I finally got around to watching, “Does God Exist? The Nightline Face-Off” and I have to say that my fear of this being a bad idea even before the debate was proven true during it. I have a ton of respect for Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort and I think that they each did an outstanding job at voicing their beliefs and convictions but an event like this is a no win situation for either side because they are so ardently opposed to each other’s view points.
The problem for the Christians in a debate like this is that the rules aren’t the same for both sides. The atheist camp can respond and react with hatred and sarcasm, which they did, but if the Christians were to slip and respond in that manner then they would be ridiculed for it. To their credit Cameron and Comfort both kept a calm respectful tone while the atheist disrespectfully looked away and responded and attacked in hateful tones. There was a clear difference in the level of respect given between the two sides.
The other thing that is wrong with a debate like this is that the atheists don’t really care to hear what the Christians have to say. They view God (if He existed) as a heavenly tyrant, Christians as foolish and narrow minded, and are actually out for victory in this debate where the Christians just want to get their message out and let the audience make their own decisions and there lies the problem for the atheists in an event like this.
They attack the Christian’s stance so aggressively but defend their own with a weak effort. They gave no clear answer to the development of morality with the absence of God; they grossly misrepresented the scriptures, failed miserably to defend the gaping holes in evolution and refused to answer questions of proof regarding some of their “facts”.
While I’m certain that this event did not portray and adequate depiction of atheism it can be said that the atheistic views of Christianity aren’t adequate as well. They tend to focus on the corruption of the church and the deviations of Christianity rather than the true depiction of a believer in Christ.
In all I appreciated the efforts of both sides but also thought that they could have been represented better. I did like the format and thought that the program’s choice to leave the final decision up to the viewer was a good one.
The problem for the Christians in a debate like this is that the rules aren’t the same for both sides. The atheist camp can respond and react with hatred and sarcasm, which they did, but if the Christians were to slip and respond in that manner then they would be ridiculed for it. To their credit Cameron and Comfort both kept a calm respectful tone while the atheist disrespectfully looked away and responded and attacked in hateful tones. There was a clear difference in the level of respect given between the two sides.
The other thing that is wrong with a debate like this is that the atheists don’t really care to hear what the Christians have to say. They view God (if He existed) as a heavenly tyrant, Christians as foolish and narrow minded, and are actually out for victory in this debate where the Christians just want to get their message out and let the audience make their own decisions and there lies the problem for the atheists in an event like this.
They attack the Christian’s stance so aggressively but defend their own with a weak effort. They gave no clear answer to the development of morality with the absence of God; they grossly misrepresented the scriptures, failed miserably to defend the gaping holes in evolution and refused to answer questions of proof regarding some of their “facts”.
While I’m certain that this event did not portray and adequate depiction of atheism it can be said that the atheistic views of Christianity aren’t adequate as well. They tend to focus on the corruption of the church and the deviations of Christianity rather than the true depiction of a believer in Christ.
In all I appreciated the efforts of both sides but also thought that they could have been represented better. I did like the format and thought that the program’s choice to leave the final decision up to the viewer was a good one.
1 comment:
It was a debate less on the existance of God and more on the issue of Comfort claiming that he could prove existance without relying on faith or the Bible for his proofs.
Unfortunately, Ray didn't do what he claimed he set out to do. I thought it was particularly telling when the moderator asked Kirk and Ray if they had anything to say about the fact that they did indeed fall back on the Bible to show their proof.
They just sat there. Eventually they said that they had no response.
Considering the event was Ray's idea, it's a shame he was not prepared.
Post a Comment