Seraph wrote:Good point, but you don't need to give them the undeserved honour of a formal debate in order to do so. Saying something like "How do you argue with someone whose idea of "reasonable faith" leads to a defense of genocide, and claims that the bible is true is because an inner voice tells you so?" in any interview where the question of a debate with Lane Craig comes up, will do..Morticia. wrote:Easy.How do you argue with someone whose idea of "reasonable faith" leads to a defense of genocide
Go on the attack.
Be outraged.
Be emotional.
Take the moral high ground.
Say you are sickened and call the person defending genocide a monster. Tell him he should be ashamed of himself for stating something so sickenly evil and anti-social.
Because life isn't a reasonable debate, you aren't there to win points, you're there to win the hearts of the people listening to the debate.
I've seen these formal debates. Generally the only ones following the 'rules' are the academics/rational people.
Nutcases use the debates as a platform to attack and proselytise and get sound bites for the future.
It's very amusing when us sciency types don't follow the rules, when we behave just like the irrationalists, first they are shocked, then they are angry.
They need us to behave in a certain way for them to follow their game plan. And us going on the attack , appealing to emotion and taking the moral high ground, and doing it first and assertively, is not what they ever expect.
I can tell you a story or two about men, their all brave when the sun's out and their being paid....you ask them to volunteer an opinion nowadays. 
