The official RRS defeats Way of the Master thread

RationalRespons...
Moderator
RationalResponseSquad's picture
Posts: 556
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
The official RRS defeats Way of the Master thread

 

This is it. This is the official thread that Kelly and Sapient will try to interact with as many visitors as they can. If you are new here, welcome aboard. If viewing this from the homepage you can click the title of the thread, create an account, and post your comments. Kelly and Sapient will not have time to address all the email and would like to keep all of their exchanges public for the benefit of the readers who are curious. Soon we will have a downloadable document available right from this post that will expose as many arguments as we can expose from the ABC Nightline Face Off with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. Here are the highlights of the face off from our eyes...

 

Did we make mistakes in the full debate? Yes. We stumbled on a few words, made an inaccurate point or two, and made a weak point at a moment or two. Ironically our worst points still seemed to be too much for them. So while we welcome criticism, especially constructive, please keep in mind that we feel we have a good handle on what we did wrong. We'll grow, learn, and get better. What we're really hoping for in this thread is for the actual content and discussion about gods existence to be brought into question. Challenge us to continue, and we will continue to respond to your claims. If you are a theist, please feel free to post your scientific evidence for God, leaving out the miserable arguments that Ray Comfort has already been beaten on of course. If you are having trouble finding the video on ABCs website, you can find most/all of the videos here. DIGG it.

A thread on our message board that has links to the entire unedited debate.

Other threads of interest:

Nightline Editing Bias - The Supporting Data

Gregfl starts a thread about Bashirs big blunder and the Nightline portrayal.

Some of the Christian mail coming in [YOU RESPOND] about the debate.

Pertaining to Jesus Mythicism A thorough examination of the evidence for Jesus by Rook Hawkins

A Silence That Screams - (No contemporary historical accounts for "jesus) by Todangst

Video from Rook outlining the basics of Jesus Mythicism

 

UPDATE Sapient spoke with ABC and voiced concerns leveled by many atheists in the community that the editing job for the Nightline piece gave Ray and Kirk a free pass. The most commonly voiced criticism of ABC was that it managed to show the debate as somewhat even and that there was no clear victor. This discussion was accepted only under the understanding that Ray and Kirk would prove God exists without invoking faith or the Bible. Anyone that understood the format saw that Ray and Kirk failed at their premise as soon as the proof of God became the Ten Commandments. ABC was made aware that commentary like "It was difficult to know if either side could claim victory" gave the impression that they were pandering to their largely Christian audience. While Sapient understood that this may be a wise business move, it was noted that it wasn't an accurate representation of the discussion. The Rational Response Squad brought it's "B" game and still destroyed every claim Kirk and Ray threw at them. In more positive news, we were made aware that the ABC unedited video of the debate was viewed over 160,000 times in the first 12 hours. Hopefully a few people have found the strength to overcome their god delusion.

AND THE PWNAGE CONTINUES:


THE FULL DEBATE!

 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
mrjonno wrote: Excellent

mrjonno wrote:

Excellent video, but a couple of points on the science

1) The universe is definitely expanding and has been doing so for approximiately 14 billion years. This is measurable, testable and the 'heat' of the explosion can be detected

What actually happened in the first nano-seconds of the universe is generally unknown , our current physics simply can't explain it yet which is in no way evidence of god but a better answer would be to just explain what we do know and be open about what we don't

 

Static universe has always been here is one theory but is not generally supported

I'm just going to keep repeating that Brian was not invoking a static universe model. He was invoking either B or C on this list:

 

 

According to Penn State physicist Lee Smolin, there are three possible ways to decribe the nature of a singularity, not just one. Brian (and the RRS team) is denying A:

* [A] There is still a first moment in time, even when quantum mechanics is taken into consideration.

* [B] The singularity is eliminated by some quantum mechanical effect. As a result, when we run the clock back, the universe does not reach a state of infinite density. Something else happens when the universe reaches some very high density that allows time to continue indefinitely into the past.

* [C] Something new and strange and quantum mechanical happens to time, which is neither possibility A or B. For example, perhaps we reach a state where it is no longer appropriate to think that reality is composed of a series of moments that follow each other in a progression, one after another. In this case there is perhaps no singularity, but it may also not make sense to ask what happened before the universe was extremely dense.

 

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Named wrote: flyboy30

Named wrote:
flyboy30 wrote:

Since when did dialoguing with Nazis do any good? Religionists need to be told frankly and boldly that their empty beliefs are wrong and also we want them to shut up and stop trying to convert others.

Is it really necessary to use Nazi as a synonym for unquestionable evil?

I am completely opposed to religion... However, so was the Third Reich and Nazi Deutschland in general, so i'd appreciate them being left well alone while you condemn what was regarded as an enemy to them, too.

ARRRRGHHH...not this again!  Sorry, dude.  No offense.

I guess it falls to me to do this:

 

Adolf Hitler quotes:

"I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal." --Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

"I thank Heaven that a portion of the memories of those days still remains with me. Woods and meadows were the battlefields on which the 'conflicts' which exist everywhere in life were decided." --Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

"...God have mercy!" --Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

"I was not in agreement with the sharp anti-Semitic tone, but from time to time I read arguments which gave me some food for thought. At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Social Party." --Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

"How many of my basic principles were upset by this change in my attitude toward the Christian Social movement! My views with regard to anti-Semitism thus succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all."--Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."-- Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work."--Adolf Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936 

 

Where are those pictures of Nazis worshipping when I need it? Oh here: http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm <--

 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
CBX wrote:   Good, you

CBX wrote:
  Good, you admit that the universe is subject to entropy. However, you say that earth is not, how is it that earth manages to avoid this law, being in a closed system, but the universe cannot?

Because of a big yellow thing up in the sky. Some call it the sun.

The earth is an open system, because it takes in energy from the sun.

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
flyboy30 wrote:I am

Named wrote:

I am completely opposed to religion... However, so was the Third Reich and Nazi Deutschland in general, so i'd appreciate them being left well alone while you condemn what was regarded as an enemy to them, too.

This claim is false and demonstrative of a lack of historical knowledge of Germany.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/hitler_and_martin_luther

By the way, Hitler's religious beliefs are actually moot, what matters is that he called upon pre existent Lutherian inspired anti semitism. Hitler didn't invent persecuting Jews, the christians did.

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Named
Named's picture
Posts: 18
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
CBX wrote: Quote: Some

CBX wrote:
Quote:
Some people fail to distinguish the nature of the universe from their perception of it.
Profound indeed.
Quote:
These are the kinds of people who say such profoundly ignorant things as, "what matters is what is TRUE".
Ok. What matters is what is true, so what's the problem?

 

What is wrong is that you have displayed no ability to comprehend an all-encompassing truth of the proposed magnitude. Nor have you provided any reason to believe such a truth exists or can exist.

Live 'til you die.


Dave_G
Dave_G's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2007-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Does Ray Comfort actually

Does Ray Comfort actually think he won the debate?


Named
Named's picture
Posts: 18
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Iruka Naminori

Iruka Naminori wrote:
Named wrote:
flyboy30 wrote:

Since when did dialoguing with Nazis do any good? Religionists need to be told frankly and boldly that their empty beliefs are wrong and also we want them to shut up and stop trying to convert others.

Is it really necessary to use Nazi as a synonym for unquestionable evil?

I am completely opposed to religion... However, so was the Third Reich and Nazi Deutschland in general, so i'd appreciate them being left well alone while you condemn what was regarded as an enemy to them, too.

ARRRRGHHH...not this again! Sorry, dude. No offense.

I guess it falls to me to do this:

 

Adolf Hitler quotes:

"I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal." --Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

"I thank Heaven that a portion of the memories of those days still remains with me. Woods and meadows were the battlefields on which the 'conflicts' which exist everywhere in life were decided." --Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

"...God have mercy!" --Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

"I was not in agreement with the sharp anti-Semitic tone, but from time to time I read arguments which gave me some food for thought. At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Social Party." --Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

"How many of my basic principles were upset by this change in my attitude toward the Christian Social movement! My views with regard to anti-Semitism thus succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all."--Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."-- Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work."--Adolf Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936

 

Where are those pictures of Nazis worshipping when I need it? Oh here: http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm <--

 

 

I have a few questions.
Have you read those quotes in original Deutsch, as I have? Secondly, have you read the full context concerning each of the quotes, assuming you met the first condition.

Finally, to reflect on, are you aware of the many such quotes used to argue that both Steven Hawkings and Albert Einstein were religious men?

 

Hitler tolerated the loyalty of Islamic Ustase, but he did not tolerate Christians.

 In closing and most importantly, Hitler does not equal The Third Reich. There were many bodies acting independently under his figurehead. I didn't even mention Hitler, I was talking about NAZI DEUTSCHLAND, as a political body.

Live 'til you die.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Named wrote:   I have a

Named wrote:

 

I have a few questions.
Have you read those quotes in original Deutsch, as I have? Secondly, have you read the full context concerning each of the quotes, assuming you met the first condition.

Good. You sound like you're interested in history.

Then you'll be happy to examine this:

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/hitler_and_martin_luther

Again, hitler's religious stance is moot. What matters is that he called upon pre-existent  hatred of Jews. This hatred was inspired by christians and particularly by Martin Luther.

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
CBX

CBX wrote:
Quote:
Tilberian said: LOL are you trying to scare us into believing?
Why should you be scared? You don't believe in any of this anyway right? You should only be concerned if it's true. Plus, following Jesus is not about repsonding in fear, it's about responding in gratitude to the one who died to save you, even though He should wipe all of us out.

I didn't say I was scared. I was laughing at you for trying to scare us by reminding us that God will judge us once we are dead. If you deny that that is what you were trying to do, then I'd love to hear why you felt it necessary to remind us of God's judgement...twice now.

We are all quite familiar with what Christians say will happen to us for refusing to believe their lies. 

My gratitude toward Jesus is somewhat mitigated by the fact that I totally reject the claim of Christianity that we are all born evil because Eve bit an apple. If we are evil, and God exists, it is his fault. God's requirement that his son be tortured and killed for his own deeds is only further proof of the twisted evil of God and the depraved, medieval vengence fantasies that lie at the core of the Christian ethos.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Named
Named's picture
Posts: 18
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
I thank you for the link, I

I thank you for the link, I will commit my energy to it when I feel sufficiently prepared. It does tend to incite a passion of sorts, not helped by my immediate ancestry.

My sympathy for the Third Reich is considered politically incorrect and I rather despise the perversion of historical accounts :/

I suppose we should get back on topic before i'm driven out with torches and pitch-forks. 

Live 'til you die.


Castaa
Posts: 8
Joined: 2006-03-03
User is offlineOffline
I hope you guys are getting

I hope you guys are getting coaching from Richard Carrier?  Maybe when he's finished with this PhD he'll be more active with RRS? 


Pile
atheist
Pile's picture
Posts: 214
Joined: 2006-04-26
User is offlineOffline
From what I gather, nobody

From what I gather, nobody has seen the edited debate as of yet? 

 I gotta be honest with you all.  I'm not as confident the finished product is going to come off as clear as you all think.  Maybe watching the debate in its entirety shows one thing, but when they edit this for television, I think it would be reasonable to expect that they try to make it more balanced than it was.

One thing I suggested was that Ray and Kirk be interrupted.  I know this may be rude, but if we end up seeing an edited product where they go off on long diatribes and the RRS response isn't following, you all will see what I mean when I said you have to pre-emptively stop them from taking content out of context to make you look bad.  I hope this doesn't happen, but my faith in editors making things look authentic isn't great. 


Named
Named's picture
Posts: 18
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Pile wrote: From what I

Pile wrote:

From what I gather, nobody has seen the edited debate as of yet?

I gotta be honest with you all. I'm not as confident the finished product is going to come off as clear as you all think. Maybe watching the debate in its entirety shows one thing, but when they edit this for television, I think it would be reasonable to expect that they try to make it more balanced than it was.

One thing I suggested was that Ray and Kirk be interrupted. I know this may be rude, but if we end up seeing an edited product where they go off on long diatribes and the RRS response isn't following, you all will see what I mean when I said you have to pre-emptively stop them from taking content out of context to make you look bad. I hope this doesn't happen, but my faith in editors making things look authentic isn't great.

Indeed, Pile. The problem which presents to those on the rational affirmative is that the opposition has millenia long traditions of taking even explicite and concise subjects out of context to favour their stance, with artistic precision.
Not that the obscurity works on us, it does work magic convincing masses, though. We're up against centuries of refinement...

Live 'til you die.


FutureQ
Posts: 5
Joined: 2006-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Lies about lies and God's name in vein

Someone please, the next opportunity anyone has to confront these idiots please school them on the actual ten commandmemts meanings for "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" and "Do not take the name of god in vein..[sic]".

 

"Bearing false witness" against one's neighbor could not be more plainly written. It has nothing to do with ordinary lying. It literally means to not accuse someone of a crime falsely. There are plenty of mentionings of in general lying in the bible both positive and negative towards it. Simple lyijing is not at all in the Ten Commandment!

 

Taking the lord's name in vein refers to Cabalistic magic practices. Saying Goddamnit is NOT blasphmy! The word GOD is not the name of this particular pink sky bunny it is allegedy his/its occupation! There are many names attached to it but even using one of them as a curse would not be blasphemy by the letter of the commamdment as it was then understood. People thought they could use the name in magic rituals and this is what is forbiden.

 

Ray and Kirk are LYING when they use this bullshit hype. I hope someone will please eventually disabuse them of this inane and assinine practice.

 

FutureQ


stillmatic
stillmatic's picture
Posts: 288
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
It really seems that Ray

It really seems that Ray Comforts goal was not to provide scientific evidence for the existence of God, but to spread the same propoganda that he spouts on the WotM website.

I don't see how he could write his opening statement without knowingly deciding that he was going to break the rules and invoke the bible weeks in advance.

 

"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Named wrote: I thank you

Named wrote:

I thank you for the link, I will commit my energy to it when I feel sufficiently prepared. It does tend to incite a passion of sorts, not helped by my immediate ancestry.

 The key point can be summed up briefly. Hitler didn't invent antisemitism, it was a hatred he shared with other Germans, and he called upon it as a tool for controlling the masses.

Germany (like other European nations) had a long history of antisemitism. German scapegoating Jews goes back to the plagues. Thousands of jews were targeted and murdered before Hitler was born. 

Hitler's religious beliefs are therefore moot. What matter is whether or not christianity played a role in the antisemitism that inspired the holocaust.

It did.

 

 

Quote:

My sympathy for the Third Reich is considered politically incorrect and I rather despise the perversion of historical accounts :/

I have some minor sympathies for the Third Reich as well, I find it unfortunate that they did not eliminate Stalin. I also find their military hardware fascinating.... Germany was beaten by superior industry, not superior arms. (well, the Russians had the best tanks).

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Jessica0
Jessica0's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-01-22
User is offlineOffline
2nd law

CBX wrote:
Quote:
The second law of thermodynamics refers ONLY to closed systems--of which the universe is one, but earth is not. We continually receive energy from the sun. The fact that the universe overall may be "winding down" as you put it doesn't point to a creator.
Good, you admit that the universe is subject to entropy. However, you say that earth is not, how is it that earth manages to avoid this law, being in a closed system, but the universe cannot? Why does ice melt and people get old and die?

 

cbx - here is a really interesting site about Thermodynamics Evolution and Creationism that you might be interested in. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

“When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes.” Desiderius Erasmus


Dave_G
Dave_G's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2007-04-21
User is offlineOffline
LOL Ray got

LOL Ray got killed.Tongue out16:49:30


TaKlu
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Law of Thermodynamics

Sorry if I'm nitpicking, but I believe the Law of Conservation of Mass & Energy is also known as the First Law of Thermodynamics, at least according to Wikipedia.

Great job, RRS! I laughed when you had them speechless. 


steve674d
steve674d's picture
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
WOTM BINGO! Play now!

PLAY WOTM BINGO!

WOTM BINGO


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
TaKlu wrote: Sorry if I'm

TaKlu wrote:

Sorry if I'm nitpicking, but I believe the Law of Conservation of Mass & Energy is also known as the First Law of Thermodynamics, at least according to Wikipedia.

Great job, RRS! I laughed when you had them speechless.

Yeah, they caught that and addressed it on the first page and in the text overlay in the video.


FutureQ
Posts: 5
Joined: 2006-04-06
User is offlineOffline
CBX wrote: It doesn't


CBX wrote:
It doesn't matter what you or I beleive, what matters is what is TRUE. The fact still remains that you will one day die and face the God whom you have so vehemently rejected. He will judge you, whether you believe that or not. Have a nice day.

 

Speak for yourself CBX. I'm not going to die. I'm going to re-engineer my body and mind if necessary and skip death all together. More atheists & agnostics should become Transhumansts and take the wind out of the Xian's sails when they pose their "you gonna die! neener neener' arguments. They speak with such glee in their voices heaping doom and ruin upon those they are supposed to love. How very Christ-like of them.

 

Now I know my plans and those of my fellow H+ might fall through. But we will give it our best and meet death bravely if it comes fighting to the last. This is not out of fear of death or the pink fairy bunnies retribution, nay it is anger at the waste that deah is when so much knowledge and talent is lost. 100,000 lives a day lost to aging alone!

 

FutureQ


MyDogCole
MyDogCole's picture
Posts: 40
Joined: 2007-05-03
User is offlineOffline
Yikes!  Adamnite is one

Yikes!  Adamnite is one scary dude.  How does one permit their thinking mind to succumb to such frightening delusion anyway?  To think I might encounter this person with such extreme psychosis anywhere in public is quite discomforting, to say the least.

 But this is exactly what the RRS is determined to cure -- rehabilitate irrational minds. 

Heh, they might more appropriately be called "THE RATIONAL REHABILITATORS".

(Rational Rehabilitation Squad)

"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." ~ Abraham Lincoln


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:   This

todangst wrote:

 

This has already been dealt with several times in this thread alone!

No one is saying that our universe existed in it's present form eternally!

 

According to Penn State physicist Lee Smolin, there are three possible ways to decribe the nature of a singularity, not just one. Brian (and the RRS team) is denying A:

* [A] There is still a first moment in time, even when quantum mechanics is taken into consideration.

* [B] The singularity is eliminated by some quantum mechanical effect. As a result, when we run the clock back, the universe does not reach a state of infinite density. Something else happens when the universe reaches some very high density that allows time to continue indefinitely into the past.

* [C] Something new and strange and quantum mechanical happens to time, which is neither possibility A or B. For example, perhaps we reach a state where it is no longer appropriate to think that reality is composed of a series of moments that follow each other in a progression, one after another. In this case there is perhaps no singularity, but it may also not make sense to ask what happened before the universe was extremely dense.

 

 

Please re-read my post. I cleary say that it's possible we spawned from another universe but there is no proof of this.  My point is that Brian says we accept God without proof, but he accepts this concept without proof.


JohnnyPotamus
JohnnyPotamus's picture
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-05-07
User is offlineOffline
Whoo-tch!

I've gotta congratulate you fine folks on the outstanding spanking you gave the Way of the Master crew. Depending on how they edit this for the ten minute Nightline spot, this could be huge. It was really exciting to see the audience and the moderator, Mr. Bashir, so determined to get Ray and Kirk to answer the questions they were asked, rather than the ones they felt like answering -- what did they think this was, the presidential debate?

 You guys really lived up to your name, providing a rational response to irrational claims. Way to go.


dannyboy2322
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
overall pretty good

overall pretty good arguments. But next time try to have your arguments memorized so you dont have to read off a sheet of paper. It makes the whole thing look more professional. Im not trying to be an ass or anything, just trying to point out something that would help.

also a good argument to use in debates like this for those creationists who argue that "everything looks created" is .. If God created everything (and thus everything would have been created), then what non-created thing are you using as referrence to say "this looks more created than that". If God created everything then nothing that you can see would be non-created for you to use as referrence. If you only know one without the other , its like saying you know hot without knowing cold, or light without darkness, etc. So therefore to say something looks created while holding to the principle that everything is created is self defeating.

 

 


Mjhavok
Posts: 31
Joined: 2006-11-07
User is offlineOffline
kellym78 wrote: Quote: The

kellym78 wrote:

Quote:
The reference to occam's razor irked me. Occam's razor doesn't state that the simplest theory is the most probable. The idea is that the theory that makes the fewest unnecessary assumptions is most probable. A theory could be more complicated but more elegant, ie make fewer assumptions, and still be more probable.
Laplace illustrated the principle perfectly when asked by Napoleon where god fit into his theory. He replied that he had no use for that hypothesis.

I understand what you're saying about the exact wording, but again, it is difficult to properly elucidate all of that when you're nervous and under time constraints. Least amount of assumptions is correct, and that was the point that Brian was making as far as their assumption about god goes. Not using the absolutely perfect wording is just a minor foible.



Occams Razor is misused a lot. It doesn't mean simpler is always correct. I think the best way to state it in this case is "All other things being equal the theory with the least assumptions is usually correct".

"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. "
- Carl Sagan

"Tantum eruditi sunt liberi"

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the


scottmax
scottmax's picture
Posts: 164
Joined: 2007-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Please re-read my post. I cleary say that it's possible we spawned from another universe but there is no proof of this. My point is that Brian says we accept God without proof, but he accepts this concept without proof.

No, I think Brian is saying that simpler explanations exist than the "God" hypothesis. We don't know what is true, but there is no reason to jump to the more complex answer of a supreme entity.

People used to think a god carried the Sun around the Earth every day in a chariot. That sure didn't prove out. The fact that we don't know the answer is not evidence for God.


Mjhavok
Posts: 31
Joined: 2006-11-07
User is offlineOffline
kellym78

kellym78 wrote:

Quote:
Quick off-topic question however, does it bother Kelly when men watch that video and the first thing that comes to mind is their need to post "that atheist chick is hot!"?

LOL. I don't mind if people point that out, but it does get tiresome when that's ALL they say. Why can't I be smart and pretty? *pouts*



You can be pretty and smart Kelly. You are. Unfortunately for us males of the species we notice the previous first. We are evolutions bitch.

"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. "
- Carl Sagan

"Tantum eruditi sunt liberi"

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

todangst wrote:

 

This has already been dealt with several times in this thread alone!

No one is saying that our universe existed in it's present form eternally!

 

According to Penn State physicist Lee Smolin, there are three possible ways to decribe the nature of a singularity, not just one. Brian (and the RRS team) is denying A:

* [A] There is still a first moment in time, even when quantum mechanics is taken into consideration.

* [B] The singularity is eliminated by some quantum mechanical effect. As a result, when we run the clock back, the universe does not reach a state of infinite density. Something else happens when the universe reaches some very high density that allows time to continue indefinitely into the past.

* [C] Something new and strange and quantum mechanical happens to time, which is neither possibility A or B. For example, perhaps we reach a state where it is no longer appropriate to think that reality is composed of a series of moments that follow each other in a progression, one after another. In this case there is perhaps no singularity, but it may also not make sense to ask what happened before the universe was extremely dense.

 

 

Please re-read my post.

I think YOU need to reread it.

Quote:
 

 I cleary say that it's possible we spawned from another universe but there is no proof of this.

That's nice.

You also said this:

 

Brian: If God has always existed, why can't the Universe have always existed?

 

 You: It didn't. We dated the universe at 13.5 billion years. It's a finite time span (Albiet a VERY VERY VERY long one).

 

  My point to you was this:  No one is saying that our universe existed in it's present form eternally!

 

In the future, please don't edit out the very part of the post that explains what I am responding to... 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: Iruka

todangst wrote:
Iruka Naminori wrote:

 

todangst wrote:
By the way, Comfort is whining that the atheist crowd clapped too much.

Had I been there, I would have clapped, too. Is there something wrong with that?

The people from ABC told us that we could clap and that we'd be expected to clap. Theists clapped just as loudly as the atheists.

 

 

Did you clap at Kelly's "wardrobe malfunction"?

And at Sapient's claim that we are all transitional forms?


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Mjhavok wrote: Occams Razor

Mjhavok wrote:

Occams Razor is misused a lot. It doesn't mean simpler is always correct. I think the best way to state it in this case is "All other things being equal the theory with the least assumptions is usually correct".

That's a fine way to say it, it makes sure to include the key point:

'Entities should not be multiplied needlessly.'

 Supernatural 'explanations' multiply the complexities into infinity, seeing as they rely on incoherent terms that violate naturalism.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
todangst

todangst wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

todangst wrote:

 

This has already been dealt with several times in this thread alone!

No one is saying that our universe existed in it's present form eternally!

 

According to Penn State physicist Lee Smolin, there are three possible ways to decribe the nature of a singularity, not just one. Brian (and the RRS team) is denying A:

* [A] There is still a first moment in time, even when quantum mechanics is taken into consideration.

* [B] The singularity is eliminated by some quantum mechanical effect. As a result, when we run the clock back, the universe does not reach a state of infinite density. Something else happens when the universe reaches some very high density that allows time to continue indefinitely into the past.

* [C] Something new and strange and quantum mechanical happens to time, which is neither possibility A or B. For example, perhaps we reach a state where it is no longer appropriate to think that reality is composed of a series of moments that follow each other in a progression, one after another. In this case there is perhaps no singularity, but it may also not make sense to ask what happened before the universe was extremely dense.

 

 

Please re-read my post.

I think YOU need to reread it.

Quote:
 

 I cleary say that it's possible we spawned from another universe but there is no proof of this.

That's nice.

You also said this:

 

Brian: If God has always existed, why can't the Universe have always existed?

 

 You: It didn't. We dated the universe at 13.5 billion years. It's a finite time span (Albiet a VERY VERY VERY long one).

 

  My point to you was this:  No one is saying that our universe existed in it's present form eternally!

 

In the future, please don't edit out the very part of the post that explains what I am responding to... 

 

 

Okay, let's clear this up:

 

Brian: If God has always existed, why can't the Universe have always existed?

 

He said the universe. I took that to mean OUR universe. He didn't say the infinite universe, or universe #8582892, I interputed that as our universe as in the one we are in. I was merely pointing out that our universe didn't always exist.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
pby wrote:todangst

pby wrote:
todangst wrote:

The people from ABC told us that we could clap and that we'd be expected to clap. Theists clapped just as loudly as the atheists.

 

Did you clap at Kelly's "wardrobe malfunction"?


No.

Quote:

And at Sapient's claim that we are all transitional forms?

Probably. It helps deal with the creationist strawman of what a transitional actually is... evolution is not teleology, it has no goal, ergo the very concept of a 'transitional' as 'midpoint' between two entirely different species (such as a duck and an alligator) is itself irrational. The examples of 'transitionals' presented by Kirk only demonstrate how little he knows about biology - or how little respect he has for his audience.

Anyway, do you think that Comfort would have complained if the audience only cheered for his side?

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 

Okay, let's clear this up:

 

Brian: If God has always existed, why can't the Universe have always existed?

 

He said the universe. I took that to mean OUR universe.

He did. But not in its present state.

Hence my posting of Smolin's points about singularities (the state of the universe prior to the big bang transitional event)

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


welcome to the ...
welcome to the universe's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-05-03
User is offlineOffline
I think that when Ray tried

I think that when Ray tried to associate your belief of history books with the belief in the bible (in which he was trying to make the bible seem like a sort of history book), it should have been pointed out that there is little or no archaeological evidence supporting some of the bible's most important stories.  For example: The tale of Moses or Noah's ark and the great flood.

OR, it could have been pointed out that the bible couldn't possibly be taken into the same consideration as a history book, since it makes the claim that one man built a boat that held 2 of each of over 2 billion species of animals.

 But that's just me.

If we're not supposed to eat the flesh of children, then why is it so delicious?


scottmax
scottmax's picture
Posts: 164
Joined: 2007-03-12
User is offlineOffline
CBX wrote: Good, you admit

CBX wrote:
Good, you admit that the universe is subject to entropy. However, you say that earth is not, how is it that earth manages to avoid this law, being in a closed system, but the universe cannot?

We are in an open system, receiving additional energy from the Sun.

CBX wrote:
Why does ice melt and people get old and die?

Ice melts because of the Sun. If the Sun went out, ice wouldn't melt. What does ice melting have to do with the 2nd law?

People get old and die because our cells are designed to die. Some researchers are looking to "fix" this problem. What does this have to do with the 2nd law?

CBX wrote:
So then, if the universe is not eternal? Where did it come from? If you say it was spawned from another universe then you begin an infinite regrees.

If our universe is simply a bubble in the multiverse, there is no reason that multiverse cannot be eternal. If the universe were not expanding, there would be no reason to assume that our current universe was not eternal. We may still discover a method by which our current universe can be eternal without resorting to a multiverse. We simply don't know. Just as we didn't use to know about gravity, inertia, air pressure, etc.

CBX wrote:
We must come to the conclusion that there is an Eternal somewhere and from this came everything that is.

Seems likely. But God does not appear to be the best theory as to what that "Eternal" is. We have plenty of more likely theories that are at least logically consistent. An all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God fails even that basic test.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: He did.

todangst wrote:

He did. But not in its present state.

Hence my posting of Smolin's points about singularities (the state of the universe prior to the big bang transitional event)

 

 Are you saying (or at least that Brian is saying) that our universe is 'recycled', that once our universe ends, another one will just take it's place? That another universe died 13.5 billion years ago and was simply recycled into this one, and that's why we dated this to be 13.5 billion?


Feral
Posts: 1
Joined: 2006-04-27
User is offlineOffline
Fantastic Job

Hey Brian

I just watched the video on Youtube. I thought that you and kelly both did a tremendous job. Ray and Kirk were absolutely speechless, I couldn't believe that they had nothing to say and were scrambling for something add about the universe. I actually felt really sad for them, it was painful for me to witness their humilation.

I must admit Brian I was very skeptical when I heard about this debate. Well, it wasn't a debate really, you and Kelly both just anilated their arguments, it was more like verbal genocide. I am an atheist as well, and I am not a fan of the RRS. So when I heard that you were going to do this debate, I wasn't very excited about it. However that being said, you and Kelly did a great service for rational thinkers everywhere, you both had tremendous poise and the two of delivered the message with conviction and compassion.

Job well done, the both of you deserve a huge pat on the back.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
todangst wrote:

He did. But not in its present state.

Hence my posting of Smolin's points about singularities (the state of the universe prior to the big bang transitional event)

 

Are you saying (or at least that Brian is saying) that our universe is 'recycled?

No!

I am saying what I posted for you already - vis Smolin's points concerning singularities! Is there any reason you can't just read what I've posted and reposted?

According to Penn State physicist Lee Smolin, there are three possible ways to decribe the nature of a singularity, not just one. Brian (and the RRS team) is denying A:

* [A] There is still a first moment in time, even when quantum mechanics is taken into consideration.

* [B] The singularity is eliminated by some quantum mechanical effect. As a result, when we run the clock back, the universe does not reach a state of infinite density. Something else happens when the universe reaches some very high density that allows time to continue indefinitely into the past.

* [C] Something new and strange and quantum mechanical happens to time, which is neither possibility A or B. For example, perhaps we reach a state where it is no longer appropriate to think that reality is composed of a series of moments that follow each other in a progression, one after another. In this case there is perhaps no singularity, but it may also not make sense to ask what happened before the universe was extremely dense.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
todangst

todangst wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:
todangst wrote:

He did. But not in its present state.

Hence my posting of Smolin's points about singularities (the state of the universe prior to the big bang transitional event)

 

Are you saying (or at least that Brian is saying) that our universe is 'recycled?

No!

I am saying what I posted for you already - vis Smolin's points concerning singularities! Is there any reason you can't just read what I've posted and reposted?

According to Penn State physicist Lee Smolin, there are three possible ways to decribe the nature of a singularity, not just one. Brian (and the RRS team) is denying A:

* [A] There is still a first moment in time, even when quantum mechanics is taken into consideration.

* [B] The singularity is eliminated by some quantum mechanical effect. As a result, when we run the clock back, the universe does not reach a state of infinite density. Something else happens when the universe reaches some very high density that allows time to continue indefinitely into the past.

* [C] Something new and strange and quantum mechanical happens to time, which is neither possibility A or B. For example, perhaps we reach a state where it is no longer appropriate to think that reality is composed of a series of moments that follow each other in a progression, one after another. In this case there is perhaps no singularity, but it may also not make sense to ask what happened before the universe was extremely dense.

 

 

 

Anyway, when you said that our universe wasn't always in this, state I jumped the gun and thought that meant that the recycle theory. I did read it and thought it fell into [C]. So I apologize.


kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Just been watching

Quote:
Just been watching the ABC show, aswell as your own personal edited clips of it...

 OK - so you want to come here, call us immature and try to scare us into belief with the mythological equivalent of the Big Bad Wolf? Let me ask you some questions about your personification of evil there--first of all, how do you know all of this about him? I want scripture quotes here, since that is where you are supposed to gain all of your knowledge from, not what my preacher told me. Secondly, why would your god have blessed him with attributes such as intelligence? Since they do work together (as is seen in Job), wouldn't that make god equally accountable for all of satan's actions? And finally, how do you know that "his time is short and he doesn't want to be alone?" I would like some more substantiation on the time front and the satan really wants friends front.

Thanks,

Kelly 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
CBX wrote: If you say it

CBX wrote:
If you say it was spawned from another universe then you begin an infinite regrees. We must come to the conclusion that there is an Eternal somewhere and from this came everything that is.

How do you make the jump from just believing that matter and the components of our Universe could just have always existed, and instead need to add an anthropomorphic diety at the beginning of it?

Why make something up to explain away an answer that you don't have?

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
JohnnyPotamus wrote: I've

JohnnyPotamus wrote:

I've gotta congratulate you fine folks on the outstanding spanking you gave the Way of the Master crew. Depending on how they edit this for the ten minute Nightline spot, this could be huge. It was really exciting to see the audience and the moderator, Mr. Bashir, so determined to get Ray and Kirk to answer the questions they were asked, rather than the ones they felt like answering -- what did they think this was, the presidential debate?

 You guys really lived up to your name, providing a rational response to irrational claims. Way to go.

 

Thanks so much.  Welcome aboard to the site.  I hope you stick around and maybe this fuels you and others to speak out more often.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


canofbutter
Silver Member
canofbutter's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I've always been puzzled

I've always been puzzled why it is assumed that "We don't know yet" is not a good enough answer. If there isn't a proven theory on a given subject, you can't just insert "god" into the blank.

If we don't have the tools, resources, or other information to prove a theory, why not just say "I don't know".

I also don't know many atheists that dogmatically stick to a theory when more evidence is present that refutes or refines previous theories - that's completely irrational. If good evidence comes along for something other than a multiverse explanation or whatever then it would become a more likely explanation.

To me it's about level of certainty. Based on the amount of evidence for something, I can be some percent certain of something. When that percent is very high due to substantial amounts of evidence, then I am more apt to say "I belive this is the answer".

I think Kelly and Brian did a good job. Hopefully there will be more opportunities like this in the future.

Why yes, I can believe it's not butter!


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
For what it is worth I

For what it is worth I think you guys did a fantastic job!  You both appeared to be professional and calm the entire time.  I fully appreciate the nervousness you both must have been experiencing, but it did not show.  I was a little surprised to see Kirk Cameron squirm in front of the cameras since he should be used to them, but since he was trying to defend a ridiculous concept maybe I shouldn't be so surprised.

Really - Good Job!!

Oh yeah, and thanks again for keeping this site going - I appreciate it more than you can imagine and have learned so much from everyone since joining.  Thank you! 


Sara
Theist
Sara's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Well...I didn't get to see

Well...I didn't get to see the whole debate, just the portion on line at the ABC website. Just a few comments about what I saw.

First, I think that using the 1st Law of thermodynamics to prove the universe (or the matter contained therein) is infinite was incorrect. A few posters on here have already commented on the 2nd Law and how this refutes an eternal universe. I am hoping one of the physics gurus on here will comment about entropy (as it applies to the universe) and how it either supports or contradicts Sapient's argument.

Second, stating that the painting or creation analogy doesn't support the existence of God because it leads to the question of "who created God?" is simply ridiculous. I'm surprised that the RSS used that tactic as I'm sure they are familiar with the illogical premise of infinite regression (i.e. the creator who has a creator who has a creator ad infinitum.) There must be a First Cause in any event or you have the unhappy alternative of an infinite number of first causes (clearly an impossibility). Theists understand the First Cause to be God, where as the Atheist can only plead ignorance since materialism is the position they're allowed to take. Brian and Kelly even got the host to fall for that bit of nonsense, it was sad really.

Also, Kelly's argument that if God existed she would expect to live in a magical universe where anything could happen actually proved the opposite. The fact that the universe follows a very strict set of phyical and natural laws implies that there is a Law Giver (i.e. an all powerful Being who used logic and power to govern the natural uinverse). If there were no God, then you would not expect anything to follow any sort of natural order (or as Kelly stated, be "magical&quotEye-wink. The ordered universe was one of the main reasons Albert Einstein declared there must be a God.

Finally, the idea that God is "a projection of your culture" didn't receive an adequate reply. The fact that most cultures, no matter how diverse, believe in a Higher Being or Beings could also be because they have an innate sense that such a Being exists. Instead of claiming that the majority of the world suffers from mass delusionment, it may be equally plausible to state that they are all aware of something the RRS refuses to acknowledge.

Anyway, those are just a few insights. I look forward to your responses.

 

Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths." ~ Richard C. Lewontin


Dunstan
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Hi guys, just wanted to stop

Hi guys, just wanted to stop in and congratulate you on a job well done.

Also, for all the criticism that outspoken atheists in general, and the RRS in particular, get for supposedly being rude and insulting, isn't it interesting that Comfort was the first to insult the other side's intelligence? How many times did he repeat that all you need to believe in God is "eye and a brain that works"? In other words, atheists must have non-working brains.

I don't take Comfort seriously enough to be offended by this. But let's stop pretending that atheists are the big meanies while theists fight by Marquis of Queensbury rules.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Sara wrote: Well...I

Sara wrote:

Well...I didn't get to see the whole debate, just the portion on line at the ABC website. Just a few comments about what I saw.

First, I think that using the 1st Law of thermodynamics to prove the universe (or the matter contained therein) is infinite was incorrect. A few posters on here have already commented on the 2nd Law and how this refutes an eternal universe. I am hoping one of the physics gurus on here will comment about entropy (as it applies to the universe) and how it either supports or contradicts Sapient's argument.

 

 Entropy is the measure of order. The 2nd law basically states that things will tend to disorder. However, this does not mean the order is possible. For example, if you ever had ice cubes in your drink you know why. If I wanted to make liquid water (a relatively unordered state) into solid (a much more ordered state) I require energy. Now when I put the water in the freezer, the freezer does work and pumps out heat so the water freezes. Take away that energy (out of the freezer) and the water returns to it's original state.

 

Some say that the creation of life defies this. It would IF the Earth was a closed system (No energy in or out), but energy comes to Earth all the time you may know them as the Sun rays and also cosmic rays.

The question is: Is our universe a closed systen?  In the multiverse theory, for example, it is may not be since other universes may leak energy into our universe. But if it is a closed system, it will tend to disorder and the human race is doomed.

 

Quote:

Second, stating that the painting or creation analogy doesn't support the existence of God because it leads to the question of "who created God?" is simply ridiculous. I'm surprised that the RSS used that tactic as I'm sure they are familiar with the illogical premise of infinite regression (i.e. the creator who has a creator who has a creator ad infinitum.) There must be a First Cause in any event or you have the unhappy alternative of an infinite number of first causes (clearly an impossibility). Theists understand the First Cause to be God, where as the Atheist can only plead ignorance since materialism is the position they're allowed to take. Brian and Kelly even got the host to fall for that bit of nonsense, it was sad really.

 

I make similar arguements.

 

Quote:

 

Also, Kelly's argument that if God existed she would expect to live in a magical universe where anything could happen actually proved the opposite. The fact that the universe follows a very strict set of phyical and natural laws implies that there is a Law Giver (i.e. an all powerful Being who used logic and power to govern the natural uinverse). If there were no God, then you would not expect anything to follow any sort of natural order (or as Kelly stated, be "magical&quotEye-wink. The ordered universe was one of the main reasons Albert Einstein declared there must be a God.

Einstein did not believe in the Christian God.

 

Quote:

Finally, the idea that God is "a projection of your culture" didn't receive an adequate reply. The fact that most cultures, no matter how diverse, believe in a Higher Being or Beings could also be because they have an innate sense that such a Being exists. Instead of claiming that the majority of the world suffers from mass delusionment, it may be equally plausible to state that they are all aware of something the RRS refuses to acknowledge.

Anyway, those are just a few insights. I look forward to your responses.

 

 

I guess they can say that most religions contradict each other.


Steve_Fishboy
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
A few constructive suggestions...

'Twas a pleasure to watch you two, and I'd say you did quite well in the debate. I'd like to offer a few constructive suggestions for future speaking engagements.

1. I've done public speaking, and it's awful -- the nerves, the difficulty in concentrating, etc. That said, there are classes and seminars (and tapes and DVDs) that teach techniques for doing it as well as possible, and they'd be worth looking into. I'm not talking about rhetoric here, but of simple presentation -- your voices tended to be distractingly shrill in some cases, for example. This is pretty easy to get around, and it'll let people focus more on what's important -- the content of what you're saying.

2. Avoid phrases like "That's not even worth talking about". It ain't, I'm sure -- but merely saying so doesn't make it so. Nor does it make it clear to the audience that this is really the case. Alternatives don't have to be long at all -- something as simple as "Ray had agreed not to use X, and though he just did so, we're going to honor the agreement nonetheless" or "That's tantamount to saying the Earth rests on a turtle's back, which is far below the level of debate that viewers deserve". See? You can even fit a good smackdown in there, too!

3. This is bound to be controversial, so I'll just throw it out -- no need to start a debate on THIS. To persuade people, you normally have to get them to let their guard down (I'm talking about the viewers here), just to get them to seriously consider your arguments. It's a lot easier to do this if they can't write you off as a "weirdo", "freak", "punk", "redneck", "pastel-suit-wearing preacher", etc. So I'd suggest considering wearing ridiculously conservative clothes -- say, something that a funeral director and his wife would be confortable wearing. This isn't selling out, it's being strategic. It's why ninjas didn't wear hot pink and neon blue outfits. (And I say this as someone who has managed to go through life without wearing a tie more than two dozen times). This is combat -- don't give your opponent any advantages.

Dawkins has this nailed down, though I assume he pretty much always dresses like that Eye-wink

4. Never, ever say "you know".

A few misc. points on content:

I would't use infomercials as an example of what science does.

When extolling the virtues of science, I think it would be useful to cite things such as curing diseases like leprosy and the bubonic plague, eliminating evils such as polio, extending lifespans dramatically, etc. After such a list, nothing religion has supposedly done can compare.

Before attacking ID, it would be good to establish that the other guys are actually promoting it, even if they don't mention it by name.

Finally, is there any advantage to making distinctions such as "atheist agnostic", "atheist atheist", etc. in these kinds of debates?

Cheers!