Christians debate Atheists on ABC this Wednesday. Pardon my *yawn* but the participants on either side are not really upper tier when it comes to defending or presenting their case.
On the Christian side we have Ray Comfort of bananarama fame and Kirk Cameron, someone who is certainly not famous for his theological work or apologetic skills. On the side of the atheism, we have Brian Sapient and his girlfriend Kelly, both hailing from the online atheist group/Internet radio program Rational Response Squad.
As for the bananarama quip, Comfort at one time argued against evolution by referring to the design of a banana (scroll down). Yes, I rolled my eyes the first time I heard about that. He has since stated it was mostly tongue in cheek but a video of him making this "argument" with the banana has gotten around the Internet, with much derision being the natural result. Good job there buddy. Hopefully He didn't waste his time bringing that up again in the debate.
Regarding the (ir)rationals, as I prefer to call them, they're not known for presenting sound scholarship (see here) or reasoned debate, to put it politely. When one states that religion is a mind f**k, or that Christians are Christarded, as The Sap has, it's no wonder that other atheists are bothered by the media choosing to highlight this group . Along with such extreme rhetoric, The Sap tends to immediately accuse Christians of being liars when we've merely made a simple mistake, even when that error was forced by the actions of The Sap or his cronies. See here for more on that.
So, who will win? Pfft, I could care less, though The Sap has apparently already claimed he and Kelly destroyed Kirk and Ray. I guess he cares that he may have won against mediocrity. It says something about his level of debate that he can only get the low lying fruit so to speak. But when serious people won't give you the time of day, what's the poor little Sap supposed to do?
Then again, it wouldn't surprise me at all if The Sap defines victory as being, "You didn't convince me in this debate!". Needless to say, such a measurement is worthless for either side, as anyone could make that claim. Or perhaps, "I had a response to everything they said!". As if the success of an argument is only determined by the mere fact of it being uttered. If it turns out that such criteria is behind his claim, being that it's against the C & C boys, it only provides more evidence of how badly the (ir)rationals represent atheism. Recently, in a myspace group, where a discussion about this upcoming debate occurred, an atheist complained that when they do get media exposure it tends to be the (ir)rationals that end up representing them. I responded "If the platypus didn't convince you God has a sense of humor, this should ;-) ".
At least one good thing may come out of this. I've noticed that several subjects make for very good idiot magnets and increase my blog traffic a bit, while also providing entertainment for my rather more sane readers. One subject has been Rosie O'Donnell and her conspiracy lunacy (exhibits 1a, 2a) and the other is when I criticize the (ir)rational response squad (round up here).
I wonder if The Sap will brag about that?
Trackposted to: Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Is It Just Me?, Perri Nelson's Website, DragonLady's World, Stuck On Stupid, , The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Pursuing Holiness, Pet's Garden Blog, Rightlinx, The Magical Rose Garden, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Stageleft, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Right Nation, Pirate's Cove, Dumb Ox Daily News, Wake Up America, Right Voices, Right Pundits, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Random Yak, A Blog For All, Adam's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Phastidio.net, , Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie Is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, Planck's Constant, The Right Perspective, High Desert Wanderer, OTB Sports, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.