Did you see the debate? No, not the predictably boring Democrat and Republican candidates, but fromer TV star Kirk Cameron and New Zealand evangelist Ray Comfort versus the two atheists, Brian Sapient and Kelly (no surname). Brian and Kelly are behind the controversial “Blasphemy Challenge” – a campaign on YouTube that encourages youth to denounce the Holy Spirit and “damn themselves to hell.”
To be honest, I got wrapped up watching “Criminal Minds” and missed the debate between “Christian” minds and the atheists.
According to Christian Post (a great Christian news site, incidentally):
. . . most have agreed that [Cameron and Comfort] were not prepared well enough to be a part of the apologetics discussion.
After seeing the representatives that would be debating on the Christian side, however, many of them expressed their frustration, feeling that other apologists would have argued God more effectively than the two evangelists, such as William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, William Dembski, or Emir Caner.
Those that have viewed the program also have criticized the moderator of the program, Martin Bashir, as being biased towards the atheist side.
If you saw it, what did you think? Did I make the right choice Wednesday night?
Loading ...
May 11, 2007 at 16:00
Saw it. Was quite embarrassed.
It seemed as if Cameron and Comfort had never watched an atheist/Christian debate before, and seemed dumbfounded when the atheists offered the very simplest of arguments against God.
The sad thing is, I was really excited about seeing what Comfort had to offer to the debate, since he had pumped it up as “overwhelming” evidence for God.
For those who don’t know, the basic arguments used by Cameron and Comfort were these:
1) A painting requires a painter.
2) Something cannot simply come from nothing.
Yep. There’s your “overwhelming” evidence.
May 11, 2007 at 16:24
I think it was a complete waste of time for everyone. Cameron and Comfort promised something that cannot be delivered: 100% scientific proof God exists. I mean if science could prove God’s existence, then it would be God, right? Science theories are man made. God put the stuff in motion and man has been trying to use this science thing for thousands of years to figure it out and apply theories. Some make sense, some don’t. But when you use science to try to explain God, then you’re falling into idolatry, because any image of God that is based solely on science is not God. Wow, sorry, I guess I’m still rather upset at this whole thing.
May 11, 2007 at 16:25
If anyone put parts of it on YouTube or elsewhere please let me know cuz I wouldn’t mind seeing it.
Thanks.
May 11, 2007 at 16:25
I’d have to say that you did. It isn’t clear what this kind of debate can produce, since each side is speaking a language incomprehensible to the other. Apples and oranges have more in common than these two positions…(speaking as one who watched the debate)
May 11, 2007 at 16:34
Cameron and Comfry were not prepared. I was seriously hoping for a worthy debate, I was hoping that they would keep their word and prove the existence of god without using the bible or faith, but they failed miserably.
May 11, 2007 at 20:28
I saw most of it, and actually the atheists made themselves to look like fools. And it was Martin Bashir who had to keep on saying to the atheists, “That wasn’t what I asked you. Would you please respond to Mr. Comforts statement?” Maybe I saw a different debate. Really the atheists answers were so infintile that it made me blush just listening to them repeatedly not even comprehending the questions that were posed to them. And I felt that Bashir was more partial to the theists, but only because they did not need to be reminded what they were supposed to be addressing. Oh yes, and to answer you’re final question. I am not familiar with the show that you chose to watch, but you didn’t miss anything.
May 12, 2007 at 04:26
I didn’t see it, but you can catch some of it here:
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=Rational+Response+debate&search=Search
May 12, 2007 at 08:23
The actual debate aside, I found it refreshing that Comfort presented the Gospel message to everyone listening. I really believe Ray’s intent was to use this platform to share the Gospel. God bless him for that!
Could a trained apologist had done a better job? Probably so on an apologetics standpoint but come on – these two fellows feel strong enough about their faith that they go on a heated debate with two people who not only are “atheists” but have created a web site that promotes and encourages our youth to denounce God. We all need to be as bold to stand up and tell the world about Christ – and honestly what stood out the most to me about the entire debate was Ray Comfort’s opening statement – he used half of his time to clearly present the Gospel message.
For those of you who commented that it was an embarassment I would encourage you to put your focus on Christians who truly embarass the faith and not two caring individuals who truly care for the salvation of the lost and while unprepared step without hesitation into the lion’s den.
May 12, 2007 at 11:21
Parts 1- 5 are here, they may even have more of the debate on line now.
http://www.bsalert.com/artsearch.php?fn=2&as=1807&dt=1
May 12, 2007 at 18:59
I listen to Way of the Master radio on a constant basis. I have heard them, time and time again, squash many atheists’ attempts to disqualify God and the Bible. I was not really surprised at the way the atheists handled the debate. They responded with anger and childlike commentary while Ray and Kirk showed nothing but love. I say that the love of God and the Gospel was shown… God can save through the foolishness of men (all of us).
May 12, 2007 at 22:43
I wrote an extended response to the whole debate on my . Check it out if you like. If you can’t find a decent video of the debate you will find a link to the official ABC News footage on my also. It is the best footage I could find on the debate.
May 13, 2007 at 00:39
Here’s the abc website where you can watch the debate:
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3148940&page=1
May 13, 2007 at 09:21
I watched it, and they failed miserably. They should have read Faith for Christ or Mere Christianity first. And those pictures they had were really cheesy and stupid. Yes they had some good arguments, but they were totally unprepared for what the atheists threw at them. They made Christians look like we don’t have any good answers for them.
May 14, 2007 at 09:27
From Marty Duren’s article, “Knowin’ When to Fold ‘Em”: “Apparently, Comfort, after viewing an ABC news report on the Blasphemy Challenge, challenged the network to televise a debate in which he, without using any scripture or faith talk [emphasis added], could scientifically prove the existence of God in mere minutes….In a debate during which one has committed not to use faith or the Bible to scientifically prove the existence of God and then two of your three debate points (creation, conscience and personal conversion) depend solely on faith and the Bible, then you automatically lose.”
This made me think of Revelation 12:11 (NIV): “They overcame him [Satan] by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony.”
I can’t help but think that the side of the theists in this debate would have been tremendously aided had they not discarded the powerful tool of the Word of God at the outset. At the same time, the Gospel was presented well, and, in the words of the Lord in Isaiah 55:11 (NLT), “It is the same with my word. I send it out, and it always produces fruit. It will accomplish all I want it to, and it will prosper everywhere I send it.”
May 14, 2007 at 12:29
I didn’t see it. I am not surprised that one or another person who did said one or both sides made fools of themselves. The entire question is foolish, in both the common sense and the Biblical sense. As already noted, science cannot prove (or disprove) God, because God by definition is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and extends beyond the human-sensed physical universe. Described an experiment that could test for the existence of God???
However, it is true that something cannot come out of nothing, and there is scientific evidence that something did: all radiation available to astronomers points to a single moment of Creation in a vast burst of energy at a single point some 13 billion years away, as it appears to us from our vantage point in the universe. This points to God. The extremely close correlation between the first two chapters of Genesis and evolutionary biology also suggests that Moses got the account from someone who knew it all, as Moses did not, and long before Darwin pieced a bit of it together. (Please, look at the words of Genesis, without preconceptions from how your Sunday School Teacher summarized it when you were five years old. Its all there. Start with “life began in the seas” for example.) So why are we still having these silly debates?
May 15, 2007 at 15:54
From the excerpts I viewed, it did seem like Cameron and Comfort were having a rough time. But they are absolutely correct. Scientifically, something cannot come from nothing. That proves without a doubt that there is something or someone bigger than our comprehension. It really is that simple. We call Him God and they choose not to acknowledge such proof.
But what gets me is why aren’t atheist be held to the same standard and scientifically prove that there is no God. Because in order to make a absolute negative claim means that you have to have absolute knowledge of the subject. For example, if you said that there are no blonde haired, blue eyed people in China, you would have to have knowledge of every single person in China to prove that statement. But if you said that there are blonde haired, blue eyed chinamen, you would only have to have knowledge of one person meeting that standard. So in my opinion, this is how silly the athiest claim sounds: There is no such thing as an all knowing being because I know all. Self defeating statement. At best they should call themselves Agnostic and admit that they are denying the proof. God bless Comfort and Cameron for taking a stand. I wish I were that bold. In fact I ask that you pray for me.