Ray Comfort and Ben Stein: World Dumbshit Championship Finals

cervello_marcio
Superfan
cervello_marcio's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2009-05-19
User is offlineOffline
Ray Comfort and Ben Stein: World Dumbshit Championship Finals

ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Lols. Propaganda 101.

Lols. Propaganda 101.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 What an incredible crock

 What an incredible crock of shit!  The thing is, Ray Comfort couldn't win a debate against me on evolution vs. Creation.  I've got about 1/1000th the knowledge that Dawkins has on evolution, and far less oratory skills.  Dawkins is right not to debate Comfort.  Comfort would be the only person who could stand to gain anything.  Dawkins would trounce him, but if there was any soundbyte whatsoever that could be quote-mined, Comfort would sell it and gain more ignorant followers as a result.

Ray Comfort is not interested in a debate.  He uses the "debate platform" as a manipulative way to preach from the pulpit.  The nightline debate with Kelly and Brian wasn't a debate.  It was him preaching and Brian and Kelly trying to get him to actually debate.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


cervello_marcio
Superfan
cervello_marcio's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2009-05-19
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: What an

Hambydammit wrote:

 What an incredible crock of shit!  The thing is, Ray Comfort couldn't win a debate against me on evolution vs. Creation.  I've got about 1/1000th the knowledge that Dawkins has on evolution, and far less oratory skills.  Dawkins is right not to debate Comfort.  Comfort would be the only person who could stand to gain anything.  Dawkins would trounce him, but if there was any soundbyte whatsoever that could be quote-mined, Comfort would sell it and gain more ignorant followers as a result.

Ray Comfort is not interested in a debate.  He uses the "debate platform" as a manipulative way to preach from the pulpit.  The nightline debate with Kelly and Brian wasn't a debate.  It was him preaching and Brian and Kelly trying to get him to actually debate.

It's almost like there's a really good reason why Dawkins doesn't debate Creationists...

But I know what you mean. Just look at this video, Ray probably creamed in his pants when he saw the exploitability of Dawkins' clip in Expelled. "Banana Man vs Alien Man?" What a twat.

"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, himself the primrose path of dalliance treads. And recks not his own rede."


marshalltenbears
marshalltenbears's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2009-02-19
User is offlineOffline
 I can't believe I use to

 I can't believe I use to like ray comfort.


cervello_marcio
Superfan
cervello_marcio's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2009-05-19
User is offlineOffline
marshalltenbears wrote:  I

marshalltenbears wrote:

 I can't believe I use to like ray comfort.

You were a Baptist, right? Yeah me too. Don't worry about it, when they show this shit in church people get worked into a fucking frenzy. It's like catnip. Really, really, really ignorant catnip.

"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, himself the primrose path of dalliance treads. And recks not his own rede."


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
cervello_marcio

cervello_marcio wrote:

marshalltenbears wrote:

 I can't believe I use to like ray comfort.

You were a Baptist, right? Yeah me too. Don't worry about it, when they show this shit in church people get worked into a fucking frenzy. It's like catnip. Really, really, really ignorant catnip.

Like any good propaganda it's good at working up consensus in target population. Boomerang mockery (banana-man comes back to haunt him) is very potent when dealing with a target audience who consider themselves thoughtful, and the name of the intelligent design crowd speaks for itself. Taking statements out of context (we could have been engineered) is potent even if the target population isn't biased against RD, simply because it is hard to debunk simple paroles with lengthy explanation of context. Even if you manage to debunk the statements in the video, notice that Comfort is never explicitly associated with makers of the add, so the damage to the validity is diffused to the unknown propagandist.

These facts we can do nothing about, but we can do something about the material we provide our attackers. RD is not making it easy for himself here and in extension for the rest of the atheist world. He always answers questions as they are posed, which is risky for a public person that is in the middle of vicious debates. As atheists I think we would be served better if he could understand the underlying attack in seemingly innocent questions and not step into the trap with both feet. If you want to discredit someone with a constituency of assumed thoughtful members, you want to frame your response. This is not misrepresentation, because you are actually trying to present truth by responding to a very truth-hostile questioner.

Mockery is also something RD does not shy from and I think this is something we could do without. I don't know if RD ever called that dude a banana-man, but I can imagine he would. I remember him getting completely red in the face while debating some random Jewish rabbi/teacher in some elementary school about the age of the universe - it could have been executed better. Maybe hire some professional help?

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Yah, I think that there is

Yah, I think that there is something about being a baptist that makes atheists. The last xtian group that I was in was baptist. Before that, I was in the salvation army (they are YEC in case that is not generally known) and before that, I was a high church Anglican.

In any case, I will go with Hamby on this one. If you have seen what came from Dawkins dealing with Ted Faggard, you would know exactly why there will never be another debate between him and any fundie.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


marshalltenbears
marshalltenbears's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2009-02-19
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:cervello_marcio

ZuS wrote:

cervello_marcio wrote:

marshalltenbears wrote:

 I can't believe I use to like ray comfort.

You were a Baptist, right? Yeah me too. Don't worry about it, when they show this shit in church people get worked into a fucking frenzy. It's like catnip. Really, really, really ignorant catnip.

Like any good propaganda it's good at working up consensus in target population. Boomerang mockery (banana-man comes back to haunt him) is very potent when dealing with a target audience who consider themselves thoughtful, and the name of the intelligent design crowd speaks for itself. Taking statements out of context (we could have been engineered) is potent even if the target population isn't biased against RD, simply because it is hard to debunk simple paroles with lengthy explanation of context. Even if you manage to debunk the statements in the video, notice that Comfort is never explicitly associated with makers of the add, so the damage to the validity is diffused to the unknown propagandist.

These facts we can do nothing about, but we can do something about the material we provide our attackers. RD is not making it easy for himself here and in extension for the rest of the atheist world. He always answers questions as they are posed, which is risky for a public person that is in the middle of vicious debates. As atheists I think we would be served better if he could understand the underlying attack in seemingly innocent questions and not step into the trap with both feet. If you want to discredit someone with a constituency of assumed thoughtful members, you want to frame your response. This is not misrepresentation, because you are actually trying to present truth by responding to a very truth-hostile questioner.

Mockery is also something RD does not shy from and I think this is something we could do without. I don't know if RD ever called that dude a banana-man, but I can imagine he would. I remember him getting completely red in the face while debating some random Jewish rabbi/teacher in some elementary school about the age of the universe - it could have been executed better. Maybe hire some professional help?

how do you come up with this much bs from two small, simple comments?

"Take all the heads of the people
and hang them up before the Lord
against the sun.” -- Numbers 25:4


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
marshalltenbears wrote:how

marshalltenbears wrote:

how do you come up with this much bs from two small, simple comments?

I've seen RD interview people and get interviewed himself in many different situations. His movie is one source, Atheist Tapes by S. Weinberg another and I have seen scores of different clips on the net. This is very typical RD the anti-religious scientist, rather than efficient populist.

I remembered this video in which he states his position and basically lays out the strategy: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html

 

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.