1. Standard memberXanthosNZ
    Cancerous Bus Crash
    p^2.sin(phi)
    Joined
    06 Sep '04
    Moves
    25076
    03 May '07 02:052 edits
    http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070429/27149_Evangelist_Challenges_Atheists_to_Bible-Less_Debate.htm

    NEW YORK – A prominent Christian best-selling author is asserting that he can prove the existence of God without using the Bible, and has challenged two atheists to a debate.

    Ray Comfort, author of God Doesn't Believe in Atheists, alongside fellow Christian and actor Kirk Cameron (Growing Pains) will butt heads with two ardent nonbelievers using only scientific fact in a debate sponsored by ABC. Comfort says that the evidence will “absolutely” confirm that there is a God, and he will not speak about his faith.

    "Most people equate atheism with intellectualism," explained Comfort in a statement, "but it's actually an intellectual embarrassment. I am amazed at how many people think that God's existence is a matter of faith. It's not, and I will prove it at the debate – once and for all. This is not a joke. I will present undeniable scientific proof that God exists.”

    The debate is in reaction to the “Blasphemy Challenge” that started late in 2006. The two creators of the movement encouraged all people to tape themselves with a short message that will “damn themselves to hell.” Participants must recite the line "I deny the Holy Spirit,” and then upload their video onto YouTube.

    Comfort and Cameron felt that these two would be some of the most difficult people to convince that God does indeed exist, so contacted them about having a discussion.

    ABC has said that they will film the debate, which will take place on May 5 in New York City, and will stream it live on their website as well as use footage for their program Nightline. Martin Bashir, co-anchor of Nightline, will moderate the event.

    Cameron will use the event to also speak out against evolution, which he thinks is not credible and a major contributor to the growth in atheism.

    "Evolution is unscientific. In reality, it is a blind faith that's preached with religious zeal as the gospel truth. I'm embarrassed to admit that I was once a naïve believer in the theory,” said the former television star in a statement. “Atheism has become very popular in universities – where it's taught that we evolved from animals and that there are no moral absolutes. So we shouldn't be surprised when there are school shootings.”

    Comfort felt impelled to hold the debate, because he is worried about the state of Christianity around the world, especially in Europe. According to a Zukerman study, in Sweden as many as 85 percent of the population are non-believers; Japan has 65 percent; France with 54 percent; and 44 percent of British citizens do not believe in God.

    The Christian writer also noted that there is a genuine attack against Christian beliefs, more than other religions.

    "[T]here is something more sinister here than a few people not believing in God,” concluded the author. “Why would so many be so bitter against Christianity in particular? Why aren't they making videos that blaspheme Buddha or Mohammed or Ghandi? We made our own video clip and posted it on www.Hollywoodblasphemy.com to expose why."

    Comfort has spoken at several atheist events, one in which he was a platform speaker at the 2001 convention for the American Atheists, Inc.


    I thought that Christianity required faith and yet here are two Christians attempting to PROVE that God exists. And better than that, without referencing the Bible.

    Also you may remember the names of the two guys from the "Banana, the proof of Creationism" video. The one where he presents a banana as evidence that God created us because look how great it is (hint: he used a cavendish banana which is a manmade breed that can't reproduce on its own).
    EDIT: "Why aren't they making videos that blaspheme Buddha or Mohammed or Ghandi?"
    What religion did Ghandi start?
  2. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49974
    03 May '07 02:20
    Originally posted by XanthosNZ
    http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070429/27149_Evangelist_Challenges_Atheists_to_Bible-Less_Debate.htm

    [b]NEW YORK – A prominent Christian best-selling author is asserting that he can prove the existence of God without using the Bible, and has challenged two atheists to a debate.

    Ray Comfort, author of God Doesn't Believe in Atheists, alongside ...[text shortened]... blaspheme Buddha or Mohammed or Ghandi?"
    What religion did Ghandi start?
    Here's the ABC page featuring the info about the debate ...

    http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3130360&page=1
  3. Joined
    18 Feb '07
    Moves
    1345
    03 May '07 02:372 edits
    This will be good. I was hoping to find a study that tracked who believes and doesn't believe in God.
    I love sweden, 85 % is great. They also have some of my favorite bands.

    http://www.amazon.com/God-Doesnt-Believe-Atheists-Atheist/dp/0882709224

    ...
  4. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    03 May '07 08:46
    Originally posted by XanthosNZ
    What religion did Ghandi start?
    The cult of colonic irrigation.
  5. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    03 May '07 14:51
    Originally posted by XanthosNZ
    http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070429/27149_Evangelist_Challenges_Atheists_to_Bible-Less_Debate.htm

    [b]NEW YORK – A prominent Christian best-selling author is asserting that he can prove the existence of God without using the Bible, and has challenged two atheists to a debate.

    Ray Comfort, author of God Doesn't Believe in Atheists, alongside ...[text shortened]... blaspheme Buddha or Mohammed or Ghandi?"
    What religion did Ghandi start?
    "I thought that christianity required faith..."

    Understand that I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but you don't understand the biblical meaning of what "faith" is. It doesn't mean 'I wish this or that was true', or, 'I hope this is real'.

    Faith is about trusting in something that you KNOW is true. When I put my trust in what God says, I believe and have faith IN what God says.

    I know God exists. I trust and have faith IN him.

    Does this make sense to you?
  6. DonationPawnokeyhole
    Krackpot Kibitzer
    Right behind you...
    Joined
    27 Apr '02
    Moves
    16879
    03 May '07 16:032 edits
    Originally posted by josephw
    "I thought that christianity required faith..."

    Understand that I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but you don't understand the biblical meaning of what "faith" is. It doesn't mean 'I wish this or that was true', or, 'I hope this is real'.

    Faith is about trusting in something that you KNOW is true. When I put my trust in what God says, I believe ...[text shortened]...

    I know God exists. I trust and have faith IN him.

    Does this make sense to you?
    I never understood how subjective illuminations yield objective knowledge. How can you distinguish between the feeling that God exists and the knowledge that He exists? How can you guarantee, to both yourself and others, that the feeling is not misleading? Suppose you have undergone some remarkable spiritual transformation, and your soul now shines with truth and light. Well and good. But what evidence indicates that the party responsible for this transformation was a transcendent being, or some guy who died 2000 years ago?
  7. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    03 May '07 17:42
    Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
    I never understood how subjective illuminations yield objective knowledge. How can you distinguish between the feeling that God exists and the knowledge that He exists? How can you guarantee, to both yourself and others, that the feeling is not misleading? Suppose you have undergone some remarkable spiritual transformation, and your soul now shines with ...[text shortened]... sponsible for this transformation was a transcendent being, or some guy who died 2000 years ago?
    I never understood how subjective illuminations yield objective knowledge. How can you distinguish between the feeling that God exists and the knowledge that He exists?


    ....the point is you can't understand until you have had the experience.
  8. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    03 May '07 17:53
    Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
    I never understood how subjective illuminations yield objective knowledge. How can you distinguish between the feeling that God exists and the knowledge that He exists? How can you guarantee, to both yourself and others, that the feeling is not misleading? Suppose you have undergone some remarkable spiritual transformation, and your soul now shines with ...[text shortened]... sponsible for this transformation was a transcendent being, or some guy who died 2000 years ago?
    I know what this is going to sound like to you, but here it is anyway.

    When I ACKNOWLEDGE that all that my senses perceive is a reflection of the one that created it all, then I "know" there is a God.
    I'll let it go at that for now.

    And that guy who died 2000 years ago also was raised from the dead.
    Whatever!
  9. DonationPawnokeyhole
    Krackpot Kibitzer
    Right behind you...
    Joined
    27 Apr '02
    Moves
    16879
    03 May '07 17:58
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    I never understood how subjective illuminations yield objective knowledge. How can you distinguish between the feeling that God exists and the knowledge that He exists?


    ....the point is you can't understand until you have had the experience.
    Your reply is self-servingly glib. It's a charter to believe anything you feel emotionally compelled to believe, without having to raise a finger to justify it.

    Explain to me why I must have an experience to understand why having that experience guarantees infallible knowledge about some conventional religious proposition.
  10. DonationPawnokeyhole
    Krackpot Kibitzer
    Right behind you...
    Joined
    27 Apr '02
    Moves
    16879
    03 May '07 18:094 edits
    Originally posted by josephw
    I know what this is going to sound like to you, but here it is anyway.

    When I ACKNOWLEDGE that all that my senses perceive is a reflection of the one that created it all, then I "know" there is a God.
    I'll let it go at that for now.

    And that guy who died 2000 years ago also was raised from the dead.
    Whatever!
    You can only acknowledge in the first place something you believe to be true (and arguably, only something that is actually true too, if that acknowledgement is to be successful; but let this complication slide).

    But you believe it to be true that everything your senses perceive is a reflection of God the creator.

    Hence, your knowledge that God exists derives from an acknowledgement that already entails the belief that God exists.

    Are you sure you are not merely a victim of a delusion here? Or perhaps the fallacy of question-begging?
  11. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78520
    03 May '07 18:101 edit
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    I never understood how subjective illuminations yield objective knowledge. How can you distinguish between the feeling that God exists and the knowledge that He exists?


    ....the point is you can't understand until you have had the experience.
    Suppose that the atheists are right for a moment. Then any religious experience is either a fake or some sort of schizophrenic episode - and everyone who has trotted out that old piece of nonsense is wrong or lieing. Now let's suppose that the Christians are, broadly at least, right. Then some religeous experiences must either be people faking it, saying they've had one to be part of the gang, or schizophrenic episodes - as a loving god isn't going to start telling people to kill people. Now the people having the schizophrenic episode are incapable of distinguishing between their own madness and a "true" religious experience - to the point of murder. So I really don't think that you just know can possibly work, whether god exists or not.

    1) I do not think that all or indeed most people who suffer from schizophrenia are a danger to other people.
    2) I do not think that people who have religious experiences suffer from schizophrenia - I'm advancing an argument not saying you're all mad.
  12. DonationPawnokeyhole
    Krackpot Kibitzer
    Right behind you...
    Joined
    27 Apr '02
    Moves
    16879
    03 May '07 18:222 edits
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Suppose that the atheists are right for a moment. Then any religious experience is either a fake or some sort of schizophrenic episode - and everyone who has trotted out that old piece of nonsense is wrong or lieing. Now let's suppose that the Christians are, broadly at least, right. Then some religeous experiences must either be people faking it, say riences suffer from schizophrenia - I'm advancing an argument not saying you're all mad.
    Right. There is plenty of evidence of people, in the grip of a psychotic delusion, being utterly convinced of propositions that are farfetched. Perhaps beliefs rooted in intense religious experience are simply a milder and better socialized form of this phenomenon.

    Another problem is this. Different people claim to have a religious experience that offers infallible knowledge of particular religious propositions. However, those propositions sometimes logically exclude each other (e.g., only believers in Islam / Christianity go to heaven). Hence, some propositions must be wrong. This obviously calls into question the general evidential value of religious experience, which yields all of the propositions. Of course, opponents can each insist they are correct, and that the others are wrong. However, the impartial observer wonders whether the wrongness might be more evenly distributed.
  13. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    03 May '07 18:41
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Suppose that the atheists are right for a moment. Then any religious experience is either a fake or some sort of schizophrenic episode - and everyone who has trotted out that old piece of nonsense is wrong or lieing. Now let's suppose that the Christians are, broadly at least, right. Then some religeous experiences must either be people faking it, say ...[text shortened]... riences suffer from schizophrenia - I'm advancing an argument not saying you're all mad.
    Now the people having the schizophrenic episode are incapable of distinguishing between their own madness and a "true" religious experience - to the point of murder. So I really don't think that you just know can possibly work, whether god exists or not.


    .....however my point is that if you have had no such experience then how are we to judge? It's all supposition and hypotheticals.
  14. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    03 May '07 18:45
    Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
    Right. There is plenty of evidence of people, in the grip of a psychotic delusion, being utterly convinced of propositions that are farfetched. Perhaps beliefs rooted in intense religious experience are simply a milder and better socialized form of this phenomenon.

    Another problem is this. Different people claim to have a religious experience that of ...[text shortened]... However, the impartial observer wonders whether the wrongness might be more evenly distributed.
    All religous experience is valid to some degree or other the differences occur when different understandings are placed on experiences. But once again until you have had one you are talking off your subject , one can only watch from the outside and wonder what it is that the person "knows".
  15. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    03 May '07 18:46
    Originally posted by josephw
    I know what this is going to sound like to you, but here it is anyway.

    When I ACKNOWLEDGE that all that my senses perceive is a reflection of the one that created it all, then I "know" there is a God.
    I'll let it go at that for now.

    And that guy who died 2000 years ago also was raised from the dead.
    Whatever!
    I am not sure how is got to this but it seems we must now accept the fact that we are a bunch of schizophernic crazy people for believing in a God.

    Oh well, I've been called worse. It just a good thing we have all of these sane, well centered, atheistic folk around to help us stay grounded, no?

    Help us, pleeease help us!!!!

    🙄
Back to Top