A Very Sad Attempt

This debate was mentioned at the Think Christian website. It interested me enough that I decided to check it out for myself at YouTube. The result was a rather disappointing one. I was not impressed with either side of the argument. I found it to be a very sad and unimportant attempt at debating the "big question". My first disappointment was the embarrassingly obvious flaws that I found in the points raised by the Christians: Ray Comfort using the "a painting has a painter" analogy as "evidence" of creation, when he could've saved himself a lot of embarrassment if he had presented it as a humble theory, and the weak and irrational attempt by Kirk Cameron at trying to disprove evolution (the crocoduck??? what the... !?). This way of explaining the "flaws" of the evolution theory is probably better suited to primary school kids. It is interesting how Cameron mentions that he "used to be" an Atheist and an Evolutionist, which implies that since he became a Christian he was enlightened to the Creationist theory... perhaps not so wise. What bothers me the most, actually, is the fact that Ray Comfort says before the debate in all confidence, "it is easy to prove God's existence... it can be done without the need of faith", well done there Mr. Comfort. Where did he find the courage to say something so bold when no one in history has ever been able to "prove" God's existence? I would like to have commended him for his courage but I really can't see it as anything other than mere stupidity. Proof is not the answer here - it is faith. Even non-believers know that Christianity is based on faith, so why go changing the message (1 Timothy 6:20-21)?

My disappointment, though, does not end with the Christians’ argument. The Atheists, in my opinion, did just as poor a job as their opposition in their attempt to argue plausibly. Their first claim was that we were all born Atheists and that we had to be taught to believe in God. While this is partly true the Bible never claims that we were born with knowledge of God. We must be taught to believe in God just as much as we needed to be taught to understand science, which apparently makes the God idea seem irrational. This merely exposes their world view and does not disprove God's existence. Just because we had to be taught that the "black hole" exists doesn't mean it was all made up, only the scientists really know whether it is there or not. In this same way it is unreasonable for a non-believer to claim that God doesn't exist when the believers claim that they have had an encounter with God. The other mistake on their part was the fact that they let their anger and frustration drive the argument (which is often what happens in these debates). This turns the argument into a personal issue rather than a rational, factual and level-headed presentation of their rebuttal. While the Christians presented ridiculous “signs of proof”, the Atheists became emotionally charged, they certainly did project a considerable amount of hatred towards someone they claim to not exist: “I’d rather go to hell than go to heaven and worship a megalomaniacal tyrant.” Kelly states in her conclusion that it is totally illogical to believe that God exists, however, she never proved that God doesn't exist, therefore only underlines her choice of belief. It isn't obvious that the Bible isn't true (contrary to Brian's claim that it is), and vice versa, that is one of the silliest statements that can ever be made.

A very futile argument and a big waste of time… but that's the nature of "good TV" I guess. They just don't know, and they should both admit it, so that people can make their own decisions. Whether we like it or not, the issue comes down to faith.

The original YouTube clip that I saw has been deleted but you can still check it out at the official ABC News website. The video is on the top right hand corner of the screen. This version is quite long though (approx 45-50mins - with ads!). It is possible to skip chapters if you lose patience.

Here’s another laughable debate. This time I have great respect for Richard Dawkins to not get fired up, when he had a perfect right to. Why is it that Bill O’Reilly, when he’s the interviewer, does most of the talking? O’Reilly hardly gives enough time for Dawkins to present his argument. This is probably because O’Reilly knows that he will get absolutely wasted by Dawkins’ superior intellect. The arrogance of O’Reilly is appalling, well done to Dawkins for keeping the respect.

Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins