Friday, May 11, 2007

Nightline Debate - RAY AND KIRK "PROVE" GOD.

Ok... and so it came to pass that Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort decided they would PROVE the existence of God, with scientific evidence, on national television. They came to us, "not as molecular biologists or rocket scientists, but simply as an author and an actor." They then told us they were going to fly in the face of convention by proving that God exists without using the Bible or conventions of faith. They were going to "pull back the curtain". I can't wait!

The Rational Response Squad reps, Brian and Kelly, introduce themselves and very politely say that, because proving God is tough, they will yield most of the debate to Ray and Kirk. How very nice of them. :)

Then, the mod comes on and says he, Martin, is going to give each party time to speak. Woooo hooooo!! Let's go...I can't wait to see Mike Seaver prove God's existence!!

Of course, Kirk makes claims that he was once an atheist. Rrrrrrright. He also makes claims about "going to school" and "being taught evolutionary science in his school classroom." Hrm. Interestingly enough, in a Teen Beat magazine article/interview/survey from 1984, Kirk says he's a Christian. And, as a child actor involved in a major television show, he was- very likely- schooled on set or by tutors. So, right off...we have Kirk bending the truth a bit.

So...what was the proof?
Ray takes the stand and tells us the following; "Most people believe the existence of God can't be proven without mentioning faith." Yeah, yeah...get on with it. Ray then defines scientific: "producing knowledge". Oh Lord...here we go. That's a pretty broad definition of the word scientific. Not even a minute into his lecture and he's already skittering off the path. From defining the word "scientific" for us, he then starts off with a ramble on "beautiful simplicity." ??? He says he'd like to share with us the three, irrefutable proofs for God. What do you think he starts with, boys and girls? Remember, he's not going to use the Bible and he's not going to appeal to faith. So, what could his FIRST PROOF BE?
1. CREATION - Yep. Ray says that he'd like to start with creation. Ok. Fair enough. Let's talk about creation, Ray. *waits for it* Ray then, with great dramatics pulls out a cola can. Swear to...well, you can see it on youtube. Dude pulls out a coke can. I think this was my first ROTFLOL moment. You know...you'd have thought he might have learned from the banana catastrophe.
But, no... Ray asks the audience to believe that "there was this big bang...and it ultimately formed itself into a sweet substance" and a coke can with paint. Isn't that silly? "To believe this happened by sheer chance is to move into an intellectually free zone.", says Ray. "You know if the Coca-Cola can was made, there must be a maker."
*audible moan* HERE WE GO AGAIN. It's the watchmaker argument.
He then misquotes, takes out of context, famous people/scientists, because, well...that's what Ray does best. Ray talks about buildings and builders, paintings and painters...etc.,. blah.
Still waiting for the proof.
"Creation is 100% proof that there was a creator." WHAT THE HELL!? Did he seriously just bring that lame, tired-ass argument back out?
The complexity of the human eye.
Jesus-Christ-on-a-cracker... has this not been smacked down thousands of times? Where is the new "scientific proof"? Apparently, all you need is "eyes that can see and a brain that works" to know their is a God. Apparently, the ability of the brain in which you are using should be easily led astray by lame arguments and appeals to emotion. *rolls eyes*

2. The Conscience: Because we have a conscience, God must exist. Ray assumes that human beings are the only possible organisms that have a knowledge of right and wrong, because we're the only organisms that hold court. *crickets* Ok. I've never been in the mind of anything other than a human being...but, what a presumptuous statement. Even if it is true, it doesn't PROVE a creator. It only proves, in my opinion, that humans, over thousands of years, have evolved to a point where our primal needs are taken care of and we were left with time, and safety, to think a bit about the consequences of our actions. We formed groups/tribes. We then formed bigger tribes. Then we formed cities...etc.,. I'm actually really disappointed that he didn't think a bit more meta and describe our conscience as something that hasn't yet been explained fully by science. He just keeps doggedly harping at this whole "we have a concept of right and wrong, born coded into our hearts" bullshit. Newsflash, Ray! Babies aren't born knowing what is right and wrong- they learn it from the people around them!! If there are no people around them, they learn it from their environment and consequences of their actions. In some cases, when people are nowhere to be found, human infants will adopt the "morality" (if you want to call it that) of the animals they mimic.
BUT! The best part is...he then starts talking about FAITH AND THE TEN COMMANDMENTS! What the hell? I thought he wasn't going to need the Bible?
At this point, I think Kelly and Brian should have had buzzers. They could've shocked collared him for using the two things he said he wouldn't use.

His third proof better "bring it!"
3. The radical essence of conversion: "If you realize you need God's forgiveness and seek him through the Gospel... he will forgive you and reveal himself to you. That is the greatest proof." Ray says, "All you have to do to have ultimate proof is repent and trust your savior."

WHAT. THE. FARK!?!? That is not SCIENTIFIC PROOF! None of those "proofs" is an empirically testable hypothesis! What happened to NOT needing to use faith and/or the Bible?

What a freaking joke!
The rest of the debate consisted of Ray and Kirk appealing to emotions and throwing out strawmen.
The RRS came out and said, "I'm here not to tell you why I don't believe in God (paraphrased),... but why he failed at his premise, that God exists without the Bible. As everyone probably knows, then 10 Commandments are in the Bible, so we should probably all just leave right now."

So... there you have it non-believers and believers. That is what Ray and Kirk believe to be proof of God's existence. I don't know about all of you, but that was a bit like watching Geraldo spend 4 hour standing in front of an empty vault.

31 comments:

pat said...

I suppose I should not be surprised at your reaction to my post. You can give it out, but you sure as hell can't take it.

"The abhorent "posts"? I made one post. These are just comments."

How do you figure that? Your 'blog' is littered with vile remarks about two heartbroken parents, authored by YOU. YOU said it - so have the decency to OWN it!

"I don't think they have anything, beyond leaving her alone, to do with the disappearance. But, saying "there's absolutely no way..." is a bit interesting. How do you know?"

"What makes my comment 'a bit interesting' to you? Other than the fact that I have a gut feeling about human nature, of course I cannot 'know' as I do not know these people personally. I find your reaction to my comments 'interesting'... what lies beneath, I wonder? What are YOU so scared of?

"Have you even read the comments on this post? Obviously not. I've argued, in a couple of comments, that we should be fighting this sense of complacency and Maddy's story should remind us not to EVER totally relax our guard with regard to our children."

I have read every single one of the comments - have you? It would seem not. And you have NEVER 'relaxed your guard' with your children I suppose? I don't believe you.

"If it bothers you so much, stop reading. This post is, now, 5-6 days old. If you want it to die...stop posting."

Oh, so now the disappearance of a small child is 'old news' to you, now that it's 5-6 days old? That diminishes its importance in your eyes does it? True colours... How the hell do you imagine Kate and Gerry must be feeling? Oh, I forgot... you're AMERICAN.

This subject has generated more than 10 times the number of responses your usual mundane subjects get, and now you are pulling the plug. What a weak person you are. I only found you because I was looking for information about Maddy, and I decided to have a look at what else you were about. Crap, basically.

I don't expect to see this comment displayed - you don't have the guts.

As I said before - you can give it out, but sure as hell can't take it.

...wonder if you'll get any responses to whatever crap this post was SUPPOSED to be about?

This world does NOT need dangerous morons like you - GROW UP & SHUT UP.

Tone said...

HA HA HA HA COKE CAN!! I hope the South Park guys have fun with this...

Girdag said...

Pat, you seem to be in the wrong comments section.

TonyInBatavia said...

This world does NOT need dangerous morons like you - GROW UP & SHUT UP.

I always love it when people so perfectly demonstrate transference.

pat, I've not read your previous comment, but based on what I'm reading here it appears you came from the outside to piss all over this blog. Why would you still be here if you know you're not welcome? Leave. Skiddaddle. Ride your high horse somewhere else.

It's evident you don't agree with PMomma. Understood. But the name calling and venom-spewing is really out of place.

Tell you what: If you're as strong as you purport PMamma is weak, getchyer own damn blog, post your own damn opinions, and tussle it out with friends, family, and other people who pretend to give a damn what you think. Be sure to save some of that venom for those that disagree with you -- though, then again, it seems you have plenty to go around -- 'cause you'll undoubtedly need it.

Atheist in a mini van. said...

I suppose I should not be surprised at your reaction to my post. You can give it out, but you sure as hell can't take it
Excuse me? I didn't have a "reaction" to your comment. I closed the comments to the post because I was getting tired of moderating anonymous comments on that post. If you would read carefully, you'd see that I updated the original post this morning.

Your 'blog' is littered with vile remarks about two heartbroken parents, authored by YOU. YOU said it - so have the decency to OWN it!

My blog is not "littered with vile remarks". And, I have owned the comments I've made.

What are YOU so scared of?

Quite a few things, actually. One of which is people who cease to think rationally and can't tell the difference between a discussion about parental responsibility and personal attacks. Once again, and for the last time, the parents of Maddy made a mistake. I can't imagine their grief at this moment. However, Maddy's needs (and her siblings needs) shouldn't be disregarded because we feel bad for Kate and Gerry McCann.

And you have NEVER 'relaxed your guard' with your children I suppose? I don't believe you.

I'm not asking you to believe me. I'm not, and have not, even asked you to agree with my opinion or commentary. YOU, however, seem to want some sort of apology that isn't even owed to you.
Of course I have relaxed my guard with my chidlren, but never to the extent that the McCanns did (and several people seem to do). It's not a judgement on other parents, it's a statement about my own comfort level. I don't think young children should be left alone, period. Accidents happen in the blink of an eye, even when we're trying our hardest to prevent them.... so, why invite potential harm by leaving a three year old and two, two year olds alone, at night, for hours, REPEATEDLY? I can honestly say, I would not DO THAT. Nor have I ever DONE THAT.

Oh, so now the disappearance of a small child is 'old news' to you, now that it's 5-6 days old?
Nope. Just updated today. But, you're too busy being a pompous pain-in-the-ass to notice.
As far as I'm concerned, until she's recovered, it will never be old news. Just as many other missing children cases are still worth investigating.

This subject has generated more than 10 times the number of responses your usual mundane subjects get, and now you are pulling the plug.
Again...your ignorance is betraying you. I've had posts hit the 200+ comment mark and that was WITHOUT anonymous trolls. Also, my blog receives about 4,000 unique hits a day and is blogrolled. I don't need a constant stream of feedback to validate it.

What a weak person you are. I only found you because I was looking for information about Maddy, and I decided to have a look at what else you were about. Crap, basically.

Thanks for your opinion.


I don't expect to see this comment displayed - you don't have the guts.
Again, ignorance...not your friend.

...wonder if you'll get any responses to whatever crap this post was SUPPOSED to be about?

Most likely... and, in fact, I have. Nice try. Now, either debate the issue at hand or go do something for Maddy or her family.

This world does NOT need dangerous morons like you - GROW UP & SHUT UP.
ROFLOL. Yeah. I'm the dangerous one in this equation. What were you just saying about projection of emotions? If you don't like it, don't read. But...I suspect that in your melodramatic, histrionic, and narcisstic ploy for attention...you won't go away. If you can stay on topic for the subject matter and avoid flaming the debate with unvalidated claims and personal attacks (name-calling and such), then your comments will remain open for public view. If not, they will be deleted.
Have a lovely afternoon.

Atheist in a mini van. said...

HA HA HA HA COKE CAN!! I hope the South Park guys have fun with this

Has South Park spoofed Way of the Master, yet?? That would be hysterical.

Natasha Yar-Routh said...

What a couple of pompous twits, those arguments are pathetically weak, circular and so old they are petrified. it was this sort of lack of intellectual or scientific rigor in religions defenders that lead my to become an atheist in the first place. it is really sad that Cameron and Comfort probably think those were good arguments for god.

Saurian200 said...

don't expect to see this comment displayed - you don't have the guts.

As I said before - you can give it out, but sure as hell can't take it.

...wonder if you'll get any responses to whatever crap this post was SUPPOSED to be about?

This world does NOT need dangerous morons like you - GROW UP & SHUT UP.


Practice what you preach. If you are going to tall others to grow up then do some growing up of your own.

Read what I've quoted above. Do you really think this is mature behaivior. I would expect better from kids and teenagers. I would expect a lot better from an adult. If you want to be treated as one, then act like one.

Get over this stupid and childish temper tantrum of yours and calm down. If you can't then maybe it would be better if you just left.

You won't get anything out of staying here if you continue to foam at the mouth like this and neither will anyone else.

PerpetualBeginner said...

Yea gods and little fishes, you'd think that even complete lay people would be well enough informed on the whole "proof of God" debate to notice that their particular arguments are nothing new. That in fact, they've been hashed out over, and over, and over again virtually everywhere.

But no. Sadly, these two are apparently so pathetic that they didn't even notice they were using old arguments, let alone that they've been answered before.

George said...

Before this turns into another discussion of the McCann case, I'd just like to say that I enjoyed your take on the Ray and Kirk shenanigans. When they said they could scientifically prove God, as an atheist I never really believed that they could, but I did at least expect a new and exciting argument. The rubbish they eventually came out with was really dissapointing in that regard.

Queen Pickle said...

HA HA HA HA COKE CAN!! I hope the South Park guys have fun with this...

Oh my gosh..that would be so awesome! I just saw the SP about Scientology..holy cow! I had no idea that Scientologists believed in aliens and such. (I did actually look it up after the SP episode.) But I guess it's about as believable a base as Christianity..which is really saying something, isn't it?

AlisonM said...

Of course Ray and Kirk proved God scientifically. Didn't you see how, right at the beginning, they redefined "science"? By doing that, they broadened the range of scientific proofs of god immensely. The only problem they had was in saying that they wouldn't use the bible, by which they meant that they would use the bible, which they also should have redefined at the beginning. I'm kind of sad that they resorted to the Coke can argument. The banana argument and the peanut butter argument have much more entertainment value.

Atheist in a mini van. said...

When they said they could scientifically prove God, as an atheist I never really believed that they could, but I did at least expect a new and exciting argument.
Same here. Although, I was secretly hoping that they would have AT LEAST found a scientist with some new theory. I wasn't even going to hold Ray and Kirk to actually proving something... they could've shared a new theory and had a genuine discussion. What they ended up having was one big commercial for WotM.

I thought Brian and Kelly were pretty patient, considering the little digs that Ray and Kirk kept throwing in. Like Kirk's little foot stomp when he told the audience that he had called Brian and ended the call with "I'll pray for you." and Brian, apparently, responded, "..and, I'll think for you." Kirk was trying to score points with the audience by implying that Brian had been rude or cynical.

One thing I didn't mention, in the original post, was Ray's inability to understand one of the audience member's questions. This lady asked, (paraphrased) "If God creates perfection and we're supposed to believe in God based on the perfection of the eye, immune system, etc.,., then explain cancer." She said "Human bodies can be incredibly flawed." and Ray tried to respond with "Well... human suffering is..." and the lady hopped on him and said, "NO! Answer my question!"
He just didn't get the fact that she wasn't asking him to wax rhapsodic about human suffering and "the fall". She wanted him to explain the fallacy in his position that God only creates perfection.

RICHIE said...

MOMMY DEAREST

THAT'S ME SILLY == THE NITELINE AFFAIR/DIALOGUE=DEBATE WAS HYPEREDIT AT IT'S WORST...THE "NON-BELIEVERS" ESPECIALLY CUTSIE PIE ... MADE LITTLE SENSE....AND HER MAN-CHILD ==EVEN LESS!!!! AS FOR THE FORMER CHILDSTAR AND HIS ARBITER == WELL== IF JIMMY SWAGGERT WERE IN TOWN == HE'D SHOUT "FORGIVE THEM..FOR THEY R' TORTURED SOULS....." .. AS FOR ME ..MINE ..AND MINNIE MINOSO ==I'LL HEDGE MY BETS == AND MEET YA'ALL' IN PARADISE.....OR W/ A PAIR-A-DICE == CASTING LOTS FOR THE RETURN OF JIMMY THE GREEK AND CIVILITY ... PTL !!!

Kazim said...

Richie, I assume I speak for all of us when I say...

HUH?!?!?

Atheist in a mini van. said...

Kazim said...
Richie, I assume I speak for all of us when I say...

HUH?!?!?



I assumed it was some bizarre attempt at postulating Pascal's Wager and/or saying "I didn't find either side convincing." But... I'm kind of rusty on my undecipherable-cap-speak. ;) I guess we shall have to wait-and-see if Richie will come back and give us a more cogent explanation of his thoughts.

Saurian200 said...

Richie, I assume I speak for all of us when I say...

HUH?!?!?


Oh, come on! It's all gotta be true, whatever the hell it says.

It's all in caps! How much more proof do you need?

RICHIE said...

U R MISSIN' IT FOLKS..........NEARLY 8000 POSTS ON THE FLABBER GASSED -- ABC SITE.....ON THE GREAT DEBATE...I TYPE IN CAPS DUE TO MS .. YUP 1 FINGER AT A TIME...I'M ALSO FARSIGHTED -- NO FOOLIN -- BUT I LOVE THE COMMRADERIE OF EVENING -- PACIFIC TIME -- BLOGS... AND THIS MINI-VAN IS A BRITE 1 !!!

RICHIE said...

OH

PASCAL WAS FRENCH ... JIMMY THE GREEK IS... WELL GREEK!!!! WHO OR WHAT CAME FIRST ??? THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG ????? HMMMMM?? THIS Q ISFOR GREATER MINDS THAN OURS == OLLIE !

pmgwills said...

'Girdag' - tried to post this in the 'correct' section, but 'athiestinaminivan' (what a clever name, by the way) censored any further posts - couldn't hack the criticism of her views. Here's to Freedom of Speech.

Tone - fill your boots!

Tonyinbatavia - transference/high horse/name-calling/venom-spewing; look in the mirror By the way, you've obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn about what you think.

Saurian200 - Practice what YOU preach.

Athiestinaminivan (or wtf you're called) - your blog related to this issue IS littered with VILE remarks. Perhaps you need to re-visit it, and READ it this time...

I don't want any apology from you, but it seems to me that you owe a few...

"so, why invite potential harm by leaving a three year old and two, two year olds alone, at night, for hours, REPEATEDLY?"
What gives you the right to judge these people? How do YOU know that they leaft their children REPEATEDLY? From what you have read in the media? That, I'm afraid says it all. You are willing to persecute these people because of some piece of uncollaborated crap you have read somewhere. Sorry, but you have just confirmed a widely-held opinion of you.

And for a so-called 'atheist' you come across as very 'holier-than-thou'. Of course you have compromised the safety of your children - you're just afraid to admit it. Everyone knows you have.

You said that this story was 'old news' - you're backtracking on that statement now then, huh?

"ROFLOL. Yeah. I'm the dangerous one in this equation. What were you just saying about projection of emotions? If you don't like it, don't read. But...I suspect that in your melodramatic, histrionic, and narcisstic ploy for attention...you won't go away. If you can stay on topic for the subject matter and avoid flaming the debate with unvalidated claims and personal attacks (name-calling and such), then your comments will remain open for public view. If not, they will be deleted.
Have a lovely afternoon. "

Don't thank me for insulting you. It was my pleasure.

Whatever you decide to do with this response, it matters not to me, because I won't be visiting again. You are so boring that you can't even entertain a doubt.
What a waste of cyberspace...

Why don't you go to the library and brush up on your ignorance?

Atheist in a mini van. said...

'Girdag' - tried to post this in the 'correct' section, but 'athiestinaminivan' (what a clever name, by the way) censored any further posts - couldn't hack the criticism of her views. Here's to Freedom of Speech.

You were NOT censored. LOL
Are you, or are you not, posting here? Had you been "censored" you would be banned from posting entirely. And, yet...here you are.

Athiestinaminivan (or wtf you're called) - your blog related to this issue IS littered with VILE remarks. Perhaps you need to re-visit it, and READ it this time...

Which issue would that be?

What gives you the right to judge these people?
I'm not judging the people...I'm judging their actions. By your logic ("what gives you the right...?"), I should look the other way when I see someone putting their child in harm's way. I think, as a human being, we should all reserve the right to point out harmful behavior (especially when children are involved) when we see it.

How do YOU know that they leaft their children REPEATEDLY?
From their own statements and from the statements of their friends.

From what you have read in the media? That, I'm afraid says it all.
All anyone outside of the police and the McCann's family/friends knows, at this point, IS information gathered from various media sources. Where are you getting your information from?

You are willing to persecute these people because of some piece of uncollaborated crap you have read somewhere. Sorry, but you have just confirmed a widely-held opinion of you.

I'm not persecuting any PERSON. I'm voicing my disapproval of an action and askinf if it's reasonable/responsible behavior. As for widely held opinions of me,...what are you basing YOUR opinion on? Define "widely held".

Of course you have compromised the safety of your children - you're just afraid to admit it. Everyone knows you have.

Again...who is everyone? As for compromising the safety of my children... I'm sure I have (never denied that). Any parent who puts their child into a car or takes them out in public compromises their safety. Since you are acting as if you have some information about me and my family, and claiming to have discussed this with others, would you care to be a bit more specific instead of hiding behind broad generalizations. My criticism of the McCann's choice to leave their children untended, at night was very specific. You, however, seem to be ranting about generalities. Why, I can't imagine. Am I to assume, from your behavior here, that you would leave YOUR children alone as the McCanns did?


Whatever you decide to do with this response, it matters not to me, because I won't be visiting again.
So, why post it? If it truly does not matter to you?

You are so boring that you can't even entertain a doubt.

Yes. Yes. So boring that you've decided to waste precious minutes insulting me and my readers.

Why don't you go to the library and brush up on your ignorance?
Are you even aware of the total nonsensical nature of this sentence? I doubt it.

Don't thank me for insulting you. It was my pleasure.
That's mighty Christian of you. Again, have a nice day. Oh...wait, you won't be back to read this...

Aaron Van Horn said...

To Pat/PGMWILLIS/or whatever you're calling yourself at this point... take the amount of crack you smoke every day and cut that amount in half. Truly. You need to calm the fuck down.

but 'athiestinaminivan' (what a clever name, by the way) censored any further posts -

Do you know the definition of the word "censor"? :laughs: Go to that library that you refer to and pull out that big book with all of the words in it. When you've done that you'll see how idiotic your claim is. Frankly, I think PM has been super tolerant of your dribble.

I don't want any apology from you, but it seems to me that you owe a few...

Atheist In A Minivan (PM) owes you an apology? For what, pray tell? She brought up an issue for discussion on her blog. She didn't search you out. You came to her. When you read something that you didn't agree with, you got your panties in a twist and decided to pout and run off at the mouth. You even asked her to delete the post or stop the comments. She stops the comments and you're STILL BITCHING?!! Fuck! I'd hate to be your boyfriend. You're hands down the most difficult person to please. Drama queen.

Everyone knows you have.
Dear Christ, this is like shooting fish in a barrel. What? Are you fucking Miss Cleo now? Do you have a psychic friends network? PM is a great parent. I know her and her family in the real world. My information is first hand and I can tell your presumptuous little ass that PM is an amazing mom. If she ever left her kids in a hotel room, I would drive her directly to a mental institution because that would be so entirely out of character for her.

Don't thank me for insulting you. It was my pleasure.
You really are thick, aren't you? She didn't thank you for insulting her. She displayed something you're lacking: tact. She wished you a pleasant day despite the fact that most of us think you should go to stick your head up your ass.

Whatever you decide to do with this response, it matters not to me, because I won't be visiting again. You are so boring that you can't even entertain a doubt.
What a waste of cyberspace...

:rolling on the floor, doubled over in laughter: Let us recap your statements of the last twenty-four hour. By my count, PM has called your bluff three times. Why would she delete you? You're the perfect example of how ignorant fucks make fools out of themselves.

I won't be visiting again.
Sure. Keep telling yourself that, sweetheart. :waves at you because you're too much of a drama queen to not be reading this:

Tone said...

pgwillis--
Fill my boots? I don't even own any boots... HUH?

Saurian200 said...

Pat,

Saurian200 - Practice what YOU preach.

I do, and I stand by everything I said. Considering your response was nothing more than a single sentence which consisted of the equivilant, "I'm not stupid. You're stupid.", I assume you either didn't read more than my first sentence or you didn't understand my post.

Don't thank me for insulting you. It was my pleasure.

Like I've said before, if all you can do is insult people then your position is worthless. If all you intend to do is insult people, then it isn't worth talking to you.

As I said, grow up and get over the temper tantrum.

Whatever you decide to do with this response, it matters not to me, because I won't be visiting again. You are so boring that you can't even entertain a doubt.
What a waste of cyberspace..


Then why did you stay here. Just to insult people? What does that say about you?

You say your leaving and maybe you will but I can't help but think of how much you remind me of the small child who says their going home but then never leaves the playground.

But, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Here's your chance to finally do the mature thing.

Natasha Yar-Routh said...

pmgwills, what a pathetic attempt at an insult. I like a good incoherent rant as much as the next tranny but you have to build to total incoherence not start there. I would suggest renting a few DVD's of early 'Saturday Night Live' and listening to a few of Belushi's rants. Note the pacing and how he starts totally rationally before moving to total incoherence. Oh but I forgot you aren't reading this blog anymore. Too bad.

Jen said...

love the "like watching Geraldo" jab :)

Nick said...

Anybody have a youtube link to the full debate, I've only seen the 13 minute summation by RSS, and the Nightline episode.

Atheist in a mini van. said...

Hi Nick!!
You know what's really funny!?! The whole debate was available (posted by the "Way of the Master") folks - in ten parts (on youtube). Now, they've edited it! It also looks like ABC might be pulling the debate off youtube (probably because of the heavy editing). LOL Try putting "nightline debate cameron" in the search function of youtube. You'll get the vids.

aimee said...

I'm sure you heard the one where Kirk tried to get a monkey onto a passenger plane in a regular seat to 'prove' that it was his relative. When he was told he couldn't bring the monkey on board he was whining "But college campuses are telling us that they are our relatives because of evolution"... or something to that effect.

Nick said...

tx Pmomma

Happy Mother's Day, btw!
I only hope the possums gave you a tribute that could only be compared to worship, because as any good atheist son knows, if there is one substitute that could suffice for an omniscient and loving ruler, it is mom.

Of the footage I've seen (45 min) the debate was a joke. Cameron and Comfort violated their own standard. The RSS was good, but they need a tad more training on several things, one being astrophysics and cosmology (the known universe isn't infinite, as far as we know.) and public speaking in front of a hostile audience.(For me, Kelly was a bit too snarky, without the logic THAT WAS EVIDENT to back it up.)

I didn't disagree with them at all, and as far as snark toward theists is concerned, one only needs to survey Dawkins's addendum to his paperback printing of The God Delusion.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1779771.ece

"Objectively judged, the language of The God Delusion is less shrill than we regularly hear from political commentators or from theatre, art, book or restaurant critics. The illusion of intemperance flows from the unspoken convention that faith is uniquely privileged: off limits to attack. In a criticism of religion, even clarity ceases to be a virtue and begins to sound like aggressive hostility.

A politician may attack an opponent scathingly across the floor of the House and earn plaudits for his robust pugnacity. But let a soberly reasoning critic of religion employ what would, in other contexts, sound merely direct or forthright, and it will be described as a shrill rant. My nearest approach to stridency was my account of God as “the most unpleasant character in all fiction”. I don’t know how well I succeeded, but my intention was closer to humorous broadside than shrill polemic. Restaurant critics are notoriously scathing, but are seldom dismissed as shrill or intolerant. A restaurant might seem a trivial target compared to God. But restaurateurs and chefs have feelings to hurt and livelihoods to lose, whereas “blasphemy is a victimless crime”. "

Faith is NOT something to be revered, but at the same time, I was recently at a Catholic funeral for my sister-in-law's mother, and it is not something that needs outright mocking. This may strike some as hypocritical, but these people are as cemented to their certainty of salvation and eternal life as you or I are to the copernican model of the planets or special relativity.

It is sad, in a way, because as much as I try to frame their argument from my point of view, I cannot get through. I cannot find common ground. I have been spoiling for a fight, but one of the first rules of war is "Empathize with your enemy". After 9/11, one would figure that meant that America become LESS religious, but no, we've gone the other way.Most Christian Americans can understand why they side with Atheists on this score, but they fail to recognize that we find their allegiance to their own supernatural deity JUST as absurd.

John Stossel's recent report
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/05/the_price_of_at.html

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/05/nicole_smalkowski_proud_atheis.php

on 20/20, highlighted on One Good Move and Pharyngula have only served to put a spotlight on the way Atheists are treated in my part of the country.

However, this is not a struggle where we are openly oppressed. This is an ideological conflagration where we are struck down only if we choose to stand up and state what we don't believe.

Though I am a dyed in the wool atheist, and I will fight for gay rights until the day I die, I find it a grave distortion, and a tactical error for our national organizations to ever equate us with the Civil Rights Movement.

No one can look at me and say, "he doesn't believe in God, I'm not going to let him in this bathroom", etc, ad nauseum.

So while my oppression is contingent upon my silence, it is also, at the same time, UnAmerican.


"I didn't come here to make Hillsboro different, I came here to defend his right to be different, and that's the point. How 'bout it boy?"
"I don't know what the point is anymore...I tried to open their kids' minds. THEIR kids, I tried to give 'em knowledge they could use."
...
"Alright, well let's face it. You chose to get into this by yourself. You didn't choose to get into it because of his headline or my cause, you chose to get into it because of something you believed in, for yourself!"
"I didn't think it would happen this way, those people look at me as if I were a murderer."
[chuckle]"in a way you are. You killed one of their Fairy Tale notions, and then they'll bring down the wrath of God, Brady, and the State Legislature on you every time."

"Yeah, you make a joke out of everything."
"Young Lady, I know what Bert is going through, it's the Lonliest feeling in the world. It's like walking down an empty street listening to your own footsteps. But All you have to do is knock on any door and say if you'll let me in, I'll live the way you want me to live, and I'll think the way you want me to think; and all the blinds will go up and all the doors will open and you'll never be lonely, ever again. It's up to you..."
-Inherit the Wind

Lifewish said...

I'm trying to work up courage to watch this debate, because I know I'll be wincing at every stupid comment Ray and Kirk make. Enquiring minds want to know: is it funny enough to be worth the neuron loss?