Atheists crush Christians at “Does God Exist?” debate

Naturally, it was no contest. There's no way a couple of fundamentalist Christians were going to best the Rational Response Squad on an ABC Nightline face-off over scientific evidence for the existence of God.

(These are the guys who talked me into condemning myself to hell for a free DVD.)

I haven't watched all of the video of the debate, You Tube'd versions of which are available at BSAlert.com. But I've seen enough to agree with the proposition that "the match was a slaughter and Ray and…Kirk [the Christians]...were left bleeding and wounded."

Ray and Kirk weren't supposed to use the Bible to prove that the Bible is true. They claimed they'd provide scientific evidence for the existence of God (the Christian God, I assume).

So I watch the (privately filmed) video of the debate on the Rational Responder web site. And I see one of the true believers, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, holding up a image of the "Mona Lisa," claiming that wherever there is a painting there must be a painter.

Huh? That's the proof? Dude, that's so lame.

Like Sapient, one of the Rational Responders, said, with a painting you can see the canvas, the paints, the brush strokes. You can also meet painters of paintings, take photographs of them at work, talk with them about their artistry.

The universe exists. Existence exists. This doesn't mean that there was a creator of creation. Or that this Master Painter is a personalized being, rather than a universal power.

Sapient asked what the creator of God is. Good question. If an answer were to be attempted, a follow-up would be forthcoming: What created the creator of God?

I've little doubt that a few decades, or centuries, or millennia from now (sooner the better), debates like this one will be viewed as curious relics from pre-scientific times when humans held exceedingly curious notions about the cosmos.

As Christopher Hitchens puts it in his book, "God is Not Great":

One must state it plainly. Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody – not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms – had the smallest idea what was going on.

It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as for comfort, reassurance, and other infantile needs).

Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion, and one would like to think – though the connection is not a fully demonstrable one – that this is why they seem so uninterested in sending fellow humans to hell.

Until people see the light of reality, instead of the darkness of religion, it's incumbent that those of us on the less shadowy side of the divide challenge those who would keep us mired in superstition, irrationality, and addiction to blind faith.

Courtesy of BSAlert, this YouTube video shows a woman confronting the fundamentalist Christians at the Nightline debate (which was held in a Manhattan Baptist church, not exactly neutral ground).

I love how she refuses to let the believers get away with not answering her question. She notes that they'd just praised how God so wonderfully created the human eye, nose, mouth and such. The woman asks, "What about cancer? How is this part of a perfect creation?"

Excellent question. Which the Christians are utterly unable to answer, except by meandering into some blather about suffering being part of God's plan, and how the Bible tells us that we started off perfect and then fell from grace.

She shakes her head, looks understandably irked, then rises to interrupt the blather and ask her question again. Beautiful. I sorely wish she could be at every press conference President Bush holds. They'd sure be a lot more interesting (and informative) if she was there.

Comments

[Brian]

Helen, I enjoyed the heroin analogy in your comment. Great point.

So often, people claim that a religion or spiritual path is true and worthwhile because it makes them feel good.

Well, so do lots of things. Like heroin. If feeling good is the mark of religion, there should be a Church of Sex, Church of Methamphetamine, and such.

[C]

Greetings again.

In my studies of government, I've come across a very interesting theory that I wanted to hear another side's response to. This theory is: Secularism is actually a religion.

Note: Religion being defined as "Belief in a Supreme Being."

Eagerly wanting responses to this very interesting issue.

[Blogger Brian]

C, not believing in God isn't a belief. It is the absence of a belief.

The physical universe exists for us. This, we could call supreme being. Not in capital letters, since the universe isn't a conscious being, so far as we know. Just the highest (because only) form of being.

Humans don't believe in the physical universe. We experience it. We know it by existing as it and in it. So the "supreme being" of those who don't believe in a metaphysical reality is physical reality.

Which is right here and now. No belief required.

[lol]

Perhaps someday fundamentalists will realize that thery're going to hell faster than the atheists! I'm all for spreading the faith, but lket's get rid of the fundamentalists and hypocrits first. The only real Christians are the ones with doubt. Remember, the opposite of faith is certainty, and doubt gives us caution. We can't just stomp on all the other religions, cause they've got pretty much the same ideas. Also, where do Atheists get off on all this Christian bashing hmm? Next time you guys stage a debate don't put a friggin' extremist on the stage and prentend that we all act like that.

[TheTruebloodline]

Does anyone want to include some conversations about Satanism in here? Laveyan or theistic satanism. It's been all about "god" so far....

[TheTruebloodline]

And maybe some more about paganism???? It was mentioned briefly somewhere.

[Blogger Brian]

Satanism...Paganism? Sounds interesting to me. Start a conversation, Truebloodline.

I've wondered if these philosophies are any different from traditional religions in regard to demonstrable evidence that they are rooted in reality, rather than imagination.

What do you think?

[Phantom]

Why does no one recall??? When Christianity reached out with orphanages hospitals and universities? Most schools started out in community churches before public education. Even science has its roots in the studies of men like Mendel. The debate over whether there is a God or not is more about ego or self comfort. As to the origin of sin and suffering. Can love exist without choice? Adam and eve were given all knowledge except for one thing. Good and evil. Given the planet and everything needed to be its stewards they chose to do what was forbidden because of what happened with Lucifer. Evil is the act of disobedience that brings negative consequences to self and others. Result is we have to learn why God says don't touch the stove when the iron is red. Just like our parents all the way back to ....Yeah you get the gist.

[Terry]

Personally, I don't know what to believe.

I am an intelligent man, but when the intricacies of the universse are laid out and with so many mysteries, it is hard for me to not believe in a creator. At the same time, I know that man is far from reaching the pinnacle of knowledge. I think that as long as we exist as a species, we will continue to expand on our knowledge. We have plenty of solid scientific theory that is yet to be tested. Eventually, it will be tested and proven and moved to the category of scientific fact. The fact will be applied into technology that will advance us to the next phase of knowledge and discovery. I guess my point is that just because it is amazing and beyond my grasp doesn't remove it from natural law and science... especially since I lack knowledge on so many things.

At the same time, my head ponders about whether a creator could have created scientific law and then just supplied matter and energy. I often wonder why things just... are. So there was a big bang... of what? What banged? Why then and not before then? What was the void before then? Did scientific laws apply to the void since the universe as we know it had not yet begun?

When I think about these things, this is when I know only that I exist and I wish I would learn to relish in it before I die. I also wish that I could live longer so that I could see how things advance.

I was raised fundamentalist Christian. I know for sure that I don't believe in the God that I was raised to believe in. I don't believe that God would make everything perfect and then set man up for failure and future pain. I don't believe that God condemns anyone.

Good and evil can even become muddy. There are differing brain chemistries. Predispositions combined with the experiences of an individual again combined with belief sets create a person's "profile" as you might call it. I don't believe anyone really sets out to do a deed knowing that they are simply doing evil. The don't feel revulsion. They feel gratification of some sort. They are satisfying a craving. Those cravings may be abnormal... fed by mental illness. They may be fed by a lifetime of radical ideology being pushed at them. They may be fed by the pressures of living up to the perceptions of their culture or subculture. They may be simply desperate to survive and just lack the intelligence or education to take a less destructive path.

Some would see being "good" as being loving to the others of their subculture while alienating or even annihilating others. Obvious enough. They don't believe themselves to be wrong or to be evil. They believe themselves to be holy.

The fundamental problem is that man likes exclusivity. We love to single ourselves out and try to prove our superiority whether it be financial, religious, racial... whatever.

Even a debate like this is a segregating factor... believer versus disbeliever. I suppose it can't be escaped, however, as even though I, myself, dislike this kind of division and the elitism that often goes with it, I have to present my own possibly incorrect views in order to throw my hat into the ring.

My primary belief set is now Buddhism, although I have not set my mind to it in too long. It taught me to not worry about the existence of God. I *do* believe in karma. I believe it may not be a mystical thing so much as it is more like "you reap what you sow".

I believe that the belief in God shouldn't be the issue at hand. I believe tolerance is the weak link. Love supercedes tolerance, but sometimes tolerance is the best that can be expected.

I think the religious should take less offense to science. Science is not out to destroy religion. Science is simply there to find what we can. From there, the applications can be wonderful. Science simply ignores religion, as it should. Religion is faith. Science cannot work with faith, or it quits advancing. It has to try to *know* the unknown, not just write it off to a creator. Through this struggle, science advances. Religion has the history of trying to stifle science, not the converse. Scientific "heretics" have been killed by the church many times. Ultimately... I believe that if God is there, science will advance far enough that he will find him.

I just wish that people would quit killing in the name of their respective religions.

[TheTruebloodline]

To blogger brian. Satanism isn't a religion, only a philosophy that can include religion. It varies from person to person.