1. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #58426 by maceach123 on July 24, 2007 at 7:07 pm

In the midst of a discussion on religion, I was asked in all seriousness why I need a definition for everything (something for which I had to stop the conversation several times to insist upon) My answer of course, was that without defining our terms ahead of time we're talking about different things (and therefore not having a single coherent conversation at all, but putting on little talking head plays where we try to monologue over each other). If we can't even agree that words need stable definitions (at least for the duration of a single conversation) it doesn't bode well for any talks of this kind.

I don't know how much this sort of thing bothers RD or Mr. Hitchens, but if it bothers you remember: God doesn't close a door without opening a window (or so I've heard) - when one side decides to play the shifting dictionary game, it opens up an opportunity for a little mischief and satire. A person who objects to narrow definitions in favour of ephemeral, fluid, and inclusive ones has signaled that he isn't interested in a serious conversation, and has invited you to have some fun and propose some truly ridiculous definitions of your own. An atheist being ironic is at least as frustrating to a believer (or in this case an apologist) as their arguments are to you, and maybe more likely to provoke a change in the way we approach debate and discussion. (Though I wouldn't bet to much on that last - satire is after all a mirror in which we see the vices of everyone but ourselves)