Doug Krueger On My Debate Strategy

Doug Krueger is a philosopher, debater, and author of the book What Is Atheism?: A Short Introduction. He responded to an email I sent him recently:

I wrote:
I don't really care whether or not some kind of god exists. I deny the Christian God. Once I can provoke doubt about that kind of God then the other gods will go by the wayside for the same reasons. Many atheists attack me for this but it's a strategy of mine based on my own anecdotal experience that I have never heard of a single Christian leaving the fold because he or she thought the arguments for the existence for God were faulty.

My goal is not to win debates but to change minds, although winning would be nice too. All some atheists are concerned with is whether or not I win debates. They don't understand what I'm doing. Do you? What do you think of this?

Doug writes:
I think your strategy is exactly right. Not a single debate opponent I've had believed in only a generic "God-of-the-Philosophers." Not a single one had a constituency interested in whether there was a God aside from the Christian one.

In fact, in at least two of my dozen or so debates, I was told by debate organizers that my opponent would be arguing for a generic god and not for Christianity in particular, and I was told in no uncertain terms that it would be a colossal waste of my time to prepare any anti-Christian arguments, such as against the empty tomb or the transformation of the apostles, etc. Well, in both cases I was told a lie, but fortunately I knew it was a lie and when the opponent argued for the Christian god in particular I was well prepared.

I agree with your approach. However, your point that it is also good to win debates is good too. Even if your opponent wins a debate about a generic god, though, the Christians will take that as a win for the Christian god.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

More support for my claims can be found in two links, where I said I don't care if God exists, and Why Did You Leave the Fold?

Abby Normal said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
christophermencken said...

John, I don't know if anyone knows what the best way to debate this stuff is. But what I like is you're well-educated in the field, and you're following a very strong hunch/following your heart on the best way to spread your philosophy.

That to me seems to be a basic success strategy. Keep going out into the arena and test your debate strategy theory. Time will tell if it's something you find effective or that you wish to modify in the future.

Clare said...

I have only done one major debate, against Christian apologist Joe Boot in Canada. There were 400 people present, mostly Baptists. I made some of the same mistakes you did, such as covering too much in one go, and not pausing long enough between topics. However, all the humanists and atheists congratulated me on my win afterwsrds and even Christians' reviews were positive. If you want a link I can send it to you (I don't want to post it here, as this is your blog) The full version is on Vimeo- Youtube has a shortened version.

Anonymous said...

Your stategy is right on. If none of the gods out there that people worship is "THE GOD", then it's virtually a non-issue for anyone to argue the case for some philosophical god that obviously nobody knows anything about(if the philosophical god existed in the first place). Why would anyone worship something or someone beyond their knowledge?! For all we know the hypothetical, philosophical god might hate the idea of being worshiped. Although your strategy is simple and basic, it is nonetheless brilliant.

As for AtheistVet's comment.A valid point was made. When you ask for feedback on debates, you have to be open to it. It doesn't mean you have to agree with it or like it, but don't always be so defensive. "If it doesn't apply, let it fly." Your reputation speaks for itself on matters of debunking. I'm not saying that you should be a doormat for the ignorant, but positive criticism from supporters usually includes good intentions.

p.s. I bought your book, "Why I Became An Atheist" yesterday, and will start it today. Keep up the great work John!

Chuck said...

Execution and strategy are two different things. Stick with your strategy, it seems sound and keep debating to hone your execution. I was an actor for 10 + years and believe that good performance takes reps.

Glock21 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jim said...

A negative consideration is that if you lose the debate as to a first-cause god's existence, you will probably also lose the debate as to the Christian God's existence, because many Christians will automatically assume that the two gods are identical, even though there is not a shred of reliable evidence to support this assumption. In addition, the assumption tends to cause Christians to not listen to the many good arguments for the nonexistence of the Christian God.

Unknown said...

It seems that we always lose debates. Recently the Sam Harris/Mike shermer v. Depak was a rare win (on ABC). Just because we lose doesn't mean the information is incorrect, it just means that professional debaters (xtians) are good at the game of debating. do we even have a professional debater on our side (someone who's job is to debate)?
Kriss

openlyatheist said...

Krueger's book was a pivotal read in my youth. I read it along side Heeren's "Show Me God", and Glynn's "God: The Evidence". I was not impressed by theistic apologetics.

If anyone sees Doug, tell him I would love to review his debates.

archaeopteryx said...

John -
You mention, "My goal is not to win debates but to change minds" - I agree that you are wise to pick a specific god, rather than a generic one, and I certainly applaud your ability to go toe-to-toe with a fellow debater.

I, on the other hand, am definitely no debater. Being more passive/aggressive in my approach, I concentrate on providing facts, concepts, and perspectives outside the realm of the dogma with which a "believer" may have previously been instilled, my goal being not to change one's mind, so much as to free one's thought.

With freedom of thought, comes infinite possibilities.

Stephen H. Roberts once wisely summed up my own philosophy when faced with those who envision a supernatural being in charge of the Universe:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

archaeopteryx
in-His-own-image.com

Steven Carr said...

William Lane Craig ducks debates against Doug Krueger