Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Thursday, May 3, 2007 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document Christians and Atheists to Debate Existence of God in First-Ever 'NIGHTLINE FACE OFF'

by Rational Response Squad

See:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/

CHRISTIANS AND ATHEISTS TO DEBATE EXISTENCE OF GOD IN FIRST-EVER "NIGHTLINE FACE OFF" ON SATURDAY, MAY 5th AT 7:30PM EST--MARTIN BASHIR TO MODERATE FORUM

DEBATE WILL BE POSTED ON ABCNEWS.COM AT 2PM WEDNESDAY, MAY 9th--SEGMENT TO THEN AIR ON "NIGHTLINE" THAT NIGHT



Beginning Saturday, "Nightline" will launch a new series called "Nightline Face Off," a debate style format where hot topics get discussed among prominent voices in their field. In its first-ever installment, Christians and atheists will gather in a New York City church to debate the existence of God. "The Way of the Master" co-hosts Kirk Cameron (from "Growing Pains" fame) and Ray Comfort will face off against the founders of www.blasphemychallenge.com. The history of how this debate came about is below and can also be found on the "Nightline" page at www.abcnews.com .

The first-ever "Nightline Face Off" will be moderated by co-anchor Martin Bashir and held at the Calvary Baptist Church in New York City this Saturday, May 5th at 7:30pmEST. To obtain media credentials, please contact Andrea Jones at 202-222-6896; andrea.jones@abc.com or Alison Bridgman at 202-222-7370; Alison.bridgman@abc.com.

The debate will air on ABC News Now and will also be posted on the "Nightline" page at ABCNEWS.com on Wednesday, May 9, 2007 at 2:00pm.

The segment will then air on "Nightline" on Wednesday, May 9th at 11:35pm (ET/PT).

"Nightline" is anchored by Cynthia McFadden, Terry Moran, and Martin Bashir. James Goldston is the executive producer. "Nightline airs at 11:35 p.m. (ET/PT) weeknights on the ABC Television Network.


The Nightline Face Off
Christians and Atheists to Debate the Existence of God

May 3, 2007 —

Why are Kirk Cameron, a preacher, and two self-proclaimed atheists coming together in a church this weekend? Because Cameron and preacher Ray Comfort claim that they "can prove the existence of God."

They'll take on the atheists in the first "Nightline Face Off," a debate to be moderated by "Nightline" anchor Martin Bashir.

Watch the Face Off Wednesday May 9 at 2 p.m. on ABC News Now, and on Nightline at 11:35 p.m.

Following the Way of the Master
As Mike Seaver, the oldest son in the smash hit sitcom "Growing Pains," actor Kirk Cameron could make audiences roll with laughter. But now he wants to bring them to the Lord. And he's deadly serious.

In March 2006, "Nightline" profiled the Way of the Master, a Christian ministry headed by Cameron and itinerant preacher Ray Comfort. Operating as a charitable trust, its intention is to educate and equip the church to preach the message of Christianity to nonbelievers. Cameron says he is motivated by a literal fear of hell.

"I believe the Scriptures teach that there's a literal heaven and a literal hell, just like Jesus said," he explained. "And without forgiveness of sins that, yeah, the place of punishment is called hell."

The Way of the Master has a weekly television show for which Comfort and Cameron literally hit the streets in the name of Jesus, challenging nonbelievers that their sins against God will lead directly to hell.

"On the Day of Judgment," Comfort tells one man on the streets of New York, "God will see you as a lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart. You have sinned against God. You need his forgiveness."

On occasions, things go badly wrong and the pair are attacked by members of the public. Comfort recalled one incident, saying, "While I was preaching the Gospel a gentleman came up and he started spitting on me. And he spat quite a few times." Comfort says he simply remained calm and moved on.

Neither Comfort nor Cameron has theological degrees nor any kind of formal training. But Cameron says he's convinced his new career is vitally important.

"I have no authority. I am simply trying to be faithful to the God who saved me, who changed me and who has commissioned me to tell you and those who are watching this interview & about the Gospel of Jesus Christ and that it has the power to change people's hearts."

The Rational Response Squad
"There isn't any good reason to believe in God," so says Brian Sapient, a member of the Rational Response Squad, a group of atheists "Nightline" profiled in January.

What's wrong with God? "What's wrong with the tooth fairy?" asks Brian. "There's nothing wrong with something that most likely doesn't exist."

"Atheists are completely vilified. And it's OK," says Kelly, an atheist who works alongside Brian and also asks that her last name not be used.

"It's actually OK to hate atheists," Kelly says. "We are like the last group that people overwhelmingly agree it's OK to hate, because there's an absurd caricature of atheism out there."

While their theological views differ from the Way of the Master, their approaches are similar -- brash and in-your-face. The Rational Response Squad challenges people to take the Blasphemy Challenge in which they make videos of themselves denouncing or blaspheming the Holy Spirit, and then post them on YouTube.

One of the posts is by a young-looking man named Chandler. He says, "I've come to the conclusion that alongside the fact that there is no Santa Claus and there is no Easter bunny, there is also no God. So, without further ado, my name is Chandler and I deny the existence of the Holy Spirit."

Taking risks with your own soul is one thing, but the Rational Response Squad advertises for the Blasphemy Challenge on Web sites for teens, such as Tiger Beat (tigerbeatmag.com).

"They have already been targeted," Brian says. "So hopefully, they are at a point where they are not so indoctrinated and set in their ways that they can overcome this religious superstition that has been put into their brain unfairly."

At the end of the "Nightline" segment, Brian Sapient says, "If they [the Christians] want to come to the table and present their evidence, I will present my evidence. And we will see how much of theirs is based on faith, and how much of mine is based on fact."

The Face-Off
Ray Comfort saw the piece on the Blasphemy Challenge and he immediately e-mailed "Nightline" to say that "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."

The two sides have agreed to debate in the first "Nightline" Face Off. Here's what they have to say about the debate:

Perhaps you think that anyone who says that he can prove the existence of God is a dreamer. Maybe, like most people, you believe that the issue is a matter of "faith." Then we must be dreamers, because we can prove that God exists, scientifically, absolutely, without mentioning faith or even the Bible. Do you find that hard to believe? Then watch the debate. - Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron


We are dedicated to responding to irrational claims -- such as the ones being put forth by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron that they can prove the existence of God scientifically. We are here to prove that not only can they not do that, but that it cannot be done using the scientific method and the knowledge available to us today.
- The Rational Response Squad


You can watch the debate on ABC News Now on May 9 at 2 p.m., and it will also be available on the "Nightline" page at ABCNews.com.
"Nightline" will air a segment that same night at 11:35 p.m ET.

Comments 1 - 50 of 92 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #37090 by Spinoza on May 3, 2007 at 11:11 am

 avatarUnfortunately I think this is going to make atheists look stupid...

It's a shame that atheist philosophers know better than to debate theists... because they'd at least have a better chance of getting the point across... the Rational Response Squad sounds like a bunch of teenagers who are just angry with "God"...

Other Comments by Spinoza

2. Comment #37114 by rydrum2112 on May 3, 2007 at 12:04 pm

Spinoza-You should ask Richard, he spent an afternoon with them. If they handle themselves appropriately I dont think there is any need to say it will make atheists look stupid.

Other Comments by rydrum2112

3. Comment #37115 by ClemIsMe on May 3, 2007 at 12:05 pm

Nightline gives this nonsense popular legitimacy. I suppose you have to applaud someone taking up the challenge for reason, but I very much doubt it will gain rationalists much credence - I fear the opposite. Never deabate an actor, even a very bad actor.

Other Comments by ClemIsMe

4. Comment #37117 by Phaderus on May 3, 2007 at 12:21 pm

 avatarWith all due respect to the RRS, and I am sure that they will do well, the problem with this debate is that the opponents are not mainstream enough to get the respect needed to raise this debate to broad public awareness. With no degree behind any of the names involved, it will be too easy for opponents or proponents of either side to disavow whatever mistakes or accomplishments are made by the participants.

BTW, what's with "self-proclaimed" always proceeding the word atheist? It seems to imply that the person is deluded, like a self-proclaimed prophet.

Other Comments by Phaderus

5. Comment #37121 by Rtambree on May 3, 2007 at 12:34 pm

Thank you for debating the Rational Response Squad. Please hold - someone will be with you shortly. Your arguments are important to us.

Press #1 if you're arguing that all "this" had to come from somewhere.

Press #2 if you arguing that science can't explain everything.

Press #3 if you're claiming Hitler & Stalin were atheists

Press #4 if you're arguing that we can't disprove God.

Press #5 if you're arguing God gives people morality, consolation and hope

or...

Press #6 if you have any evidence whatsoever for the existence of God.

Other Comments by Rtambree

6. Comment #37122 by Canuck#1 on May 3, 2007 at 12:35 pm

 avatarPLEASE, PLEASE not again-surely every thing that has gone before should predict the scenario that will play out........an audience loaded with "devout" christians, dabaters who are speaking two different languages and live in two different worlds. We can put our time to better use..still I will tune in and be as frustrated as everyone else. GOOG LUCK TO OUR SIDE.

Other Comments by Canuck#1

7. Comment #37124 by scottishgeologist on May 3, 2007 at 12:36 pm

 avatarCameron and Comfort? That's those two who were in the banana video? right?

Man, so that piece of barely disguised gay soft porn is proof of Gods existence? Jee...

And what about:

"On the Day of Judgment," Comfort tells one man on the streets of New York, "God will see you as a lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart. You have sinned against God. You need his forgiveness."

On occasions, things go badly wrong and the pair are attacked by members of the public. Comfort recalled one incident, saying, "While I was preaching the Gospel a gentleman came up and he started spitting on me. And he spat quite a few times."

He wasnt really spitting, he was choking on a banana.....

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

8. Comment #37125 by Shatite on May 3, 2007 at 12:36 pm

 avatarThe fact that the media is in business to make ratings and money rather than to inform people rarely gets any more apparent than when discussing religion. Time and time again atheists are either misrepresented if not left out altogether. I am still waiting for a nationally broadcasted program here in the states that gives people like Prof. Dawkins more than 3 minutes of time.

I wish the best for the RRS, but I fear that this is going to be more of the same. We shall see.

Other Comments by Shatite

9. Comment #37127 by BaronOchs on May 3, 2007 at 12:40 pm

 avatarIt seems there are two questions rolled into one debate here, and that is always a bad thing.

i.e: Atheism/faith in general but also the Blasphemy Challenge.

The RRS should be expected to win hands down over the first one, but the danger is Comfort and Cameron will gain ground with the audience over the second and make that look like there overall position is stronger. I'm not against it but the BC is not exactly atheism's finest expression and it may be a burden not a blessing in this debate.

Trivial fact: Nightline is also the name of a telephone counselling service at most UK universities. Don't know if they have it in the US?

Other Comments by BaronOchs

10. Comment #37130 by roach on May 3, 2007 at 12:49 pm

All the RRS has to do is let Cameron and Comfort talk. They'll quickly demonstrate they have nothing intelligent to say.

Other Comments by roach

11. Comment #37133 by bdrasin on May 3, 2007 at 12:51 pm

Perhaps you think that anyone who says that he can prove the existence of God is a dreamer. Maybe, like most people, you believe that the issue is a matter of "faith." Then we must be dreamers, because we can prove that God exists, scientifically, absolutely, without mentioning faith or even the Bible. Do you find that hard to believe? Then watch the debate. - Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron


Oh, boy...here comes the vaunted "Transcendental Argument for God". If you haven't heard it before it basically means asking a bunch of obtuse metaphysical nonsense like "How do you know what knowing is without some absolute standard to judge it with?" Repeat until the opponent goes crosseyed and then claim you have proved that God exists.

This is actually not easy to argue with, mostly because it is so obtuse. I've seen a lot of Atheists get "deer in the headlights" when confronted by this. One of the better send-ups I though is Kile Jones vs. Greg Lopez on www.faithandfreethought.com but you need a subscription to get it.

Other Comments by bdrasin

12. Comment #37134 by Yorker on May 3, 2007 at 12:56 pm

 avatarI see Martin Bashir will be moderator, he's a controversy lover; his biggest "scoop" was the televised expose of Michael Jackson.

I don't think I'll bother following this one.

Other Comments by Yorker

13. Comment #37135 by Fishpeddler on May 3, 2007 at 12:56 pm

 avatarComment #37130 by roach
"All they have to do is let Cameron and Comfort talk."

Presumably those two feel they have a new trick up their sleeve, but I hope to god they break out that banana:

"See, out of a mere 350,000 species of plants, one of them produces a fruit that we can easily hold, peel, and eat. The only way that can possibly be explained is that God exists."

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

14. Comment #37136 by VanYoungman on May 3, 2007 at 12:57 pm

 avatarThere is no proper forum to relate to you all for what just happened in my Basic Logic College course, but here's the late-paper excuse for all time. The class was assigned to write an analysis of at least 3 of Richard's arguments he used in TGD. The paper was due today. My student told me that the reason she couldn't hand it in was that she took the book with her on her week's vacation to Oahu, Hawaii and while on an outing with some natives, she asked one young man to reach into her back pack and get her a bottle of sun screen. While he reached in her pack, he spotted her copy of The God Delusion, yanked it out and threw it over the cliff of Ka'anapali. Since she hadn't finished the book, she could not complete her paper in time. She explained the young man was a follower of Jah, the god who in the past threw non-believers over the cliff. Should I accept the excuse?

Other Comments by VanYoungman

15. Comment #37137 by Fishpeddler on May 3, 2007 at 1:00 pm

 avatarComment #37121 by Rtambree

LOL. Press #7 if the sun comes up, the sun goes down.

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

16. Comment #37143 by Fishpeddler on May 3, 2007 at 1:08 pm

 avatarComment #37136 by VanYoungman
"Should I accept the excuse?"

She claimed a theist engaged in an irrational act of violence in the name of their faith? And you doubted her? ;)

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

17. Comment #37145 by diquea on May 3, 2007 at 1:16 pm

Ugh, I have to agree with Spinoza. I definitely would not consider Sapient and his crew the best and brightest representatives of the reasoning for the atheist position.

Go read their forums and responses to hate-mail, you'll understand what I mean, I think.

Other Comments by diquea

18. Comment #37151 by willerror on May 3, 2007 at 1:32 pm

--"On the Day of Judgment," Comfort tells one man on the streets of New York, "God will see you as a lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart. You have sinned against God. You need his forgiveness."--

I would punch him in the fucking face if he said this to me or someone I love. What a worthless, lying, hypocritical, deluded *psychopath.* And yet, I would be the one in legal trouble.

Other Comments by willerror

19. Comment #37158 by justme on May 3, 2007 at 1:52 pm

 avatarThe moderator Martin Bashir and the use of ABC concerns me.

* ABC -- Kirk Cameron's former employer. I'm sure he still has friends there who don't want to let him look like a fool.

* Bashir has a reputation for splicing together interviews to prove his point.

Notes: Do a quick search to see the controversy that occurred after the Michael Jackson interview was broadcast. (Jackson is strange enough that I don't see the reason to do a hatchet job on him. Yet, I'm not in the business of interviewing people so what do I know?)

* Bashir has interviewed Cameron before and was sympathetic towards both him and Comfort. Note the tone of prosecution that Cameron highlights and Bashir relays.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=1735434&page=1

* He also did a very sympathetic report on xxxchurch.com -- an anti-porn and pro Jesus ministry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpUvsxSqf3M

The priest from xxxchurch.com was basically given a soapbox to stand on. There were no real objections (either because the porn industry is not threatened or because Bashir did not report any concerns).

Predictions:

The actual debate will go to Brian and Kelly ... the edited and broadcast one people see will give an approving nod to Cameron and Comfort and not will not support those 'evil, immoral atheists'.

My expectation is that the edited version that is broadcast will give either Brian or Kelly one good comment while Cameron and Comfort will get 4 or more. Any remaining good comments from Brian or Kelly will be sidelined as petty and used as fodder for the stock answers of Cameron and Comfort even if those answers are refuted in the original debate.

For both groups, the comments won't be sharp and insightful. Instead, they will be grease lense versions of reality with most of the edge removed so as not to offend or put the 'heroes' (Cameron and Comfort) in a bad light.

I would love to be shown that I am wrong, but it's not looking good at this point.

ABC as a corporation and Bashir as an employee of ABC knows who butters more toast for them and they are not motivated to treat this fairly.

Other Comments by justme

20. Comment #37160 by urbster1 on May 3, 2007 at 2:11 pm

 avatarBrian Flemming just posted about this in his blog (http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/archives/002645.html):

"My predictions:

1. Ray's argument will not be able to meet the above test. It will fail to hold together logically even if its premises were true, and, to boot, most or all of its premises will be false. It will be a train wreck of an argument, an absolute failure by any objective measure.

2. Nonetheless, moderator Martin Bashir, in order to achieve 'balance,' will turn the tables on the atheists and ask the them to defend a host of challenges that have nothing to do with Ray's argument. In other words, Ray's case will fail so miserably that Martin Bashir will feel compelled to politely turn away from the wreckage and turn up the heat on the side that hasn't come to the event with any claims at all. Because that's what's 'fair.'"

Other Comments by urbster1

21. Comment #37164 by Liveliest Crib on May 3, 2007 at 2:20 pm

I'll echo the concerns that this debate will not be productive. It will be closer to something on Hannity & Colmes or professional wrestling than it will, say, the polite discussion between Dawkins and the Bishop of Oxford. I could be wrong, but the forum does not bode well.

Moreover, if you can get passed their obvious ridiculousness, if you watch Cameron and the aptly named "Comfort" on their insane website, you'll discover their tactics. Yes, there's the silly banana episode, but there's also their "man on the street"-style cross examinations of people. It usually runs something like this:

Comfort: Do you consider yourself a good person?

Unfortunate Interviewee: Sure.

C: Oh yeah? Have you ever told a lie?

UI: Ever? Of course.

C: So, what does that make you?

UI: [Nervous laughter] Heh, I guess you want me to say "liar," but ---

C: Right, you're a liar. Have you ever stolen something?

UI: Well, nothing of consequence. I mean---

C: But ever. Have you ever stolen something? Anything?

UI: Well, sure, if you want to go back to Jr. High School or someth---

C: So what does that make you?

UI: Yeah, yeah, I get it.

C: That's right, you're thief and a liar. And you have to get right with God.

UI: Well, I don't share your beliefs.

C: So, it's ok to lie and steal?

UI: No, that's not what I'm saying. Just that I don't believe in god.

C: Well, be honest, though. Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no God?

UI: Beyond any doubt? Of course, not. You can't prove anything bey---

C: Right, because that would take infinite knowledge and omniscience that only a god could have.

UI:? Ok, fine.

C: So, are you really an atheist?

UI: Well---

C: No, you're technically an agnostic, because you're not sure.

[Cut back to Kirk and Ray on chairs with their bananas.]

Kirk: So, you see, there really is no such thing as an atheist. The "atheists" admit it. And they admit they're sinners. They admit they're not sure, and they admit that sinning isn't something you should do. Why is sinning bad? Only one reason. And we all know what that is.

Other Comments by Liveliest Crib

22. Comment #37166 by relevo on May 3, 2007 at 2:31 pm

Of course, I'm always for giving acclamations to Brian and Kelly, but in this case I don't think even the network will at all be on their side. My guess is people will see Kirk, and think, "Hey, that's the guy from the sitcom who was on those Christian movies advertised on NBC. What a great guy."

My hope of course is that people not jump to immediate negative conclusions of Brian, and Kelly based solely on the fact that they are atheists challenging majority religious dogmas, even though statistical studies have already demonstrated differently.

Other Comments by relevo

23. Comment #37168 by Fedler on May 3, 2007 at 2:38 pm

 avatarComment #37136 by VanYoungman on May 3, 2007 at 12:57 pm

If your student was serious, I would think she could have written a report covering as far as she had gotten in TGD before it was allegedly thrown over a cliff. Just a thought.

Other Comments by Fedler

24. Comment #37169 by CruciFiction on May 3, 2007 at 2:39 pm

ABC debate streaming is re-scheduled for May 9 at 1 pm ET

http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/archives/002645.html

An ADMIN needs to change the time posted at top of page from 2PM to 1PM.

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/55873003.html

Other Comments by CruciFiction

25. Comment #37171 by KRKBAB on May 3, 2007 at 2:43 pm

Hey Folks, this is my very first posting! I don't type too fast and I'm not totally up on computor lingo.
I read this site (site?) daily and I love it- solidarity, so to speak (even though a group of atheists is like "herding cats"). I've lived all of my 49 years, and 357 days in the USA. If I were a LITTLE younger and had better means, I'd become an ex-patriate and move to Canada or Northern Europe to feel a lttle more at home with like-minded people, but I think I'm going to tough it out here. The good news is, I "might" get to retire in France where my wfe is a native of. This is just an introductory posting, More from me later! Happy Universe

Other Comments by KRKBAB

26. Comment #37172 by Aaron SF on May 3, 2007 at 2:52 pm

 avatarI feel naive now. My first thought was "Oh joy... an actual debate, how can Atheists loose!?"

But it's on TV and you have an Actor on the "God Exists" side. Why do you have an actor on that side? For ratings? Can't be to lend credibility.

I'll pretend to be optimistic 'till I watch it.

Other Comments by Aaron SF

27. Comment #37175 by Eureka Step on May 3, 2007 at 3:06 pm

 avatarGet Hitchens alongside the RRS. Dawkins too!

Other Comments by Eureka Step

28. Comment #37176 by perkyjay on May 3, 2007 at 3:08 pm

Do we really care how this "debate" works out. It's only a blip on the screen of a major epic. Even if the christians win hands down, truth is on the side of the atheists - that cannot change or be changed by one debate. I think the atheist cause is gaining ground by leaps and bounds and one must accept that our cause cannot win every skirmish, and this is really all it is - a minor skirmish.

Other Comments by perkyjay

29. Comment #37178 by Fishpeddler on May 3, 2007 at 3:10 pm

 avatarComment #37171 by KRKBAB
Good to hear from you! And happy 50th birthday next week!

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

30. Comment #37179 by perkyjay on May 3, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Re: 13736 by Van Youngman: The excuse that your student gave sounds suspiciously similar to the classic "the dog ate my homework". Whether or not you accept it is entirely your decision, but I would be suspicious of it. Can you lend her your copy of TGD and extend the deadline for her ?

Other Comments by perkyjay

31. Comment #37180 by room101 on May 3, 2007 at 3:25 pm

Hold on a second...

This is being held at a CHURCH, with 2 actors/con-men who are deft at art of gab.

Not good.

They are skilled orators. No matter how daft/stupid/delusional you are (as these two have more than demonstrated), if you can articulate well you generally have the edge. Also, throw in emotion - which is all religion is about anyway - and this could be disastrous (read: emotion trumps facts). I'm also concerned about the network and moderator, both of whom will do their very best to make sure each side is treated "fairly" and not have one side beat up the other (which, if done correctly, the rationalists should mop the floor with them. These two idiots should be made to look like the f'kng dolts that they are). Couple all this with a crowd that, no doubt, will be partisan comfort/cameron - did I mention that it is being held in a CHURCH?? And I wouldn't be surprised if they're out at this moment recruiting to stack the crowd in their favor.

I can only hope the rational response squad has members that possess the eloquence and aggressive debating skillset of a Christopher Hitchens. Otherwise, I agree with Spinoza. This setup can only favor these two pious clowns (comfort/cameron).

May Apollo bless the RRS and give them strength and wisdom...

Other Comments by room101

32. Comment #37181 by Riley on May 3, 2007 at 3:31 pm

 avatar
Ray Comfort:
"we can prove that God exists, scientifically, absolutely, without mentioning faith or even the Bible."

Or even the Bible !?!?!?

Of course, Comfort makes it sound as if though by not mentioning The Bible, he is handicapping himself, when in fact, it's just the opposite. By not referring to specific falsifiable claims made in The Bible, Comfort can make arguments that are immune to disproof. Clearly his strategy is to reduce the debate to a "he said she said" argument, and then appeal to emotion to "win" the argument in the hearts of the audience.

The key focus in the debate from the Rational Response crowd should be to clarify the difference between any god, specifically an uninvolved god, and a god like the god of The Bible. Ray Comfort needs to prove that "The God of the Bible" exists - not just any Flying Spaghetti Monster type of god. If the topic is a disproof of a god that answers prayers, then a positive and aggressive argument can be made, otherwise you'll be on defense the entire time.

Also, I expect the moderator to attack the "Blasphemy Pledge"and strongly associate it with atheism in order to make atheism out to be "just another religion". Another major problem with the Blasphemy Pledge is that (in a public setting such as this televised debate at least) it will be seen as angst-ridden and hypocritical (or at best 'cute' and juvenile), both because it implicitly acknowledges that there exists someone/something to be blasphemed and it focuses on being negative (attacking others). You will lose the sympathy of most if not all believers right off the bat because of that - it will be seen as hate-speech (i.e. "atheism" = a religion of satan). Better figure out a way to clarify your position in a positive way.

Also, I sure hope there is no talk about the "poor oppressed atheist" - I don't think that would come across well. Much batter to be strong, confident, positive, matter-of-fact, and humble.

good luck!


Other Comments by Riley

33. Comment #37182 by Bonzai on May 3, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Are these the guys with the banana?

Other Comments by Bonzai

34. Comment #37183 by KRKBAB on May 3, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Thanks Fishpeddler. Did I write: "I don't type too fast"? ouch. that's pretty horrible grammer. guess I'm really exposed now as an American. Concerning the "debate",- fodder. But no press is bad press. Atheism is definately becoming "a" topic. No matter what type of coverage, it's still in the news and growing, how could it not! People are finally seeing the rediculousness (shit, no spell check) of faith.

Other Comments by KRKBAB

35. Comment #37191 by bhyde on May 3, 2007 at 4:00 pm

Three minutes before the debate the RRS should announce that due to unfortunate circumstances they would not be able to participate. Instead, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris will be filling in. Let's see if the Banana Boys still would like to take the challenge. This thing has "set up" written all over it…

Other Comments by bhyde

36. Comment #37198 by mbcraig11 on May 3, 2007 at 4:23 pm

I agree with you bhyde. The existance of god is a very hot topic right now and any opportunities to debate on national television at this point are extremely important. I like the RRS but I would much rather prefer to see someone like Sam, or Christopher participate in this debate. Both of the men are extremely articulate and are excellent represenatives of the athiest postion on this issue.

I truly hope the RRS does a good job in articulating their arguments and taking the intellecutal high road in this debate in which they are sure to be presented with some absurd statements about the existance of God.

I forget who said it too but the name "Rational Response Squad" really does sound like a high school club of upset teenagers. I just don't know if its best to have an organization like this representing the athiest viewpoint in any national debate.


Final note......could you imagine they actually pulled out the banana. YouIt would be one of the greatest moments in television history.

Other Comments by mbcraig11

37. Comment #37200 by maton100 on May 3, 2007 at 4:28 pm

 avatarMay the force of selection pressure be with you!

Other Comments by maton100

38. Comment #37201 by Jack Rawlinson on May 3, 2007 at 4:28 pm

 avatarAnyone who makes the idiotic claim that they can prove the existence of god isn't going to be hard to wipe the debating hall floor with. What a pair of imbeciles these particular god-botherers must be.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

39. Comment #37205 by Dog Boots on May 3, 2007 at 4:39 pm

I'm looking forward to this. We all know how these things usually go, yet I'm a bit interested in this. The reason being that I've never seen Kirk & Ray being countered by anyone but random people they themselves have picked out on the street, whom definitely were not very well versed in this debate, but were "weak atheist/agnostics".

And apart from this, all I've ever seen of Kirk & Ray has been incredibly weak - should be easy for Brian & Co. to pick apart.

Other Comments by Dog Boots

40. Comment #37212 by Riley on May 3, 2007 at 5:36 pm

 avatarUnless I'm wrong about the format, I don't think it is possible to "win" this debate on rational grounds. The best you can achieve is to look friendly and reasonable. And not allow Comfort or the moderator to catch you lacking something to say.

Here's my advice:



First and most importantly, clearly frame the issue:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you are challenged to disprove the existence of god, your first response should be:
"Define which god it is you want me to disprove."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't get caught in a defensive position. While it may be a perfectly reasonable argument, it feels like a back-tracking cop-out to argue that: "it's impossible to disprove all notions of god". Instead, force them to acknowledge their own atheism. If they try to define god in such a way that "God" is an uninvolved creator -- then call their bluff: "Ray, you yourself are an atheist with respect to this sort of god". You can politely turn your defensive position into an offensive one and make the others look quite unreasonable in this fashion. This is a simple and easy-to-communicate idea that will provide a great feel-good victory (which I think is the best kind of victory you can hope for in a tv format).

Put Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron on the defensive:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relentlessly demonstrate that Ray and Kirk are atheists too with respect to most gods and suggest implicitly that it is hypocritical to demand that you disprove the existence of a god that they themselves do not believe in (it does not even meet their definition of "God").
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as Ray is concerned, the only god that exists is the "god of the Bible". Before even attempting to disprove the god of The Bible, challenge Ray to disprove the existence of the god: Poseidon. This gives you the opportunity to appear (after making him squirm a little) generous by eventually acknowledging that there's no controversy about the non-existence of Poseidon, like many other types of gods.

Keep pushing the "you're an atheist too" theme by comparing and contrasting the reason for not believing in the god Poseidon with the reasons for not believing in the god of the Bible. What arguments do Christians use to disprove the pagan gods? If there are any, my bet is that they can be used to disprove the god of The Bible too. Don't use our arguments (science & reason) against them, use their own arguments against them.

Appeal to the audience:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We're all atheists with regard to most gods. We're no different than you in that respect. We just go one god further."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This has got to be the strongest and most sympathetic argument that can be made. It's welcoming, and positive. It breaks down the natural wall that will exist between you and theists in the audience. So I definitely think that you should adopt this as a single minded theme upon which you focus throughout the debate. "We are all atheists". Everyone can understand that argument on an emotional level and that argument can be made into a sound bite.

Seek to give television stations only one good sound bite, and do your best to make it the one that you want them to promote (by far the larger audience will only get a chance to see/hear that sound bite).



And last but not least:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never refer to "god". Always refer to the specific god that is the subject of the conversation. "the god of the Bible", "the god of Joseph Smith", "the god of Spinoza", etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Always make it crystal clear, that the debate is about one specific kind of god. There's nothing at all universal about the Christian god. After 2000 years only 1/3 of our tiny planet even believes in such a god, and even then those that do still can't even agree on what His message is. This fact alone is a powerful indictment of the notion that The Bible is the chosen medium through which an all knowing and all powerful being, wanting to share an all important message, has chosen to communicate. And as far as Christians go, The Bible is everything.




Other Comments by Riley

41. Comment #37215 by pewkatchoo on May 3, 2007 at 5:43 pm

 avatarGood evening. I am new to this site, but I find it very enlivening and hope you don't mind my participation. First off a suggestion for the RRS, drop the word squad and simply call yourselves Rational Response. That avoids a total name change but sounds more adult and keeps it shorter. The RR symbology would also be quite effective (Rolls Royce anyone). Their approach during the debate should be to be polite and allow their protagonists to have their say without interruption. Once they are finished they can start responding calmly and quietly and with rationality. This will be like a red rag to a bull for the religionists and they will, probably, try talking over them thus undermining their own position. Works every time. Look at Richards so called interview on the Home Page. That was not an interview as I understand it, the interviewer had already set up a confrontation in his own mind. I am not going to agree with this guy whatever he says. That is normal for these people. They don't want to be convinced. But the more they protest the more ridiculous they look. Sorry, this is long for a first post.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

42. Comment #37219 by bhyde on May 3, 2007 at 6:19 pm

I think if RRS takes a look at http://www.wayofthemaster.com/ they will see the gist of the argument that the Banana Twins will be making. It is clear from their intro they will try to debunk evolution and make an appeal to emotion. They are going to try the 'ol evolution-is-wrong-so-god-must-be-right tactic. They lay their hand on the table quite clearly at the above link. It should be child's play to wax the floor with these guys. Technically.

On the other hand, when you look at the RRS web site verses the Chiquita Boy's site, it is painfully obviously that the RRS is heavily out gunned in the money department. Kirk & Ray come off as very polished to the untrained, uncritical mind, and thus will appeal to the typical American audience viewing Nightline. They simply don't have the image appeal or the credentials to pull off a debate like this. Having said that, I'm usually 100% wrong on most things, so I'm looking forward to seeing how Brian & Co. handles these two knuckleheads.

Other Comments by bhyde

43. Comment #37239 by wagnerpe on May 3, 2007 at 8:16 pm

Ha, Banana Twins...I like that.

Has anyone seen the Banana Twins evolution videos? They thought that showing Darwin to be a male shovanist was a good argument against his theories. They also brought an monkey to dinner in order to make a point. These guys are fools.

On the other hand, I'm worried that these guys are going to come off like Wayne and Garth from Wayne's World. They run a radio show out of a basement in an undisclosed location. We don't even know what their last names are. Even though the intellectuals watching this debate will obviously side with them, this isn't going to be an opportunity to change the minds of believers. Anything Kirk Cameron says is, and always will be, gospel for so many people.

Hate to say it, but I don't have very high hopes at all.

Other Comments by wagnerpe

44. Comment #37240 by Edanator on May 3, 2007 at 8:23 pm

Re: Comment #37212 by Riley

Great stuff! Please send this list to the Rational Responders themselves. I think they could use help in setting up their debate strategy. I'd love to see them crush the opposition in this one, simply by being rational and not losing their temper. Do the Rational Responders read the Richard Dawkins website?

The moderator is very important too, however. If he should allow questions to go un-answered and debaters to switch the topic the debate can quickly turn against RRS.

Other Comments by Edanator

45. Comment #37244 by Fishpeddler on May 3, 2007 at 8:43 pm

 avatarComment #37212 by Riley

Very interesting. Nice post. I wholeheartedly agree with pressing the theists to define their god right at the outset. Every time I watch a debate of this sort, the theist ends up arguing in support of a god that no one believes in and no one has ever heard of, but is vague enough to withstand assault. Don't let them scurry down that rabbit hole. Make them be forthright about their claim, and highlight the fact that the God they are reduced to believing in during a debate in no way whatsoever resembles the god the rank and file theists believe in.
[Sorry if there are typos. We ordered a lot of pitchers after softball tonight. I'm a little loopy right now.].

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

46. Comment #37252 by Fishpeddler on May 3, 2007 at 9:33 pm

 avatarComment #37249 by Beth
"The RRS should all wear T-shirts with an image of a banana and the words 'Atheists' Worst Nightmare'!"

Dang, that's a good idea! I might have to make one of those for myself. And for those not familiar with that strange argument, it will serve as a representation of how theists are always trying to give it to us up the... as sleep comes over me, I must bid you adieu. Night all.

[Geez, I must really be drunk and tired. That's a weird post. Oh well, I'm going to hit the 'Submit' button anyway]

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

47. Comment #37259 by Zaphod on May 3, 2007 at 10:47 pm

 avatarI know (know maybe a strong word) Brian and Kelly from listening to the rational response squad show and speaking to them in the RRS chatroom. They will do atheists proud.

Brian and Kelly seem like geniuses compared to Cameron and Comfort. Cameron and Comfort are serious nutbags.

Other Comments by Zaphod

48. Comment #37261 by MelM on May 3, 2007 at 11:09 pm

Stay on "existence."
It would be nice to see a debate that sticks to "existence" instead of spending 90% of the time sidetracked onto "ethics" or "Stalin" or "giving comfort" or "what the U.S. founders thought" etc. As soon as a debate slips off the "existence" track, the believer has escaped his unsolvable problem and is on much safer ground; a failure here does no harm to his primary claim. If these characters claim to be able to prove anything, keep them spinning their wheels right there; no moving on to something else! Just keep rejecting their evidence and arguments. Soon, the half hour will be over.

A debate takes a lot of homework.
I think it best to assume that these guys have gone to wingnut school (there's plenty of them around) and have learned lots of ways to throw ink into the water and make claims that are breathtakingly weird (dirty tricks to con people into belief or to convince people that reason does not exist or is just crap). Atheist debaters should go into such "existence" debates with knowledge of Christian apologetics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics
In a debate, there just isn't enough time--at least for me there isn't--to figure out how to debunk any and every one of the religious fallacies. If these guys have written anything or there are videos of discussions, be sure to look at them. However, there are some general rules of reason that apply anytime. Don't let the believers defend one unsupported claim with yet another unsupported claim and then another...Most believers are, in fact, irrationalists and have satisfied themselves via rationalized hacks. Don't let believers inject unsupported concepts into the debate. If a concept doesn't refer to some aspect of reality, it's invalid; "miracle" is an example. Either religion is a body of scientifically supported observations and logical conclusions or it isn't. If this "body" of claims is vacuous, then there's no alternative but to reject it; there's no validity at all to accepting what is actually only a fantasy.

A non-existent doesn't leave footprints.
As to the challenge "You can't prove that god doesn't exist", remember that a non-existent doesn't leave footprints. It can't condition an entity's action--such as perturb a planet's orbit or leave any trace of itself. Therefore, any observations point to something that exists and never to something that doesn't exist. From what is one can only get to something else that is. You can debunk or "prove non-existence" by showing that the thing claimed to exist is self-contradictory or that it contradicts known facts. If "god" is more than a visual or auditory smybol, the theist has to say what it is; one can't refute a zero.

Other Comments by MelM

49. Comment #37272 by macronencer on May 4, 2007 at 12:34 am

 avatar@Comment #37164 by Liveliest Crib

----------
Comfort: Do you consider yourself a good person?

Unfortunate Interviewee: Sure.

C: Oh yeah? Have you ever told a lie?

UI: Ever? Of course.

C: So, what does that make you?

UI: [Nervous laughter] Heh, I guess you want me to say "liar," but ---

C: Right, you're a liar. Have you ever stolen something?
----------

Correct response:

C: So, what does that make you?

UI: Normal. Next question, please.

Other Comments by macronencer

50. Comment #37284 by bamboospitfire on May 4, 2007 at 1:45 am

 avatarComfort and Cameron's suggestion that "atheists don't exist" is risible and should be disposed of in short order by the RRS.

I would be amused if B&K explain to C&C that, if C&C do indeed prove the existence of God as they claim to be able, He will simply disappear in a puff of logic, presumably taking us with Him.

Finally, does Banksy know something we don't? Apologies if the full link doesn't work properly and requires a quick copy and paste job.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23393309-details/Why+Banksy's+fans+are+going+bananas/article.do

Other Comments by bamboospitfire
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: