Ray Comfort speaks of ABC debate.

Dave_G
Dave_G's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2007-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Ray Comfort speaks of ABC debate.

Thank you so much for the many encouraging emails regarding the New York atheist debate. Your kind words meant a lot to Kirk and me. The following is typical:

"Thanks so much for your debate on ABC's Nightline. I watched several portions on the website, and our radio station is promoting your "way of the master" website now too. Praise the Lord for the words that you shared which were VERY eye-opening and revealing and had a huge world-wide audience . . . I KNOW many lives are being reached through your commitment to Christ, and this opportunity which you knocked out of the ballpark." D.P. (WA).

While most have understood why we did this debate, there have been a number of Christian arm-chair quarterbacks who are publicly saying that we miserably failed--calling it "the way of the disaster," and saying that we went into the debate totally unprepared. There have also been accusations from Christians and atheists saying that I didn't keep my word. For those of you that have read what our critics are saying, I would like to address these issues.

Our primary goal in doing the debate was to preach the gospel to the countless people who would be watching in their homes, because it is the gospel that is "the power of God unto salvation" (see Romans 1:16). I have noticed that often Christian apologists present wonderful arguments at debates that sweep the floor with their opponents, but they fail to preach "Christ and Him crucified." So our strategy was that we would first present clear and solid evidence of God's existence through creation (Romans 1:20 says that creation is what leaves the world without excuse), and then focus on preaching the moral Law and the gospel. Again, our primary goal was to preach the gospel and then (where possible) support our preaching with apologetics, reason, logic, with a loving demeanor. That is what we tried to do.

We studied hard, but we had no idea what they would throw at us. So we prepared ourselves to give rational answers to questions such as why the Old Testament says to cut the hand off a woman who interferes in a fight between her husband and another man, why God told Joshua to kill every Canaanite man, woman, and child, why God condoned slavery and even the beating of slaves, why a rebellious youth was to be stoned to death, etc. We were also ready to answer questions about anthropomorphic statements in the Bible, Scripture's use of hyperbole, geocentricity, who it was who imprisoned Galileo and was behind the crusades and the Spanish inquisition, and a lot more. We thought we had all the bases covered, but one or two came out of left field for which we hadn't prepared--about "entropy" and whether or not the universe is eternal. Ironically, I have faced thousands of questions from heckler's over the years, and it was the first time I had heard that question. (I have a book coming out in a couple of months called, The Atheist Delusion, which addresses each of these questions).

While we recognize that not every Christian will agree with our approach (primarily preaching the gospel), we wanted you to understand where we were coming from. OneNewsNow.com did a survey asking: Did Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort prove the existence of God to your satisfaction? The results show that over half of those taking the survey did understand.

Look at how the Law (going through the Commandments) caused the arguments of this atheist to become a non-issue:

"I was sent this test on line . . . It started asking me 'Are you a good person?' I thought, 'Sure, I'm a good person. I haven't killed anybody.' As I took the test, something started happening. The Law (as I figured out later on), was cutting through my stony heart at the time. It was quite miraculous. It was totally unexpected. I had heard the typical gospel message before but never like this. I had never heard this before. I didn't know where it was taking me. I didn't even understand what was happening to me at first. But as I was taking that test, all these problems I had with the Bible--whether it was right or wrong, all that stuff fell away. It just fell in the background and disappeared. And pretty soon I started realizing I was in big trouble!"

So, our tactic was to share three main points:

• Creation scientifically proves there is a Creator.
• Conscience tells us there is a moral Law and therefore, there must be a Law-giver. This Law is written on the heart, and tells us we are in big trouble with the Creator.
• Conversion: Becoming a new creature in Christ is an incredibly powerful argument for Christianity.

We must have reasonable answers, for reasonable people; however, these atheists were not reasonable -- they were angry and hostile. So we wanted to keep our eye on the gospel and not allow the debate to degenerate into the Jerry Springer show. It was because of this that we decided not to break away from the format given to us by ABC. Unfortunately this was seen by a number of Christians to be weakness on our part. In hindsight, if we have one regret, it is that we should have countered them a bit more than we did. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Not Keeping my Word

There seems to be some confusion about the structure of the debate. A press release headline was changed, stating this would be a "Bible-less debate." That was never the case. In fact, I provided Brian (the atheist) with a copy of my outline some time before the debate. He knew that I would begin by demonstrating God's existence without using the Bible or faith (ie. creation proves there is a Creator). He then knew that I would then open up the Ten Commandments (ie. conscience proves there is a moral law and thus a Law Giver). Finally, he also knew that I would end with the gospel. He knew I planned to move from a presentation of the general evidence of God to specific proof about Jesus Christ. So it greatly puzzled us that Brian feigned "shock" when he heard it.

Despite these accusations, I am deeply thankful to God that the full gospel was preached on ABC's Home Page (they get 19 million visitors each month), and it is still going out all over the Internet, and will do for years to come. What an incredible opportunity we were given. Only eternity will tell what took place.

Thank you for your prayers.

Until the nets are full,
Ray Comfort

P.S. To see the debate through our cameras (and never-before-seen behind the scenes clips) go to ;">YouTube.com/TheWayOfTheMaster


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Oh holy fuck.

Oh holy fuck.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Angry and hostile. Yep,

Angry and hostile. Yep, because Ray wants to lie and tell people that an croc screwed a duck which IS NOT what evolution claims.

And he'd also like to lie and sell you the idea that Christians who buy evolution are just as deluded as atheists who do. So excuse the f-out of us for wanting truth and not the comic book crap Ray is selling. 

"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


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
I'd like to start a petition

I'd like to start a petition to medicate Ray Comfort, permenantly.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
He is an asshat.

He is an asshat.


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
"Our primary goal in doing

"Our primary goal in doing the debate was to preach the gospel to the countless people who would be watching in their homes..."

Really?  I thought the purpose of a debate was to debate.  Since Ray outright stated that he could prove god without the use of faith then there would be no reason for him to say:

"He knew that I would begin by demonstrating God's existence without using the Bible or faith...

One would expect that he'd actually do this then.  He never did.  So he says Atheists were angry and hateful.  Hmmm, if someone lies to get you to go to his sermon under the false pretenses of having an intelligent discussion wouldn't you be a bit upset?  That's why moral people have a problem with dishonesty.  They don't like being lied to and wasting their time.  Ray has no problem with lying so he can't understand why so many people were upset with his dishonesty.

Ray needs to buy a fucking clue. 


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I'd like to start a

Quote:
I'd like to start a petition to medicate Ray Comfort, permenantly.

It doesn't matter, MeaganFromCanada.

The poll Dave G posted along with the article, that little thing on the right, is quite eloquent as to what people want to hear. Ray and Kirk have so far delivered. From a marketing point of view, this is quite a success on their part.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


stillmatic
stillmatic's picture
Posts: 288
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
Rigor_OMortis

Rigor_OMortis wrote:

Quote:
I'd like to start a petition to medicate Ray Comfort, permenantly.

It doesn't matter, MeaganFromCanada.

The poll Dave G posted along with the article, that little thing on the right, is quite eloquent as to what people want to hear. Ray and Kirk have so far delivered. From a marketing point of view, this is quite a success on their part.

Only because ABC let them get away with prothletizing instead of debating.

"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
I'm confused. Wasn't it

I'm confused. Wasn't it WOTM that said they would prove god without using the Bible? Didn't they suggest that?

If god takes life he's an indian giver


IzzyPop
IzzyPop's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: I'm

pariahjane wrote:
I'm confused. Wasn't it WOTM that said they would prove god without using the Bible? Didn't they suggest that?

Remember, a lie for God is not  really a lie.  Ends justify the means.  Xians live by it.  The Book of Morman OPENS with it.  God tell a guy to murder a man so he can steal the golden tablets by pretending(read bearing false witness) to be the dude he whacked. 1/3 of the 10 Commandments, arguably the 3 biggies, are allowed to be broken because God says it's OK this time 'cause I say so'.

"When you hit your thumb with a hammer it's nice to be able to blaspheme. It takes a special kind of atheist to jump up and down shout, 'Oh, random fluctuations-in-the-space-time-continuum!'"-Terry Pratchett


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: There seems to be

Quote:
There seems to be some confusion about the structure of the debate. A press release headline was changed, stating this would be a "Bible-less debate." That was never the case. In fact, I provided Brian (the atheist) with a copy of my outline some time before the debate. He knew that I would begin by demonstrating God's existence without using the Bible or faith (ie. creation proves there is a Creator). He then knew that I would then open up the Ten Commandments (ie. conscience proves there is a moral law and thus a Law Giver). Finally, he also knew that I would end with the gospel. He knew I planned to move from a presentation of the general evidence of God to specific proof about Jesus Christ. So it greatly puzzled us that Brian feigned "shock" when he heard it.

IF this was the case, why didn't Comfort bring it up right after Sapient mentioned it? A bit suspicious, I say. However, Sapient can clear this up easily.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
The thing to keep in mind is

The thing to keep in mind is that Way of the Master is a business, literally a Limited Liability Corporation (not a church), and it's agents (Ray and Kirk) could no more admit their products are flawed then Chrysler could admit their cars are shit. The outcome of the debate wouldn't have effected what they say about it, it's just free advertising. Of course they're going to spin the debate in a positive light, because they still want to sell their classes, tv show, and radio broadcast. No big surprise. I'm certain they know that the arguments from design have been debunked for a long time, but it still works on the gullible and credulous, so they use it. It's no different from Pat Robertson or the late-but-not-late-enough Jerry Falwell. They run a ministry business.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Dave_G wrote:

Dave_G wrote:

Our primary goal in doing the debate was to preach the gospel to the countless people who would be watching in their homes, because it is the gospel that is "the power of God unto salvation" (see Romans 1:16).

From the email of Ray Comfort:

 

"I've been thinking. How about we promote this as me saying:
"I can prove God's existence. Absolutely, scientifically, without the mention of faith or the Bible." That would stir interest from both the Christian and secular community.

So Rays main intent was to "share the gospel" yet he told me his intent was to prove God scientifically without invoking faith or the bible. Got it. Bearing false witness... I get it. (this is the best argument Ray has made against Christianity so far)

 

Quote:
Not Keeping my Word

There seems to be some confusion about the structure of the debate. A press release headline was changed, stating this would be a "Bible-less debate." That was never the case. In fact, I provided Brian (the atheist) with a copy of my outline some time before the debate. He knew that I would begin by demonstrating God's existence without using the Bible or faith (ie. creation proves there is a Creator). He then knew that I would then open up the Ten Commandments (ie. conscience proves there is a moral law and thus a Law Giver). Finally, he also knew that I would end with the gospel. He knew I planned to move from a presentation of the general evidence of God to specific proof about Jesus Christ. So it greatly puzzled us that Brian feigned "shock" when he heard it.

So... I looked back at the emails and here's what I have...

"My outline would be in three points:

Creation (the old "watchmaker" argument), Conscience (we all have one), Commandments (these stir the conscience)."
That's the outline to his argument he sent. When he sent it I never expected that 8 of his 13 minutes would be spent on faith and commandment. I also wasn't sure how he'd work the commandments in, I was thinking maybe he made an error in what he was putting in his outline, or maybe he was even making a joke of some sort. What I am sure about it is that Ray lobbied for more time with us and ABC claiming "I need more than 15 minutes to make my case." We're assuming this case was "prove God scientifically without invoking faith or the bible." Because of this we yielded a large chunk of our time to Ray, only to watch him squander the MAJORITY on exactly what he said he wouldn't do. Had Ray mentioned very briefly the ten commandments in a scientific sense without invoking faithb or going on long bible diatribes in his opening statement I wouldn't have been surprised, however Rays abuse of the system shows a calculated deceitfulness that can only be described as "lying for Christ." So the question is... Are Ray and Kirk the sort of "hypocrites" that God can sniff out and will eventually end up in hell? Ray and Kirk like to call others hypocrites... I think I'll do it for them. See you in hell Ray and Kirk.

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Dave_G wrote: Our primary

Dave_G wrote:

Our primary goal in doing the debate was to preach the gospel to the countless people who would be watching in their homes, because it is the gospel that is "the power of God unto salvation" (see Romans 1:16).

That's primarily because you can't win a debate in which you claim you can "scientifically" prove the existence of god. You knew that going in, so you usurped ABC's time, the audiences' time, and Brian and Kelly's time, and turned the debate into a bully pulpit. Bravo, Ray, you dishonest, manipulative drillrod.

Quote:
I have noticed that often Christian apologists present wonderful arguments at debates that sweep the floor with their opponents,

This has never happened. Ever.

Quote:
So our strategy was that we would first present clear and solid evidence of God's existence through creation (Romans 1:20 says that creation is what leaves the world without excuse)

If that was your strategy, your strategy should rank up there with Hitler's push into Russia as one of the biggest tactical blunders on record. You failed miserably, and if you think you provided "clear and solid evidence" then you're clearly more deluded than der fuhrer himself.

Quote:
and then focus on preaching the moral Law and the gospel. Again, our primary goal was to preach the gospel and then (where possible) support our preaching with apologetics, reason, logic, with a loving demeanor. That is what we tried to do.

What you did was waste everyone's time, dope. And anyone with "eyes that can see, and a brain that works" could see how you completely failed at addressing the topic of the debate, avoided any points presented by B&K, and made an utter fool of yourself.

Quote:
We thought we had all the bases covered, but one or two came out of left field for which we hadn't prepared--about "entropy" and whether or not the universe is eternal. Ironically, I have faced thousands of questions from heckler's over the years, and it was the first time I had heard that question. (I have a book coming out in a couple of months called, The Atheist Delusion, which addresses each of these questions).

Yes, entropy, another concept you couldn't grasp with 8 hands and a vat of pine tar. I'm sure you spent at least 30 minutes talking to a theist biologist before addressing the topic in your brilliant book. Moron.

 

Quote:
While we recognize that not every Christian will agree with our approach (primarily preaching the gospel),

You mean, lying?

Quote:
Did Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort prove the existence of God to your satisfaction? The results show that over half of those taking the survey did understand.

And, at one point in history, everyone thought the earth was flat. Appealing to the majority is an argument that isn't even worth rebutting.

Quote:
Look at how the Law (going through the Commandments) caused the arguments of this atheist to become a non-issue:

"I was sent this test on line . . . It started asking me 'Are you a good person?' I thought, 'Sure, I'm a good person. I haven't killed anybody.' As I took the test, something started happening. The Law (as I figured out later on), was cutting through my stony heart at the time. It was quite miraculous. It was totally unexpected. I had heard the typical gospel message before but never like this. I had never heard this before. I didn't know where it was taking me. I didn't even understand what was happening to me at first. But as I was taking that test, all these problems I had with the Bible--whether it was right or wrong, all that stuff fell away. It just fell in the background and disappeared. And pretty soon I started realizing I was in big trouble!"

That's one quote from one deluded goof like yourself, Ray. You're even worse at spin than you are at debate.

Quote:
• Creation scientifically proves there is a Creator.

BUZZ, Strike one!


Quote:
• Conscience tells us there is a moral Law and therefore, there must be a Law-giver. This Law is written on the heart, and tells us we are in big trouble with the Creator.

BUZZ, Strike two!

Quote:
• Conversion: Becoming a new creature in Christ is an incredibly powerful argument for Christianity.

BUZZ, Strike three! Grab some bench, Ray, you're out of your league.

Quote:
We must have reasonable answers, for reasonable people; however, these atheists were not reasonable -- they were angry and hostile.

One can be reasonable while being hostile. I will agree with you, B&K did come off a bit angry.

Quote:
So we wanted to keep our eye on the gospel and not allow the debate to degenerate into the Jerry Springer show. It was because of this that we decided not to break away from the format given to us by ABC.

That B&K were slightly hostile, I'll give you. But extrapolating that into the belief that the debate was about to turn into a Springer show is laughable. You didn't veer off course because in a full-fledged debate, you would have gotten killed.

Quote:
Unfortunately this was seen by a number of Christians to be weakness on our part. In hindsight, if we have one regret, it is that we should have countered them a bit more than we did. Hindsight is always 20/20.

I wished you would have. Expose your nonsense to the fullest extent.


Quote:
There seems to be some confusion about the structure of the debate. A press release headline was changed, stating this would be a "Bible-less debate."

No, you were supposed to prove the existence of god without using the bible. You did not come remotely close to doing so.

Quote:
He knew that I would begin by demonstrating God's existence without using the Bible or faith (ie. creation proves there is a Creator).

How long did it take Ray to invoke the bible as proof? 1 minute? 3 minutes? It wasnt far in, I remember that much.

Quote:
He then knew that I would then open up the Ten Commandments (ie. conscience proves there is a moral law and thus a Law Giver). Finally, he also knew that I would end with the gospel. He knew I planned to move from a presentation of the general evidence of God to specific proof about Jesus Christ. So it greatly puzzled us that Brian feigned "shock" when he heard it.

Brian?

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


LovE-RicH
LovE-RicH's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I understand this as:

I understand this as:

YES: 36,94%

NO: 10,21%

NO, but oh well, fuck it...: 52,85%

(total NO: +/- 63,06%) Sticking out tongue


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
This makes me think of

This makes me think of religion as a drug.

Especially the poll, "Is overdosing bad"

50% say "Yes , but since other people have done it..."

 

Oh, and we have to twist what we did into something else. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


rab
rab's picture
Posts: 273
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
Before the debate, I read

Before the debate, I read quite a few posts from members that said Ray and Kirk's purpose wasn't to prove god exists, but to preach the gospel.  They even (accurately) predicted what the slaves of the master's responses would be afterward.

Religious fundamentalists are just too easy to read.Laughing

Support the Separation of Church & State!
Freedom From Religion Foundation


Slimm
Superfan
Slimm's picture
Posts: 167
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Does anyone else find it

Does anyone else find it funny how Ray keeps saying that he's going to "STIR" peoples Conscience so it can do it's god given duty.

This also sounds like he's saying let me scramble these peoples minds so I can confuse them. And the way he refers to this act as "gods given duty" is so Ironic...

 

Slimm,

Quote:
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called Insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion." - Robert M. Pirsig,


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Slimm wrote: Does anyone

Slimm wrote:

Does anyone else find it funny how Ray keeps saying that he's going to "STIR" peoples Conscience so it can do it's god given duty.

This also sounds like he's saying let me scramble these peoples minds so I can confuse them. And the way he refers to this act as "gods given duty" is so Ironic...

 

Slimm,

Nothing screams insecurity more than someone defending myth .

SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY, AT THE U.S. AIR AREANA, IT IS THE SMACKDOWN DEATHCAGE MATCH BETWEEN ALLAH, YAHWEY AND JESUS!

Hey Ray, lets say Jesus is real for arguments sake, could you tell the asshole to not put humans in his beef with other majical string pullers like him?

If the beef is with the big boys, why are the minimum wage workers being caught up in it?

 


"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


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

Dave_G
Dave_G's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2007-04-21
User is offlineOffline
LovE-RicH wrote:

[MOD EDIT - duplicate post]


Dave_G
Dave_G's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2007-04-21
User is offlineOffline
LovE-RicH wrote: I

LovE-RicH wrote:

I understand this as:

YES: 36,94%

NO: 10,21%

NO, but oh well, fuck it...: 52,85%

(total NO: +/- 63,06%) Sticking out tongue

 

Not only that but that poll is from a Christian site.


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
The poll says nothing except

The poll says nothing except that 89.79% of the population are idiots! Having listened to the debate on the NBC website (the video thing was only giving me sound not picture, probably something not installed in my computer) I can safely say that Sapient and Kelly owned those two!


cslewisster
Theist
cslewisster's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2006-11-06
User is offlineOffline
I think that the thing that

I think that the thing that Kirt and Ray are missing here is the fact that they lied. You can attempt to cover it up with "Well at least the Gospel was preached" but that's a pretty shitty answer for a pretty shitting thing to do.

"But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes ' or 'No, no'; anything beyond these is of evil. " Matt 5:37

ttdm.blogspot.com


Theol0gic
Theist
Theol0gic's picture
Posts: 44
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
I have to say I appreciate

I have to say I appreciate Ray and Kirks desire to bring their version of the Gospel to people. But that was not what the program was about. They were there to debate, not preach. Since they were going to be representing theism on national television, they should have had a professional theistic philosopher such as William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Norman Geisler, or Craig Hawkins on the show. This was the most lightweight debate I've ever heard. This applies to both sides. Neither side was very knowledgeable or skilled in debate. Again, I appreciate their good intentions, but I think they made a mockery of Christianity before the nation. There are very good and solid arguments for Christian theism. I don't want atheists to think that Ray and Kirk represent the best we've got. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Trust me. Lastly, to the atheists, there is no reason for you to be so rude and disrespectful. It only weakens your position. But I would expect this kind of behavior from a worldview that has no absolute moral compass.

Banned for lying - was warned twice.


Theol0gic
Theist
Theol0gic's picture
Posts: 44
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
I have to disagree that the

I have to disagree that the conversion experience supports Christanity. This is known in logic as circumstantial evidence. Something is not true because my feelings tell me it is. Second, if you are going to base an argument on circumstial conversion feelings, then logically such a view would also have to apply to hinduism, budhism, and other religious beliefs. Those people have also had a very real experience of their own religions. While It is true that Christanity does have a very good track record of turning people into new creatures and giving them a new heart and mind, I wouldn't use this kind of argument in a debate.

Banned for lying - was warned twice.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Theol0gic wrote: I have to

Theol0gic wrote:
I have to disagree that the conversion experience supports Christanity. This is known in logic as circumstantial evidence. Something is not true because my feelings tell me it is. Second, if you are going to base an argument on circumstial conversion feelings, then logically such a view would also have to apply to hinduism, budhism, and other religious beliefs. Those people have also had a very real experience of their own religions. While It is true that Christanity does have a very good track record of turning people into new creatures and giving them a new heart and mind, I wouldn't use this kind of argument in a debate.

I am glad that you concede that "feeling" something doesnt make it true. As much as those consesions are good, merely making them doesnt give you a pass eitherWink

"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


Tyl3r04
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Theol0gic wrote: I have to

Theol0gic wrote:
I have to say I appreciate Ray and Kirks desire to bring their version of the Gospel to people. But that was not what the program was about. They were there to debate, not preach. Since they were going to be representing theism on national television, they should have had a professional theistic philosopher such as William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Norman Geisler, or Craig Hawkins on the show. This was the most lightweight debate I've ever heard. This applies to both sides. Neither side was very knowledgeable or skilled in debate. Again, I appreciate their good intentions, but I think they made a mockery of Christianity before the nation. There are very good and solid arguments for Christian theism. I don't want atheists to think that Ray and Kirk represent the best we've got. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Trust me. Lastly, to the atheists, there is no reason for you to be so rude and disrespectful. It only weakens your position. But I would expect this kind of behavior from a worldview that has no absolute moral compass.

There is nothing different between our morals or yours. Religion nor God do not affect ones morals, the only difference between your morals, and my morals is that I do not need a fear of punishment, or the thought of a God to have my morals.

"Why would God send his only son to die an agonizing death to redeem an insignificant bit of carbon?"-Victor J. Stenger.


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
When did theologic decide to

When did theologic decide to start making sense?


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Maragon wrote: When did

Maragon wrote:
When did theologic decide to start making sense?

Today it seems. Well a little bit of sense at least.

But please Theo, give us the good solid arguments put forward by professional theologians (not philosophers) of which you speak! We've all heard the arguments before, so which ones exactly are solid?

 


gregfl
Posts: 170
Joined: 2006-04-29
User is offlineOffline
Theol0gic wrote:

Theol0gic wrote:
But I would expect this kind of behavior from a worldview that has no absolute moral compass.

Bleech.

If christianity had an 'absolute moral compass', then there wouldn't be literally tens of thousands of versions of christian morality. It would all be the same.

 

Fact is, your 'absolute morality' as depicted in the bible contradicts itself over and over. Further, it is vague and open to interpretation which makes it subjective to your interpretation. Even further still, the very nature of morality makes is subjective. There is no such thing as objective morality.

I would be happy to take this up with you. The concept of objective morality is a fantasy.

{mod fixed spaces - G} 


IzzyPop
IzzyPop's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
gregfl

gregfl wrote:

 

Bleech.

 

 

If christianity had an 'absolute moral compass', then there wouldn't be literally tens of thousands of versions of christian morality. It would all be the same.

 

Fact is, your 'absolute morality' as depicted in the bible contradicts itself over and over. Further, it is vague and open to interpretation which makes it subjective to your interpretation. Even further still, the very nature of morality makes is subjective. There is no such thing as objective morality.

I would be happy to take this up with you. The concept of objective morality is a fantasy.

 

I was waiting to see if anyone was going to pick up the gauntlet...Let me pop a beer and watch... 

"When you hit your thumb with a hammer it's nice to be able to blaspheme. It takes a special kind of atheist to jump up and down shout, 'Oh, random fluctuations-in-the-space-time-continuum!'"-Terry Pratchett


Theol0gic
Theist
Theol0gic's picture
Posts: 44
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
No, you haven't heard all

No, you haven't heard all the arguments before. I hear this in every thread I go and it is patent nonsense. If you did, you could not possibly remain an atheist and be honest with yourself at the same time.

Banned for lying - was warned twice.


gregfl
Posts: 170
Joined: 2006-04-29
User is offlineOffline
Theol0gic wrote: No, you

Theol0gic wrote:
No, you haven't heard all the arguments before. I hear this in every thread I go and it is patent nonsense. If you did, you could not possibly remain an atheist and be honest with yourself at the same time.

 

Sure we haven't heard all the arguments before.  We just have heard all of your arguments, including this one.

 

Try this on for size and tell me how convinced you are...

 

"if you heard all the arguments against god, you could not possiblly remain a christian and be honest with yourself at the same  time"

 

Convinced?  Isn't this really not an actual argument but instead  just a thinly veiled insult?  Now, do you think we feel you are so superior in scientific, theistic, and philosophical knowledge and argumentat  that we will just sit back and take your little petty insults so we can cyber-hang out with you?  

 


Tyl3r04
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Theol0gic wrote: No, you

Theol0gic wrote:
No, you haven't heard all the arguments before. I hear this in every thread I go and it is patent nonsense. If you did, you could not possibly remain an atheist and be honest with yourself at the same time.

I suppose your superior moral compass inolves supporting genocide, having slaves, killing your enemies, degreding woman so on and so forth. You think you are superior simply because you have your bible and your "god" and that, that is where all of the worlds morals come from. Well, sorry buddy but I've never even read the bible, much less ever gone to church and I have better morals, or just as good morals as anyone that I know. Religion does not depict morals. 

"Why would God send his only son to die an agonizing death to redeem an insignificant bit of carbon?"-Victor J. Stenger.


Theol0gic
Theist
Theol0gic's picture
Posts: 44
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
gregfl wrote: Theol0gic

gregfl wrote:

Theol0gic wrote:
But I would expect this kind of behavior from a worldview that has no absolute moral compass.

 

Bleech.

 

 

If christianity had an 'absolute moral compass', then there wouldn't be literally tens of thousands of versions of christian morality.  It would all be the same.

 

Fact is, your 'absolute morality' as depicted in the bible  contradicts itself over and over.  Further, it is vague and open to interpretation which makes it subjective to your interpretation. Even further still, the very nature of morality makes is subjective.  There is no such thing as objective morality.

  I would be happy to take this up with you.  The concept of objective morality is a fantasy. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are serious problems with the thesis you have put forth in your post. It is clear you have not thought your own view through to its logical conclusion.

First, contrary to your assertion, there are not many versions of morality among Christians. The absolute standard for objective morality, comes right from the biblical record. This is the Christian basis for morality, and true Christians follow this standard. We also follow the moral standard that is imprinted on the human heart and conscience.

Second, biblical morality does not contradict itself. Since you're most likely an atheist, you've probably never even read the Bible.

Third, if the Bible is vague and subject to interpretation, then your own interpretation of it that it is vague and subject to interpretation, IS ITSELF VAGUE AND OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. Additionally, if it is vague and subject to interpretation, then it is your own vague and interpretation that biblical morality contradicts itself. Fourth, if there is no such thing as objective morality, then how do you know Christian and biblical morality contradicts itself? The fact that you even made this claim, proves that you are deriving your morality from an objective moral starting point. And if there is no objective morality, then "might makes right."  You have lost all moral foundation to condem Hitler, Bin Laden, Stalin, and your local rapist and kidnapper. "Might makes right" in a universe with no absolute moral standard. Morality becomes conventional, cultural and relative. And you have no absolute moral standard to super-impose your own conventional concept of morality on another person or culture.Tongue out

Banned for lying - was warned twice.


Gizmo
High Level Donor
Gizmo's picture
Posts: 397
Joined: 2007-03-06
User is offlineOffline
Wow, im depressed now.  I

Wow, im depressed now.  I don't know how I missed this from yesterday, but wow.


gregfl
Posts: 170
Joined: 2006-04-29
User is offlineOffline
Theol0gic wrote:. It is

Theol0gic wrote:
. It is clear you have not thought your own view through to its logical conclusion.

 

Nope..your wrong again. I have. My claim is "Morality is subjective". Care to actually take that up, or do you want to turn this personal?

 

Theologic wrote:
The absolute standard for objective morality, comes right from the biblical record. This is the Christian basis for morality, and true Christians follow this standard.

 


This isn't an objective standard, it is a subjective standard, a 'christian' standard. You just admitted that above without even realizing it. Further, you are using a logical fallacy called "the no true scotsman" to try to hand wave away the fact that christians cannot agree on their 'absolute' moral standard. The biblical record of 'morality' includes beating your slaves with a rod, raping women, dashing infants against rocks in the time of war, animal sacrifice, stoning people to death, etc, etc etc. Do you deny this? IF no, do you agree with it? If not, you are the one with a "problem", Theologic...you have an 'objective' standard of morality that you reject or liberally interpret in order to get around the fact that it does NOT comport to modern ideas and standards of morality.

 

Theologic wrote:

Second, biblical morality does not contradict itself. Since you're most likely an atheist, you've probably never even read the Bible.

 

My, you are full of random vitrolic assumptions, now aren't you? I read the bible from cover to cover 34 years ago when I was forteen and recently "saved". I have since done it again several times. I have read sections of the bible as early as last week and thruout my life. I have studied many an hour on biblical concepts and ideas and how they relate to modern society.

So, your wrong. Sorry. Check yourself as to your tone and reasons for your random assumptions.

Theologic wrote:

Third, if the Bible is vague and subject to interpretation, then your own interpretation of it that it is vague and subject to interpretation, is itself vague and open to interpretation.

Misdirection. You keep trying to move the topic of conversation onto me. You are going to have to do better than that.

 

theologic wrote:

Additionally, if it is vague and subject to interpretation, then it is your own vague and interpretation that biblical morality contradicts itself.

Let me try to help you here. Even if we assume that the bible is non-contradictory (which is a joke), then I still say there is no objective morality. So I will conceed that issue for the sake of argument at this point, so you can develop an argument that your particular brand of christian theism is "objective".

Theologic wrote:

Fourth, if there is no such thing as objective morality, then how do you know Christian and biblical morality contradicts itself? The fact that you even made this claim, proves that you are deriving your morality from an objective moral starting point.

 

Well...first, morality is founded in ethcs and contradictions are based in logic. So your statement makes no sense.

However, perhaps this will lead us somewhere.

You claim I am deriving my morality from an objective starting point. Just what is that starting point? we will have a look at your claim of the basis for my starting point (as if you could know) and see if it is truly objective.

Theologic wrote:

And if there is no objective morality, then "might makes right."

This is a non-sequitor. Absense of an objective moral base doesn't default to "might makes right" any more than it defaults to "meek makes right".

Theologic wrote:

You have lost all moral foundation to condem Hitler, Bin Laden, Stalin, and your local rapist and kidnapper.

Other then the fact that this is wrong, that I can appeal to any standard I want in order to condemn these people, this is an appeal to dire consequences. In other words, it is an emotional argument, not a logical one. You are going to have to do better.

theologic wrote:

Morality becomes conventional, cultural and relative. And you have no absolute moral standard to super-impose your own conventional concept of morality on another person or culture.

Just because we don't have an 'absolute' standard doesn't mean we don't have any standard. You set up a false dichotomy.

 

What you have, theologic, is basically an argument that goes like this.


Yes, there is objective morality because I want there to be one! Further, you are an atheist! Still further...Hitler! And another thing...Chaos! You haven't read the bible!

 

You have an emotional laden argument that leads nowhere. What you really need to be doing is exploring what the term Objective means , what the term subjective means, and how these terms relate to morality.

 

So far, you haven't. Here, I will help you again. These are definitions of objective and subjective morality as gleaned from past agreed upon definitions in formal debates, and derived from readily available dictionaries.

 

Subjective morality – refers to the property of perceptions, arguments, and language as being based in a subject point of view, and hence influenced in accordance with a particular bias.


Objective Morality - a system of morality whereby moral precepts are treated as separate distant objects; a behaviour is defined as moral or immoral based on these separate distant objects, regardless of the bias of the moral agent that performs or witnesses the behaviour.

 

Morality:a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct

 

If you can agree with these definitions, or propose alternative definitions that are based in reality, and drop all the emotive responses...we can move forward.

 

 

 


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Theol0gic wrote: There

Theol0gic wrote:

There are serious problems with the thesis you have put forth in your post. It is clear you have not thought your own view through to its logical conclusion.

I'm sure you have.

Theol0gic wrote:
First, contrary to your assertion, there are not many versions of morality among Christians. The absolute standard for objective morality, comes right from the biblical record. This is the Christian basis for morality, and true Christians follow this standard. We also follow the moral standard that is imprinted on the human heart and conscience.
Yes, but there are many interpretations of the Bible. For example, some say Jesus opposed the death penalty by stopping that woman from being stoned, others say that he stopped it because she was innocent, or some other thing that allows them to continue believing in the death penalty.

Theol0gic wrote:
Second, biblical morality does not contradict itself. Since you're most likely an atheist, you've probably never even read the Bible.
But I have, and I can tell you there are plenty of contradictions.

Theol0gic wrote:
Third, if the Bible is vague and subject to interpretation, then your own interpretation of it that it is vague and subject to interpretation, IS ITSELF VAGUE AND OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. Additionally, if it is vague and subject to interpretation, then it is your own vague and interpretation that biblical morality contradicts itself.
Parts of the bible ARE vague and open to interpretation, some parts are concrete. Some of the concrete parts are contradictory to other ones.
Theol0gic wrote:
Fourth, if there is no such thing as objective morality, then how do you know Christian and biblical morality contradicts itself? The fact that you even made this claim, proves that you are deriving your morality from an objective moral starting point. And if there is no objective morality, then "might makes right." You have lost all moral foundation to condem Hitler, Bin Laden, Stalin, and your local rapist and kidnapper. "Might makes right" in a universe with no absolute moral standard. Morality becomes conventional, cultural and relative. And you have no absolute moral standard to super-impose your own conventional concept of morality on another person or culture.Tongue out

I think the operative word was "your". However, the only "objective" morality most of us believe in is the the one about doing to others what you wish done to yourself. (Yellnot applicable to masochistsLaughing) Nothing about women not speaking or gay people being sinners or believing in a particular god or gods or praying or not coveting or whatever. Just treat others as you want them to treat you, because otherwise society falls to pieces and our chances of survival and reproduction fall drastically. You'll notice that pack animals also, generally, follow this rule as well.


lao tzu
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Dave_G

Sapient wrote:
Dave_G wrote:

Our primary goal in doing the debate was to preach the gospel to the countless people who would be watching in their homes, because it is the gospel that is "the power of God unto salvation" (see Romans 1:16).

From the email of Ray Comfort:

 

"I've been thinking. How about we promote this as me saying:
"I can prove God's existence. Absolutely, scientifically, without the mention of faith or the Bible." That would stir interest from both the Christian and secular community.

So Rays main intent was to "share the gospel" yet he told me his intent was to prove God scientifically without invoking faith or the bible. Got it. Bearing false witness... I get it. (this is the best argument Ray has made against Christianity so far)

 

Quote:
Not Keeping my Word

There seems to be some confusion about the structure of the debate. A press release headline was changed, stating this would be a "Bible-less debate." That was never the case. In fact, I provided Brian (the atheist) with a copy of my outline some time before the debate. He knew that I would begin by demonstrating God's existence without using the Bible or faith (ie. creation proves there is a Creator). He then knew that I would then open up the Ten Commandments (ie. conscience proves there is a moral law and thus a Law Giver). Finally, he also knew that I would end with the gospel. He knew I planned to move from a presentation of the general evidence of God to specific proof about Jesus Christ. So it greatly puzzled us that Brian feigned "shock" when he heard it.

So... I looked back at the emails and here's what I have...

"My outline would be in three points:

Creation (the old "watchmaker" argument), Conscience (we all have one), Commandments (these stir the conscience)."
That's the outline to his argument he sent. When he sent it I never expected that 8 of his 13 minutes would be spent on faith and commandment. I also wasn't sure how he'd work the commandments in, I was thinking maybe he made an error in what he was putting in his outline, or maybe he was even making a joke of some sort. What I am sure about it is that Ray lobbied for more time with us and ABC claiming "I need more than 15 minutes to make my case." We're assuming this case was "prove God scientifically without invoking faith or the bible." Because of this we yielded a large chunk of our time to Ray, only to watch him squander the MAJORITY on exactly what he said he wouldn't do. Had Ray mentioned very briefly the ten commandments in a scientific sense without invoking faithb or going on long bible diatribes in his opening statement I wouldn't have been surprised, however Rays abuse of the system shows a calculated deceitfulness that can only be described as "lying for Christ." So the question is... Are Ray and Kirk the sort of "hypocrites" that God can sniff out and will eventually end up in hell? Ray and Kirk like to call others hypocrites... I think I'll do it for them. See you in hell Ray and Kirk.

Brian, I posted a thread based on an excerpt of this newsletter in the RRS respose forum.  I would like permission to quote this in full elsewhere without the need to observe copyright restrictions.  I intend only to correct typos and paragraph formatting.

As ever, Jesse 

There is no lao tzu


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
lao tzu wrote: Brian, I

lao tzu wrote:

Brian, I posted a thread based on an excerpt of this newsletter in the RRS respose forum. I would like permission to quote this in full elsewhere without the need to observe copyright restrictions. I intend only to correct typos and paragraph formatting.

As ever, Jesse

Feel free to quote me.

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


caseagainstfaith
Silver Member
caseagainstfaith's picture
Posts: 202
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
As a fellow atheist, of

As a fellow atheist, of course I agree that Ray's arguments were lame.  Yet, I kinda understand how he thinks he didn't lie.  He promised to provide "scientific" evidence for God, and he thinks the watchmaker argument qualifies.  Of course it doesn't, but he thinks it does.  So, from his perspective, he gave his "scientific proof" and therefore whatever else he wanted to throw in was "fair game".  At least that is how I perceive his position to be.  I don't exactly agree, but, well, that is the theist mindset.

 


Slimm
Superfan
Slimm's picture
Posts: 167
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Theol0gic your

Theol0gic your interpretations make me chuckle loudly, lol...

 

Slimm,