It was as inane as you might have expected. It turns out that
their "proof" of the existence of god was the coke can argument. If you don't know what that argument is, here it is: it begins about 2½ minutes into this, and is over about 3½ minutes in. He could have done it all in one minute!
I'm sorry, but if you're at all convinced by that pathetic argument, please, get help.
Comfort simply asserts that everything that exists had to have a creator. He goes on to build a silly argument: buildings must have a builder, paintings must have a painter, therefore creation must have a creator. We've been having a storm here in Morris, so I guess when I hear thunder I should assume there is a thunderer.
Anyway, I guess I don't need to tune in to the broadcast on Wednesday, and I don't have to worry about bothering a priest to tend to my conversion—those two guys are blithering cretins.
- Log in to post comments
Can someone please explain to these guys that a soda can is not a biological being capable of reproducing itself. At least a banana tree reproduces.
The old cola-logical argument ?
What really bothers me about this is the misappropriation of an old Deist rhetorical device of "creation implies a creator" which casts God as the "first cause".
This has nothing to do with Bananas fitting into hands, or air "made" to be processed by lungs.
There is nothing in the first cause argument to say that God is messing around with the world now, or that there has been ANY intervention from outside the universe since time and space began.
If I were in the audience, I would raise my hand after the banana explanation and ask if he would run through it again, but this time use the Ebola virus as an example.
I guess when I hear thunder I should assume there is a thunderer.
You bet your Norse Gods you should!
Yes, everything does have a creator. For example, my dog Betty was created by her canine parents, presumably by a perfectly natural process. Unless Betty is the new canine Messiah, that is.
Although she is pretty angelic, there is yet no evidence of a miracle.
Without having seen the debate, it's hard to judge its effect. But according to a post on richarddawkins.net by someone who was there, "Although Brian and Kelly obviously had rationality and honesty on their side, Ray and Kirk Cameron were the better public speakers by far. That wasn't a surprise though."
That's sad. Surely we have speakers who are not only rational but can also articulate their thoughts effectively. Unfortunately, judging from the Rational Responders horribly designed website, I had very little hope that our guys know much about communicating their thoughts, in any medium. Honestly, what would it take to create a professional, easily accessible website that wasn't so obsessed on raising funds as, well, any old religion website. I don't want to be mean, but as a movement we need to do better.
___________________________
In the Candide Voltaire did an excellent parody of this kind of idiotic reasoning:
Specifically he's making fun of Leibniz here, but it can apply just as easily to anyone who tries to claim that every trivial little thing about the world was created just for us.
Bruce, "At least a banana tree reproduces."
Actually, all of our bananas (they're virtually all Cavendish) are cloned. They are cultivatad by vegetative reproduction with the help of farmers.
So this god thing can't even do the job by itself; it needs our intervention. Not quite so omnipotent as its devotees claim, eh.
Thanks for posting about my report PZ. I wish I took better notes. (er.., ANY notes!) Next time (?) I'll try to do a better job.
It was too bad nobody brought up the infamous banana argument last night. (Later Kelly mentioned she had planned to bring a pineapple as a rebuttal!) Actually my biggest regret was not bringing an old copy of Tiger Beat for Kirk to sign!
Building... buil-dor!
Creation... crea-tor!
Bullshit... bullshi-tor!
TV Guide said 96% of Americans believe in God?
CalGeorge:
You left out: Creator...Creator!
Everything he said about the banana also applies to the penis, but that leads to conclusions that run counter to conservative theology.
One poster is correct that these people rely on a glib and friendly speaking style combined with a variety of rhetorical debating tricks. Few scientists are prepared to debate them effectively, but ones that are have eaten them alive.
"Everything he said about the banana also applies to the penis, but that leads to conclusions that run counter to conservative theology."
I found it hard to not bust out laughing when he said "it has a pointed tip for ease of entry" and then rounded his mouth to show how it would fit in. I know, so juvenile, but so unintentionally funny.
It's amazing that these guys always come back to assuming that we're the idiots because we believe evolution (Comfort almost comes out and says that), when it they who don't understand and haven't truly studied evolution.
Again and again, it's people who aren't qualified to discuss evolution calling people idiots (Dawkins, Dennett, Myers - Darwin for that matter!) who have devoted their lives to studying it.
Hopefully, the public recognizes this discrepancy.
Unfortunately, fundamentalists clearly do not. If fact, they think scientists are unqualified to discuss origins because they are a matter of faith. Which is, of course, what makes blind faith such a dangerous and anti-human activity.
I just added one thing to the forum thread, I'll copy it here to save you a click:
--
Kirk claimed there were no transitional forms in the fossil record. Later he insisted scientists provide a living transitional form! Brian then made the point that we (ie. everyone at the debate, the audience, etc.) are all transitional forms because humans are still evolving. I think he lost the audience a bit there, and Martin had no idea what he was talking about. In fact one of Martin's follow-up questions to it seemed to suggest that Martin thought evolution happens within a single organism's lifespan, which shows a significant ignorance of evolutionary biology. (However he could have just misspoken.)
I'm not sure Brian properly explained his statement. My interpretation was that we are all transitional forms in the sense that our parents are transitional forms between our siblings and ourselves. I guess that is true in some sense, but most people mean some transition existing between species.
The biologists will never satisfy the creationist though because any example they give will immediately be labeled a unique "kind" by the creationist, that just happens to have characteristics of two other species. Kirk will never find his croco-duck.
Yes PZ,
And that is your being nice about them.
How anticlimactic. I just hope the editing's good.
The bible was perfectly designed for me to wipe my ass on.
They may be cretins, but people actually listen to Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. And people all over the internet use the same arguments for a creator. Watch "The Way of The Master" (Their Bible TV Show) and you'll see how pathetic it is. The episode on evolution is so full if lies that it makes me want to cry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHTN8Re1izg
So this god thing can't even do the job by itself; it needs our intervention. Not quite so omnipotent as its devotees claim, eh.
Posted by: Richard Harris, FCD
Old Punch cartoon from the 19th Century:
(Woman admires beautiful garden):
"Ah, is it not amazing what Providence and the hand of man can do?"
(Old gardener):
"You should have seen it when Providence had it all to itself."
Come on!
This CANNOT be a serious attack of theological questions. God made fruit? - the innanity confounds me.
"see how nicely it fints over the hand"
well...to point out the obvious - is it not also noticeable that the penis fits nicely into the anus? Therefore god made homosexuality present for us? Is there not a parallel in that thinking?
Comfort simply asserts that everything that exists had to have a creator.
Just ask God's dad. And His before Him.
well...to point out the obvious - is it not also noticeable that the penis fits nicely into the anus? Therefore god made homosexuality present for us? Is there not a parallel in that thinking?
There's an argument in The 1001 Nights along these lines.
Chiefley wrote: "If I were in the audience, I would raise my hand after the banana explanation and ask if he would run through it again, but this time use the Ebola virus as an example."
Someone else has probably said it before, but I would ask him to go through his argument again with a pineapple. Why aren't all fruits shaped like a banana? Or did God only intend us to eat bananas?
I was laughing myself silly watching Ray obsess over a banana. I suspect that even some of the most naive farmers in the midwest watching this will find his discussion of its perfect shape a little nauseating.
One other comment about bananas: "They are native to the tropical region of Southeast Asia, the Malay Archipelago, and Australia."
If the banana was made by God for the convenience of His People, why aren't they native to the Middle East? What does that imply about who the true chosen people of God are?
BTW, thanks, PZ - I nearly got kicked out of bed by my girlfriend last night, 'cause I kept chuckling over your comments concerning your imminent Cameron/Comfort inspired conversion.
I find it really...interesting that Kirk says that he was a "devout atheist" who believed that "evolution was responsible for everything that's around, and that God was something that people just invented in their minds as an emotional crutch or as some sort of answer to the questions that they couldn't figure out themselves". Wow. What happened? Ah, of course...he looked at the evidence.
Also, this "really wasn't based on anything other than what (he) had learned in school". He learned that in school? Where'd he go to school? The only mention of evolution that I ever heard in my high school came out of my mouth!
All that for a rehashed watchmaker argument? This guy's dumber than he sounded.
You are wrong, PZ. When you here thunder, you should conclude that Thor exists, as did your ancestors.
The argument is incomplete! How can I know if it's valid or not until he tells us whether it was Pepsi or Coke? (I detect the scent of schism.) He did mention magical blue paint dripping from the sky, so that's a subtle suggestion that it's Pepsi ... but it could also be RC Cola. We are doomed to sectarianism.
My brain hurts!
PZ, of COURSE there is a thunderer. Haven't you ever heard of Heno?
Species is an artificial (and somewhat arbitrary) label we brand upon organisms in order to classify them. All organisms are distantly (or not so distantly) related to each other. Take any two individuals (of different species) and you can trace each one's ancestry back through a (long) list of "begats" of gradually changing forms until you reach the common ancestor. But where did the species shift occur? Nowhere (from that perspective, there is no such thing as "species") and everywhere (we are all transitional forms). The fact that most people don't understand that is an indictment of our educational system.
ps--WOTM is not only stupid, but it is quite offensive. Anyone who talks about the fear of hell and how you're going to burn for eternity, with a smile on their face, is a vile and odious person.
"ps--WOTM is not only stupid, but it is quite offensive. Anyone who talks about the fear of hell and how you're going to burn for eternity, with a smile on their face, is a vile and odious person."
I think this is key. If there really is a god, and he would have those who, by circumstance of life, did not believe he existed, or even did believe he existed, but did not believe in the proper version of his required faith of salvation, and due to this had this person burn in hell for eternity, well,.. I DO NOT WANT ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS GOD!
Everyday good and selfless people die without a set belief in God. If there is a god, and this god can throw such people to eternal torment, then I think this god is a worthless punk, and I will not kiss his ass so I can have eternal happiness why my fellow man suffers...
I'm a bit disappointed that he didn't tie this in more clearly to Tipler's argument.
{A Coke can full of Einstein's field theories} + {a quantum mechanical banana} => God Exists!!!11!
The God of Pepsi and rock n' roll...the spell you're under will slowly rob you of your virgin soul.
"The God of Pepsi and rock n' roll...the spell you're under will slowly rob you of your virgin soul."
Gene Simmon's ego is big enough without comparing him to the God of Soda. Now, thanks to you we are going to get Gene Simmons Soda...
Of course I was created by a creator. Well, two actually. I call them Mom and Dad.
Other folks have already commented about Thor (and Heno!), but honestly, this is a particularly LOUSY bit of argumentation for a devout Christian, because it's an argument for an animistic pantheon, not for a monotheistic divinity.
To wit, they know their theological arguments about as well as they know their scientific arguments. What a bunch of witless buffoons.
This isn't so much an argument for a divine creator as it is one for using man's experience as a means of seeing a god in everything. Every example they gave was a human invention based on a natural analog from our experience. None of it proves a god exists. Their only argument is that hey, if we can design, something just HAD to have designed us.
Rearranging leaves on the lawn to imply design principles on someone? Maybe he thinks that makes him godly...
New Guinea, and New Guinea only. Domesticated and spread early on, though.
Excuse me, but how does making the natural world into something artificial, something crassly manufactured like a Coca-Cola can, "defeat materialism"? To me, all it does is tack a materialist view onto the supernatural. It's a triumph for the lowest, most base materialist view, one that I do not share. Nature, living things, reduced to the level of a metallic object containing a liquid that has no nutritional value whatsoever! Man, that's inspiring, all right. (Phhhht.)
I'm beginning to think that it is me, and not religious believers like Comfort, who has a true sense of the spiritual. I invite these "believers," who obviously are fighting some kind of emotional void within themselves that they're in denial about, to read The Ancestor's Tale and learn what true spirituality is all about.
I do like the definition of faith they give (when referring to how much "faith" it takes to be an atheist) -- "you really have to ignore the facts!" Thanks, nice of you to admit it.
Actually, all of our bananas (they're virtually all Cavendish) are cloned. They are cultivatad by vegetative reproduction with the help of farmers.
Quite true. Very few other banana species are even edible by humans, and we have collectively busted our asses to keep the Cavendish around. Note that it has no seeds -- if I recall correctly, we grow them all from shoots.
In fact, the Cavendish is one step shy of having been bioengineered by human beings.
Mr. Comfort, perhaps you would prefer to expound on the humble apple. You might get better results, and you might also be subjected to fewer well-deserved phallic jokes.
Oh, one other thing -- I don't even use the "tab" at the top of a banana. I have better luck opening the other end with my thumbnail. So I guess I scoff at God's generous "gift" of the banana-tab.
And what about plantains? I like them better. Why do they have to be fried in olive oil to taste good, if I'm not being too inquisitive?
I distinctly remember, now that I think of it, being told in my childhood that since the end of "miracles," God used "instruments" who he chose to do his work "through."
I wondered how that would leave us able to tell the difference between divine and human design. I should have wondered a bit harder; it took me twenty more years after that to become an atheist.
Plantains taste even better fried in coconut oil. Why? Because grease is good, all praise grease. :D
Wild bananas.
I guess I should be amazed that my red-point siamese cat is such a good pet. It's almost like he was designed to be a good pet. God be praised!
Bananas are 'easy to use' becuase they are artificially selected. The banana varieties that don't taste nice, or have thick skins that are too hard to open, or cause tummy aches, well, they just don't get selected for breeding. They don't sell very well, you see.
I'm sure everyone here knows that, but I did just yell it out loud.
Depends what you mean by 'bananas'. The genus is definitely not restricted to New Guinea, and I'd bet the wild parent species aren't either, but perhaps the first edible hybrids were.
I saw God this afternoon on the side of the road. It was a Coke classic can...
When I saw the banana clip the other day I thought it was a spoof on creationists! Little did I know they were spoofing themselves!
However, I must say I had a real feeling of dread when I watched this video. Not only the lies and half truths, but the stupidity taken so seriously. What is it with people that they can so easily deceive themselves? And why would they want to, when there is so much genuine wonder in the world?
OK, I had never seen this stupid video so far, believe it or not. It's simply incredible. Does Cameron really laugh when Comfort does his banana skit? And why does he say pain-TAH ? And what's that crap picture they show, Thomas Kincaid or what ? And... oh, just how stupid can they be ? Cars, buildings, soda cans... Well, of course we know they had a maker, not because we "just look and see", but because we can find the guy, see him, photograph him or film him while he works, find the school that taught him his job and read the manuals he read, and even learn to do just like him. No, this guys are just a comedy duo.
Why do you call that "spirituality"?
Sorry about the geographical distribution. The cultivation happened in NG.
I can't eat bananas; they give me wicked indigestion.
I am living proof of the non-existence of God!!
I am of the same mind as a few others. I doubt that the Rational Response Squad will come off looking good for a couple reasons.
1) They are not versed in the art of public appearance. They may have a bit of experience here, but they're not politicians or Creationist propaganda artists. There are skills essential to communicating well on TV and Radio and they have nohting to do with the validity of your position.
2) Through editing, format and preparation, the network will make sure that a bad light is not cast on Creationists. This would offend too many of their viewers.
I really hope I am surprised, but I'm not holding my breath.
OEJ
Mightn't it be better if atheists said, "I don't believe in gods.", rather than God, per se?
It moves the debate away from the Western/Christian perspective. It's not said as a rejection particularly of Christianity in Western culture, so maybe it'd be more effective - it wouldn't be framing it as an attack on a particular religion. It also gets across in a less confrontational way the argument expressed as "Atheists and religious people both believe that the vast majority of gods, contemporary and past, do not exist. The atheist just extends this to all gods."
Mightn't it be better if atheists said, "I don't believe in gods.", rather than God, per se?
I likew that idea and will adopt it.
Everything that exists had to have a creator.
Then, who/what created the Creator?
It's pygmies and dwarves all the way down.
Why do you call that "spirituality"?
Because I don't know what else to call it. A sense of awe, a sense of the numinous, whatever it is, I'm sure I feel the same thing that Dembski feels when he blogs about a pretty rainbow and says, "This is why I rebel against naturalism!," but the idea that the rainbow has a natural explanation doesn't reduce its wonder for me.
Aha! Even when I was young enough to think the Bible was supposed to make sense, I didn't understand why everyone was being anointed. It all sounded rather messy for my taste. Now the humble plantain clarifies another theological mystery.
Kristine, I feel the same way, but I don't like using the word "spirituality" because of its association with the word "spirit". Since I don't drink, my use of the word might give people the wrong impression.
1000's of scientists and educators toil daily trying to make the world a better place. Most will go through life as virtual unknowns outside their own communities.
Blather voluminous stupidity and you can get your mug on TV. It's a shame people outside his community know who Comfort is as in the past I suspect he would have been the village idiot. Now he is a uniter of idiots.
I generally enjoy learning about my fellow man but there isn't much outside of humor with these guys. I guess that has it's place.
Then, who/what created the Creator?
Ooh, ooh, ooh. Can I take this one?
God is an uncaused being, outside time and space, so doesn't need a cause.
What do I win?
"...those two guys are blithering cretins."
Stop insulting cretins!
I never understood why saying God is outside of time is considered such a profound argument, for without time, one is unable to act or exist in any meaningful sense, condemning God to potential omnipotence at best, or a sort of omni-impotence. It's the same with asserting God is outside of space--when you are not in space, you are literally nowhere.
I suppose one could counter with, "Ah, but God is beyond logic and reality."
On the subject of evolution deniers, has anyone ever heard of Marvin Olasky? I've caught interviews of him and a couple speeches he's given on CSPAN. He is not a fiery guy, nor an overt and out-there personality, but earlier this evening I caught him on CSPAN again in an interview. He does not put a lot of stock in evolution, preferring only to agree with - as he put it - minute variations in the bills of Finches, as a sign of microevolution. He said he had serious issues with macroevolution, and Darwin's theory generally. He basically took an ID stance, anchoring firmly in the "I just can't believe this is all random chance and not god" excuse.
I think of all the evolution deniers, you'd be most able to have a real discussion with this guy that wouldn't turn into random insults within seconds. But he did rattle off a couple "stereotypes" of evolution and atheism - and his belief in their validity - fairly quickly, even for sounding level-headed.
If a banana is a perfect example of God's handiwork because of it's convenience to humans, then what the hell is a pineapple? Ever try to harvest and eat one? Ouch! And a pomegranate? What a pain in the neck. What was God thinking when he "designed" kumquats? A joke? You can maim yourself trying to get into a coconut. Why doesn't it have a "tab" too? What exactly is the point of an artichoke? A huge pile of litter for a few bites that you have to scrape off with your lower teeth. One good idea and thousands of dumb ones. I became an atheist when my mom tried to make me eat lima beans.
But - I've heard about these peope ...
Isn't the "Banana" argument, a ploy by United Fruit, to take over another Central American country for the USA's profits??????
What's always bugged me about these 747/Coke can/builder arguments is that they tell you nothing about the builder. 747s, Coke cans, and buildings all have many, many contributors, all of whom are involved to varying degrees and have varying levels of skill. In our world, the more complex something is, the more likely it is that more than one mind and set of hands are responsible for its existence. Since the universe (by definition, if I'm not mistaken) is more complex than even the most complex building on earth, there must have been millions upon millions of creators. Were some of them slave gods, who tipped the cosmos into position using back breaking labor? Who designed the coasts of Norway, with all the fjords?
The other problem is that buildings, Coke cans, and 747s were all created using pre-existing matter. There is absolutely no precedent, nothing at all on this earth, that we can compare to the act of creation described in the bible. Unless Ray actually believes that Coke cans are spoken into existence, which would at least make him only ignorant of modern production methods, as opposed to a functioning lunatic, which is how he comes off now.
I am now CONVINCED that Cameron is REALLY an athiest and is a mole in the creationist camp. At the beginning, he says that he used to be an Atheist and that god was just created to explain things that we couldn't understand. THAT WAS THE REAL MESSAGE, kind of like Colbert being a conservative.
The arguments are SOOOoo ridiculous that he MUST be an agent provacateur, a fifth collumnist inside the creationist camp....
> Mightn't it be better if atheists said, "I don't believe in gods.", rather than God, per se?
I'd tend to say that "I don't believe in supernatural beings".
Rob, Comment #72asked,
"Who designed the coasts of Norway, with all the fjords?"
Well of course, it was Slarti Bartfarst!
So easily the "atheists require faith" statement can be turned around on these religious people, and not only the idiots like these two...
You can just ask them, well then, if being an atheist is bad, and it takes more faith, is faith good or bad?
Has anybody tried it? I plan to do this every time anybody else comes up to me with this bullshit.
We as atheists think faith is unequivocally bad as a reason to know anything. I don't think any religious type will have the balls to admit that faith is bad for anything.
The two clowns in the video start off by saying an atheist is someone who believes there is no God. They are wrong: an atheist is someone who does not believe in gods. It is not a faith position. The burden of proof is on the believer - if there is a god, then there ought to be lots of evidence. Atheists are waiting for the evidence to come in. So far, zilch; so in the meantime we can continue to assume there are no gods.
Oh, come on! Everyone knows it was Slartibartfast!
Of course every creation has a creator. It's a tautology. The point is that the universe is not a creation. Duh.
To Fishy:
I haven't tried that argument yet, but I imagine they would say something like: "Ah, so you admit atheism is a faith based religion. You can't have faith in anything! You must have faith in the TRUE religion, and Christianity is obviously true if you use your reason... blah blah blah."
The rationalizations and ret-cons of true-believers are amazing! The are almost as good as a Star Trek fan making sense of the various inconsistencies and contradictions in their canon.
The banana argument is a new one I've never seen before! That's AWESOME! I'm totally convinced!
Funny that Xod created the banana with "peel here" zones but was too lazy to put an ingredients label on it. :)
mjr.
And I can't believe they trotted out that old lie about Einstein, the one he clearly rebukes here:
What made me laugh the most was this pressing sense of "we are running out of time! You need to be saved!" which seems to be okay for Christians who then turn around and call Environmentalists alarmists over pending climate change...bawhahahaha
Comfort may have a point about God designing food and designing humans to eat fruit.
Why do creationists have such thick skulls?
To protect themselves from falling coconuts.
God thinks of every little detail.
Why don't they mention the fact that the banana fits perfectly in the vagina?
Why don't they mention the fact that the banana fits perfectly in the vagina?
Rather than saying I don't believe in gods, I just say that I'm not superstitious. That's all religion ever was.
-jcr
Oh, I like that. So simple. So obvious.
Why don't they mention the fact that the banana fits perfectly in the vagina?
Sorry about my comment repeating. I'd remove the duplicates if I could. I didn't think it was that great, I was just having computer problems with it posting. Hope this one doesn't duplicate.
Mary Jones: "Why don't they mention the fact that the banana fits perfectly in the vagina?"
That would offend the, um, sensibilities of their target audience. Though, one would think their target audience is every unconverted heathen out there, which is about 5 or so billion people.
On the subject of things supposedly designed to fit into human hands perfectly, why then did humans invent such things as Allen wrenches? Their hexagonal shape has a function that counteracts the apparently divine function of the 5-sided banana (and thus the form of the human hand), according to these lightweights.
I guess when I hear thunder...
Don't run under
a tree!
So who created GOD?
Humans.
So a building has a builder and a car has a maker so god exists?
Hummm
Well, both the design of buildings and cars both "EVOLVED" and had hundreds of thousands of people involved in the history of their design. So by this rational god must be a whole lot of people to have created a universe.
Cool, god is another civilization, do you think they have TV and pizza?
Bruce, "At least a banana tree reproduces."
Actually, all of our bananas (they're virtually all Cavendish) are cloned. They are cultivatad by vegetative reproduction with the help of farmers.
So this god thing can't even do the job by itself; it needs our intervention. Not quite so omnipotent as its devotees claim, eh.
New Guinea, and New Guinea only. Domesticated and spread early on, though.
Why do you call that "spirituality"?
Sorry about the geographical distribution. The cultivation happened in NG.