What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Do you believe the 2012 Mayan Prophecy? view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - The Mayan Calendar predicts the end of time: 2012. See the trailer for 2012, opening November 13.
25 Comments
- ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16"Claiming the existence of god is a mental delusion."
it's as simple as that - artofwar420, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10The televised debate was edited to hell, to make the Rational Response Squad look crappy. Still they made a way better argument and were better prepared than Kirk and the other guy. Mad props to the RRS!
edit: You will probably catch the unedited version of the debate at their website from the handheld camera they had. Then you be the judge. - CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Those clips made it seem like the moderator of the debate was the one doing all the ass kicking. They should have more qualified people on each side and actually have a serious debate about this... someone like Dawkins/Hitchens/Price vs. the Big Dog Rev Al/Haggard so they can really have at it. That would be great television.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Argument from Ignorance. "We don't understand it so it must be God" is not a valid argument. You lose.
The Cosmological Constant is not "so fine tuned that it requires the existence of a creator."
Stop lying about cosmology and physics and try reading up on the Cosmological Constant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
"Both are not observable and both require just as much faith to believe in"
The Cosmological Constant does not require faith. It is a proven thing. There is currently no generally accepted explanation for it and the Multiverse theory, while popular, is still controversial. It comes out of the mathmatics of theoretical physics. It require no faith. But, it does require proof. The fact that we have no way of proving it now, it does not follow that we will never have a means of proving it. The same can not be said of God.
There is no proof of God, because with proof, there is no faith. There will also never be proof of God unless God decides to pop on by for a cup of tea. God would have to announce his/her/its presences to the entire world, and then there would be no faith at all because with proof, there is not faith. Faith requires ignorance. - studiojohnny, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Kirk Cameron: "Don't worry Brian, I'll pray for you."
Brian Sapient: "Alright Kirk. And I'll think for you."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Esn4uimgmQ8 - Pile, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8ABC edited the footage quite a bit. There's a link to an amateur videotape of the event at the bottom of that page, and RRS is probably going to post more comprehensive footage. The atheists made better arguments than what is reflected in the final edited product.
- msillitoe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10The is no god. Get over it.
0. - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@davev, well said.
Just to clarify, every constant is "fine tuned." The argument I think @ngonzales was trying to make was that if the cosmological constant were any different, we might not exist. But the core problem is that if it were so different, we would not exist to take note of that fact. Using the anthropic principle is hardly the best way to prove God. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Have you seen, "The God Who Wasn't There"?
She was in error in saying that MOST historians don't even believe in a historical Jesus though. However, much evidence exists that points to the non-existance of a historical Jesus. - marksmithweb, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3As unpolished as the debate was, it was real - and we need more of that. Regular citizens getting involved is healthy, and people being embarrassed in public is just fine - sit through it. Embarrassment and marginalization should be the consequences of proselytizing nutty beliefs based on flawed arguments. And their weak arguments will most effectively betray themselves when put in a public forum. Most people see religious arguments in the form of sermons or televangelism - with no rebuttal.
Finally, What can the religious team do? Their argument from theistic design was obliterated over 150 years ago by Darwin's theory of evolution. All they can do is think up better ways to lie or to manipulate debates (and that's what they're doing at Regent University and at Patrick Henry College). Ironically, and even though RSS has the facts on it's side, their team now has the harder job: predicting and preparing for whatever irrational or fear-base arguments will come next. And, perhaps harder still, figuring out how to respond to an emotional argument - strictly rational responses to an emotional plea often don't fully convince an audience.
Good luck. - philscotch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3As a matter of fact, the historian community is about 50-50 on the existence of the living, flesh-and-blood Jesus. The argument is that it's a mythical figure.
- glasnostic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Well I’m glad the two from RRS admit they made mistakes. I certainly do wish they had done a bit more homework though. Anybody with any real skill in debating would have taken Kirk and Ron apart like bear takes apart a rabbit. They were flustered and they let way too much slide. They also missed opportunity after opportunity to point out how little Kirk and Ron know about the subject.
Anybody want to point out some missed opportunities? Ok I will start.
Kirk called donkeys and zebras horses. He basically claimed that they are all part of the same species and thus just examples of micro evolution. It would have been nice to see RRS point out their obvious lack biology knowledge.
Also, Kirk kept saying “as far as I know” or “to my knowledge” which was a perfect opportunity for RRS to point out that as far as Kirk knows, the big bang theory and evolution are the same thing. Thus, he knows nothing about the two and thus has no business explaining either. - Andicow, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I just heard clips of this on the radio, hosted by the moderator himself, and I sat straight up in bed laughing.
It doesn't matter which "side" you're on. Both said some rather hilarious things.
When the audience starts going at each other is when I really lost it. So much for keeping cool, eh? - Bolesey, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1That should've been RRS (Rational Response Squad) not RSS in my previous comment.
Was too late to edit it.
Oops - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1As if that has any bearing on the truth or falsity on it, TV.
- TVarmy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2While we're discussing Christs, whatever happened to Appolonius? Did he ever get a church, disciples, a prophecy of the endtimes?
- numeral, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2She said that there is not one piece of evidence that is not hotly disputed that Jesus was a man. What she said isn't really an argument that Jesus didn't exist but more of a fun fact that she knew would take the breath away from the crowd.
- alexus5000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0"One, that human rationality does NOT determine HIS existence or not"
Of course not.
"Two HIS plan thru HISTORY to prove HIS existence has NOT been limited to what He made but ESPECIALLY HE HAS shown His existence THRU a LONG trail of HUMANS transformed by HIM and HIS ETERNAL LOVE"
It took me a while to understand what you were saying here... "eternal love"? Go back and read the New Testament. Is this the same Jesus that killed a fig tree because it wasn't bearing fruit (in winter)?
"And lastly we see clearly that Jesus not only existed but a huge consequence and proof of that are ALL the religions that consider him, Catholic, Muslim, Christian, etc"
This isn't proof at all... same logic could be attributed to Santa Claus's existence. - Bolesey, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I fully agree. marksmithweb
It was unpolished, and the RSS do not have the same experience of public speaking as Cameron and Comfort. And yet for all their clumsier moments, they still made a better case than "The Way of the Master". The difference with "The Way of the Master" is they're not selling truth and logic and rationality. They're selling reassurance and 'inspiration', and they've polished their act at coming across as 'nice guys'. Even though they lost the debate, I suspect in many people's eyes they probably came across better than the RSS. There's probably no atheist alive who can match the emotional appeal of the evangelist. - alexus5000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Ray and Kirk were pathetic? What version of the debate were YOU watching? Dave's reply is brilliant... the whole cosmological constant "argument" is simply an "argument from ignorance": "I can't see how it can be done.. so it MUST be God!" dont you see how dumb this sounds? "I can't see that the earth is round... it MUST be flat!"
- cryptographix, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Oh man, those creationist propagandists were slaughtered!
- defh, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Debate was interesting. Had no clue that there is little human historicity about JESUS so as I was checking that idea out thru Internet and I discovered/saw this: One, that human rationality does NOT determine HIS existence or not. Two HIS plan thru HISTORY to prove HIS existence has NOT been limited to what He made but ESPECIALLY HE HAS shown His existence THRU a LONG trail of HUMANS transformed by HIM and HIS ETERNAL LOVE. And lastly we see clearly that Jesus not only existed but a huge consequence and proof of that are ALL the religions that consider him, Catholic, Muslim, Christian, etc. GOD bless you each to KNOW this and KNOW Him!
- ngonzales80, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Kirk and Ray were pathetic.
Speaking of a real scientific argument for God. Has anyone heard of the Cosmological Constant? Many say it's a value that is so fine tuned that it requires the existence of a creator. The only scientific explanation I've heard is the idea of the multiverse. Unfortunately, science currently says the multiverse is (and probably always will be) impossible for us to observe it. So, basically, you can believe in God or the multiverse. Both are not observable and both require just as much faith to believe in. I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on this. Here's a video if you'd like to find out more: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7044753105944203252&hl=en - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Agreed. I found myself sitting there saying, "those aren't even the real arguments" -- on both sides.
I'm agnostic to atheist and even I could give a better answer for "who created God?" than that idiot they put up -- not using the bible, my ass!
And the rational side wasn't much better. Arguing that Jews will go to hell but Hitler won't doesn't prove anything except the hypocrisy of Christian dogma and the people who believe it wholesale. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2yeah the debate sucked. sorry to say, feel free to read my take here on religion and the "Face Off" atheist debate. It has more analysis and thought than was given by either party to the debate tonight, I was terribly disappointed, I felt like it was a big money making scheme by Nightline and ABC. Pretty annoyed.. I'll be back later, need to cool off!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is