AronRa VS Ray Comfort
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-09-2012, 06:07 PM
RE: AronRa VS Ray Comfort
(23-09-2012 03:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I was exploring some podcasts around the net and discovered one where a skeptic and scientist in one person debated a preacher. I was seriously disappointed. The preacher was the smoothest liar I ever heard. There were about four truths out of his mouth per whole debate, all the rest were half-truths, incomplete truths (with the important half missing) and outright lies about facts of science. But it all was so tightly packed into one slick torrent of speech, that nobody could possibly answer it all. It would take a good sound editing, quick notes and another hour to answer every nonsense he spewed. It was like a machinegun of horse shit bullets. I really couldn't keep a straight face listening to that. I'd chuckle or outright laugh, if I was in the audience.

OTOH, the skeptic wasn't good at this, in his segment of time. He got bogged down in technical questions and wasted a lot of time not knowing what to say. He could do a magnificent job attacking the fundamentals of religion and exposing some major preacher's lies, but he didn't. He wasn't good at attacking and mocking, unlike my favorite Youtube atheists.
That's the problem, honest people struggle with dishonest debaters. And I know that a solid non-sequitur can stop me cold for a while, I just don't know what to say, or there is too much to say. It's good to see that atheists on Youtube are a tougher lot and that they're getting out into the public.

So I was glad to see that this debate with Aron Ra went much better. Aron made a good impression, I think many people understood that Ray Comfort is the empty-handed fool there and that Aron knows his stuff and doesn't hide behind complexity, the science really is complex. The whole taxonomy thing, we really are scientifically classified as apes and subset of monkeys.
It was still fairly technical and polite, though. One day I'd like to hear a discussion in which the Christian is so thoroughly discredited, that next two weeks he'll proverbially walk through sewers. There is certainly enough nonsense and immorality in Bible to do that, but I don't remember any actual debate in which it happened.

That technique is called "The Gish Gallop", made popular by a creationist named Duane Gish. I've seen it used by ShockofGod in his debate against Steve Shives, too. It's equally devastating and unfair. It's encouraging to me that I've never seen an atheist use it (though I imagine it must happen somewhere).

Ray Comfort's incredulity and ability to analogize well is, as Aron Ra pointed out, his strength. But I think he met his match here. Aron Ra called him out properly on his equivocation of the word "faith", and in my opinion "schooled" Ray on science. I agree with Thomas' quibble, though, about Aron Ra's weak answer to the morality question. Thomas echoes Hitchens' position, which was a strong and well-rehearsed answer. Aron Ra could've drawn from that, but it sounded like he was unprepared for that question.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2012, 07:59 PM (This post was last modified: 23-09-2012 08:26 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: AronRa VS Ray Comfort
A way to end the morality debate :

Ask them if they believe St. Paul's Epistles were the inspired word of God .
Then quote a little to them.

Romans 2 : 14-15
"For when the gentiles who do not have the law, by nature observe the prescriptions of the law; they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law.
They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day, when , according to my gospel, God will judge people's hidden works, (through Jesus Christ)."

A'int Saul believed that :
1. The law was naturally in all people.
2. It would protect them, (in the last judgement)
3. The gospel he preached was his own, to make up and do with what he pleased.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
24-09-2012, 11:59 AM (This post was last modified: 24-09-2012 12:06 PM by Thomas.)
RE: AronRa VS Ray Comfort
(23-09-2012 02:07 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(23-09-2012 01:44 PM)Thomas Wrote:  Sorry, AronRa is a weak spokesman.

Why is atheism a stronger position for morality? He missed this completely.

Short answer:
Simply because bad people do bad things, but religion "demands" that good people do bad things, even when they know that they are bad.

Long answer:
When an individual stops to decide an ethical position for themselves they are more likely to make a better decision than a person who has given up the right to make their own decisions. The person who must make their own decisions will more likely than not take the time to better understand an issue because they are forced to.

Example: Gay Marriage in the US.
The US constitution provides equal protection for all citizens. The Bill of Rights declares the right of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. Per the constitution you cannot discriminate against same sex marriage as it is between two consenting adults pursuing happiness while not hurting others. They have the right to join in legal union. This is a no-brainer for a thinking person.

Plenty of good people are opposed to gay marriage just because of a religious book. They do not think, they follow a discriminatory idea set by an ancient people 2,500 year ago. Good people hurting others for no good reason while believing they are acting morally.

That's a good argument for Atheistic morality.
If you're going to call yourself a spokesperson know the questions and rattle off the answers from rehearsal. You don't try and think of a good answer in the interview.
Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with morality, thus something like an "atheistic morality" does not exist. You can be an Atheist and oppose gay marriage at the same time. Being immoral and an Atheist are not mutually exclusive, because the latter simply means that you lack a belief in one or more deities. Everything beyond that is the choice of an individual.

You're missing my point a bit. Religion says don't think, these are the ideas you follow to be moral. Nonbelievers typically think on their own. People who typically think use todays data to make decisions. The religious use 1st century data to accept ethical positions as "givien".

Therefore, the person even attempting to think about an issue is ahead of the theirst. Atheist morality is a position of ignoring religious dogma and using current data to make ethical decisions.

Example: Until 1973 homosexuality was considered a psychological disorder. Research showed it not to be and the APA changed their position. Even someone secular from 1950 may have the wrong opinion on homosexuality. Research on morality matters to atheists. The same research is something to "get around" for theists. I.e. "Homosexuals should be stoned to death".

We do have atheistic (secular) morality. It's called thinking for yourself. Today even the dumbest among us are better then the most intelligent from 500 BC who wrote down these misguided moral positions in the Bible.

Don't look at single datapoints. An atheist can be immoral and a christian can be moral. That's not the argument. The argument is "On average a society of secular thinkers will advance morally faster than a society of thesits." That's what AronRa and other spokespeople need to press against the theists. Beat this like a drum. Getting side tracked by anecdotal observation is what to avoid.

In any debate you never answer the question directly. You just use the question to get in your talking points. Fuck me man, this is 8th grade debate team stuff.

If you note my signture line. I actually use this as an opening comment every time I take on a theist. No one asks me for this opinion. It's a verbal slap. A strategic positioning point. It's all about framing the argument for your points to be considered. I'm not trying to win over theists, rather the people on the fense. They are not offended by the comment. They see it as something to consider.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2012, 02:56 PM
RE: AronRa VS Ray Comfort
Ray Comfort ignored all the questions, issues, and dilemmas brought to the table. This wasn't even a debate, let alone AronRa vs Ray Comfort.

Occasional TTA returner then leaverer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2012, 03:27 PM
RE: AronRa VS Ray Comfort
(22-09-2012 05:54 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  WTF RAY CUNTFUCK IS FROM NEW ZEALAND!


No wonder you hate the place. Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Magoo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: