Christian: RRS won the discussion

RationalRespons...
Moderator
RationalResponseSquad's picture
Posts: 556
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Christian: RRS won the discussion

Quote:
----- Original Message -----
From: James Main jjkrmain@gmail.com
To: sapient@rationalresponders.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 6:52 PM
Subject: [General Question] The Debate

Hey Squad

As a Christian at least let me say you guys won the debate because Kirk and Ray lost. I had better debates in highshcool, and i'm 44 (back when all the stop signs said whoa). We all have the same things to observe and
come up with different opinions. You guys did a much better job then they did. They lost credibility from the begining when they used faith and the bible, which was not to be used. I could think of at least 10 ways, no
nessarily to prove God but at least the possibility of "something", better then they did.

Someday we'll find out who is right. I just hope it's not too late for the ones who are wrong.

Good Debate
James Main

Thanks James for the positive comments, as hard as they may have been to muster. I agree with you in that they should've done better on their premise of proving god scientifically without invoking faith or the bible. For what it's worth, if when we die we simply cease to exist, we wont actually find out who was right. Furthermore if we do simply cease to exist, than millions of people have wasted the only life they get trying to appease some sort of sky daddy creator. I hope they figure it out before it's too late. Eye-wink

Stay Rational,

Brian Sapient and Kelly

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


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
That's really cool, guys.

That's really cool, guys. Smile 


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
This is a wonderful and

This is a wonderful and thoughtful e-mail.  It is one thing for us to tell you that you did a great job, but it is another to hear it from "the other side" - LOL.  The fact that he noticed their violation of the rules and their lack of credibility speaks volumes for your performance.  Perhaps you could convince him to join the site and produce a better debate here??


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote: Perhaps you

jce wrote:
Perhaps you could convince him to join the site and produce a better debate here??

That's a good idea!

 


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
It would be nice to have

It would be nice to have conversations with smart and thoughtful Christians on this board.  That was really great that he took the time out to come here and write a nice post.

If god takes life he's an indian giver


ChosenByPasta
ChosenByPasta's picture
Posts: 141
Joined: 2006-08-08
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, I can't wait to see

Yeah, I can't wait to see the rest.


pm9347
Theist
pm9347's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2007-03-12
User is offlineOffline
wow i was really impressed

wow i was really impressed in the way that was handled. its refreshing to see people trying to find the truth together , with respect for each others views

 

   very cool  


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
James Main wrote:i'm 44

James Main wrote:
i'm 44 (back when all the stop signs said whoa).
 
Thanks James for your comments. We'd love to have you join the forums and participate in the discussions. It's always nice to have a theist who can post intelligently. 

By the way, humor is good, but 44 ain't old! Besides, I may have to steal that line from you. Smiling

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


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Even your biggest fan Frank

Even your biggest fan Frank Walton admits you guys won. here

douchebag wrote:

So who won part 1?

*SIGH* It pains me to say this, but from what I just saw so far, Sapient and Kelly are winning the debate.

 


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
I watched the nightline in

I watched the nightline in full, watched the video here, and the nightline online videos, it's on youtube now, and I gotta tell you...because I've been on this forum for some time now, I knew exactly what to expect from RRS and I gotta admit, I was REALLY surprised by the two Christians.  Brian and Kelly's answers didn't come from left field (although Cameron and Comfort seemed shocked) if you've ever read this site.

The debate was interesting.  I really hate ABC for editing it the way they did; show the whole freakin debate!  I'm waiting to see if anyone will upload the full unedited debate so we can see it all in context.

I do have to admit though RRS did make their side, "flow" better.  The Way of the Master were too all over.

Fact is, I don't believe there can be a debate of "atheist vs. theist" because all these posts, all these opinions, all revert back to atheists saying God doesn't exist because they've never experienced God personally and theists not being able to explain the gnome on the shoulder.  My faith has made me aware that only God will reveal that gnome and only then will it be understood.

I personally knew that this debate would accomplish nothing for either side really.  It was interesting none the less but I'd like to see it in full, no edits.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Chrisusmc
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
DEBATE

We are all searching for the truth. But truth is the question isn't it. What gives us truth. Science? Faith? Discussion? Experience? Science can explain the existence of the bible as being the oldest document this is a fact. Do people say Jesus existed? If Jesus existed then why was he persecuted? Answer is that he claimed to be God. Even further back to Moses, Ramsees (SP) said his God's would defeat Moses God.  As we know from what the bible says this did not happen in fact Ramsees was disapointed and lost his son and his Jewish slaves.  But enough of the history lesson.  To say this is not a history lesson is to say then the bible tells the story wrong. Where then are we getting history.  Did anyone see King Herrod's tomb was found?  Who was Herrod?  He hunted the new born King Jesus and wanted him brought to him.  Why?  
Ok God and eternity.  In the beginning was God.  Why not?  The law was made to reveal our fallen character not to condem anyone to hell.  We are not condemd to hell for history tells us there is a way out.  Repent, and give your life to the savior.  Oh sure then I can go and sin right?  No your life will be changed and then the real challenge will begin.  
Or you could just say there is not any truth and you get to call the shots.  I challenge you folks on this site to just that call the shots and see how long you last.  Don't say there is truth in anything and live life in the animal kingdom and survival of the fitest is how you get to live. The challenge is before you and i want to hear your response.  No truth just go out and don't look for help from any other animal.  


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
 I gotta admit, I was

 I gotta admit, I was REALLY surprised by the two Christians.

Really? I wasn't. I mean, even Comfort and Cameron concede that their are FAR better apologists than either of them. One is a washed up actor and the other is a preacher who is so inadvertantly funny that a parody site was set up in honor of him, and neither is exactly renowned for intelligence. Quite the contrary, as a matter of fact.... 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: I gotta

deludedgod wrote:

I gotta admit, I was REALLY surprised by the two Christians.

Really? I wasn't. I mean, even Comfort and Cameron concede that their are FAR better apologists than either of them. One is a washed up actor and the other is a preacher who is so inadvertantly funny that a parody site was set up in honor of him, and neither is exactly renowned for intelligence. Quite the contrary, as a matter of fact....

Ray Comfort isn't an ordained minister. 


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: Really? I

deludedgod wrote:
Really? I wasn't. I mean, even Comfort and Cameron concede that their are FAR better apologists than either of them. One is a washed up actor and the other is a preacher who is so inadvertantly funny that a parody site was set up in honor of him, and neither is exactly renowned for intelligence. Quite the contrary, as a matter of fact....

The reason I was is because it was pretty obvious they didn't do much research on RRS.  In the month's since the first nightline special all anyone had to do was read this forum to understand the responses from RRS as rebuttals.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


infidel57
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
On the contrary...

"Fact is, I don't believe there can be a debate of "atheist vs. theist" because all these posts, all these opinions, all revert back to atheists saying God doesn't exist because they've never experienced God personally and theists not being able to explain the gnome on the shoulder. "

 ...the theists said they could prove scientifically that God existed.  Instead, they relied on the long discredited Teleological Argument, and they presented it poorly.  That's why you see the "deer in the headlights" on Cameron's face.  

 I would urge future debaters to be absolutely current on the Teleological Argument, the Cosmological Argument, the Ontological Argument and maybe even the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God.  There were some hiccups in the debate which could have been smoothed out with absolute familiarity with all of these arguments.

Remember, theists have absolutely nothing new to offer.  All of their arguments have been rendered null and void.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
infidel57 wrote: I would

infidel57 wrote:
I would urge future debaters to be absolutely current on the Teleological Argument, the Cosmological Argument, the Ontological Argument and maybe even the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God. There were some hiccups in the debate which could have been smoothed out with absolute familiarity with all of these arguments.

I wonder, what would be the point in this if you will always believe your last statement?  Arguments have been made with biblical reference and explanation yet are discredited for no reason other than "I don't believe it."  No null and void but in your eyes yes.  So how does that make any debate, rational?

infidel57 wrote:
Remember, theists have absolutely nothing new to offer. All of their arguments have been rendered null and void.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


infidel57
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
I'll bite

What new arguments are there that prove the existence of any deity.  Remember, all you have to do is provide evidence that will stand up to scrutiny to shut atheists up once and for all. 

 The reason Biblical references are discredited is because the Bible is not a credible source of information.  If you'll read the writings of Bible scholars (except those connected with Bible colleges) you will learn that there huge contradictions and outright falsehoods contained in the Bible, hardly the handiwork of a "perfect" deity.  This is not a new observation.  Thomas Paine went to jail because he said the same thing in "Age of Reason."


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
infidel57 wrote: What new

infidel57 wrote:
What new arguments are there that prove the existence of any deity. Remember, all you have to do is provide evidence that will stand up to scrutiny to shut atheists up once and for all.

Perhaps it should all be referred to as, to quote Brian, The "Gnome" Challenge.

infidel57 wrote:
The reason Biblical references are discredited is because the Bible is not a credible source of information. If you'll read the writings of Bible scholars (except those connected with Bible colleges) you will learn that there huge contradictions and outright falsehoods contained in the Bible, hardly the handiwork of a "perfect" deity. This is not a new observation. Thomas Paine went to jail because he said the same thing in "Age of Reason."

Back to that statement?  Funny how those "contradictions" have been explained but the explanation wasn't valid (mistranslations, misunderstandings of the culture of the time, etc).  I've yet to hear a valid reason as to why they were not accepted even though the proof was given (original Greek manuscripts with Greek to English translations, other examples of the time period, etc).  Those aren't new rebuttals either and have yet to be addressed.  The best one I've heard??..."Why did God make it so difficult to understand."

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


infidel57
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
contradictions

Those "proofs" of which you write are rationalizations by apologists.  Here's how it works.  Skeptic says, "here's a contradiction."  Apologists offers an explanation and then declares "no contradiction."  Skeptic looks at explanation and sees that it makes no sense and doesn't answer the question.

Remember, the Bible is supposed to the the inerrant work of God.  Mistranslations, misunderstandings...etc. don't have any relevance.  Bible translators have had 2000 years to get it right and most believe the translations are correct, although there may be some minor problems in converting some kinds of concepts from ancient Greek to English. 

Now, the fact that there are contradictions and absurdities doesn't render all the Bible useless for historical purposes.  But it surely raises some flags for historians who are interested in accuracy.

And since it is such a severely flawed document, ascribing it to a deity, as Paine says, is an insult to the deity.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
infidel57 wrote:

infidel57 wrote:
Those "proofs" of which you write are rationalizations by apologists. Here's how it works. Skeptic says, "here's a contradiction." Apologists offers an explanation and then declares "no contradiction." Skeptic looks at explanation and sees that it makes no sense and doesn't answer the question.

But why would a skeptic say they make no sense? I've never seen the answer to that question. You say that they've had 2000 years to get it right but tell me why you believe they havent.  Like that nightline debate, does it really matter that Brian said the 3rd law instead of the 1st? He posted his correction, his explanation, but I can say time and time "but he got it wrong the first time". I can use that justification to say Brian doesn't know anything and run with it for years, even if he came back later and said he corrected himself after, why would I accept it if he should have gotten it right the first time so the explanation looks like it didn't answer the question of "why didn't you say that the first time" as to insinuate he had to look it up after, meaning he didn't know (assuming the role of an apologetic). I'm not saying I will, because I accept he got it wrong and corrected it, but its the same analogy to the translation got something wrong, they corrected it with an explanation, but yet it's not acceptable?

Mistranslations are removed if you read the Greek version. If you don't want to, read the NASB which is the version that corrects them. It's been around for years but I've never heard it once used as saying "ok they fixed these contradictions because of Greek to English". Why?

infidel57 wrote:
Remember, the Bible is supposed to the the inerrant work of God. Mistranslations, misunderstandings...etc. don't have any relevance.

So if you read the 19th century of The Origins of Man and forget at what time it was written (before DNA and modern science), does that make it any less significant? Does that mean it is disregarded in it's entirety? Or is it read in context of both time written and societal influence.

infidel57 wrote:
Bible translators have had 2000 years to get it right and most believe the translations are correct, although there may be some minor problems in converting some kinds of concepts from ancient Greek to English.

As explained in using the NASB translation.

infidel57 wrote:
Now, the fact that there are contradictions and absurdities doesn't render all the Bible useless for historical purposes. But it surely raises some flags for historians who are interested in accuracy.

And since it is such a severely flawed document, ascribing it to a deity, as Paine says, is an insult to the deity.

Ironically that's not what many of your comrades here would say. The bible here is referred to as a work of fiction, no historical use. Add to that the total rejection of explanation and we've come to an impasse.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Free Thinking
Free Thinking's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Dear James Main,   Thank

Dear James Main,

 

Thank you for your existance.  It gives me great comfort to know that there are folks like you.  Thank you for taking the time to respond thoughtfully.

 I could have thought of a few stronger arguements than what kirk and ray presented and I am not even Christian or religious.

 I am sorry that Ray and Kirk may have been representing your side.  I think their arguements were a real disservice to their community.  In all fairness, this debate deserved more than what Kirk and Ray could offer.

 Please continue to share your thoughts with us in this forum.  I always look forward to intelligent discussion and thought.  I just thought I'd let you know I think you are swell while I was still in a posting mood.

 

Thank you!! 

Peace. 

Judge: god, you have been accused of existence! What do you have to say for yourself?

god: I am innocent until proven guilty, your honour!


Dave_G
Dave_G's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2007-04-21
User is offlineOffline
/nice closer

/nice closer