Ray Comfort VS Sam Tyler-Smith God/Evolution Debate March 18 2009 Part 1/8

[mamainmancj]

Creation=creator. Order and design demands a designer. The information written on our DNA demands an Inteligent mind. To say that everything comes from nothing is just insulting yourself. All have sinned ie lieing, stealing, blasphemy, fornication, hatred, murder, rape etc. One sin is enough to deserve hell God is that good. Repent turn from sin and trust in Christ and you will be saved!!!

[TheMrgoku1985]

@mamainmancj

Creation=proof of Allah

[thomaseshuis]

@mamainmancj "Order and design demands a designer."

1. Proof that the universe is ordered.

2. Proof that a creator is required for that 'order'.

"The information written on our DNA" What information? And it isn't 'written' at all.

"To say that everything comes from nothing is just insulting yourself." That's not what every atheist nor biologists says and therefore a straw-man argument.

Furthermore your designer made everything from nothing.

[thomaseshuis]

@mamainmancj "All have sinned" And your evidence for the existence of sin is?

[Stitchman3875]

Sam and Ray, 2 fools in a debate. Rather entertaining like watching Jerry Springer.

[MorganMarvinson]

Wait a second, didn't Sam get introduced as a published author and a student in religious studies? Why should he waste his time on something he doesn't believe is true? Whose paying the bill?

[BathTubNZ]

@MorganMarvinson What? You can only do 'Religious Studies' if you believe X religion is true?

[MorganMarvinson]

@BathTubNZ Well, you do make a good point. He may actually be enamored with Islam or Hinduism or Wicca and therefore believing the Bible would not be a given (although that probably wouldn't be true of Islam who supposedly have respect for the Bible).

[MrKevMan]

@MorganMarvinson

I study things to understand them. Sun Tsu suggested doing the same thing. Know your enemy, know yourself. Athiests tend to know more about the bible than christians.

Case in point, god tells peaple to eat shit.

Ezekiel 4:12

And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.

Ephesians 6:5

Slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ.

[MorganMarvinson]

@MrKevMan KNOW YOUR KINDLING. I think you misunderstand how God means for them to use human dung. Animal dung was often used as fuel for fires since it still contains a lot of combustible fiber. In this case God was requiring them to use human dung as the fuel for their oven fire--not as an ingredient in the barley cakes. With the high fiber diet of the Bible, it would burn about as well as animal dung.

When one is unfamiliar with Biblical backgrounds, it is easy to misconstrue a Biblical text.

[MrKevMan]

@MorganMarvinson

So these people were so dumb, they needed to be told what to burn to heat food, and these are the same people you trust to convey the most important information of all time accurately? And why not use animal dung?

You didnt mention anything about the slavery? Im sure you have a spin for that one too. Let me guess, slave means something different than an indentured servant. I do love a moving goalpost.

[MorganMarvinson]

@MrKevMan Not understanding the context of what you are dealing with, you're stepping in the "stuff" again. Read the whole passage and you will see that Ezekiel was to act out ("thou" is singular) a message of judgment to come. Just look at the next verse.

Ezek 4:13 (KJV) And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.

"You didnt mention anything about the slavery?" One point at a time.

[MrKevMan]

@MorganMarvinson Ok. You win. God had to take the time to tell people how to make bread. ("Children" is plural) Great. Im not moved by this at all.

How can the perfect, timeless, complete word of god require external contextual support to interprate it correctly?

All in all, i have not seen any demonstrable evidence of the existance of your, or any other god.  All logical arguements for the existance of god fail.

[MorganMarvinson]

@MrKevMan "How ... to interprate it correctly?" Just like any other written statement, you cannot understand it correctly by taking one sentence out of context.

[MrKevMan]

@MorganMarvinson

You can simplify it as much as you want, but the fact remains that the bible cannont stand up on its own. If you need external references from that time period, then the bible is not timeless and many precepts do not apply to modern life.

That and the fact that the whole notion of god is pretty childish and no one has ever demonstrated proof of the existance of any god, let alone your all powerful one.

[MorganMarvinson]

@MrKevMan Try to invent something wrong, if you like, but you are the one who didn't bother reading the next verse.

It isn't that complicated.

Instead of making stuff up, why not open your heart and mind to what it is really saying? That would be worth our while. Otherwise, this conversation is going NOWHERE.

[MrKevMan]

@MorganMarvinson

Actually yes it is that complicated. Based on your statement, thinking isnt your strongest suit. Stick to religion. All the thinking was done for you.

[MorganMarvinson]

@MrKevMan Religion is just what we have been discussing, and, in the course of our discussion, you made something up (or perhaps just repeated something you have read) without reading the verse in its context.

It wouldn't have taken that much thinking to understand the point being made, if you had read the verse immediately following the one you cited.

[MrKevMan]

@MorganMarvinson

Uhh. I made nothing up, but nice CYA with the 'repeated something read' remark.

The point is, how can an absolute be contextual?

Gravity is an absolute. In no context does gravity not work, even anti gravity is based on working against the absolute.

If gods word was absolute, it would not be able to be taken out of context, there would be no different interpretations because it would be the same from all persepectives, like a sphere.

[MrKevMan]

@MorganMarvinson

I did read the verse prior and following, In fact i read the whole chapter, again. I did that once back when i went to a born again xian school using the Accelerated Christain Education workbook system for 8 years.

If you had read it, and thought about what you are told the bible is suppost to represent, youd see how it has nothing to do with salvation or gods plan according to the 10 commandments or any other precept the church rests on. Useless, antiquated crap.

[MorganMarvinson]

@MrKevMan "I did read the verse prior and following ..." Then you have no excuse for the stuff you made up. Then to go on and on about it--especially after I pointed out what it is plainly saying--really leaves you in an awkward position.

You almost acknowledged your misperception, but then, apparently decided not to turn back. Well, I can't help you in your current frame of mind. If you are willing to acknowledge what the passage is plainly saying, we could continue.

[MorganMarvinson]

@MrKevMan "Antiquated crap" grows some of the best tomatoes! Don't you dare call it useless! ;)

[bigguitar22]

This is a really popular debate - not! Ray Comfort is a real crowd puller dont you think? I think he has a career as a stand up if he can just laugh at himself a bit more. Everyone else does Ray you're a funny guy!!!

[itsnolongeri]

the statement "There is no god" is proposed without evidence, thus can be dismissed without evidence, "extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence" i agree, that the complexity found everwhere come from blind chance is so improbabile that i would need to see extrordinary evidence to believe it. Evolutionj certainly doesnt have mathimatic's on it's side, or logic imo.

[BathTubNZ]

Anyone who thinks Evolution is blind chance is simply telling everyone they don't know the first thing about science.

[itsnolongeri]

@BathTubNZ evolution and origins are almost always linked in the same debate, evolutionists are usually pro athiest because they believe everything is contained in a naturalistic system, if this is true then origin has to have arisen the same way since there is no room for the supernatural, thus we come to the nobody + nothing =everything:) i dont need to be a proff in science to understand rudamentary logically problems.

[Hardysamnin]

@itsnolongeri - So what you are in fact saying is "Nothing + God = everything" ? then.

And science has never claimed either of the, "everything from nothing," or "everything is blind chance," that is not what they claim. They are just assertions, that religious people attatch to them.

What i don't understand is why people need a final answer right now. What's wrong with saying, "We don't know that yet, and possibly never will" ???

Taking the "God did it route" seems a cop out to me.

[truckcompany]

@itsnolongeri

I've heard this argument so much times from Christians that its becoming ridiculous. Why do they assume that evolution comes from blind chance?

Isn't it against Christianity to lie about this? I just can't work out how someone can be so hypocritical.

Do you simple just don't know how evolution works or something?

[itsnolongeri]

hey @truckcompany so youer saying that there is intelligence behind evolution? In the case of origin's if there is no designer/maker/director then what is it you are appealing to? I am not lieing, this is just where logic lead's imo, btw how can you try to hold anyone to a moral standard if you are an athiest?

[bobisterbezreal]

We hold people to moral standards because that's what logic leads to saying makes everyone happy, and makes a good society, douchebag. How can you hold anyone to moral standard that's dictated by a God for whom there is no evidence, because this will be a moral standard chosen arbitrarily which you have no right to impose on anyone else. Objective morality beats "I reckon God will not like this" morality.

[truckcompany]

Arr I see. So you just don't understand. Well I'll explain for you (Very quickly) then before you so it doesn't appear as though your lying to people from now on.

Just because something is complex doesn't mean there must be any intelligence behind it. Now a perfect example of this is a snow flake.

If you look at a snow flake under a microscope it is highly complex and very beautiful. Does this mean that an intelligence MUST of created it? Certainly not!

Any more questions?

[itsnolongeri]

@truckcompany lolz nice circular reasoning, a snow flake? great example, since i believe ALL thing's have been creted by an intellegent designer im surprised someone claiming to be intellectually superior would think this would be an argument. Lol you did give me a giggle thanx for that bro. Any more questions? you asked, lol why ask another when you didnt awnser the first one. Please reread the question an try again, look forward to hearing from ya.

[truckcompany]

Grrr you don't understand the point.

You have said that "In the case of origin's if there is no designer/maker/director then what is it you are appealing to?"

You believe that because something is complex that must mean it was designed.

My snow flake example was to demonstrate that just because something is complex (Or looks like its designed) doesn't mean that there is a designer.

By the way. God didnt create a snow flake. lol. You really think he created them one by one???

[thelegendarypaki]

There is a good lecture by PZ Meyers called "Design vs. Chance"on youtube. He pointed out that complexity is usually what happens naturally and it is also "messy". However, the things that are"designed" are designed with a purpose in mind and tend to be simplistic. Think of natural things vs. artificial things. Human made obejects are simpler compared to natural objects. So complexity does not prove design. You can look it up on youtube, it a good lecture.

[Holly1389]

@thelegendarypaki

I actually went to his lecture in Burbank and saw it for myself. Great lecture! Loved his slide show :D

[YeahItsKurt]

And you certainly don't have spelling on your side.

[itsnolongeri]

@YeahItsKurt , agreed.

[azmanabdula]

@itsnolongeri "the statement "There is no god" is proposed without evidence"

ok evidence....EVIDENCE.......we find evidence for almost all laws of nature, tide, fire,birth,agriculture,etc , but there is no evidence of god, thus ,in our evidence no signs of god are found,not even a trace!

I propose their has to be evidence to claim existence (im sure you have all heard this)

FURTHERMORE what evidence could prove god, and how? (by the way im no offence intended)

[itsnolongeri]

@azmanabdula Hey i think you are simply missing the obvious evidence... the complexity of creation, design is so evident that the mathimatical chances of what we observe coming to be by selective gradual non-guided naturalistic systems that somehow magically appear from nowhere is imo absurd, but if you guys think its rational then what can anyone say... design implies a designer, thats what we observe, thats scientific:)

[azmanabdula]

@itsnolongeri whats so obvious about creation? the fact everyone is arguing about it? "mathematical chances"  if you play the game poker chance always is at hand, and if you say its impossible to get a royal flush, then you have undermined the game, just like out of the entire universe (more math than an individual "species" can handle at any given moment) Isnt it possible simple self replicating molecules, (which do exist by the way)can change into to cells, to multicell, to intelligence!

[itsnolongeri]

@azmanabdula Hey, im assuming you havent looked in to the problimatic arguement of life evolving from non-life, there are plenty of vids on you-tube with interessting info about the problems there, also the complexity of things like the human cells is so incredible that statistically it is in the realm of impossible, could anything happen given enough time? The awnser is a resounding no. Please look into the argument before commenting, a poker game is somthing quite different, cheers.

[azmanabdula]

@itsnolongeri first you have to assume life arose in an environment such as today, which couldn't be the case. "he human cells is so incredible that statistically it is in the realm of impossible, could anything happen given enough time? The answer is a resounding no." how did you come to this conclusion? do you not realize the universe is VAST beyond thought. also if you assume god made these chemical reactions, then why not skip to the point of humans?  lets just figure it out, without god

[christonx88]

@itsnolongeri actually it has both ,try reading sucker

[brownbigb]

@itsnolongeri god is the extraordinary claim. you misunderstand logic, but it is not surprising. the positive assertion has the burden of proof. atheism is simply the rejection of the claim that god exists, until a god can be defined, and measurable, verifiable evidence of its existence is shown. mathematics has nothing to do with evolution, and logic, well don't talk about things you don't participate in, or understand what it is.

[brownbigb]

@itsnolongeri so can you demonstrate a measurable, demonstrable, verifiable manifestation of what you consider god? btw intelligent design denotes simplicity, the more intelligent the designer, the simpler the design. so the inherent complexity in the universe is really not evidence for the existence of a god, rather against it. unless your god is an incompetent designer.

[templar19]

@itsnolongeri Some corrections to your claim: "the statement "There is no god" is proposed without evidence, thus can be dismissed without evidence". It should have read: "the statement "There is no god" is proposed without evidence of GOD, thus can be dismissed only WITH evidence of GOD."

[Redfoot208]

Wow that debate is crackin. There are like at least 1,000 ppl in the audience.

[scruethedemiurge]

Any talk about an "evolution/creation debate is bullshit. There's no debate. There is on one side the scientific community who are constantly upgrading our understanding of life and the world and the universe, modifying our world view, bringing it always closer to the truth. And then you have a bunch of muelish fundies who go around shouting "There aint no such thing as evolution", because they're too emotionally attached to some 4000 year old creation myth to consider anything else.

[itsnolongeri]

@scruethedemiurge wow how openminded of you, lol, atleast you arnt closeminded to the argument's, three cheer's for objective free thinking:)

[venomfangEND]

Ray Comfort's god seems to have a serious case of agoraphobia. Why would a perfect, omnipotent god be so painfully SHY?

And why would a just god reward conviction without substantiation (faith), and send everyone else to eternal punishment, particularly those that dare ponder their rational doubts?

A benevolent god wouldn't do that, and that's all the logic anyone should need to see that religion's terminal weakness --its undetectable magic god-- can't be ignored by anyone with integrity.

[CapatinCaviar]

Lol crawlersilverwind your argument is all hot air. You have yet to present any evidence for your claims there is a God. God is as likely as a Pixie living at the bottom of my garden, just because I can do disprove it does not mean you can prove it. Do you really believe that an Omnipotent God would create life and give it intendant thought and them condemn them for question him even though he has provided no proof. Seems a bit short sighted for someone who claims t be Omnipotent.

[irishmauddib]

Of course according to crawlersilverwind there must be pixies, because millions of people today and in the past have believed in them. And you don't need evidence if you can get enough people to say its true, LOL

[ZShort1985]

That's the only argument one should hear to not believe in god. unfortunately, people are so indoctrined and afraid of "hell" that they'll continue to believe ridiculous shit their whole lives. props, brother.

[crawlersilverwind]

"You say its there, but you can not tell me what it is."

God is not viewable because HE is POWER and SPIRIT in nature. Your premise is not valid.

"Remember once 100% of people thought the earth was flat. Does that mean it was?"

Not 100% But there's a verse in the bible that the world is a sphere. The humble beginnings of science didn't know that

the bible did.

"So, as I said, no evidence here."

But the great vast majority of people past and present attesting there is God.

[irishmauddib]

Youve taken to replying to me in new comments without the reply button so I dont get email alerts. Very brave of you.

I repeat: It does not matter how many people say it is true. This does not make it true. If you got 1 billion people to say trees were pink, trees would not suddenly turn pink.

Get on google and look this up. Your mistake here is called "Argumentum ad populum fallacy" and it fails miserably.

So have you got any evidence or Argumentum ad populum all youve got to show me?

[crawlersilverwind]

"Youve taken to replying to me in new comments without the reply button so I dont get email alerts. Very brave of you."

You are very wrong. You don't have to put malice on this come on. Youtube is weird sometimes.

"Argumentum ad populum fallacy"

This is a fallacy itself. Make new strategy.

Humans are divided in many issues in life but not with God exist. Because it is proven whether you like it or not to billions of billions of people past and present.

No God? Prove it!

[irishmauddib]

False, you can go into All Comments and see that it is a new thread, not a reply. I also received no email. So now on top of cowardice you have added outright lies.

So again I ask, have you any evidence except for Argumentum ad populum fallacy? You have shown no evidence yet. Still waiting.

[crawlersilverwind]

"False, you can go into All Comments and see that it is a new thread, not a reply. I also received no email. So now on top of cowardice you have added outright lies." WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL HERE!!!

You are really confusing yourself badly. Again you are really good accusing somebody but you are the guilty one.

Where is your evidence there's no God?

That' why your "Argumentum ad populum fallacy" is a fallacy itself because you've got nothing.

[irishmauddib]

I dont like cowards or liars. Ive pointed it out, I caught you doing it, and now Ive moved on. I suggest you do the same

Why do I need evidence there is no god? I never claimed this. youre asking me for evidence for something Ive never said!

If theres no evidence FOR a god, I merely proceed without the assumption. The same way we proceed without thinking aliens are abducting citizens.

So, since youve shown no evidence, I hold no belief in a god. When you get evidence come back to me.

[crawlersilverwind]

"I dont like cowards or liars. Ive pointed it out, I caught you doing it, and now Ive moved on."

Ridiculous. You really sound so paranoid.

"Why do I need evidence there is no god? I never claimed this.?"

So, there is God. Okey good.

"If theres no evidence FOR a god,"

There's lots. Contact your ancestor they know it.

"I hold no belief in a god." But you never said there's no God. You don't have the nerve to say it straight that there's no God.

Precisely there's God.

[irishmauddib]

"So, there is God. Okey good."

Again, I never said this. You just love to change peoples words all the time dont you? Just changing my words, over and over, then claiming you are not and then not presenting an ounce of evidence there is a god. Youre just trolling now.

[irishmauddib]

At the end of the day, if there is no evidence to support a suggestion, then we must proceed without that suggestion. This is what we do in most areas of discourse. It is only with gods that people try and reverse that.

There is no need to prove there is no god, or to find evidence against it. If there is literally no reason being offered to think there is, then we proceed without the idea. That is all.

[crawlersilverwind]

"if there is no evidence to support a suggestion"

God is not a suggestion. It is the absolute truth. Billions of people will attest. U have none.

"If there is literally no reason being offered to think there is, then we proceed without the idea."

Billions of reason being offered. But you still proceed without the idea.

Theism always wins in the formal debates against Atheism. Why if we don't have good reason to present? There's lot of undeniable reason that's why many believe there is God.

[irishmauddib]

Then tell me the reasons. All you have is "Argumentum ad populum" which fails because it does not matter if one person believes it, or 1 billion people believe it, that does not make it true. Do you have anything else but this fallacy to back up your position?

[ColinRayko]

FIrst off at the most Christianity might have just over 2 Billion believers so you are barely right about your first claim.

Second theism NEVER wins in formal debates. There are no undeniable reasons and I feel you know that seeing as you presented exactly zero of said reasons.

[crawlersilverwind]

"Why do I need evidence there is no god? I never claimed this.?"

1. You do not claim there's no God. Okey. 2. But also you never claim There is God. Which one really you claim?

Set the record straight here! You are the coward here. If there's no God say it straight. Why you don't have the nerve to say there is no God if God really didn't exist?

[irishmauddib]

Your mistake is thinking one must believe there is or there isnt. This is false. You can merely dismiss an idea as useless without belief either way

For example, I can not prove there is not UFOs and alien abduction. However since there is no evidence there IS alien abduction, I do not suggest an alien defense fund with our tax, or I do not avoid going into fields at night. I merely dismiss the idea as it has no evidence.

The same with your god. You have given no evidence so I dismiss the idea

[crawlersilverwind]

"You can merely dismiss an idea as useless without belief either way"

1.You dismiss the idea that THERE'S NO GOD. (it makes there is God)

2. You dismiss the idea that THERE IS GOD. (it makes there's no God)

It only MEANS your ATHEISM is just an ABSOLUTE DUMB PROPAGANDA. Pathetic. You don't have any STAND at all that makes you an ABSOLUTE NOTHING.

You waste your time fighting for NOTHING.

ATHEISM A BIG BIG JOKE!! AND EMPTY!

You have nothing to offer just NOTHING!

[irishmauddib]

So no evidence here either. Still waiting.

[crawlersilverwind]

The evidence here are you are outclass my friend. Sorry. This is too much for you.

Maybe in some other topics you can outclass me.

[irishmauddib]

No evidence in this comment either, just patting yourself on the back for something you havent done. Still waiting.

[Slacktoo]

ahahahah there are like 2 people in the theater

[BathTubNZ]

When the photo was taken? sure, oddly enough Sam kind of got there early. If you listen to the whole thing you will hear plenty of people.

[blackwolf1272]

The only people who think Ray wins debates are people who start believing every word he says anyhow and, more importantly, are not honestly interested in truth enough to care to investigate the facts.

[truvelocity]

Exactly.

[canuckman87]

Moron then we can just ask you where did GOD come from?

[crawlersilverwind]

Ray Comfort clearly won here.

Evolution no actual proof throughout human history. Atheism absolutely fraud.

15 billion years ago big bang happened. Where is the evidence of that? Are there historical accounts on big bang, atheism fraud? If Theist are laughable, atheism is laughable 15 billion times and with a 15 billion times of faith.

Nothing to something and everything were just accidents? Atheism is 15 billion times a laughing stock and an idiot.

[BathTubNZ]

Not only is this completely nonsensical, what does The Big Bang have to do with Atheism? But you're spamming it too.

[crawlersilverwind]

Big bang is one of the atheism arguments to justify the beginning of life. This was 15 billion years ago. Wow. Atheism is not just delusional nuts, but also has 15 billion times of faith.

[BathTubNZ]

Er, you know it was a Catholic Priest who came up with the Big Bang Theory right? Atheism has nothing to do with it. Just like Atheism has nothing to do with making your PC work, or your Car work. Just because you have a religious dislike of some element of Science, doesn't suddenly make it Atheism.

[crawlersilverwind]

However, you are not refuting that Big Bang is not one of Atheisms argument. Yes. Atheism has something to do with it. Atheism used the theory like a whore to justify the beginning of life.

You can't deny this one.

[BathTubNZ]

You just aren't making any sense. The Big Bang Theory is a description of HOW something happened, the expansion of the Universe. Not WHY. God existing or not has nothing to do with it. Some people might say 'well we now know this doesn't require God' but I don't know of a single person who thinks the Big Bang Cosmological model proves there is no God. And of course many Christians just think that's how God did it. OldEarthCreationist, and TheistEvolutionists and even some YoungEarthCreationists

[crawlersilverwind]

Still you didn't refute it. Yes. There are Theist Evolutionists but you forgot... still these people believe in God. Unlike Atheism relies on this theory alone just pops up into being from nothing to something, it's just an accident without purpose.

[BathTubNZ]

You've just conceded that the Big Bang Theory doesn't require a disbelief in God. God is irrelevant to it. If people have said to you 'The Big Bang Theory disproves God' They are morons. Do I need to make it any clearer for you?

[crawlersilverwind]

Nope. I don't concede because that's not my argument. My argument was Atheism is using this theory to substantiate their existence without a Creator just pops up into being from nothing to something, it's just an accident without purpose. And You didn't refute it.

[BathTubNZ]

You mean appart from the whole "If people have said to you 'The Big Bang Theory disproves God' They are morons. Do I need to make it any clearer for you?" thing?

[crawlersilverwind]

All those atheist that justifies there existence with the Big Bang came from nothing etc..etc... that I suspect you agree that they are morons, and of course they are. You need a 15 bill. Times of faith to pull that one. Definitely, those atheists are morons.

So, what is your version of how the universe came to being without a Creator?

[p0rkch0ps]

I'm not even going to pull you up on your atrocious spelling and sentance structure... Anyone can plainly see you're not going to learn any time soon. But I will pull you up on - "The big bang came from nothing"

This is absolutely wrong, there was nothing before the big bang... But who said the big bang came from nothing. You obviously have no idea of what you're debating. I would insist you either go learn what you're debating about or stop, as you're making yourself look like a total fool.

[crawlersilverwind]

Atheism preached that. From nothing to something. I agree that's absolutely wrong.

"But who said the big bang came from nothing" Atheist of course. Like Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and may others heard that on their debates.

If Big Bang came from something what is that something? What is your evidence of that?

[junihibiki]

Ray Comfort is the cause of the big bang. He spoke, thousands heard, and all slapped their forehead simultaneously.

[bigboss025]

@ crawlersilverwind,

read most of your comments, just repetitions after repetitions of the same argument against Big Bang, not that I have any evidence to say it's absolute truth, as it's only an hypothesis for now.

[bigboss025]

What I find irritating is that you accuse Atheism using this specific theory like whore to promote its cause. Really, it's not. It's just that we Atheists believe in stuffs with evidences to support its claims. The theory of evolution, gravity, and many other scientific theories fall into this category, not some mumbo jumbo telling me to just believe whatever it's said in that little black book.

[bigboss025]

And Big Bang might be rejected or being proven in the future as scientists find new evidences. But for now, with whatever findings we got, this is one interesting possibility.

So you sir, before calling people using available evidences to make a claim nuts, you should really consider helping those who just want to die to make their 2000 y.o. delusion reality to see a psychiatrist.

[irishmauddib]

"Atheist of course. Like Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris"

Quote and source please. They also do not say something came from nothing. YOU are saying it, not them. So please, link to your source of them saying it.

[crawlersilverwind]

Watch lots of debates. You will hear that.

[irishmauddib]

So in other words you can not link me to any of it. You cant tell me where you heard it. Nothing. You just say "go find it".

No way, no how, no thanks, next. If there is so many debates with it, then point me to one exactly where it is said. Otherwise it appears you are just making it up.

I have no time for someone who, when you ask them for evidence they just say "Oh the evidence is there, just go look for it" "where?" "oh out there somewhere, you just arent looking".

Puh-leeese

[crawlersilverwind]

I didn't document or memorize every info I encounter in my life. But for sure I've heard that. Watch TUREK VS. HITCHENS they tackle that the "nothing to something'". Hitchens was really avoiding that part and also Watch Dr. Craig debates.

In a formal debate, I watched atheists can't set the record straight that they didn't come from "nothing". However, atheists on youtube they are denying that part. However, in a formal debate they don't have the nerve to deny it.

If not nothing, where?

[irishmauddib]

So it is in LOTS of debates but you cant find a single example of it? Thats funny. You can be "sure youve heard that" all you like, that doesnt make it so. The reason Hitchens was "avoiding" it, is because it is not his position and he has never claimed it was. We all avoid words that people are trying to put in our mouth. So stop making up words these people have never said, and you cant find them saying, and start addressing what they actually HAVE said.

[irishmauddib]

"If not nothing, where?"

Let me help you then and tell you what are position ACTUALLY is, not what you THINK it is. ALL we know is that the universe in its current form came from a singularity of infinite mass and density. (Infinite mass being the total opposite of nothing by the way, hence me saying that no atheist on here is claiming something came from nothing).

Where that came from, we do not know but we want to find out. Thats the mystery, and its exciting trying to work it out.

[crawlersilverwind]

Part: 1

"Where that came from, we do not know but we want to find out."

By your own indirect admission and to simplify your equation still YOU CAME FROM NOTHING. SORRY.You cannot escape that. Because you don't know where it came from. But if one day you discover the primary origin of "infinite mass and

density" that's the time YOU CAN REFUTE MY STAND. For now you don't know, still - you came from nothing 'cause you have no absolute truth where and NOTHING TO PRESENT.

[irishmauddib]

I never said I think we came from nothing, therefore I admitted no such thing. What you are demonstrating here is a wish to argue with someone in your head, and not with me, so you change what I have said into what I have not said to achieve that. I have only one answer to people who engage in such abhorrent tactics in conversation:

No way, no how, no thanks, next.

[crawlersilverwind]

Part: 2:

If you insist you came from something but without absolute basis and truth and by your own admission you don't know, that shows your brain is not functioning well.

I admire your faith anyway.

[irishmauddib]

Yet again youre changing what I say. I merely tell you what we know to be true at this time. We know we have a universe, and we know its current form came from a singularity of infinite mass and density. This, at this time, is all we know. The rest we are seeking to find out. A lot discovered but a lot more to discover.

But this idea that because we do not know, that your answer is automatically right by default, despite having no supporting evidence, is useless to me.

[crawlersilverwind]

"Yet again youre changing what I say."

COME ON!!!! You are the one who's typing your words not me.

"infinite mass and density"

But according to you "Where that came from, we do not know but we want to find out." Don't confuse yourself you just did type that.

[irishmauddib]

I am aware of what I am typing. You are however changing the meaning.

I am happy with what I have said. We do NOT know where it came from, or even if the question makes any sense at all as we are applying it to a non temporal environment.

I am happy that we are looking to answer the question however, and I hope we always will keep looking to answer these questions.

[crawlersilverwind]

"I am happy that we are looking to answer the question however, and I hope we always will keep looking to answer these questions."

I'm happy too.

But what I'm not happy with is what you are saying "You are however changing the meaning." I honestly not. For goodness sake.

But anyway we have different views on

this. Good luck !!

PEACE.

[irishmauddib]

Indeed, but if you do in fact come up with any evidence at all for a god, do feel free to come back when you can present it. I would be agog to hear it.

[crawlersilverwind]

The evidence of God is in everyday life of billions of billions people in this world past and present. God is like music. You cannot touch it nor see it, but you sense and feel it and appreciate it.

If you really want a viewable God, there're you can meet Satyasaybaba or Maitreya if you want visuals, they claim they are God.

God is not man made.

Man cannot create a SUPER NATURAL BEING. Who does? Show me how. So I can create my own universe.

[irishmauddib]

So in other words you have no evidence for it. Thanks anyway. Come back when you do.

[crawlersilverwind]

"So in other words you have no evidence for it"

You must not say this. Bad choice of statement. You just prove that you are the one who change the meaning. You accuse me but you are the guilty one.

Fine. If you discredit billions of billions of people past and present attesting that there is God. Not my problem.

Show me your proof there is no God.

You have none you know it. And there're no billions of billions of people past and present that will back you up. Sorry.

[irishmauddib]

Im saying youve none because youve presented none. You say its there, but you can not tell me what it is. If I allowed that then Id believe anything anyone ever told me and then said "Theres evidence, honest"

If theres evidence, present it. People saying it doesnt make it true no matter how many people say it. Remember once 100% of people thought the earth was flat. Does that mean it was? No. So people saying theres a god doesnt make it true.

So, as I said, no evidence here. Next. Try again.

[crawlersilverwind]

Part 3:

"Hitchens was "avoiding" it, is because it is not his position, and he has never claimed it was"

If Hitchens don't agree with Turek, he can say right there that the atheist stand is that you don't come from nothing. He knew what Turek is saying instead he just avoid that part.

[irishmauddib]

Again, if someone is attacking a position you have never even espoused, you are perfectly within your rights to bypass it.

Deal with what people say, not what you invent for them. So far both you AND Turek could learn from that.

[irishmauddib]

"Big Bang came from nothing"

Again no one here except you thinks that.

"morons"

Typical. If you disagree with someone just call them names. Its easier than finding facts isnt it?

[irishmauddib]

"without purpose"

True. Purpose, and the idea of purpose, and what that purpose should be appears to be purely a human construct.

[irishmauddib]

"from nothing to something"

No one here is claiming something came from nothing, except you.

[irishmauddib]

"You can't deny this one."

Yes, I can. Cosmology and Atheist are two completely seperate things.

[irishmauddib]

"Big bang is one of the atheism arguments to justify the beginning of life. "

False, it is related to cosmology, not biology. You are not just wrong here, you havent even got the right TOPIC let alone the right CONCLUSION.

[BathTubNZ]

Again, RD said YES.

[BathTubNZ]

Er no, that would be the lie that Ray is telling. You can see for yourself the entire email exchange between Richard Dawkins and WorldNetDaily he posted it for all to see on the forums.

[Lavulo187]

LOL. yeah RD is chickend out. Comfort urged him on a debate but he has some sort of a policy when debating with creationists.

Its funny that RD protests against atheism and, displays his ignorance that believers in God or any god, is insane. What an ethnocentric character he is, he should consider how religion brings peace to believers. He mustve got orthodox religion mixed up with faith and conviction....

[BathTubNZ]

Besides it's also ignoring that many people want to debate Ray, including Matt Dillahunty of the Atheist Experience, plus I have seen at least 3 other offers in the last couple of months posted on his blog of offers of debate usually beginning something like 'tried to get hold of you', Ray ignores all of those. Simply because it's not about the debate, it's all just PR for Ray, and people not high profile enough clearly aren't worth his time. Heck I'd debate Ray no hesitation.

[Boognish64]

Haven't heard about Matt Dillahunty challenging him. I still think the funnest to watch would be if Peter Singer or Daniel Dennett or PZ Meyers got Ray to accept a debate with them. Hell even Michael Shermer or Richard Carrier would be fun to watch.

[BathTubNZ]

And now of course thunderf00t just offered Ray a chance to debate him while he was in CA, but Ray chickened out.

[Acrochordus]

Check thundef00ts channel ;)

[BathTubNZ]

Yep kudos to Ray for growing a spine.

[blackwolf1272]

He did agree to have a radio call-in debate with pz myers. Then one or two days before the show, Ray had the format changed because he had some 'timing problems' with 'other appontments'. So Ray was on one day and PZ the next. Funny thing: Ray argued for Intelligent Design (remember: ID is not a religious argument) using Biblical creationism.

[mojorhythm]

No because all it would do would give completely undeserved credibility to the preachy Bananaman. Ray doesn't care if he gets owned, he just wants to be able to say that he "debated with Richard Dawkins"

[hall0833]

Can't wait for the Dawkins vs. Banana Man debate.

[BathTubNZ]

I really hope it happens, but I am not optimistic, Ray seems to have chickened out. Probably from shock of RD accepting.

[soulbiscuit]

I can't help but notice that Ray doesn't seem to have drawn much of a crowd.

[JanisChambers]

I pity Sam, from the audience questions I believe he was surrounded by a bunch of fundy meat-heads. I couldn't help but laugh when one idiot tried to claim that the Bible is one of the most Historically accurate books we have.. ha.

[Gnug215]

Great stuff.

I just mailed Sam earlier offering to host this, but you did it for me, it seems. :)