Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort - REBUTAL!!

[Iconoclastithon]

Actually, it's about 16% I believe "non-religious", that does not neccaserily mean 'atheist". I includes Atheists, but also Agnostics, Deists, and probably even liberal theists.

Note: Not all atheists, agnostics, and deists are "non-religious" and not all religions are "theistic".

Anyways, I hope Comfort and Cameron get hit a by a fucking train! They are despicable pieces of evangifendy christian shit! And what they are dooing to Darwins "origin" book is fucking wrong! They are scum!

[joebot1]

the poll I saw showed specifically that ten percent of Americans where atheists, since then polls have shown this figure to have risen, the second poll only had none religions or an analogue of it, but the figure was about 26 percent.

[Iconoclastithon]

Well, I am skeptical of those polls and their results/claims.

[joebot1]

rightly so considering that you only have my word for it and no data pertaining to the nature of the studies and the manor in which the data was gathered!.

Being a sceptic is wonderful ;p

lol

I think the trend is simply a case of more people speaking out, more people feeling confident to state their opinion without fear of reprisal. The new atheist movement seems to be doing pretty well atm

[Iconoclastithon]

Indeed.

; ) Skepticism is key.

; )

"The new atheist movement seems to be doing pretty well atm"

It is. I however am more of a Deist than an Atheist. I'm an anti-theistic agnostic-deist.

I prefer to say 'Rationalist Movement"; including reason-based Agnostic-Atheists, Agnostics, and Agnostic-Deists, and also this can include anti-theists.

I see STRONG Atheism and STRONG Deism as 'faiths".

[joebot1]

I don't see how you can say that deism is any more credible than theism?. It doesn't worry me because it has no moral implications, but rational?

What's your reasoning?

Strong atheism is hardly a faith?, maybe a little misguided, but how is it a faith?.

[Iconoclastithon]

Hey there Joe;

Deism has more in common with Atheism than Theism; Deosts with Atheists or at least Agnostics, than with theists{generally speaking}.

The only thint that Deists and Theists have in common is they both believ in a Creator. In every other way, we differ. Like Atheists, Deists are reason based freethinkers. Theists have defined, knowable, anthropomorphic/centric sky-parent gods. Deists believe in a Creator force that is undefined, unknown, not personal

CONT...

[Iconoclastithon]

...CONT;

...non-personal/impersonal{or at most "transpersonal"}, not human like or human centered.etc.

Deism is based on reason and evidence observation, and loves scirentific method. Theism is based on faith, tradition, feeling, and so-called revelation[sometimes individual, sometimes group}.

Deism is credible as a theory because of a updated version of the fine tuning/anthropic principle{that is not "human"centered}, the mathematical preciseness of the universe, and possibly

CONT...

[Iconoclastithon]

....CONT;

...and possibly the hard problem of conciousness. I'm no scientist and not a very good philosopher but I would encourage you to lok at the weritings of Physicist Paul Davies, Einsteisn thoughts on the matter, even Stephen Hawking, and other physicists.

Anyways,. I'm not saying that STRONG Deism is valid. Like STRONG Atheism, it is also a faith. But Agnostic-Deism, like Agnostic-Atheism is a valid theory/view-leaning, Middel ground between the two "Agnosticism" is the

CONT...

[Iconoclastithon]

...CONT;

...is the logical de-fault. Agnostic-Atheism & Agnostic-Deism are both reason based belief "leanings" that do not contradicrt the evidence and things we currently know or logical/reasonable argumentation, given the few percentage of the universe that we currently understand, and the roughly 96% mystery that remains.

STRONG Atheism, like STRONG Deism requires 'faith" precisely because it is far too certain about something no one can possibly claim such certainty about.

[joebot1]

How is presuming that because the universe seems to have a certain number of unexplained critical vectors and variables that it must have been generated by some kind of an intelligence?.

there is still no evidence for the creator in any case, so how can this be called a rational world view?

I disagree that strong atheism requires faith, I just think that anyone that staters that their is no god and that that is a fact is simply not being objective. I have never met one anyway!.

[joebot1]

Er, Einstein was a scientific pantheist, so is Hawking, they are not Deists!.

None of these things can be called 'theories' there is no evidence for them and they do not explain anything. They don't even qualify as hypotheses!.

they are merely musings, labels we give to philosophical constructs, or names we give to the reaction or objection so said constructs ;p

[joebot1]

Er, no Deism is based upon a presumption that is based on a lack of our current scientific understanding.

There is no evidence for a creator, your simply using god of the gaps reasoning to justify your position.

[joebot1]

Yea...I know what I deist is man ;p.

[Iconoclastithon]

I'm through arguing this with you. I've allready expressed that STRONG Deism requires faith, but that agnostic-deism is a rational view, and stated the same thing about STRONG Atheism and agnostic-atheism. & I made a ghood case for this

Arguing with you strong atheists is like arguing with a wall

To quote Thomas Paine:

"to argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead"

But that's precisely what faith of any sort does top a person,deadans their reason

[joebot1]

Yea, you made your case and I dissagree with your reasoning.

no need to get snippy mate, chit we can disagree yet not fall out ;p

Take care!.4

[Lamerstu]

@Iconoclastithon right back at you

[BohemianBlasphemy]

Kirk goes around claiming that he was an atheist and an evolutionist. Yet, he shows the most ABSOLUTE ignorance about evolution AND the way of thinking of most atheists.

Actually, they came up with the crockoduck. Is there any clearer evidence of his complete lack of knowledge about evolution?

[AEVautomatic]

crocaduck evolution.  You cant even possibly understand where you are.

[deathbotv1]

I can't hear it exactly, did ray comfort quote TV GUIDE on that 96% statistic?

[tgillspy]

you believe that every that is came about by chance and from chaos this is self defeating since there is order in the world ...which involves observable phenomenon demonstratable and consistent by virtue of the evidence snowflake symmetrical structure a spider web a beehive hexagonal shape rainbow trout have patterned design ...have you ever a design that came about chance without meaning attached to it in an intelligent way ...name one

[joebot1]

"you believe that every that is came about by chance"

No, I don't!.

Your whole post is basically setting up what you see as a dichotomy, it is a false dichotomy because there are not just two choices, chance or design, there is a third option (there might be more, but none I can see) necessity!.

[joebot1]

In stead of TELLING me what I believe, why not ask, you clearly are making an argument from ignorance, why not just ask what I believe!.

Even Christian apologists like Calam recognize this third option in many of their arguments!

[AXELOPS]

You'll find out soon enough

[joebot1]

-no, I wont and neither will you!.

[AXELOPS]

we'll see

[joebot1]

no, neither of us will...

[AXELOPS]

Sure we will as one of use will be right and one will be wrong.

[joebot1]

ALL lines of evidence support my claim and if I am right (which I probably am) we will be dead and not conscious to know that I am right!.

[AXELOPS]

We'll see, is a figure of speech. However, yes if you are right then we will know no different. If I am right, I wouldn't want to be you.

[joebot1]

considering there is no good reason to think that your right, or the Muslims are right, or the jews are right, or any other theistic religion, I shall sleep well, thanks all the same!.

[tempemonkey2323]

Hasnt anyone ever read David Humes, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion? It completely destroyed the teleological argument hundreds of years ago....

[crimsonph34r]

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one that wasn't taken in by the smoke and mirrors of this crap. I don't believe in anything unless there's proof. I believe that there is only one truth but man will see it in different ways.

[no1saphead]

They feed each other with so much shit. Now they are both turds.

[plumber3dad]

So what is the the probability of a light sensitive cell appearing at any time. And Cams point seems to be concerning the building that the Bible is the narrative of the eye witness to the building. This kind of criticism is pretty shallow. The apologetic evidence is also reduces to a simplitic and childish sort of na nya nya na nah. As though you havn't seen it so it must not exist. Pretty weak

[joebot1]

I am confused...depending on how I read your post, it sounds like you both agree completely with me, or disagree completely lol???.

It's probably me just reading your syntax weird, but please clarify your points lol, just for my benefit, cheers!.

[plumber3dad]

Your right I do agree with some of your points. I agree that you are born an atheist. The bible declares it as well. The Apostle Paul I think said "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God." WE are born as you say against God i.e."Original sin" and such. Concearning evolution vs creation I was pointing out that Cam and Ray's point, although intellectual origin is unknown to me,is that the blueprints and the autograph of creation are there in the Bible. you havn't dealt with the ex.

[joebot1]

"Concearning evolution vs creation I was pointing out that Cam and Ray's point, although intellectual origin is unknown to me,is that the blueprints and the autograph of creation are there in the Bible. you havn't dealt with the ex."

Could you expand on this, of so I might well make a video covering the points you raised!>

Peace

[plumber3dad]

You would have to put in alot of parts but anyway. Their point is that the huge large probability of spontaneous generation of life and such lead us to believe that there must be a designer and thus they point to the Bible as his instruction manual so to speak.

I see now where you are coming from though. I have the privelage of a more private correspondance with you. You belive it and you are tired of trying to convince and explain to lazy people vomiting what some one told them to say.

[joebot1]

'Their point is that the huge large probability of spontaneous generation of life and such lead us to believe that there must be a designer'

right, so it has nothing to do with evolution then.

'You believe it'

no, I accept it, but am amiable to argumentation!.

'you are tired of trying to convince and explain to lazy people vomiting what some one told them to say.'

standing ovation!!! lol, yea, that pretty much sums it up!.

[trex257]

I swear to God, I hate Kirk Cameron and his crap. Whether I believe in God has nothing to do with this; I just can't stand it when Bible thumping idiots like these two guys spurt out.

[joebot1]

glad TO HEAR IT!!!.

It doesn't really matter what you believe to me, as long as your a good person and you don't interfere with scientific progress!!.

Peace!.

[marcluc1988]

The Darwin quote can be seen as taken out of context. They're to make it sound like Darwin himself denies the plausiblity of his theory when in reality, he does not. He continues to explain the evolution of the eye but they don't want you to know that.

[Domzdream]

Ha ha ha. The eye theory. They just cannot leave that one alone. Or their favourite: the painting needed a painter.

[Hollenthon2468]

This is too amusing, thanks for sharing.

[CousinoMacul]

Yes!  That is BY FAR the best rebuttal of the banana argument!

[ivarbt]

When Kirk Cameron says he used to believe in evolution, it just shows how gullible he is. That he believed in his pathetic straw man version of evolution, is evidence that he just swallows whatever shit he is told.

[tribidemp]

Please don't call them tits. I like tits, and I don't like them.

[Annausagi2]

Kirk Cameron went to school, my ass...

What's really sad is that those two morons seem to think that society will fall apart if the majority turns atheist.

Me? I live in Sweden (thank god...lol), one of the most "god-less" countries. And for some reason the crime rate is way lower than in the U.S (percent-wise, of course.)

Mr. Cameron and Mr. Comfort need to meet a real atheist. Or just get a brain. Either one works.

Maybe.

Ok, at least the second one will work.

[creepsomber]

Hehe, go tell HumbleOrthodox that there is a compound definition to the word "atheist". I think you will have fun tangling with him, and I'd kind of like to see it!

Another great vid, Joe!

[pixelatedxdeath]

hahaha, shush you devout Atheist! At least Joe understands it! Great video... cracked me up!

[howlinggoat]

Slimy bastards. I'd love to punch them right in the jaw.

[zoxovox]

Albert Einstein

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism."

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."

[zoxovox]

Albert Einstein

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religion than it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

"I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."

[zoxovox]

1.

The following is of course taken out of context as you mentioned.

Charles Darwin acknowledged the inadequacy of evolution when he wrote, To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. (Darwin 1872).

[zoxovox]

2.

The quote is taken out of context. Darwin answered the seeming problem he introduced. The paragraph continues, Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; ...

[zoxovox]

3.

and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; ...

[zoxovox]

4. but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872, 143-144)

Darwin continues with three more pages describing a sequence of plausible intermediate stages between eyelessness and human eyes, giving examples from existing organisms to show that the intermediates are viable.

[joebot1]

Good man, I would have left the quote but i had already started the video!

[tiggeromega]

WeHEEE! Nice rebuttal!

[TheJacolyte]

What's funny is...

He says, after looking at the evidence, it takes more faith to be an atheist.

Faith = belief without evidence.

So how is it that more evidence means more faith?

I thought evidence was supposed to eliminate faith.

[h8uall66]

Pots of gold are absolute proof of Leprechauns.

[lucidatheist]

Good job buddy! LOL

Nice Slacks.