Welcome to our Christian-Athiest Debate BLOG PARTY

May 9, 2007 at 1:03 pm 39 comments

Please go to ABC News Now at 2:00 p.m (ET) to view the debate (now available on demand). You may actively participate by making comments on this thread during the debate.

The party will then take a break and then resume at 11:35 p.m. during the Nightline program.

Christian-Atheist Debate on ABC News


Entry filed under: agnostic atheism, agnostic atheist, atheism, atheist, Bible, christian, Christian-Atheist Debate, christianity, creationism, evolution, freethinking, Ray Comfort, Religion, skeptic, skepticism, spirituality.

Agnostic Atheism Blog Party on May 9th (BYOB) I am a better Christian now that I’m an atheist

39 Comments Add your own

  • 1. agnosticatheist  |  May 9, 2007 at 1:10 pm

    Unfortunately, I won’t be able to stream the debate from where I am at the moment. If you’re out there watching the debate, please let me know how it’s going. I will participate in today’s viewing on Nightline.

  • 2. Rebecca  |  May 9, 2007 at 1:15 pm

    I suppose one has to subscribe first to watch it? I was there and couldn’t find the debate. Haven’t got the time to subscribe if that is what is required. On my way out for an appointment. I hope we can watch this later somewhere on the internet. I’m not staying up for it tonight. *yawn*

  • 3. heartyheretic  |  May 9, 2007 at 1:17 pm

    I wonder if Ray Comfort will bring a banana?

  • 4. agnosticatheist  |  May 9, 2007 at 1:21 pm

    Did anyone validate that this is actually available on ABC News Now as stated in this press release:


    I’m in a meeting that I couldn’t miss so I can’t validate 🙂

  • 5. agnosticatheist  |  May 9, 2007 at 1:22 pm


    Come on… you can stay up… We’ll keep you company.


  • 6. LaShawn  |  May 9, 2007 at 1:22 pm

    Looks like I’m going to miss it. I’m unable to stream from where I am either.

  • 7. agnosticatheist  |  May 9, 2007 at 1:24 pm


    Looks like we’ll have to move the party to Nightline then.


  • 8. Stephen  |  May 9, 2007 at 3:37 pm

    Hmm, I wish they’d leave it up on their website.

    I was in class when it was on…

  • 9. Rebecca  |  May 9, 2007 at 3:58 pm

    Sorry aA, I’ll let you youngin’s stay up and you can tell us old folks all about it in the morning. 😀

  • 10. Rebecca  |  May 9, 2007 at 4:02 pm

    http://abcnews.go.com/nightline I found it here.

  • 11. Justin  |  May 9, 2007 at 4:23 pm

    Hm, I wish they put “Theists” vs. “Atheists”. Granted they are Christian, but including their affiliation changes the debate a bit (although not explicitly). It really shouldn’t matter that they are Christians – but then again, Christians are usually appear to be many Atheist’s main target.


  • 12. heartyheretic  |  May 9, 2007 at 4:39 pm

    Seems to me a lot of Christians think that Theism necessarily proves Christianity–buy the premise (Father God), buy the bit (Son Savior). Proving the existence of God should have nothing to do with proving the validity of Christian doctrine. But Ray and Kirk think it does. Since Banana Man and Boy Wonder are definitely Brand Xians, I think the program is labelled correctly.

  • 13. Matt  |  May 9, 2007 at 6:58 pm

    Judging by what I saw, it would seem that Kirk and Cameron were done like a microwave dinner. Fast and easy.

  • 14. agnosticatheist  |  May 9, 2007 at 10:44 pm

    Watching Nightline now….. Will watch the full debates soon. Interesting stuff.

  • 15. HeIsSailing  |  May 9, 2007 at 10:49 pm

    Am I the only one who has very little interest in this debate? At any rate, my prediction is that The Christians will claim that the obvious compexity of nature is just screaming of the existance of God. The Athiests will likely use a line about believing Dawkin’s Flying Macaroni Monster. And both sides will convince nobody.

    I am just a little cynical about Christian/Athiest debates. I have heard several online, and it seems the same stuff is traded back and forth – and I can usually cook up pretty good arguments to counter either side! But debates are not really the place where open minds are found. They are more like boxing matches where you root for your favorite fighter. If your guy gets his clock cleaned, you don’t start rooting for the other side – and I rarely see this happening in religious debate.

    My favorite Theistic debate that I saw was when I was in college. A Catholic and Protestant debated over the Protestant doctrine of *sola scriptura* – using Scripture only as a foundation for Christian belief. I went in rooting for the Protestant, but had to admit he got his butt kicked by the Catholic who really knew his stuff, and defended belief in tradition quite well. Very entertaining and even educational, but did I go rush out and become a Catholic? NO!

    • 16. Debbie  |  March 13, 2011 at 1:55 am

      Dear Luke warm: When you do not take a stand for the truth of God’s Word then you have automatically chosen to believe a lie. You have to know the Bible in order to take a stand for truth (Jesus). Only a real Christian knows that a roman catholic or protestant are not Christians. We do not take the side of them, but rather believe the Word of God and believe God.

  • 17. agnosticatheist  |  May 9, 2007 at 10:56 pm


    Good to see you back. The Nightline piece was fluff. I guess you have to watch the full “debate” 🙂

    Great new post on your blog.


  • […] Agnostic Atheism: Debate Blog Party (BYOB) […]

  • 19. Justin  |  May 10, 2007 at 8:25 am

    wasn’t a fan of the Nightline documentary… see a theist reaction at http://politicsandreligion.wordpress.com

  • 20. Neil  |  May 10, 2007 at 10:14 am

    I watched the video. I thought Kirk and Ray had the right tone, but their efforts to work in basic Gospel presentation got them off track and gave easy debate ammo to the atheists. Part of the problem with these debates is that to make your arguments properly you need more time than a TV show will allow.

    The atheists brought up classic arguments like “but who made God?” as if it was some kind of trump card. They ignored the fact that they had no explanation for creation outside of a first cause.

    They made an outright misrepesentation that all signs point to the universe being eternally existent. Kirk and Ray missed easy opportunities to point out the Big Bang, etc. (unless it was on the video portion that wasn’t online).

    The atheists did make decent points about the arguments drifting away from the scientific perspectives.

    I agree with the points above about mixing up theism and Christianity. I think the arguments are more clear if you make the case for theism, then ask the questions about whether God revealed himself and how (e.g., a comparison of religions and their truth claims). When people glom it all together it probably confuses people.

  • 21. stellar1  |  May 10, 2007 at 11:23 am

    I recorded Nightline and just watched it – I am not impressed. The Christian side gave their usual responses and there was not much shown of the Atheist side. It seemed what was shown of the atheists was of them chiding the Christians, which does set a reasonable tone for intellectual debate.

    I would like to see the full debate to form a better informed opinion. However, at this point I am dissapointed to see that this was no more than what typically goes on between these two groups. I was hoping for a seriously intelligent debate.

  • 22. mustardtree  |  May 10, 2007 at 11:44 am

    My favorite part was when Kirk was asked if he had anything to add and he responded, “No, I think they can figure it out”

    It essentially came down to Kirk and Ray stating it was obvious that there is a God (and you can know Him) and Brian and Kelly responding “Where? I don’t see him”.

    Stalemate – discussion over

    As far conversing goes – Kirk and Ray came off sounding more prepared. In defense of Kelly and Brian, I understand it can be hard responding instead of leading – thinking on your feet.

    Too bad we didn’t actually get to blog the blow-by-blow.

  • 23. stellar1  |  May 10, 2007 at 1:20 pm

    Okay, I just finished watching the sectioned videos on ABC’s Website and it is quite clear that the atheists won this debate – hands down. It really is too bad that the debate was not shown in its entirety on Nightline.

    I still have a few concerns about the presentation of the atheist argument, but there is no doubt in my mind that they represented the heart of the atheist view and debated their stance well.


  • 24. Karen  |  May 10, 2007 at 8:07 pm

    I would like to see the full debate to form a better informed opinion. However, at this point I am dissapointed to see that this was no more than what typically goes on between these two groups. I was hoping for a seriously intelligent debate.

    I don’t know if you’ve already seen it, but there was a fantastic debate over the last several months between Andrew Sullivan, a gay Catholic, and Sam Harris, atheist author.

    The tone was respectful, yet tough, and it was between a liberal Christian (not a fundamentalist) and an atheist – so they got into much deeper, more intellectual territory than you get with fundamentalists like Ray Comfort (who is a simpleton). Sullivan and Harris are both highly educated, thoughtul people and extremely good writers. I found it excellent reading:


    There’s another debate that’s just started between Chris Hitchens, an atheist (and perhaps something of a loose cannon) and theologian Douglas Wilson here:



  • […] Welcome to our Christian-Athiest Debate BLOG PARTY […]

  • 26. honjii  |  May 11, 2007 at 6:55 pm

    I haven’t actually watched the full debate but I did see Nightline. I think it’s hilarious that all the promos leading up to the show had a clip of Kirk Cameron saying he had scientific proof that god exists; without use of the bible. Maybe he didn’t need a bible but he should have used an dictionary to look up the meaning of scientific.

    Big surprise, he had nothing new to say. My favorite part was when he held up the drawings of the transitional species saying no fossils of these species have been found. It’s the old “you don’t get a cat from a dog” argument. They all claim to have studied evolution, but….oops your ignorance is showing…when you make a statement like that. Evolution makes no claims for these kinds of transitional species. My guess is that if any of these fundamentalists have done any reading at all, on evolution, it has been materials published by other fundamentalists who are either equally ignorant or are trying to keep the sheep as ignorant as possible for as long as possible.

  • 27. mustardtree  |  May 11, 2007 at 8:22 pm

    honjil, I don’t want to detract to too much from the conversation at hand, but how does evolution plan to go from a lifeless object (dirt) to various species without a transitional species ever existing? Maybe I’m misreading what you’re posting. Please clarify. I believe Kirk was making the point out (besides the sheepdog) that not only were they “transitional species”, but they were also different classes. Was it a silly example? yes! That was also his point. He was trying to suggest that either all six of the animal classes originated from the same parent branch or that all six originated from different single cell organisms is a stretch. And I don’t expect you to agree with him.

  • 28. honjii  |  May 12, 2007 at 2:16 am

    There is not a brief answer to your question. There are many scientific journals, books, research materials available that will allow you to educate yourself on the evolutionary process. The genetic drift that takes place before a new species develops is an extremely long and complex process.

    I don’t feel it is my place, nor do I have the time or wherewithal to educate anyone on the topic in this forum. I don’t think Kirk was using the pictures to make a point, as based on what others have posted on my blog, there are people who believe this is what evolution teaches which could not be further from the truth.

  • 29. dj  |  June 23, 2007 at 8:54 pm

    it is simple gods real if he was not real thin why are atheist so worried about it and talk about it

  • 30. Human  |  October 21, 2007 at 12:36 pm

    GOD does not need us to announce his presence . His glory is present in the soul of every human being in every creature .Nothing is great than his mercy we all reither need his forgivness.GOD MY LORD FORGIVE THEM.

  • 31. Idetrorce  |  December 16, 2007 at 7:06 am

    very interesting, but I don’t agree with you

  • 32. PanDeism Fish  |  February 10, 2008 at 9:06 pm

    Have you heard of the Theory of PanDeism? The theory of PanDeism explains evolution without dispensing with God….

    In the beginning there was a higher power, Pandeism says, what we can call “God” for convenience…. God could not experience adversity (after all, what can present adversity to God) so God became the Universe…. and in becoming the Universe, Pandeism says, God set up the laws of physics that would basically make it extremely highly probable that complex molecular reactions would lead to reproducing life, that life would evolve through the process of natural selection to reach intelligence, and that this intelligent life would not only face adversity but would reflect upon it, and contemplate it, thus sharing that experience with us while remaining a nonintervening energy suffusive of the Universe….

    That is PanDeism in a nutshell!!

  • 33. rosie  |  May 21, 2009 at 8:43 pm

    are the people on this debate catholic ? if so what is your reasoning behind your belief in the church?

  • 34. Swam  |  July 17, 2009 at 5:16 pm

    try out a new christian debate blog. you can debate anything dealing with the christian religion on this one. its brand new and needs new members


  • 35. Eupraxsophy  |  August 24, 2009 at 10:56 am

    I would have to agree with honjii about the whole transitional
    fossil debate. Just two years after Darwin published “On the
    Origins of Life”, the transitional fossil Archaeopteryx was found
    in 1861 which is a fossil that directly links the dinosaurs and birds.
    Evolution is a complicated science and not a,” this came from that
    and that came from this”, sort of science.

    I think if anything Christians should give science; fair, unbias,
    objective consideration. Not just doubt it as not being true, and
    trying to prove it wrong just to prove their point.
    If anything what does creationism have as substanciated
    proof? A book of dead or unknown witness’s who can’t be
    subject to cross examination? This isn’t proof, but at best
    circustancial evidence. Who witnessed God creating Heaven
    and Earth?

    I base my beliefs on truth. I don’t base my truths on belief.
    In other words; I build my house upon the rock, not on the
    sand. The only diffence between faith and ignorance is the
    truth. To be naive is to be innocent, but to be ignorant is to
    be guilty.

  • 36. uiuivihout  |  April 16, 2010 at 5:41 pm

    I am havkng a dififcult time readnig agnosticathesit.wodrpress.com in Safaari 2.8, I just thoought I might let yoiu knowa.

    viiddo ites

  • 37. Mario  |  May 3, 2012 at 3:55 pm

    If I may ask…more info on your belief?

  • 38. Mario  |  May 3, 2012 at 4:29 pm

    I believe that God came in the flesh “Jesus the head apostle” emanuel God with us, and only through the apostle can you recieve the holy ghost,its in the scriptures.

  • 39. supersouper  |  November 19, 2012 at 8:41 pm

    I just stumbled onto your site and I just wanted to let you know I like your agnostic atheistic wager at the top right hand side of your homepage.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Agnostic Atheism Wager

Whether or not you believe in God, you should live your life with love, kindness, compassion, mercy and tolerance while trying to make the world a better place. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will have made a positive impact on those around you. If there is a benevolent God, you will be judged on your merits and not just on whether or not you ignored the lack of evidence of his/her existence and blindly believed.

%d bloggers like this: