Thank you, Brian,

As you've already noted, I discovered the other thread after posting this one. Ironically, a google search for "WOTM press release bible-less debate" led me right back to this forum and the other thread.

Would it be possible to dedicate a thread here to the email correspondence prior to the debate? I do not wish to be accused of using excerpts out of context, as will surely happen in a theistic forum. I'm accusing one of their own of "lying," a very serious accusation on the forum in question, covered by specific forum rules requiring I show intent to deceive. It's clear from Comfort's newsletter that this issue resonates:

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.

In my experience, the evident discomfort created by this charge among christian posters is almost palpable. I believe it is a strategic mistake on our part to pass up this opportunity to emphasize the dishonesty of christian evangelists. While we are accustomed to "liars for Jesus," we should not let our familiarity breed complacence. In retrospect, I believe if you had spent your entire allotted time on this issue, rather than the brief mention you made during the face-off, you would have scored a much better public relations victory.

I sincerely hope you will keep this in mind if the opportunity presents itself again.

Christian evangelism is built on lies, and promulgated by liars. This is their Achilles heel. Because they identify their faith as Truth with a capital T, a charge of dishonesty, properly supported, is devastating to their proselytization. In treating any epidemic, the first need is always to stop the spread by identifying and addressing the disease vectors.

As ever, Jesse

Me too.

Quote:

So, listen, there was a misunderstanding. Ray said he was able to prove the existence of God without the use of faith or even mentioning the bible. Which he did, pointing to creation. Done, end of story. Now. Clear delineation here.

This is only acceptable if Ray admits he begged for 8 extra minutes of time in his opening statement to specifically use the bible. The opening statements themselves were very specific. The opening statement was set out to give him time to prove god specifically. If you notice, Kirks opening statement follows us. The reason for this is we knew Kirk would give personal testimony in that time and on a 6 person conference call we all discussed how the opening statement should specifically be on the topic only, and then we would refute the lead topic only. They wanted to talk about the failures of evolution in the opening argument, and we explained how we wanted that seperate from the actual "prove god exists without using faith or the bible." Ray created a line that was not allowed to be created, nor was expressed. Ray and Kirk want to believe the line between non bible, and permissable bible is halfway through his time to prove god exists without the bible? Does anyone see these two as anything other than conmen for Jesus?

Quote:

Additionally we can look into the bible for the power of the Holy Spirit, when we respond to the gospel, as further evidence.

The bible really shouldn't have come up at all throughout the night, but I think we assumed it was likely bound to. However language such as Kirk is using is not indicative of someone who is saying with honesty:

"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. - Ray Comfort

Quote:

Now. Brian Sapient said, "Ray broke the rules, he mentioned the bible."

(Repeatedly they said that.)

I didn't exactly say those words, but yes that's the jist. And I think I said it only once, not sure if Kelly said it at all.

Quote:

He said, "He was supposed to not mention the bible." Now, like he was shocked that Ray did that. Now here's the deal.

I was damn shocked he went on with the bible so long. I was expecting maybe one sentence or two that had some vague connection to the commandments, and if that would've have been the case then I would've been ok with it. It however was not. The last 8 minutes of a 15 minute argument from Ray which was supposed to be nothing but "prove god exists without faith or the bible" was all faith and bible. While it was actually going down I wanted to speak up, Kelly and I shook our heads in amazement at what he had done in the opening statement. Your damn right we were shocked, that is not how I interrepted his very small reference to the comnmandments immediately following his statement that he

"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. - Ray Comfort

Next these guys are gonna tell us that the email only said he "can" do it, not that he "will" do it.

Quote:

(And I have to add that so was Kelly, the woman that was debating with him, "Well, how dare they talk about the bible, how dare they quote scripture, this ten commandment business and Jesus. That wasn't part of the gig, and they acted just "aghast, simply aghast." Now go.)

Yes, we were aghast. Also, the above statements are a lie, Kelly never said "how dare they," not that I can recall at least.

Quote:

Now that was absolutely false. Here's the scoop.

Because Ray Comfort was concerned that Brian Sapient was going to back out of the debate, because his partner, Brian Flemming, already did back out — Ray sent Brian his notes on the debate. He let him know exactly what he was going to say, specifically, that he would be mentioning creation, that he would be talking about the ten commandments out of the bible, to stir the conscience, and that he'd be sharing the gospel and the power of conversion that comes from responding and repentance and faith.

I never knew "specifically" I only had an idea of the argument as you can see. Basically what Kirk is saying is that somehow in Rays mind he can get away with saying he wouldn't use the bible as long as he tells me he's going to use the bible. Ok, I get it.

Quote:

So Brain was full aware of what Ray was going to say, point for point, to help him better prepare his response.

So it was a complete ... either he forgot that he got Ray's notes, even though he had asked him for them repeatedly, or he was just lying.

Or an abundance of other options there Kirk. As I've explained thoroughly I never expected Ray to violate the rules to that high of a degree. Even if I was prepared for it, stating that "we should just leave the builiding now" is a completely appropriate response.

Quote:

(So when he made the claim that "Ah, I can't believe you're doing this," he already saw Ray's manuscript so he knew exactly what he was going to say.)

I don't think I ever said, "I can't believe you're doing this" check the debate. I never saw Ray's "manuscript," I saw a sentence worth of notes. I never knew "exactly" what would be said, had I known what he was going to do in the opening statement I would have moved to have ABC cut him off at 8 minutes and save the bible for later.

Quote:

and he knew that Ray was proving the existence of god without faith or the bible through creation and then additionally he did go into the bible just like he showed him in his notes.

I only was under the assumption that there would be some reference to the commandments, potentially in some sort of scientific manner. I never expected for him to street preach to the audience, something that had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, and showed utter disrespect for the proclaimed format at hand.

Quote:

So there's a dishonest tactic there to make it look like he was as shocked as everyone else that Christians would break the rules.

Maybe I was slightly less shocked than everyone else, but I was shocked.

I don't think the account is much different. Kirk simply manages to skirt the truth just enough to appear as to be vindicating Ray, when really he's offering no vindication of Ray but rather a chastization of me. I personally think what really happened is that Ray knew this was the only format of debate we would take. Ray saw Brian Flemming back out because it didn't seem like this format would happen (and the actual format I'm referring to, never did happen, however this format was close). Ray decided with intent to lie to me about his purpose, and he had planned from the get go to introduce the bible and faith into a discussion he had agreed not to. It's a nice try at a cover up though.

THE EMAIL:

Thank you for the swift and detailed response, Brian,

A word about the transcript. It is accurate to the best of my abilities, but obviously all punctuation is my own, including the quote marks. The tone of voice made it clear they were paraphrasing, but the words themselves don't reflect that. My apologies.

I note one segment in the email I'd like to follow up on.

My outline would be in three points:
Creation (the old "watchmaker" argument), Conscience (we all have one), Commandments (these stir the conscience).
I could give you the outline with more detail if you want.

1. Did you ask for more detail?
2. Was it provided?

Ray sent Brian his notes on the debate. He let him know exactly what he was going to say, specifically, that he would be mentioning creation, that he would be talking about the ten commandments out of the bible, to stir the conscience, and that he'd be sharing the gospel and the power of conversion that comes from responding and repentance and faith.

More damage control from Ray and Kirk:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrHJ_a2syWk