*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by dystopianfuturetoday.

I forsee much hilarity in this.

This is remarkably civil and productive (well, insofar as these things can possibly go given evidence-based thinking versus faith-based thinking). Granted, I'm only 10 minutes in...

Wait. So Russell has to resurrect from the dead in order for Ray to believe him? Sounds like Ray is asking for proof, and not relying on faith in what Russell says.

Ugh....I could go on and on, but what's the point?

o <- Ray's argument looks like this.
He got caught in a trap @ 32:20-33:58. Well done Matt.

Great sift! I've been waiting for a talk like this for a long time. Very well constructed and very civil, despite the extreme difference in viewpoints. Why is it that we don't see a solid hour worth of debate like this on TV these days? Our news channels are 24/7, yet for some reason well qualified and informed people are only allowed 2 or 3 minutes to debate important topics before cutting to more important topics like why Charlie Sheen shouldn't bang two hookers carving a pumpkin while his kids are in another room playing monopoly.

Matt is so quick and well reasoned in his arguments. Much respect.

One of those rare moments that I wish I could double upvote. Much respect to both parties for keeping things calm yet determined.

this Comfort guy is such an insufferable moron. I DEFINITELY could not maintain my calm talking with someone like that. Kudos to Matt and Russell

This interview was mind bogaling lol listend to it on the podcast , whats gr8 about it is its a largely sivel conversation and they go over specifc things and it alows the viewer to know specifcly where ray conformort is wrong and that his whole argument is bassed on and that is



"I personaly felt god" and there for everything works of the presupposition that god exists.

...
The interview allso highlights that comfort uses many words incorectly ( if you are going by dictionary descriptions) and changes the meaning of words such as faith in order to sute his view and make his arguments work. which really highlights when you talk to Christians you have to agree how you are using words so that you dont waist time.

Matt and Russel do a good job to keep things to the points and dispute him , it is annoying how comfort like Manny Christians once put in a corner that requires them to admit that they believe something basicaly on blind faith and are ignoring the science jumps to a compelaty different subject or point.

At one point they get him to admit that he Trusts science when it comes to Medicen and day to day things that science benefits him with , but then he choses to ignore science when it comes to physics or nature as a whole , and Evan ignores evolution yet the fact that evaluation exists is specifically how some medicen can work ( i think that went right over comforts head) .. it was frustraiting how comfort moved away from this or they ran out of time i would have loved to have seen him admit his Cognitive dissonance.

Its also frustrating how it seems to take 50 minutes to only cover 1 or 2 things with most Christians. 90% of the time taken getting them to stay on point and understand each falicy they are making or getting them to the base core point that they are building everything off.

I found the bold statement, "I don't believe the evidence," to pretty much sum up the entirety of religious thought. An outright refusal to accept ample, and well documented scientific evidence, because it contradicts their precious belief system.

>> ^gbfunk:
... before cutting to more important topics like why Charlie Sheen shouldn't bang two hookers carving a pumpkin while his kids are in another room playing monopoly.


You make that sound like a bad thing...

I'm about half way through this video and I'm so fed up already because they're just trying to quibble over minutia as if that would convince anyone.

Again this is another tiresome example of people trying to use facts and logic against someone who rejects facts and logic.

This whole thing (so far) can be summed up by the same statement Dillihunty has used over and over again: "I can't think of any other better explanation, therefore, God did it"

What I hate about atheists is that they've fallen into a trap laid by theists. Science and the Scientific method is AGNOSTIC to god and religion. It doesn't care. Let's be real here, there COULD be a creator, this supposed god could just be so beyond us and beyond our comprehension that set life, the universe and everything up and we are just too ignorant to detect it yet.

But, again, that's not what science is. Science is just making observations and recording them. I did X and Y happened. I did R and S happened and so on and so on. Over time, you make enough observations and you eventually learn something about the world around you. You make more observations and eventually you learn enough to make things like cars and computers and rockets and telescopes. A long time ago, theists said they knew something like lightning was a creation of god and indicated whether or not god was angry with you. If you make enough observations, you know that lightning is independent of whether or not you've been a good person or not. Ever since that day. Theists have been afraid of science and have viewed science as the opposition.

Science is not the opposition of the idea of a god. Theists have set science up as the enemy and Atheists fall for it and unwittingly play that role. The public perception is Atheists and Theists are fighting for dominance, but that's not true...or at least it shouldn't be. Right or wrong, the public perception is that Atheism is anti-god and "debates" like this just cement that mentality. Theists make the argument all the time that all morality flows from god and if you're an atheist then that means you're anti-morality. No one is attacking that argument and they should be.

Science is just saying, "I don't know, but I've made the observation that if I do X, then Y happens, and so far, when I have my friend over there also do X, Y happens for him too. Science is AGNOSTIC to god.

It's like Dillihunty said, He supports freedom of religion. It's only an issue when people of religion use religion as the reason they want to dictate what happens to other people...people who probably don't share that faith. The obvious question then gets raised: "Why should that religious view take precedence over another religious view, or a view that comes from no religion."

I'm sorry, but quibbling over bacteria and evolution accomplishes nothing as a means to prove god exists or doesn't exist. Besides, god isn't the problem. It's the people that use god as an excuse that are the problem.

Denying the fact of evolution is a large part of Ray Comfort's bailiwick, yet science has shown pretty damn conclusively that evolution is truth with a plethora of evidence from many different disciplines. Science is about knowledge and learning. If Ray Comfort can be shown that his opinions are factually wrong, isn't that a good thing? If Ray outright refuses to believe the evidence, as he does, isn't it good to show him as a complete crackpot so that some other people who might be on the fence can be educated, or at least won't be swayed by his meager arguments? At the very least Ray can and should be shown as someone in complete denial, who has no idea what he's talking about. As frustrated as I am too, about having this same argument with people unwilling to listen, or reason, that does not diminish the importance of having the conversation. You never know who is listening.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, March 30th, 2011 5:51pm PDT - promote requested by lavoll.

so stupid it hurts me inside

Wow, Ray has some mental issues he needs to see too or get help for his low I.Q. (or atleast a problematic reasoning center). He literally, BARELY, grasps English definitions. He also doesn't seem to realize that this is an issue even though it's gently pointed to constantly in this.

I heard a lot of reasons to believe or look into what science has provided from this, but Ray couldn't demonstrate even ONE point to believe or go on faith.

How can you not realize that these guys are giving you a MULTITUDE of information and you plug your ears, hum a tune, then repeat what you just said. From my own belief in God, to me this is a conversation where you could literally interpret it as a Christian of God YELLING the truth at you; and yet he can't figure out the differences in species and clings onto the only thing in his life that gives him power/authority.

Like they say, power corrupts absolutely. I don't think even God in human form could change his mind if he's wrong and he basically admitted as much.

Very sad. Very humbling, to realize I understand something that seems he and many others are incapable of. You could almost call it revelation. BUT, I know A LOT about the human mind and I know that this precept can merely be a miscommunication or hardwiring problem within my neo-cortex...

Also, Ray gets dismissive towards the end. I've experienced this before (...you never believed...) myself. He commits a HUGE sin by judging; he even says that they aren't. Then goes into fruits of labor...

Very, very poor reasoning...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Matt, Dillahunty, Russell, Glasser, Bananaman, nightmare, Crockoduck' to 'Matt Dillahunty, Russell Glasser, Ray Comfort, Bananaman, nightmare, Crockoduck' - edited by xxovercastxx

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Matt Dillahunty, Russell Glasser, Ray Comfort, Bananaman, nightmare, Crockoduck' to 'Matt Dillahunty, Russell Glasser, Ray Comfort, Bananaman, nightmare, Crocoduck' - edited by xxovercastxx

This seems frightfully relevant:

http://videosift.com/video/Why-Richard-Dawkins-Doesn-t-Debate-Creationists

This "debate" didn't do anything but solidify Atheists in the atheist camp and solidify Creationists in the creationist camp. If anything, Ray's status will go up...not down.

Again, I can't stress this enough. You're using logic and reason on people who don't use logic and reason! Laws affect only the law-abiding and logic and reason only work on people who listen to logic and reason.

You've got to drop this notion of false equivalency. Science and Creationism are not equal and opposite viewpoints...stop treating them like they are. If the guy wants to believe that bananas are proof of intelligent design, then let him, but this "debate" was nothing but a win for Comfort as it elevated him and lowered the Atheist Experience people.

TLDNR : Science is not agnostic about specific claims in varoise religouse txts and thats why atheists use science and facts derived from scientific method to dispute religion.



Sceince cannot anser if there is a "god" or not in the brad sense of the word but it has certainly disproven Literal interpretations Christainty ,and many other main stream religions , science and the facts derived from science have also helped us understand that morality certainly does not come from a book claming to be the word of god.

The reasons atheists keep going over the same thing is because Manny people are rleigouse in a way that has a negative impact on other peoples lives , such as helping governments pass legislation to ban gay maradge , or banning stem cell research.

Christains and religoise people in general are very active at spreding what they belive ( chirches in big cities iconography and centries old culture left over from old times) active athiests and sceptics are doing a service to socity helping exsplain scienctific methadoligy and proven things about the world.

You may not convert a christain in a conversation but talking to people who are religouse will help you develop critical thinking skills identify falicies and evan help people listneing understand things better.



>> ^VoodooV:

I'm about half way through this video and I'm so fed up already because they're just trying to quibble over minutia as if that would convince anyone.
Again this is another tiresome example of people trying to use facts and logic against someone who rejects facts and logic.
This whole thing (so far) can be summed up by the same statement Dillihunty has used over and over again: "I can't think of any other better explanation, therefore, God did it"
What I hate about atheists is that they've fallen into a trap laid by theists. Science and the Scientific method is AGNOSTIC to god and religion. It doesn't care. Let's be real here, there COULD be a creator, this supposed god could just be so beyond us and beyond our comprehension that set life, the universe and everything up and we are just too ignorant to detect it yet.
But, again, that's not what science is. Science is just making observations and recording them. I did X and Y happened. I did R and S happened and so on and so on. Over time, you make enough observations and you eventually learn something about the world around you. You make more observations and eventually you learn enough to make things like cars and computers and rockets and telescopes. A long time ago, theists said they knew something like lightning was a creation of god and indicated whether or not god was angry with you. If you make enough observations, you know that lightning is independent of whether or not you've been a good person or not. Ever since that day. Theists have been afraid of science and have viewed science as the opposition.
Science is not the opposition of the idea of a god. Theists have set science up as the enemy and Atheists fall for it and unwittingly play that role. The public perception is Atheists and Theists are fighting for dominance, but that's not true...or at least it shouldn't be. Right or wrong, the public perception is that Atheism is anti-god and "debates" like this just cement that mentality. Theists make the argument all the time that all morality flows from god and if you're an atheist then that means you're anti-morality. No one is attacking that argument and they should be.
Science is just saying, "I don't know, but I've made the observation that if I do X, then Y happens, and so far, when I have my friend over there also do X, Y happens for him too. Science is AGNOSTIC to god.
It's like Dillihunty said, He supports freedom of religion. It's only an issue when people of religion use religion as the reason they want to dictate what happens to other people...people who probably don't share that faith. The obvious question then gets raised: "Why should that religious view take precedence over another religious view, or a view that comes from no religion."
I'm sorry, but quibbling over bacteria and evolution accomplishes nothing as a means to prove god exists or doesn't exist. Besides, god isn't the problem. It's the people that use god as an excuse that are the problem.

i'm all for debate
definitely not a believer or any faith
but i couldn't last 10 mins listening to this

on the other hand, i did find the comments funny
amazing how many people would jump on Ray's incorrect use of words, and also mispell things like:

medicine
evolution

is it anal to nitpick like that? sure
will that prevent people from judging you based on errors like that? no (i mean, to me that falls into the same category as someone nitpicking over the definition of words used too - dictionaries usually have multiple definitions - and dictionaries vary)

have to agree with some that debating over minutia is pointless... astronomy was at one time at direct odds with religion, and has now to a large degree been accepted and 99.999% of it, to a religious person, doesn't contradict their beliefs... the same thing will happen with evolution and other current hot topics

you'll never really convince a person who is so wound in religion over these points, sure you might disprove how they are trying to prove their point, but before becoming an aethiest, they'll most likely just look for more ways to prove their faith to the non-believer... there is no such thing as backing them into a corner with science

i personally think it comes down to the people involved in organized religion. how people abuse/control others using the control structure of the system... you'll never disprove religion by going after something that can't be proven... the everyday, common corruption of the system... much easier

there is a huge difference between mis spelling something and using a word in a way that at ods with how the vast majorty of people percive it ( especaily when you are using it differently for the sake of suporting an argument)

If you spell a word wrong the Meaning is still intact and its allso transpartent to everyone that you have spelt a word wrong. If you use one word ( fairly common words) to mean something else then you litraly cannot converse at all.

so no its not anal especaily when the other person as i say is usiong words wrong on purpouse. It is anal if sumone acidently uses the wrong word and then that is identified and the people that happen to know the more common meaning rub it in or pick on them for it. or if sumone uses a wrong word ocasionaly ( but its not pivital to the argument and it was clear they just ment a different word that sounded simular )

As i say the piont hear is that ray is specifcaly interpreting the word Science , and faith compleaty wrong allowing him to maintain his cognagtive dissonance.

>> ^packo:

i'm all for debate
definitely not a believer or any faith
but i couldn't last 10 mins listening to this
on the other hand, i did find the comments funny
amazing how many people would jump on Ray's incorrect use of words, and also mispell things like:
medicine
evolution
is it anal to nitpick like that? sure
will that prevent people from judging you based on errors like that? no (i mean, to me that falls into the same category as someone nitpicking over the definition of words used too - dictionaries usually have multiple definitions - and dictionaries vary)
have to agree with some that debating over minutia is pointless... astronomy was at one time at direct odds with religion, and has now to a large degree been accepted and 99.999% of it, to a religious person, doesn't contradict their beliefs... the same thing will happen with evolution and other current hot topics
you'll never really convince a person who is so wound in religion over these points, sure you might disprove how they are trying to prove their point, but before becoming an aethiest, they'll most likely just look for more ways to prove their faith to the non-believer... there is no such thing as backing them into a corner with science
i personally think it comes down to the people involved in organized religion. how people abuse/control others using the control structure of the system... you'll never disprove religion by going after something that can't be proven... the everyday, common corruption of the system... much easier


Packo, you're new here so you may not know about westy's thing. Longtime sifters have, over the years, developed the ability to overlook westy's myriad spelling errors and accept him for the intellect that he is. You might even say we've evolved.

Since the idea of a god as we currently know it is a product of our imagination, someone is always going to come up with some imaginative "explanation" that supposedly trumps science's current understanding of the universe.

God uses lightning to show that he is angry with you...
God exists because the stars revolve around us...
God exists because a banana fits in your hand nicely...

All someone has to do is say "God made evolution" and we're back to square one again. It's like a comic book. Every so often they revise the origin stories. Iron Man's origin story originally took place in Vietnam. Now it's Afghanistan.

Debating Creationists is a waste of time. It lowers you, it elevates them and nothing worthwhile happens.

This is just exhausting. It is impossible to argue with someone that comes to the table with a ready posture to deny even those most logical argument. Ray Comfort might forever hold that his conversion to Christianity is all the proof he needs so be sure, and you have to admire his unwavering faith. But when it comes to proving anything in an open debate, the man is an incurable idiot! He cannot prove that science is wrong nor can he prove that the Bible, Creation or the existence of Jesus are facts and in the face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary he still clings to the recognition that science does not assert absolute knowledge.

I'm frustrated that they refuse to argue on basic terms and instead decide to spend untold amounts of time on the specific definition of evolution, the scientific method and species.

For crying out loud, at no point did they even try to deny the implied assertion that if science is wrong in biology and evolution, then a Christian religion must be correct.

There are an umpteen number of simpler more to the point arguments they could have made:

If the world requires a creator, why not God?
What would you say to a Muslim who shares the same conviction for Allah?
If God is loving and caring why is there so much injustice in the world?
God has intervened in the past, but now doesn't, why does he no longer prevent the good from the wicked?

The only effective argument they really raised was the injustice that God commanded and that was incredibly briefly touched on. They could have made great use of that by referring to God killing the first born of Egypt and asking whether Ray thought God was okay with collective punishment but they didn't.

Whenever I get into an argument about religion my point of view is always that it doesn't matter whether God exists or not, the Bible is intrinsically immoral and I would not follow an immoral dictator even if he created me just like a child should not have to bear an abusive parent. Why I have never heard a prominent atheist make this argument is beyond me.

Tl;dr version - Watching this was like banging my head against the wall. You could see 2/3rds of the way through the hosts were visibly exhausted from making endless complex and long winded logical arguments. Arguments that had gone in one ear and right out the other.

Poor Ray sounded pretty defeated by the end after that thorough deconstruction of every single one of his arguments by Matt. Man, I wish I could debate like that guy!

Go eat a banana Ray, you'll feel better.

You seem to keep insisting that there are only two types of people involved in a debate? When, in the history of debate, has it been about trying to sway proponents of either side of an argument? A debate is about attempting to sway an audience. I don't care if it's about religion, gay marriage, climate change, going to war, health care, eating fast food, or whether you should or shouldn't wear white after Labor Day! You are absolutely right, Ray is probably never going to be swayed from his position, and neither will anyone entrenched in either side, but there is a host of people listening who may be somewhere in the grey middle. That is who debate is really for, and unless you want them to go to the other insane, but incredibly vocal, and well organized, side of the fence, then you better be prepared to make a strong case for your greener pastures. Complacency solves nothing.>> ^VoodooV:

Since the idea of a god as we currently know it is a product of our imagination, someone is always going to come up with some imaginative "explanation" that supposedly trumps science's current understanding of the universe.
God uses lightning to show that he is angry with you...
God exists because the stars revolve around us...
God exists because a banana fits in your hand nicely...
All someone has to do is say "God made evolution" and we're back to square one again. It's like a comic book. Every so often they revise the origin stories. Iron Man's origin story originally took place in Vietnam. Now it's Afghanistan.
Debating Creationists is a waste of time. It lowers you, it elevates them and nothing worthwhile happens.