A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy. *** If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value? *** If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic? *** Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.
Sunday, November 9, 2014
Hemant Mehta Inadvertantly Admits That He Cannot Prove There is No Deity
And that's why he won't debate the issue.
Right around 2:10 to 2:15...
Apparently science and logic have failed him on that point.
Relevant assertion comes at 2:08: "In the case of whether God exists, you have two sides trying to make points that neither of them can prove definitively."
But Mehta can't seem to make up his mind as to what debates are about. He won't debate the existence of God, because he insists neither debatant is going to change his mind. Yet he asserts his belief that atheist the atheist side in some debates has made points that have probably changed some audience members' thinking.
The purpose of public debates has never, it seems to me, been about either participant convincing the other (else why not just have a private debate), but about putting ideas out there for the audience -- to, in Mehta's words "put on a show".
I suspect the reason why Mehta has given up on "God debates" is because he has finally realized theists have very strong arguments in favor of God's existence which can't be discredited by mere rhetorical tactics.
2 comments:
Relevant assertion comes at 2:08: "In the case of whether God exists, you have two sides trying to make points that neither of them can prove definitively."
But Mehta can't seem to make up his mind as to what debates are about. He won't debate the existence of God, because he insists neither debatant is going to change his mind. Yet he asserts his belief that atheist the atheist side in some debates has made points that have probably changed some audience members' thinking.
The purpose of public debates has never, it seems to me, been about either participant convincing the other (else why not just have a private debate), but about putting ideas out there for the audience -- to, in Mehta's words "put on a show".
I suspect the reason why Mehta has given up on "God debates" is because he has finally realized theists have very strong arguments in favor of God's existence which can't be discredited by mere rhetorical tactics.
Post a Comment