Ray Comfort to debate atheists

An atheist doesn't find God for the same reason that a thief doesn't find a policeman.

Very true DHK.

And Dawkins in particular (along with Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris) has moved beyond pure empiricism in his triumphalist declaration that Darwinism explains everything. It clearly does not. Even staunch liberals like Noam Chomsky and Steven Gould admit that there are in existence things (such as human language ability) which do not seem to have arisen by simple evolution - although they would simply say that the link has yet to be made - rather than making an appeal to a "God".

The best way to combat Dawkins' argument is to show that his premise is false.

To enter into Dawkins' realm and argue AiG style stuff in my opinion only does harm since it always leads to flimsy arguments that look stupid to anyone with a science background. The whole notion that empiricist science is the yardstick by which we ascertain truth is a premise that excludes God from the beginning.

 

E-mail from Ray Comfort after the debate:


Just a quick note to let you know that the debate went wonderfully. When I say "wonderfully," I have to qualify it. It was like an open air with an unreasonable and loud heckler. The "heckler" in this case wasn't just the two atheists we were there to debate, but the fifty atheists in the audience.

As per ABC's stipulations, the audience was composed half-and-half -- fifty Christians and fifty atheists. The Christians were very quiet and polite -- the atheists weren't. It was very apparant who was who in the audience. It seemed that no matter what we said, it was completely ignored by Brian and Kelly (the atheists) and then followed up with their anger, mockery, and insults. But as with a good open air, the heckler is simply a platform to speak to the crowd who is listening. In this case there is a crowd of millions who will hear clear, concise evidence for the existance of God. How incredible. So I am delighted, because of what we were able to say.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Below is the press release and the information you need to watch the debate Wednesday. Thanks for your prayers. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]God bless,
Ray Comfort [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A 100-year-old Baptist church in the heart of New York was the venue Saturday for an ABC debate on the existence of God. Actor Kirk Cameron and best-selling author Ray Comfort "faced off" against two atheists from the "Rational Response Squad," in a debate moderated by ABC Nightline's Martin Bashir.[/FONT] ​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"We were delighted ABC gave us the opportunity to present our case," said Comfort, "but we were taken aback by the aggressive nature of the debate. The audience was evenly divided between believers and atheists. The believers were very polite and quiet, while the atheists were extremely vocal. 'Nasty' is an appropriate word. We felt life a couple of goldfish in a pool of hungry Piranhas, and were getting a sense of what the early Christians must have felt in a Roman coliseum."[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In the debate, Comfort presented proof for the existence of God, while Cameron offered evidence to show that the theory of Darwinian evolution is unreasonable and unscientific. They pointed evolutionists to www.IntelligentDesignVersusEvolution.com, where they're offering $10,000 to anyone who can provide a genuine, living transitional form supporting evolutionary claims. The debate also addressed such questions as "Who made God?" and "What about the heathen in Africa who've never heard about God?"[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The atheists made it very clear they didn't like what we said," Cameron explained. "They were full of mockery and sarcasm, belittling the many great scientists and intellectuals who recognize the existence of a Supreme Being. But the average American isn't viciously anti-God. In fact, polls show that more than 90 percent believe in His existence. Our hope is that the program will cause people to think deeply about the evidence presented, and challenge them to consider this most important issue of life."[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]While Comfort and Cameron will have to wait until Wednesday to see what the public thinks of the debate, they report that they've already received encouraging email from one audience member who commended their presentation: "Good job last night! Although I received my invitation to the show via the atheist camp, I must confess that I was impressed with the two of you (and that I was embarrassed by at least two atheist audience members, whose hostile questions bordered on heckling--I admired your calm and courteous responses). ...I find the 'Design means there was a Designer' argument to be perfectly logical. I just have yet to come across convincing evidence that this Master Designer of the Universe inspired the Judeo-Christian Bible.'"[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Another encouragement, Comfort added, was that both mothers of the two atheists in the debate are Christians--one of whom was in the front row of the audience. Comfort stated, "Both sincerely thanked us for our stand, and said that they were earnestly praying for us."[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The entire debate will be streamed Wednesday, May 9, at 1:00 p.m. EDT ( 10:00 a.m. PST) on http://abcnews.go.com/nightline/, then again at 2:00 p.m. EDT (11:00 a.m. PST) on http://abcnews.go.com/abcnewsnow/, and an excerpt will be aired that night on ABC's Nightline.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We will have the debate available for viewing online from our video sharing accounts. The videos will be available for viewing after ABC streams it live on their website Wednesday, May 9. You can visit the following link to find the video when it is available. Keep checking after ABC streams it live.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.wayofthemaster.com/abc_debate.shtml[/FONT]​

​

 

Well, they can observe the effects of the microwaves.

Regards,
BiR

 

To those members of this board who persist in their use of the word "fool" when discussing other Christians, I would advise you to read the words of Christ as recorded in Matthew 5:22 "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

Edited to add: I don't understand why this type of verbal assault is allowed.

 

I said "idiot," not "fool."

 

Synonyms for "idiot": ass, blockhead, boob, booby, cretin, dimwit, donkey, dork, dumb ox, dumbbell, dunce, dunderhead, fool, halfwit, ignoramus, imbecile, jackass, jerk, kook*, meathead, mental defective, moron, nincompoop, ninny*, nitwit, pinhead*, pointy head, simpleton, stupid, tomfool, twit*, yo-yo (Source: http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/idiot)​

Definition of "idiot": an utterly foolish or senseless person. (Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/idiot)​

 

Nice. It fits.

*win

 

I think that is where his posts come from.

 

​

For those who keep on calling Ray Comfort demeaning names, consider the following:
By the time that I was in Bible College, and that was some time ago, Comfort had already memorized the entire New Testament.

1 Corinthians 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

Currently Ray Comfort serves as the president of a Bible College on the east coast (Ambassador Baptist Bible College), which has benefited many.

This fact alone only demonstrates the truth of the Bible being demonstrated on this board.

Proverbs 10:21 The lips of the righteous feed many: but fools die for want of wisdom.

 

Great quote!

 

Pity he didn't pay attention, huh?

:laugh:

 

It appears some others didn't.

Proverbs 15:14 The heart of him that hath understanding seeketh knowledge: but the mouth of fools feedeth on foolishness.

 

Welleth, ifeth I understoodeth whateth you meanteth by thateth, I mighteth haveth a replyeth.

 

Proverbs 15:2 The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness.

It is foolishness to sit back and call a brother who has done so much for others a fool and other such names. Do well and look to your own self. Name-calling serves no good for anyone. It is the mark of a fool as the Bible indicates. If you don't like Ray Comfort's decision to debate, his debating methods, his illustrations, or whatever, it is easy enough to disagree or to express one's opinion without stooping to the level of calling others fools, etc. Besides, as one already pointed out, it is against BB rules.

 

Sooo...has anyone actually seen the debate? I haven't found it on ABC's or Ray's site.

 

I lisetned to a good bit of it on ABC's site.

Sapient and Kelly were definitely not as polite as Comfort and Cameron. But the atheists definitely seemed more confident - and there were instances where Cameron seemed stumped.

Not the best showing - but I think (as I said before the debate) that these believers were unwise to take the line of reasoning they took.

 

"Effects?" I presume that means effects and their explanations by natural laws [ain't that all they got?]. Then they [or should I say "you"?] have an obligation to explain the existence of matter in consideration of the conservation of matter.

 

BTW, the word translated as "fool" in Matthew 5:22 has to do with a person's heart and character.

Has anyone here questioned Ray Comfort's heart and character?

"Raca" expresses contempt for the head. It's another way of saying "stupid".

So, several here have expressed the idea of "raca" by using the word that is translated from "more".

I, for one, don't mind being liable for stating this, because I think that those who have done so have made their case that his actions are stupid.

If he did this intentionally, then he would be called this based on his heart and character, but then he wouldn't be a brother, would he? The warning in Matthew 5:22 says whoever calls a brother... and Matthew 12:50 tells us that a brother is one who is obedient.

But, no one here has questioned his heart or his character, so the "fool" term still stands, based on modern usage that means "stupid". I'll try to call his actions stupid from now on, instead of foolish, if that will make you happy.

BTW, I know a person who can tell me where any verse is in the Bible. He has not memorized every verse (but I'd say he can quote or paraphrase two thirds of them), but he cannot explain but a handful, and doesn't even know what parsing is. I have a friend of mine who is a retired seminary professor who said that his most brilliant students often had trouble memorizing scriptures. They could analyze and parse and diagram and all sorts of stuff, but could only memorize a handful of passages. Memorization only shows the ability to memorize. (Albert Einstein had the same problem.)

I also have a friend locally who is the president of a Bible college. Doesn't mean much other than he has good intentions in his heart. This Bible college will teach in one class that your salvation is secure, teach in the next that it is not secure, and my friend will teach you that he's pretty sure it's secure, but he has his doubts.

I have another friend, who has since moved on, who has a PhD from a seminary, yet he only knew one word in Greek. (I was able to point him in the right direction to correct that.)

None of this has anything to do with the fact that Ray Comfort's "proof" uses circular logic, as much, if not more so, than his opponent. His "proof" is foolish. I mean, stupid.

His "proof" can be used by the atheists in the exact same way, saying that obviously man (or the banana) has evolved to benefit the other.

 

What I saw of the debates went fairly well. Both sides had some completely meaningless arguments, and Ray and Kirk resorted to the embarrassing tactic of producing doctored photos of creatures that do not exist, such as the "crocoduck." I suppose this was an attempt to point out that evolution has an absurd side to it, as if absurdity proves or disproves anything. Still, the personal and emotional arguments of the atheists were no stronger. It was a repeat of the old "1. Even though we have no reason to believe that we should be able to detect or comprehend God without His assistance, and even though our knowledge of the universe is limited, we declare with certainty that no god exists, and 2. Since you cannot force God to reveal Himself in an immediate, undeniable way to one or more of our senses, He must not exist. Should you come close to forcing us to give ground on either of these, we will deflect your progress with mocking humor to win over the crowd."

The remarkable offense the atheists, both debaters and audience, seemed to take was most telling, and I hope that the Holy Spirit will let them see their sudden, irrational rush of anger and to open hearts and minds to Him. The sudden heat of the debate demonstrated that at least part of their argument is based on emotion, and the fact that they grew so agitated--and took personal insult--so quickly would indicate pride was involved.

Personally, I'm not convinced that God has allowed the possibility for what Ray and Kirk attempted, to prove the existence of God without using faith or Scripture. Doing so would eliminate the need for faith and remove God's control over the knowledge of Himself. He wants, I believe, to be able to reveal Himself to whom He will, to he who seeks with a sincere and humble heart.

Just my (completely unsolicited) $.02.