Q&A: The Atheist Line
The Atheist Line
Question
Hello Rabbi Michael,
For some time now I’ve occasionally been watching episodes of The Atheist Line, and it seems like there’s simply no logical reason to believe. It looks like in every debate there the atheists always win, refute all the arguments for the existence of God, and show why religion in general and Judaism in particular are something terrible.
I’d be glad to hear your thoughts about the program in general and about my question in particular.
Thank you.
Answer
I haven’t listened to it, so I can’t offer an opinion about the program itself. What I can say is that this program is not fair, and therefore when they invited me to come on, I didn’t agree unless it would be done in an equitable way.
Think about the situation as they stage it. Two skilled hosts, for whom this is their main occupation, against one speaker who is just some random ordinary person. They sit in front of the screen and the viewer sees only them, while that poor guy is trying to speak over the phone. The ones visible to the viewers, and the ones controlling the conversation, are of course the atheist duo. No wonder the result is a one-sided picture.
You can compare this with two debates I had with one of the hosts there, Aviv Franco, which were conducted in a more equal format. It would be interesting to see whether you’d still think the conclusion is the same there. Search here on the site or on YouTube.
Discussion on Answer
“Which were conducted in a more equal format” — is there a hint here that even in those two debates the editing wasn’t completely even-handed?
No.
I actually came away with the opposite impression of The Atheist Line. Many times they don’t even bother to understand the argument the caller is trying to make; they beat him on technicalities because he’s connected shakily over the phone, and then laugh at the claim they didn’t understand him.
Anyone with even a little familiarity with philosophical discussions can see that they often dismiss well-known and weighty philosophical arguments in a way that makes them come off as rather ignorant. In general, the style is very demagogic, and they don’t give arguments proper weight or respect; instead they present a straw man version of the argument and attack it demagogically. (It does depend somewhat on who is appearing in that episode.) Just a show for fools. Watch, for example, Alex O’Connor, and you’ll see that it’s entirely possible to be an intelligent atheist who treats arguments respectfully. The Atheist Line is the Amnon Yitzhak of the atheists — he also always beats the heretics.
Hello,
In my opinion, in general it’s a bad idea to use debates to examine an issue and form an opinion about it, because rhetorical skill and the art of argument are the main factors shaping the viewer’s impression, not the arguments themselves. A true claim can be presented badly, and a false claim can be presented well.
As for me, I try to focus on written material, and even there — in order to neutralize the effect of writing skill — I read several different writers from each side, and summarize for myself the various arguments and a clear explanation of what the actual point of disagreement is. That way I can form an objective opinion, as much as possible.
Thank you very much!