Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Part 1

Part 2

I got 11 minutes in and Comfort has provided a lot of rhetoric, various fallacies and a clear inability to understand what the other side actually believes. Does it get better?

Yeah, I actually watched this a couple weeks ago. Kirk Cameron and this Ray Comfort character really just came across as incompetent. So these segments just kind of further solidified my atheistic beliefs.

facepalm2

Kirk, Kirk, Kirk...

you can't prove that you exist, but you can't prove that you dont. this will ultimately lead to nowhere. You can't prove that god exists or doesn't exist either.

He excists because we imagine him to, he exists in our minds alongside Santa for example but if you mean a physical or perhaps even a non physical entity that has a will of its own then no, he does not exist in that respect

Originally posted by Burning thought
He excists because we imagine him to, he exists in our minds alongside Santa for example but if you mean a physical or perhaps even a non physical entity that has a will of its own then no, he does not exist in that respect

Clearly the debate isn't over whether or not he exists as a concept in our minds.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
you can't prove that you exist, but you can't prove that you dont. this will ultimately lead to nowhere. You can't prove that god exists or doesn't exist either.

Yes yes, a subjective perspective of reality means we can never literally "prove" anything, etc. etc. It doesn't mean that we can't determine which is a more likely scenario. Like a round earth v. flat earth debate. We can't prove anything for certain, but clearly one is more probable based on evidence. Theists, most at least, don't think they prove God exists. They believe in God. Big difference. So too with atheists. They can't prove God's nonexistence, but they don't believe in one, and think they can show why it's the more tenable position.

So the debate isn't fruitless, because you're working from a flawed premise. Or if you insist that it is, then any argument in the history of existence is equally as fruitless, as nothing can ever be perfectly determined.

....

I've seen Kirk and Friends talk before. I don't feel like losing more brain cells. Unless they use the banana to prove God again. That sh*t was priceless.

uhuh

I would argue that God does exist -- on the simple matter that something produces something, not nothing produces something. Science supports the first claim, not the latter.

Originally posted by ushomefree
I would argue that God does exist -- on the simple matter that something produces something, not nothing produces something. Science supports the first claim, not the latter.

Kinda not true. Matter has been observed being created and destroyed. Quantum particles and whatnot. A quick google search or read-through of a few chapters of any good astrophysics book will confirm this.

Besides, even if your claims were true there, making the leap from "something" to that something being "God" or "Christian God" is monumentally huge, and not supported by anything logical. It's like maybe there's a number written inside a particular book, and you want it to be 4. Even if I then tell you there's definitely a number inside of it (which we can't know because the book is closed) we can't assume it's a 4 just because you want it to be. It could be any number (i.e. any god, creative force, intelligence, etc.) and may not exist at all. Awful analogy, granted. Or maybe not. Hopefully I've made my point.

"Science" doesn't support anything, btw. Specific studies provide evidence that provisionally supports certain conclusions.

Originally posted by Digi
Kinda not true. Matter has been observed being created and destroyed. Quantum particles and whatnot. A quick google search or read-through of a few chapters of any good astrophysics book will confirm this.

As I recall quantum particles instantly destroy themselves because they appear in particle-antiparticle pairs.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
As I recall quantum particles instantly destroy themselves because they appear in particle-antiparticle pairs.

Sounds about right. I didn't want to fall over myself trying to remember the details so I just alluded to it and referred him to more reliable sources.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
As I recall quantum particles instantly destroy themselves because they appear in particle-antiparticle pairs.
That produces energy though.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That produces energy though.

Yeah . . . huh

Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron get eviscerated in this debate, by Kelly especially.

With the way Kirk's career turned out, I'd think he would have remained and atheist.

If matter has been observed being created and destroyed -- and documented mind you -- why is my view "kinda not true"? Can you elaborate, please?



Something creating something is logical. Nothing creating something is not logical. Need we really have a discussion over this?



I'm sorry, my friend, this is an awful analogy. No pun intended. I understand you were trying to make a point, but try another.



I beg to differ! Because of science, open heart surgery, launching satellites into orbit and ZR1 Corvettes are possible. What are you talking about?

Originally posted by ushomefree
If matter has been observed being created and destroyed -- and documented mind you -- why is my view "kinda not true"? Can you elaborate, please?
Your view is not true because nothing has been observed to create something.


Originally posted by ushomefree
Something creating something is logical. Nothing creating something is not logical. Need we really have a discussion over this?
That's just your perception of the issue. You don't decide what's logical.


Originally posted by ushomefree
I'm sorry, my friend, this is an awful analogy. No pun intended. I understand you were trying to make a point, but try another.
If you understand the point, why are you trying to make him make more analogies instead of addressing it?


Originally posted by ushomefree
I beg to differ! Because of science, open heart surgery, launching satellites into orbit and ZR1 Corvettes are possible. What are you talking about?
That's not "support" in the sense he was talking about. Science is not to "support" things, it is to provide data data that may or may not be used as evidence.

Originally posted by ushomefree
I would argue that God does exist -- on the simple matter that something produces something, not nothing produces something. That doesn't mean that "something" is God. Even the simplest proposition - something always was - doesn't mean that's God.

Originally posted by ushomefree
If matter has been observed being created and destroyed -- and documented mind you -- why is my view "kinda not true"? Can you elaborate, please?

K. It's not true. Clearer?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Something creating something is logical. Nothing creating something is not logical. Need we really have a discussion over this?

'cept when matter does come from nothing. Absolute nothing is an unstable quantum state, you know.

Originally posted by ushomefree
I'm sorry, my friend, this is an awful analogy. No pun intended. I understand you were trying to make a point, but try another.

Mind telling me why it's bad? I said as much because it was worded in a convoluted manner, not because it doesn't make my point. It's perfectly analogous to the illogical jump you're making. Mindship's post above says the same thing in simpler terms.

Originally posted by ushomefree
I beg to differ! Because of science, open heart surgery, launching satellites into orbit and ZR1 Corvettes are possible. What are you talking about?

It's a semantics thing that bugs me. Speaking in general terms about "science" or "statistics tell us..." (another common one). Science isn't an entity that has a say about matters. Individuals, studies, and tests do.

Originally posted by Digi
Kinda not true. Matter has been observed being created and destroyed. Quantum particles and whatnot. A quick google search or read-through of a few chapters of any good astrophysics book will confirm this.

Besides, even if your claims were true there, making the leap from "something" to that something being "God" or "Christian God" is monumentally huge, and not supported by anything logical. It's like maybe there's a number written inside a particular book, and you want it to be 4. Even if I then tell you there's definitely a number inside of it (which we can't know because the book is closed) we can't assume it's a 4 just because you want it to be. It could be any number (i.e. any god, creative force, intelligence, etc.) and may not exist at all. Awful analogy, granted. Or maybe not. Hopefully I've made my point.

"Science" doesn't support anything, btw. Specific studies provide evidence that provisionally supports certain conclusions.
Worse analogies have been used. Seriously, what the **** was that about the coca-cola can?

Digi-

We are not communicating, and that is frustrating. Having different opinions doesn't even enter the equation. Having different opinions, is what makes debating fun (and fruitful)! That is how I feel. I really don't understand the need to be difficult. I was modest, humble and direct in my posts, never disrespectful. We both can live without arrogance and hot air.

Originally posted by ushomefree
That is how I feel.

And that is where your input really should end. You back up your claims with nothing more than opinion as espoused by what you profess to be experts because they substantiate your own beliefs. Don't act like everything you say is grounded in factual and impartial research when everything you claim is actually grounded in the total opposite. You're trying to reconcile a disagreement with another forum member who doesn't agree with you because you're basing every thing you say on blind faith backed up by mediocre logic and then cliaming fact when the supposed experts on which you rely are operating under the same fallacy.

I can't say I don't fault you for your flawed beliefs and shallow logic, but I leave it and the ramifications of that logic to you to deal with as you see fit. If you want to love baby Jesus then that's your right. But how about you stop trying to prove what can not be proven to everyone? You use this forum as nothing more than a venue to espouse your religious beliefs and to cast damnation on everyone who doesn't agree with you. You're at the ass end of a long line of people who need to feel secure in their beliefs by making sure everyone else believes exactly as they do. But, you'll fail just like they did. If they hadn't, then there would be no need for you to try so hard to cram you crap down every one else's throat.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Digi-

We are not communicating, and that is frustrating. Having different opinions doesn't even enter the equation. Having different opinions, is what makes debating fun (and fruitful)! That is how I feel. I really don't understand the need to be difficult. I was modest, humble and direct in my posts, never disrespectful. We both can live without arrogance and hot air.

Er, agreed. Though I feel like the hidden implication is that you think I am guilty of those things, which isn't true. Most of what I do isn't even arguing with you (I've learned to avoid that on this forum in general) but just to help you communicate better since so many ignore your posts. Hopefully that isn't the implication, however, and I won't assume such.

You still haven't actually tried to explain to me why my analogy doesn't work. I don't mind differences of opinion, but would like to see the reasoning behind it.

let me tell you this ok if you go to church for a while and everything is working fine for you then when you stop going to church for awhile and everything starts going wrong what do you belive is it nature taking place or is it god telling you to come back?

It's a freaky coincidence in a hypothetical situation. Nothing divine about it.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Digi-

We are not communicating, and that is frustrating. Having different opinions doesn't even enter the equation. Having different opinions, is what makes debating fun (and fruitful)! That is how I feel. I really don't understand the need to be difficult. I was modest, humble and direct in my posts, never disrespectful. We both can live without arrogance and hot air.

Do you mean all gods or one god in particulate?

so is the vid worth it? my connection's kinda shitty so i don't want to know i wasted all that time watching some incompetent evangelists make a total ass out of themselves.

Originally posted by Sado22
so is the vid worth it? my connection's kinda shitty so i don't want to know i wasted all that time watching some incompetent evangelists make a total ass out of themselves.

Totally worth it.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Totally worth it.

It's Kirk Cameron, so I disagree.

Originally posted by Digi
It's Kirk Cameron, so I disagree.

Kelly alone makes it worth it.

I watched 10 minutes hoping to see more of that Kelly girl but had to switch off after the coke can analogy.

Seriously can we get some pics of her in here?

She's got big boobs, nothing special about her.

Idiots need to stop saying that the existence of God can be proven, it's factually impossible to do at this point. Can't be done. Not even close.

Believe it, believe it strongly. But don't pretend you have proof when you don't. Just look silly.

And who the hell cares what a former child actor has to say anyways? What am I going to go to Gary Coleman next as an authority on the space-time continuum?

Originally posted by BackFire
Idiots need to stop saying that the existence of God can be proven, it's factually impossible to do at this point. Can't be done. Not even close.

Believe it, believe it strongly. But don't pretend you have proof when you don't. Just look silly.

And who the hell cares what a former child actor has to say anyways? What am I going to go to Gary Coleman next as an authority on the space-time continuum?

Can one prove God does not exist?

Originally posted by Steak Knife
Can one prove God does not exist?

You cannot prove a negative.

am I the only one who gets annoyed with people walking up to me and telling me i'm a sinner and going to hell despite knowing the first thing about me? this alone makes it worse because the person walking up to people and telling them they are sinners makes him/her look like a selfrighteous prick. besides, don't Judeo-Christian religions constantly talk about how no one can judge a person's rank in gods eyes except god himself?

what i'd like to ask these people (and have asked) is who are they to tell me that i'm a sinner and will go to hell when their selfrighteous hypocricy is an even graver sin than me lying or having sex before marriage (not that they know that because they don't phucking know me at all!)? the only way they would know this is if they are stalking me and invading my privacy which is also a sin.

i don't think there is anything wrong in being an evangelist or whatever but there's a way of going about this. being a selfrighteous dick going around telling people they are not true christians and will go to hell is not one.

~Sado

what i noticed about Comfort's debate:

does anyone notice how these debates always go in circles. the theist says "you see this (insert item name) here? there is no way this could have been created without a creator" and the atheist says "of course it can!" and then the theist says "no, nothing is random" and the atheist says "of course there is" and so on....and the argument sets off on the wrong foot because both are trying to impose their view of the universe onto the other because one believes in a kind of determinism and the other in randomness or a version of it.

which i find a little curious tbh. the determinist are keen to point out that there must be a "painter painting this painting". but when looking at it from the randomness prespective, the painter doing this extremely random act of painting to produce this painting is himself or herself a random part of this extremely random universe. one borne off an assymetric chaos perpetuates this randomness..in the same light as when determinist look at the world borne of a set of causes and effects, leading to more causes and effect.
in other words, even the examples they give are looked at differently.

i also think that Comfort's point of "creation" was pretty moot. "Creation" is a very "religious", deterministic term, a term that atheists and agnostics dont use as freely as theists do. to anyone believing in randomness, there's no way he or she will use the expression "creation" to refer to the unverise. he does the same thing when he talks about human beings being moral creatures and made in the image of god (quite a thing to say to atheists, lol). anyone looking at human history can point to the exact opposite: that we are NOT moral. we have laws, and i argue, that we have those laws because we are immoral and we need to be kept in check. and on the whole, he seemed to get lost in his own evangelist agendas with that example because he started talking about the commandments with little or nothing to do with the atheist/theist debate. its more like "hey, become a christian or you're damned" which isnt the point.

and lol, at this faith comment. you don't need faith to get things done. if that's the case then no atheist in the world would ever become anything. although i do agree somewhat on the remark that atheists put themselves on an intellectual pedestal. i've met lots of atheists who practically look down on theists as gullible and idiotic. not all, but some.

not to mention that anyone would be hardpressed to convince me that there is an all-powerful, all-knowing humanoid form sitting up seven heavens above and governs this universe's cause and effects. what i'm getting at is "what kind of god" is being advocated.

~Sado
P.S. "we have a little place called hell and its reserved for hitler" hysterical

what i noticed about Brain:
this guy seemed more in-line with the argument and didn't let his personal agendas veer him off. his points about the intelligent deisgn is something that i've pulled my hair about for ages because i always felt that theists had some case of selective memory disorder when it came to this argument because there are lots of cases of not so intelligent designs in this world. the most important ones are there in human beings themselves:
-we cannot chew and breath at the same time and actually run a very grave risk of choking to death because of it
-the risk women run through when giving birth because of an extremely weird anatomy when it comes to "that" region.
-the blind spot which brian addressed
-our scalp muscles which are never used
-men don't use their nipples (well, besides kinky activites anyway) and the only reason we do have that is because we are all born female.

lol, at brian's mammary glands though. not something you want to acknowledge on TV

what i noticed about Kelly:
great points about the direct methods and indirect methods, although the indirect method leaves room open for theist to attack on. good pwnage in pointing out that it wasn't science at all and with the "yehweh or the spaghetti monster".
which makes me say that despite it being funny, she seemed more condescending even though Ray had it coming. and that seems to increase as she goes. funny, but very unneccessary and to me it shows the selfrighteousness of the atheists too, which atheists like to pretend doesnt exist. so that, works against her in ways.

"intellectual dishonesty that it is"=sucker punch to the g0nads. ouch. the look on both their faces was priceless.

and i agree with her on her point about conscience. Ray not only fumbled around with the idea in his argument but also seemed to miss out on how there are all sorts of things in this world pointing at our IMmorality. there are enough societies in this world, past and present, which point towards conscience being a social phenomena. for example, in judeo-christian context incest is a great sin. yet, for ancient egyptians, arguably one of the most advanced civilizations at its time, incest was not only alright but common amongst kings. Akenaten married his own step-daughter and Isis and Osiris, two high dieties equavilanet to Zeus and Hera, were actually brother and sister. thus it isn't something that's ingrained in all our systems but arguably a social order.

and wow, nice rack

~Sado
P.S. anyone else get the impresson that she's a dom?

what i noticed about kirk
on the whole, he just wasted time. his points are moot. relating his experience of discovering the christian god help his case as much as someone saying he hears voices whenever he chucks his hamster in the microwave. the problem with both these theists is that they might as well just come clean and tell us about Pascal's wager and say we should believe in god because of that.

Kirk: blah blah blah blah
anchor: kirk, you're running out of time so i need you to wrap up


but that was kinda curious. wasn't kelly talking and being sarcastic for way longer? or was it because since Ray barely spoke, she got his time limit? i'm curious about that because that could point towards a biased anchor as well.

also, Kirk's retort towards Ray's point was pretty stupid and he exposed himself as this extremely biased christian whose arguing not against atheism but promoting christianity. then Kirk comes up and starts talking about how god has revealed himself through conscience, creation, scriptures and jesus...and proceeded to shoot himself in the balls. he showed a clear inability to step outside the box and have an intellectual debate because all he did was crawl into his little carapace of christian dogma and hesistantly jut out his head every once in a while only to retreat at the first sign of danger. oh and he seemed extremely "defensive" at that point. the anchor practically said "i understand the argument" because he didn't want to start a god-war between theists. it was obvious.

~Sado
P.S. is the bit where Ray says that the universe is infinite true? i've never heard of such a thing where the universe was considered spaceless.

Originally posted by Sado22
am I the only one who gets annoyed with people walking up to me and telling me i'm a sinner and going to hell despite knowing the first thing about me?

Where do you live that this happens a lot?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You cannot prove a negative.

You can with any sceintific blood test.

You can prove the abscence of whatever you havent got.

It just looks way more likely that the argument for there being no god is correct as it has more evidence for it.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
You can with any sceintific blood test.

You can prove the abscence of whatever you havent got.

No test is 100% effective, that's why in logic it's stated that you cannot prove a negative. You can repeat the test to an exhaustive level and then conclude there is no reason to believe you have the condition, but as I understand it you have not "proven" anything to the standards of formal logic.

Also, there's no blood test (or indeed test of any kind) for a generic "god".

it happens with lots of muslims and christians. i've lived in lots of places n Asia including middle east and far east. with muslims, they don't usually attack you if you are a muslim. otherwise they tend to leave you alone. i don't have a beard every so often you run into an "extremist" idiot who starts lecturing you on keeping a beard even though the prophet actually said it was up to the person himself. then there is the bit where i don't go to the mosque all the time. so sometimes these types just show up at your door and lecture you because they are selfrighteous dicks. VERY annoying.

the christian bit happened a lot to when I was in hong kong (of all places). some chick sitting next to me in the subway would suddenly ask me if i was a christian, shake her head sadly, hand me the brochure and start lecturing me on the graces of jesus and how i should repent and convert. VERY annoying also.


such argument gets thrown out the window from day one because theists try to appeal to this mental phenomena called hope/faith while atheist don't want to have anything to do with it. hope or faith aren't something practical but are more a state of mind and a deeply personal thing.

~Sado