Good Debate

Simon66
Simon66's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Good Debate

The debate was great, I've been listening to it on your Stickam page.
You guys should do your own TV show. If Ray and Puppet have a christian show there is definately room for an Atheist show. Your country needs a rational counterpoint.

If that was the best the evangelicals could come up with I am dissapointed.

Sapient, I noticed you used some points from the forum, It's good to see the community here is so supportive. I'd go as far as to say that historically, atheism has been an individual pursuit and group support and community is a new thing to most of us atheists.

I hope you guys do many more of these, it can only help to highlight the garbage they spouted when it is put under a spotlight and questioned.

People like Ray and Kirk are so used to not being questioned, that their answers were like baby talk at times, and their circular arguements and answers were bizarre to say the least. That is problem with leaders of faith, their 'deep' thoughts and stories are moreoften like Hallmark cards than profound wisdoms.

It seems to me that what they also tended to do was not answer questions directed at them, but answer questions they had made up in the privacy of their own homes, questions that sounded deep, but were in fact banal sound bites, with equally banal sound bite answers.

Something that could be touched on in future debates, (it may have been in this one, I missed some of it) is that not only did they not prove the existance of god, they offered no proof to support any of the outlandish claims they made - eg.
Q. who made god?
A. god is outside time and space, he is infinite.
How can they possibly know this???
Also something to be wary of in future (I don't know how you can argue with it though) is the fact that they -christians - change the English language to suit themselves, sometimes in the middle of an arguement. Deliberately misleading people about the meaning of words and concepts eg. 'Theory'. It makes debating like wrestling jello.

Thanks very much guys for doing the hard job, on behalf of all of us.

Simon66 - Australia

Myth-Bustin' religiosity from the World.


psychopractor
psychopractor's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Regarding Brian and Kelly's

Regarding Brian and Kelly's delivery style I would suggest they stay away from the mockery/humour line. As a stand up comedian that is almost infamous for controversial material (especially about religion) I know the real dangers of trying to make a point using hyperbole and other devices used in comedy. One thing that really made an impact on me was watching Richard Dawkins during interviews and talks and how level-headed he stays regardless of what is going on. In the end he exposes the opposite party as the emotionally-charged, irrational and knee-jerk people that they are.

The 'problem' is that humour is an emotional appeal and creates an emotional response. Unless you have won them over with charisma or an intellectual argument beforehand more likely than not you will shoot yourself in the foot. I consider Brian and Kelly's primary goal to be education - not entertainment. Not to say that they can't be entertaining but it's a balance that has to be kept in check.

For those of you who haven't seen one of the best routines on religion here is a youtube link to George Carlin. Bill Hicks is also highly recommended.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vb_vVJqqd8


Zeus
Zeus's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
SHOOTtoKILL wrote: "First,

SHOOTtoKILL wrote:

"First, atheism and theism have to do with 'belief' not knowledge." 

So far so good. I just stated I was none of both because Zeus seemed to think I was a theist.

 "Now, explain to me again why you think that the Big Bang would refute this law in any manner."

That is not my main point, but I think its true if my memory is right (found something to delve in here). I found a basic site here claiming it. Not sure whether its very reliable. http://www.virtualsciencefair.org/2004/khak4a0/public_html/problems.html 

It says :"Besides conflicting with the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics [The big bang theory]"

But again this is not my main point. The point is that you cannot disprove creationism so easily. A scientific law has value only now and here (A great value, I agree). But when we speak of creation, we surpass the field of application of thermodynamics. We must speak conceptually, and thermodynamics as a concept cannot disprove creation.

"Third, When Nightline calls to ask for you to be in a Faceoff, you can expect some constructive criticism and you will get some asshole's opinions that don't really help. I urge you to learn more about the arguments instead of just the edited version presented to the public by abc. "

The edited version on ABC permitted me to rapidly identify the low value of this debate, and people should know that they should better find proper matter to study than this pseudo-intellectual debate. Again, in order not to discriminate: both parties were execrable. Im not even interested in who won.

"That is not my main point, but I think its true if my memory is right (found something to delve in here). I found a basic site here claiming it. Not sure whether its very reliable. http://www.virtualsciencefair.org/2004/khak4a0/public_html/problems.html

It says :'Besides conflicting with the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics [The big bang theory]' "

I would suggest keeping this out of your argument if your not absolutely certain. Personally I'm not sure about the second but the Big Bang Theory I can say with absolute 100% certainty does not conflict with the first law of thermodynamics (but I'm no scientist). I question the motive/reliability of this site.

"But again this is not my main point. The point is that you cannot disprove creationism so easily. A scientific law has value only now and here (A great value, I agree). But when we speak of creation, we surpass the field of application of thermodynamics. We must speak conceptually, and thermodynamics as a concept cannot disprove creation."

I only see your point so far as it is hard to prove irrationality with rationality. There are however cases to expose these manmade ideas as irrational. To have an all knowing, all powerful being not bound by the rules of science or rationality is rather convenient when proving his existance no? "How can this be so?" "Because he is God."

"The edited version on ABC permitted me to rapidly identify the low value of this debate, and people should know that they should better find proper matter to study than this pseudo-intellectual debate. Again, in order not to discriminate: both parties were execrable. Im not even interested in who won."

I strongly suggest watching the full debate, researching trhe various links on this site, and then making an uinformed decision.

"So far so good. I just stated I was none of both because Zeus seemed to think I was a theist."

I knew you weren't a theist, but you seemed to be arguing for the other side of the coin. I was just responding with rebuttal.

"He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not reason is a slave."

--William Drummond