P
punisherthunder
Guest
Anyone catch Kirk Cameron debating with those two atheists on Nightline last night? The atheists started resorting to insults once Kirk and his pal had them running for the hills! 
- Status
C
Chronister4673
Guest
I watched and I was rather disappointed in both sides of the argument. The atheists for the insults, and the pro-God side for not seeming to take the argument seriously. I mean, did you see the pictures? How can that help the case for God? Why didnāt they go back to some of St. Thomas Aquinasā arguments? I realize that things were edited to make ācompelling television,ā but come onā¦
Overall, itās important to remember that God made the whole world and can destroy it if He wants to. Iām pretty sure he can defend Himself, without us having to enter into debate with people who have taken the āBlasphemy Challenge.ā
He gives us the choice to believe or not believe. I hope the atheists come to their senses, but itās still their choice.
Overall, itās important to remember that God made the whole world and can destroy it if He wants to. Iām pretty sure he can defend Himself, without us having to enter into debate with people who have taken the āBlasphemy Challenge.ā
He gives us the choice to believe or not believe. I hope the atheists come to their senses, but itās still their choice.
R
Rob_s_Wife
Guest
I watched it! Saw that while nursing Bridget and grading homeworkā¦
I agree, I was very disappointed in both sides and the guy running it. That was the worst ādebateā Iāve ever seen.
My dh (who isnāt catholic or particuliarly religious at all) was laughing at me for getting annoyed with the christian side for their lame answers.
**Thereās no creator. We know there is a creator of a painting because we can go to the artists! Why didnāt they say, āWhat would you do if the work was unsigned?!ā Archeologist study items created by others all the time and not once do they discover something and say, āOh wow, look at how chaos put this piece of pottery here!ā
**
Why did Kirk bring out those stupid pictures? It was belittleing and lowered his credibility. To be fair I think christians and non-christians lose credibility in this area. Why canāt they just be honest and say, āNo one is ever going to know exactly how things have come to be because they werenāt there!ā Everyone can have their theories, but it will never be more than a theory. Whatās wrong with just being honest and saying, āno one knowsā and leaving the christians to add, ābut however it was - I know it was guided by Godā?
The lady asked about bad things, such as cancerā¦
**THAT question was so very valid and important. People need to know that sufferring has purpose! People often donāt understand or even know that many christians still believe in the fallen nature of mankind. **
And many people refuse to accept that free will is the gift of a loving God. "If God really exist and is loving, - why do bad things exist?!"
Not one of these issues were addressed and they should have been at least mentioned because they are key points in christianity that many people are ignorant about.
**On another board I came across a Jewish lady who thought that because Iām christian I thought she was going to hell.
**
She was very surprised when I told her MY God is not limited in His mercy or love and only He knows how far He will extend it - maybe even to someone who doesnāt return any love to Him. That good old verse, all that is true and righteous? - these are Godly things, even when He isnāt given credit for them.
I will say I agreed with Kirkās ending feelings - the atheists were so bitter, angry, and unhappy? I can understand feeling strongly about something, they just seemed like such a miserable lot? It would have made me very unnerved to deal with a room full of that too!
I agree, I was very disappointed in both sides and the guy running it. That was the worst ādebateā Iāve ever seen.
My dh (who isnāt catholic or particuliarly religious at all) was laughing at me for getting annoyed with the christian side for their lame answers.
**Thereās no creator. We know there is a creator of a painting because we can go to the artists! Why didnāt they say, āWhat would you do if the work was unsigned?!ā Archeologist study items created by others all the time and not once do they discover something and say, āOh wow, look at how chaos put this piece of pottery here!ā
**Why did Kirk bring out those stupid pictures? It was belittleing and lowered his credibility. To be fair I think christians and non-christians lose credibility in this area. Why canāt they just be honest and say, āNo one is ever going to know exactly how things have come to be because they werenāt there!ā Everyone can have their theories, but it will never be more than a theory. Whatās wrong with just being honest and saying, āno one knowsā and leaving the christians to add, ābut however it was - I know it was guided by Godā?
The lady asked about bad things, such as cancerā¦
**THAT question was so very valid and important. People need to know that sufferring has purpose! People often donāt understand or even know that many christians still believe in the fallen nature of mankind. **
And many people refuse to accept that free will is the gift of a loving God. "If God really exist and is loving, - why do bad things exist?!"
Not one of these issues were addressed and they should have been at least mentioned because they are key points in christianity that many people are ignorant about.
**On another board I came across a Jewish lady who thought that because Iām christian I thought she was going to hell.
**She was very surprised when I told her MY God is not limited in His mercy or love and only He knows how far He will extend it - maybe even to someone who doesnāt return any love to Him. That good old verse, all that is true and righteous? - these are Godly things, even when He isnāt given credit for them.
I will say I agreed with Kirkās ending feelings - the atheists were so bitter, angry, and unhappy? I can understand feeling strongly about something, they just seemed like such a miserable lot?
It would have made me very unnerved to deal with a room full of that too!
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
The debate was just awful. But with Martin Bashir hosting what can you expect. The real problem was that they picked the some worst choices of who could argue for both sides.
I guess you would have to say that the atheist won the debate, but not by anything they did (I did not see argue any point well). The subject of the debate was that Cameron and Comfort could prove the existence of God scientifically, without relying on faith or the Bible. They did not do this.
I think that Nightline should have this debate again with better representatives from both sides.
I guess you would have to say that the atheist won the debate, but not by anything they did (I did not see argue any point well). The subject of the debate was that Cameron and Comfort could prove the existence of God scientifically, without relying on faith or the Bible. They did not do this.
I think that Nightline should have this debate again with better representatives from both sides.
D
Dandelion_Wine
Guest
Darn! I was going to tape this because of the odd hour and forgot. I wonder if theyāll have it on againā¦
J
Johenz
Guest
I saw snippets of the debate on the atheist website. Theyāre crowing victory. I didnāt see them so much win, as the theists lost. I think, too, that they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by not using Thomist arguments.
I post regularly on the athiest website Brian and Kelly founded. Mainly I concentrate on refuting historical inaccuracies, biblical misconceptions (errors or contradictions), and doctrine. Very challenging at times, but definitely has me researching my beliefs and finding them very sound. Itād be interesting to get some Catholic representation there. If anyoneās interested in joining me, let me know. I wouldnāt recommend it for those not firmly grounded in their faith.
I have noticed that our Protestant brethren, especially fundamentalists, struggle a bit more because of the solas (ie, sola scriptura, sole fide). Also, not being bound doctrinally to strict creationism helps greatly.
Atheists use some of the same tired fundamentalist arguments against Catholicism, the Inquisition, and the Crusades, but seem reluctant to engage in specifics. Perhaps theyāve been burned before.
I post regularly on the athiest website Brian and Kelly founded. Mainly I concentrate on refuting historical inaccuracies, biblical misconceptions (errors or contradictions), and doctrine. Very challenging at times, but definitely has me researching my beliefs and finding them very sound. Itād be interesting to get some Catholic representation there. If anyoneās interested in joining me, let me know. I wouldnāt recommend it for those not firmly grounded in their faith.
I have noticed that our Protestant brethren, especially fundamentalists, struggle a bit more because of the solas (ie, sola scriptura, sole fide). Also, not being bound doctrinally to strict creationism helps greatly.
Atheists use some of the same tired fundamentalist arguments against Catholicism, the Inquisition, and the Crusades, but seem reluctant to engage in specifics. Perhaps theyāve been burned before.
D
Dandelion_Wine
Guest
When I first discovered boards many moons ago, I met a āfreethinkerā and found out he posted at the SecWeb. I wandered over there and engaged in some arguments. In the beginning, Iām not ashamed to say, I got my hinder handed to me more than once. But it helped me hone my apologetics skills and arguing skills. If oneās faith can handle it, I highly recommend it. You get to know some of the diversions people use (intentionally or not) and the poor reasoning. And quite frankly the empty arguments. It was an interesting experience.
W
Wisdom
Guest
One of the rules for the Christian side was to use proofs not using the Bible but they did it anyway. Man fundamentalist just canāt stay away form Bible thumping to prove the existence of everything and anything. God forbid they use St Thomas or St Anselm etc they were too catholic I supose. When Mike Seaver is your braintrust your not going to come out looking to smart what Mr T (son or a preacher and probably more qulaified in that respect) was not available?
L
luvmykids
Guest
IThe lady asked about bad things, such as cancerā¦****
**THAT question was so very valid and important. People need to know that sufferring has purpose! People often donāt understand or even know that many christians still believe in the fallen nature of mankind. **
And many people refuse to accept that free will is the gift of a loving God. "If God really exist and is loving, - why do bad things exist?!"
Not one of these issues were addressed and they should have been at least mentioned because they are key points in christianity that many people are ignorant about
They began to try to give an explanation to the lady asking about cancerā¦In fact he tried to say what you were saying about suffering having a purpose and the lady got so angry and started cutting him off!! I donāt think she wanted to hear thatā¦These people sounded very hostile, angry, pridefulā¦ They donāt want to hear anything. They sound to me like they are very angry with God, not just people who happen to not believe in anything. I donāt believe for one minute that they truly donāt believe in Godā¦I think that they are hurt and angry by whatever happened in their lives and use the atheist argument as a defense mechanism, because if there were a God, āwhat loving God would make people suffer?ā
R
ridesawhitehors
Guest
OK - I busted out in laughter after reading this paragraph in your post Johenz. Did you do that on purpose? atheistsā¦ inquisition,ā¦ BURNED?? LOLOLOL!!! :extrahappy:
C
carol_marie
Guest
I wouldāve expected something more substantial from Nightline. The whole thing seemed low budget & hookey.
I watched it agreed of course with every single thing the Christians said and wondering how the atheists could live such hollow lives?
I respect Kurk Cameron - but then again, I may be Catholic, but Iām still a Bible Thumper at heart.
I watched it agreed of course with every single thing the Christians said and wondering how the atheists could live such hollow lives?
I respect Kurk Cameron - but then again, I may be Catholic, but Iām still a Bible Thumper at heart.
J
Johenz
Guest
No, but now that you mention itā¦
Honest, no pun was inteded.
M
mlchance
Guest
While I didnāt see the show (because I waste too much time as it to be wasting more watching Nightline), I must say Iām shocked by the descriptions. Angry, incoherent atheists on TV? Never wouldāve seen that coming. And Kirk Cameron isnāt a top-shelf theologian or philosopher? But he has such an impressive curriculum vitae.
ā Mark L. Chance.
ā Mark L. Chance.
G
Guardian
Guest
I saw the debate, and both sides were poorly represented. I guess the thing was done for publicity, but both sides were mostly moronic.
The atheist side was fielded by a football meathead and a snooty chip-on-the-shoulder chick. They started the blasphemy challenge and obviously are rebelling against Fundamentalist Christianity, which of course is valid since Fundamentalist Christianity is illogical.
Most the arguments given by the two Christians were silly. Even if Darwinism is false, that doesnāt give evidence for God. All that means is that scientists still donāt know what they are talking about. Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort are fundies and had their booties handed to them, mostly.
The crazy hostile woman that asked about cancer was not upset necessarily at God, but because Ray Comfort kept misunderstanding her. She was not asking about suffering, she was asking about cancer because cancer is a DNA defect, showing that us, as a creation, is not well-designed. That was her point.
If the debate could be done over, I say for the Christian side it should be Jimmy Akin and Stephen Barr vs. Richard Dawkins and whoever else. Heck, even put atheists up against a Protestant like William Lane Craigā¦they would get their butts handed to them.
The atheist side was fielded by a football meathead and a snooty chip-on-the-shoulder chick. They started the blasphemy challenge and obviously are rebelling against Fundamentalist Christianity, which of course is valid since Fundamentalist Christianity is illogical.
Most the arguments given by the two Christians were silly. Even if Darwinism is false, that doesnāt give evidence for God. All that means is that scientists still donāt know what they are talking about. Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort are fundies and had their booties handed to them, mostly.
The crazy hostile woman that asked about cancer was not upset necessarily at God, but because Ray Comfort kept misunderstanding her. She was not asking about suffering, she was asking about cancer because cancer is a DNA defect, showing that us, as a creation, is not well-designed. That was her point.
If the debate could be done over, I say for the Christian side it should be Jimmy Akin and Stephen Barr vs. Richard Dawkins and whoever else. Heck, even put atheists up against a Protestant like William Lane Craigā¦they would get their butts handed to them.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
Did they use the banana argument?
A
AnthonyM2
Guest
No, not this time. But Iāve seen that one before, I think it was thoroughly lambasted on YouTube so they must not use it anymore.
After watching this debate, I agree it was poorly done but I think Bashir tried to be fair to both sides and allowed them present their best caseā¦ although they didnāt.
A
AngelRose81
Guest
Does anyone know if you can see this on YouTube or on ABC anywhere? I missed it and would like to see it.
L
Little_Mary
Guest
I never heard of this so I clicked on the link. Iām sorry but that is very lame. If that is how they argue for the existence of God, then, no, they are not the best choice for a debate.
God bless them for trying though.
S
Sagefrakrobatik
Guest
I found the debate while stumbling on Godtube after i got linked to it from Feature story of Kirk on Yahoo news yesterday.
Ive known about these two for the past three years one of my college english professors lead me to the website.
I would have like to see an atheist i actually reconizedāit would have been cool to have Richard Dakwins because him an the āway of the Masterā duo are equally confrontational. But for a more intellectually stimulating debate i would have prefered Ravi Zachrias. ALthough i havent had a chance to read much of his work it seems as if he is highly respected in evangelical apologetic circles.
- Status