Fair?

terra73
Theist
terra73's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2007-04-29
User is offlineOffline
Fair?

First, let me congratulate the responders on their unflinching win in the debate. The responses given by the dynamic duo fell very short of defending or proving anything(Cameron and the other guy). This brings me to my next question: Was it a fair debate?  It seemed a bit of a turkey shoot. The theist voice was an anemic at best. Being a christian myself I found myself agreeing with your side of things in the context of the debate.  They do represent everything that you loathe about theistic beliefs, but would it not be a bit more constructive to find opponents that challenge your views as well as genuinely being challenged by yours.  What I saw was a forum of talking past each other.  That would be my explanation for their lack of response on a point or two put forward.  At the same time they set themselves up for it. So no pity here.   My final question: What was proven in the debate, in your eyes? On your side or on both. 

People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. ---S.K.


Rev0lver
Posts: 171
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
well, thats the thing about

well, thats the thing about cameron and ray, they suck.

 they never put up any substantial argument and will never back down even when they have been refuted over and over again. they have a bit of history with sapient, so that's probably why they were sapient+kelly's opponents. my IQ went down 2 points every time i heard them speak.

in response to your question, i think sapient and kelly did a great job in disproving theism. what was proven is that theists can't provide substantial evidence that a god exists.

god isn't true until proven false, god should be false until proven true. otherwise we'd have teachings about orcs battling 30 miles under the earth's crust.


djneibarger
Superfan
djneibarger's picture
Posts: 564
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
is it even possible to have

is it even possible to have a truly fair debate over science versus mythology? either you're logical and factual, or you're living in a fantasy world inhabited by angels and devils. it's like a sane person trying to have a coherent conversation with a hallucinating lunatic.

www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
I can't speak for them, but

I can't speak for them, but I'm guessing the core members would welcome a debate with someone a little less...well...disingenuous.  Someone less creepy might fit the bill, as well. Eye-wink 

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


djneibarger
Superfan
djneibarger's picture
Posts: 564
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
kirk is fairly creepy..

kirk is fairly creepy..


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Ray Comfort is nuts.

Ray Comfort is nuts.


terra73
Theist
terra73's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2007-04-29
User is offlineOffline
 I must say how wonderful

 I must say how wonderful it truly is to be labeled.  So to the responses. (Revolver) First what Sapient and Kelly were responding was not theism as a whole they were entering into a debate where Cameron and Comfort set the parameters by their hackneyed attempts at proving things far beyond their means.  They really are not the sharpest knives.  Before you get too comfortable crowing over the body of theistic  belief  I would ask youto consider if all of theistic belief was disproven?  Or is that just the expectation that is involved with these sorts of thing? (Barger) I did not realize that there are actually two primary colors, at least to you, black and white.  To charicaturize as all theists as hallucinating lunatics is a big statement for somebody reined in by logic and fact. For that statement to be true you have to deal with all theists and I am quite certain that you have not.  So the more accurate statement would be: all theists may or seem to be raving lunatics.(Naminori)  It would be a great relief to see a good debate. 

People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. ---S.K.


Free Thinking
Free Thinking's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
terra73 wrote: First, let

terra73 wrote:
First, let me congratulate the responders on their unflinching win in the debate. The responses given by the dynamic duo fell very short of defending or proving anything(Cameron and the other guy). This brings me to my next question: Was it a fair debate? It seemed a bit of a turkey shoot. The theist voice was an anemic at best. Being a christian myself I found myself agreeing with your side of things in the context of the debate. They do represent everything that you loathe about theistic beliefs, but would it not be a bit more constructive to find opponents that challenge your views as well as genuinely being challenged by yours. What I saw was a forum of talking past each other. That would be my explanation for their lack of response on a point or two put forward. At the same time they set themselves up for it. So no pity here. My final question: What was proven in the debate, in your eyes? On your side or on both.

I thought it was Ray and Kirk that challenged Sapient and Kelly. Sapient and Kelly deserved a better challenge than those two. Yes, it would be more constructive to find more challenging opponents but it was Kirk and Ray who sought out Kelly and Sapient.

What did this debate prove?

1. Ray and Kirk are poor representations of that side.

2. Ray and Kirk are not very bright.

3. Ray and Kirk were dishonest and decitful about their intentions.

4. Ray and Kirk broke their own rules of debate and are not men of their word and this reflects poorly on their characters.

5. This debate was a farce set up just so that Ray and Kirk could have a national platform in which to preach.

6. Media and journalists in the future should be more scrutinizing when dealing with such characters as Ray and Kirk.

7. Ray and Kirk use the same ol', same ol' for all their arguments. They've got nothing new to add to their sales pitch.

8. Ray and Kirk are evasive in their answers and try to distract the audience.


9. Ray and Kirk do not deserve any kind of attention with such display. Xtians should find better representatives.

10. Sapient and Kelly are inexperienced and nervous when speaking in front of the audience. They need more practise.

11. Sapient is remorseful and saddened because his honesty was blunt and made Ray and Kirk's arguments appear silly. He wanted to console them after the debate by giving them a hug.  He didn't need the bible to feel this way.

terra73, what did it prove to you?

 

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!


terra73
Theist
terra73's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2007-04-29
User is offlineOffline
I whole heartdly agree. My

I whole heartdly agree. My respect for Sapient has sincerely gone up a few levels for his remorse and frustration with the debate.  I am not sure.  It seems as though conversations of these types are always frustrating when taken lightly by either side. To me there seem to be bigger issuses than proving the existence of God when talking of  and to theism(ists) as well as atheism(ists). Those never seem addressed.

Douchebaggery is universal. Christians, as well as  most everybody, are not above it. I was not aware of how the debate came about. But it does not suprise me. It is a terrible thing for either side to believe that beliefs held by the opposition can easily be explained away.  The debate proved to me there needs to be more genorosity on both sides.  

People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. ---S.K.