The Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2FskTKrx40

Discussion between Thunderf00t (physical evidence and reasoned logic supporter (Pearlist) and Ray Comfort (Creationist Christian).

5uspect

zOMG is that the banana dude?

Flamed Diving

Yup. It's quite good, actually.

Galvasean

I must admit I found that rather boring. It just went around in circles.

Flamed Diving

Galvasean wrote: »

I must admit I found that rather boring. It just went around in circles.

Typical debate then.

Galvasean

It was a bit like some of they conversations we have..

The Mad Hatter

Should be retitled "Ray Comfort repeatedly walks into brick wall."

Shane_C

Regardless of opinions, the creationist guy owned thunderf00t.
He didn't even make eye contact.

Flamed Diving

Shane_C wrote: »

Regardless of opinions, the creationist guy owned thunderf00t.
He didn't even make eye contact.

Blind debaters around the world shudder.

Wacker

Ray Comfort's style is quite familiar to me. This debate was very similar to numerous (usually somewhat drunken) debates I've had about religion. The theist/Catholic/whatever will have about four or five points in their head that they think are sure to convince anyone. They might be:

1. How can you explain creation without God?
2. What is the origin of morality, without God?
3. What is the difference between man and animals, if there is no God?
4. What happens to you when you die? There has to be an afterlife!
5. Mao/Stalin/Hitler/Pol Pot/Eric Harris were atheists!

Now, they'll pick any one of these points to start. I then respond, and begin dismantling the argument. Once I'm about 75% done, the Christian/whatever realizes that this isn't going their way, so they switch to one of the other four arguments, and I start over on this new point. Once I'm about 75% of the way through this one, they switch to one of the remaining three points, etc. Once all five have been discussed, the Christian then starts again at the top. It's infuriating!

Bear in mind, these are the discussions that I've had with people who read very little about this kind of thing. I'd never be so arrogant as to suggest that I could have a discussion of that nature with some of the better read believers out there.

CerebralCortex

I got as far as part two and got tired at Thunderf00ts inability to nail Ray when the opportunity arose.

Ronanc1

having been a long time fan of thunderfoot and his anti creationist videos this did seem lack lustre, but in fairness i put it down to him just trying to be as neutral and polite as possible,

as we all know debates with fundies or creationists can turn sour pretty quick withboth sides losing the rag!

Stercus Accidit

Also a thunderf00t fan, I found the opening very uncomfortable, Ray Comfort had very confident body language, thunderf00t seemed to be very awkward.

I haven't watched the whole thing, but the initial impression wasn't great, I hope it picks up.

Galvasean

This is why such debates don't really acomplish anything. If people are going to judge who makes the better point based on body language or eye contact rather than having actual evidence or making good points...

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOeW0TI5f3o

Stercus Accidit

Galvasean wrote: »

This is why such debates don't really acomplish anything. If people are going to judge who makes the better point based on body language or eye contact rather than having actual evidence or making good points...

If you act like a rabbit in the headlights, it is usually because you aren't doing so well in a debate.

My point if its so hard to understand, is that thunderf00t is very fluid in his monologues, in this one on one, he opened nervously. And I didn't say it was how I judged the debate, merely a comment on how it had opened, clearly stating I hadn't yet watched the whole thing.


And in reality, most people will pass some judgement on a debate by the quality of the debaters, it is a skill in itself after all. Thats not to say someone who mentions the body language is ignoring the points raised.

OK-Cancel-Apply

Why didn't he mention the retroviral DNA markers in humans and chimps that proves the common ancestor? That ALWAYS stumps the creationists.

I've just watched all of the nine parts and I have to say that I find myself frustrated after watching the whole debate. I'm a fan of thunderf00t, but he really didn't nail Comfort to the stakes with that performance; he didn't directly answer many of Comfort's questions which were, to be honest, relatively simple.

It was a pretty boring debate though; I've grown sick of watching/taking part in religious debates because most of the debates I've taken part in/watched follow the same route and deal with the same broad issues: it gets boring.

Sam Vimes

Wacker wrote: »

Bear in mind, these are the discussions that I've had with people who read very little about this kind of thing. I'd never be so arrogant as to suggest that I could have a discussion of that nature with some of the better read believers out there.

I think you could tbh. I've seen a lot of these debates or just people soapboxing and they all make the same basic points. The only difference might be that your opponent might make it impossible to win the debate by subtley changing the subject whenever you say something they can't answer or simply declaring that black is white over and over and ignoring everything you say.

So their arguments wouldn't be stronger, they'd just have an impenetrable debating style

Wacker

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think you could tbh. I've seen a lot of these debates or just people soapboxing and they all make the same basic points. The only difference might be that your opponent might make it impossible to win the debate by subtley changing the subject whenever you say something they can't answer or simply declaring that black is white over and over and ignoring everything you say.

So their arguments wouldn't be stronger, they'd just have an impenetrable debating style

Well I appreciate the support, but I'm going to respectfully disagree. The reason I mostly lurk here, and I rarely join the debates that you and others have with our friends from the Christianity forum is that I don't feel I'm able to answer their points, the way yourself and many others can. I think the problem is that a lot of you guys clearly have backgrounds in science, whereas my degree is in politics and philosophy (even more useless then you might think!), and I work in financial services. I don't punch above my weight.

I could have handed Ray Comfort his ass though!