Jump to content

Vocal Does Not = Violent Or Nasty


Recommended Posts

Part of a peice taken from a newsletter (you have to sign up to get them) from Ray's site. I cant find it anywhere else.

 

"We were delighted ABC gave us the opportunity to present our case," said Comfort, "but we were taken aback by the aggressive nature of the debate. The audience was evenly divided between believers and atheists. The believers were very polite and quiet, while the atheists were extremely vocal. 'Nasty' is an appropriate word. We felt life a couple of goldfish in a pool of hungry Piranhas, and were getting a sense of what the early Christians must have felt in a Roman coliseum."

 

[...]

 

"The atheists made it very clear they didn't like what we said," Cameron explained. "They were full of mockery and sarcasm, belittling the many great scientists and intellectuals who recognize the existence of a Supreme Being. But the average American isn't viciously anti-God. In fact, polls show that more than 90 percent believe in His existence. Our hope is that the program will cause people to think deeply about the evidence presented, and challenge them to consider this most important issue of life."

 

I guess disgareeing means you dont like them. Apparently beause some audience members spoke they must be atheists and are therefore 'nasty'. As far as the Romans comment....I didnt see any lions fucktard. This ties in with something else I noticed. On many "True Christian" boards, they will all say Ray and Kirk's names but never the names of the RRS members, its always just "the atheists" as if they dont have names or arent human.

 

Also debates are aggressive, especially about issues people are passionate about, that just proves they were woefully unprepared for the real world.

 

/rant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I've seen of the debate, the Atheists really were less polite than they should've been.

 

But on the other hand it's really pathetic how Comfort and Cameron are whining about style over substance. At least they don't have the gall to say "our arguments still stood the test" and instead just did the best they could: complain over how mean the other side was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I've seen of the debate, the Atheists really were less polite than they should've been.

I disagree, I think they were exceedingly polite, much moreso than I would have been. I agree that being polite should be a cornerstone fo a debate, however how much stupidity can one (or two) people take, if someone constantly told you the sky was red and tried the same tired "evidence" over and over again would you be polite with him too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of a peice taken from a newsletter (you have to sign up to get them) from Ray's site. I cant find it anywhere else.

 

"We were delighted ABC gave us the opportunity to present our case," said Comfort, "but we were taken aback by the aggressive nature of the debate. The audience was evenly divided between believers and atheists. The believers were very polite and quiet, while the atheists were extremely vocal. 'Nasty' is an appropriate word. We felt life a couple of goldfish in a pool of hungry Piranhas, and were getting a sense of what the early Christians must have felt in a Roman coliseum."

 

[...]

 

"The atheists made it very clear they didn't like what we said," Cameron explained. "They were full of mockery and sarcasm, belittling the many great scientists and intellectuals who recognize the existence of a Supreme Being. But the average American isn't viciously anti-God. In fact, polls show that more than 90 percent believe in His existence. Our hope is that the program will cause people to think deeply about the evidence presented, and challenge them to consider this most important issue of life."

 

I guess disgareeing means you dont like them. Apparently beause some audience members spoke they must be atheists and are therefore 'nasty'. As far as the Romans comment....I didnt see any lions fucktard. This ties in with something else I noticed. On many "True Christian" boards, they will all say Ray and Kirk's names but never the names of the RRS members, its always just "the atheists" as if they dont have names or arent human.

 

Also debates are aggressive, especially about issues people are passionate about, that just proves they were woefully unprepared for the real world.

 

/rant

I've always found that when people get 'passionate' in their argument 'logic' packs its bags and goes on vacation... It's shorthand for 'excuse for sloppy thinking and speaking in slogan and cliché'

 

As to the Fundie... well, one really can't expect much better, can one? Loot at the shit they believe...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't watched the whole thing but an audience member did ask Ray Comfort about cancer and he kept side-tracking and she kept speaking up trying to keep him on her question and the third time he wavered she spoke up extremely loudly. It wouldn't have gotten to that point if Ray would have just answered her question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I've seen of the debate, the Atheists really were less polite than they should've been.

 

I completely agree with that and I watched the whole debate. Rude comments, insults, sarcasm were littered throughout Sapient and Kelly's responses and it took away from what should have been an intelligent discussion. However, Ray and Kirk broke the rules and I understand that may be the main reason that Sapient and Kelly were replying in a way that they wouldn't have, had Comfort and Cameron debated from a purely scientific point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Comfort and Thingmy broke the rules they can't expect to be treated kindly...

 

True, that is why I stated the reason that they came off that way. If Sapient and Kelly keep debating, they'll become seasoned and know how to handle a situation like that more appropriately...without resorting to insults, sarcasm and mockery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as debates goes, it was one of the most disappointing for me. I've heard and seen better and hopefully both sides learn from it. But Comfort and Cameron are Christians. They only see god through that lens and seriously how can one expect, even those natsy atheists, otherwise?

 

However, I was really hoping to see Kurt's and Ray's evidence for God's existence. I saw only evidence of their ignorance once again and appeals to faith. Ugh! This debate was supposed to be about evidence!!! Obviobsly, they do not know what that means. But I think they are somewhat correct in their estimation that the Theory and Fact of Evolution does bring Christians out from the faith, well, at least, the fundmentalism (Like Kurt and Ray.) Doctor Kenneth Miller, a Christian propoent of the ToE and an OEC has no problem with his faith and what science shows.

 

Again, I am angry that they didn't bring evidence. Although, I have to admit I did like the pictures misrepresenting what evolution shows us. (Hey Doctor Zach Moore - you should get a copy of those to use them in your discussion and lectures about evolution to demonstrate what evolution is not.)

 

We felt life a couple of goldfish in a pool of hungry Piranhas, and were getting a sense of what the early Christians must have felt in a Roman coliseum."

Please... I know WOG made this point above, but really? I have an idea, why don't we really toss them to the lions. I'll capture a few and start starving them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's how fervent Xians think; any disagreement of any kind is seen as an attack of some kind. Hell, I couldn't discuss the slight religious differences I had with my ex when we were together without her accusing me of "persecuting" her.

 

Jebus is depicted as saying that we're either with him or against him. One extreme or the other - no middle ground. Hence, his fanatics take up the same mentality, and anyone who isn't with them and their nutty religion is out to get them.

 

Anton LaVey was right. Some people are only good as moving targets :jerkit:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the atheists were rude at ALL. In fact, I think most devout atheists are TOO polite. Christians will get all up in your face with their B.S. It is time for atheists and infidels to do the same. Christians will always pretend to be martyrs for their cause, even if they are debating an unemotional android...So you might as well filibuster the same way that they do.

 

Case in Point: once Dawkins debated against Ted Haggard. The crux of Haggard's argument was getting his Christian audience to drown out Dawkins with boos and cheers. Now that was not a debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that if the Xians who are being debated lose their cool or try some dirty tactic then the atheist(s) should have a right to be angry too. When was the last time we saw an atheist street evangelising? We dont get in their face about it. Yet when we organize plitically they call it militant, when we try to talk they call it rude and violent. You can only hit someone so many times before they hit back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I debated with C&C I would probably be a bit rude too, because they are quite rude in their witnessing tactics. They step up to people faces and argue they are "lying-stealing-murderers" or "lying-fornicator-thieves" and such, and people get upset with their style so IMO they deserve to be treated a bit rude. :) ... But... OTOH... the debate wasn't for C&C but for the viewers of ABC, so polite behavior is a must. You don't want to slip your rude and angry remarks and have them recorded and viewed by others for years to come and on TV too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that if the Xians who are being debated lose their cool or try some dirty tactic then the atheist(s) should have a right to be angry too. When was the last time we saw an atheist street evangelising? We dont get in their face about it. Yet when we organize plitically they call it militant, when we try to talk they call it rude and violent. You can only hit someone so many times before they hit back.

The trick is to do it in private or smaller groups, but not on national TV. It's a matter of control and discipline. (Which I don't have much of.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparing someone being rude to them to being eaten alive by lions is the hight of self involved narcissism, that Mr. comfort thinks these two things are at all the same shows that he has no idea what real suffering is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparing someone being rude to them to being eaten alive by lions is the hight of self involved narcissism, that Mr. comfort thinks these two things are at all the same shows that he has no idea what real suffering is.

He does make a lot of other extreme and invalid comparisons in his arguments for Christianity. His whole ministry is based on outrageous claims. So he's used to do that and it's no surprise he would here too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the atheists were rude at ALL. In fact, I think most devout atheists are TOO polite. Christians will get all up in your face with their B.S. It is time for atheists and infidels to do the same. Christians will always pretend to be martyrs for their cause, even if they are debating an unemotional android...So you might as well filibuster the same way that they do.

 

Case in Point: once Dawkins debated against Ted Haggard. The crux of Haggard's argument was getting his Christian audience to drown out Dawkins with boos and cheers. Now that was not a debate.

 

I don't think they were rude either. I think given the fact that they were set up to fail from the beginning say's a lot. They are in a No-win position, although on substance I say they won. A few reasons I feel it was slanted, For example.

 

1) Have debate in an area where one side feels more at home and that sides participants are going to be offended that the lawd is being questioned and mocked on holy ground. This makes the Brian and Kelly already appear disrespectful, no matter what their position. It's rude dontcha know to be disrespectful to faith in the house of gawd, then to question these fine upstanding evangelists is just an outright attack. :rolleyes:

 

2) Pit two everyday people who have jobs and lives against two Professionals. C n C are masters of their trades. Professional actor, public speakers and snake oil sales men. They know how to capitalize on fear and emotion to wit neither of which has to do with facts or honesty. Of course when they aren't permitted to pull the emotional card, so it's considered rude. So they get to attempt to break the rules they set as a last stitch attempt to save face. I agree with Asimov, this 'debate' was lame.

 

3) The Two C's get to mock and belittle atheists and evolutionists,all the while one actually claming to be both a former atheists and evolutionist. Apparently that gets a free pass by many viewers as being funny or irrelevant. He's a liar why shouldn't he be talked to as such? He misrepresents the opposing side by idiotic statements and the opposing side isn't suppose to take offense to that? When the two C's are countered with mock and ridicule it's all of a sudden a fault that's considered 'rude'. Xtians always have double standards why does it surprise anyone they still demand them.

 

 

 

That being said Brian and Kelly did the best they could, I'm proud that they stood up to the challenge that not many would or could. I admire their confidence. Yes they can learn from this experience but I think they did outstanding given the circumstances. This is the second time ABC news slanted the truth, and shed an unfavorable light on RRS. I think it's BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, how do they know that 90% of Americans believe in God? Many of them might simply be saying that. I'm willing to bet that over half of Americans seriously doubt their faith...However, they are just following cultural group think.

Secondly, yeah 90% of Americans might believe in a God...But how in the hell does Cameron know if that God is YaHOOweh? It could be Ishtar for all he knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I can show him a crocoduck if he can show me a Westboro Church Catholic Jew.

 

I mean, Christianity has evolved in different phases, with people as the "missing" links. The transitional "beliefs" between the Jewish faith all the way to the evangelical Fred Phelps of today, has been people with different ideas how to interpret the Bible etc. So Fred Phelps today is not in any way or form similar to an orthodox Jew in the first century. But yet, here we are, a person that got beliefs that originally started with the earlier religion. So show me the intermediate missing link, or transitional belief, between an Orthodox Jew's faith in 1 CE, and the Westboro Church members faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y'know, I'm beginning to think that atheists (and atheism, by proxy) really do need some good PR.

 

I hear descriptions of us as "nasty", "arrogant", "angry", and so on. Sometimes the labels are accurate, sometimes they're not, but either way they've become this stereotype which theists (by and large) just aren't that interested in looking beyond. I mean, how many theists has any atheist here encountered who was willing to describe atheists as "angry", yet didn't ever bother to try and figure out why - much less figure out if they were actually right or not?

 

I talked this afternoon with a Xian member of my family about the RRS/WOTM discussion this past week. She was fortunately open to listening and having an actual conversation about it, but I found it telling that the first thing that struck her about the piece was how rude and unprofessional the atheists seemed. Their image hit her first, and hit her so hard that their message didn't sink in.

 

Of course, she did see the abridged Nightline piece, which had a lot of spin on it. And of course, one could always debate whether or not she had a cognitive bias, and would just see atheists as "angry" or "rude" regardless of what the context was...

 

Still. I can remember one of the folks on that one Paula Zahn show back in January commenting that atheists don't have good PR (I think it was Karen Hunter) and even though the person in question was a totally biased douchebag - maybe she was right.

 

Maybe part of bringing atheism into the realm of mundanity (and out of the realm of "vilified minority") involves maintaining a better image somehow, especially in the context of national, publicly broadcast debates - and especially where said debates are broadcast in a visual medium like TV or streaming video. Maybe part of it involves being civil and professional even in day-to-day interactions, and especially at the moments when things get heated and emotional - because I think those moments are the times when theists are going to see our frustration, and then pounce and slap on that "angry" or "nasty" label.

 

Hell - maybe we need a national ad campaign, who knows.

 

Anyway. Just somethin' I was thinking about, earlier in the day. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.