Comments on: Comfort Wants to Debate Dawkins http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/02/20/8900/ by Hemant Mehta Tue, 14 Feb 2012 01:23:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Pseudonym http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/02/20/8900/#comment-274394 Pseudonym Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:37:18 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=8900#comment-274394 Matt: <blockquote>Actually, maybe we should get some Christians to debate Ray Comfort.</blockquote> Great idea! I nominate Ken Miller. Matt:

Actually, maybe we should get some Christians to debate Ray Comfort.

Great idea! I nominate Ken Miller.

]]> By: Ziztur http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/02/20/8900/#comment-274256 Ziztur Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:17:12 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=8900#comment-274256 The problem with debating Comfort is that he mixes in straw man science and fallacies in nearly every sentence that comes out of his mouth, and so anyone who gets an equal amount of time with him will not have enough time to hash through Comfort's failure of logic and misunderstood science. The problem with debating Comfort is that he mixes in straw man science and fallacies in nearly every sentence that comes out of his mouth, and so anyone who gets an equal amount of time with him will not have enough time to hash through Comfort’s failure of logic and misunderstood science.

]]> By: Matt Stone http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/02/20/8900/#comment-274135 Matt Stone Mon, 23 Feb 2009 07:07:27 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=8900#comment-274135 Actually, maybe we should get some Christians to debate Ray Comfort. Now there is something I would enjoy. Actually, maybe we should get some Christians to debate Ray Comfort. Now there is something I would enjoy.

]]> By: Matt Stone http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/02/20/8900/#comment-274133 Matt Stone Mon, 23 Feb 2009 07:03:35 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=8900#comment-274133 I seriously hope Dawkins doesn't accept. It would be an embaressment. Ray is not of the same calibure and not who I'd want representing Christians in a debate. Alestair McGrath ... hell, even the Pope ... just not Ray, anyone but Ray. I seriously hope Dawkins doesn’t accept. It would be an embaressment. Ray is not of the same calibure and not who I’d want representing Christians in a debate. Alestair McGrath … hell, even the Pope … just not Ray, anyone but Ray.

]]> By: Pseudonym http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/02/20/8900/#comment-274100 Pseudonym Mon, 23 Feb 2009 05:46:22 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=8900#comment-274100 I wouldn't "debate" Ray Comfort for the same reason why I wouldn't "debate" Duane Gish or Christopher Hitchens. In a debate format, eloquence and rhetoric always beats cold hard fact. Actually, I'd like to see Comfort debating Hitchens. That'd be worth $10k. I wouldn’t “debate” Ray Comfort for the same reason why I wouldn’t “debate” Duane Gish or Christopher Hitchens. In a debate format, eloquence and rhetoric always beats cold hard fact.

Actually, I’d like to see Comfort debating Hitchens. That’d be worth $10k.

]]> By: hoverFrog http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/02/20/8900/#comment-273579 hoverFrog Sat, 21 Feb 2009 23:49:42 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=8900#comment-273579 A debate requires discussion of a common topic. Ray's trying to squeeze two debates in for the price of one:<blockquote>All I ask is that he goes into a studio and gives me 20 minutes on why there is no God and why evolution is scientific. Then I will give 20 minutes on how we can know God exists and why evolution is nothing more than an unsubstantiated and unscientific fairy tale for grownups. Then we both will have 10 minutes to respond.</blockquote> I'll save Prof Dawkins some time. Why is there no God? Actually atheism doesn't say that, atheism says that we don't belief in gods of any kind. The burden of proof is on the person who claims that there is a god. We're quite content to say that god is merely monumentally improbable, that no evidence exists to point to the existence of gods, that god is a meaningless concept, that god is philosophically unsound, a social construct and not really apparent. That doesn't rule god out completely but it does leave it up to the theist to prove their claim. Evolution is scientific because it is a science. It is a formalised process to uncover the truth of a subject. Even if someone is stupid enough to deny that evolution is true they really cannot deny that it is scientific. It's not just made up shit. Can I have $10k now please. A debate requires discussion of a common topic. Ray’s trying to squeeze two debates in for the price of one:
All I ask is that he goes into a studio and gives me 20 minutes on why there is no God and why evolution is scientific. Then I will give 20 minutes on how we can know God exists and why evolution is nothing more than an unsubstantiated and unscientific fairy tale for grownups. Then we both will have 10 minutes to respond.

I’ll save Prof Dawkins some time.

Why is there no God? Actually atheism doesn’t say that, atheism says that we don’t belief in gods of any kind. The burden of proof is on the person who claims that there is a god. We’re quite content
to say that god is merely monumentally improbable, that no evidence exists to point to the existence of gods, that god is a meaningless concept, that god is philosophically unsound, a social construct and not really apparent. That doesn’t rule god out completely but it does leave it up to the theist to prove their claim.

Evolution is scientific because it is a science. It is a formalised process to uncover the truth of a subject. Even if someone is stupid enough to deny that evolution is true they really cannot deny that it is scientific. It’s not just made up shit.

Can I have $10k now please.

]]> By: Leanstrum http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/02/20/8900/#comment-273363 Leanstrum Sat, 21 Feb 2009 14:26:50 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=8900#comment-273363 I can't help but agree that the debate would be a shameful and degrading affair. At the same time, the very fact that Comfort has made the offer means the damage is already done. If Dawkins accepts (which he won't), Comfort's already-overinflated sense of achievement will be expanded to dangerous proportions. But because Dawkins won't accept, Ray will still convince himself that atheists are afraid to debate the issue due to the weakness of their arguments. It would be like a tennis match between Roger Federer and a chimp. Yes, Federer would serve devastating aces, but the chimp would be too busy throwing faeces and masturbating to notice. I can’t help but agree that the debate would be a shameful and degrading affair. At the same time, the very fact that Comfort has made the offer means the damage is already done. If Dawkins accepts (which he won’t), Comfort’s already-overinflated sense of achievement will be expanded to dangerous proportions. But because Dawkins won’t accept, Ray will still convince himself that atheists are afraid to debate the issue due to the weakness of their arguments.

It would be like a tennis match between Roger Federer and a chimp. Yes, Federer would serve devastating aces, but the chimp would be too busy throwing faeces and masturbating to notice.

]]> By: Tao Jones http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/02/20/8900/#comment-273331 Tao Jones Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:13:29 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=8900#comment-273331 Siamang said, <blockquote>I think that Dawkins should agree to a “debate by book.” ... And whoever sells the most books wins!</blockquote> And if fundie churches just go out and buy thousands of books on their own to sit in a closet somewhere? Will you be prepared to accept Jesus Christ as your personal saviour when the free market has spoken? Siamang said,

I think that Dawkins should agree to a “debate by book.”

…

And whoever sells the most books wins!

And if fundie churches just go out and buy thousands of books on their own to sit in a closet somewhere?

Will you be prepared to accept Jesus Christ as your personal saviour when the free market has spoken?

]]> By: LuminousMonkey http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/02/20/8900/#comment-273239 LuminousMonkey Sat, 21 Feb 2009 05:29:12 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=8900#comment-273239 If Ray has $10,000 to blow, shouldn't he just donate it to charity anyway? If Ray has $10,000 to blow, shouldn’t he just donate it to charity anyway?

]]> By: AndyD http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/02/20/8900/#comment-273226 AndyD Sat, 21 Feb 2009 04:34:26 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=8900#comment-273226 Debating Ray on evolution and atheism would be like debating a plumber on brain surgery and particle physics. Sure, he might have an opinion but you can guarantee it won't be based on any actual knowledge. My take on it all: <a href="http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/2009/02/comfort-challenges-dawkins-seriously.html" rel="nofollow">Comfort challenges Dawkins to a debate</a> Debating Ray on evolution and atheism would be like debating a plumber on brain surgery and particle physics. Sure, he might have an opinion but you can guarantee it won’t be based on any actual knowledge.

My take on it all: Comfort challenges Dawkins to a debate

]]>