MAY 9th.....be there

Any idea on who the two atheists are going to be?

Ray Comfort's arguments aren't anywhere near as solid as he thinks. For example, his banana theory is laughable at best.

Thanks for the heads up, I'm gonna make sure I record this.

EDIT: FYI, I think this has something to do with the Rational Response Squad and the Blasphemy Challenge.
 
Last edited:
Text quoted from link provided by Cloud G:
Please remember to pray for Kirk and Ray as they debate two atheists in New York for ABC television this Saturday. The debate will be filmed for Nightline in New York City, and will be streamed LIVE on their website on Wednesday, May 9. This notice is to let you know the network recently changed the streaming time from 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 pm EST.

We would be grateful if you would forward this newsblast all over the internet. This is a wonderful opportunity for the gospel. We will send out another blast next week with more details. Thank you.
Click to expand...
 
The link above states, "Comfort -- who claims he can prove the existence of God, scientifically, without mentioning faith or the Bible -- stated, "The network originally offered me only four minutes to present my case. After speaking with Kirk and conferring with the atheists, they settled on 13 minutes. I'm ecstatic. I can prove the existence of God in that amount of time.

According to someone who attended the taping, not only did Comfort not prove the existence of God, he and Cameron, referred to the Bible on several occasions. Unfortunately, I'm not surprised. Cameron also read off a list of scientists who believed in God, but had his facts wrong from the get go when the first name he read was Einstein's. Einstein made it quite clear when he said, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly." He was a Deist, not a Christian, again stating, "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." Whether this was a lie or an oversight on Cameron's part, I'll let you decide, but it gives you an idea of the state of the debate.
 
Which part?

BTW, I missed the live stream...did anyone catch it?

It will be on Nightline later tonight. 10:30 pm CT.

Here's a link to ABC's page on the debate: http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3148940&page=1

You can also do a search and find some clips.

The few clips that they have show Cameron and Comfort getting owned.

Cameron said in his opening statement, "we'd like to show you that the existence of God can be proven, 100 percent, absolutely, without the use of faith." I think they fell FAR short of that statement.

Isn't that statement contrary to what the majority of Christians believe anyway?

Don't get me wrong, the Rational Response Squad members on the show aren't scientists or mensa-level intellects, but even so, it looks like they easily took down Cameron and Comfort.
 
Last edited:
they did a weak job, they went to the Bible (commandments) and were more preachy than thought provoking
 
"Cameron said in his opening statement, "we'd like to show you that the existence of God can be proven, 100 percent, absolutely, without the use of faith." I think they fell FAR short of that statement."

Well, they failed from the get-go, imo. I don't think people can believe in God without faith.
 
Well, they failed from the get-go, imo. I don't think people can believe in God without faith.
Click to expand...
You can't belong to any religion without faith...

But I agree; from what I've seen so far, both sides could've done better.
 
Lazarus said:
"Cameron said in his opening statement, "we'd like to show you that the existence of God can be proven, 100 percent, absolutely, without the use of faith." I think they fell FAR short of that statement."

Well, they failed from the get-go, imo. I don't think people can believe in God without faith.
Click to expand...

Not according to these two. They claim that faith isn't needed AT ALL.
 
SirThom said:
You can't belong to any religion without faith...

But I agree; from what I've seen so far, both sides could've done better.
Click to expand...

For my edification, what could the atheists have done better?

Personally, I think they could have been a bit more even tempered, but the RRS has a tendency to be overly in-your-face. Sapient has a bad rep. for being a poor debater because of this.

They did a lot of "rolling of the eyes", but I think that had a lot to do with the sophomoric ideas Comfort and Cameron were putting forth, every one of their arguments were tired, old and have been beaten like a dead horse for a long, long time. They were expecting something new, but didn't get anything like that.

Just wondering what your thoughts were.

ChickenSoup said:
The whole thing. Now a lot of people are going to say "You know, these Christians aren't that bright. Pfft..."
Click to expand...

I don't think so. A lot of people, will, however (and hopefully), will say, "you know, these two Christians in particular aren't that bright." Did you hear the groans from the audience when Cameron whipped out his photoshopped animals? Sheesh.

There arguments are NOT intelligent, to say the least. Especially Comfort's banana argument...which he didn't bring up interestingly enough.
 
Personally, I think they could have been a bit more even tempered, but the RRS has a tendency to be overly in-your-face. Sapient has a bad rep. for being a poor debater because of this.

They did a lot of "rolling of the eyes", but I think that had a lot to do with the sophomoric ideas Comfort and Cameron were putting forth, every one of their arguments were tired, old and have been beaten like a dead horse for a long, long time. They were expecting something new, but didn't get anything like that.
Click to expand...
Those were pretty much my sentiments, actually. I too was expecting something interesting and new from Comfort and Cameron, but was rather disappointed by their efforts.

I think it was kind of interesting that both of the atheists went by false names. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top