Do you have a link to this??

You're gonna have to wait until Wednesday. But it was on Sapient's stickam room.

Here's one Rook sent in a myspace bulletin:

I'm sure there are many other posts around congratulating you guys on your Nightline debate. but alas, i am lazy.

 Very well done job guys on the whole debate with the theists! I am really happy to see some sensibility being broadcasted to the public. I truly believe you guys are helping the world become a better place a little at a time. And just the face you guys made kirk cameron make was priceless.

Keep up the good work! 

Ray Comfort thinks his side won the debate? His face says otherwise:

I saw the clips on this site which tended to remind me of primitives with spears against tanks. Of course, I'll reserve judgment until I see the whole thing - one must be objective after all. 

I was, however, disappointed that the banana argument doesn't appear to be featured in the debate.  I always get a chuckle out of that.

Finally, Mr Sapient has been awarded a punisment of 100 lines:

"I must not confuse the third law of thermodynamics with the first!"

Hey, I'd like to put the video on the front page of the myspace AA group.

A) is this ok?

B) My tech skills suck; if it's ok, got some code for me to paste in there? 

Kelly seems a sweetheart, but after hearing her half of the opening, felt she lost a lot Sapient's momentum. He was very soft spoken, eloquent and unemotional. She wasn't so convincing, IMO.

You guys did good overall, but if one observation I made, was that you guys looked a bit nervous in front of the camera; Kelly in particular. Of course, you will get better and Im looking forward to seeing ya again. One thing I thought that might have been good to bring up, is the idea that they know what "god" wants. How can we as mortals possibly psychoanalyze the intents of a supreme entity? Also, the "only atheists go to heaven" argument a la Richard Carrier would have been an interesting topic. I especially loved the way they had absolutley NO response to your Occams Razor argument. "Deer in the head lights" I say.

Yes, it's ok. Here's how to do it....

<a href="http://www.rationalresponders.com">The Rational Response Squad</a> takes on Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron<br />

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/D-rKiGJrcNw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed><br />

See it on <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-rKiGJrcNw">YouTube!</a>

Cool; I'll see if I can do it now.

To the above poster; nerves are fine. It shows yer human.

Not everyone can do that kinda public speaking-- both B and K did fine. I was impressed with the debate, even given I am one of them softie humanists!

You came across as people who are atheists versus atheists who happen to be people. I think we need lots more of the former.

Interesting debate....

When Ray Comfort breaks into "every painting has a painter, every building has a builder, every creation has a creator." line of reasoning, the quickest way to defeat this argument is to show the circular logic involved. A painting is defined by having been made by a painter. A building is defined by having been made by a builder. The end result objects are defined by the manner in which they came into existence.

In short, before even talking about whether or not Ray Comfort believes his own premise that every creation has a creator, we have to first ask if existence and creation are synonymous in this case.

I caught the show on nightline and I have to say, while the clips I saw on the internet were great, showing Mike Seaver and the Banana guy getting owned, what was show on nightline was really poorly edited. They showed very little of the actual debate and only people's reactions.

I really was looking foward to seeing the debate in its entirity so I could decide better who won. 

It has to be aggravating for you guys; looking at the finished product that ABC presented on nightline. When you listen to the arguments in the complete debate Sapient and Kelly wiped the floor with the opposition. However, the nightline edit makes it look as if it were a fair fight. In fact, I would argue from that edit that Cameron and Comfort won. They spoke more clearly than Kelly and Sapient, they got more airtime for their arguments, and nightline did that great sympathy building interview shot plus showed the apology for being so harsh. Typical journalism! Now for my criticism. I don’t want to sound too presumptuous, but Sapient and Kelly; you need work on your speaking skills. You’ve had a wealth of public exposure and it’s imperative that you make the most of it. When it comes to persuasion, delivery is just as or more important than content. Get rid of those ums. It’s better to say nothing at all than utter meaningless syllables. Improve your enunciation and work on your word flow. Try using as few words as possible to get your point across and stop rephrasing and repeating your arguments. Maybe try attending toastmasters or something similar for a little while. One last hint. Television uses only small bites of the full message, and they will edit out anything they see as too unusual or controversial. Come prepared with the points you really want to make and put them into one to three line bites that are well written and throw them into your speech.

Kelly got tripped up when saying she'd rather spend an eternity in hell, than an enternity in heaven worshipping a "megalomaniacal" God. You're validating their position by even considering such a possibility. That's why I find the whole "Blasphemy Challenge" absurd. 

Hopefully in the future, you stick more to the facts and rely less on sarcastic quips or cheap jibes. Try watching Sam Harris debate. Never raises his voice, never strays from historical or scientific evidence, just politely and systemically anhilitates his opponents arguments.

I couldn't disagree with you more.

For many people, a convincing rationale for abandoning religion is recognizing that the notion of heaven and hell does not make sense.

If god will make you suffer for eternity merely because you aren't sure if the holy spirit exists, that's stupid, and good indication that this "god" people claim exists, even if he did exist, is not worthy of serious consideration.

If god, as documented in the bible exists, then he is a megalomanical tyrant with severe insecurity issues. His version of heaven would likely be hell for a free thinker.

This is a very valid point. Some people don't like this notion because:

a) It shows that you can not believe in god and be very confident... to the point of arrogance. Many theists cannot imagine feeling comfortable without support from their delusion so the more confident an atheist is, the more significant a message is sent.

b) Religion is based on fear; showing no fear is an effective way of nullifying the principal element religion uses to control people. Mocking doctrine is a very effective way of demonstrating a complete lack of fear.

 I'm really tired of people, especially atheists acting like theists, with their pretentious judgemental crap, implying that there's one proper way to debate the issue and anything else is uncivilized.  That's bogus.  You typically can't reason with theists - they're not open-minded in the first place, so people like Dawkins and Sam Harris who (cue British accent) "respectfully disagree with you on the basis of your belief old boy" in all likelihood don't accomplish much.  I think this argument is analagous to someone suggesting that telling a crackhead they're killing themselves and to stop is inappropriate and a better thing to do is sit down next to them and respectfully suggest, "Hey, maybe you might want to cut down on the crack. mmkay?"

 Religion encroaches into the rights of people more and more each day.  We don't have the time, nor the freedom, to sit down and reason with some of these deluded weirdos.  The most effective approach nowadays is to simply be honest, and tell them they're ideas are unfounded and delusional.  Mocking them is very effective.  That's what religion does on a regular basis to non-believers.

No, they're not ineffective, but against certain demographic groups their style doesn't work. The average American is not impressed by intelligence and eloquence, or have you not been paying attention to mainstream media for the last decade or two?

Maybe you haven't noticed, but Masterpiece Theatre and McNeil-Lehrer has been replaced by Baywatch and America's Craziest Police Chases Caught On Tape...

This was one of the worst debates I have ever witnessed. I did not know such a low could ever be reached. Simplistic!

Whoever thinks this debate has any kind of value must be an untaught imbecile!

Sorry if im being insulting, but it must be said.

This site is even more useless than www.hotornot.com! Know it!

This is true. I've found the best way to argue with christians is to never insult them, never raise your voice, never curse, just show the facts. Just debunk any of their arguements and calmly and quietly put them out of their misery. You'll find if you do it this way, they are much more quicker to flare and before the debate is over you'll find yourself being insulted so much more than you insulting anyone.

 I enjoyed the debate in the sense that  Ray and Kirk got destroyed. However, I didn't enjoy it in the fact that it wasn't a real debate. Ray and Kirk tried to use faith and the bible and assumptions to prove their theories.

You could tell that Ray had absolutely no idea what he was talking about when he came into the discussion with his "coca-cola" can arguement. That if something is designed, then it must have a designer. He used a logical fallacy to try and make his point. If a Coca-cola can is designed and has a designer then a human must have been designed and must have a designer as well. Well, that might work.. assuming that we were designed. He is under the assumption that the human body, that humans in general are designed to be the way they are.  Well I say to him.. what proof does he have that we were designed other than assumptions?

 I was personally ticked off when Kirk started trying to disprove evolution with his cross-breeding pictures. He came into that "debate" with preconceived notions of what evolution was and didn't even bother to do the proper research. You could see with how he tried to debunk evolution that he didn't even have the first clue with how it worked. He couldn't even understand the basics of how the genes are passed on from generation to generation. Like when sapient tried to explain we are constantly changing, they didn't understand that by constantly changing he means that we are acquiring new genes each generation, not that we are changing physically with each passing day, but with each time our species mates, reproduces and passes on those newly acquired genes. Natural selection~. They couldn't even understand that, much less how any of evolution works.

 But, other than Kelly and Brian needing to shape up some things here and there, as far as.. keeping their cool and trying not to get frustrated they did a good job. But, they'll get better as they go and I look forward to watching future debates.

Wow, intelligent insight. The debate did it's purpose, it made you think. Whether you like it or not, there are people who think differently than you and this does not make them imbeciles. 

The problem with your insinuation in that what Brian and Kelly presented has bounds and leaps more scientific backing then any manmade god used to exploit people's fear of death and hell as a tool to yield power. "We don't understand the ways of the science or the Universe!! Therefore, an all knowing, all powerful being must have created everything and have all the answers since i don't. Ahhh, I feel much better, and the headaches are gone."

"Im sorry, I really dont understand that sentence. I dont say this condescendingly, I just dont see what youre trying to say."

 What I'm saying here is that the explanations that brian and kelly used to disprove god (note: not to prove that there is no god) has much more scientific and logical weight then anything that Kirk and and Ray could possibly dream up (Crocoduck....are you fucking kidding me?).

 "And Im not going to debate on wether or not God exists, Im not sure what to think of it myself. All I mean is that the arguments presented in this debates were often erroneous and terribly simplistic."

Well that seems to be the question at hand isn't it. Perhaps you could be more specific in the flaws that you see. Correct Brian and Kelly admitadly made some slip ups, but even at their B game managed to debunk everything that Kurt and Ray spewed.

 "And when you say, portraying a simple-minded reasoning leading towards the exisence of god..."

 That statement is false. I didnot say that a simple minded reasoning leads to believing in an all powerful being. I simply said it is a simple solution to a complex problem. Some of the most logical beings on the planet manage still to stay true to their instilled beliefs. To quote Kelly in the debate:

"We're not saying that there aren't intelligent theists, there are. It's just, everywhere else in my life I'm logical; but my little tiny God box in my brain,  I won't let my logic seep into there."

"Science and god are not mutually exclusive. Neither are rationality and god."

 The concept of a god in itself is irrational, and is a belief that must be instilled, a belief that you would not come to unless you were taught it. You like to use god in order to explain what science is not yet capable of explaining, thereby coupling the two together, how convenient. To make such a logical jump is not rational, and therefore god and rationality are mutually exclusive, they cannot coexist in the same brain without contradiction. Perhaps you would worship Athena had you been raised to do so.

"But thats of course my opinion and I would respect other ones and maybe even be convinced by them, if they were well construed and of intellectual significance. Which is not the case here"

I believe my argument was of intellectual significance, however you dismiss it without addressing it specifically. Have you considered the possibility that it just may surpass your intellectual capacity? Maybe it makes you feel yucky to question your faith and research other possibilities, so you just don't bother.

At any rate, Kelly and Brian's argument was very intelligently and rationally presented. Which is more then I can say for Mr. Comfort and Mr. Cameron (the same wonderful experts who said that the bannana was living proof of Almighty God's existence).

More proof should be required to prove god's existence then to disprove it, however the evidence is to the contrary. There is much evidence supporting the absense of a god, and not a shred of supporting. Save of course some manmade scripts. However with that argument we should all get on our knees and worship are olympian god of choice. Whether it be Zeus, Hera, or Apollo. For so it is written in the Odyssey, must be proof enough for existence.

Stay Rational,

Zeus 

"What I say, and its my main point here, is that this debate has no value, because the persons participating are all amateurish novices and therefore cannot debate at a proper intellectual level. Believe me, I understand every word they say and every argument they use. But it is all terribly dumbed-down. You pick one of their arguments if you want me to break it, and Ill do it. I think the first law of thermodynamics-argument was enough of an example to discredit them."

Well, we know those two fucktards couldn't dismiss Brian and Kelly's arguments. There is also an open invitation for theists to do so on this site, or in debate. The arguments were presented clearly and intelligently, and perhaps you'd like to take a stab at shredding them. So far however they remain strong.

" This is where it gets tricky indeed, and its hard to stay objective. As I told you, god is not something you invoke to explain the unexplainable. It was often done so in human history, but one can believe in a god for other reasons."

 Tell that to millions of people in which the ony idea that cements their faith is the creation of the universe (next to of course the bible which we all know has little factual bearing).

 "It is not irrational as even rational reasoning cannot disprove it. One can believe that there is something that exists (god) that we cannot observe in any possible manner. That is not irrational, that idea can be rationally defended."

I have yet to see it rationally defended. That is without invoking outlandish claims.

"It is a question of belief. If youre going to say there is no god fanatically (as this site does), you should understand that you do the same thing a theist does, that is believing something. And rationality is not on your side."

Actually I don't believe there is no god, I lack a belief in a god. I am not proving that there is no god, simply disproving the claims of Christianity. Perhaps you can offer logic to prove me wrong? Either was rationality is on my side genius.

SHOOTtoKill,

You have a lot to learn about the RRS, atheism, and cosmology. I hope that you'll stay here long enough to do so.

First, atheism and theism have to do with 'belief' not knowledge. We don't care if you don't 'know' because anyone that says they do is delusional in my opinion.

It's a lightswitch, not a dimmer switch. On or Off. You believe or you don't. Easy as that.

Second,

Now, explain to me again why you think that the Big Bang would refute this law in any manner.

Third, When Nightline calls to ask for you to be in a Faceoff, you can expect some constructive criticism and you will get some asshole's opinions that don't really help. I urge you to learn more about the arguments instead of just the edited version presented to the public by abc.