[BOPP HACKS LIFE]

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3148940&page=1

The Nightline Face-Off! Everyone watch the videos and tell what you think. I personally believe the atheist side destroyed.

[welfare_train (Banned)]

Of course the atheist side will win. We have logic and facts to prove our points, not some old book.

[Jim96SC2]

Originally Posted by welfare_train

Of course the atheist side will win. We have logic and facts to prove our points, not some old book.

The fact of the matter is no one can prove how everything started from square one (hint: big bang doesn't). As such you can neither confirm nor deny the existance of a diety like figure.

Kind of the reason why they use the term FAITH.

[Magic. (Banned)]

i love how the creationism guy is trying to prove his point by saying science hasnt created a camera as intricate as the human eye in his rant. (about 4:40 into it)


science is sorry that 400 years is not enough time to duplicate somethings which takes millions upon billions.


AS IF the human eye was the most intricate eyeball on this planet. how about those fish that have their eyes wide open 26,000 feet below the sea surface with thousands of pounds per square inch on their eyeball, if such tremendous pressures happened on the human eye, it wouldnt even exist anymore.

how about those bald eagles that can spot things from over a mile away with their eyes?

[Magic. (Banned)]

i also like how he tries to merge the word conscience with god.


its a little bit hard to spell conscience without science.


"we look into the mirror to see what damage had happened during the night"

????

im sorry this video is just quite unpleasing to watch.

im quite certain, that the sun going below the horizon, creating nighttime, has nothing to do with someone being physically harmed.

(i think jesus mightve been a LITTLE too drunk off that wine he kept conjuring out of water)

[GoldEaglev3 (Banned)]

Originally Posted by welfare_train

Of course the atheist side will win. We have logic and facts to prove our points, not some old book.

It's not Christianity vs. Atheism, that would be way too easy. It's existence of God vs NonExistence of God. It's easier to argue for God than argue against it, just look at the FSM.

[cryptic.paintball]

Thought they were going to use science to prove god, and nothing in the bible?

[Crippled Dogma]

Originally Posted by cryptic.paintball

Thought they were going to use science to prove god, and nothing in the bible?

That's what I also wondered. What was proven? Using what?

There were a couple times the RRS stumped the other two.

[cryptic.paintball]

Originally Posted by Crippled Dogma

That's what I also wondered. What was proven? Using what?

There were a couple times the RRS stumped the other two.

Very bad attempt by the christians. I recommend they use other people if they ever plan to debate this again. It was not even interesting, they just used this as a chance to spread the word. And not very well I might add.

[Trixy_Hobbit]

Rofl

[ray77]

Originally Posted by Jim96SC2

The fact of the matter is no one can prove how everything started from square one (hint: big bang doesn't). As such you can neither confirm nor deny the existance of a diety like figure.

Kind of the reason why they use the term FAITH.

thats where theres choice c) agnostic

and u mean blind faith right?

[Marauder_Pilot]

With our current levels of knowledge, it's completely impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, or any other higher power. The Pro-God people have thousands of years of 'miracles' and religious literature, the Anti-God people have a whole pile of unproven theory and ideals. NEITHER is concrete scientific proof.

I wish people would stop wasting so much time and money trying to prove or disprove God. We've got bigger problems to deal with.

[Furious_J]

^^^ So True. It wont matter in the end one side will be wrong one side right and if its' the Christian's that are wrong, what did those that lived a Christ like life really lose by doing so?.

[skpaintball]

Hey, you're back! lol

Anyways, I can't help but question why they even bother to waste their time on setting up a "Blasphemy challenge"? Seriously, what's their agenda and/or problem?

Anyways, the debate was quite emotional... I actually watched the whole thing. It's funny how the lady acts like a cocky know-it-all at times.

But seriously, ABC, if this is gonna turn into a series, i'm pretty sure it will get old really soon. Circles and circles...

[RamboPreacher]

Originally Posted by BOPP HACKS LIFE

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3148940&page=1

The Nightline Face-Off! Everyone watch the videos and tell what you think. I personally believe the atheist side destroyed.

I don't necessarily agree with that position that the atheist side "destroyed".

However, I will say that there have been threads here, that some posters on BOTH sides would have been able to present their ideas somewhat better than what was presented in that video.

[cryptic.paintball]

Originally Posted by RamboPreacher

I don't necessarily agree with that position that the atheist side "destroyed".

However, I will say that there have been threads here, that some posters on BOTH sides would have been able to present their ideas somewhat better than what was presented in that video.

I would say the atheists destroyed. And they would not have had to say anything to do so. These guys were on the show to prove god exists without using the bible. They failed

[RamboPreacher]

Originally Posted by cryptic.paintball

...These guys were on the show to prove god exists without using the bible. They failed

yes, with that understanding, but I understood that the premise was not that they shouldn't be able to or shouldn't use the Bible, but to prove God without faith.

of course, as I have said before and will continue - I do not believe that it is possible to prove (or disprove) God. So was there a "winner" based on that? - yup - the atheists.

again though, I understood the premise was about proving God without faith, not without "the Bible".

[cryptic.paintball]

Originally Posted by RamboPreacher

yes, with that understanding, but I understood that the premise was not that they shouldn't be able to or shouldn't use the Bible, but to prove God without faith.

of course, as I have said before and will continue - I do not believe that it is possible to prove (or disprove) God. So was there a "winner" based on that? - yup - the atheists.

again though, I understood the premise was about proving God without faith, not without "the Bible".

Kirk Cameron and his evangelist colleague Ray Comfort had pledged to prove the existence of God, scientifically. You cannot do this with the bible as it is not scientific at all.

[RamboPreacher]

Originally Posted by cryptic.paintball

Kirk Cameron and his evangelist colleague Ray Comfort had pledged to prove the existence of God, scientifically. You cannot do this with the bible as it is not scientific at all.

I disagree, but there must be a foundational understanding of "the Bible" first. (which had not been pre-established, so you are correct in their case) but as I said, that wasn't the premise that I understood. it was supposed to be about not using faith, not about not using the Bible. of course I could be wrong, but that's what I thought I saw presented, initially.

One, we'd like to show you that the existence of God can be proven, 100 percent, absolutely, without the use of faith.

of course they failed to do that, as mentioned, but again - it was the rational folks that brought up not using the Bible afterwards. so - was there a set of predefined rules or not? obviously not much of a debate either way without that. (also why I don't believe in "debating" on public forums).

if he would have said that (above quote) to me, I would have done just what I do here. "okay - I am waiting for the proof of your statement of fact." - top which they could present their evidences, to which I would neither agree or disagree, necessarily and then continue asking for the proof of their statement of fact.

[cryptic.paintball]

Did you read the article?

"Kirk Cameron and his evangelist colleague Ray Comfort had pledged to prove the existence of God, scientifically. "

Direct quote from it.

[RamboPreacher]

Originally Posted by cryptic.paintball

Did you read the article?

"Kirk Cameron and his evangelist colleague Ray Comfort had pledged to prove the existence of God, scientifically. "

Direct quote from it.

did you read my post?