) Reply
To: Broxident
You last post cited:
"Just admit you have no answer and save yourself decades of painful embarassment and the huge zit of being reamed by me further from the face of your existence." "JP Holding" TWEB 12/30/03
I think you need to put a link on that last post of yours if you want be in conformity with your own professed standards. According to you it may be difficult for people to find that quotation via the information you posted. In short, please provide a link if you do not want to meet your own professed moral standards. I am referring to what I wrote at: pub149.ezboard.com/ftekto...ID=2.topic and pub149.ezboard.com/ftekto...ID=1.topic
You wrote:
"If you do not put links to the material you are arguing against and do not name the authors, people may not be able to find what you are arguing against. Furthermore, many people will not bother to make the effort to hunt down the material if there are no links. Do you understand and agree with this?"
johnsummers348
Unregistered User
(4/14/04 6:35 pm) Reply
to: broxident
Actually your last post cites no author of the quote you cited at the end of the first post although it has a date.
I am referring to:
"Just admit you have no answer and save yourself decades of painful embarassment and the huge zit of being reamed by me further from the face of your existence." 12/30/03
I suppose that is even harder for people to find. I think you need to reference it better. You need to put the name of the author of the quote and a link if you want to conform to your own moral standards which you strongly insist for Holding but have yet to achieve even closely yourself. I had put the author's name of the quote in for you in my previous post. Remember, links are crucial according to your own standards.
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies