Atheist Face-Off: National Television Asks, "Does God Exist?"

Posted by Pile (38802 views) Add this story to MyYahoo Add this article to Submit article to Reddit Add story to Furl Add story to StumbleUpon [E-Mail link]

It was a warm Saturday night in New York City as a mixed crowd of atheists and Christians converged on Calvary Baptist Church in midtown Manhattan for the first "Nightline Face-Off." And it wasn't long before temperatures began to rise inside the auditorium.

By the way, Pile from worked with Brian, Kelly and the Rational Response Squad in coming up with some of the responses to questions in the debate.

The question for our debate was "Does God Exist?"

In the aftermath, both sides are claiming victory, but did both sides play by the rules? Rational Response Squad responds to the show.

BSA has the video... Read on.. copy:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Here's Part 4:

Part 5:

Here's a preview, taken with an amateur camera during the proceedings by the Rational Responders:

Second half of the debate is here...

ABC Story page

Official archive of the video:

Ray Comfort declares victory

Nightline story page

Christian concedes debate on behalf of Comfort and Cameron

Older videos showcasing Ray Comfort and other theists' "Argument From Design" with critics comments


Does God Exists?
Posted by Norman Wilson jr. on 2007-05-09 21:23:45
When was the last time you had a debate with some radical Muslims?
Does God Exist?
Posted by Norman Wilson jr. on 2007-05-09 21:38:37
If you think that blashpheming the Holy Spirit, you know nothing about rightly dividing the Word. Let me remind you that Christ was first and foremost a minister to the circumsion.
I pray for you, because I would give my life if I knew God would bring one of you to the saving grace of Jesus Christ. Would you give your life if you knew that I would become an atheist?
I have no fear of death, because I know my Savior has gone to prepare a place for me. Are you afraid of death?
Is it just Christians you hate? If not then why are you just condoning the best selling book of all time. When is your next debate with some Muslims or Hindus?
But don't worry you are just fulfilling prophecy of the latter days written in Timothy.
Just remeber this is eternity you are playing with.

God bless,
Norman Wilson Jr.
Posted by Pile on 2007-05-09 23:38:17
People have been waiting for Jesus' return for more than a thousand years. The bible says he would return during the time of the writers - that was more than a thousand years ago. Isn't it about time for you guys to just give up?

I don't think the Rational Responders discriminate against any religion. They feel the Muslims are just as deluded as the Christians. So don't feel like you're being singled out. This debate just happened to feature Christians. The funniest idea is that if there were Muslims on the show, the Christians would act just like the Atheists towards them. Ironic.
Posted by Godhero on 2007-05-10 02:10:34
To Norman,

Do you think radical terrorists would give their lives up if they knew by doing so they would further Allah's cause? Do you think religious terrorists fear death as detonate themselves for the sake of Islam? It's people like you that decide that they will kill in the name of a god. Have you ever considered that the bible, the only proof of God you use, could be flawed? Why shouldn't I rely on the Koran as evidence of Allah? Here's an idea, how about instead of threatening to kill myself to persuade you to help someone, I just help people. Imagine a belief system like that.

-Best of wishes
The meaning of the word condone
Posted by The Equalizer on 2007-05-10 07:22:53
"If not then why are you just condoning the best selling book of all time."

I think you might want to go grab a dictionary and look up the word "condone." You contradict yourself by trying to use the big-boy words even though you don't know their meaning. It's bible-thumping morons like you that make intelligent people not respect your kind. From now on you should stick to the words you learned "in them thar grammar skool you went to before Pa took you out of class so you could tend the fields."
Pascal's Wager Doesn't Work
Posted by Pile on 2007-05-10 10:37:36
"Just remeber this is eternity you are playing with."

The problem with your argument Norman, is that even if there is a god, you do realize that there are a hundred thousand plus different gods in the human culture. WHICH GOD? Who's playing with eternity? Me, who doesn't believe any of that malarkey? Or you, who might have picked the wrong god from a list of 100,000 possible gods?
More on Pascal's Wager
Posted by wizeGurl on 2007-05-10 11:17:56
What's more, it's only "eternity you are playing with" if you actually believe that you will be around for eternity. If you believe that when you're dead, it's over, then it would be this one and only life you're playing with...and I for one choose to live it. Give me the slightest shred of credible evidence that there is an eternity that involves me throughout, and that it works the way you say it does, and I'll be glad to reconsider this choice. Until then, I'm assuming that the latter half of eternity (post-death) will be, for me, pretty much like the first half (pre-birth) was...nothingness.
Kelly is HOT
Posted by horrido on 2007-05-10 13:41:22
Damn Kelly is HOT
the Youth Guy
Posted by Minister to Students on 2007-05-10 17:03:36
Wow. Every time I hear of someone going on TV to prove the existence of God I cringe. This was no exception. I can’t say the Rational Response Squad won, but I will concede that the Kirk and Ray lost. The truth is there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God. Both beliefs take an extreme amount of faith, because in the end, we know that something had to be here in the beginning. The question is do we believe in a creation or a creator.
Posted by Atheist Agenda on 2007-05-10 18:52:08
I can't finish watching it. Newton was religious, okay. He was also nuttier than a fruitcake. (Alchemists and their mercury!) Einstein, on the other hand, was essentially an atheist. Einstein himself write that when he referred to god, he was referring to Spinoza's god. Spinoza's god, to trivialize for non-philosophers, is nature.
Posted by Pakars on 2007-05-10 20:48:02
Unlike some people, I have debated with heavily religious people.

I have actually heard pascal's wager in person, and I think it's one of the stupidest against-the-odds wagers someone could ever make.

Pascal's wager assumes that it is your religion vs atheism/another religion ONLY. If you take into account the odds of actually being right compared to the rest of the world's religions, it's quite simply, a waste of time.

The argument for religious people being more "moral" than atheists is one of the most skewed, irrational things I have ever heard. Christians have the Bible for their moral... stuff.

Preview: Their god says that if they sin, they're going to hell. They're also told that Jesus died to forgive everyone for their sins(past and future, presumably, though some sins(not believing in him) are unforgivable). Therefore, no matter what you do, you're still going to Heaven(Ain't that a nice loophole?).

I haven't read the bible in a while, so I may be a bit off, but that's about the gist of it.

Atheists(like me), on the other hand, believe that because they and everyone else have only one life, they should do their best to make it better everyone. Because I know I'm not going to get everlasting peace and happiness after death, I also know that wasting what little of that precious happiness there is would be moronic. Therefore, I do my best to go out and make those around me happy, unless they're doing something way too stupid and should deserve a Darwin Award.

Also, the standards religious people hold science to and the lack lack of standards they hold their beliefs to is very unsettling. They say that scientists and atheists must have every scrap and detail down before they will be convinced, even though that will probably never happen in our lifetimes(or maybe ever). Then, shockingly *gasp*, immediately after that, once you ask them about what kind of standards they hold their beliefs to, they respond with:"It's a matter of faith, either you believe in it or you don't. I believe in it, so it must be true". That's just a way of evading the question. If they held themselves to the same unrealistic standards, their religion would quickly fall apart.

Here is ABSOLUTE proof that ANY god does not exist.

Note: You'll need a lot of hot pictures of babes to flush this sight from your eyes.

Don't tell me I didn't warn you.

Posted by blueblazes on 2007-05-10 22:59:42
Any time there is a debate over the existence of god, christians come up with the most unoriginal and insipid arguments.
It's a total waste of time to engage these delusional, barking nitwits with a debate.
And, it's unfortunate that the non-theist world can't just ignore them, move on, and leave the simple minded to chase their tails in vain.
However, Our democracy has a way of pandering to their every whim, hence the theocracy we live in.
I never understood the need for organized atheism until shortly after 9/11, when so many people in the U.S. seemed to get a massive dose of the holy spirit, mixed with blind patriotism.
It's because of these simple minded fools that we are at war today.
The government knows how to use these people, and the worst part is, they know it, and they don't care.
Posted by Blasphemer Bill on 2007-05-11 10:30:28
"It's a total waste of time to engage these delusional, barking nitwits with a debate."

The debates are not for trying to convince the theists you are debating, but for the people watching the debate who might be more open-minded.

Even if atheists are not to convince anyone during a debate, we are at least showing that we have our reasons for not believing and they aren't that we are corrupt fools who can do no good (Psalms 14:1) or evil people just looking for a ticket to sin freely like many pastors say about us..etc..

If left up for pastors and holy books for people to get their education about what we believe, we will continue to be the most distrusted minority in America.
Posted by ueberbill on 2007-05-11 15:40:01
And horrido, you are correct. Kelly is smoking. With the truth AND white-hot chicks on their side, the atheists can't help but win!
Posted by fragish on 2007-05-11 16:25:10
I just don't buy it. Both sides of the argument belittle the other and the only thing a debate like this will prove is self-righteousness. One side looking at the other and saying "look how simple they are because they don't see my point of view."

In the end, both sides miss the mark. The Christians (my side) try to use physical evidence to prove the existence of a metaphysical being. Instead, they prove that they were not, in the least, prepared for the debate. They didn't even answer the questions as they were asked.

The Rational Responders proved that preparation is paramount but nothing more. God is no less real to me now than He was before the debate. They boil his existence down to a Creator or nothing; but, any theist with a sincere faith in God will tell you that the relationship is much deeper, far more spiritual and not in the least scientific....regardless of theology.

Overall, the RRS waxed the floor with Kirk and Ray. Kelly, however, came across as very condescending and should leave the public speaking to another member of the team.
Posted by ueberbill on 2007-05-11 19:11:40
fragish, I think your response has, thus far, been perhaps the most reasonable and rational from "your side" that I've seen. And not just 'cause you said what I wanted to hear- I think yours was one of the more reasonable responses period and thank you for letting us hear it. If everyone in all aspects of public discourse could say what they think without being so damn shrill then we'd get a lot more done (intellectually, that is).
Posted by blueblazes on 2007-05-11 19:55:15
Blasphemer Bill
I didn't say a debate was for convincing anyone of anything.
I said it was a waste of time to engage in a debate with people who don't know how to debate.
Ray and Kirk were clearly have nothing to offer here.
Posted by Pile on 2007-05-13 12:03:40
There are so many levels to debates like this.

There's the whole "Does God exist?" argument, which of course, can never be completely won. But there's also the discussion on whether or not any particular flavor of religion is legitimate, and beyond that, whether the doctrine makes any sense. I think RRS responded on all three levels, while the WOTM basically treaded water. It's not surprising, and it's not surprising if the debate doesn't change a single theists' mind.

One thing that bothers me about all this, is the amount of people who critique the participants' style, rather than their substance. Until we can make that distinction, debates like this will probably be half as effective and educational as they'd otherwise be. And IMO, ironically, the only reason why this debate is being televised is because the participants' style and approach is a bit over-the-top. That's one of those unfortunate necessities to get attention in this over-dramatized world of media.
Thought Nazi
Posted by Bill Perron on 2007-05-14 00:26:43
James Randi runs from the Bill Perron "Honesty Challenge" does anyone know why he is such a coward?
Response to Thought Nazi
Posted by Carlos Caliente on 2007-05-14 00:33:31
Randi runs because he knows he can not pass the Honesty Challenge. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just deluding themselves. Similar to what Michael Shermer does when he calls Randi his "spiritual leader", rather a strange thing for someone to do who doubts the existence of spirits.
Both Sides Lost
Posted by Darren on 2007-05-14 00:47:47
First a little about my thoughts, then at the end I will talk about the debate.

I am an agnostic (as I understand it). Meaning I don't pretend to know whether there is a god or not. I tend to lean away from the notion of a god but I am not ready to say conclusively there is not one and anyone who does say conclusively there is no god is simply taking a guess. There simply is no proof that god exists and also no proof that god does not exist. Therefore this debate can never be truly won unless more information presents itself. In fact it is just as likely that some beings from another planet planted us here in the beginning and we are a reality TV show on their planet right now.

If there is a god I hope he/she/it won't condemn me because I don't know the truth.

If there is no god or anything else then it does not matter cause when I'm dead that’s it. I won't care at that point.

If it's something else entirely then I hope at least in the end somebody lets me in on it.

About the debate.
As one poster mentioned the debaters were chosen likely because they were passionate, hard core and yes even radical in their beliefs.

The RRS side was over the top and radical in their thinking that a lack of evidence proves there is no god. Or that evolution even proves there is no god. Maybe the bible is way wrong about everything, maybe Jesus was not the son of god, maybe every story in there is a made up fairy tale but maybe too there is still a god who created everything and it has been evolving ever since. This could allow a god and evolution to co-exist. Just not the god the bible speaks of. Who knows, but I think that I would enjoy much more debate on this as it is very interesting and I would prefer people who are more open minded than the RSS debaters. I think it is very unlikely that god exists, but I don’t feel the RSS debaters did anything more than drive a bigger wedge between believers and non believers.

As for the Christian debaters. Well, it was unfortunately completely unenlightening which is very typical of my experiences with religion to date (I am 40 years old). Christianity simply has no answers to the many questions that the bible and their religion raises in my mind. I am not saying they are wrong because frankly I don’t truly know, but if they are right I am simply not convinced. In the debate Cameron used “wild” and “ridiculous” arguments to belittle the notion that perhaps there is no Christian god. The arguments that are raised to deny the existence of god are very real, very logical and deserve consideration and debate. However, even with that said those arguments do not disprove the existence of god but simply puts many doubts out there.

If there is a god it is my opinion he/she/it wants to stay unknown. Wants to stay shrouded in mystery. Otherwise, I cannot imagine why a real god that really wanted everyone’s support would not simply show up and prove it in the flesh repeatedly, daily, on TV, in person and for the rest of time. I cannot fathom a way that there would or could still be people who would not believe if god were to really want everyone to believe. After all if you are the all being god of everything surely you have the power to convince people you even exist. And not just convince some, but I would think a true god would have the power to convince 100% of mankind 100% of the time if he/she/it chose to do so. But for whatever reason if god does exist god chooses to let the world we have go on as it does, with many religions, many wars, much evil and yes, much good too. It’s would truly be a shame if there was a real god and that god chose not to convince 100% of the people 100% of the time of that gods existence. Imaging if that were to happen there would be no war, murder etc. In fact, I can’t imagine how evil of any kind could continue? If it did, god could simply remove those “defectives” from the picture. And once all evil was gone forever god could give us back what was offered in the beginning according to the bible. Eternal health, life and happiness. If god is currently unwilling to give this to us (until after we die “maybe if we pass the test”) then god must get some sort of pleasure from evil, otherwise, why let it go on? It really makes me think.

I hope people reading this don’t get bent out of shape. If you have an open mind then you will see there are many sides to the story. If you have a closed mind you will continue to believe as you do. Assuming you are good and kind I don’t mind if you are open or closed minded. If you are evil then I simply hope you can change. Believing is something or not should not get you condemned unless you are using it to hurt others.
Re: Both Sides Lost
Posted by JohnnyPotamus on 2007-05-14 16:40:15
In defense of the Rational Response Squad, the argument isn't that 'lack of evidence = proof to the contrary.' In the strictest scientific sense, it's impossible to prove anything, outside of mathematical and teleological concepts -- all you can do is show whether or not there is evidence for a given position. There is no evidence for a supernatural god, and thus, from a scientific viewpoint, there is no reason to assume that one exists. I don't know for certain that there is no God in the same way I don't know for certain that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster -- but they're both freakishly improbable. Thus, the reasonable position is both agnosticism -- not knowing if there is a god -- AND atheism -- not believing that there is a god.
Re: Re: Both Sides Lost
Posted by JohnnyPotamus on 2007-05-14 16:46:25
Pardon me, the above should read "TAUTOLOGICAL concepts," not "teleological."
Posted by Pile on 2007-05-14 16:56:38
"The RRS side was over the top and radical in their thinking that a lack of evidence proves there is no god."

Did you really watch the debate? The first words out of Brian's mouth were something to the effect that he was not there to "prove there is no god." The RRS are too intelligent to get bogged down in that sort of red herring.

The WOTM people said they could prove god. RRS simply showed that their arguments were illogical and inconclusive and did not substantiate their claims.

This seems to be a contention that theists (and apparently some so-called "Agnostics") can't grasp: denying the legitimacy of someone's particular vision of god is different from saying god doesn't exist. Nobody can prove god doesn't exist, but they can certainly make a strong argument that, for example, the christian god advertised by Comfort and Cameron is highly improbable. There is a difference. If you do not understand this distinction, take a course in logic before you claim you understand what's going on here.
Isn't it obvious?
Posted by Selena on 2007-05-14 17:25:29
Ok, for me, it was obvious that Ray and Kirk's primary agenda was to "reach out" and "preach the gospel" to the studio (church) audience as well as the millions of viewers that watched the debate on Nightline or on the internet. Truly, I don't believe they had any intention of proving or disproving anything and were actually using the opportunity to do their duty as fundamentalist christians. There was absolutely nothing scientific about what they said. Just about all of it relied on quotes from the bible and their own personal experiences, which was exactly what they said that THEY WOULD NOT DO.
The points and "proof" they did bring up was totally ludicris.. A Crocoduck? Soda can? Jeeze, I don't think I've heard anything that cheesy in a long time.. They must think the audience was as gullible and easily swayed as the their church congregation. Wasn't it obvious what they were trying to achieve? I went over to Ray's and Kirk's websites and they are apparently claiming victory in the debate. Also, they are complaining about how they were treated (they claim they were treated unfairly and mocked by the atheists and the audience). I find both Ray and Kirk absolutely absurd. Incidentally, I found it rather hilarious when Kirk said that he felt a "kinship" with Kelly and Sapient because he "used to be an atheist just like them".. My, what a joke! He was on a family friendly TV show making multiple figures at the age of 16. Do you seriously think that he spent time considering whether or not there was a deity? I'm sorry, but most 16 year olds, especially ones with a lot of disposable income, don't really care one way or the other unless they are already "pre-programmed" and "indonctrinated" to follow a certain religion or belief. Please, don't insult my intelligence Mr. Cameron. The majority of us are not as ignorant and gullible as your loyal subjects are. In conclusion, I would like to say that the Atheists absolutely destroyed the theists in this debate, as in every theists vs. Atheist debate. I wasn't even a competition in any way. I spent 5 years in an evangelical christian school because my parents feared public school bussing and the local catholic school was full. By they time I made it back to public school in 9th grade, I was behind the public school curriculem by 3 years and it took almost 2 years of nightschool and summerschool to catch up. But I had over 150 passages and versus from the bible memorized. Boy, that sure help my education, didn't it? From my personal experience, I can tell you that christians believe what they do out of fear of going to hell and because they are brainwashed. I can tell you this from personal experience. THIS is the primary reason. Not to experience god's love or speak in tongues or anything else. In reality, Christianity was a great concept and for much of history, the church was responsible for education and the welfare/wellbeing of society throughout the ages. However, since the fundamentalist christian movement started with the rise of protestantism, christians are more concerned with making you afraid of burning in hell and taking your money than they are of helping people. Ghandi said " I like your Christ. I do not like your christians. Your christians are so unlike your Christ."
God beyond Christianity
Posted by Staunts on 2007-05-16 00:46:25
Why do atheists unwittingly lend Christians so much credit for being the deciding factor in the existence (or lack thereof) of God? Fine, let's say the whole of Christianity is wrong. That would mean god doesn't exist right? Oops, looks like we forgot the thousands of other schools of spiritual thought, not all of which go against the rationality of science or seek to discredit evolution. Hell, not even all christians are against the theory of evolution anymore. Atheists, if you really have it in for christians, quit giving them center stage in your debates, you just make them look more important in a world filled with intelligent spiritual contemplation of all kinds.
Posted by Pile on 2007-05-16 10:59:45
"Ok, for me, it was obvious that Ray and Kirk's primary agenda was to "reach out" and "preach the gospel" to the studio"

I don't think so. I think Ray and Kirk's primary agenda was to get on national television and get some attention. They called up the network after they saw the Nightline special on RRS, who are nemesis of theirs, and wanted to get facetime challenging them, which is why they made the ludicrous promise that they could prove god scientifically. Nightline fell for it.

"Atheists, if you really have it in for christians, quit giving them center stage in your debates, you just make them look more important in a world filled with intelligent spiritual contemplation of all kinds."

Atheists don't "have it in" for anybody, but here in the states, the christians are in power and they're imposing their will upon everybody else whether they believe it or not. By your own admission you recognize that not all theists believe in creation, yet there is a visible group of christians lobbying to force creation to be taught everywhere. That is encroachment into the separation of church and state, which, at least atheists, take very seriously.

Atheists don't discriminate against any religion. They're just as unconvinced in Alla or Xenu's existence as they are Jesus'. No sense talking about Islam or Hindu myths right now when the topic is proving the Christian god exists.
Posted by Staunts on 2007-05-16 15:41:56
Yes, christians are grabbing postions of power in the states, and they love nothing more than persecution because it allows them to become the martyrs they fancy themselves to be and gain sympathy from other christians. I watched the first video up there and was sickened at how smarmy that lady was trying to sound, but it's obvious that concepts like cancer don't really clash with anyone's beliefs, so acting like it's some kind of tear in the fabric of christianity is just grasping for straws.

SO, if the creationists want creationism to be taught in school, tell them that they have to equally teach all forms of creationism from different religions, instead of just attacking their particular beliefs and helping them feel important and persecuted. See how that makes them squirm.

As it is now it's just a pointless self-contained circular arguement where atheists get an easy target and christians get to feel like they're being crucified.
Posted by Jorge Morales on 2007-05-17 11:59:27
"No ranting and raving, no sophisticated doubt or skepticism, has any effect on the existence of God. He simply and absolutely is"
Quote by John Piper
Posted by yeah on 2007-05-17 12:25:33
John Piper:

"Reformed Baptist minister, author, and theologian, currently serving as senior pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He oversees the evangelical organization Desiring God Ministries, which is named after his book Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist"

Nope. No predisposition to bias there. None at all.
Posted by Luigi Novi on 2007-05-24 03:00:29
I was at the debate, in reading that press release at the link "Ray Comfort declares victory", I can see that he and Cameron are willfull liars. I go into detail about their lies at:
Posted by Luigi Novi on 2007-05-24 03:08:06
Sorry, that link should be:
Posted by Luigi Novi on 2007-05-24 03:09:38
Darren said, "The RRS side was over the top and radical in their thinking that a lack of evidence proves there is no god. Or that evolution even proves there is no god."

The RRS never once stated or implied any such thinking on their part. This is just a Straw Man of your own invention.
Posted by Jo on 2007-05-31 01:21:13
I don't go to church and I don't take the bible literally. I do believe in God as well as evolution. I believe evolution happened due to God's plan. I try to live a good life; respect others, help those in need, etc... I will admit I do have a hard time with Atheists. I just don't know how can you see the world around you and not believe there is some kind of creator, but that's just my opinion.

I've watched clips from the debate on the ABC website, I've watch the clips on this web site and I have checked out Kirk Cameron's web site. And quite frankly, each one has put there own spin on it.

Nobody won this debate nor lost it. You can't debate beliefs. Athesist can't prove to me that there isn't a God just as any of the many religions can prove their God exist.

But I must say, I was quite taken aback by Kelly's anger and emotion. I really had to tune her out mainly because she was just ridiculously harsh. And her line about she rather go to hell than believe in God made my skin crawl, how can something you believe not to be true make you so angry?

As I read posts on this web site, the unkind words that are used to describe Christians is sad. They believe something different than you, fine, get over it, it only make you look immature when you resort to name calling.

Not for nothing, can you imagine what our country would be like if everyone followed the 10 commandments? Other than the first 3, the rest are morals to live by. Honor your Mother & Father, don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, don't kill. Imagine, if all children were engrained with those 7 commandments.

Anyway, not that anyone cares, just my 2 cents which I will probably get change back :-)
Devil's Advocate
Posted by Mikal Dmon on 2007-05-31 19:13:04
I have noticed a majority of the post here,
seem to judge their interpretation of God,
then project their argument from a false
perception,rather than accepting god for what
it really is...

Some of us ARE born instinctively with
a notion/concept that God(whatever it is)
did make this environment possible.

Sometimes things in life are just to perfect
to presume arrogantly otherwise.

In Genesis we learn,that EVEN IN THE FACE
OF GOD we lie,cheat,and steal..

but today,
who do you blame for its absence?

In the New Testament we learned instead of
embracing Christ,we thought we could make
him fear death,when he didn't,we killed him.

So today don't you think it's rather cheap
and convenient, to demand evidence knowing
other worked very hard to remove them?

who do you blame for absence of evidence?

I can't help but think,if God was earthbound,
we would constantly jump off cliffs,(yelling
save me!)and really expect to be saved at
the last minute.

You don't wont God,you wont a toy(me thinks)

However fear not my friends,your riddles
aren't impossible,you just think they are..

we can be confident that God Does Exist.

Every day, you Do MOVE CLOSER(FOR FACT)
to finding that out yourself..

I swear to God..
However,Christian prefer to be ready
in advance,on this premise ONLY,is that
so wrong,or illogical?

I would call it playing it smart..
Take care my friends M.Dmon
Cosmology is a science.
Posted by EvolvedMonkey on 2007-06-04 12:27:16
RRS did a mostly adequate job of rebuttal. However, I should like point out that cosmology is an established science with observational and laboratory evidence. The leading Big Bang theory does posit that the universe experienced a creation event some 13 Billion years ago. So denial of a universal creation is not a good rebuttal argument. Interestingly, WOTM, did not pick up on this. I think this is because they believe in a recent creation and 13B years is totally wrong for them.
Devil's Logic Lesson
Posted by Pile on 2007-06-04 12:39:26
M.Dmon says:
"I have noticed a majority of the post here,
seem to judge their interpretation of God,
then project their argument from a false
perception,rather than accepting god for what
it really is..."

Let's establish a few things:

1. Everybody has a different definition of God. This is because to most people, especially a christian such as yourself, your "god" is defined by the bible. Every single person that reads this ambiguous, chaotic tome interprets it differently. That's the way it is. The arrogance is people like you claiming your particular interpretation is any more valid than someone else's.

2. Just because you believe you have a personal understanding/experience relating to god, does not mean that this delusion is relevant to anyone else. Yes, you are certain god exists, but you would likely scoff at others who say the same thing about Vishnu, Zeus, Buddah, Bigfoot, Elvis or space aliens. This doesn't make your personal opinion "truth" in any legitimate sense of the word.

3. If you make a claim in the tangible world (i.e. "God exists..") then there is a burden of proof that is upon you to back up what you're claiming. It's not the other way around. Atheists are not obligated to prove god doesn't exist. But you are obligated to prove that what you say is truth. Faith is not an acceptable answer - faith is just an excuse to avoid proving what you say/think is legitimate. If you don't want to be hassled by people asking you to prove your ridiculous claims, then keep them to yourselves.

What makes religious people hypocrites is how they constantly apply this double standard to their lives. They demand tangible proof in most areas of life when claims are made. But when it comes to god, they whip out the "faith card" and claim "No fair! You can't criticize me." That's hypocritical.
Complexity Is NOT Inconsistent With Evolution
Posted by EvolvedMonkey on 2007-06-05 00:06:10
WOTM's argument that complex biological components such as an ear, nose or an eye could not have evolved is silly old Creationist blather. With 13 billion years to work with ( ok, I know Earth is only 4B but I allow for some panspermia ) and self-replicating life forms there has certainly been enough time and combinatrics for evolution to occur. The key is the self-replicating bit. Objects such as Coke cans and the Mona Lisa require a designer because they do not self-replicate.
Curious about something
Posted by Joe on 2007-06-06 08:59:21
I know that RSS stated that Josephus writings were forged, but I was also wondering about what you thought about Tacitus who was a Roman historian. He wrote, "Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishment upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known by the name of Christians. They had their denomination from Christus (Christ, dm.), who in the reign of Tibertius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate. . . .At first they were only apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards a vast multitude discovered by them, all of which were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as for their enmity to mankind. . . ." (Tacitus, Annals, 15, 44)."

He refers to Christ as being sentenced by Pilate. Just curious, Thanks for your time.
Devil's Advocate
Posted by Mikal Dmon on 2007-06-09 15:16:17
Hello Pile,
You took a long time to say absolutely
nothing.I never confess to being a Christian,
therefore you are completely in error, and a
jack ass at that!

2)I do have personally experience along
with everyone else who have found reason
to beleive in thier god.

However since atheist don't have any
personal experience,why are they constantly
doing all the talking?

Everyone should be held to the same standards?

3)"But you are obligated to prove that
what you say is truth"

(Real world)We're BLESSED with a liberty
to chose any religion we wont, without your
consent or approval.I will make no apologies
because you can't respectfully tolerant NORMAL
civil citizens.

However I don't require you to validate me..
and it's just that simple..You're not important
to my beleifs,in fact:You equate to 0..

4)(Real world) I'm not a hypocrite, I'm one of
the 80% Americans who have had family members
serve our country, so we could be able to
worship god we chose..

Since this was what they bled for,and I
would be WISE to honor that sacrifice..
Take care M.Dmon
Posted by M G on 2007-06-18 21:19:50
Wake up Christians. You are f*cking morons.
Posted by Charles Bowman on 2007-07-11 19:33:56
I know God exists and I prove it.

read it and freak out
Posted by Pile on 2007-07-14 14:39:27
Hey Charles, you might want to talk to your doctor and have your meds adjusted.

As for Mkal Demon:
I do have personally experience along
with everyone else who have found reason
to beleive in thier god.
However since atheist don't have any
personal experience,why are they constantly
doing all the talking?
Everyone should be held to the same standards?

Just because you have "personal experience" (which the technical term is "hallucination") does not mean what you believe is real.

Atheists have nothing to prove, because atheists are not making a specific claim. Atheists are merely doubting outrageous claims of theists, which they cannot prove.

We're all held to the same standards, and that is, if you make a claim (like Jesus is god) then the burden of proof is on you. If I say I don't believe, that's not a claim. You can't prove something does not exist, but you CAN prove something does exist. If you don't understand this distinction you might want to further your education before you engage people with I.Q.'s over 30 in debate.
Posted by Da Vinci on 2007-08-11 06:47:18
Hello everybody. The videos are removed from YouTube. How can I watch the whole debate?
Read it for yourself...then decide
Posted by Vickie Vanderbush on 2007-08-22 20:47:52
I did not know about the debate on Nightline atheism vs christianity and the blasphemy challenge. I actually heard about this for the first time while watching Rod Parsley on a Sunday morning church program. I was so shocked and heart broken. I just think that you are playing a deadly game with your soul. Of course we all have the right to choose what to believe in and God gave us that choice. He did not create robots. He gave every one of us a free will. I know it is hard to find salvation in a world full of corruption and false ministries and you don't always know who is true and who is a fake...but that is not my problem or yours. Only you have to be true to yourself and to your God. Not perfect, not sinless, not beyond making mistakes because usually it is the mistakes and the sin in our life that teaches us to turn to God. We find God usually when we have lost everything else and we have nowhere to turn and nothing else to believe in. If that is how you find him, fine. No one should judge another in this world. It is not my job nor is it yours. Only God is our judge (if you believe in God that is..even if you don't, I believe it for you). He told us to love, to care for people because that is what he died for. He died for stinking, lying, cheating, fake, wealthy, poor, black, white, red, brown, lovely, ugly, foolish, wise, who am I to judge anyone that he found worth dying for? Who goes to Heaven? Read it for yourself. Romans 10:8-10. Whosoever will. He asks you to believe and trust him. He does not demand perfection because if he did, none of us would qualify and if we were perfect, we wouldn't need a savior. I have learned so much in my life by first being wrong. The things that hurt usually teach us the most because they're harder to forget. Fake christians? Of course. Fake atheist? Yep. Preachers that preach just for money? Yes again. Big cars, huge flashy jewelry.....always makes me think "what is he/she in this for" but you know, that person might find truth during his journey. Maybe not. You don't have to give..but if you do, God does not judge you for giving...he repays your giving over and over. That minister will answer to God for wasting the money that you gave for the right reason. Once it leaves your hand, it is no longer yours because you gave it to God. The rest is his business. He'll manage without all of us other judges on his panel. The only important factor here is this...Jesus Forgives and Saves. The good, the bad and the ugly. You can not earn salvation. It is a gift. Grace is unearned favor. Mercy is an unearned gift.
That doesn't mean you'll be wealthy or what you might consider "lucky" as luck has nothing to do with it. You still do your best and be all you can be. Ask God if he is real. He will show you. It's not something I can convince you of. But I challenge you to ask Jesus Christ to become real to you. That will be a life changing request. I promise you, he will show you. If you seek the truth, you will find the truth. Maybe not the way you expect. When I think I have it all figured out, he usually will show me just how little I know. But I know it is worth seeking. means to believe. You have to have faith in something. Don't risk your life for nothing.
Pile sucks
Posted by Mikal Dmon on 2007-08-24 20:12:12
You know something Pile,conversation depletes
when prick like you over-extend your position,
to carelessly wield them like a battering ram.

Perhaps you're jealous that you're
qualified to appear on TV,fighting on behalf
of your belief.

Insulting people only demonstraights your
inability to comprehend, that god is too big
to fit in one room,a test tube,or concept.

however I don't need to prove anything,anytime
to anyone.For when you die,then I WILL REJOICE
that you've finally found your answer.

I hope you don't mind,when I piss on your grave
See you soon M.Dmon
Posted by Werewere on 2007-08-26 07:39:28
The links to all but 2 of the movies (from liveleak) are down!
And those really suck, its like a slideshow with video
Religion of peace
Posted by Pile on 2007-08-26 10:27:07
Thanks Mkal Dmon for illuminating religion's ultimate contribution to society: inciting hatred and contempt among humanity. You want to piss on my grave eh? Your god would be proud.
What ever happen to peace and love
Posted by Dandi06 on 2007-08-27 22:51:47
These types of sites never fail to make my blood boil.

Is it so hard for people just to leave everyone else alone? Such contempt and condescension, it makes me sick. We live in the United States of America where it is written that we're allowed to believe whatever we want. Yes I realize that there's numerous areas where that right isn't 100% clear but by arguing with each other, by trying to determine who's correct in this meaningless battle you're just trying to impose your own belief on someone else.

STOP IT!!! it's ridiculous and just as childish as fighting over whether or not someone started a rumor.

and before someone gets all worked up because i said the word meaningless about the belief you've dedicated your life to...
yes i realize that this very argument has been the topic of fights, battles, wars throughout the ages and if an answer was found that wars would end
I also realize that some people seem to believe that holding onto a belief regarding god is the reason for them to continue living

I am not saying your belief is meaningless
this DEBATE is meaningless because the answer CAN NOT BE FOUND. There is nothing physical to prove or disprove the existence of a metaphysical being. it is all THEORY and will remain that way.

believe what you want
it is everyone's personal choice to what they buy into

but don't force it on anyone else
don't tell someone they're wrong just cuz they believe something different from you

Answers are only found in death for this type of thing. cuz either you find eternity in however your religion preaches or you become nothing more than fertilizer. that's the end of it

it is not atheists vs theist
it doesn't have to be like that

seriously... put pride and self righteousness aside.
why can't we all just get along?
Pile sucks
Posted by Mikal Dmon on 2007-08-29 06:42:05
Yes indeed pile, and also
make very good use of a pet dog too.

My God wont mind either..
Take care M.Dmon
RRS v. Way of the Master
Posted by Angered_Christian on 2008-08-22 13:01:02
Okay. I am a Christian but I respected both atheists and theists alike. It was stupid for K. Cameron and R. Comfort to debate the RRS when they didn't have it all together. At the same time, the RRS did not make any sense at all. Neither side can debate worth a crap. I applaude the RRS for admitting they blundered in the debate. Why is it that Christians are always trying to prove that God exists when we hold it on faith? The atheists need to step up and prove to Christians why they think God doesn't exist. It's time for them to go on the defensive.
burden of proof only works one way
Posted by Norman on 2008-08-22 13:08:56
It's not up to atheists to prove god doesn't exist any more than it's your responsibility to prove the Loch Ness monster or Bigfoot doesn't exist.

It's the people making the claims that have to back them up.
Dear Norman:Burden of proof
Posted by Mikal Dmon on 2009-02-04 22:49:32
Actually Norman To a Christian God has
already created the Heaven and The Earth,
so fundamentally that argument makes no
logical sense at all, and considered an

if you think about it..

what I believe the major factor being
missed continuously by you brainiacts,
is ACTUALLY what Christians call God, is
also known as the CREATOR, because they've
become well aware that man didn't create
ourselves into existence. Omnipotent doesn't
translate to old man with white beard either,
doesn't it actually means unlimited power..

So Question
How do you define unlimited power?
How would you describe unlimited power?
What color does unlimited power happen to
be and can I put it in my pocket?

Can you really be certain GOD isn't real,
or are you betting this on your Faith?

Take care
Mikal Dmon Spiritual Counselor
My beliefs
Posted by John on 2009-03-19 19:13:35
I believe that a gigantic, invisible, indetectable fire-breathing dragon overs alongside me at all times.

Why is it that I'm always trying to prove that my dragon exists when I hold it on faith? The unbelievers need to step up and prove to me why they think my dragon doesn't exist.

Can you really be certain my dragon isn't real, or are you betting this on your Faith?
Posted by hund on 2009-03-28 06:48:18
Kirk and Ray's proof is not 100% scientifically and even not scientifically.

the proof of existence of any kind of god is the task of believers, it won't be a matter of non-believers.

for christian god, it's quite silly that this god needs, even force people to worship it but never show-up just once for each mentally healthy person. do anybody think that it is so difficult for this god?
what is this god's love? just testing people's faith all the time. people are so tired with these kinds of love and test.


Name: (change name for anonymous posting)

1 Article displayed.

Pursuant to Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC § 230), BSAlert is a user-contributed editorial web site and does not endorse any specific content, but merely acts as a "sounding board" for the online community. Any and all quoted material is referenced pursuant to "Fair Use" (17 U.S.C. § 107). Like any information resource, use your own judgement and seek out the facts and research and make informed choices.

Powered by Percleus (c) 2005-2047 - Content Management System

[Percleus 0.9.5] (c) 2005, PCS