wow, that went no where. how about: prove that we are all made of "star-dust" (carbon based whatever you want to call it) or prove we are made out of clay and god's saliva (or blood, depending on which book you read).
KELLY IS A PORNSTAR!!!! Her name is Kasey Grant you cant tell its her because of the tattoo on her left arm. SHE GETS SKEETED ON!!!! these idiots just lost in a debate to a cumdrinking PORNSTAR. this is so great!!!!!
This guy was worse than Cameron. Cameron had some points I would consider good. He seemed to just drag him down. I think he should consider a better partner next time. Not the guy that looks at science and says “I don’t understand it so it must be magic.”
i watched this whole thing just now on here. thanks to the uploader, but this special solved nothing. kirk and ray can't prove God exists, but the other two can't prove he DOESN;T. yes i am a christian believer but a logical one, but kirk and ray's arguments were really weak. i still credit them with having the guts to debate, as well as the other two but this special, though it was well-pointed on both sides, still solved nothing.
@TeslaDRay I agree, neither side really defended their views that well. At least they didn't get involved in word play like most theist vs atheist debates go. I don't think people who are foreign to evolution will comprehend exactly what they were trying to say. I recommend you watch "Discovering Religion" right here on youtube. It is a youtube made documentary, but it is well done and is Discovery Channel quality. It rather long though about 3 hours and still on going. But it is one sided.
@xinic5 THANK YOU for recommending 'Discovering Religion'. Here on YouTube, where the most viewed videos often have titles like, 'Justin Bieber Gets Pwnd', or 'The Fart Heard Round the World', it is so refreshing to see something of the professional caliber that is 'Discovering Religion'. Thanks again.
Cameron and Comfort are offended at the condescension they get from atheists.
If you go to the full version of this debate on ABC, you will hear Cameron say: "We're not up here saying atheists are unintelligent". I suppose this is literally true in that hey didn't say that during the debate. But...
Folks... the title of Ray Comfort's book is "You can Lead an Atheist to Evidence But You Can't Make Him Think".
I tried with all my heart and patience to believe in God. I had a couple of traumatic events or in other words "experiences" that lead me to believe in God, and trust me folks, the only thing that I heard or saw was utter silence. Then, I turned to understand the scientific world, and the discovery of reason has brought so much into my life. So, I guess some people are never believers even though how sincerely they try.
Really...Ray honestly expects people to base their lives around, what he calls, a "one in a million" shot? If I use that sort of logic in my everyday life I would be paralyzed in my bed, for fear of all sorts of very unlikely events that could harm or even kill me. That's not how rational humans live: we evaluate the data we have, and try to live rationally based on the data available to ourselves. The existence of Ray's specific God is much lower than that anyhow: it's zero.
I said it before and it didn't change through the whole debate, Kirk and Ray didn't put up any proof at all besides the bible says god exists/existed so it's true. If you don't believe it you're going to suffer eternally. Any other points were simply trying to defame atheists and evolution and not showing solid proof god is real and created everything. This debate could've been summed up in 10 mins or less. Instead we get the same argument from the christian camp every time.
I would've asked Lady Gaga and Mr. Potato Head to what creature humans are transitioning to, since he said we're "constantly evolving" or "transitioning into".. Guess we're not well adapted yet.
Perhaps I'll grow wings and my descendants will grow gills and get back in the water.
@mayi757 I feel so sorry for you but the problem is I know it's not your fault. Your parents told you what their parents told them, etc.. etc..
If you think that any species that doesn't have wings, like humans, grow wings, inside a single lifetime or even through a single generation you DO NOT understand evolution. FACT. You don't understand it, your comment tells us this.
Why don't you read up on it, THEN make your comment AFTER this?
We are talking about millions upon millions of years
I thought the atheists did a good job. Granted they couldn't address all of the points and make all the criticisms they could have, but that's the nature of this kind of debate. You're not given a lot of time.
Second, the atheists' use of appear to emotion was not ill placed seeing as how, when the concern was the emotions of believers and the abuse of religion, "appealing to their emotions" is, well, addressing the concern. Otherwise they'd have given appeals to evidence and logic.
I am atheist, but, I don't agree with their presentation. The woman was kind of a twat and they both were very arrogant. Shouting you'd rather burn in hell than worship a megalomaniac in this kind of debate was immature. Also, I didn't like the anti-American sentiment too. The thing I don't like about Christians like Cameron is they think it's their "duty" to do and say all they can to convince people to repent. Many like him have approached me, although smart, I always put them in their place.
I realise God must be busy with maybe millions of planets to look after. But surely he can spare the time to just do the chat show circuit. After all they seem to be shown in most countries. In Hong Kong we get the GOD channel, never watched so can't be certain, but don't think he's ever been on it. Typical, no doubt when the new edition "New Testament" comes out he will be everywhere doing book signings, film premieres, Hello magazine etc.
I counted. I found 52 FLAWS in Cameron and Comfort's arguements. This a perfect example of creationism resulting to lies, dishonesty, and ignorince. Cameron and Comfort may fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time.
@oldblubblub I don't think it appropriate to take the responses of two men and generalize it to "creationism resulting to lies, dishonesty, and [as you spelled it] ignorince" Their arguments are indeed flawed but that doesn't make the overall argument flawed
Did they really need to bring in the anti-Americanism? Jeez it pisses me off, as an atheist, that our spokespeople are pulled from the most self-hating echo chambers, our university system.
He (or she) brought up a list of statistics about health and crime from the U.N., probably the most anti-American institution on earth, by bureaucrats who spend all their time comparing statistical apples to oranges to manufacture bogus evidence that our society, the freest and most generous ever, backward.
@Christobanistan How is the US more free than all of the countries in western Europe, Australia, Canada and I'm sure many others that I haven't listed? I won't question the generosity of the US though.
@djanheuser No law, for instance, can be passed in the U.S. that limits private speech or religious expression, for instance. The personal right to own a weapon cannot be taken away, period. No 'human rights commission' can destroy the lives of those who publish books that criticize muslim behavior, as in Canda. Our government cannot ban muslim garb, as is done in France, ever. The list goes on, because our basic rights are not subject to whim, but are in our founding document.
She's definitely not going to get people to come to her side acting the way she acted during this debate. You can believe in whatever you want but behaving like a condescending bitch will not make things easier for you. She seemed angry from the very beginning of the debate while everyone else was calm. Of course, the same thing goes for Kirk. If he wants people to believe in God, he won't achieve that by spreading false info (like the banana thing) and having ridiculous websites put up.
Ridiculous "debate" where the other side just tried to whack people on the head with bible. Religious nonsense has had its run, hopefully we can leave it behind soon.
I think that Ray has proven that God doesn't exist from his point about the Queen of England. I can physically see The Queen. Whether her photo is in a newspaper or a magazine. I can also travel to England and physically see her. Why does God have to hide from me?
I don't understand how Kirk and Ray and all the other creationists go on debating after continually crushing defeat. I would think at some point it would click in their heads that regardless of what they believe, the side they are debating can not and will not ever win!
Yes Kirk, but the Queen of England is a tangible, material person just like everybody else. Where do you go to find God, and which God? Since no two people have lived exactly the same lives, it then follows that no two people will share exactly the same ideas about God or anything else. There must be as many different Gods as there are as many different people.
Yes Kirk, but the Queen of England is a tangible, material person just like everybody else. Where do you go to find God, and which God? Since no two people have lived exactly the same lives, it then follows that no two people will share exactly the same ideas about God or anything else. There must be as many different Gods as there are as many different people.
thanks for the upload, shame tweedle dee and tweedle dumb couldn't acutally form an argument that make sence outside of bible says x, and since the bible is the word of god and the bible tells us its the owrd of god then it is the word of god.... we all know that arguemnt, wish there was a smart creationist, someone who could form an arguemnt out there... but i think that thats impossible since every one ive ever met has the IQ or ray and just follows his lead.
Im not saying i have the answer for every question, but at least im will to look instead of just closing my mind and saying 'awe well i dont know what did this, so some god did it"
AAAugh! this was painful to watch! everytime kirk and ray made a ridiculous argument that even *I* could disprove, brian and kelly did NOT debunk them the way they should have! Oh well... I guess they were under stress with all those people watching them.
i wasn't impressed at all with these atheists. we could have found people much better suited to defend atheism, but i guess if the opponents in the debate were kirk cameron and banana man, kelly and her childish responses would suffice
Thanks for posting this! It was entertaining to watch. I thought kirk said at the very beginning that they were gonna prove the existence of god using science. Well he failed lol. Quoting the bible to prove the existence of god doesn't quite cut it. This would have been a much better discussion with smart theists lol.
If Ray and Kirk said the combination Kelly's beauty and intellect were evidence of a god, it would've been a much stronger argument than anything they said, lol.
If you go to Ray and Kirk's youtube channel and watch the same debate, you will not see the same thing. They have MAJORLY edited it to where it appears more that Ray and Kirk won the debate.
Okay, people...Why the fuck do we care what she does in her spare time? The issue is whether or not her points were VALID enough. I've seen enough ad hominem's for the evening.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
all along history there has been people who denied the existance of God, so there is no surprise here with these two idiots, they are just part of that list, it does not matter that they are the perfect example of creation they will not believe, so let them, I dont care about them, in fact I shouldn't even comment on this, but i couldn't resist. poor idiots
Yes what fools they are - not believing in imaginary invisible sky people. How silly of them not to realise the world was puffed into existence by 'magic' and that they are watched over by an all loving magic man who has just chosen not to reveal ANY EVIDENCE FOR HIS EXISTENCE WHATSOEVER!
But they do think it was banged in to existence by magic or "chance". There is NO proof for the big bang theory what so ever. Science is supposed to be based on facts. Where is the video for creation they claim. Oh.. well that happened before man came so we don't have it... What are the clear cut facts? They don't really know how it happened. It is the same faith as any Christian, it is your RELIGION. Like it or not!
@chassr1 No you're wrong. There is plenty of evidence for a big bang, or rather - rapid expansion. Big Bang is a bit of a misnomer. Red shift, background radiation, the expansion of the Universe etc etc.
Just because we weren't there does not mean we cannot observe and measure effects. Faith is belief without evidence or in the case of many religions, in spite of it!
@trooperJac Got proof it's a myth? Didn't think so. Anything dealing with origins of the universe or man is philosophy, not science, that means evolution and the big bang, too. Plus, the Bible is being proven often, prophecies have come true, and are coming true, and many miracles are being worked in Jesus name, even today.
@Songwriter4God Got proof of these miracles? Got proof of how the Bible is being proven? Didn't think so.
Big bang cosmology is a science not a philosophy but here's a tip for you. Say all the current theories concerning the origins of the universe turn out to be wrong, that doesn't mean that the bible is right. The bible is evidently a collection of common myths spread through oral traditions in a more primitive culture. World floods, men living in the bodies of fish, talking snakes et cetera.
@trooperJac Many eye-witnesses. Sad how you don't apply this to your own philosophy. Got any proof of man coming from ape-like creatures? Didn't think so. How the Bible is being proven, prophecies, I already told you. And apparently scientists are now saying Britain may have been formed by a tsunami around 8,000 years ago, shows atheist dogma how they reject a bigger catastrophe around the same time though.
Who said it was a snake? Common misconception, it only says serpent. Cont...
@trooperJac Cont: The Bible leaves serpent open for interpretation whether it was a snake or what. And it was possessed by Satan.
Didn't know matter suddenly doing something with a lack of outside force was science. It is a philosophy, did you watch it happen? No, thusly it's all assumptions. Yes, the universe is expanding, but that doesn't mean the big bang is true.
@trooperJac Whatever, go indoctrinate yourself more on Richard Dawkins and all those other brainwashing "scientist" high priests of Darwinism's lies, truth is truth, you can't change it whether you believe it or not. You just prove atheist dogma. I explained to you 100% facts, evolution and creation are philosophy, and it's not necessarily a talking snake. Also, you're not worth wasting my time on either.
@opositeway4ever Believing that you'll go to hell if you don't live a religious life is no different than believing that if you leave work at exactly 6pm that you'll get hit by car. There's no evidence that either will occur, so why torture yourself with an irrational superstition. Wanting to live in a society where people are considerate of one another should be enough reason to be a good person.
@trooperJac What fools you are believing in something there's NO EVIDENCE FOR YOU AT ALL. Understand presuppositions man, evolution is foolish, there's no solid evidence behind it or the big bang. Seriously, what makes God so foolish and doesn't make believing the matter that caused the big bang denying the laws of physic so foolish? Really, you guys never answer that.
Prove creation is true. But to do that you still have to make use of the "EVIL NATURALISTIC METHODS" (scientific method and peer review) in order to do so.
@NUTCASE71733 I love it when atheists tell you do something that's impossible on both evolution nor creation, and treat it like we deny science. We don't.Prove macro-evolution, using the "evil naturalistic methods." And, peer review means nothing for Creation/evolution, why?You guys are all extremists when it comes to bias against the Bible .The words of Answers in Genesis summarized "We reject large scale molecules to man evolution because it takes more than a lifetime, so we can't observe it."
Just because you can't observe it doesn't mean it isn't true. Fossils show life forms that died out long before humans came to be, but we know they are real since they have been tested and re-tested. But god cannot be tested so we can't say he exists or not because he is in the realm of the supernatural. Ironic how you choose his side over hard evidence as the idea of the supernatural is supposed to be "EVIL" in itself by fundamentalists. What does that tell you about your own vews on god?
@NUTCASE71733 You see, anything that attempts to explain the origins of either humans or the universe is not science, it's merely philosophy. Why? We weren't there to see it happen, I don't know how many times I can say this. You believe a bunch of small changes eventually accumulate large unobservable changes eventually leading to new species', but because that "takes a long time" (Just a dodge.) we can't observe evolution as you say it happens, thusly, it's not science. Go research.
Indeed. As a porn star I have to question the validity of her contribution to the atheist perspective. I'm leaning in their favor, but her childish demeanor did little to endear me to her, even though I supported their view more than that of those Creationists.
I don't believe creationism and I'm an ignostic/ atheist, but I'd rather be a delusional Christian than be associated with those douchebags. It's just too bad they think that they have to be so rude to win the debate. It was unecessary in my opinion, because they made enough good points to do so without it.
I agree, to point. They should've just presented their rational opinions and arguments - opinions and arguments I share, to an extent, just so you know! - not resort to petty, childish comments.
Finally, it's called a debate. You don't have to share the other person's opinion, but you can respect it, nonetheless. No need to get all rude.
Instead of focusing on the non-existence of "god", the atheists might have done better to provide a scientific interpretation of Cameron and Comfort's mystical experience. "God" is very probably a cultural interpretation of the experience of "conscious" or audible inter-hemispheric communication within the human brain. So yes, others can also experience "god", but it doesn't necessarily lead to a Christian perspective.
I highly recommend reading the psychologist Julian Jaynes.
They never once focused on the non existence of god, they focused on the non evidence of god. And here's a very good and probably accurate interpretation of the experience of god, it's called "dreaming", yes it happens, some people see different things especially when they are depressed, which is usually the point where people turn to religion. I've seen pink flying elephants in my dreams, does that mean they exist and that it's proof they do?
Perhaps roughly speaking, Carl Jung's concept is related. These ideas exist within working frameworks, and Jung's framework is antiquated, but I do believe he was trying to get at the same phenomena. At this point, I have not found a suitable substitute for Jaynes's work The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.
@cbarcus Ah, I unfortunately don't know very much on the topic, only took 2 semesters of psychology but what you mentioned rang a bell somewhat, I'll have to look into that.
What I'm referring to is not commonly taught AFAIK. I also suggest checking out Boris Sidis' foundational The Psychology of Suggestion (1898), another forgotten Great Work. Fully ethical secular systems have evolved, grounded in scientific reality, using great art to promote empathy. I expect that the current set of global crises will solidify these views, and their foundations will become far better known.
"God is very probably a cultural interpretation of the experience of "conscious" or audible inter-hemispheric communication within the human brain"?
Doesn't this statement stem from atheistic presuppositions? Such an explanation for the experience of God is only probable if we start from the assumption that God does not in fact exist.
The presupposition is that the world is understandable, that its basic principles can be discerned. The human brain does not occupy some special area that is immune to scientific inquiry.
Given the truth of your worldview (atheistic materialism if I may guess), it is only understandable in principle. But this doesn't escape the tough questions of philosophy.
How do we make sense of the tools of reasoning that allow us to use "basic principals"? Do the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the laws of morality, and the immutability of mathematics make sense in a matter-in-motion world? Many worldviews undermine these tools while unjustifiably using them.
I would love to see this debate done by 2 Muslims in a Mosque with Kelly and that guy. Or in a temple with a rabbi and a jewish believer.. Kirk and his buddy were nice enough to do this debate in a Church.
nobody mentions....v still have good moral, happy and smile never fear the Christian's or u'r God hell. V gonna go to our hell or heaven..don't bring u'r missionary to Thailand..i will thank so much but u r duing in contrary....Down to u'r mission the sinner..
C&C power play strikes again, with this level of debating prowess you will certainly keep the Hitchens and Dawkins at bay. Powerful stuff guys, very powerful, i especially like the appeal again to pascals wager to top off the debate - very strong finishing move.
Both sides were awful. I'm an atheist, and I've heard the arguments of Kirk and Cameron once and again, and they could have been broken once and again with very concrete examples. I understand that the US is very religious and must be frustrating for atheists. I've read in a research that they got even more discriminated than the other groups that are traditionally discriminated against.
Sorry for language mistakes, English is my second language.
@chassr1 Tell you what, while I go off an prove that god doesn't exist, I'm going to need you to prove that your house isn't haunted by ghosts and that Middle Earth isn't a real place. The onus is on the theists to prove the existence of god, not the other way around. Why should people accept that something is true if there isn't any evidence to back it up.
@djanheuser I don't believe there's any evidence to back up evolutionism. I love how everyone talks about it like it's fact yet everything that "evolves" takes "millions of years." Yet people have only been around for thousands of years to keep records. What really gets me is their use of radioactive dating which is incredibly inaccurate. So the THEORY not law of evolution just makes me laugh.
@jkneeland89 I don't believe I mentioned evolution. Rejecting the claim that God exists (due to lack of evidence) doesn't have anything to do with evolution. An atheist could reject evolution and still be an atheist. I accept evolution though. Also, with the knowledge we've gained about DNA & DNA sequences of various species on the planet, scientists claim that we no longer need fossils or carbon dating to support evolution. The sequence data shows a common ancestry between species.
@jkneeland89 We have Newton's and Einsteins theories of gravity. It's not 100% complete and sometimes it goes haywire with some events still failing to fit in the bounds of known gravity. So you reject gravity because it can't explain all 100%? Well you must, as it's not account in flyby anomaly, anomalous increase of the astronomical unit etc. Does gravity make you laugh also?
@jkneeland89 you have to wonder, given Darwin himself expressed doubts at his own theory which he knew was shaky in places, would he have rejected it today given the DNA structure and other more profound findings he didn't have access to.
If creationists are "idiots", imagine how much more idiotic is to think all the complexity around us came from simple cell. If it wasn't so absurd it would be funny. I personally feel pity every time the worlds "evolved" and "millions" is thrown around
@djanheuser You can no more prove that God doesn't exist any more then I can prove He does! There is no burden on me to prove my beliefs. What bothers me is the hypocrisy among atheists! You guys complain about Christians (and only Christians) shoving their beliefs down your throats but you do the same!! You both use fear to get people to think the way you do. They talk of hell and you guys insult them (bully tatic). Any arguement you give is a theroy, not fact! Same as a theist!!
@chassr1 Many atheists aren't making any claims, they're simply rejecting the claim that "God exists". Therefore, there's nothing for atheists to prove. However, if an atheist claims "there is no god", then I agree that evidence is necessary to support that claim. As for the hypocrisy, atheist aren't actively trying to take away rights from people (e.g. gay marriage), so I think it's perfectly reasonable for atheists to try to make the world more aware of the ill logic in believing in a god.
@djanheuser When did gay marriage become a "right"? Marriage is a religious ritual, why would you support any kind of marriage? The whole concept of marriage is a promise to God/s that someone is your partner for life. I disagree with the part of your post in which you say "atheist aren't actively trying to take away rights from people". Rights of believers of faiths have been under attack for a long time. How free are theist if they are not allowed to speak about their beliefs (1st Amendment)?
@chassr1 There's a legal aspect to marriage that is isolated from religion (e.g. joint custody of kids, tax benefits, next of kin rights, immigration benefits), so by not allowing gays to marry, they're being denied these rights/benefits. I'm not gay, so it doesn't directly affect me, but since I don't view religion as being benign or purely beneficial, I do want to voice my concerns. I don't want to make it illegal to be religious or speak about it, but I also want the right to question it.
@djanheus The goverment should not be involved in marriage because it is a religious ritual. Seperation of chruch and state. I agree if a gay couple want to give next of kin rights to their partner they should be free to do so. But at the same token people think their in love when it's just lust and could create a major problem should they break up (like the Schiavo case). If both members of the marriage work they shouldn't get a tax break. Joint custody of kids has nothing to do with marriage.
I'm a Christian and unimpressed with the whole debate, too. This debate was supposed to see Ray and Kirk bringing solid scientific evidence supporting the existence of God. I didn't see that. Their whole argument was "the world speaks for itself: it was created by a Creator". That wasn't SCIENTIFICALLY proven here. I'm disappointed when Christians only add to our incredibility like this. The atheists came expecting to have something to argue over, but the Bible kept being brought in.
Just as your reply exposes your nasty form of intolerance. I would caution you about the difference between disagreeing with somebody and attacking them for the sake of an identification like 'Christian' (or if that's too far beyond you, other examples might be: 'black', 'female', or 'homosexual'), but you're obviously not very reasoned and certainly not worth my time or attention.
@Shadowsinger11 I agree. It's the only reason they always call us uneducated ignoring science etc. People like Ken Ham are the ones that need publicity, he uses scientific evidence and the Bible when talking to Christians.
Yet I regret to say that I much more enjoyed listening to the soft-spoken creationists than the atheists with the unprofessional attitude. This debate assured me to never follow anymore of these Rational Response squad folks in the future.
I'll always stick to Christopher Hitchens.
Kelly could've just sat there and not say a single word.
She still would've won all the points for her hotness.
I also like richard dawkins and sam harris, havent look to much to hitchens or dan dennet, but um yeah i was dissapointed by the RRS in many ocations, i think even matt dillahunty from the atheist experience show, would have crushed even more these idiots.
Will i don't believe niether side of debate really. But i believe this much, that we are are not alone and have never been alone! Okay what i mean is, if we as human beings on this planet are lucky anuff to experience what we call life. What makes anyone think we don't have other lifes or a leap of faith if you will! bottum line is, we will all have to wait to find out? But i can say this and it's a fact! Life is short and we know best..so live it! and peace to all creatures on this planet..
Ray and Kirk are acting out of compassion, even though they are ignorant. But I do feel that they could have gotten better Christians than Ray and Kirk, the debate would have been better.
I thought she was annoying and condescending. They failed to address some of the lies that Kirk and Banana man were spreading and they sucked at answering alot of questions. They only look smart by comparison.
true but at one point it seemed like he was almost leading them to the right answer and they just couldn't phrase it right. I would still say they won simply because they were arguing actual logic but they could have found much smarter atheists somewhere. I guess they could find smarter Christians too though so i guess in a way its fair.
To an extent yes, i personally feel I'd have done a better job, but they spend their lives day in and day out hearing the same arguments over and over, so I can understand they annoyance, but really they got too emotional I thought. They didn't really have to do anything but point out flaws.
@videosfromderelix Yep, I think the "rational" squad made a mistake to ignore their starting premise - that they'll only attack the science of proving God. All they had to do was just come there and keep reiterating that none of it is scientific proof, after all, that's what the discussion was about, but they let kirk and ray to steer the debate into a different topic which they weren't prepared for.
@videosfromderelix condescending bc they had no arguments other than their own faith resting solely on Darwin and "millions and millions and billions" of years of "evidence" that says nothing. I'd be quite angry too...
Even the people on the audience pouted to hear Einstein himself believed there must be a God. Shows atheism is an efficient tool to dumb down societies to follow a sheep mentality as it was done by Russia, Eastern Europe, Cuba, North Korea. Eventually some man becomes their god.
I support the arguments made by the RRS completely, but yeah, they did sound frustrated and condescending. In their defense, hearing the same faulty arguments day in and day out does have a tendency to make people frustrated.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
After watching this whole thing I'm left with the emotional impression that the Christian dudes; despite their silliness in arguing on the popular understanding of "proof;" that they care for the people they are addressing.
The "not-God" side comes off as frustrated, angry and condescending.
From this account, I'd rather be a Christian. So the Bible says that God loves me? I'm down!
i have to say even though im not a christian that kelly lady was very disrespectful to ray in particular and very condescending. i think they should have picked a better pair of people to represent the atheist side.
Exactly. Im an atheist but people like this just embarrass me. They use the same broken logic that the other side was using. The guy had a few good points but they were not very good at debating at all.
To put it bluntly, why assume that the future will be like the past? And why assume that the falling of one ball to the ground means that all will fall?
To appeal to our past experience and extrapolate it into the inexperienced is circular reasoning.
And I am sorry, but did I say you "terst inductive principles". No I said you could test the assertions made by induction, I can sit out on my porch in the morning and test my assertation that the sun will act in the same manner as it has 1.2 trillion times and rise.
The assertations are testable, the principle behind induction are more the belief in patterns and pragmatic application of those patterns where one can gain ability to make an informed guess on the repitition of said patterns.
This is the beauty of the induction and science, there is nothing sacred. If a pattern does not hold up in any given occurence then there is absolutely no issue with discarding that series of events which were thought to be a pattern as a series of events that do not have the perceived pattern or order.
Science, via inductive reasoning, is a fluid ever-changing manner in which we can predict, and test those predictions, though it does lead to knowledge. But epistemology is another chat.
You know, I enjoy discussing these things and all, but I'm not really interested in doing an in depth debate debate via YouTube commenting. It's just not made for this kind of discourse.
Then make a video, call it what you like and I will make a video response if you find written dialogue not stimulating enough for you, even theough exchanged correspondence was the means for debate for thousands of years.... try another medium. don't act above it all...
Perhaps you misread my comment. I have nothing against written dialogue. I was specifically referring to YouTube commenting. These are deep philosophical subjects that demand lots of thought, detail, and length—something YouTube cannot provide. I have been in these conversations many times, and before long, we will be writing five, sex, or seven comments at a time. It gets to be ridiculous.
And honestly, I do not really have a desire to make a video. I'm not interested in debate games.
Alright buddy, If that makes you feel better about yourself then go ahead and think that.
If you are that concerned with keeping your intellectual axe sharper than everyone else's (and pointed at God) then toss me a message via YouTube. But as far a commenting goes, you might as well try to Twitter a debate and see how far that gets you.
Nice. Victoruto makes a comment on youtube that starts a debate, (which anyone acquainted with the medium would have seen coming, but then again thats my "inductive reasoning" talking) then says he doesn't want to debate on youtube when his position is challenged.
I offered to continue the debate in a different format so we could further dive into the issues without a 500 character restraint.
Unless the discussions on YouTube are superficial (which perhaps is what you are interested in), it is difficult, if not impossible, to have philosophical discussion in such a format.
It will start with 1 comment box, then 2, then 3, then 4, and so on. Before long you are writing essays broken up into 500 character segments.
if you want proof of God you have to approach him with a humble heart, and untill then he will not reveal himself to you. I was a formal atheist untill I embraced the truth and it has set me free, and for that I thank Jesus. I hope you do the same my friends.
0:42 " So lets all humble our hearts and pray to Pesiden." (Kelly) I felt that was pretty immature.
Supreme7198 2 weeks ago
wow, that went no where. how about: prove that we are all made of "star-dust" (carbon based whatever you want to call it) or prove we are made out of clay and god's saliva (or blood, depending on which book you read).
emailtheoldies 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you can convince yourself to believe anything if you delude yourself enough.
rossmat707 3 months ago
Comment removed
MissKatetastic 4 months ago in playlist Rational Response Squad vs. Kirk Cameron Nightline
Both sides lost, the guy in the middle pwnd them both. Proving evidence for Agnosticism. Lol.
H0tkebab 4 months ago
I want to see Mary Magdalene vs Kelly in a debate XD
H0tkebab 4 months ago
KELLY IS A PORNSTAR!!!! Her name is Kasey Grant you cant tell its her because of the tattoo on her left arm. SHE GETS SKEETED ON!!!! these idiots just lost in a debate to a cumdrinking PORNSTAR. this is so great!!!!!
bigcheesy95 5 months ago
@bigcheesy95
LOL
ClappingForChlamydia 3 months ago
This guy was worse than Cameron. Cameron had some points I would consider good. He seemed to just drag him down. I think he should consider a better partner next time. Not the guy that looks at science and says “I don’t understand it so it must be magic.”
A55TRICKY 5 months ago
KELLY IS A PORNSTARRRR KASEY GRANT. HOW COOL IS THIS
angryaznman 5 months ago
@angryaznman Because she destroyed my faith, I can now click over to her other vids and fap to her guilt-free.
THANKS KELLY!
Lmao
DannyPhantomBeast 5 months ago
Kirk and his friend just destroyed the atheists....lol
I almost feel sorry.
mrtriplewinner 6 months ago
@mrtriplewinner You a poe?
xinic5 5 months ago
Kelly doesn't have a last name apparently.
Yeungster23 6 months ago
ray and kirk are tools, brian and kelly are rebels
AwesomeFDO789 8 months ago
i watched this whole thing just now on here. thanks to the uploader, but this special solved nothing. kirk and ray can't prove God exists, but the other two can't prove he DOESN;T. yes i am a christian believer but a logical one, but kirk and ray's arguments were really weak. i still credit them with having the guts to debate, as well as the other two but this special, though it was well-pointed on both sides, still solved nothing.
TeslaDRay 9 months ago
@TeslaDRay I agree, neither side really defended their views that well. At least they didn't get involved in word play like most theist vs atheist debates go. I don't think people who are foreign to evolution will comprehend exactly what they were trying to say. I recommend you watch "Discovering Religion" right here on youtube. It is a youtube made documentary, but it is well done and is Discovery Channel quality. It rather long though about 3 hours and still on going. But it is one sided.
xinic5 5 months ago
@xinic5 THANK YOU for recommending 'Discovering Religion'. Here on YouTube, where the most viewed videos often have titles like, 'Justin Bieber Gets Pwnd', or 'The Fart Heard Round the World', it is so refreshing to see something of the professional caliber that is 'Discovering Religion'. Thanks again.
tra1215 3 months ago
In conclusion, Ray and Kirk got POWNED by Brian Kelly.
oldblubblub 10 months ago 13
@oldblubblub The bible says even the demons know there is a God and TREMBLE. They have a lot more sense then most you. Shame.
Mash494 1 month ago
Cameron and Comfort are offended at the condescension they get from atheists.
If you go to the full version of this debate on ABC, you will hear Cameron say: "We're not up here saying atheists are unintelligent". I suppose this is literally true in that hey didn't say that during the debate. But...
Folks... the title of Ray Comfort's book is "You can Lead an Atheist to Evidence But You Can't Make Him Think".
dablick 11 months ago
I tried with all my heart and patience to believe in God. I had a couple of traumatic events or in other words "experiences" that lead me to believe in God, and trust me folks, the only thing that I heard or saw was utter silence. Then, I turned to understand the scientific world, and the discovery of reason has brought so much into my life. So, I guess some people are never believers even though how sincerely they try.
MarkRyanNZ 1 year ago
Really...Ray honestly expects people to base their lives around, what he calls, a "one in a million" shot? If I use that sort of logic in my everyday life I would be paralyzed in my bed, for fear of all sorts of very unlikely events that could harm or even kill me. That's not how rational humans live: we evaluate the data we have, and try to live rationally based on the data available to ourselves. The existence of Ray's specific God is much lower than that anyhow: it's zero.
bernlin2000 1 year ago
I said it before and it didn't change through the whole debate, Kirk and Ray didn't put up any proof at all besides the bible says god exists/existed so it's true. If you don't believe it you're going to suffer eternally. Any other points were simply trying to defame atheists and evolution and not showing solid proof god is real and created everything. This debate could've been summed up in 10 mins or less. Instead we get the same argument from the christian camp every time.
GeorgeMcSandcracker 1 year ago
I would've asked Lady Gaga and Mr. Potato Head to what creature humans are transitioning to, since he said we're "constantly evolving" or "transitioning into".. Guess we're not well adapted yet.
Perhaps I'll grow wings and my descendants will grow gills and get back in the water.
mayi757 1 year ago
@mayi757 I feel so sorry for you but the problem is I know it's not your fault. Your parents told you what their parents told them, etc.. etc..
If you think that any species that doesn't have wings, like humans, grow wings, inside a single lifetime or even through a single generation you DO NOT understand evolution. FACT. You don't understand it, your comment tells us this.
Why don't you read up on it, THEN make your comment AFTER this?
We are talking about millions upon millions of years
codhubiv 1 year ago
i find it baffling how cameron and comfort can be so plainly and willfully ignorant...
its like they have to go out of their way to be stupid...unbelievable... i actually felt myself gettin stupider as i was listening to them
eisaac92 1 year ago
I thought the atheists did a good job. Granted they couldn't address all of the points and make all the criticisms they could have, but that's the nature of this kind of debate. You're not given a lot of time.
Second, the atheists' use of appear to emotion was not ill placed seeing as how, when the concern was the emotions of believers and the abuse of religion, "appealing to their emotions" is, well, addressing the concern. Otherwise they'd have given appeals to evidence and logic.
WhiteDragon103 1 year ago
Funny how in order to receive evidence for god you have to blindly believe to the point where you don't need evidence to believe in him.
delta51 1 year ago
I am atheist, but, I don't agree with their presentation. The woman was kind of a twat and they both were very arrogant. Shouting you'd rather burn in hell than worship a megalomaniac in this kind of debate was immature. Also, I didn't like the anti-American sentiment too. The thing I don't like about Christians like Cameron is they think it's their "duty" to do and say all they can to convince people to repent. Many like him have approached me, although smart, I always put them in their place.
Nephloid 1 year ago
I realise God must be busy with maybe millions of planets to look after. But surely he can spare the time to just do the chat show circuit. After all they seem to be shown in most countries. In Hong Kong we get the GOD channel, never watched so can't be certain, but don't think he's ever been on it. Typical, no doubt when the new edition "New Testament" comes out he will be everywhere doing book signings, film premieres, Hello magazine etc.
hkpho0ey 1 year ago
I counted. I found 52 FLAWS in Cameron and Comfort's arguements. This a perfect example of creationism resulting to lies, dishonesty, and ignorince. Cameron and Comfort may fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time.
oldblubblub 1 year ago
@oldblubblub I don't think it appropriate to take the responses of two men and generalize it to "creationism resulting to lies, dishonesty, and [as you spelled it] ignorince" Their arguments are indeed flawed but that doesn't make the overall argument flawed
smileypat77 1 year ago
@smileypat77 I know. But it seems like every 10 seconds, they make a scientific flaw.
oldblubblub 1 year ago
well, if after these 9 parts christians still want to believe that they are superior, they are deluded idiots.
but believing in sugar daddy up in the sky itself is idiotic, so...
DevilVlad93 1 year ago
Did they really need to bring in the anti-Americanism? Jeez it pisses me off, as an atheist, that our spokespeople are pulled from the most self-hating echo chambers, our university system.
He (or she) brought up a list of statistics about health and crime from the U.N., probably the most anti-American institution on earth, by bureaucrats who spend all their time comparing statistical apples to oranges to manufacture bogus evidence that our society, the freest and most generous ever, backward.
Christobanistan 1 year ago
@Christobanistan How is the US more free than all of the countries in western Europe, Australia, Canada and I'm sure many others that I haven't listed? I won't question the generosity of the US though.
djanheuser 1 year ago
@djanheuser No law, for instance, can be passed in the U.S. that limits private speech or religious expression, for instance. The personal right to own a weapon cannot be taken away, period. No 'human rights commission' can destroy the lives of those who publish books that criticize muslim behavior, as in Canda. Our government cannot ban muslim garb, as is done in France, ever. The list goes on, because our basic rights are not subject to whim, but are in our founding document.
Christobanistan 1 year ago
She's definitely not going to get people to come to her side acting the way she acted during this debate. You can believe in whatever you want but behaving like a condescending bitch will not make things easier for you. She seemed angry from the very beginning of the debate while everyone else was calm. Of course, the same thing goes for Kirk. If he wants people to believe in God, he won't achieve that by spreading false info (like the banana thing) and having ridiculous websites put up.
missymw88 1 year ago 3
plz let Hitchens and Dawkins debate these 2 bafoons. it would be as bad to the creationists as sarah palin's interwievs was to the republicans.
roeldata 1 year ago
The 21st century, and we still have to put up with retards and their skygods.
grundgemonster 1 year ago
Ridiculous "debate" where the other side just tried to whack people on the head with bible. Religious nonsense has had its run, hopefully we can leave it behind soon.
bary1234 1 year ago
I think that Ray has proven that God doesn't exist from his point about the Queen of England. I can physically see The Queen. Whether her photo is in a newspaper or a magazine. I can also travel to England and physically see her. Why does God have to hide from me?
evel74 1 year ago
I don't understand how Kirk and Ray and all the other creationists go on debating after continually crushing defeat. I would think at some point it would click in their heads that regardless of what they believe, the side they are debating can not and will not ever win!
SpittD 1 year ago
atheist win
abxvistro 1 year ago
'though seeing they may not see, though hearing they may not understand.'
annkaycee 1 year ago
Yes Kirk, but the Queen of England is a tangible, material person just like everybody else. Where do you go to find God, and which God? Since no two people have lived exactly the same lives, it then follows that no two people will share exactly the same ideas about God or anything else. There must be as many different Gods as there are as many different people.
yellowlucky70 1 year ago
Yes Kirk, but the Queen of England is a tangible, material person just like everybody else. Where do you go to find God, and which God? Since no two people have lived exactly the same lives, it then follows that no two people will share exactly the same ideas about God or anything else. There must be as many different Gods as there are as many different people.
yellowlucky70 1 year ago
thanks for the upload, shame tweedle dee and tweedle dumb couldn't acutally form an argument that make sence outside of bible says x, and since the bible is the word of god and the bible tells us its the owrd of god then it is the word of god.... we all know that arguemnt, wish there was a smart creationist, someone who could form an arguemnt out there... but i think that thats impossible since every one ive ever met has the IQ or ray and just follows his lead.
Spinobreaker 1 year ago
Im not saying i have the answer for every question, but at least im will to look instead of just closing my mind and saying 'awe well i dont know what did this, so some god did it"
Spinobreaker 1 year ago
Thanks for uploading. It was interesting to watch.
CHZPO3T1C 1 year ago
AAAugh! this was painful to watch! everytime kirk and ray made a ridiculous argument that even *I* could disprove, brian and kelly did NOT debunk them the way they should have! Oh well... I guess they were under stress with all those people watching them.
RuskePerson 2 years ago 2
i wasn't impressed at all with these atheists. we could have found people much better suited to defend atheism, but i guess if the opponents in the debate were kirk cameron and banana man, kelly and her childish responses would suffice
AmetdeathA 2 years ago
Thanks for posting this! It was entertaining to watch. I thought kirk said at the very beginning that they were gonna prove the existence of god using science. Well he failed lol. Quoting the bible to prove the existence of god doesn't quite cut it. This would have been a much better discussion with smart theists lol.
JesusFuck 2 years ago 2
haahahahahahah kirk is so dumb !!!
abrakadavra123 2 years ago
If Ray and Kirk said the combination Kelly's beauty and intellect were evidence of a god, it would've been a much stronger argument than anything they said, lol.
ostroucl 2 years ago 6
God dam she is hot and smart and independent, the perfect woman.
trevorllyle 2 years ago
If you go to Ray and Kirk's youtube channel and watch the same debate, you will not see the same thing. They have MAJORLY edited it to where it appears more that Ray and Kirk won the debate.
myteethareshiny 2 years ago
Okay, people...Why the fuck do we care what she does in her spare time? The issue is whether or not her points were VALID enough. I've seen enough ad hominem's for the evening.
SeaPrince10 2 years ago 3
who is that Kelly chick?
Oh boy she's hot!!!
inchaoswetrust 2 years ago
Atheist have a great shelf of evidence while religion has none.
And Kelly has a great rack.
TheNorthFuck 2 years ago 4
Oh yeah! She's fine as hell!
Oh... and uh... evidence and such...
myteethareshiny 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
all along history there has been people who denied the existance of God, so there is no surprise here with these two idiots, they are just part of that list, it does not matter that they are the perfect example of creation they will not believe, so let them, I dont care about them, in fact I shouldn't even comment on this, but i couldn't resist. poor idiots
MrOmar1961 2 years ago
Yes what fools they are - not believing in imaginary invisible sky people. How silly of them not to realise the world was puffed into existence by 'magic' and that they are watched over by an all loving magic man who has just chosen not to reveal ANY EVIDENCE FOR HIS EXISTENCE WHATSOEVER!
Foolish indeed.
trooperJac 2 years ago 24
But they do think it was banged in to existence by magic or "chance". There is NO proof for the big bang theory what so ever. Science is supposed to be based on facts. Where is the video for creation they claim. Oh.. well that happened before man came so we don't have it... What are the clear cut facts? They don't really know how it happened. It is the same faith as any Christian, it is your RELIGION. Like it or not!
chassr1 1 year ago
@chassr1 No you're wrong. There is plenty of evidence for a big bang, or rather - rapid expansion. Big Bang is a bit of a misnomer. Red shift, background radiation, the expansion of the Universe etc etc.
Just because we weren't there does not mean we cannot observe and measure effects. Faith is belief without evidence or in the case of many religions, in spite of it!
trooperJac 1 year ago
the atheists make me cry....they argue so hard and vainly...theyll wish so bad theyd of seen the truth before it was too late:'(
opositeway4ever 1 year ago
@opositeway4ever Time to wake up cyying one - these hard and vain atheists are going to the same place you are in the end!
This is the 21st century you're living in now - time to put away stone age myths and fairy tales.
trooperJac 1 year ago
@trooperJac Got proof it's a myth? Didn't think so. Anything dealing with origins of the universe or man is philosophy, not science, that means evolution and the big bang, too. Plus, the Bible is being proven often, prophecies have come true, and are coming true, and many miracles are being worked in Jesus name, even today.
Songwriter4God 1 year ago
@Songwriter4God Got proof of these miracles? Got proof of how the Bible is being proven? Didn't think so.
Big bang cosmology is a science not a philosophy but here's a tip for you. Say all the current theories concerning the origins of the universe turn out to be wrong, that doesn't mean that the bible is right. The bible is evidently a collection of common myths spread through oral traditions in a more primitive culture. World floods, men living in the bodies of fish, talking snakes et cetera.
trooperJac 1 year ago
@trooperJac Many eye-witnesses. Sad how you don't apply this to your own philosophy. Got any proof of man coming from ape-like creatures? Didn't think so. How the Bible is being proven, prophecies, I already told you. And apparently scientists are now saying Britain may have been formed by a tsunami around 8,000 years ago, shows atheist dogma how they reject a bigger catastrophe around the same time though.
Who said it was a snake? Common misconception, it only says serpent. Cont...
Songwriter4God 1 year ago
@trooperJac Cont: The Bible leaves serpent open for interpretation whether it was a snake or what. And it was possessed by Satan.
Didn't know matter suddenly doing something with a lack of outside force was science. It is a philosophy, did you watch it happen? No, thusly it's all assumptions. Yes, the universe is expanding, but that doesn't mean the big bang is true.
Songwriter4God 1 year ago
@Songwriter4God Ha, you're a fucking idiot. Not worth wasting my time on.
trooperJac 1 year ago
@trooperJac Whatever, go indoctrinate yourself more on Richard Dawkins and all those other brainwashing "scientist" high priests of Darwinism's lies, truth is truth, you can't change it whether you believe it or not. You just prove atheist dogma. I explained to you 100% facts, evolution and creation are philosophy, and it's not necessarily a talking snake. Also, you're not worth wasting my time on either.
Songwriter4God 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Songwriter4God No where does the Bible say the serpent was Satan.
xinic5 5 months ago
@opositeway4ever Believing that you'll go to hell if you don't live a religious life is no different than believing that if you leave work at exactly 6pm that you'll get hit by car. There's no evidence that either will occur, so why torture yourself with an irrational superstition. Wanting to live in a society where people are considerate of one another should be enough reason to be a good person.
djanheuser 1 year ago
@trooperJac R'amen
alienlifeform11 1 year ago
@trooperJac What fools you are believing in something there's NO EVIDENCE FOR YOU AT ALL. Understand presuppositions man, evolution is foolish, there's no solid evidence behind it or the big bang. Seriously, what makes God so foolish and doesn't make believing the matter that caused the big bang denying the laws of physic so foolish? Really, you guys never answer that.
Songwriter4God 1 year ago
@Songwriter4God
Prove creation is true. But to do that you still have to make use of the "EVIL NATURALISTIC METHODS" (scientific method and peer review) in order to do so.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
@NUTCASE71733 I love it when atheists tell you do something that's impossible on both evolution nor creation, and treat it like we deny science. We don't.Prove macro-evolution, using the "evil naturalistic methods." And, peer review means nothing for Creation/evolution, why?You guys are all extremists when it comes to bias against the Bible .The words of Answers in Genesis summarized "We reject large scale molecules to man evolution because it takes more than a lifetime, so we can't observe it."
Songwriter4God 1 year ago
Just because you can't observe it doesn't mean it isn't true. Fossils show life forms that died out long before humans came to be, but we know they are real since they have been tested and re-tested. But god cannot be tested so we can't say he exists or not because he is in the realm of the supernatural. Ironic how you choose his side over hard evidence as the idea of the supernatural is supposed to be "EVIL" in itself by fundamentalists. What does that tell you about your own vews on god?
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
@NUTCASE71733 You see, anything that attempts to explain the origins of either humans or the universe is not science, it's merely philosophy. Why? We weren't there to see it happen, I don't know how many times I can say this. You believe a bunch of small changes eventually accumulate large unobservable changes eventually leading to new species', but because that "takes a long time" (Just a dodge.) we can't observe evolution as you say it happens, thusly, it's not science. Go research.
Songwriter4God 1 year ago
kelly has great tits
TheRichieEffect 2 years ago 6
Kasey Grant. Google it if you haven't already.
araless 2 years ago
Indeed. As a porn star I have to question the validity of her contribution to the atheist perspective. I'm leaning in their favor, but her childish demeanor did little to endear me to her, even though I supported their view more than that of those Creationists.
GeneralThornton 2 years ago
She's a legalized hooker to.
Zain844 2 years ago
Arguing with rationality is frustrating. I don't think they were particularly rude at all.
SeaPrince10 2 years ago
I don't believe creationism and I'm an ignostic/ atheist, but I'd rather be a delusional Christian than be associated with those douchebags. It's just too bad they think that they have to be so rude to win the debate. It was unecessary in my opinion, because they made enough good points to do so without it.
mkygod 2 years ago 4
I agree, to point. They should've just presented their rational opinions and arguments - opinions and arguments I share, to an extent, just so you know! - not resort to petty, childish comments.
Finally, it's called a debate. You don't have to share the other person's opinion, but you can respect it, nonetheless. No need to get all rude.
GeneralThornton 2 years ago
A ghost raped me up the arse!!! BOOOOOOOOOOOO
lupitataquito 2 years ago
Instead of focusing on the non-existence of "god", the atheists might have done better to provide a scientific interpretation of Cameron and Comfort's mystical experience. "God" is very probably a cultural interpretation of the experience of "conscious" or audible inter-hemispheric communication within the human brain. So yes, others can also experience "god", but it doesn't necessarily lead to a Christian perspective.
I highly recommend reading the psychologist Julian Jaynes.
cbarcus 2 years ago 3
They never once focused on the non existence of god, they focused on the non evidence of god. And here's a very good and probably accurate interpretation of the experience of god, it's called "dreaming", yes it happens, some people see different things especially when they are depressed, which is usually the point where people turn to religion. I've seen pink flying elephants in my dreams, does that mean they exist and that it's proof they do?
Feralus69 2 years ago
@cbarcus Is what you're talking about also known by Carl Jung's work labeled as the "Collective Unconscious"?
Floridanon407 2 years ago
Perhaps roughly speaking, Carl Jung's concept is related. These ideas exist within working frameworks, and Jung's framework is antiquated, but I do believe he was trying to get at the same phenomena. At this point, I have not found a suitable substitute for Jaynes's work The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.
cbarcus 2 years ago
@cbarcus Ah, I unfortunately don't know very much on the topic, only took 2 semesters of psychology but what you mentioned rang a bell somewhat, I'll have to look into that.
Floridanon407 2 years ago
@Floridanon407
What I'm referring to is not commonly taught AFAIK. I also suggest checking out Boris Sidis' foundational The Psychology of Suggestion (1898), another forgotten Great Work. Fully ethical secular systems have evolved, grounded in scientific reality, using great art to promote empathy. I expect that the current set of global crises will solidify these views, and their foundations will become far better known.
cbarcus 2 years ago
"God is very probably a cultural interpretation of the experience of "conscious" or audible inter-hemispheric communication within the human brain"?
Doesn't this statement stem from atheistic presuppositions? Such an explanation for the experience of God is only probable if we start from the assumption that God does not in fact exist.
Victoruto 2 years ago
The presupposition is that the world is understandable, that its basic principles can be discerned. The human brain does not occupy some special area that is immune to scientific inquiry.
cbarcus 2 years ago
Given the truth of your worldview (atheistic materialism if I may guess), it is only understandable in principle. But this doesn't escape the tough questions of philosophy.
How do we make sense of the tools of reasoning that allow us to use "basic principals"? Do the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the laws of morality, and the immutability of mathematics make sense in a matter-in-motion world? Many worldviews undermine these tools while unjustifiably using them.
Victoruto 2 years ago
The atheists obviously won this one.
mikesinner69 2 years ago 6
I would love to see this debate done by 2 Muslims in a Mosque with Kelly and that guy. Or in a temple with a rabbi and a jewish believer.. Kirk and his buddy were nice enough to do this debate in a Church.
JACKOTACO 2 years ago
Hey ...Buddhist is Atheist...du u know that ?
nobody mentions....v still have good moral, happy and smile never fear the Christian's or u'r God hell. V gonna go to our hell or heaven..don't bring u'r missionary to Thailand..i will thank so much but u r duing in contrary....Down to u'r mission the sinner..
shawkarn 2 years ago
C&C power play strikes again, with this level of debating prowess you will certainly keep the Hitchens and Dawkins at bay. Powerful stuff guys, very powerful, i especially like the appeal again to pascals wager to top off the debate - very strong finishing move.
HadesKali 2 years ago
Both sides were awful. I'm an atheist, and I've heard the arguments of Kirk and Cameron once and again, and they could have been broken once and again with very concrete examples. I understand that the US is very religious and must be frustrating for atheists. I've read in a research that they got even more discriminated than the other groups that are traditionally discriminated against.
Sorry for language mistakes, English is my second language.
Blycho 2 years ago 6
Please explain how anything you believe proves that God doesn't exist?
chassr1 1 year ago
@chassr1 Tell you what, while I go off an prove that god doesn't exist, I'm going to need you to prove that your house isn't haunted by ghosts and that Middle Earth isn't a real place. The onus is on the theists to prove the existence of god, not the other way around. Why should people accept that something is true if there isn't any evidence to back it up.
djanheuser 1 year ago
@djanheuser I don't believe there's any evidence to back up evolutionism. I love how everyone talks about it like it's fact yet everything that "evolves" takes "millions of years." Yet people have only been around for thousands of years to keep records. What really gets me is their use of radioactive dating which is incredibly inaccurate. So the THEORY not law of evolution just makes me laugh.
jkneeland89 1 year ago
@jkneeland89 I don't believe I mentioned evolution. Rejecting the claim that God exists (due to lack of evidence) doesn't have anything to do with evolution. An atheist could reject evolution and still be an atheist. I accept evolution though. Also, with the knowledge we've gained about DNA & DNA sequences of various species on the planet, scientists claim that we no longer need fossils or carbon dating to support evolution. The sequence data shows a common ancestry between species.
djanheuser 1 year ago
@jkneeland89 We have Newton's and Einsteins theories of gravity. It's not 100% complete and sometimes it goes haywire with some events still failing to fit in the bounds of known gravity. So you reject gravity because it can't explain all 100%? Well you must, as it's not account in flyby anomaly, anomalous increase of the astronomical unit etc. Does gravity make you laugh also?
scrap222666 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jkneeland89 Please don't breed.
alienlifeform11 1 year ago
@jkneeland89 you have to wonder, given Darwin himself expressed doubts at his own theory which he knew was shaky in places, would he have rejected it today given the DNA structure and other more profound findings he didn't have access to.
If creationists are "idiots", imagine how much more idiotic is to think all the complexity around us came from simple cell. If it wasn't so absurd it would be funny. I personally feel pity every time the worlds "evolved" and "millions" is thrown around
mayi757 1 year ago
@mayi757 I hope my previous comment reaches you, I understand it's based on a lot of shaky scientific theories on electronics :-p
Please read up on evolution before you comment, I had the decency to research creationism before I did.
codhubiv 1 year ago
@djanheuser You can no more prove that God doesn't exist any more then I can prove He does! There is no burden on me to prove my beliefs. What bothers me is the hypocrisy among atheists! You guys complain about Christians (and only Christians) shoving their beliefs down your throats but you do the same!! You both use fear to get people to think the way you do. They talk of hell and you guys insult them (bully tatic). Any arguement you give is a theroy, not fact! Same as a theist!!
chassr1 1 year ago
@chassr1 Many atheists aren't making any claims, they're simply rejecting the claim that "God exists". Therefore, there's nothing for atheists to prove. However, if an atheist claims "there is no god", then I agree that evidence is necessary to support that claim. As for the hypocrisy, atheist aren't actively trying to take away rights from people (e.g. gay marriage), so I think it's perfectly reasonable for atheists to try to make the world more aware of the ill logic in believing in a god.
djanheuser 1 year ago
@djanheuser When did gay marriage become a "right"? Marriage is a religious ritual, why would you support any kind of marriage? The whole concept of marriage is a promise to God/s that someone is your partner for life. I disagree with the part of your post in which you say "atheist aren't actively trying to take away rights from people". Rights of believers of faiths have been under attack for a long time. How free are theist if they are not allowed to speak about their beliefs (1st Amendment)?
chassr1 1 year ago
@chassr1 There's a legal aspect to marriage that is isolated from religion (e.g. joint custody of kids, tax benefits, next of kin rights, immigration benefits), so by not allowing gays to marry, they're being denied these rights/benefits. I'm not gay, so it doesn't directly affect me, but since I don't view religion as being benign or purely beneficial, I do want to voice my concerns. I don't want to make it illegal to be religious or speak about it, but I also want the right to question it.
djanheuser 1 year ago
@djanheus The goverment should not be involved in marriage because it is a religious ritual. Seperation of chruch and state. I agree if a gay couple want to give next of kin rights to their partner they should be free to do so. But at the same token people think their in love when it's just lust and could create a major problem should they break up (like the Schiavo case). If both members of the marriage work they shouldn't get a tax break. Joint custody of kids has nothing to do with marriage.
chassr1 1 year ago
@djanheuser
and if religious figures/churches wanna use their pulpit to sway laws, then let them pay taxes to do so.
TeslaDRay 9 months ago
I'm a Christian and unimpressed with the whole debate, too. This debate was supposed to see Ray and Kirk bringing solid scientific evidence supporting the existence of God. I didn't see that. Their whole argument was "the world speaks for itself: it was created by a Creator". That wasn't SCIENTIFICALLY proven here. I'm disappointed when Christians only add to our incredibility like this. The atheists came expecting to have something to argue over, but the Bible kept being brought in.
Shadowsinger11 2 years ago 12
@Shadowsinger11
"I didn't see that."
You never will, Christian. Meanwhile, the evidence to the contrary exposes your Goddamned bullshit for what it really is.
lotanddaughters 1 year ago 17
@lotanddaughters
Just as your reply exposes your nasty form of intolerance. I would caution you about the difference between disagreeing with somebody and attacking them for the sake of an identification like 'Christian' (or if that's too far beyond you, other examples might be: 'black', 'female', or 'homosexual'), but you're obviously not very reasoned and certainly not worth my time or attention.
Shadowsinger11 1 year ago
@Shadowsinger11 I agree. It's the only reason they always call us uneducated ignoring science etc. People like Ken Ham are the ones that need publicity, he uses scientific evidence and the Bible when talking to Christians.
Songwriter4God 1 year ago
I'm an atheist.
Yet I regret to say that I much more enjoyed listening to the soft-spoken creationists than the atheists with the unprofessional attitude. This debate assured me to never follow anymore of these Rational Response squad folks in the future.
I'll always stick to Christopher Hitchens.
Kelly could've just sat there and not say a single word.
She still would've won all the points for her hotness.
What a pity.
rayray512 2 years ago
I also like richard dawkins and sam harris, havent look to much to hitchens or dan dennet, but um yeah i was dissapointed by the RRS in many ocations, i think even matt dillahunty from the atheist experience show, would have crushed even more these idiots.
Ryosuke1208 2 years ago
rayray512:
unprofessional attitude?
superwowie111 2 years ago
ok... "unprofessional behavior" or fucked up attitude.
Either one.
rayray512 2 years ago
by humble heart, they mean delude yourself.
renaudldw 2 years ago
Will i don't believe niether side of debate really. But i believe this much, that we are are not alone and have never been alone! Okay what i mean is, if we as human beings on this planet are lucky anuff to experience what we call life. What makes anyone think we don't have other lifes or a leap of faith if you will! bottum line is, we will all have to wait to find out? But i can say this and it's a fact! Life is short and we know best..so live it! and peace to all creatures on this planet..
20091cali 2 years ago
Ray and Kirk are acting out of compassion, even though they are ignorant. But I do feel that they could have gotten better Christians than Ray and Kirk, the debate would have been better.
AnonymousB2B 2 years ago
Kelly is awesome!
dogyear82 2 years ago 2
not to mention she's intelligent and attractive perfect woman.
canibalgofer 2 years ago 3
I thought she was annoying and condescending. They failed to address some of the lies that Kirk and Banana man were spreading and they sucked at answering alot of questions. They only look smart by comparison.
videosfromderelix 2 years ago 15
May I ask where the name "banana man" comes from? I hear a lot of people saying it, and it's lost on me.
TheTrueHappy 2 years ago
look up the videos about him on youtube.
videosfromderelix 2 years ago
He used the shape of the banana and how we can hold it easily to prove god....
it was embarassing
RJhasFLOW 2 years ago
Cant blame them, the guy in the middle cut them off and told them to be quiet when they tried to rebut what Kirk and Comfort were saying.
epona202 2 years ago 4
true but at one point it seemed like he was almost leading them to the right answer and they just couldn't phrase it right. I would still say they won simply because they were arguing actual logic but they could have found much smarter atheists somewhere. I guess they could find smarter Christians too though so i guess in a way its fair.
videosfromderelix 2 years ago
To an extent yes, i personally feel I'd have done a better job, but they spend their lives day in and day out hearing the same arguments over and over, so I can understand they annoyance, but really they got too emotional I thought. They didn't really have to do anything but point out flaws.
canibalgofer 2 years ago
Comment removed
BGSacho 1 year ago
Comment removed
BGSacho 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@videosfromderelix Yep, I think the "rational" squad made a mistake to ignore their starting premise - that they'll only attack the science of proving God. All they had to do was just come there and keep reiterating that none of it is scientific proof, after all, that's what the discussion was about, but they let kirk and ray to steer the debate into a different topic which they weren't prepared for.
BGSacho 1 year ago
@videosfromderelix condescending bc they had no arguments other than their own faith resting solely on Darwin and "millions and millions and billions" of years of "evidence" that says nothing. I'd be quite angry too...
Even the people on the audience pouted to hear Einstein himself believed there must be a God. Shows atheism is an efficient tool to dumb down societies to follow a sheep mentality as it was done by Russia, Eastern Europe, Cuba, North Korea. Eventually some man becomes their god.
mayi757 1 year ago
I support the arguments made by the RRS completely, but yeah, they did sound frustrated and condescending. In their defense, hearing the same faulty arguments day in and day out does have a tendency to make people frustrated.
cpp987 2 years ago 8
The truth is not always comforting and can be cold. Warm fuzzy God love might be nice but it does not make it true!
Christians spend all their time preparing for the future. The future does not even exist yet and even if it did, it does not even know they exist.
waheex 2 years ago 8
YAY science : )
Boo God bitch ass
that fuckin hoe piece of shit dirty rat bastard cunt twat.
phazon4 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
After watching this whole thing I'm left with the emotional impression that the Christian dudes; despite their silliness in arguing on the popular understanding of "proof;" that they care for the people they are addressing.
The "not-God" side comes off as frustrated, angry and condescending.
From this account, I'd rather be a Christian. So the Bible says that God loves me? I'm down!
Give it an honest shot.
finalmattasy 2 years ago
i have to say even though im not a christian that kelly lady was very disrespectful to ray in particular and very condescending. i think they should have picked a better pair of people to represent the atheist side.
headsupqueer 2 years ago
Exactly. Im an atheist but people like this just embarrass me. They use the same broken logic that the other side was using. The guy had a few good points but they were not very good at debating at all.
videosfromderelix 2 years ago
To put it bluntly, why assume that the future will be like the past? And why assume that the falling of one ball to the ground means that all will fall?
To appeal to our past experience and extrapolate it into the inexperienced is circular reasoning.
Victoruto 2 years ago
And I am sorry, but did I say you "terst inductive principles". No I said you could test the assertions made by induction, I can sit out on my porch in the morning and test my assertation that the sun will act in the same manner as it has 1.2 trillion times and rise.
The assertations are testable, the principle behind induction are more the belief in patterns and pragmatic application of those patterns where one can gain ability to make an informed guess on the repitition of said patterns.
HOLYdpsBATMAN 2 years ago
This is the beauty of the induction and science, there is nothing sacred. If a pattern does not hold up in any given occurence then there is absolutely no issue with discarding that series of events which were thought to be a pattern as a series of events that do not have the perceived pattern or order.
Science, via inductive reasoning, is a fluid ever-changing manner in which we can predict, and test those predictions, though it does lead to knowledge. But epistemology is another chat.
HOLYdpsBATMAN 2 years ago
You know, I enjoy discussing these things and all, but I'm not really interested in doing an in depth debate debate via YouTube commenting. It's just not made for this kind of discourse.
Victoruto 2 years ago
Then make a video, call it what you like and I will make a video response if you find written dialogue not stimulating enough for you, even theough exchanged correspondence was the means for debate for thousands of years.... try another medium. don't act above it all...
HOLYdpsBATMAN 2 years ago
Perhaps you misread my comment. I have nothing against written dialogue. I was specifically referring to YouTube commenting. These are deep philosophical subjects that demand lots of thought, detail, and length—something YouTube cannot provide. I have been in these conversations many times, and before long, we will be writing five, sex, or seven comments at a time. It gets to be ridiculous.
And honestly, I do not really have a desire to make a video. I'm not interested in debate games.
Victoruto 2 years ago
pardon the typo. "six" not "sex".
Victoruto 2 years ago
It's okay to say that your line of reasoning has run aground and that you feel you have absolutely nothing of merit to say.
There is no need to degrade medias due to your inability to defend what cannot be defended.
HOLYdpsBATMAN 2 years ago
Alright buddy, If that makes you feel better about yourself then go ahead and think that.
If you are that concerned with keeping your intellectual axe sharper than everyone else's (and pointed at God) then toss me a message via YouTube. But as far a commenting goes, you might as well try to Twitter a debate and see how far that gets you.
Victoruto 2 years ago
Nice. Victoruto makes a comment on youtube that starts a debate, (which anyone acquainted with the medium would have seen coming, but then again thats my "inductive reasoning" talking) then says he doesn't want to debate on youtube when his position is challenged.
twygally 2 years ago
I offered to continue the debate in a different format so we could further dive into the issues without a 500 character restraint.
Unless the discussions on YouTube are superficial (which perhaps is what you are interested in), it is difficult, if not impossible, to have philosophical discussion in such a format.
It will start with 1 comment box, then 2, then 3, then 4, and so on. Before long you are writing essays broken up into 500 character segments.
Victoruto 2 years ago
if you want proof of God you have to approach him with a humble heart, and untill then he will not reveal himself to you. I was a formal atheist untill I embraced the truth and it has set me free, and for that I thank Jesus. I hope you do the same my friends.
God Bless.
David2097 2 years ago
Hehehe... "formal atheist". I see Dawkins in a tuxedo.
twygally 2 years ago
great upload mate
wormeater1876 2 years ago
Thanks for uploading these.
TheSupremeSkeptic 2 years ago
the way of the master is crushed.
Steinap 2 years ago 3