Kelly / Sapient / Core Members Appreciation Thread (Post-Debate)

Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Kelly / Sapient / Core Members Appreciation Thread (Post-Debate)

Hey Kelly and Brian,

I know you are dealing with fallout right now, but I just wanted to thank you (and everyone else who helped make it possible) for the big debate. It takes a helluva lot of guts to go on national television and say something extremely unpopular. I have a tremendous amount of respect and appreciation for what you two did.

Thanks for taking a stand.

CHEERS!!!!!

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


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Iruka Naminori wrote: Hey

Iruka Naminori wrote:

Hey Kelly and Brian,

I know you are dealing with fallout right now, but I just wanted to thank you (and everyone else who helped make it possible) for the big debate. It takes a helluva lot of guts to go on national television and say something extremely unpopular. I have a tremendous amount of respect and appreciation for what you two did.

Thanks for taking a stand.

CHEERS!!!!!

I second this sentiment. You have done an excellent job. PLEASE accept my gratitude for making all of this possible and creating this little home on the web. 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Thanks Iruka and BGH. 

Thanks Iruka and BGH.  There is certainly a little fall out, it could've been much worse.  To get through the day we focus on the thousands of positive comments we've been getting and not the several hundred negative ones.  You can please some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time, which is why we try to please ourselves first, and hope in the process we represent you well.

While there are plenty of atheists put off by our approach, we are glad to be one of the only teams representing the blunt (no-bullshit) atheists out there. 

Again, we're constantly honing ourselves and reading all of the comments, good and bad.   

- Kelly and Sapient 

- Brian Sapient


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


22jesus22
22jesus22's picture
Posts: 208
Joined: 2006-12-18
User is offlineOffline
I just wanted to express my

I just wanted to express my appreciation as well.  Like Iruka said, it does take a lot of guts to do what you guys did, and you should know that it was, and is appreciated.  I just want to say well done to the RRS for promoting rational thinking!


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
You guys have done a great

You guys have done a great job. It's a long hard road, but a brighter humanity is worth the struggle. I'll toast you with my coffee. Cheers.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


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

Sapient wrote:

Thanks Iruka and BGH. There is certainly a little fall out, it could've been much worse. To get through the day we focus on the thousands of positive comments we've been getting and not the several hundred negative ones. You can please some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time, which is why we try to please ourselves first, and hope in the process we represent you well.

While there are plenty of atheists put off by our approach, we are glad to be one of the only teams representing the blunt (no-bullshit) atheists out there.

Again, we're constantly honing ourselves and reading all of the comments, good and bad.

- Kelly and Sapient

I am so happy that there are positives here, and that you see that... It's good to hear that you're not letting negativity get you down, from either theists or jealous atheists.

 

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

Books on atheism.


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
Ray and Kirk took away what

Ray and Kirk took away what was suppose to be a debate about scientific proof for god.  After that point I don't see any reason why people should be upset when you showed any disrespect for them or their religious vomit.

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


GUNT
Silver Member
GUNT's picture
Posts: 54
Joined: 2007-03-23
User is offlineOffline
..

Kelly and Brian

You did a sensational job and to do that on national TV certainly proves your convictions of our philosophy. I am proud to be associated.

Especially scary I would imagine would be the knowledge that Ray and Kirk are both seasoned “actors” with years of experience remembering and acting out their scripts.

Although I assumed I didn’t know who Ray Comfort was during the lead up to the event I couldn’t help remembering about a Ray Comfort who was a crazy open-air preacher in my birth city of Christchurch, New Zealand in the 70s and 80s. This Ray Comfort was the brunt of many jokes and I remember groups of people arguing with him during their lunch breaks as if he was some kind of comic relief. Christchurch also had a self proclaimed Wizard and the two of them would set up close to each other and almost come to blows. It was very entertaining.

Eventually this Ray Comfort got into trouble with the Tax Dept. and “did a runner” from NZ.

It wasn’t until I watched the video that I saw this weasely looking guy and heard his diluted Kiwi accent that I realized it was the same guy still spouting the same shit he was 30 or so years ago. I had to laugh.

So there you go… Ray... 30 years of taking and talking shit and Kirk… a famous child actor with years of experience.

I’d say you guys did pretty well.

Respect. 

G


HC Grindon
High Level DonorModerator
Posts: 198
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Ditto, Kelly and

Ditto, Kelly and Sapient...you mopped the floor with those two idiots.  I especially loved when Sapient pointed out that Ray had invalidated the whole damn debate by referencing the bible, and that everyone might as well just go on home.  LMAO!
Way to go you two...keep up the good fight.
-HCG


Cdat
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Great job folks, you looked

Great job folks, you looked and sounded great. So old Ray has a tax problem eh? Well create my banana, who ever heard of a religious figure taking money? what is the world coming to? Again, great job, we need more debates like that, maybe next time somewhere other than a state sponsered tax shelter.


AModestProposal
AModestProposal's picture
Posts: 157
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, you guys totally

Yeah, you guys totally deserve some props. You kicked their asses. Job well done.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Sapient wrote: Thanks

Sapient wrote:

Thanks Iruka and BGH. There is certainly a little fall out, it could've been much worse. To get through the day we focus on the thousands of positive comments we've been getting and not the several hundred negative ones. You can please some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time, which is why we try to please ourselves first, and hope in the process we represent you well.

While there are plenty of atheists put off by our approach, we are glad to be one of the only teams representing the blunt (no-bullshit) atheists out there.

Again, we're constantly honing ourselves and reading all of the comments, good and bad.

- Kelly and Sapient

You certianly did put yourself out there which is more than most atheists do, both you and Kelly and the entire Squad.

I would be remiss if we didnt mention those in the past who paved the way too. All names aside there are pleanty and countless before whom without Brian and Kelly would not have been where he was.

He and Kelly are also in turn, continue what others paved the way for and will set up future atheists to take the torch of reason on to the next generation.

Props to you both. And yes, you did represent me and I only speak for myself. Thank you so much for being my voice there as well.

Crap, now I sound like a friggen Halmark card. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


kraorh
kraorh's picture
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
I just, mere moments ago,

I just, mere moments ago, saw the debate.  All in all, impressive work.  You did indeed clean Kirk and Ray's clocks.  I worry that they have the emotional appeal down to an art, so for many people without any training in logic or debate, it may seem to them as if they won.  But the rest of us know better.

Apologies if this has already been brought up in one of the threads I haven't seen yet... but by way of constructive criticism, I wanted to ask you and Kelly why you didn't respond the moral insinuation argument that Ray and Kirk brought up toward the end, when it was obvious they were running out of ammo.  They tried to argue that you, Dawkins, Harris, and others, were intelligent, but you didn't believe because you have some moral defect.  This was incredibly ad hominem, and disgusting as a debate tactic, and I'm surprised that you didn't call them on it.

Otherwise, I think your argument about morality could've been stronger.  Props for emphasizing an evolutionary basis... but I would've like to have seen, say, an explanation about why Divine Command Theory is taken seriously by no ethicist or philosopher worth their salt, and perhaps an alternative theory along the lines of virtue ethics.  Emphasize that while the theist can only threaten you with hell for failing to adhire to their beliefs, you offer life, and happiness, for lives lived in accordance with virtues. 

 Don't get me wrong.  I have little doubt that you and Kelly did far better than I would've done, and none of this should suggest that you guys did a bad job.  Quite the contrary.  If I was grading you guys, you would've gotten an A, but had you gotten into the above, you would've gotten an A+.


FreeThoughtMake...
Superfan
FreeThoughtMakesMeTingle's picture
Posts: 173
Joined: 2006-08-14
User is offlineOffline
Indeed..........I am pretty

Indeed..........I am pretty proud of them for that....just going public and doing what they did seriously warms me up lol........I on the other hand might've laughed Kirk and Ray off the stage.

Quote:
Religion at BEST - is like a lift in your shoe. If you need it for a while, and it makes you walk straight and feel better - fine. But you don't need it forever, or you can become permanently disabled.

---George Carlin---


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Thanks guys (and kelly) I

Thanks guys (and kelly) I still can't believe they decided to prove god by saying evolution is false. Not to mention how they tried to do it. I wonder if they had anyone that would be on their side complain about that...

There will always be people who want everyone to be nice, but without a spine nothing gets done.


kraorh
kraorh's picture
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
No doubt.  The only

No doubt.  The only religious debates I've seen where the Christian came anywhere close to winning was where they conceded evolutionary theory, and sort of took an agnostic view on whether God merely created the universe in such a way so as to make life possible, or if he was more active as Intelligent Design people allege.  This cost Kirk and Ray an incredible degree of crediblity, while gaining them nothing, since virtually no one who isn't already a Bible literalist is going to buy Creationism on its merits.  They should've just avoided that whole topic, and focused on, say, the Ontological Argument, or the Cosmological Argument, or even the (weird-ass, but stronger than what they put out) Kantian argument for God.


nncarroll
nncarroll's picture
Posts: 5
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
out of the closet

I posted most of this message on the RRS defeats Way of the Master Board, but I thought this board was more appropriate for my message. 

I've been a long-time lurker of the website, your youtube page, Dawkins' pages, etc.  Though most of my friends and family know that I am an atheist, I still feel somewhat closeted simply due to the fact that I feel I can't hold open discussions about it with anyone (except for my atheist college friends whom I unfortunately seldom see as of late).  I often hold my tongue in surface discussions of anything godly so as to avoid any deeper confrontations that might become unsightly.

After checking the Rational Responders' youtube account, I found the video compilation of highlights from the debate, and my interest was immediately piqued.  When I told a friend about the debate to be shown on Nightline, she said that she felt it was old hat, but I respectfully disagreed.  While people may personally debate within themselves about such subjects, I can't say that I've seen televised many debates (at least on American television) about subjects as important and big-questionish as this one.

 I'd like to say congratulations to Brian Sapient and Kelly for what was a spectacular performance.  As a public-speechophobe myself, I can't even imagine debating in front of a crowd of people with the knowledge that millions may view your every move on national television.  But I do know that upon dipping oneself oneself into an experience multiple times, you come out pretty hard-coated, and eventually, the fears (especially the irrational ones) become easier to deal with.  That being said, this was a great first widely televised performance of what I hope will be many.  I could only wish to be as eloquent and articulate (and witty) as Kelly and Brian in my discussions.

While the Nightline broadcast painted Brian and Kelly to look like ruthless bullies, it painted Ray and Kirk to look like like total evangelist kooks.  But the difference in the portraits are that Brian and Kelly aren't bullies (though they are ruthless, and rightfully so, in the name of truth and rationality).

 I've read a few of the comments about the debate.  Some felt it might have been a mistake for the RRS to have even agreed to debate with those two transitional evolutionary forms.  I know that it has personally envigorated me in my non-belief, and I have seen that other atheists have come out of the woodwork because of it.  And of course, a nationally televised debate over the subject might at least get people questioning what they believe (or don't believe).  In short, there is so much good that has come out of your "war on irrationality", and I hope this debate is the first of many mainstream doors to be opened to the acceptance of rational thought and those who engage therein.

 Cheers, Brian and Kelly, for a job well done.  And I personally thank you for being an inspiration.  Due to the bravery of the entire Rational Response Squad, I've been able to more comfortably discuss the debate and other subjects with members of my family and friends.  I've enjoyed the multitude of resources you have made available to solidify the bases for my arguments (especially to Rook for taking the time to do the historical research for me.  As a Chemistry major, I am much more interested in doing the research in the science aspect myself, so I'm glad there are specialists in all fields in order for me to be fully informed).  I hope to be able to contribute to the Squad in the future, both monetarily and in content.

So, thank you again to the whole RRS team.  You have personally changed my life, and I know you have changed/will change many others' lives as well.

 As an avid reader, is there a top-10 book list somewhere for a recently uncloseted atheist?  What books should I start with?  I purchased The End of Faith by Sam Harris, and I hope to get my hands on The God Delusion.  What are your favorites? 

If god does indeed exist, then he is very much a fool, because I, too, exist.


converse02
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-03-05
User is offlineOffline
Hi Kelly and Brian,

Hi Kelly and Brian,

I saw the debate. You guys did great!!!! Some of those rebuttals were just outstanding! I was out of my seat along with the audience clapping. You guys crushed them. 

The look on Kirk's face when he was asked about the law of conservation and Occam's razor, priceless.

I really appreciate what you guys have done for atheism. Going in front of national TV to debate and explain atheism is not an easy task. The arguments you guys made were great. I probably would have preferred a more professional look, but overall, I'm really glad you guys are out there.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I've had many friends call

I've had many friends call me up and to tell me how much the RRS kicked ass during the debate.  You guys did well.  I did feel embarassed and sorry for Kirk Cameron.  I think he got caught up with all of this wrongfully.  I do think that Ray Comfort is exploiting him. 

Anyway, the Rational Response Squad is the best thing to happen to atheists since..well...ever. Eye-wink  Keep up the good work guys.  With due time things will change..keep thinking....

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


JonnyP
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-02-27
User is offlineOffline
hey nncarroll, I'd

hey nncarroll,

I'd recommend:

Letter to a Christian Nation, The End of Faith, The God Delusion, Atheist Universe, God: The Failed Hypothesis, The Blind Watchmaker, The Jesus Puzzle, Deconstructing Jesus, and the Incredible Shriking Son of Man.

Just by doing some Amazon searches for these you'll find a lot of good related material, and maybe that'll help you pick out which of these will most interest you.

There are books on astronomy, cosmology, evolution, Jesus, Bible contradictions, atheism, etc. There's a lot of good reading out there. Good luck.


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

nncarroll wrote:
LOTS OF PROFOUND THINGS

Hi, nncarroll. When I decided to join the RRS it was my most fervent hope that I could help closeted atheists who felt alone. While the journey to "agnostic atheist" has taken me two decades, the big part--the part when I started questioning and stopped believing in biblegod--happened before the series of tubes we know as the Internets™.

In a very short space of time, I lost my boyfriend, all my friends, my worldview, my god and any chance of ever being close with my family. I had to put the pieces back together again, mostly by myself. There should be a name for what happens to us: Shattered Worldview Syndrome or some such.

Anyway, I know what it's like to be a closeted atheist. I also know what it's like to come out of the closet and suffer the wrath of family. Neither condition feels all that great.

But thanks to the momentum we have going, atheists are starting to say, "Hey, wait a minute! I don't have to take this shit!" The theists call us nuts, but they're the ones who believe in magical sky fairies. Sigh.

Anyway, I am glad to be a part of this group. If we can make life easier for geographically isolated atheists I will feel as if RRS has accomplished something grand.

P.S. I'm not as well-read as I'd like to be in this area (lack of funds), but I rather like Losing Faith in Faith by Dan Barker because like him, I went from fundamentalist to atheist. That lucky bastard got his parents to follow him. I've never heard of that happening in any other case...like I said: lucky bastard. Smiling

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


PeloKentus
PeloKentus's picture
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
I'm sorry I didn't see this

I'm sorry I didn't see this thread earlier.

Brian and Kelly were great and made me very proud.  Under intense pressure they stayed cool and embarassed to highly trained and well rehersed professional theists.  It was inspiring.

 In fact, I was inspired.  I'm not giving empty praise here.  Kelly and Brian's performance goaded me to action.  I've been a "live and let live" atheist for 25 years but I'm going to be more active now.  I won't bite my tongue when I hear irrational comments anymore.  I'll speak up.  

I've read Dawkins, Gould, Randi, Harris and many others.  None of them made me want to be a more assertive atheist.  Kelly and Brian did.  

On a lighter note, in the other thread there were several posters who commented on Kelly's physical attractiveness.  True enough, I assume.  On the other hand, I have to admit to a long time attraction to Kirk Cameron.  He was a very cute boy in this tv-star prime, and most people would still probably call him pretty hot. But during the debate my eyes kept wandering over to Brian. I don't know if it was the brains or the looks or the confidence or whatever, but by the end of the debate Brian was the one who was turning me on.  There was no doubt who I would have rather seen on the end of my cock right then.  So Brian you've got it, so don't be afraid to flaunt it.  

 Again, great great job to Kelly and Brian.  You're inspiring.

 

Why are they glad and sad and bad?
I do not know, go ask your dad.


worm3rd
worm3rd's picture
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
A number of comments that I

A number of comments that I have read have indicated a certain displeasure felt by atheists that Brian and Kelly did not perform at optimum atheistic efficiency. Sure, this may be granted, they are much younger than, say, Dawkins or Hitchens, who can draw from a much greater pool of knowledge to counter theistic attacks.

 

So what, though? Bringing a valid point forward helps the cause far more successfully than staying silent and waiting for someone else to do it. As long as a tragic loss is not suffered (more than we can say for that guy who got burned for insisting that the Earth spins around the Sun), and the fallacious opponent is unsuccessful at emerging dominatingly victorious, the point is sent across and rational minds are incited to spin more actively.

 

Imagine a thousand people running around yelling in enraged anger, swinging bats and shovels at each other, and someone ventures into the midst of the craziness to pursuade them to stop. That is highly commendable.

 

Our reason is backed up by all the scientists and doctors the technological and scientific and medical advances of whom has made it possible for our friendly theistic neighbours to not only have their leisures, but also their necessities, and more importantly -- the survival of themselves or someone they care for. How many of them would have been, or have had stillborn babies, or would have died giving birth, or experienced myriads other troubles that science, which they reject and condemn, has saved them from? Most of them went home and thanked God, but they can only do that for so long until the growing rationality in humans (though not so much in America) leaves them with no way to think of Jebus as being any more significant than Santa Claus? (At least Santa helps trick kids into being good at an early stage of development, when it counts, whereas theism urges adults to go to fatal wars against each other.)

 

Unless, of course, one of them gets too high in political power and gets a little bit too close to that "Nuclear Power Launch" button after having a dream of Jesus requesting aid in initiating his Second Coming. But hey, that won't happen, let us just sit back and let them believe what they believe, right? Using the word "belief" is a problem here. "I believe that the car I bought at the auction has an automatic transmission, but I will know I am wrong if I see otherwise." That's belief. It's what you have until knowledge. Stubborn delusion is more appropriate terminology, but not very widely socially accepted.

 

It is moral, I think, to teach other men how to fish, rather than leave them dependent on someone cooking a fish for them every time, while they slander the cook during their supper gatherings. I have little in common with the types who preach "You're no better than them if you try to convert also!" "Just leave them alone!" "Everyone is entitled to their beliefs!" "Just be open minded!" Half of them will still scrutinise those who believe that they were anally probed by aliens, or those who drank the kool-aid, or especially those whose beliefs had motivated them to pull triggers or obtain piloting licenses for the wrong reasons.

 

I honestly appreciate all those alive now and in the past who have sought to disillusion their fellow men from all kinds of nonsense and propaganda that has been haunting our race throughout history. In conclusion, good job, and thank you for making the noise.

The amount of intellect necessary to please us, is a most accurate measure of the amount of intellect we have ourselves.
-Schopenhauer


Ryan
Ryan's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: While there

Sapient wrote:

While there are plenty of atheists put off by our approach, we are glad to be one of the only teams representing the blunt (no-bullshit) atheists out there. 

- Kelly and Sapient 

 

This is one atheist who is not put off by your approach. I was originally inspired by Sam Harris to resist the social stigma that exists against challenging anyone's religious views.  You have shown that it can be done, in a big way, by people without professorial intellectual credentials.  You are (and inspire others to become) "boots on the ground" for reason. 

 Thank you and keep the good work.

The words in each of the following word pairs are not interchangeable:

"Their" and "there."
"Its" and "it's."
"Your" and "you're."
"Then" and "than."


nncarroll
nncarroll's picture
Posts: 5
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Thanks, Iruka Naminori.  I

Thanks, Iruka Naminori.  I believe there will be many stories like yours and mine in the years to come.  But it will be a tough process.  We are up against some crazy devotees.  Did you guys hear about the new Creation Museum in Kentucky?  It claims that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, that dinosaurs lived contemporaneously with humans, and that the dinosaurs actually went on the ark with Noah.  And my brain actually exploded.

Thanks for the reading suggestions JonnyP and Iruka.  I've started End of Faith and am loving it. 

If god does indeed exist, then he is very much a fool, because I, too, exist.


ugzog
Bronze Member
ugzog's picture
Posts: 84
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
Well you represent me

Well you represent me Laughing

 

If other atheist don't like your approach tell them to get off their ass and start their own web forums. Truthfully, I could care less what a theist wants. Keep up the same approach, and keep us in the news!

Man is the only animal in all of nature that cannot accept its own mortality.


ToddGates
High Level DonorRational VIP!
Posts: 33
Joined: 2007-06-04
User is offlineOffline
The Nightline debate

Hi Kelly & Brian,

First, thanks again for inviting me as a guest on your show last Saturday (02 June 2007, to discuss using the Socratic Method when talking to Christian proselytizers, and to discuss my book Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer).

Second, when you asked me how I thought the Nightline debate went, I hope I didn't sound critical of the RRS's performance on Nightline, as I feel you two did a good job given the circumstances. But here's a more complete answer of what my expectations were for the atheist presentation---although perhaps the presentation I expected to see is something more appropriate for a science classroom. That is, I realize that maybe I'm being unrealistic for what can be achieved during a televised debate with evangelists. Anyway, on the chance that this may be food for thought for future debates, I feel that the following four questions are those which theists (& these questions are stumbling blocks for agnostics as well) think cannot be answered by any way other than appealing to the supernatural:

(1) How and why is there a universe at all—that is, why is there something instead of nothing? Science says it began with the Big Bang---but what created the raw material for this Big Bang?

(2) How could the simple matter of the Big Bang proceed to create the galaxies, solar systems, and planets---and why is the arrangement so orderly?

(3) What could have created the first spark of life of life on earth---how could life possibly arrive from non-life?

(4) How could all the incredibly complex and apparently-designed life forms on earth---the bat's echolocation, the giraffe's neck, the human brain---have come about without a Purposeful Designer?

Science, of course, can easily handle questions #2 and #4---although I fully admit that I personally am not presently equipped to rattle off a spontaneous and satisfying answer. Composing a high-level overview of the answers to both these questions---answers that fit into the confines of a televised debate---would be a challenge, but I also feel that such would have been a helpful component of making the case for atheism.

As for questions #1 and #3, my favorite reply on how science's bottom-line answer of "I don't know [yet]" trumps religion's answer of "Let's just make shit up!" comes from Richard Dawkins, who I quote on page 241 of Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer (Endnote 1 of my book, which starts on page 239, touches on these issues):

"There may be some deep questions about the cosmos that are forever beyond science. The mistake is to think that they are therefore not beyond religion too. I once asked a distinguished astronomer ... to explain the Big Bang to me. He did so to the best of his (and my) ability, and I then asked what it was about the fundamental laws of physics that made the spontaneous origin of space and time possible. 'Ah,' he smiled, 'Now we move beyond the realm of science. This is where I have to hand over to our good friend the Chaplain.' But why the Chaplain? Why not the gardener or the chef? Of course chaplains, unlike chefs and gardeners, claim to have some insight into ultimate questions. But what reason have we ever been given for taking their claim seriously? ... Complex, statistically improbable things are by their nature more difficult to explain than simple, statistically probable things. The great beauty of Darwin’s theory of evolution is that it explains how complex, difficult to understand things could have arisen step by plausible step, from simple, easy to understand beginnings. We start our explanation from almost infinitely simple beginnings: pure hydrogen and a huge amount of energy. Our scientific, Darwinian explanations carry us through a series of well-understood gradual steps to all the spectacular beauty and complexity of life. The alternative hypothesis, that this was all started by a supernatural creator, is not only superfluous, it is also highly improbable. It falls foul of the very argument that was originally put forward in its favour. This is because any God worthy of the name must have been a being of colossal intelligence, a supermind, an entity of extremely low probability---a very improbable being indeed. Even if the postulation of such an entity explained anything ... it still wouldn’t help because it raises a bigger mystery than it solves."

Hope this is useful---and thanks again!

- Todd Allen Gates

Author of Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer

(If anyone is interested in reading more about Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer on Amazon---several Top Amazon reviewers have posted very well-written feedback---please visit Amazon via the link on the Rational Response Squad site [click on my name on the page] http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rational_response_squad_alerts/rational_response_squad_alerts/7688

With any purchases made via this link, some of the proceeds will kick back to the Squad.)


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
it was really cool to see

it was really cool to see this kind of debate broadcast on national television.  i enjoyed it.  ray and kirk looked like a bunch of douchebags as usual.  you guys pulled the carpet out from under them within the first few minutes.  i hope to see more programs like this in the future. 


ToddGates
High Level DonorRational VIP!
Posts: 33
Joined: 2007-06-04
User is offlineOffline
Hi Kelly & Brian,   I

Hi Kelly & Brian,

 

I previously commented that because theists believe it's incomprehensible that the Universe can be explained independently of God, a review of the scientific no-supernatural-necessary explanation might have been helpful to make the case for atheism. In my previous post I added that I was not presently equipped to rattle off a spontaneous and satisfying answer . . . but I've been doing a little research in that area, and here's a high-level overview---one that I think might have worked in the context of a debate.

 PRE-BIG BANG: Because the evidence from physics informs us that neither mass nor energy can be created or destroyed (both can only be changed), this suggests that the universe's mass & energy ("mass-energy" ) must have always existed.  

THE BIG BANG: Some 13.7 billion years ago, the universe was made up of pure energy—photons and other massless or nearly massless particles, such as neutrinos—and was unimaginably dense and hot. With what we call the Big Bang, the universe began its current expansion (whether this was the universe's first expansion, or whether it has expanded and collapsed zillions of times, or whether we exist in just one of many universes, we don't know). As the universe expanded it became less dense and cool enough for electrons & protons & neutrons to hold together to form hydrogen atoms. While the universe was still fairly dense, some of the hydrogen fused into helium and trace amounts of other light elements. 

THE GALAXIES, SOLAR SYSTEMS, & PLANETS: As the universe continued to expand, matter was distributed unevenly, and heat & gravitational attraction caused hydrogen and helium gas to clump together, and the clumps formed stars and galaxies. Stars are "on fire" because the temperature and pressure in a star's core causes internal nuclear reactions as hydrogen is fused into helium. Once a star's hydrogen is used up, the helium begins fusing, and the subsequent fusions create the heavier elements, such as carbon, iron, nickel, silicon, and zinc. Once the star exhausts its fuel supply, it collapses upon itself and explodes, and the explosion itself produces additional heavy elements. The clouds of gas and dust dispersed by the exploding star eventually turn into other stars and planets.  

(Our particular star, the Sun, was formed about five billion years ago, and has about another five billion years to go before it burns out of fuel. Our planet is about four and half billion years old.)

If anyone spots any errors, please let me know!

Thanks,

Todd Allen Gates, author of Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer


Fung Tzu
Fung Tzu's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2007-07-07
User is offlineOffline
A conclusive win for the RRS

Hi there! I just finished watching the big debate on YouTube and I think the RRS walked away with both a logical and moral victory. The WoTM resorted to some pretty disgusting tactics such as implied threats of hell, stupid jokes about evolution, and Todd Friel's pathetic ambush of Brian to avenge his comrades.

What's funny is that Christians realize that their side lost too. All they can do is say how Ray and Kirk were oh so polite while whining about how "meeeaaan" Brian and Kelly were. Funny that they'll usually make fun of the angry woman who either had or lost someone to cancer in the very next paragraph.

If I have one criticism, it's that you let Ray and Kirk draw you off topic. The debate was about scientifically proving the existence of God yet they went off into irrelevant fields such as history and morality. If you had called them out on this, you could have avoided parts of the debate where the poorly informed would see no clear-cut winner.