Monday, May 14, 2007 | Reason : Commentary | print version

Does God Exist? The Nightline Face-Off (more info)

by Martin Bashir, Nightline Face-Off (ABC News)

Thanks to Florian Widder for the link.

Reposted from:
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3148940&page=1

The members of the Rational Response Squad (left) squared off with Christians Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort (right) about the existence of God. The debate was moderated by Martin Bashir (center) and will be posted on ABCNews.com on Wednesday, May 9 at 1 p.m. and will also air on

The members of the Rational Response Squad (left) squared off with Christians Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort (right) about the existence of God. The debate was moderated by Martin Bashir (center) and will be posted on ABCNews.com on Wednesday, May 9 at 1 p.m. and will also air on

"Proving the existence of God is actually a lot easier than you think," said former child star Kirk Cameron, minutes before taking the stage for the "Nightline Face-Off."

There has been an overwhelming response to our Face-Off reports. The conversation inspired by our original report on the Face-Off continues. Click here for more.

It was a warm Saturday night in New York City as a mixed crowd of atheists and Christians converged on Calvary Baptist Church in midtown Manhattan for the first "Nightline Face-Off." And it wasn't long before temperatures began to rise inside the auditorium.

The question for our debate was "Does God Exist?" and both sides went at the issue with a series of passionate declarations and critical attacks on the arguments of their opponents. It was a clean but unflinching contest.

Former child star Kirk Cameron and his evangelist colleague Ray Comfort had pledged to prove the existence of God, scientifically. Cameron and Comfort run an organization called the Way of the Master, which comprises a Web site and cable television show, all focused on preaching what they say is the truth of Christianity.

Cameron opened the debate by addressing the crowd:

Hi, I'm Kirk Cameron and my partner and I Ray Comfort come to you tonight not as molecular biologists or rocket scientists, but simply as an author and an actor, and we want to do two things that fly in the face of convention. One, we'd like to show you that the existence of God can be proven, 100 percent, absolutely, without the use of faith. And secondly, as a former atheist myself -- an evolutionist -- I want to pull back the curtain and show that the number one reason that people don't believe in God is not a lack in evidence, but because of a theory that many scientists today believe to be a fairytale for grownups.

They were confronted by the might of the "rational response squad" — in the form of unabashed atheists Brian Sapient and his comrade, a woman who goes by the name of Kelly. They had been included in a previous "Nightline" report, telling the story of the Blasphemy Challenge in which they invited atheists to deny the existence of the Holy Spirit by posting videotaped denunciations on their Web site.

Comfort saw the piece on the Blasphemy Challenge, and he immediately e-mailed "Nightline," saying, "We would like to challenge them to a public debate. � Let's hear their best evidence as to why God doesn't exist, and let the audience decide whose evidence is based on faith and whose is based on fact. We cannot only prove that God exists, but we can prove that the atheist doesn't."

Sapient had this to say when he addressed the crowd at the debate:

"I want to start off by thanking ABC, Kirk and Ray and the audience for their ears and their participation of the discussion of this magnitude. The Rational Response Squad was formed to respond to irrational claims, and the most wildly held irrational claim are the ones offered by religion. Ray and Kirk have agreed to offer scientific proof that god exists without invoking faith of the Bible, and we are here to respond to those claims.

For more than 90 minutes, they battled over the main arguments of evolution, historical evidence and the existence of God. The audience, which was divided between Christians and atheists, asked penetrating questions, and there were also a number of contributions submitted by viewers at ABCNEWS.com.

It was a no-holds-barred debate that was well worth watching.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Monday, May 14, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 20 of 20 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #40695 by Audley Strange on May 14, 2007 at 5:39 pm

I watched what I could find on the Web and no Martin it was not worth watching, neither the RRS version nor the ABC version. I was quite embarrassed on behalf of all involved.

Other Comments by Audley Strange

2. Comment #40712 by JMaze on May 14, 2007 at 6:53 pm

I watched about two minutes of the first part of the videos I could find, and it is embarrassing for all involved.

Other Comments by JMaze

3. Comment #40716 by cmacblue42 on May 14, 2007 at 7:08 pm

honestly, it did nothing. I watched anything on the web, and it wasn not that the RRS did a horrible job, but many key points of attack were missed. I think if you got Dr. Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christpher Hitchens (or any combination, even just one of them) to go on a debate like this on a network like abc, thats when we would see an actual arse whooping.

If only they would broadcast Dr. Dawkin's book reading in Lynchburg on networks like abc (not that any actual americans would watch it) or the upcoming debate between Sam harris and Christopher Hedges (who came to speak at my school, but about the SOA and Latin America). It is then that people actually start to think

Other Comments by cmacblue42

4. Comment #40720 by LDmiller on May 14, 2007 at 7:21 pm

Cameron and Comfort are the clowns who tried to show ID with the (domesticated) banana. Hilarious video on YouTube.

I found the Rational Response thing pretty childish in general.

Can't we have grown-ups in this?

Other Comments by LDmiller

5. Comment #40725 by Zaphod on May 14, 2007 at 7:43 pm

The RRS won this debate totally. The theists broke the debate rules that where stipulated and where countered on every point they made. It was a ridiculously one sided affair. The RRS will admit that Ray and Kirk at not at the high brow end of apologetic Christian debaters. Kirk Cameron's stuff on evolution was hilarious and scary depending on how you look at it. If you seen the full debate you can't reasonably disagree.

LDmiller - I would like to see what you are doing to combat the irrational beliefs in world. Where is your "Rational grown up squad".

Other Comments by Zaphod

6. Comment #40726 by wagnerpe on May 14, 2007 at 7:45 pm

I agree that the debate seemed rather childish. Neither side presented their arguments very intelligibly, although the efforts of the Banana Twins were arguably much worse.

Hopefully, this will spark some more intelligent public debate, as people who are higher on the totem poles come to the aid of their fallen comrades. Mr. Dawkins, care to fill in the gaps?

Other Comments by wagnerpe

7. Comment #40733 by DarwinsPitbull on May 14, 2007 at 8:23 pm

I will agree that this wasn't the greatest debate ever but it wasn't the worst. It seems like people only want people like Dawkins or Harris or Hitchens to debate against religion.

They are busy people, I would think and don't have time to go around debating everyone. Yes , RRS wasn't the greatest but at least they stepped up and tried and did a good job.

They actually did also win the debate because Cameron and Comfort said they can prove god exist scientifically and they didn't. So that's one for the good guys.

I just think atheist need to stop ranking on others who are on our side and who are at least doing something to fight religion from taking over. That's just my opinion though.

Other Comments by DarwinsPitbull

8. Comment #40738 by Karl Christensen on May 14, 2007 at 8:57 pm

We cannot only prove that God exists, but we can prove that the atheist doesn't."

Did they prove I do not exist?

Other Comments by Karl Christensen

9. Comment #40810 by skydivephil on May 15, 2007 at 3:12 am

Is there a transcript of the debate? we cant watch videos of it here at my office.

Other Comments by skydivephil

10. Comment #40854 by Riley on May 15, 2007 at 5:18 am

DarwinsPitbull wrote: "I just think atheist need to stop ranking on others who are on our side and who are at least doing something to fight religion from taking over."

The RRS = irrational name calling, childish pouting, and juvenile ranting; that's 'our side' ???

Other Comments by Riley

11. Comment #40862 by stuartM02 on May 15, 2007 at 5:51 am

@Riley : I don't see how the RSS did any of the things in teh debate you claim in your post. Please provide some examples.

It reminds me of the sort of accusations leveled at RD of being rude and disrespectful.

Other Comments by stuartM02

12. Comment #40889 by lt_zippy2 on May 15, 2007 at 6:57 am

I watched the debate online and I have to admit that it was a bit on the cringeworth side. I think the RRS have got potential but they need to build up confidence.

A couple of points of observation though...

"as a former atheist myself -- an evolutionist -- I want to pull back the curtain and show that the number one reason that people don't believe in God is not a lack in evidence, but because of a theory that many scientists today believe to be a fairytale for grownups."

What exactily is Cameron's definition of "many scientists?" Not a single, respectable biologist I know has said that evolution (by natural selection) is a fairytale. There are still a few unanswered points but these are being reserached.

And I have to say the moment the God Squad held up their pictures of the "transitional animals" the faces on the RRS's faces were priceless. I think my face did the same thing.

Kirk and Ray showed themselves up as either woefully dishonest about what evolution is or how it works and attempted to spread the confusion deliberately, or are woefully ignorant and uninformed about the subject. Either way they were roundly seen off.

Other Comments by lt_zippy2

13. Comment #40900 by cybercoma on May 15, 2007 at 7:20 am

I'd like to see Richard Dawkins (for the science and factual questions) and Christopher Hitchens (for the social and historical questions) take on these two. The beat down would be humourous.

Other Comments by cybercoma

14. Comment #41082 by silent_brook on May 15, 2007 at 1:25 pm

3. Comment #40716 by cmacblue42 on May 14, 2007 at 7:08 pm

If only they would broadcast Dr. Dawkin's book reading in Lynchburg on networks like abc (not that any actual americans would watch it...

Now, now... not all (I'll concede most) Americans are completely deluded. We just suffer from some very loud idiots.

Other Comments by silent_brook

15. Comment #41247 by Robert O'Brien on May 15, 2007 at 5:15 pm

Comfort and Cameron fared poorly, as I expected. However, the Rational [sic] Responders were also inept. They advanced several false claims, such as conservation of mass-energy being the 3rd law of thermodynamics (it is related to the 1st law) and that it implies matter is eternal; quite to the contrary, it is likely that at the big bang the gravitational field and its fluctuations introduced more energy into the system (,i>ex nihilo).

Other Comments by Robert O'Brien

16. Comment #41275 by cmacblue42 on May 15, 2007 at 6:52 pm

14. Comment #41082 by silent_brook on May 15, 2007 at 1:25 pm

3. Comment #40716 by cmacblue42 on May 14, 2007 at 7:08 pm

If only they would broadcast Dr. Dawkin's book reading in Lynchburg on networks like abc (not that any actual americans would watch it...

Now, now... not all (I'll concede most) Americans are completely deluded. We just suffer from some very loud idiots.

True, I did not imply all americans (i know some americans that are clear-headed) but thats what i meant when I said "actual" americans. Simply because the average american does not watch any educational programming or even reads (non fiction of course)limiting what they know about everything to their freshman year in college or earlier. This lack of intellectual competencey is the main difference I see between Europe and the US and the reason for america's problems.

i could go on to write a realy long essay about this, and i think i will, but i wont do it in this comment.

Other Comments by cmacblue42

17. Comment #41359 by Dog Boots on May 16, 2007 at 2:05 am

I too was wondering about the "many scientists" who apparently think evolution is a fairytale for grown-ups. He must be referring to the Discovery Institute's list of Dentists Skeptical of Evolution.

Other Comments by Dog Boots

18. Comment #41426 by Riley on May 16, 2007 at 5:39 am

stuartM02 wrote:"Riley : I don't see how the RSS did any of the things in the debate you claim in your post. Please provide some examples. "

Stuart,

My opinion is based on listening to one of the RRS podcasts which featured "Kelley" making baby noises in an attempt to publicly humiliate an atheist from the RRS's own forum. Her humorless, pre-pubescent whiny and attacking rant against this person was punctuated more than once with the term: "atheist pussy".

Like I said: "name calling, childish pouting, and juvenile ranting".

I wish the link to that audio clip I heard were still active, but the person who posted it has taken it down apparently.

Other Comments by Riley

19. Comment #41690 by Satanburiedfossils on May 16, 2007 at 3:18 pm

Next time: To prove that dinosaurs coexisted with man, Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort plan to show selected episodes of The Flintstones.

Other Comments by Satanburiedfossils

20. Comment #41766 by kurzweilfreak on May 16, 2007 at 10:09 pm

Holy crap, there should be criminal penalties for that entire creationist "explanation" of evolution by Kirk Cameron, especially those absolutely retarded "transitional" pictures. The RRS didn't really do too great a job at refuting it, but you can't really fault them because it would be impossible for them to produce an understandable, lucid explanation that would be scientifically accurate within the kind of timeframe these debates take place. Don't they realize that there is a reason there are college courses that take an entire semester or more to explain sufficiently what these creationists want to hear in a 3-minute soundbyte?

Many of those questions could have been answered much better had there been a lack of time constraits and availability of research sources to pull from. Maybe there should be some kind of official on-going online debate where these topics can be brought up and refuted in a centralized location that everyone can view, but maybe only a few selected people can contribute to, with input from others and ability to cite sources, etc. That would be an interesting experiment to see where it leads. I'm thinking something a little more civilized than various message boards around the web. ;)

Other Comments by kurzweilfreak

Reload Comments | Back to Top