He was going very good until he started preaching

5/9/2007 2:21:19 PM

He really wasn't - every single argument he made was full of logical fallacy. The RRS made some scientific mistakes (such as calling the 1st law of thermodynamics the 3rd), but their arguments were logical and rational, and they won.

5/9/2007 2:22:10 PM

well, athiest or Christian, these people have obviously wasted each other's time...and will continue to everytime another one of these debates occurs

5/9/2007 2:29:14 PM

anytime this type of debate comes up, it just makes both parties look like jackasses.....at this point, it's basically arguing opinions.

5/9/2007 2:30:23 PM

But it ISN'T arguing opinions. The point of the debate was that Cameron and Comfort said they could offer scientific proof that god exists while not relying on faith or the bible. The RRS said they'd be glad to debate them on their points. Cameron and Comfort were there to prove their points, and the RRS was there to argue against their points. There was almost nothing in that entire debate that involved "arguing opinions." They were arguing science - Comfort and Cameron using mangled, faith-based and bible-based pseudoscience and the RRS trying their best to inject logic into the debate. I was actually impressed with how LITTLE it involved opinion.

5/9/2007 2:34:52 PM

if nothing is proven, they are just using science to back up their respective opinions. Until something is proven, it is in essence just opinion. I understand they were using scientific arguments, but they were using them to defend their opinions.

5/9/2007 2:39:52 PM

that woman's voice is so damn annoying

[Edited on May 9, 2007 at 2:50 PM. Reason : .]

5/9/2007 2:39:59 PM

that woman's tits are spectacular. They are almost proof that god exists.

5/9/2007 2:40:49 PM

this is the most unprofessional debate I have ever seen...the debators insult one another, refer to each other by name, and the moderator is not neutral in the least.

5/9/2007 2:45:15 PM

that woman's tits are spectacular.

5/9/2007 2:52:07 PM

Who the hell is an atheist because of the theory of evolution? I don't know if I can even stand to watch this shit.

5/9/2007 3:12:33 PM

Quote :

"that woman's tits are spectacular. They are almost proof that god exists."

signed. But she lost points because she was an intellectual lightweight. She struck me more as a well educated stripper than someone who has pondered the mysteries of creation. You could tell she was kind of nervous though, and that the guy was a little over-confident in his argument.

I'd really have been interested to hear Dawkins weigh in on this debate.

[Edited on May 9, 2007 at 3:27 PM. Reason : I'd also like to know what was running through Ray and Kirks mind while she spoke.]

5/9/2007 3:13:13 PM

So is this whole thing the Watchmaker Dilemma and semantics? Why did he waste people's time with this?

Oh, wait, he's a moron.


Ahahahahahah 10 commandments....Jesus is so gonna clown on this guy after he dies.


Okay, summary.

Point 1:
Watchmaker Dilemma

Point 2:
Morals are proof of god

Point 3:
If you convert to Christianity you will believe in god.


I'm sure the other guys will be douchebags, but goddamn, what a stupid sad fucker.

[Edited on May 9, 2007 at 3:35 PM. Reason : ]

5/9/2007 3:25:53 PM

^ If this guy didn't prove the existence of God to YOU, you obviously don't have eyes that see or a brain that works.

[Edited on May 9, 2007 at 3:41 PM. Reason : !]

5/9/2007 3:41:01 PM

hahah,

because these guy's arguments were so compelling and original.



It's a matter of faith, and always will be. These guys are clowns.

Quote :

"that woman's tits are spectacular. They are almost proof that god exists."

signed.

[Edited on May 9, 2007 at 4:29 PM. Reason : .]

5/9/2007 4:28:07 PM

This amazes me. Any of you who are saying that trying to use science to prove god is a good idea are pwning yourselves. It's absolutely ridiculous. Believe what you want - I don't care - but don't make it sound like these guys made any compelling arguments AT ALL, because they didn't. All they proved was that

Point 1:
The universe LOOKS like it was designed. It doesn't look like it was designed by a benevolent or intelligent entity, however, since there are extraneous organs, death, pain, etc. Also, just because something looks designed is NOT proof of a designer

Point 2:
People have morals. However, every human being in the world will differ at least a little bit on his morals. Therefore, they don't come from god. It's MUCH more likely that people project their morals onto god (like the picking and choosing of what to believe in the bible that I keep pointing out).

Point 3:
If you convert to Christianity you will believe in god. This one is true. 1/3. Woohoo!

5/9/2007 6:27:50 PM

Quote :

"Point 3: If you convert to Christianity you will believe in god."

I'm sure I don't have to point out that, by this logic, if you convert to Islam you will believe in Muhammad. Or if you convert to Hinduism you will believe in Vishnu. Etc etc etc.

Which I think is a strength for the case of atheism. Had you been raised in, say, Japan, you would likely be Buddhist or Shinto. You'd use the same religious arguments as Christians do, only you'd use them from that respective religion's point of view. With so many competing religions in the world and with each one so sure of itself that theirs is the true path, how can ANY of them be true? From a rational point of view, it's just less work and makes more sense to say that religion is simply a construct of man, not that religion is God's will dictated to man.

Quote :

"that woman's tits are spectacular. They are almost proof that god exists."

signed.

[Edited on May 9, 2007 at 6:42 PM. Reason : blah]

5/9/2007 6:39:33 PM

Caption: "new additions :-P"



http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewPicture&friendID=44215423&albumId=0

Looks like they're fake. Still - signed.

5/9/2007 6:46:53 PM

In other words, those tits are creations of science.

5/9/2007 7:32:05 PM

I actually enjoyed the debate, but both sides clearly admitted that the fact they were right was just a chance, which makes the agnostic attitude win by default. It' really interesting that people will choose faith over atheism when presented with this choice. why? there is no benefit whatsoever to being atheist. if there is even a chance that faith is right, it seems worth pursuing with all your heart.

5/9/2007 7:48:06 PM

so it's worth pursuing even if there is a .0000000000000000000001% chance that it is correct?

5/9/2007 7:57:22 PM

all eternity is more than 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times longer than how long you live, so yeah you could reasonably come to that conclusion. that being said, there being no gods is more reasonable than there being a God

[Edited on May 9, 2007 at 8:09 PM. Reason : ]

5/9/2007 8:08:16 PM

haha. yea kirk and ray didn't do a good job, as should be expected (dumb idea in the first place) but, wow, that lady atheist sure didn't help the atheist's case. she dumb!

and it's clear that kirk and ray sorta just wanted to use the debate as a platform to evangelize, not to actually prove anything.



[Edited on May 9, 2007 at 8:29 PM. Reason : ]

5/9/2007 8:25:31 PM

Wow,

1. Watchmaker analogy.
2. Pretending that everyone has an innate and consistent morality.
3. Saying you'll know God once you choose to believe in God.

combined with bible verses, appeal to authority, Pascal's wager, and more circular reasoning. Even worse than expected. I was thinking they would at least have something original.

5/9/2007 9:40:03 PM

At least the eye candy was nice.

5/10/2007 12:19:51 AM

I was so disappointed in this. Where is the motherfucking science!?

5/10/2007 3:21:45 AM

i thought kirk was going to walk on water or give a blind man sight.

0/10

5/10/2007 8:45:42 AM

That debate was like a soapbox thread. It completely sucked.

5/10/2007 5:10:29 PM

the athiest/agnostic side would have done better for themselves if they hadn't been so smug

5/10/2007 5:15:13 PM

or if they didn't sound like kids who played world of warcraft in their parent's basement.

5/10/2007 5:15:58 PM

I think it's clear, once you've watched this "debate," that Comfort and Cameron never intended to prove god's existence scientifically, even though that's specifically what they said they were there to do. In fact, their reason for the debate was to get free airtime to preach on ABC. In that respect, they won, and they probably scored some converts or at least got close.

5/11/2007 2:08:10 PM

^There may be some truth in what you said.

I was honestly worried that they were going to present something truly original. Nothing that would debunk science as we know it, but it's much easier for an atheist to refute a creationist's claims when they know what arguments are typically made and how to respond to them (this is obviously true for any debate, of course). But of course it turns out that Comfort and co. bought themselves an opportunity to attention-whore themselves.

[Edited on May 11, 2007 at 2:52 PM. Reason : blah]

5/11/2007 2:51:34 PM