Nightline Debate Recap

What was that? That was awful. The editing. The quick cutaways. The posing of questions, but not showing the responses…

They did show:

  • Kelly’s comment about Jesus possibly not even being a man. (There were so many decent responses to the question of what atheists do with “Jesus”… this was not one of the better ones.)
  • Kirk Cameron showing pictures of “transitional fossils” we should be seeing… like a literal Bull-Frog. And other things that just proved he never actually understood Evolution in the first place despite his claims otherwise.
  • Ray Comfort saying that Kirk was “tanking his Hollywood career” by displaying his Christianity so prominently on television… tanking??? Quick: Name any Hollywood movie that Kirk Cameron has starred in… Yeah. Exactly. He last three “big” films are straight-to-video versions of the Left Behind books.

They did not show:

  • Ray Comfort’s Coca-cola can… which was going to replace the Banana Argument.
  • Brian’s comment about how he has nipples… as proof that he was not “intelligently designed.” (Actually, I’m surprised Nightline didn’t show that as a cutaway/isolated quotation…)
  • The list of many, many, many transitional fossils that Brian read in response to Kirk’s crazy comments.
  • The rounds of applause for the atheists that we saw in the admittedly-one-sided preview video.
  • The great lines by Kelly/Brian that Kirk/Ray had not presented scientific evidence that God exists. Furthermore, that the Christians had invoked the Bible, which they said they would not do.

Ugh… what else am I missing here? I was looking forward to the debate based on the online previews provided by ABC. But the final edited version was just pathetic.


[tags]atheist, atheism, Nightline, Brian Sapient, Rational Response Squad, Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort, Jesus, transitional fossils, Hollywood, Left Behind, Banana Argument, Bible[/tags]

  • http://grrrlmeetsworld.com becky

    I missed the stumped looks that Comfort/Cameron gave each other when Sapient brought up thermodynamics — that was priceless!

  • Bart Dorsey

    This whole experience reminded me why I don’t watch network news anymore. We have 24 hour news channels and we can’t get the whole debate played without editting?

  • Robin

    This was a huge dissapointment.

  • http://danharlow.com Dan Harlow

    A half hour is just not enough time to do anything in depth. At least the ABC website has allot more of the debate.

  • Bart Dorsey

    abcnews.go.com has the full length debate on their homepage right now.

  • Cat

    Let’s not forget when Martin called Brian’s rebuttal as “mocking Christianity,” before he actually got to the podium.

    There’s no way that they didn’t deliberately choose to make the atheists look bad; they certainly weren’t giving them adequate time to refute anything Ray or Kirk said. Brian and Kelly were allowed to be disrupted when Ray jumped in on the existence of Jesus comment that Kelly made, and yet she wasn’t allowed to jump in on Ray to rebut what he was saying. UGH, the whole thing was a mess, including at the very end when they had Kirk whining about the rude atheists, and then Martin claiming that RR were having regrets about it, then showed Kelly and Brian saying they felt like they were too hard on Ray and Kirk and wanted to hug them. That needed more explaining, but they wanted it to look like they were what Kirk was accusing them of: rude and angry/hateful–I can’t remember the exact adjectives he used, but they weren’t nice.

    The entire editing was done, imho, to make atheists look hostile and like buffoons. I’m tired and have taken my sleeping pill, so I hope I was coherent. :o)

  • Richard Wade

    What a disappointment. ABC gutted it, editing out the best and the worst of both sides. It’s as if they didn’t want their viewing audience to change their minds in either direction. Maybe that was exactly the editors’ intention. Don’t shake anybody up, they might stop watching our show. Keep it as lightweight as possible. The whole thing was done at arm’s length, a detached and disinterested documentary about a debate, rather than a debate.

    One clever tactic that Cameron and Comfort keep doing is to use the anthropomorphizing term “creation” to refer to the universe. This subtly pulls the naive members of the audience into their “ergo must be a creator” argument. Kelly and Brian don’t seem to have called them on that and didn’t insist on using the term “universe.” With all the cuts I saw at least one time Brian arguing back but using the term “creation.” Allowing the opponent to dictate the terms used is a mistake. He could have easily let the air out of C & C’s favorite argument by pointing out their tactic.

    ABC did Cameron a favor by airing him asserting that there are no transitional fossils and then editing out Brian’s detailed rebuttal. Once again that lie is put into the public mind unchallenged. They think all they have to do is to keep people doubting science.

    Cameron’s silly animal pictures was a mistake. He lost credibility big time because they could only have been either base mockery or abysmal ignorance. He either discredited his pledge to participate in a serious debate and present “scientific proof” or he discredited his understanding of evolution. I think even many of the believers in the audience would have been disappointed and embarrassed by that one.

    All in all it was a fight billed as a bloody battle to the death, and what I saw was four arthritic midgets wearing giant padded boxing gloves swing and miss each other for a boring half hour.

  • http://www.agnosticatheism.com AgnosticAtheist

    M.,

    100% agree. It was just a fluff show and very disappointing.

    aA

  • Pingback: Christian-Atheist Debate will air May 9th on ABC News Now & Nightline (NOT May 5th) « Agnostic Atheism

  • http://iloveteh.biz/ James W.

    I asked my girlfriend to put this on last night even though we watched the debate online at work. It was atrocious. I said in the beginning “Watch, they’re going to cut this up to where the Christians come out on top no matter what.” And sure enough, who was the last debater to speak? Cameron. Which two of the four received the most on air time? Not the Atheists. They were portrayed as harsh and demeaning people while Comfort/Cameron were portrayed as the more intellectual side even though they did very little to prove such. The fact that ABC showed Brian saying “what a numbnut” in reference to Kirk when he picked up the transitional mockery fossils is evidence of this.

    This was less about the debate itself (which there was very little of) but more about someone being used (Cameron) to get someone else’s views on Christianity out there (Comfort’s). After all, if this was not the case, why were they granted far more air time and why was Cameron focused on so heavily?

  • Darryl

    I question the whole approach of the Christians in this debate, and I think that honest Christians ought to also. Here is a comment I posted elsewhere that I think bears repeating here:

    I previously commented upon the topic of the low turn-out at the day of prayer event, and my primary point was that Christians don’t really believe that prayer works. Along the same lines it also occurs to me that they don’t believe in the gospel message either. According to the Apostle Paul, Christians preach the message of Christ, the holy spirit acts upon them by faith, and viola–we’ve got a rebirth! It’s the preaching of the gospel story that is the “word of God” that acts upon the unbeliever, not logical arguments of the theistic kind. But, I’ll let the man speak for himself:

    For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with the wisdom of human eloquence, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its meaning. The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the learning of the learned I will set aside.” Where is the wise one? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish? For since in the wisdom of God the world did not come to know God through wisdom, it was the will of God through the foolishness of the proclamation to save those who have faith. For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. (I Corinthians ch. I)

    Paul’s argument cannot be more clear: My message is the gospel, not the wisdom of the world. Why? Because the wisdom of the world is not sufficient to come to the knowledge of God—it takes the gospel. The wisdom of the world in the form of theistic arguments was not a part of the Apostles’ preaching; it entered into the Church’s tradition from the outside, owing to the natural process of syncretism and the later rediscovery in the West of the Greek philosophers.

    Now, before you Christians go scurrying to your Bibles with joy in your hearts because you’re primed to defeat the infidel, allow me to preempt your attack. Yes, I’m aware of such passages as these:

    The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows his handiwork. (Psalm 19:1)

    For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. (Romans ch. 1)

    Let us consider Paul’s statement to the church at Rome. This passage is often quoted as an example of the Cosmological Argument for God’s existence. First of all, notice that these words of Paul are being addressed not to infidels, but to Christians. Paul is not setting an example here for how to argue to unbelievers. Secondly, notice who it is that Paul says is making the theistic argument to the infidels—it is God himself, not Christians. Furthermore, it is God–not making theistic arguments using language–but letting his work speak for himself.

    Do Christians really believe in the power of the gospel to convert the infidel? If they do, then why do they contradict the Apostle Paul and try to convince us using theistic arguments? Mr. Comfort’s claim that he will present undeniable scientific proof that God exists is a wasted effort according to the Apostle Paul—it is the wisdom of the world that God has made foolish. If that which may be known about God is clearly revealed by what God has made, then why do Christians keep pestering us with their theistic arguments when God has spoken from Heaven? Is the gospel impotent? Is Paul wrong? If Paul is correct, then you Christians need to back off with the rhetoric; if he’s incorrect, then you folks need to come over to our side of the fence.

  • http://emergingpensees.blogspot.com/ Mike C

    Excellent exegesis Darryl! I think you’re basically right about all that.

    Though hopefully there’s a difference between actively trying to convince someone with theistic arguments, and just enjoying a friendly debate. :)

  • http://off-the-map.org/atheist/ Siamang

    But Paul didn’t know about bananas, now did he?

  • Richard Wade

    Heeheeheeheeheehee! Siamang, you’re wicked, wicked wicked. How long will it take those two banana prophets to live that down? (More than their lifetimes, I hope)

    Centuries from now there will be two warring sects, the banana cult and the coke can cult. Sprung from a common partnership in the dim past, Saint Comfort’s and Saint Cameron’s disciples parted ways during the Great Produce/Product Metaphor Rift when they couldn’t agree on which was the dumber metaphor. Bloodshed will be common. The people will despair that there will ever be peace. Then one day a man will appear with a new metaphor, one that re-unites all again. A mega-moronic metaphor that is so dumbfoundingly dumb, so stupendously stupid that all the other silly similes will fade into oblivion. Prophesied long before in vague mystical hints, the mother of all asinine analogies and addled allegories will have something to do with………..BAGELS!!

  • Darryl

    Siamang and Richard,

    You guys kill me! I laughed out loud.

  • Darryl

    Mike C.,

    Well said.

  • Darryl

    You know, as apologists for the faith are concerned, Kirk and Cameron really are pretty bad. What the hell has happened to these Christians anyway? These guys are like cardboard cutouts of real defenders of the faith. There are so many smart and eloquent speakers out there (the ones that originated many of the arguments these bozos use); why are these guys getting the air time? Ah, for the good old days: Morris and Gish and the Creation Institute gang; Josh McDowell and Francis Schaeffer. They just don’t make ‘em like they used to. These guys belong on the American Idol for evangelizers.

  • The Unbrainwashed

    Darryl,
    I actually found Cameron and Comfort to be much more articulate than the atheists. They just seem more at ease and able to engage in a discourse more readily than their atheist counterparts. That’s not to say that their arguements are valid, just that the presentation of their inane ideas makes them seem more credible. Now if Dawkins or Harris was there, I surely could not make this remark. I’m also not trying to insult Brian and Kelly, but just making an observation. Anyone else feel the same way?

  • http://off-the-map.org/atheist/ Siamang

    The atheists were, imo worse.

  • Pingback: Friendly Atheist » How Would You Rate the Speakers?

  • Vertie

    I watched a lot of it online. The video clips kept being cut off by commercials, but I thought it went well for us atheists. I had no idea that the TV version was all chopped up.

    How disappointing. But not unexpected.

    That was my biggest fear about this ‘debate’. Debates like this on TV never have real winners and losers. The reporters always supposedly “let the audience decide”, even when there’s no doubt about the outcome.

    It was so obvious watching the online debate that Kirk & Comfort got sent to school. Too bad America will never really know.

  • Darryl

    Unbrainwashed,

    I think I might agree with your comparison, but do you agree with mine?

  • Robin

    Thank you guys up there for the link to the website. I watched it and assuming that was the debate in its entirety. I came away only slightly less dissapointed.

    I don’t however think that much headway was made by either side.

    Except I still honestly do not see how Comfort and Cameron proved that God exists 100%. They did not provide any solid proof past the steadfast *faith* explanation.

    I thought it a legitement question to the atheists being…. what did they think would happen to them upon their deaths if they found out they were wrong? I was very curious to wonder what the christians thought would happen to them after their deaths if they found out, that all this time, they have been worshipping the *wrong* god?

  • Robin

    Oh

    Coke can, Mona Lisa, crockaduck, sheepdog, etc. too pathetic.

  • HampsteadPete

    I, for one, was absolutely thrilled over the fact that the debate was aired at all. Substance is secondary to the existance of the discourse. Can anyone imagine a frank discussion of this topic on national TV a few years ago? We have seen proof that Dennett et al have succeeded in changing the climate in this country to a large extent.

    Think of this as the first of what will probably be many debates.

  • Pingback: Friendly Atheist » The Nightline Debate Videos

  • http://emergingpensees.blogspot.com/ Mike C

    I finally got around to watching the Nightline episode and it was just pathetic. It wasn’t a debate, it was a news report about a debate. They didn’t show any back-and-forth argumentation. They just showed a few random clips with Bashir filling in the gaps with his voice over.

    Not that I think it would have made much difference. From the little bit we did see it was pretty clear that Brian/Kelly acted like immature jerks the whole time while Cameron/Comfort were just polite idiots. Both sides can do a lot better than those four.

  • Dave

    Looking at the account of Genesis 1:1 for just a brief moment, the words in that first verse are quite remarkable. They are indicative of the incredible mind of God. God says in that first verse everything that could have been said about creation and He says it in such few terms. The statement is precise and concise almost beyond human composition. A well-known scientist, a very decorated scientist named Herbert Spencer died in 1903. In his scientific career he had become noted for one great discovery, it was a categorical contribution that he made. He discovered that all reality, all reality, all that exists in the universe can be contained in five categories…time, force, action, space and matter. Herbert Spencer said everything that exists, exists in one of those categories…time, force, action, space and matter. Nothing exists outside of those categories. That was a very astute discovery and didn’t come until the nineteenth century.

    Now think about that. Spencer even listed them in that order…time, force, action, space and matter. That is a logical sequence. And then with that in your mind, listen to Genesis 1:1. “In the beginning,” that’s time…”God,” that’s force, “created,” that’s action, “the heavens,” that’s space, “and the earth,” that’s matter. In the first verse of the Bible God said plainly what man didn’t catalog until the nineteenth century. Everything that could be said about everything that exists is said in that first verse.

    Now either you believe that or you don’t. You either believe that that verse is accurate and God is the force or you believe that God is not the force that created everything. And then you’re left with chance or randomness or coincidence.

  • Dave

    How does an atheist respond to that? Coincidence? Chance? Luck? It is the truth. There is no other logical explanation.

  • Steelman

    Dave said, in regard to his post just previous: How does an atheist respond to that? Coincidence? Chance? Luck? It is the truth. There is no other logical explanation.

    I believe copy and paste is the explanation. The least you could do is cite your source, or provide a link so others can look at your source in context (the author is John MacArthur, from his Creation: Believe it or Not–Part 1 lecture).

    Mr. MacArthur made the following, very apt, disclaimer at the beginning of the piece from which you quoted: “This will not largely be of scientific study, in fact that’s not our intent at all but it will be a study of the Scripture, a study of theology with a little bit of rationality thrown into it.”
    Yes, only a very little bit, I think. Actually, more likely rationalization than rationality.

    I have to ask, Dave, have you read up on Spencer at all? I didn’t read all of MacArthur’s lecture, but he seems to mention Spencer only in the brief part you quoted. I’m a little puzzled about why he brings him up at all. Spencer published his own (less well received) ideas about evolution prior to Darwin, and coined the term “survival of the fittest.” I guess MacArthur wanted to use someone who was tenuously tied into the development of the theory of evolution in order to make a point about creationism. MacArthur holds him up as a great man with a great philosophy. Unfortunately, I don’t think that philosophy is too great because of what it entails.

    While I haven’t read Spencer’s philosophy in detail, he seems, on the surface, to have ignored David Hume’s is/ought gap in his regrettable social and political ideas that are known as Social Darwinism. Basically, cut-throat capitalism with the poor deserving to die off since they “inherited” their laziness and stupidity from their lazy, stupid ancestors. Spencer erroneously believed the now discredited (by the science of genetics) Lamarkian idea that offspring inherit not just the inborn traits of their parents, but also any traits that are “acquired” during the parents’ lifetimes. He superimposed that onto his ideas about individual social development and the development of societies. He also, apparently, constructed his theories in such a way as to excuse colonialism and imperialism.

    So what are you trying to tell us here, Dave? God is a Social Darwinist, and Genesis 1 commands a social “survival of the fittest”, and forget charity? I think Jesus said the opposite (I’m assuming you’re a Christian from the subject matter you pasted). Maybe you could post some ideas of your own, or at least explain what you meant by posting what you did?

  • Dave

    Steelman,

    Yes, you cited the source correctly. I was just wondering how an atheist would respond to the time, force, action, space and matter theory “discovered” in 1903 by Spencer, but follows the time, force, action, space and matter cited in the creation account in Genesis 1:1. Doesn’t that seem odd? Maybe, just think about it for a minute….that the God of the Bible did in fact create this universe and all that is in it by that fact alone. Could He be intelligent enough to confirm this scientific “discovery”? It certainly is evidence for creation by the God of the Bible to me. How else could you explain Moses using the time, force, action, space and matter theory in 1410 BC? An inadvertant accident? It seems many atheists dismiss so many facts of the Bible very quickly. It appears that there is excuse after excuse in an attempt to dismiss the truth of Scripture, even in the creation account itself. (Please don’t take this as a personal attack – I really am trying to understand – I want to know the truth. If atheism is true, I want to believe it. I’m just having a hard time from lack of evidence) It is interesting to me that even many of the fulfilled prophesies (just take the crucifixion account) are easily dismissed without any solid case in explaining other than chance or claiming it never happened. (because it cannot be explained to be anything but truth) Seems like too many coincidences to me. Don’t you think? For example….

    First Prediction: (His birth in Bethlehem) Old Testament Prediction: “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be ruler in Israel, whose going forth have been from of old from everlasting.” (Micah 5:2). New Testament Fulfillment: “Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold wise men from the east came to Jerusalem” (Matthew 2:1).

    Second Prediction: (He would be preceded by a messenger) Old Testament Prediction: “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: `Prepare the way of the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God;’” (Isaiah 40:3). New Testament Fulfillment: “In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!;” (Matthew 3:1,2).

    Third Prediction: (He would enter Jerusalem on a colt) Old Testament Prediction: “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold your King is coming to you; He is just and having salvation, lowly and riding on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey” (Zechariah 9:9). New Testament Fulfillment: “Then they brought him to Jesus. And they threw their own garments on the colt, and they set Jesus on him. And as he went, they spread their clothes on the road” (Luke 19:35-36).

    Fourth Prediction: (He would be betrayed by a friend) Old Testament Prediction: “Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, Has lifted up his heel against me” (Psalm 41:9). New Testament Fulfillment: “And while He was still speaking, behold Judas, one of the twelve, with great multitude with swords and clubs, came from the chief priests and elders of the people. Now His betrayer had given them a sign saying, “Whomever I kiss, He is the One; seize Him; ” (Matthew 26:47,48).

    Fifth Prediction: (His hand and feet pierced) Old Testament Prediction: “For dogs have surrounded Me; The assembly of the wicked has enclosed Me. They pierced My hands and My feet.” (Psalm 22:16). New Testament Fulfillment: “And when they had come to the place called Calvary, there they crucified Him, and the criminals, one on the right hand and the other on the left.” (Luke 23:33).

    Sixth Prediction: (He would be wounded by His enemies) Old Testament Prediction: “But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities” (Isaiah 53:5). New Testament Fulfillment: “Then he released Barabbas to them; and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered [Him] to be crucified” (Matthew 27:26).

    Seventh Prediction: (His betrayal for 30 pieces of silver) Old Testament Prediction: “Then I said to them, `If it is agreeable to you, give me my wages; and if not, refrain.’ So they weighed out for my wages thirty pieces of silver’” (Zechariah 11:12). New Testament Fulfillment: “What are you willing to give me if I deliver Him to you? And they counted out to him thirty pieces of silver” (Matthew 26:15). Note: This was predicted 500 years in advance when silver was not used for money but gold.

    Eighth Prediction: (He will be spat on and beaten) Old Testament Prediction: “I gave My back to those who struck Me, and My cheeks to those who plucked out the beard; I did not hide My face from shame and spitting” (Isaiah 50:6). New Testament Fulfillment: “Then they spat in His face and beat Him; and others struck Him with the palm of their hands” (Matthew 26:67).

    Other prophecies like these we can quote such as: Silent in front of accusers: (Prophecy in Isaiah 53:7) Fulfilled in Matthew 27:12-14. Crucified with thieves: (Prophecy in Isaiah 53:12) Fulfilled in Matthew 27:38. People gamble with His garments: (Prophecy in Psalm 22:18) Fulfilled in John 19:23, 24. His side would be pierced: (Prophesied in Zechariah 12:10) Fulfilled in John 19:34. None of His bones would be broken: (Prophesied in Psalm 34:20) Fulfilled in John 19:33. His body would not decay: (Prophecy in Psalm 16:10) Fulfilled in Acts 2:31. His burial in a rich man’s tomb: (Prophecy in Isaiah 53:9) Fulfilled in Matthew 27:57-60. The darkness covering the earth: (Prophecy Amos 8:9) Fulfilled in Matthew 27:45. Note: There are 456 prophecies fulfilled in Jesus alone written in the Bible.

  • gw

    It is not “reasonable” to be a believer or an atheist… as a believer can not fully “prove” the existence of God… an atheist can not with certainty prove that there is no God…

    The only thing that makes me truly doubt the “natural selection” path of how we have come to be is that virtually all things that cause us the most injury and destruction, the most harmful things to our existence are also the most immoral. Without a God morality would have no true place, at least not in nature. And furthermore if natural selection / evolution were the deciding factors on our current state.. we would despise the things that hurt us and limited our survival… for instance, alcohol, drugs, unhealthy foods, risky behavior, casual sex…. we love all of these.. but they all have negative impact on our continued survival as a species… after millions of years we would have developed protective senses to these events, actions and objects… that is if natural selection was in play…

    just my opinion, i know its filled with holes.. but if you are smart enough to find the holes in my argument please use your open mindedness and intelligence to fill in the holes with both sides of the argument.

  • Mriana

    Without a God morality would have no true place, at least not in nature.

    May suggest an article for you to read? It is on this very subject: http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/morality.html

    It’s titled: The Human Basis Of Laws And Ethics
    Without God, how can you be moral?
    by Frederick Edwords

    It’s something to read and consider.

  • Richard Wade

    gw,
    I can help you plug a couple of the holes in your argument, since you asked. Before that let me clear up one little misconception. You said, (or were you quoting?)

    It is not “reasonable” to be a believer or an atheist… as a believer can not fully “prove” the existence of God… an atheist can not with certainty prove that there is no God…

    Most atheists don’t do a thing called “believing there is not god.” Most of them don’t believe there is a god. It’s not about believing in the lack of something, it’s about the lack of a belief in something. This seems a subtle distinction at first but it’s really very different and very important. Those who simply don’t busy themselves with believing it yes or no have no interest in proving it yes or no, and they already know, as you said that it can’t be done anyway, given the definition of god by believers.

  • Richard Wade

    gw,
    Now about the holes in your argument. It takes natural selection a very long time to establish an instinctive behavior in a species, because it requires the majority of the individuals to be better able to successfully have offspring than those who don’t have the behavior. For instance you mentioned “risky behavior.” I’m not sure what you were referring to, but a risky behavior such as playing around the edge of a high cliff has over the eons apparently resulted in enough deaths of individuals before they had offspring so that now most people have inherited the instinctive fear of doing so from their more cautious ancestors. This is an on going process. Every day some kid somewhere without a fear of heights dies before having kids of his own, and his scaredy-cat friends go home to live a long life.

    We haven’t had alcohol and unhealthy food for millions of years. Alcohol has only been around since we started storing grain in clay pots. Most people who have the tendency to drink too much have kids before the physical consequences do them in, so the tendency is not extinguished from the species. Same thing with “unhealthy foods.” That is a very new phenomenon. Most of the history of mankind has featured a desperate search for any food at all. Casual sex did not become a problem until the advent of civilization put large numbers of people in close proximity to each other and sexually transmitted diseases became more likely to be spread. The other negative consequence, having the husband kill the paramour also only came about when civilization required more structured social institutions and clearly defined relationships. All very recent things in evolutionary terms.

    On a social level however the taboos you mentioned would probably have been developed anyway even without the concept of a deity because people living together in tribes and small city states would see that such behaviors did result in negative consequences for the society. So in a sense on a social level a process similar to natural selection, you could call it pragmatism, could have resulted in these behaviors being labeled as immoral. It’s just in our learned cultures but not our genes.

    This is why we disapprove of them but many of us do them anyway.

    There are cultures around the world that don’t have a system of belief that attributes morality to deities, yet they have clear cut rules of behavior that most of us would recognize as similar to morals that we live by. They have them because those behaviors result in a strong and healthy society or tribe, not because they think a god told them to live that way.

    This is an interesting discussion. Thanks for bringing it up.

  • Dave

    gw: You said, “as a believer can not fully “prove” the existence of God… an atheist can not with certainty prove that there is no God… ”

    I would fully agree with you. However, with that said, each of us must look at the evidence, and make a decision as to the best belief system one must take after careful research of the evidence. I believe the evidence is much greater that the God of the Bible created the world as recorded in Genesis. There are far too many proven prophesies and no false records that I know of in Scripture in light of the context. Either the God of the Bible created the world and Scripture is 100% accurate, or it is not. If not, then, the men who wrote the Bible were geniuses who knew of things that no man could have known – and has duped thousands of people (and continue to do so)!

  • Darryl

    Ah, Dave, your world is so neat and tidy. Empty rooms are easy to keep clean.

  • Dave

    Consider this as well:

    God existed before the universe yet can be in it (Colossians 1:16-17)
    Time had a beginning. God precedes time. (2 Timothy 1:9)
    God created the universe. He has no beginning and was not created. (John 1:3)
    God created the universe from what our 5 senses cannot detect. (Hebrews 11-13)
    Jesus evidenced his extradimensionality after His resurrection. He passed through walls. (John 20:26-28)
    God is very near, yet we cannot see Him. He is extradimensional. (Deut 30:11-14)
    God designed the universe in a way to support human beings. (Nehemiah 9:6)

    for further reading: Mere Creation: Science, Faith & Intelligent Design by William Dembski

  • william

    I am not an Atheist but I am searching for the truth. I have found more questions than answers.

    1. First God made heaven & earth and what were in it in less than a week.
    - The Bible describes the process but none of its authors knew exactly when the earth was created. Some said 10k years, 6k years etc. depending on who you believed.
    - More and more evidence show that dinosaurs lived million years ago, artifacts older than 10k years old.

    2. The Bible was writen by more than one person, each individual had his own version and they have to be selected in order not to contradict the others.
    - Why there were so many version of it? example : Judas was blamed for betraying the Lord Jesus, other version said The betrayal was orchestrated by lord Jesus himself. Both are artefacts from the same era by different author.

    3. We are all decendants of Adam and Eve.
    - Why we are all different?
    - Why white couple can’t produce a chinese child? vice versa?
    - Why everyone’s dna is different from one to another? Dont you think that Eve’s dna should be the same as Adam’s dna, she was made of Adam’s part of the body?

    4. Does God allow incest in order to produce our human race?
    - With Adam and Eve was the only couple, how did they produce grand children. The only option was incest.

    5. Adam was expelled because of eating the fruit of knowledge?
    - Is it the same like saying

    Do Not Try to find the truth, just believe it?

    6. How human survived the ice age? Dinosaurs age?

    7.

    Mark 6:35-44
    Those who had eaten the loaves numbered five thousand men.

    - The cities population at the time were about 500-800. There were only 3 cities nearby. How do we come up with 5000 men? Illegal aliens?

    8. The earth was the center of the universe?
    - There are too many universe and too little knowledge to know them all
    - Galileo was the victim of denying that claim and considered commited a heresy

    9. How could a God of Love order the massacre/annihilation of the Canaanites?

    (Deut 7.1-5) However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.

    - Forgive your enemy? Love above anger?

    10. Do you believe in one God or many Gods?
    -

    Genesis 1:26 – Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness

    - Jehovah another God?

    11. God always has a plan.
    - If thing went wrong, people tend to say that it was God’s plan.
    - If thing went right, people tend to say “You are blessed”

    12. God has the power of life and death. God knows everything.
    - We all agree that osama Bin Laden is a bad person. Why cant God kill him or stop him before he was born (He must’ve known the future), Don’t we all pray to God and ask God to destroy this evil person or at least to make him repent/regret?

    What made me believe in God/Gods again :
    - I have seen female spirits twice in my lifetime and both times I was with another person who saw the same thing. Not a pleasant experiences and I dont care if people believe it or not.

    - I have seen rituals how to make needles from a candy and broken bulb glass and learnt how to interupt that process by chance. It is somehow relates to the supernatural.

    - One day my old man awoke and found himself paralyzed suddenly. Went to hospitals, doctors but found nothing was wrong. A barb wire was planted inside his calcaneal tendon (Achilles tendon) by a angry ex-employee (my old man fired him). I still do not know how he did it. A spiritual healer cut open the tendon and took it out. No stitches, just a couple drop of bloods.

    Those are things to think about!

  • Dave

    William –

    Great questions! If you are really looking for answers, there is quite a bit of reading to do to answer these well thought out questions. Instead of posting all the info here on this blog – which would be very exhaustive – I have posted these links. ( I have to seperate due to providing more than one link)

    1. You said, “More and more evidence show that dinosaurs lived million years ago, artifacts older than 10k years old.”
    Not true. In fact many scientists cannot confirm this statement. Read this:
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp

    2. You said, “Why there were so many version of it? example : Judas was blamed for betraying the Lord Jesus, other version said The betrayal was orchestrated by lord Jesus himself. Both are artefacts from the same era by different author.”

    The fact that there are many versions of the Bible does not disprove of creation. This is part of another debate on canonicity. However, using your example, I agree with both your statements here (except for the fact that it is not in two different versions but the same!) and see no contradiction
    a. Judas did betray Jesus
    b. God, being sovereign did orchestrate it all – see all the prophesies listed in my previous post on the crucifixion account for many evidences of this.

  • Dave
  • Dave
  • Dave

    William –
    (more on your #3 question)
    3. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0425dna.asp

  • Dave

    William –
    (sorry, I inadvertantly misnumbered my first #4)

    4. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp

    Great question – I never really understood this either! Thanks for encouraging me to research this one….

  • Dave

    William, You said,

    5. “Adam was expelled because of eating the fruit of knowledge?
    - Is it the same like saying

    Do Not Try to find the truth, just believe it?

    No, I don’t think you are understanding this correctly. The fruit of knowledge as cited in Genesis 2:17 actually reads “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Remember, at this point man did not know what evil was. There was no sin. Sinning would bring man that knowledge, and the consequence would be death.

    6. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/iceage.asp

  • Steelman

    Dave said: Yes, you cited the source correctly. I was just wondering how an atheist would respond to the time, force, action, space and matter theory “discovered” in 1903 by Spencer, but follows the time, force, action, space and matter cited in the creation account in Genesis 1:1. Doesn’t that seem odd?

    I’ve already covered just how odd I thought MacArthur’s invocation of Spencer was in general, and how I thought it was essentially meaningless vis-à-vis Genesis 1:1. To be clear: what I read of MacArthur’s arguments was practically incoherent.

    Now, Dave, I’m going to explain why this is my last response to you. I originally responded, because I thought you might have had something interesting to say rather than just being a copy and paste troll. I was being charitable. I told you I considered it bad form to copy and paste things without citation or comment, and explained why I thought what you’d posted was nonsense. Your response was to do another copy and paste (this time from the answering-islam.org web site) on a completely different subject.

    It seems you aren’t interested in a thoughtful exchange, you’re a troll who effortlessly copies and pastes just to get a rise out of people and waste their time. Not interested.

  • Dave

    William, You said, “The cities population at the time were about 500-800. There were only 3 cities nearby. How do we come up with 5000 men?”

    7. I would disagree with your statement here. Please cite your source on city populations at this time as well as the nearby city populations. I will research this further. I’ve read many commentaries on this fact that the multitude could have been as much as 20-50 thousand once you add all the women and children who were there! The fact is, we don’t know where the multitude lived or where they came from really isn’t a hill to die in – is it?

  • Dave

    William -

    My final comment, which applies to your last few questions, is this… the question is not “why to bad things happen to good people” . We are not good! “ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” “There is none righteous, no, not one” ! The better question to ask yourself is ” Why do good things happen to bad people?” because we are all bad (sinful). Why did God choose a way to save us? Why does God care about a sinner like me? Those are the questions I cannot answer – nor can anyone else but God Himself!

  • Dave

    Steelman –

    Just wanted answers from an atheist. Why is that so bad? And I did cite my source this time – although I don’t see why that is an issue for you. Again, just looking for answers, which I still haven’t received.

    I’m really not trying to “get a rise” out of people. I’m sorry if you feel personally attacked. That was not my intention. Thanks for responding.

  • william

    Hi Dave,
    Thanks for the replies

    I have to keep reminding myself that the truths are always the truth no matter where they comes from.

    1. Carbon dating & radiometric dating
    - If Bible dating is more accurate why can’t we all agree and use it all the time. I dont see any scientist(most of them are Christians) using this Bible dating at all. I understand that beliefs / faith sometimes play a role just like politics. I always consider the truth to be impartial. Right is right, wrong is wrong.

    2. Judas did not betray jesus vs Judas did betray Jesus
    - Why we have to exclude that fact from the Bible? Why we have to blame Judas for his role in the Bible? Don’t you think its an immoral thing to do while we encourage people to have a good moral/ values? Not to hide the truth?
    - I understand that the Bible’s pieces were selected carefully.

    [3] & [4]. Races / DNA, why we are all different.
    - If Eve came from Adam’s part of the body, She should have the same exact copy of dna (100.00 %). So do all of us the descendants of Adam. The same dna would make all of us look alike. Cloning
    - An african american will never be a Caucasian no matter where he/she lives, plenty of sunshine or not unless we consider evolution.

    5. Fruit of the tree of knowledge
    - We have a history of prosecution about the earth was a flat surface, the earth was the center of the universe (Galileo)
    - We would never have found medicine because we believe that God could heal the faithful without modern science. Remember the black death, the spanish flue, why we say “bless you” everytime someone sneeze? They all prayed to God and yet they were not saved.
    - Or they were all sinful? If they were, why just them but not all of us? Arent we all full of sin from Adam?

    6. Ice ages happened after Noah’s Ark (4400 years ago)
    - Modern ice ages were just small ones. They were estimated about 30 big ice ages from 2 million years ago and ended about 11k years ago. Can we survive an ice age without modern technology such as air conditioner/ heater in those Big Ice Ages? When did we invent clothes?
    - Why billions of chinese people dont remember any Noah’s Ark, weren’t they among the survivors? They have a longer written history than us/the middle east, none of the writings suggested the existance of any Noah’s Ark. The Bible was written just 2k years ago, The chinese made a geological hearing instrument to prevent outside invasion (the war drum) around 7k years ago and the earth age supposably around 6k years ago (according to one theory).

    7. Population of 500-800 of the 3 cities did not make up to 5k man who ate the bread & fish
    - National Geographic Channel (dont remember the name of the episode, but it is something about the science of the Bible or the truth of the Bible?).

    8. We are ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
    - What is the point of being good to others if disaster always come base on “we are all have sinned”? Good person dies young, bad person lives long while keeps hurting other people?
    - If we are not supposed to know what to do because we might cross the line (to know the truth of His plan) , We might just as well do nothing right!
    - What if the plan was to punish us all no matter what we do because we are all have sinned?
    - Do our good deeds count, do they make us go to heaven? nope! People can go to heaven only by the grace of Lord Jesus. He will be the judge.

    9. Are we in the wrong path? why good religions create killings in order to dominate?
    - Sometimes prophecy/heaven & hell become reality because we want them to happen so badly so they shows the truth of our believed prophecy. WW3 from the middle east?
    - The end of the world might happen sooner if we wanted it to happen so badly. The feeling of wanting to die and meet our Creator and live happily in heaven have created those suicided killer.

    10. God creates earth and heaven in less than a week (miracles), God controls the life and death of all. God ordered a massacre to the cannanites.
    - Do you think he did a mistake and order the massacre to correct it? Couldnt He just make them dissapear and not involving us human to make more sins? Dont they want man to repent and enter His kingdom without any sins of these killings?
    - That was just one of his plan? How do we know that it was his plan, not the devil? How do you know it wasn’t?
    - Do not hurt/kill others but justify the massacre ?

  • Dave

    William -

    I am enjoying the interaction. “I have to keep reminding myself that the truths are always the truth no matter where they comes from.” – ABSOLUTELY!!! The trick is in testing the evidences and having an open mind as to what that truth is! I fully agree with you!

    I don’t want to comment on each and every point here because of time… I do want to clarify my position on a couple of key points.

    “Don’t you think its an immoral thing to do while we encourage people to have a good moral/ values? Not to hide the truth?”

    I don’t think any true Bible believing Christian would say the Bible (or the true church) hides the fact that Judas betrayed Jesus. In fact, the Bible is filled with many examples of sinners and their consequences. I am not familiar with any hiding of this fact. If you found that to be true, I would question that as well. Christ Himself predicted that one of the 12 would betray Him. It was also prophesied in the OT that He would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver (before silver was even used monetarily)

    “What is the point of being good to others if disaster always come base on “we are all have sinned”?” You raise a very interesting issue. I believe the Bible says that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Good works do not save. True faith will manifest itself through good works – not the other way around. This is a highly disputed topic among different evangelicals (unfortunately). So, there is no “point” in being “good”.

    “Couldnt He just make them dissapear and not involving us human to make more sins? ”

    Sure He could have. He can do whatever He wants. It is impossible for us to even attempt to understand the mind of God. His strength begins when ours ends! Unfortunately, we only know what God tells us in Scripture. Nobody knows or understands the mind of God. I do not believe anybody ever will. The fact remains that we are all evil and deserve hell. God created a way to be forgiven if we repent and give our life to Him. We can ask the other questions when we get to heaven! :)

    Thank for the interaction! Good food for thought!

  • william

    Thanks to you Dave, for your thought :)

    I agree with you, I need to learn more.
    God bless you

  • Martin

    How about these messages called “Pascal’s Wager” and “Does God exist” and more by David Asscherick at http://www.audioverse.org/displayseries/30/Restoration2004Eleventh-hourEvidence/

  • Mriana

    Pascal’s Wager is flawed. I say this, because it seems to me in what he has to say is out of self-gratification (or fear, not sure which). It is not from the heart.

    To believe something just so you can get that reward is a bit selfish IMHO, and the belief is not true belief or even from the heart. One can plug in any philosophy or religion and get the same result- self-gratification.

    To believe something to avoid punishment (out of fear) is not true belief either. It is an attempt to avoid a consequence that may or may not be real.

    The Good Sumaritan did what he did without any thought as to his consequences and he did it from the heart. MLK Jr. did what he did for a goal that was to better society, but he took no heed to the consequences he would endure along the way, BUT he did it from the heart. Gandhi, also took no concern for the consequences in his humanitarian efforts. Although I’m sure he was elated to receive the nick “Great Soul” (Mahatma was not his original name), he had no expectation of such a thing nor did he expect to be a great soul that lived on in history books and the hearts of many an Indian and others.

    There are many more who believed and did things from the heart, thus they truly believed in what they were saying and doing in the persuit of bettering society as a whole and helping people. Although many were religious and believed in a god, gaining Heaven, Brahman, Nirvahna, or alike was not in their expectations of their beliefs or goals. They did what they did out of the goodness of their hearts and did non-selfish acts without any expectations of reward or punishment.

    Thus, when any philosophy/religion is applied to Pascal’s Wager it becomes flawed, because it is out of the desire for that uncertain reward to avoid punishment. Even Pascal admits it is uncertain, but a better bet because he believes it is a win-win deal, which is a selfish wager, IMHO.

    If you want to believe in God, Atman, or Buddha fine, but believe from your heart and do good things for humanity out of the goodness of your heart, not with expectations of any reward or punishment, because it is what is in your heart that matters more than anything else.

  • Shrommer

    I’d like to respond to a few of William’s 12 questions.

    1) I don’t know any Bible verses which say 6,000 years OR 10,000. The six days appear to be a literary device, not a scientific chronology. There’s no way that the water could have been separated from the land when the six day account includes no creation of water, unless the water is “in the beginning” when the heavens and the earth were created at a time prior to the six days. Likewise, neither the “heavens” nor the “earth” are part of the six-day account. More likely, it’s a literary framework, not a chronological one. They weren’t there for the creation, but it was revealed to the authors or to the ones who passed the account on to the authors.

    http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1984/JASA9-84Hyers.html
    http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1984/JASA12-84Hyers.html

  • Shrommer

    4 – That’s right. Adam and Eve’s immediate children would have become each other’s mates for procreation. Apparently it worked out better in the beginning of our biological story than it does now after 6,000 or 10,000 years of evolution in the human race.

    5 – Man was allowed to seek for truth outside of God. And God is able to bring man back to the truth. Man had a way out if he wanted to break off a harmonious relationship with God, and man chose that route. “If you love someone, set them free. If they come back to you, they are yours. If they don’t, they were never really yours in the first place.”

  • Shrommer

    8 – I never read anything in the Bible about the earth being the center of the universe. I think some scientists came up with that and then it became a religious dogma. It never was a biblical teaching.

    9 – See Christianthinktank dot com by a Glenn something or other about the Canaanites. It’s good!

  • Shrommer

    10 – The two theories could both be true. The plural “we” is like the royal “we”. It refers to a greatness and majesty so great that the singular is not sufficient. The second theory says that the three persons of the trinity are talking there.

    11 – Yes, people are flaky and shallow when they talk about God’s plans. I don’t think God ever plans for things to go wrong. He knows that things will go wrong ever since the Fall (sin entered the world – Creation fell from perfection).

    12 – God loves bin Laden, and gives Bin Laden all the same benefits that he gives everyone else. He will let history play itself out, and then reveal His glory at the end. He’s in no hurry.

  • Maria
  • Maria

    Mriana said,

    May 15, 2007 at 12:01 pm

    Pascal’s Wager is flawed. I say this, because it seems to me in what he has to say is out of self-gratification (or fear, not sure which). It is not from the heart.

    To believe something just so you can get that reward is a bit selfish IMHO, and the belief is not true belief or even from the heart. One can plug in any philosophy or religion and get the same result- self-gratification.

    To believe something to avoid punishment (out of fear) is not true belief either. It is an attempt to avoid a consequence that may or may not be real.

    The Good Sumaritan did what he did without any thought as to his consequences and he did it from the heart. MLK Jr. did what he did for a goal that was to better society, but he took no heed to the consequences he would endure along the way, BUT he did it from the heart. Gandhi, also took no concern for the consequences in his humanitarian efforts. Although I’m sure he was elated to receive the nick “Great Soul” (Mahatma was not his original name), he had no expectation of such a thing nor did he expect to be a great soul that lived on in history books and the hearts of many an Indian and others.

    There are many more who believed and did things from the heart, thus they truly believed in what they were saying and doing in the persuit of bettering society as a whole and helping people. Although many were religious and believed in a god, gaining Heaven, Brahman, Nirvahna, or alike was not in their expectations of their beliefs or goals. They did what they did out of the goodness of their hearts and did non-selfish acts without any expectations of reward or punishment.

    Thus, when any philosophy/religion is applied to Pascal’s Wager it becomes flawed, because it is out of the desire for that uncertain reward to avoid punishment. Even Pascal admits it is uncertain, but a better bet because he believes it is a win-win deal, which is a selfish wager, IMHO.

    If you want to believe in God, Atman, or Buddha fine, but believe from your heart and do good things for humanity out of the goodness of your heart, not with expectations of any reward or punishment, because it is what is in your heart that matters more than anything else.

    Well said!

  • Agnostic Deist

    All in all it was a fight billed as a bloody battle to the death, and what I saw was four arthritic midgets wearing giant padded boxing gloves swing and miss each other for a boring half hour.

    LOL, good analogy

    Darryl said,

    May 10, 2007 at 2:34 pm

    I question the whole approach of the Christians in this debate, and I think that honest Christians ought to also. Here is a comment I posted elsewhere that I think bears repeating here:

    I previously commented upon the topic of the low turn-out at the day of prayer event, and my primary point was that Christians don’t really believe that prayer works. Along the same lines it also occurs to me that they don’t believe in the gospel message either. According to the Apostle Paul, Christians preach the message of Christ, the holy spirit acts upon them by faith, and viola–we’ve got a rebirth! It’s the preaching of the gospel story that is the “word of God” that acts upon the unbeliever, not logical arguments of the theistic kind. But, I’ll let the man speak for himself:

    For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with the wisdom of human eloquence, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its meaning. The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the learning of the learned I will set aside.” Where is the wise one? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish? For since in the wisdom of God the world did not come to know God through wisdom, it was the will of God through the foolishness of the proclamation to save those who have faith. For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. (I Corinthians ch. I)

    Paul’s argument cannot be more clear: My message is the gospel, not the wisdom of the world. Why? Because the wisdom of the world is not sufficient to come to the knowledge of God—it takes the gospel. The wisdom of the world in the form of theistic arguments was not a part of the Apostles’ preaching; it entered into the Church’s tradition from the outside, owing to the natural process of syncretism and the later rediscovery in the West of the Greek philosophers.

    Now, before you Christians go scurrying to your Bibles with joy in your hearts because you’re primed to defeat the infidel, allow me to preempt your attack. Yes, I’m aware of such passages as these:

    The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows his handiwork. (Psalm 19:1)

    For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. (Romans ch. 1)

    Let us consider Paul’s statement to the church at Rome. This passage is often quoted as an example of the Cosmological Argument for God’s existence. First of all, notice that these words of Paul are being addressed not to infidels, but to Christians. Paul is not setting an example here for how to argue to unbelievers. Secondly, notice who it is that Paul says is making the theistic argument to the infidels—it is God himself, not Christians. Furthermore, it is God–not making theistic arguments using language–but letting his work speak for himself.

    Do Christians really believe in the power of the gospel to convert the infidel? If they do, then why do they contradict the Apostle Paul and try to convince us using theistic arguments? Mr. Comfort’s claim that he will present undeniable scientific proof that God exists is a wasted effort according to the Apostle Paul—it is the wisdom of the world that God has made foolish. If that which may be known about God is clearly revealed by what God has made, then why do Christians keep pestering us with their theistic arguments when God has spoken from Heaven? Is the gospel impotent? Is Paul wrong? If Paul is correct, then you Christians need to back off with the rhetoric; if he’s incorrect, then you folks need to come over to our side of the fence.

    That was excellent

    Centuries from now there will be two warring sects, the banana cult and the coke can cult. Sprung from a common partnership in the dim past, Saint Comfort’s and Saint Cameron’s disciples parted ways during the Great Produce/Product Metaphor Rift when they couldn’t agree on which was the dumber metaphor. Bloodshed will be common. The people will despair that there will ever be peace. Then one day a man will appear with a new metaphor, one that re-unites all again. A mega-moronic metaphor that is so dumbfoundingly dumb, so stupendously stupid that all the other silly similes will fade into oblivion. Prophesied long before in vague mystical hints, the mother of all asinine analogies and addled allegories will will have something to do with………..BAGELS!!

    ROTFL

    Not that I think it would have made much difference. From the little bit we did see it was pretty clear that Brian/Kelly acted like immature jerks the whole time while Cameron/Comfort were just polite idiots. Both sides can do a lot better than those four.

    Agreed

  • Pingback: Friendly Atheist » You Could Be a Genius!

  • Pingback: How to 'Handle' an Atheist » Nathan’s Blog

  • Pingback: Friendly Atheist » Did Ray Comfort Lie?

  • Jason

    Okay so I know I’m a little behind, but Kelly… zoinks. :-p


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X