tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post6542245177385175094..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Ask and ye shall receive, Ray...Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger90125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-25231610191134186492011-04-12T23:23:24.617-05:002011-04-12T23:23:24.617-05:00Good episode! I wish it was longer (not rushed) an...Good episode! I wish it was longer (not rushed) and more organized/structured though. It seemed like both sides were making equal number of points while... well... R. Comfort didn't make any.chumanzeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02207062412127048970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-76573346055858963232011-04-04T14:53:26.792-05:002011-04-04T14:53:26.792-05:00it might help your audience. You have no hope of ...it might help your audience. You have no hope of persuading a Ray Comfort type because they do not wish to be confused with facts. They have an emotional belief system that they cannot afford to give up so they will filter out, ignore, forget and twist anything that threatens this emotionally held view.<br /><br />The only way "in" is to deal with the emotional block. Very few atheist debaters try to do this.Rosemaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05022043771294966332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-91280003066379977542011-04-04T13:08:14.758-05:002011-04-04T13:08:14.758-05:00When a " Ray Comfort type" Can't see...When a " Ray Comfort type" Can't see how ,in evolution, sea creatures can become land creatures. I don't see why using the life cycle of a frog, something they can relate to, wouldn't be proof that the mechanism for this is possible Any thoughts?brian0719https://www.blogger.com/profile/17623143961061592850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-80529638415327202012011-04-03T00:30:28.746-05:002011-04-03T00:30:28.746-05:00I love how you guys had bananas on the show. I sti...I love how you guys had bananas on the show. I still find it amusing that in the famous video clip he used a banana, which is ironically an example of evolution by artificial selection rather than a fruit that god supposedly gave us to eat.RogerWazup007https://www.blogger.com/profile/01452998667707506819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-28832154976443968602011-04-03T00:29:39.509-05:002011-04-03T00:29:39.509-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.RogerWazup007https://www.blogger.com/profile/01452998667707506819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-73641976295177529492011-04-03T00:21:11.836-05:002011-04-03T00:21:11.836-05:00Ray wants an example of one species giving birth t...Ray wants an example of one species giving birth to a creature of a different species. I got one!!! (I think...) <br /><br />Mules!- Arn't they offspring of donkies and horses? So A horse species (Assuming it's the female)in this case gives birth to a non-horse. <br /><br />HA. That just occurred to me. I don't know any thing about farm animals and breeding them.Michellehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014321088808975681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-43722955379825313822011-04-02T06:54:19.733-05:002011-04-02T06:54:19.733-05:00@sans-dieu
Neuro-scientific study of conversion p...@sans-dieu<br /><br />Neuro-scientific study of conversion phenomena suggest that clinical or sub-clinical temporal lobe seizure is the usual culprit. Self- or other-induced transcendental states also apply. Such states involve the over activity of the left temporal lobes and sub-cortical systems that are involved in irrational love and the under-activity of right parietal regions involved in differentiating self from the external world and internal states with external reality.Rosemaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05022043771294966332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-21989828312867928292011-04-02T04:59:15.948-05:002011-04-02T04:59:15.948-05:00No offense to Russel, but i really wished that Aro...No offense to Russel, but i really wished that AronRa was your co-host.Miroslavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09859795279935480559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-37178807535966655282011-04-02T04:36:10.548-05:002011-04-02T04:36:10.548-05:00The best part for me was:
Matt: Are you infallibl...The best part for me was:<br /><br /><em>Matt:</em> Are you infallible?<br /><br /><b>Ray:</b> God is.<br /><br /><em>Matt:</em> Okay. But are you?<br /><br /><b>Ray:</b> Of course not.<br /><br /><em>Matt:</em> Could you be wrong about God?<br /><br /><b>Ray:</b> I could be wrong about God but God is not wrong.<br /><br /><em>Matt:</em> Okay. If you could be wrong about God and you are necessarily contingent on your own personal experience, how do you know you're right?<br /><br /><b>Ray:</b> Because for 22 years I was wrong! I had to admit my wrong(s) and say God is right, he is justified, I can trust him and I came to know him!<br /><br />That bit really tells you what kind of apologist Ray Comfort is. Essentially, he admits that he could be wrong about this mysterious experience with 'the Lord' on one day in the 70's at 1:30 in the morning (my guess is a mild stroke, btw), but right after that he claims, that his god cannot be wrong. Which has nothing at all to do with the question. You see perfectly here, how his defence mechanisms work.<br />And to top it all, he knows, he is right because he thinks, he was wrong before this experience. And the the defence mechanism again: God is right, he is justified, I can trust him, blabla.<br /><br />That was so sweet! Thank you Matt!<br /><br />I would love to see a show devoted to this 'infallibility of god' concept. You could describe all the failings and trial and errors of Jahwe. And, of course, the moral implications of an infallible god in face of the horrific things happening on the planet.sans_Dieuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11437040905394792018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-68944990006698432332011-04-01T23:10:25.699-05:002011-04-01T23:10:25.699-05:00You guys did a great job, far better I think than ...You guys did a great job, far better I think than anyone else he has publicly spoken to. <br /><br />I think you guys would have been better off though not wasting time debating evolution with him. Thats his bread and butter, your not going to convince him or anyone else that listens to him. BUT you guys are the best in the world at talking about and exposing religion. How does he know that the god he says he feels/knows isn't Satan or Zeus or Thor or whoever? <br /><br />This guy loves to debate evolution, IMHO the debate went best when you you were on other subjects. (Except abortion! ouch lol)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03636998463403997997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-77088342437887276702011-04-01T09:08:50.513-05:002011-04-01T09:08:50.513-05:00what was frustrating, for me, was the semantic tri...what was frustrating, for me, was the semantic trickery that Comfort kept using. He must have known he was being dishonest as he was using it as a trick out of corners so many times. When he (had to accept) the good evidence that you gave him, he said a quiet "OK", but then went on ignoring the implications of that evidence. As Matt picked up, he continually kept moving the goalposts. He is merely a con artist, with a better than average command of the English language, but he did not have the honesty to accept that he was trounced at every turn, but merely reverted to regurgitating the creationist soundbites...<br /><br />I don't think he is a gentleman at all, and I do think you were too polite to him several times. He is blatantly dishonest, & either willfully ignorant, or (more likely) cherry picking either scientific evidence, or even biblical narratives (his wriggle on slavery was awful).<br /><br />But thanks for a great show. I enjoy all the different hosts, and co-hosts on you show, living in South Africa, I hope one day to be able to come over to meet you all at the various different events you organise.Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10602777267475471553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-73409214542813829972011-03-31T20:22:24.430-05:002011-03-31T20:22:24.430-05:00Matt,
In your interview with Ray Comfort, you asse...Matt,<br />In your interview with Ray Comfort, you asserted that abortion is an individual's right. As a long time viewer of AE, I know that your opinions are always based on well thought out reasons and I'm sure that you must have a rational argument for this stance as well. Unfortunately, I have never seen you specifically address your reasoning for this particular position. You'll have to forgive me if you have, but the sampling of videos on YouTube only encompass so much. This is not to say that you have not given some reasons for your position. You have asserted on more than one occasion that an individual has the right to do what she wishes with her own body and an outside party has no right to interfere with this. In this respect I agree with you. Yet you have also said in speaking with a caller regarding individual rights, "my freedom to swing my arm ends at your nose". Therefore, I must conclude that your opinion is that an abortion does not infringe upon anyone's rights. And this is where I seek further clarification on your position. In order for your position to be valid based on your above statement, this must mean that the fetus has no rights, or that they are at least superseded by the mother. The debate about when a group of cells/embryo/fetus becomes a person is nothing new, but I can at least infer that you do not recognize the personhood of the fetus. The distinction between what we recognize as a person and what we do not is crucial because to one we grant inalienable rights and to the other we simply do not. And this is where we get to the crux of your position. I would simply like to know your reason for not recognizing the personhood of a fetus. Surely it cannot be due to appearance. After all, there are plenty of deformed individuals that we still recognize as people who are deserving of rights. It must not also be due to cognitive abilities. No one would ever suggest euthanizing a mentally handicapped person simply because their developmental skills were impaired. Is it because the fetus would be unable to survive on its own and relies purely on the consent of the mother in order to continue living? I suppose a similar situation exists with those individuals in comas who would be unable to survive without life support. It may be humane to turn the machines off to let them die, but this is only done after it has been determined that they have no chance of ever recovering. A fetus, on the other hand, will develop into a fully functioning human if their life support is not turned off. I simply want to know your reason for not ascribing rights to a fetus as it seems to be the justification for your position on abortion. If it is not one of the aforementioned ones, surely there must be a rational argument you can give me for when we are to first recognize an individual's rights and, crucially, what distinctive change has taken place in order for us to do so. <br /><br />Thank you so much for the work that you and everyone else at AE do. It has truly helped me apply a higher standard of critical thinking within my own life and allowed me to seriously reconsider my views on much of what I simply held on faith for so very long.StoriedMusehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15700129990829858186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-79611872501913000882011-03-31T18:36:10.962-05:002011-03-31T18:36:10.962-05:00Penguinman: At least maybe we can hear some novel ...Penguinman: <b>At least maybe we can hear some novel theist arguments for once.</b><br /><br />This presupposes the existence of such a thing. Much like the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot, any rumors of its existence have not been substantiated with evidence.Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-73375784252747409932011-03-31T18:29:48.389-05:002011-03-31T18:29:48.389-05:00SpaceBass,
bacteria just won't do for these de...SpaceBass,<br />bacteria just won't do for these denialists. They'll sit back and smugly ask you to come back when you've got bacteria evolving all the way to a fish. The genetic trail and the plain plausibility of gradual change are something they are very good at ignoring.Felixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05941516348248086143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-59282724404857545292011-03-31T15:17:48.570-05:002011-03-31T15:17:48.570-05:00I'm a bit disappointed by this interview, main...I'm a bit disappointed by this interview, mainly because Ray Comfort was such an incompetent debater. Once you got past his soundbites, most of his arguments came across as ignorant, contradictory or hypocritical. <br /><br />Why can't Atheist Experience ever interview a real scientist is also a theist? At least maybe we can hear some novel theist arguments for once.Alexander Yaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03293300286288413519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-55931642834408310572011-03-31T13:06:51.920-05:002011-03-31T13:06:51.920-05:00Not having yet listened to the discussion, I am he...Not having yet listened to the discussion, I am hesitant to mention this as it may have been covered. However, reading the comments here it appears that Ray Comfort was willing to admit that he believed in medicine but not other areas of science that would contradict his views. Might that have been an opening to ask how he would explain the recent bacterial mutations that have created "superbugs" that are resistant to antibiotic agents? It seems to me this is a pretty good example of evolution being witnessed in a single lifetime by the medical field.SpaceBasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10936152024090039094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-89606078560687194532011-03-31T12:31:17.600-05:002011-03-31T12:31:17.600-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Zachariahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05984209442945206779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-61893026925265044052011-03-31T09:58:44.416-05:002011-03-31T09:58:44.416-05:00Scooter,
Watch out for stinging bees.Scooter, <br />Watch out for stinging bees.Rosemaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05022043771294966332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-36589186310999735432011-03-31T04:35:53.760-05:002011-03-31T04:35:53.760-05:00Rosemary:
A good point. And what surprised me was,...Rosemary:<br />A good point. And what surprised me was, that Matt has given a similar answer like yours before. So I'm puzzled why he didn't insist on the fact that he then believed to be communicating with god.<br />This wouldn't have given Ray the opportunity to pull his 'no true christian" card. I guess it's a valid strategy but then you'd have to stress the point how he knows, he is right.<br />I have to listen to it again, but I fairly shure, Ray didn't concede that he might be wrong and that is 'divine' experience in the 70's was a mild stroke or something other than a god reaching out to him.sans_Dieuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11437040905394792018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-89945919157161388062011-03-31T03:37:49.739-05:002011-03-31T03:37:49.739-05:00Once Ray pulled the beautiful flowers proof, yall ...Once Ray pulled the beautiful flowers proof, yall were sunk.<br /><br />I fell to my knees and knew the lord.ScooterKPFThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07517866518014944587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-83742315995753817372011-03-31T01:01:37.464-05:002011-03-31T01:01:37.464-05:00Even though I had a transcript of the show posted ...Even though I had a <a href="http://www.ironchariots.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=16038#16038" rel="nofollow">transcript of the show posted on the Iron Chariots forum</a> on Tuesday. I just finished doing a final listen through and edit on it now.<br /><br />In the process of doing this, I have come up with a few observations.<br /><br />When I saw how many word transpositions, and simple paraphrases that I had made while typing, it made me wonder how much does a story change when it is taken down days, months or years later if I made these errors just seconds after hearing the actual spoken words? Even if some events of the Bible did happen, how accurately can they really be represented? I know this is not a new idea, but this really highlighted it for me again.<br /><br />Ray was not exactly what I expected, at times he actually comes off as a gentleman. A gentleman that I feel sorry for, because his preconceptions keep him from seeing the simple beauty that is evolution, and understanding the true method of science. He has no way of seeing how much wonder he is missing out on in life.<br /><br />Also, I think Matt doesn't realize his own genius. One of my favorite parts that illustrates this was just after he gave Ray the analogy of evolution to language.<br /><br />Ray- OK<br /><br />Matt- OK, ... the ... I wasn't expecting an OK<br /><br />It was elegant, and I think Ray did actually understand some of it, but I don't think he retained it or followed it all the way through, very sad.<br /><br />And Russell, after coming in at all the right times you would then craft a question to control the flow and try to coax some actual thought from Ray, the Socratic method, brilliant.<br /><br />Thank you both for an excellent show.MAtheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12489281535410681576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-10797662442078261342011-03-30T22:51:00.947-05:002011-03-30T22:51:00.947-05:00Matt:
I was a little perturbed that you told Ray ...Matt:<br /><br />I was a little perturbed that you told Ray that you had never met "god" and that your extension to this was almost lost in Ray's gleeful babbling at the apparent concession.<br /><br />If Ray had asked me whether I had met "god" I would have replied with something like "I was once quite convinced that I had. It seemed that I had believed the right things and said the right prayers and had all the right signs that god had accepted me. But now that I understand how easily the brain can fool itself, especially when it is feeling ecstatic, I realize that it was just a delusion. How do _you_ know that your similar convictions are not just as much a normal human brain failing?Rosemaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05022043771294966332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-60358971486036509282011-03-30T22:36:55.619-05:002011-03-30T22:36:55.619-05:00Great debate, Matt and Russell.
Pastor: The ev...Great debate, Matt and Russell. <br /><br />Pastor: The evidence suggests that grains of sand arose from shells and rocks ground down over millions of years, after the earth was formed by the sun, after the sun was formed from stars that exploded, after the universe created stars from expanding matter, after the universe was formed, after the Big Bang occurred, from an infinitely tiny singularity with infinite gravity. In other words, a grain of sand was not formed from nothing but from something, and is has a long history of pedigree that ends in a question about whether the universe formed from something as well. It is certainly no proof that a particular version of a particular god created a grain of sand from nothing thus showing itself to be superior to humans in at least that respect. The logical corollary is "Can god create an Irish Stew without help from a human?"Rosemaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05022043771294966332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-88943670178739194722011-03-30T16:55:50.128-05:002011-03-30T16:55:50.128-05:00I’ve been directed several times by my atheist/ske...I’ve been directed several times by my atheist/skeptic buds to your show. Really enjoy it. From a critical perspective, you guys do a good job of accessing the regular folk. I personally wish all atheists stayed within the “angry white elitist guy” framework . . . a reluctant kudos for the exodus.<br /><br />Curious on a few points:<br /><br />A. Outside of Comfort’s general mediocrity in discussing evolution (it’s a Calvinist/Sola Scriptura problem), why the conflation of “evolution = no God” and “evolution = unnecessary God?” Your advocacy clearly suggests the former.<br /><br />B. The language analogy. I don’t get it. Language is a cultural construction. By definition it requires a shared origin. Your analogy assumes evolution requires agreement? <br /><br />C. On evolution proper: Why is it so hip to use evolution as a valued decision calculus? At worst it’s racist, at best it’s anthropocentric. Why do you think science abandoned humyn genus grouping 20 years ago and is silent on “advancement” rhetoric? Yet the atheist spends so much time on its “progressive, moral and intellectual value.” It’s still cool to save the dolphins, but screw the porpoise? I say leave it in the lab and save us from a future filled with Firefly class smuggling ships and nasty Reaver Zombies.<br /><br />D. On God and Slavery: Why is scriptural hermeneutics held to a higher standard of “evolution” than your interpretation of science? You concede that knowledge is always in transition, why does the Christian have to stay neatly placed inside the Sola Scriptura box, regardless of epistemology? BTW: Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God (with some kind of grammatical/interpretive harness)? Maybe Moses fucked up on slavery—so did Thomas Jefferson. Would it logically follow that Moses couldn’t have a relationship with God? If so, Thomas Jefferson couldn’t have a relationship with Democracy. And for your delight, assume both are equally pretend flying tea pots full of spaghetti on the dark side of the moon. <br /><br /><br /><br />Not sure how long my comment can be. . . I’ll continue later. Again, show is cool.SaintDissonancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16617730348454426844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-59280761801683185872011-03-30T16:38:18.061-05:002011-03-30T16:38:18.061-05:00This is for Russell and Matt:
Go to Youtube and s...This is for Russell and Matt:<br /><br />Go to Youtube and search on Relativity of Wrong, posted by c0nc0rdance. It is a version of Isaac Asimov's famous response to someone on why, when science is "wrong", it is different than the common use of the word wrong. <br /><br />Science successively approximates reality. Moving closer to the truth is part of the process. I know both of you know this, but you may enjoy Asimov's articulation of the issue.zoomzoom12https://www.blogger.com/profile/00049985356181888299noreply@blogger.com