Atheist Debate « The Truth Shall Set You Free
Fundie idiot. Sigh.
I'm here to debate, so let's take the paragraphs one at a time and refute them.
By Ray Comfort
This name becomes important later.
I’m sure that we all agree that there is a big difference between the word “Black” and what we commonly call “The ‘N’ word.”
Um... yes?
One describes an ethnic group, the other has extremely negative connotations.
Your point being...?
In the same way, there is a big difference between the word “Christian” and the word “religious.”
Yes. That difference is called SPECIFICNESS.
History shows that religion has been accompanied by ignorance, intolerance, and superstition.
Christianity can replace religion here, and it would still be correct.
Religion has fought the progress of science, and has been responsible to more wars than any thing else in history.
Agreed.
I say that because I am not here representing Roman Catholicism, or the traditional Protestant church.
... So only Catholics and Protestants are evil?
They would no doubt distance themselves from me and
my beliefs, as quickly as you would distance yourself from a skunk with
severe halitosis.
Yes, because you are INSANE.
“Religious” Webster’s Dictionary: “Pertaining to or connected with a monastic or religious order.”
Now we're spouting definitions?
I am neither a monk, nor am I part of any religious order.
Um... Christianity is a religion, you believe in it, you presumably go to church, YOU'RE PART OF IT.
At the risk of causing you to roll your eyes in
expectation of what you may consider the usual nauseating arguments for
God’s existence,” I am going to give you my three point outline, in
which I will present my case:
Well, at least the structure is good... if not the grammar. You'll see.
• The Evidence of Creation.
• The Evidence of The Bible.
• The Evidence of Conscience.
Meh.
Then I will speak briefly on the subject of
evolution and make known to you details of the $250,000 offer for
anyone who can offer any scientific evidence for evolution.
....................... Wow.
1. The Evidence of Creation.
Theory–Coke can, banana (ridges/groves, non-slip, outward indicators, tab, bio-degradable
perforated, point at top, right shape, curved).
What the fark?
Leaves.
Car–no maker?
Order in creation.
What?
Sir Isaac Newton said, “This most beautiful system
of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel
and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
Yes, because Newton's theories have never been proven wrong by anyone. I mean, yes, things like the laws of motion have been shown to be correct time and time again, but the theory of relativity did contradict some of Newton's theories.
But how do you scientifically prove God’s existence?
I'm going to say you can't, not because he doesn't exist (I'm agnostic), but because it's not a knowable thing. We can't prove or disprove God.
The English word “scientific”–from the Latin words: “to make” and “knowledge.”
I doubt this, but etymology isn't my strong suit.
Building builder.
Painting painter.
Worse. Than. Failure.
Exactly same applies to the existence of God: “For the invisible things of Him…” (Romans 1:20)
Um... No.
Scientist Stephen Hawking is his book, A Brief History of Time said,
Thus begins the string of quotes.
“It would be very difficult to explain why the
universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God
who intended to create beings like us.”
Yes, DIFFICULT. Not impossible.
Albert Einstein didn’t believe in the God of the Bible, but he wasn’t a fool. He knew that there was a Creator.
He theorized that a Creator was the most viable explanation.
He said, “God does not play dice [with the universe].”
Yes, but God wouldn't be playing dice if he didn't exist, right?
“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit
of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of
the Universe–a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the
face of which our modest powers must feel humble.” (The Quotable
Einstein, p. 152).
Believe it or not, Einstein's religious beliefs aren't actually proof of anything. Sure, he was a brilliant scientist, but that doesn't mean that everything he believed was automatically correct.
God’s existence is axiomatic.
If it was, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?
Arguing about the existence of a Creator is intellectually demeaning.
No. No it's not.
It is like arguing with “The Sun is Not Hot Club,” about whether or not the sun is hot.
... What? I mean, the comparison is ridiculous.
That’s why the Bible says, “The fool has said in his heart, There is no God.”
The Bible said it, so it must be true! I'm beginning to suspect that this was written with the sole purpose of reinforcing people's religious beliefs.
“The Atheist Test.”
Is this a title or something?
Two questions: Hawaii, Tibetan yak. Some things we don’t know.
I can't even to begin to fathom what Ray's talking about here. Those are nouns, not questions.
Thomas Edison “We do not know one-millionth of one percent about anything.”
We probably don't, just because there's so damn much to know.
The statement, “There is no God” is an absolute statement.
The statement, "There is a God" is an absolute statement.
Absolute knowledge “No gold in China.”
What?
Don’t need absolute knowledge to know that there is gold in China.
Huh?
This circle represents all the knowledge in the universe.
...Que?
It is possible, in the 99% of the knowledge you haven’t yet come across, that there is ample evidence to prove that God exists?
Is it possible, in the 99% of the knowledge you haven't yet come across, that there is ample evidence to prove that God does not exist?
If you are reasonable, you will be forced to say, “Yes, it is possible…so I really don’t know.”
Agnosticism. Love it! Also, the argument here works both ways. EPIC FAIL.
Therefore must say, “With the limited knowledge I
have at present I’ve come to the conclusion that there is no God, but I
really don’t know.”
Therefore must say, “With the limited knowledge I
have at present I’ve come to the conclusion that there is a God, but I
really don’t know.”
2. The Evidence of the Bible.
If we have problems with parts of the Bible, we should listen to Mark Twain, who wisely said,
But you can't have problems with parts of the Bible, because that's heresy. I mean, seriously, this is coming from someone who unironically posts Chick Tracts.
“Most people are bothered by those passages of
Scriptures they don’t understand, but for me, I have always noticed
that the passages that bother me are those I do understand.”
... I don't think Twain meant what you think he did.
He was right. It’s not things that men can’t understand that make them hate the Bible. It’s the things they can understand.
... What?
The Bible is full scientific and medical facts,
written thousands of years before man discovered the. See “Science
Confirms the Bible” tract, and Scientific Facts in the Bible book.
... NO. Seriously, you're citing farking CHICK TRACTS now? What the hell?
The facts, plus its many 100% accurate prophecies prove that the Bible is supernatural in origin.
NO. NO. NO, a thousand times NO! Evidence. Give me some.
3. The Evidence of Conscience
So now we're arguing that A SENSE OF RIGHT AND WRONG exists. Look, right and wrong are subjective things. Is a conscience really any more than a set of basic ethics, instilled by parenting and quite possibly genetic heritage?
I am now going to move from addressing your intellect and speak directly to your conscience.
Hah! Good luck, I donated mine to a bunch of orphans.
This is because the word con-science means with knowledge.
... No. Just no, okay? I'm not even sure what's being said here, but I'm pretty sure it's wrong.
If your conscience is allowed to do its duty, it will speak to you of God’s existence.
No.
But if you deny that inner knowledge, according to the Bible your conscience is “seared.”
Deadened.
No. Also, more Bible quotes? Your book written by some guys 2,000 years ago that claims to be the work of God PROVES NOTHING.
So I am going to speak directly to it, in an effort to resurrect it.
Shut up.
To do this, I will use a few of the Ten Commandments–what the Bible calls the Law of God.
Wait, so you're going to convert Atheists using the Ten Commandments, which they, being atheists, DO NOT BELIEVE IN?
God’s Law is like a mirror.
... No, I'm pretty sure it isn't. Actually, I'm pretty sure I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. In other words, THAT DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL.
Not a pretty sight (this isn’t pleasant, but it won’t take long).
You're going to posts pictures of yourself?
ALTERNATELY: You're going to pleasure a woman?
This is most necessary for me to present my case for the existence of God, so please bear with me.
Fine.
Would you consider yourself to be a “good’ person?
Mostly, yeah, but nobody's perfect.
Here’s the test to see if you are morally clean: Have you kept the Ten Commandments?
No. I worship a Buddha made out of crackers, you see.
Have you ever told a lie?
Have you ever stolen something?
Jesus said, “Whoever…lust…”
So, if you tell someone their ugly shirt looks nice, use Limewire, or acknowledge your carnal instincts, you're going to hell.
Then, by your own admission, you are a lying,
thieving, adulterer at heart (But I say unto you, That whosoever
looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her
already in his heart. Matthew 5:28) and you have to face God on
Judgment day, whether you believe in Him or not.
More Bible quotes. I'm not going to point out why that's wrong anymore. Also, being attracted to the female sex means you cheat on your wife? What if you lust after your wife? Also, you're not going to get anywhere by threatening atheists with God's judgment.
If He were to judge you…Heaven or Hell?
I'd assume that he wouldn't be enough of a d--- to send me to be eternally tortured for what can only be described as minor transgressions at best.
I don’t believe in Hell!
We're getting to him!
If I stand on a freeway and say, “I don’t believe in trucks.”
Then you're an idiot. Which, actually, you've done a pretty good job of demonstrating.
The good news is that God doesn’t want any of us to go to Hell.
No? Then why does he? If he's omnipotent, then he doesn't have to send ANYONE to hell.
He provided a way for us to be forgiven: The Cross.
If God really wanted to forgive us, wouldn't he just do it instead of all this mind game Jesus BS?
Finally, I would like to speak for a moment about EVOLUTION
This should be good.
Let me make it clear that I do believe in
variations within species. Some dogs appear to have evolved from large
to small (or small to large), but no “evolution” has actually taken
place.
So you're covering your ass from the most obvious of scientific arguments. Great.
They are still dogs.
Yes, because evolution happens GRADUALLY over a period of MILLIONS OF YEARS. I suspect that you're just scared of wrapping your head around the concept.
So I do believe in something called “microevolution”–variation within a species.
Because otherwise your argument would be slightly less thick- a difficult feat, I assure you.
However, there is no evidence for man evolving from primates, commonly known as “the theory of evolution.”
There is, actually. Is the current theory of evolution necessarily PERFECT? No. Will it likely change over time as we learn more- unlike, I may add, religious texts? YES.
Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research so rightly stated:
According to a quick Wikipedia search, this person doesn't exist, nor does the NCSR. Now, Wikipedia isn't the ultimate resource, I admit, but as a rule of thumb, if the Wiki doesn't have it, it's probably not all that legit.
“Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.”
So a person that may or may not exist said something that may or may not be true? Great!
Sir Arthur Keith (Sir Arthur Keith wrote the
foreword to the 100th edition of Origin of the Species) said,
“Evolution is unproved and unprovable.”
Yes. It's a theory- as in 'an unproven idea on how something works based upon the best data available.' Basically, for the time being, it's the best we've got.
Malcolm Muggeridge, the famous British journalist and philosopher said,
I was going to look this guy up, but I don't have to. More on that later.
“I myself am convinced that the theory of
evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be
one of the great jokes in history books of the future.” (The End of
Christendom, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1980, page 59).
How is he qualified to say this? He's a JOURNALIST and PHILOSOPHER. You know what he's not? A biologist or any other scientist that would be studying evolution. You know who is qualified to make this claim? A biologist or any other scientist that would be studying evolution.
Dr. T. N. Tah-misian of the Atomic Energy Commission said,
Of what country? Please, share.
“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is
a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be
the greatest hoax ever.” USA Today March 21, 2001
Without knowing more, I can't make a judgment, but the data available suggests that he's not exactly the best person to ask about evolution.
“Paleontologists have discovered a new skeleton in
the closet of human ancestry that is likely to force science to revise,
if not scrap, current theories of human origins.”
Yes, REVISE. As in CHANGE. As in TAKE THE NEW DATA THAT HAS BECOME AVAILABLE AND USE IT TO MAKE A BETTER THEORY.
Reuters reported that the discovery left
“scientists of human evolution…confused,” saying, “Lucy may not even be
a direct human ancestor after all.”
So scientists update the theory, either on Lucy or on evolution. I don't know how the hell this supports your argument, Ray.
The phrase “scientists of human evolution” is an oxymoron.
Shut up. Really, shut the hell up. You don't have ANY proof to back up this statement.
Evolution isn’t “scientific.” It’s a theory.
It is a theory. A SCIENTIFIC THEORY. THEORIES ARE SCIENTIFIC- well, the theories in question, anyway.
If you go to www.raycomfort.com to will see an offer of $250,000.
This is where the name becomes important.
Dr. Kent Hovind $250,000 “to anyone who can offer any scientific evidence that evolution is true.”
From Wikipedia:
Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953) is an American Young Earth creationist and a conspiracy theorist. He is most famous for creation science seminars, which aim to convince listeners to believe in biblical creation and to reject evolution, the Big Bang, and the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth.
Hovind's views are criticized by the scientific community, and even
some fellow Young Earth creationist (YEC) organizations like Answers In Genesis (AIG).[2]
Take him to court. Become famous. Make this another Scopes trial.
Why would I take him to court?
But you won’t, because you can’t. All you have is faith in a theory.
All you have is faith in a book.
Evolution is actually a religion.
It's a scientific theory. If people want to make it religion, to take On the Origin of Species and idolize it and refuse to believe anything else, whatever, that's there business. They'd be wrong, most likely, and I'd make fun of them for denying facts, but they can still do it.
Dictionary: “Religion”: “A set of beliefs concerned with explaining the origins and purposes of the universe…”
That's one definition of many. Religion is a very abstract concept which is hard to pin down definitively.
The belief of evolution even has its own religious language: “We believe, perhaps, maybe, probably, could’ve, possibly.”
No, it's "We think this is what happened, that's what the evidence suggests, but it's possible we're wrong, and if we are, we'll change our beliefs so that all the available data points to our conclusion." Compare this to "I believe, therefore it's true." I seriously doubt that you understand science.
The founding father of the faith is Charles Darwin.
He's a guy who OBSERVED THE WORLD AROUND HIM and MADE CONCLUSIONS BASED UPON THOSE OBSERVATIONS. That's all.
The god of the religion of Darwinism is referred to by the faithful as “Mother Nature.”
No, that's Wicca.
She is the one who is responsible for everything we can see in creation.
I'm going to take a time out here and point out that On the Origin of Species does not, nor does it attempt to, disprove God as a creator. I'm sure that, if questioned, Darwin would have said that God worked as a theory on the origin of life itself- that God made life, and then life changed over time to adapt to new environments. HOWEVER, even if we accept God as the creator of all life, where did God come from?
What’s more, she’s very attractive to sinful men. They gravitate to her like a moth to a flame.
I'm not even going to bother with this. Just shut up, okay?
Why? Because she’s deaf, blind, and mute.
...?
Mother Nature doesn’t hear anything, she doesn’t see anything, and what’s most important–she doesn’t say anything.
...?
Mother Nature doesn’t have any moral dictates.
ETHICS. LEARN THEM. People don't need some book to act ethically.
So, if you make her your creator, YOU CAN DO ANYTHING YOU WANT
No, you can't, because YOU STILL LIVE IN SOCIETY and SOCIETY WILL, IN FACT, PUNISH YOU FOR THINGS LIKE MURDER OR ADULTERY.
…every sinful pleasure can be enjoyed with no qualms of conscience.
I think he's talking about the belief that sex is a natural thing that is perfectly okay between loving couples regardless of whether they're married, heterosexual, etc.
That’s why evolution is so appealing.
Because it doesn't say 'DO AS I SAY OR BURN FOREVER?'
Such a belief system is called “idolatry” (making up a non-existent god to suit yourself)
I... I just... Wow. Dude, I could make just as substantial and argument based upon the conclusion that YOU commit 'idolatry.'
It is a transgression of the First and Second of the Ten Commandments.
Still threatening PEOPLE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE with it, I see.
To believe in the theory of evolution takes a great leap of bind faith.
To believe in Christianity takes a great leap of blind faith.
Like little children, they believe without the need of a thread of evidence.
You know, I really want to go to a room with a bunch of Kindergarteners, ask them to prove that Santa exists and then see how the results compare to fundamentalist arguments.
The theory doesn’t disprove the existence of God.
IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO.
It just reveals that those who believe it are truly
capable of faith in the invisible… and confirms Napoleon’s great
observation:
SO ARE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN THE CHRISTIAN GOD. I mean, DAMN! What is WRONG with you!?!
“Man will believe anything, as long as it’s not in the Bible.”
I don't even know where to begin here. Well, actually, I do: You are a man. You believe in what is in the bible. Therefore, it is impossible to make this statement.
That's all he wrote.
