I don’t have to do as much research anymore as I used to. I’ve found that by this point I’ve heard it all, so I already know what to say. But I usually do some oppo anyway, to at least know what kind of angle they tend to take (also helps to identify when they lie, e.g. pretend they don’t believe in hell or the goodness of biblical genocide when in fact they do, etc.).

That’s a good point. I am still interested in how you do (or don’t) prepare for debates. Do you read and watch videos on your opponent in all cases? Only specific cases? Or do you feel you have a firm enough grasp of the topics that you consider all apologists the same?

You basically just described every Christian apologist and almost every debate with a Christian apologist ever. There won’t be anything new about that. Where he goes to defend his position (whether the tinfoil hat of presuppositionalism or inerrancy or creationism or fideism or anything else), I’ll be there to point out why it’s implausible or even outright false or illogical. That’s what these debates are always about.

Religion is not a Coca Cola advertisement. It’s a whole complex of ideas, a belief system, that encompasses everything from an understanding of the nature of humanity and the universe, to epistemology and ways of knowing, to morals and meaning. Advertising techniques are involved in disseminating religion, and keeping people from leaving religion. But those techniques are not “the religion.” Meanwhile, recognizing what the product is (the package, which is a worldview) doesn’t change a single thing I said about that “product” being always in some degree bad for us, no matter how mild it is.

I fail to see the relevance of that here. But since you’re curious: here.

I decided to look up a bit on Dr. McDurmon just to get an idea of what kind of position he’d be coming from (really just to see if the debate would be likely to add anything more than you’ve already said in other debates or media). It appears Dr. McDurmon practically deifies Greg Bahnsen, and is a presuppositionalist. I read him quote Van Til in seemingly uncritically claiming that all history and archaeology will (or must) confirm the bible (because it’s already presupposed to be true). Maybe you have a different take, but I have a hard time understanding how someone from that position can even engage in the debate proposed here.

Once you presuppose the claims in the bible, it is rational (ignoring the irrationality of using that presupposition) then that following all laws in the bible does in fact promote the most hope for human beings. It is almost definitional. It seems the only way that position can be challenged is to break down it’s foundations (once again devolving into whether or not god exists or if the bible is that god’s word).

Maybe I’m getting ahead of myself, but I’m also listening to him talk about slavery in the bible and it’s riddled with common deflections and rationalizations that are just silly. He admits there are prescriptions for slavery in the bible, but flat out lies in saying that it’s only for debt and crimes. He says the thing wrong with American slavery is that there was man-stealing involved (ignoring apparently that the bible allows buying of slaves from the heathens around – and many slaves were sold by African tribe leaders themselves). Sorry, this isn’t the debate, but I just have such low expectations that the official topic of the debate is likely to hold.

I beg to differ. May be I don’t understand phenomena from the level you see. Still, Why do you keep referring the businesses (Product + Advertising + Business organisation) of major religions as World View?

If Coca Cola sells something with the advertisements of ” Let’s make a better world ” Open coca cola, open happiness ” for selling, does it constitute as a world view ?

Both debaters in this instance agree none of those other worldviews even competes for being good for the world. So it’s not a proposition we need debate in this case. If someone else wants to organize a debate with me proposing some other worldview (Islam? Buddhism?) as “best for the world” I’m game. But that would be a different debate, with a different person, at a different venue.

Atheistic naturalism being part of rational inquiry in parallel with Scientific Method can be applicable for the world world but, Biblical Christianity is only valid if you assume that the limit of the world are those parts of the human habituated world where Christianity has a major control over the lives of people living there. Which doesn’t seems to be the case.

China, Japan, India, Srilanka, Indonesia, Pakistan to name a few and Middle east countries. Are they not part of the world?