God-sized mismatch

While I respect Kirk Cameron for his stance for Christian principles, I'm just not sure if he and his cohort, Ray Comfort, are up for their latest challenge. They will be debating the creators of Blasphemy Challenge on ABC News' Nightline.

There are dozens of people on both sides of the issue that would better defend their stance than these four, but I guess the former Growing Pains star's name draws more people than Ravi Zacharias' does.

I hope I'll be pleasantly surprised by all four of the participants, which right now would not be hard because I am not going into this with much in the way of expectations.

Comments

[Stewart]

Consider this: Cameron and his associates have read more theology, spent more time with the Bible, and more time thinking about Christianity than the vast majority of other Christians. Still, you don't have any confidence in their ability to articulate or defend their beliefs. I think that's very interesting.

[Louis]

So...what? Did seeker kick the bucket or something?

[Cedric Katesby]

Whoh! Kirk Cameron?
The banana guy? Are we talking about the same person?
Really?
This guy?
The one that's really into phallic symbolism?

The atheist's nightmare: the banana
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zwbhAXe5yk

Oh happy day. :)

[Aaron]

I believe that there are numerous other people who can and do express and defend Christianity much better than either of these two. I would say the same if ABC contacted me and asked me to go on the show against the atheists. It is one thing to be a dedicated Christian and know what you believe, even be semi-well versed in apologetics. It is another to be able to go on national television and give a reasoned and compelling defense of the faith.

One of the main thing that gives me pause is Comfort's assertion that he can (and will) proof scientifically beyond a shadow of a doubt the existence of God. I doubt that's possible for a whole host of reasons - some scientific, some theologic. That's not to say I don't believe that logic, reason and science can (and do) point to the existence of God. But it is a large step to jump from pointing to all the way to proving.

I guess we shall see.

[Louis]

I don't think one can logically or scientifically prove the existence of "God." From my understanding of the concept, "God" is beyond human proof or even understanding. How can one encompass the infinite with the finite? Finite proofs and theories are inadequate to the task. Can an ant understand the mind of man? Doubtful.

This is not to say that evidence can't be provided.

[Aaron]

I essentially agree with what you are saying Louis. That was part of the reason for my doubting the claims of Comfort. The other being the theological issue of God's existence being proven beyond all doubt - that eliminates any possibility of faith or a choice being made to follow Him.

[Cineaste]

I've seen the members of the Rational Response Squad interview Richard Dawkins. They are young college aged kids; well intentioned atheists but not anywhere near Sam Harris in debating skills. I hope they do well anyway. I'm just excited such a debate is actually going to take place.

[Aaron]

That's my point, ABC News is going after ratings (I don't blame them for that) and not a real debate that will hit some real points.

[Stewart]

Aaron, you're conceding that Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort aren't prepared to adequately defend their beliefs under critical cross-examination. It's not as if people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are well-known for their debate tactics. They simply have an intelligent platform from which they argue, and they stick to the topic of their expertise. But even when not they're not being cross-examined directly, Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort defend their beliefs ridiculously. One only needs to watch the astoundingly absurd Banana video to see this clearly.

Why do you suppose that should be? What should we take away from that? That Cameron and Comfort have well-justified beliefs, but they're just entirely unable to articulate the source reasons? Or -- and I think this is far more likely -- that the source reasons for their beliefs are manifestly bad ones, and that they, like all religious believers, are largely unaware of it.

[Aaron]

Stewart, so I can also assume that when atheists make ridiculous comments and arguments that also means "the source reasons for their beliefs are manifestly bad ones."

Some people are better at debates than others, that doesn't automatically indicate which position is true.

From what I heard about the debate neither group did their side too many favors - that was what I was afraid of. Not to mention Comfort's claim about proving God's existence 100%. I shudder when I hear someone say that. Just as I would expect atheists to do the same if someone made the opposite 100% claim.

[Stewart]

Stewart, so I can also assume that when atheists make ridiculous comments and arguments that also means "the source reasons for their beliefs are manifestly bad ones."

Yes, of course.

Some people are better at debates than others, that doesn't automatically indicate which position is true.

I couldn't agree more. Which is why I pointed out that neither Harris or Dawkins have particularly aggressive debating styles. They just happen to be well-spoken, and well-informed. It's also why I pointed out that Comfort and Cameron are perfectly capable of discrediting their own beliefs without the help of any atheist debate opponents.

Not to mention Comfort's claim about proving God's existence 100%. I shudder when I hear someone say that.

If this bothers you as much as you claim, then you should have no trouble admitting that, across the world, the vast majority of Christians quite obviously have no reason to believe the things they do. Most religious adherents believe that the existence of not just a god, but their god, is perfectly obvious.

[Cineaste]

Here is the debate: Atheists vs Christians: Oh my how embarrassing for Kirk and Ray. The atheists were just okay, but looked great along side the Christian duo.

[Cineaste]

Here is the debate as edited by the Rational Response Squad. Rational Response Squad takes on Christians on ABC

Two things worth noting:

1. They prep for the debate by listening to Pantera in their car.

2. Kelly has a nice rack.

[Cedric Katesby]

Aaron said "Some people are better at debates than others, that doesn't automatically indicate which position is true."
No argument here.
All the same, as debates go, this one was pretty one-sided. Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort did nothing but preach, and preach badly.
That bit about forgiveness of sins was a gift to the atheists. Kirk and Ray came off looking like they didn't really understand theology at all.

Two things worth noting:
1. Ray looked lost without his yellow thingy.
2. Kelly DOES have a nice rack!

[Aaron]

If this bothers you as much as you claim, then you should have no trouble admitting that, across the world, the vast majority of Christians quite obviously have no reason to believe the things they do. Most religious adherents believe that the existence of not just a god, but their god, is perfectly obvious.

You miss my point. I'm saying that I shudder to think someone would claim to prove God scientifically 100%. I don't think you can prove a metaphysical claim 100% using science. It isn't supposed to work in that realm.

I think you can use science, logic and reason to come to the best conclusion about God and other similar issues. I believe that my faith is very rational and I have evidence for what I believe. However I do not believe that I could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to everyone here that God exists. Nor could any of you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist.

All the same, as debates go, this one was pretty one-sided. Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort did nothing but preach, and preach badly.

That was my point. I believe that Cameron and Comfort can be excellent speakers in the right environment, but they are not cut out for general apologetics. You don't have to be aggressive or have one type of form, but a debate is not a sermon. As Cedric said, they went into this like a sermon instead of a debate and it showed.

I have seen numerous debates where the Christian apologists destroyed the atheist in the debate. I don't take that as automatically meaning that Christianity is true and atheism is false. It's just a small part of a much larger picture.

On another blog, Kelly was used as evidence for "intelligent design" if that makes Cineaste and Cedric fell any better.