1. Comment #39833 by Logicel on May 12, 2007 at 4:27 am

pretty decent review, however snarky.

Other Comments by Logicel

2. Comment #39842 by firemancarl on May 12, 2007 at 5:02 am

Well, you can blame him for thinking Cameron won? I mean with all of the dead air time when the RRS would provide scientific fact ( which is just another way the Lord messes with us) and the camera would cut to Cameron and Comfort looking dumbfounded, yeah, Cameron won.

Other Comments by firemancarl

3. Comment #39846 by Logicel on May 12, 2007 at 5:14 am

firemancarl, Where do you get that this author thinks Cameron won? My take is this very snarky review of the event is implying that the god squad fell flat on their deluded faces.

The author's sarcasm is clearly stated in the last sentence of the first paragraph:

If He does exist and is just, it will be the last.(implying to debates between theists and atheists)

Other Comments by Logicel

4. Comment #39850 by Logicel on May 12, 2007 at 5:20 am

Apparently both Ray and Kirk prayed during the debate. Perhaps that was the reason why Kirk had to have Bashir repeat a question for him.

Why didn't I use that excuse when I was caught daydreaming during my Catholic schooling? I could have replied to the irate nuns, "I was only praying, my dears, keep your habits on, for goodness sakes."

Other Comments by Logicel

5. Comment #39852 by firemancarl on May 12, 2007 at 5:21 am

Logicel

Sorry, I forgot my "sarcasm" emoticone. I no way do I think he/they one. I thought the way I ended my post you could tell I was being facetious.

Other Comments by firemancarl

6. Comment #39854 by Carter Maxwell on May 12, 2007 at 5:32 am

I couldn't even make myself finish watching. Not only did I find myself disappointed and bored with the theists pathetic rehashings of old, discredited 'proofs', but I found Kelly's voice unbearable. It had that high nervous crack to it that continually reinforced my sense that I was watching the 'Amateur Hour' version of the god debate.

Other Comments by Carter Maxwell

7. Comment #39858 by Logicel on May 12, 2007 at 5:50 am

firemancarl, thanks for the clarification.

Other Comments by Logicel

8. Comment #39861 by Frostbit on May 12, 2007 at 5:59 am

I could not watch the entire video. Way too much bull shit from the creationist to bare. Absolutely horrendous! What's terrible is that many will not be able to see through their weak invalid arguments and admit it as proof of a creator.

Other Comments by Frostbit

9. Comment #39873 by NMcC on May 12, 2007 at 6:54 am

Carter Maxwell, above, says that Kelly's voice was unbearable. I don't agree at all. It's not that easy to sit on a platform like that and be as calm and collected and strong-voiced as you would be if only speaking to a group of friends in the pub. She was probably nervous and this might have affected her delivery style - so what? I thought she did very well and congratulate her for having the courage to do it in the first place.

What about old Ray Comfort on the other hand? Not only does he have a name like one, but he sounds and looks exactly like a 70's porn star.

Or is that just me?!

The whole encounter was simply another example of the old adage that a fool can ask more questions than a wise man can answer. The Jesus freaks were simply a couple of halfwits who showed no evidence of having understood the questions let alone of providing the answers.

The atheists won hands down - as usual.

Incidentally, what happened to the 100% proof of God's existence. Did I nod off at some point without realising it?

Other Comments by NMcC

10. Comment #39876 by PrimeNumbers on May 12, 2007 at 7:03 am

Basically, a rather poor argument of design, that never quite made it to an argument from design. Of course, the retort about "God's universe factory" was hilarious, but the theistic arguments didn't even get far enough along their "logic" to warrant even that.

Now, perfect design might point to a single creator, but botched design like we see all around us (no, we don't see design around us, but you get my point) obvioulsy points to polytheism. Neither does it rule out intelligent aliens who did it. Or perhaps time travelling humans from the future, who go back to the dawn of earth and seed it with life....

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

11. Comment #39885 by kkant on May 12, 2007 at 7:19 am

The tone of this article seems to be a contemptuous disdain for a lowly squabble. He admits the atheists won, but only because there were no "intelligent believers" to argue for faith. In his words, "if Nightline wanted to host an enlightening discussion about religion, it would have invited some intelligent believers to mount a defense of faith and to talk about why faith and proof of it are mutually exclusive." Why or how he thinks this is any more "intelligent" than the banana argument, he doesn't say.

Personally, I think Brian and Kelly did a good job, especially of keeping their focus on the obvious failure of their opponents to come up with their promised "proof". I think it is doubly praiseworthy given that their opponents were almost certainly more accustomed to public speaking to a nationwide TV audience. Kudos!

Other Comments by kkant

12. Comment #39890 by Zaphod on May 12, 2007 at 7:25 am

Troy Patterson from Slate I am sick of telling people this but I will tell you "Agnosticism is not an alternative to atheism". You can be an agnostic atheist. No atheist I know says he/she can prove 100% that god doesn't exist. That said I am as agnostic about god as I am agnostic about the FSM or The fabled pink unicorn. Agnosticism just means without knowledge. I don't know Quantum Mechanics as well as Richard Feynman did but with the evidence I have seen for it and my limited understand of it I believe it to be true or more correctly said I have no real choice but to think of it as true because I am convinced by reason, logic, rational thought and evidence.

Other Comments by Zaphod

13. Comment #39902 by mewton on May 12, 2007 at 8:37 am

Ok, the atheists won no question, Kirk and Ray were pathetic if polished when they actually had something to say. I think Brian and Kelly did do a good job but their public speaking and debating skills obviously need some work but if they keep at it they will get better and atheists need good spokespeople so I think it's important that young outspoken atheists are doing this kind of thing.

I on the other hand have been an atheist for over 20 years and have never argued for my beliefs other than in very small comfortable gatherings. I would like to change that so I made the terribly bad decision to respond to the emails the RRS were recieving from christians on their website, and was quickly attacked by angry, rude, hateful, personally abusive email from the same. I think it's great that the RRS is advertising at tiger beat, we need to get information to people while they are still young enough to have an open mind. The christians trolling atheists websites are certainly not in that group.

Other Comments by mewton

14. Comment #39915 by Kmullen on May 12, 2007 at 9:19 am

I can't believe how poorly ABC did this. Next time get some experts.

Other Comments by Kmullen

15. Comment #39924 by Dan P on May 12, 2007 at 9:59 am

It came off very amateurish, isn't ABC a big news organization? Fumbling with microphones etc... Also read the byline of the slate article, which isn't included on rd.net: "Just Kidding". The headline is really sarcastic, but includes a byline for the sarcasm impaired.
I think the fairly inexperienced RRS was an appropriate response to these clowns, if a professional like Dawkins or Harris was there it would have devolved into a bloody massacre, literally a bulldozer over a frog.

Other Comments by Dan P

16. Comment #39925 by tomjlawson on May 12, 2007 at 10:05 am

Zaphod says:

Troy Patterson from Slate I am sick of telling people this but I will tell you "Agnosticism is not an alternative to atheism". You can be an agnostic atheist. No atheist I know says he/she can prove 100% that god doesn't exist. That said I am as agnostic about god as I am agnostic about the FSM or The fabled pink unicorn. Agnosticism just means without knowledge.

The ambiguity of this term is detrimental to the eradication of pseudoscience and irrationality. Agnosis means "without knowledge," agnosticism means "without belief in the supernatural."

Atheism does not say what you think about ghosts, ESP, psychokinesis, The Secret, Bigfoot, etc. You might think it encapsulates how you feel, but it does not. Atheism is strictly limited to theism, and the fact that theism falls into the category of the supernatural it seems a little redundant to say that you are an agnostic atheist - it's like saying you're a religious bible-thumper. AND, no theist can be agnostic because that would be like a biology student not accepting the theory of evolution. Please reference the ancient Gnostics and you will find that Gnosticism is "knowing that all matter is evil and only through spiritual truth can one be saved." This means any spiritual truth. Just put your faith in the insoluble and you will be fine.

Religion is not going anywhere anytime soon, but someone somewhere will continue to spot Bigfoot or claim they're psychic if we don't fight the fights we can win, i.e., disprove, otherwise we'll live in a world full of ghosthunting atheists, Feng Shui atheists, psychic atheists, alien-abducted atheists, karmic atheists, atheistic astrologers, etcetera, etcetera...

Other Comments by tomjlawson

17. Comment #39927 by Nebularry on May 12, 2007 at 10:13 am

Which only goes to show that actors should stick to acting - for good or ill. Preachers should stay away from cameras. And atheists should avoid debates with lunatics!

Other Comments by Nebularry

18. Comment #39946 by windfall on May 12, 2007 at 11:21 am

Though the RRS clearly 'won' this 'debate', it was generally a disappointment. Brian and Kelly did a decent job considering their experience and the intimidating public forum. I was really hoping they would have closed by noting how Kirk and his buddy had essentially used a bait and switch technique with their promise of a 'proof' that god exists.

I was however heartened that all Kirk and his sidekick could come up with was half a dozen William Paley specials and the argument from absolute morality to make their case. The third 'proof' was just the usual bible sales pitch. The RSS should have gone into Natural Selection a little bit on #1, they did a good job on #2, but they should have explicitly exposed #3 as the circular reasoning it is (i.e. my book here says you're going to burn in hell). All I kept thinking, was, if Dawkins, Harris or Dan Dennett had been there, those guys would have been absolutely hung out to dry with their alligator-duck picture. What a disgrace to humanity.

Other Comments by windfall

19. Comment #39960 by MarkSmith on May 12, 2007 at 11:46 am

Bravo! We need more of this. However unpolished the debate was, it accomplished a major goal of helping to bring debate into the streets - to regular people. And thanks to Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and Harris et al for that.

I'll bet the RRS got on their laptops after the debate and researched the history and defeat of the 'argument from design'. And I'll bet that the god-squad just prayed for baby jesus to transform their embarrassment into glory.

Once again, hurray or citizen debates.

Other Comments by MarkSmith

20. Comment #39967 by Edouard Pernod on May 12, 2007 at 12:06 pm

Yes, RRS could have done better, but for being just some passionate kids with no science background, they grasped enough to dispatch Cameron and Comfort conclusively. I know plenty of 11 year olds that could have found problems with the infantile gibberish Cameron and Comfort were managing to squeeze out of their severely depleted synapses. Cameron and Comfort were extremely arrogant charlatans to boot, claiming scientific authority when they had none, acting as if they had experimental evidence to prove their point when they had none, and acting as if they had an ability to comprehend philosophy when they showed no ability whatsoever. The best was when RRS brought up the 1st (they misspoke and called it 3rd) Law of Thermodynamics, proving that god could not "create" anything, since matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Comfort and Cameron literally sat on their roosts speechless and squirming for like 30 seconds, looking as if their feeble simian brains had just ruptured. While this would have been mean of Kelly and Brian to say, when Cameron said there was no intermediary species ever discovered, they should have pointed out that Cameron himself must be a primate-human intermediate, given his primitive intellectual capacity.

Kelly is a seriously eye-catching babe though (and she made some excellent points). I wonder how Cameron and Comfort handled the tempting thoughts that must have been in their mind after seeing her in that dress...

Other Comments by Edouard Pernod

21. Comment #39969 by RickM on May 12, 2007 at 12:22 pm

On television, in front of the world (ok, a limited subset), Cameron, smiling broadly, holds up an illustration of a "Crockaduck" and claims evolution is a lie. Isn't such evidence clear to everyone? See how easy it is to prove evolution wrong?

I have never seen a more profound display of ignorance and stupidity. And Cameron was so obviously proud of his brilliance. I almost blushed.

But, how sad. There exists people that actually swallow this crap.

I have to agree with Mark that the subject matter must be brought to the front burner as often as possible, but how in the world can a debate be called a debate when it is edited. We have no real idea how the debate actually went; ABC made a complete sham of the whole thing.


Other Comments by RickM

22. Comment #39972 by Logicel on May 12, 2007 at 12:37 pm

mewton wrote, I think it's great that the RRS is advertising at tiger beat, we need to get information to people while they are still young enough to have an open mind."
_______

As Sapient has said, the 'tiger beat' generation is being targeted already by the Christians. I say the present situation is more like teenagers being a captive audience for the Christians. RRS is clever in using the Net to reach this captive audience.

MarkSmith wrote, Once again, hurray (f)or citizen debates.
________

Thanks for that descriptive term, citizen debates. I couldn't jog my memory to come up with what constitutes the merit of this style of 'amateurish' debating.

Other Comments by Logicel

23. Comment #39978 by Ole on May 12, 2007 at 1:32 pm

How boring it is to listen to people like this Comfort guy. He has obviously never taken any time to understand Darwin and evolution. He is in fact stuck in the era around 1802 when the "watchmaker analogy" was given by William Paley. He think he is clever (or cool) by using Coca Cola instead of the watch. Do he know that it is quite a long time since 1859 and Charles Darwin's formulation of the theory of natural selection?

If a person came into a lecture about for instance mathemathics and started arguing like Comfort, people would ask him politely to leave. "Go home and study the topic - then come back!"

The same if he entered a discussion about politics of the Middle East and revealed that he did not know that there is a country called Israel. "Please study the topic, then welcome back!"

But, if it is about religion, you can go on the air (on the big channel ABC) and be given time to talk all this nonsense. Strange world ;-)


This other Kirk guy (the actor) - was he ever an atheist? I don't think so, and what do he know about science?

Ole

Other Comments by Ole

24. Comment #39998 by catchy_nick on May 12, 2007 at 3:21 pm

At the risk of sounding like s shameless pig, that kelly has some great funbags. Damn!

Other Comments by catchy_nick

25. Comment #40007 by Machoduck on May 12, 2007 at 4:24 pm

I was really, really disapointed when I heard Cameron's argument - eherm, "100% Scientifical proof that God exists"...

This was becasue

a) It was by no means scientifical, as it is impossible to do research on any of it
b)It was not at all proof, it was just another agrument for that there is a god. God's existance cannot be proven or disproven, therefore, the best argument in the case should decide what is wrong and what is right. But NOOOO...
c) It's the oldest trick in the theist book... Since the universe has been created, there has to be a creator...

That argument is silly and inadequate becasue
a)If everything must come from somewhere, where did God come from? Did he create himself? Then, why can't we just say that the universe created itself? Has he allways existed? That totally contradicts the fact that everything must have its begining, and therefore makes creationism self-contradictive.
b) As it "proves" the existance of just A god in general, it legitimates the existance of ALL gods of creation, and does by no means say that the Christian god exists. It is just as much an "evidence" that the gods of Islam, Hinduism, Norse and- Greek mythology are real.

Should we then believe in all of them?

Other Comments by Machoduck

26. Comment #40017 by Duff on May 12, 2007 at 5:15 pm

Their argument was stupid "for reasons too stupid to type"!! What a fabulous description!

Other Comments by Duff

27. Comment #40018 by SparkyZ65 on May 12, 2007 at 5:16 pm

"At the risk of sounding like s shameless pig, that kelly has some great funbags. Damn!"

Hmm, I'm torn between flagging this post and pointing you to more of said funbags. I choose the latter, if only because it provides an opportunity:

http://www.myspace.com/kellym78

It appears that they are intelligently designed, how ironic is that :)

Other Comments by SparkyZ65

28. Comment #40024 by kaiserkriss on May 12, 2007 at 5:44 pm

Ouch, that hurt. Our fundies on this program were all about smoke and mirrors and presentation, no substance (sheep dog??)
Do either have anything beyond a grade 3 level education? What schools lets these individuals graduate and into society?

Other Comments by kaiserkriss

29. Comment #40025 by IQHQ on May 12, 2007 at 6:10 pm

Forgive me, but that girl Kelly is an intellectual lightweight. Not only that, but she is inarticulate to boot. Considering Martin Bashir is chairing this debate, it must be quite high-profile. This makes it especially regrettable that there wasn't a better team on the Atheist side (not that they needed to be a very good team, the other side were a disgrace!)

Other Comments by IQHQ

30. Comment #40030 by Carter Maxwell on May 12, 2007 at 6:35 pm

Comment #39873 by NMcC
"It's not that easy to sit on a platform like that and be as calm and collected and strong-voiced as you would be if only speaking to a group of friends in the pub. She was probably nervous and this might have affected her delivery style..."

You announced your disagreement with my criticism, but nothing you went on to say was inconsistent with my own feelings. I, too, applaud Kelly's courage and willingness to do this debate. (I still can't handle her voice in this video, though.)

But I loved your adage about fools asking questions of wise men. That's a great one that I'd never heard. Oh, all the times I could have used it!

Other Comments by Carter Maxwell

31. Comment #40037 by roach on May 12, 2007 at 7:08 pm

I agree with catchy_nick. Hot damn!

Other Comments by roach

32. Comment #40040 by Ohnhai on May 12, 2007 at 7:29 pm

Damn. The RRS had this won without needeing to utter a single word after Comfort's opening arguments . So much for being able to Prove god 100% without once invoking faith. Comfort and Cammeron did nothing but refer to 'Gods word' and personal incredulity for their, 'Scientific' proof. Even going as far as to attempt to re-define science to create a straw man definition that could fit practically anything.

Bravo to the RSS. How Brian and Kelly stopped themselves from laughing out loud at the God Squad's ineptitude I don't know.

And thank you to Brian for reminding us all that you only need to open your eyes to see billions of living transitional forms. I frequently fall for the 'tyranny of species' and forget that is the case. I frequently think we should officially drop the concept of box/container like species definitions (it is or it isnt this species) and addpot a more 'pin in the map' style definition where organisms and groups are classified by their proximity to their local pins.

I don't know if Bashir was play devils advocate, but I suspect he was when he seemed confused by the "we are all transitional forms" comment. His comment that suggested that he read Brian's comments as suggesting the transition played out during the life time of the individual and not that the individual was the result of the evolutionary progression. I only hope he was playing dumb to extract a clarification, if not then we still have a massive amount of education to be doing… I loved Kelly's comment that "…we are but this year's model…"

Other Comments by Ohnhai

33. Comment #40052 by ligfietser on May 12, 2007 at 8:58 pm

IQHQ: sorry, but i can't agree. She might a) be a woman, b) have a sometimes shrill voice, c) have large silicons d) a fancy dress, but of all four in the debate, she had the most informed arguments. She did all factual stuff. Brian was a little more calm, but his arguments were not like Kelly's, period.

Other Comments by ligfietser

34. Comment #40053 by mbcraig11 on May 12, 2007 at 9:55 pm

This was an awkward debate to watch. I applaud the RRS for debating this issue but everytime Kelly spoke I felt my own face turning red out of embarrasment for the way she delivered her responses.

How anyone can listen to this debate and not have a profound respect and admiration for people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins and their ability to articulate the athiest postion is beyond me.

Other Comments by mbcraig11

35. Comment #40065 by Liveliest Crib on May 13, 2007 at 12:51 am

[T]he God Squad had but three arguments on behalf of the big guy: All things have makers; the human conscience is evidence of a higher moral power; if you read the Gospel, then Christ will be revealed to you. For reasons too stupid to type, this was not an airtight case, and the atheists made quick work of it in tones of juvenile sarcasm.

Yep, that pretty much sums up the "debate." I agree with Logicel -- good review. Though I think the snark was appropriate. Comfort and Cameron made outlandish claims about proving god's existence, and then made outlandish fools of themselves. I imagine a hefty portion of even the theists in the audience were a little embarrassed by the poor performance of those representing them.

And I have to admit I was wrong about something. I had predicted that this format would be weighted heavily in favor of the theists, and that Kirk and Ray would be allowed to dish out their idiotic cross examinations, perhaps to the RRS folks or to people in the audience. I happily concede that the format was basically fair.

Other Comments by Liveliest Crib

36. Comment #40088 by Logicel on May 13, 2007 at 4:16 am

IQHQ wrote, Forgive me, but that girl Kelly is an intellectual lightweight.
________

A woman, nearly thirty years old and a mother of three is a girl in your book?

BTW, I draw and paint fairly well, but no materpieces will ever be done by me, I guess that makes me a 'lightweight', and I should just stop messing around with a medium in which I could get better, but never really good enough, so why should I keep on trying? I'll stop right now.

I also am a chef. Though, I cook fairly well, I will never reach the heights of culinary creativity as some very famous cooks, therefore, I will retire my wire whisk and slotted spoons right now.

In addition, my two cats are lightweight, they just meow instead of roaring--I will tape their mouths shut so I will no longer be annoyed by their lightweight sounds.

Other Comments by Logicel

37. Comment #40091 by IQHQ on May 13, 2007 at 4:34 am

Logicel,

My reference to "girl" was simply a casual reference to her gender, not meant to be taken as indicative of any perceived level of maturity, nor meant as a mark of disrespect. Apologies.

With respect, your sarcastic references to cooking, drawing, etc. are really quite sad. In no way did I mean that those who fall below the expert level (in any given field) should give up and not bother trying. This is obviously not what I meant. Indeed, without allowing people to pass through the levels of amateurish mediocrity no one could ever rise to become an expert in the first place!

However, one must be allowed to have standards, and there is no point in restraining my freedom to criticise. If taken to its logical extent, your attitude would mean there would be a "race to the bottom" in terms of standards, because no one would ever dare criticise anything, lest they "hurt the feelings" of the guilty party. If this is the sort of society you want, then so be it, but it's not the sort I want.

Other Comments by IQHQ

38. Comment #40143 by catchy_nick on May 13, 2007 at 10:38 am

Comment #40018 by SparkyZ65 on May 12, 2007 at 5:16 pm

"At the risk of sounding like s shameless pig, that kelly has some great funbags. Damn!"

Hmm, I'm torn between flagging this post and pointing you to more of said funbags. I choose the latter, if only because it provides an opportunity:

http://www.myspace.com/kellym78

It appears that they are intelligently designed, how ironic is that :)



HAHAHAHAHAHA! nice one. Why cant i find a hot atheist chick like Kelly? Shes intelligent, educated, gorgeous, and hellbound. Oh wait, I know. She belongs a group only five to ten % of the population full of fat, lazy and overly religious americans. I cant wait to move out of this 'god forsaken' shithole.

Other Comments by catchy_nick

39. Comment #40145 by catchy_nick on May 13, 2007 at 10:51 am

On a more serious note, this interview was pretty bad. Even though I think these RSS guys have their hearts in the right place, they arent very skilled in the art of debate, and they look like young angry kids. I would've liked to see a couple of heavyweights take on the banana boys and squash them. Also this segment was edited very unfairly to make it appear as if there were no winners here and both sides have sound reasonable arguments. Also what the fuck is up with "self-proclaimed atheists"?? I didnt hear anyone mention once that the banana boys were "self-proclaimed preachers"!?!? There were some funny moments though, when my future wife Kelly spoke about there being no evidence for the existance of Jesus outside the Bible, Bashir asked her to show some respect! WTF? and when Ray mentioned that Kirk has set his "hollywood career" aside to do god's work!!!!! I almost died laughing! What hollywood career? He made him sound like Robert De niro. I'm sure he gets attacked by screaming adoring fans everywhere he goes.

Other Comments by catchy_nick

40. Comment #40154 by PrimeNumbers on May 13, 2007 at 11:35 am

Sure the guys and gals at RSS could have done better, they could have demolished the preachers in many, many more ways, but they did end up making some very good points also. Not everyone has experience of being on TV and handling people. I've seen Dawkins do some not so hot interviews too. I think it's a case of, "if you think you can do better, then do so!". Let's hope you have a steady stream to Jehovas Witnesses to your door to give you fodder to practise on. I still remember the day I had them running off down the street refusing to give me their literature. How funny.

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

41. Comment #40160 by Satanburiedfossils on May 13, 2007 at 12:41 pm

Little known fact: Thomas Aquinas wrote the first season of Growing Pains, but he was quickly dropped by the producers after critics deemed the episodes to be too preachy and cerebral. Nonetheless, the episode where Carol Seaver argues her way out a traffic ticket by convincing the police officer that the universe is merely a figment of God's imagination earned Aquinas an Emmy nomination. Other than penning a few episodes of Charles in Charge, Thomas Aquinas has apparently left the scene as a script-writer for American sitcoms.

(Oops. I thought this was the Monty Python web site.)

Other Comments by Satanburiedfossils

42. Comment #40175 by Edouard Pernod on May 13, 2007 at 2:23 pm

Here is the real outcome. I can easily envision Kelly and Brian to go on doing more of these debates. However, I cannot easily envision Cameron or Comfort going on to do any more of these debates. How could they possibly continue to put themselves out to be humiliated in public like that? They'd do god a favour by staying in their church and keeping their BS to themselves. If they keep it up Atheists will only increase their ranks. If two people from Jersey who are not professional writers or speakers who merely passionate about their Atheism were able to deflate Cameron and Comfort's "proof" with little effort, imagine what someone like Hitchens, Dawkins or Harris would do to them.

Other Comments by Edouard Pernod

43. Comment #40187 by Steever on May 13, 2007 at 4:38 pm

The vacant, powerless looks on Kirk & Rays' faces after they were asked to respond to Brian's Thermodynamics argument were PRICELESS. Their silence was deafening. I also got a big kick out of Kirk's weakly mumbled comment after Ray, having no comment of his own, asked if HE had anything to say (I'm paraphrasing so it's not verbatim): "No. I think people can figure it out for themselves."

Wow, eh? He can't just say "no" or "I'll have to think about it", etc. He has to make it sound like a suitable response DOES exist (which, admittedly, for all I know, not knowing much about physics, it does). What a great way to answer a question when you don't have a clue what the answer is! I wish I'd used this approach in high-school:

"No, I have nothing to say, Mr. Teacher. I think you and my fellow classmates can figure it out for yourselves."

Somehow, I doubt I'd get away with that for very long. ;-)

Steever,
Winnipeg, Canada

Other Comments by Steever

44. Comment #40204 by bouwe on May 13, 2007 at 8:31 pm

Troy Patterson from Slate I am sick of telling people this but I will tell you "Agnosticism is not an alternative to atheism".

Yes, Zaphod. We get sick of it but it has to be repeated over and over again until people get educated. I hope you posted that message to Troy and all at Slate. This misunderstanding is so pervasive in the community, I think it is one of the major stumbling blocks which prevent the fence-sitters from understanding the issues.

Other Comments by bouwe

45. Comment #40206 by bouwe on May 13, 2007 at 8:36 pm

Troy Patterson from Slate I am sick of telling people this but I will tell you "Agnosticism is not an alternative to atheism".

Yes, Zaphod. We get sick of it but it has to be repeated over and over again until people get educated. I hope you posted that message to Troy and all at Slate. This misunderstanding is so pervasive in the community, I think it is one of the major stumbling blocks which prevent the fence-sitters from understanding the issues.

Other Comments by bouwe

46. Comment #40228 by apettway on May 13, 2007 at 11:37 pm

Come one! The RRS kids should have been more prepared for the argument from design! There aren't many arguments for the existence of God, and certainly none of them are compelling.

I was squirming in my seat as I watched them drop the ball on that one.

I know the RRS kids are targeting a younger demographic, but I'm 28 and I was unimpressed.
(I did like the blaspheme challenge, though)

Other Comments by apettway

47. Comment #40233 by Arcane Viper on May 14, 2007 at 12:59 am

Did anyone laugh when Cameron said even a four year old child could understand his reasoning? I was just thinking "yeah, and this is like arguing with a four year old." Four year olds don't understand dualism, epiphenomenolism, materialism, and the logic behind why god most certainly does not exist. Children grow out of the tales of Santa Claus, the easter bunny, and the tooth fairy because none of them threaten to send you to a firey hell.

Other Comments by Arcane Viper

48. Comment #40247 by bouwe on May 14, 2007 at 2:48 am

. Comment #40206 by bouwe

My apologies for double-posting. I don't know why that happened. I just pressed submit, ONCE. I am aware of the delete and edit functions once one has posted, however, for some reason, this site does not allow me to do it on my computer . Must be a mac thing (a very OLD mac, os9!!!)

Now I will press "submit" ( ONCE....like the first time!!)

Other Comments by bouwe

49. Comment #40338 by phasmagigas on May 14, 2007 at 6:33 am

Offer this thought experiment to creationists to see if you even want to continue a conversation with them:

via a time machine we go back in time and witness first hand the history of the earth. I tell the creationist that if i witness the earth formed about 6000 years back and suddenly see all species appear at the same time and even witness the biblical flood, then i tell them that i will admit ive been wrong about evolution. If instead we go back and witness that evolution did happen then ask the creationist would they be prepared to admit they had it wrong about the development of life on this planet (it doesnt say much about god of course, just the biblical account). See how many creationists will admit that they were wrong. Some will wriggle away, some will say it would all be a visual trick and only the truly faithful will 'pass the test' many will laugh and say its only a thought experiment.

I predict that all evolutionists would accept the evidence and say they were wrong and that it just looked like evo happened and that the majority of creationists will not accept they were wrong. Of course it will tell you more about peoples minds than it will about lifes origins but there you go.

Try it, the response will tell you to walk away or stay and talk.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

50. Comment #40339 by padster1976 on May 14, 2007 at 6:34 am

Who wants to have a laugh?

Take the 'atheist test'.

Classic!

http://www.livingwaters.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=231&Category_Code=WOTM-TRACT

Other Comments by padster1976