[Evangelists Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron commit every fallacy in the book in trying to prove the existence of God. Also features a can't miss analysis of the perfect design of the banana. It's so homoerotic that I think he turned me gay.]
<a href="http://throwawayyourtv.com/2006/04/kirk-cameron-on-atheism.html ">Kirk Cameron On Atheism</a>
44 comments
A few points of interest:
<<We are having our intelligence insulted by suggesting a soda can happened by chance>>
Quite true, but soda cans aren't organic, living substances. Therefore they do not evolve.
<<The banana is curved towards the face>>
Until you turn it the other way.
<<Bio degradable wrapper>>
All organic matter is bio degradable.
<<To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Charles Darwin>>
So? They have a reputation to take an argument and forget about the counter argument. And even if it was true that Darwin believed it. Several hundreds of years of additional research proved him wrong. Don't go quoting outdated sources.
<<For proof of there being a creator, all you need is eyes that see and a brain that works>>
When you look at something and see that it is and therefore someone made it does not account for everything. If there was a creator, then who created the creator? Or "Who watches the watchmen?".
<<Here we have a well made automobile etc etc Someone thought to put a windshield on it, to keep the bugs from hitting you>>
Guess what, old cars didn't always have windshields. Therefore the car's design "evolved" (improved) over time.
<<everything about us had been made with purpose in mind>>
Except the tail bone, the appendix, (my english falls a bit short here) having to eat and breath using the same opening, and only having minimum seperation in the troath. Who has never choked when drinking to fast?
<<Is it really intelligent to say that this car has no design, that it has no maker, that it just happened?>>
Once again, cars aren't biological, living organismes. Therefore they do not evolve, or just "happen".
I'm sick of the qouting and so I'll just stick to the debunking.
<Leaves don't fall in a straight line.>
So, because your wife sees you sitting next to 7 leaves which you placed on a line, and she asks why you did so means that there is no way that it could just happen? If someone sits next to an "ordered" sequence of items, it is natural to assume that he put them in that sequence. If he was not there, then people would consider it a coincedence and that the leaves did in fact fall in that way.
<To make an absolute statement you need to have all knowledge about that subject>
True, but you can also make the most likely assumption about the existence of god. There is no proof for his existence, therefore I can state that he doesn't exist.
Ad I really get sick of the questions about being a good person. By there standards no one is a good person and we are all lying, thieving adulterers. Thisis quite a depressing statement. And Why would anyone try to be a good person if you get knocked down as soon as you try to do good? What use is there in not behaving like a total asshole if people like these 2 go and proclaim that you are the filth of the earth?
And jesus died for me. Therefore I'm allowed to be a thieving, lying, blaspheming adulterer? As stated here before. God sacrificed himself to himself to negate a law he created. Does this seem logical to you?
Well, I'm sick and tired of the vid. So I'll stop here.
Ok, throwing comments as the charade progresses:
Aren't bananas actually evidence of intelligent design by man? You know, cultivation and all that magic?
I also love the way the dynamic duo makes a crazy leap from inorganic objects serving as proof of their designer to organic beings serving as proof of a designer.
Your God is a gold tooth in China?
And if Thomas Edison was alive to see the fundie madness today, he's probably add "and apparently, creationist know even less."
Wow, they fail to spell "atheist" correctly. Why am I surprised?
Oh, yuck. Comfort actually uses the nutty "life is a prison death row" comparison.
And again, Cameron points out that the way to win a debate is to forget about rational arguments and going for a stab at the opponent's conscience.
And finally.. aww! Cameron and Comfort are my friends. Give me huggles, of course I'll buy your book. :)
Ewwww . Ewwwwwwwww . EWWWWWWWWWWWW!
The faulty reasoning... the willful ignorance... the poor analogies... ugh, I made the mistake of watching this while eating, and lost my appetite. Not to mention what little remaining faith I had in humanity.
Christ. I need someone to scrub the inside of my head out with cleaning fluid and steel wool after watching that.
<<The banana and the hand are perfectly made for one another...>>
And who eats bananas? Monkeys! Coincidence? I think not...
<<The banana has a non-slip surface...>>
All those Stooges gags are wrong?
Hey anyone else notice that Kirk is laughing is Comfort does his banana thing?
Anyway, I'm 4:25 in, and this is the dumbest argument I've ever heard against atheism...someone hand this guy a coconut.
--<<To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Charles Darwin>>--
They also fail to mention that directly after that quote, Darwin spends a half of a page describing the likely events that led up to the eye. http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html
Cameron: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!?
The Question: No.
I didn't watch the whole thing, but I skimmed through parts of it. Aside from begging the question throughout the whole thing, I noticed the standard "how much of the universe do you know about" argument from ignorance and much threatening. Did they also shift the burden of proof? Saying "it takes more faith to be an atheist" seems to constitute shifting the burden of proof, but I don't recall if they followed up on it. They also screwed up the definitions of "atheist" and "agnostic."
I'm guessing the atheist was a paid actor. (The first one. I didn't watch the others.) After all, what atheist says "I used God's name in vain?" I never have. I may say "Damn it!;" that's a cultural thing, but it's not committing blasphemy. Blasphemy against who? There is no god, let alone a god so shallow and egotistical that he actually cares whether or not you worship him.
Obviously, none of them addressed the contradiction about "justice." God is just, but holds you to a standard that he won't let you reach, then claims it's your fault for not reaching it. God is just, but will torture you forever for "crimes" like using free speech, or having involuntary emotional reactions that he put into you and made impossible for you to control. God is just, but killed the one person on the face of the Earth who DIDN'T commit a crime while letting everyone else live. This is a major contradiction, unless you're assuming that you're worshipping a tribal war god with a less-than-modern definition of "just."
The "cans are designed, so the world must be" is the oldest one in the books, and they still haven't figured out that you conclude design from knowing the designer; you can't conclude a designer solely from an object, designed or natural. Of course, the banana was just silly. I think he needs to get off the Christianity and, um, learn more about himself and who he is. (He has GOT to have feelings for other men.)
Why is it that these people casually label themselves "apologetics?" If they really wanted to convince atheists, it only hurts their credibility to say they're starting with their conclusion. Furthermore, why does every televangelist claim "I was once an atheist?" He claims to be a "devout" atheist, and doesn't seem to realize that this exposes him right from the start.
EDIT: Brain asplodes! I just went back and watched the part where he instructed people NOT to use reason or logic and instead play on emotion and fear! "Our beliefs are irrational, so we'll try and short-circuit your logic to make you take them."
Bob:
"--<<To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Charles Darwin>>--
They also fail to mention that directly after that quote, Darwin spends a half of a page describing the likely events that led up to the eye."
Well reading that quote you just know that there is a big "but" right after.
Theyr'e going to have to do better than this.
1. Charles Darwin was not an atheist, he was a liberal christian, and at times, an agnostic, but no atheist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Religious_views
2 . The banana argument does not really work too well, because man found the convenient fruit, not the other way around. Banana plants originate in Malaysia, and only grow in places with comparable climate. If there was a divine fruit for every person to enjoy, this would not be it. http://www.banana.com/index.html
3 . The avocado analogy is ridiculous, and means nothing. It might have worked if the leaves mysteriously put themselves in a line.
4. The 'gold in china/human omniscience' argument is the only one that is beginning to have any real credibility; unfortunately for them, the real end result of the argument is agnosticism (there just might be God).
5. The interview with this first guy is one big non-sequitor. That british interviewer jumps from providing arguments for deism or agnosticism, and then jumps with the assumption that Christianity is also true, and proceeds to make the extremely well known threat of eternal damnation. This very argument of a possible God could just as easily been used to prove existence Islam's God and the validity of the Islamic religion, or some other monotheistic God with the respective monotheistic religion. Actually the pro-agnostic/pro-deistic arguments could have even served as proof of the validity of any religion that features supernatural entities which were involved in the creation of the world. I bet the interviewee was just waiting for his $100.
5a. I am very speculative about whether the interviewee was an actual atheist, or just an actor.
6. After the first interview, Kirk says the worst thing possible in his favor: 'Don't bother arguing on an intellectual level. It's too hard.' Well actually, Kirk, arguing on an intellectual level is your only hope. Emotional arguments rarely work in order to convince someone to change their religious beliefs, especially if the subject in question is an adult with above average intelligence or greater.
7. The second interviewee looks more like someone who could pass off as a genuine atheist. (Okay he's a stereotype!) He looked like he was thinking 'what the fuck are these guys on, and where's my $100?'
8. I think the third interview was an excuse to hit on the hot chick.
9. Kirk then claims you can prove to an atheist that God will reveal himself to you, but not in any visual or audible sense. Unfortunately for him, this is the proof that hardcore atheists would look for.
Conclusion:
If there is a possible way of converting hardcore atheists to Christianity, this is definitely not it. I would be suprised if it changes anyone's religious/anti-religious beliefs. The most drastic change that I could see occuring in an atheist as a result of this video is that the atheist considers agnosticism. One thing that neither of the hosts seem to realize is that proof of a creation God is an entirely different matter than proof of the occurance of the events of the bible and the existence of Jesus as a God/demi-god/supernatural son of god. I also resent the notion from Kirk that the study of evolution is only something atheists would do, which is incredibly far from the truth.
A question in my mind dawned on me: Are these guys for real? Who's willing to bet that Kirk is just looking for work, and is willing to say anything to get some dough? It seems like Christian entertainment has a way of scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of talent. They always seem to be there when a has-been has no place else to go. (Well, I suppose it beats doing porn movies) I mean he's a washed up sitcom actor for crying out loud!
When Ray & Kirk told me how wonderful bananas are, I went out and bought a bunch. However, they seem to be poorly designed. Some of them point left or right and some even point away from me. Curse you, defective bananas!
I guess it never occured to Comfort that bananas are not designed for children, as children's finger grooves will not fit perfectly around the ridges of the banana because their hands are too small.
It's also amusing to see him talking about the "pop-top" for the banana. So why don't oranges and grapefruits come packaged like this? He even says that bananas are designed to be opened so they don't squirt us in the face (ridiculous claim in its own right), so what the hell is the deal with a grapefruit? Am I supposed to believe that grapefruits were designed by Satan because they're tough to open and squirt me in the face?
I also have to wonder then about grapes. Grapes are not the perfect size for the human mouth (they're smaller), but they are the perfect size for blocking the airway. Especially in small children (again!). Did God design grapes specifically to kill babies?
>>When Ray & Kirk told me how wonderful bananas are, I went out and bought a bunch. However, they seem to be poorly designed. Some of them point left or right and some even point away from me. Curse you, defective bananas!
<<
Reminds me of an old Jewish joke:
A man goes to his rabbi and asks, "Rabbi, why is it that every time one drops a piece of buttered bread, it always lands on the buttered side?"
The rabbi says, "I've never noticed that. Let's see if you're right."
So the rabbit gets a piece of bread and butters it on one side, and then drops it. It lands face up, on the non-buttered side.
"See?" says the rabbi. "It doesn't always land on the buttered side."
"But rabbi," the man insists, "you've obviously buttered the wrong side!"
This programme made me want to jump into my computer and kick the hell out of those smug bastards. If they'd chosen any atheist with an IQ exceeding that of a shrimp and not those morons they actually chose, they would have been destroyed in ten seconds flat. I feel ashamed of my fellow atheists, they've really let the side down.
The programme reminded me of one of those sex ed videos about staying away from paedophiles ('Mummy, that man showed me his penis!'), with RAy and Kirk playing the exposing old men in trenchcoats.
Lock up your sons and daughters folks!
Oh, one other thing. When watching the banana portion of this clip, think about the theme to the Ambiguously Gay Duo, and see how long you can go without bursting into laughter.
'The Ambiguously Gay Duo
The Ambiguously Gay Duo
They're taking on evil come what may
They're fighting all crime to save the day
They're extremely close in an ambiguous way
They're ambiguously gay
They're ambiguously gay
The Ambiguously Gay Duo'
On Comfort and the Banana- I don't think comfort knows where the babnana came from. The wild banana has a gord like shape and contains inedible pits. Only through artificial selection did we produce the cooking banana, a redish fruit used in cooking.
One day in Jamacia, a scientist noticed how his tree bore yellow bananas that did not need to be cooked for consumption- a genetic mutation. This mutation made it weak and it would have died out, but humans cultivated it through artificial selection, and it became dominant.
So Ray Comfort's banana is actually proof of eveolution.
Comforts arguments are so bad he makes Hovind look like a real scientist. Yeah, that bad.
It probably didn't take that long to get those responses as most people don't think about evolution much and carry a lot of junk-science or general beliefs about it. Could be English Lit students or something with little science in the courseline.
They should try this with Biology students or even the nerd-clic at a high school
If they have to commit nearly every damn fallacy in the book just to prove God's existance, you know you just can't be bothered to worship Him.
Also, the banana argument. Oh gawd the banana argument.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.