Ray Comfort’s “debate” happened this afternoon (watch here). I’m at least very thankful for his presentation of the gospel message, although he said he would not open his Bible. Atheist rebuttal: “The Ten Commandments were used wholly for his proof.” Indeed, there was a little bait-and-switch not unlike what Josh Sowin was worried about. Overall, the atheist argument was predictable, underdeveloped and a bit reminded me of high school debates (“there are way more better arguments”).
Kirk’s “wake-up call” for the audience to think was good as was his presentation of his testimony though no mention of the Cross.
The highlight for me was Kirk’s response to the question that god is merely the projection of our cultures. In other words, let’s assume god exists, why not follow the god of Islam? Cameron responded with REVELATION! How amazing. This is how you respond to this question (just don’t advertise the debate with the promise of keeping your Bible closed). God reveals Himself in His Word and His Son and converts sinners in America and Pakistan and wherever. This takes courage in a debate.
Overall, it was a strange “debate” that did not seem to showcase the best arguments on either side from a convincing scientific standpoint. Comfort said he could make undeniable scientific claims and would not open the Bible. He seemed to fail on both promises to a watching world. Evangelicals were concerned of being represented by Comfort and their concerns were justified. The lesson for future recollection: What parameters are Evangelical Christians willing to draw in advertising the debate? And what will they promise to deliver?
Tony Reinke 
I thought the debate was rough on both sides. Ray and Kirk were not prepared for a nationally televised debate to PROVE God existed scientifically. I mean, sure, the atheists were very heated, but Ray and Kirk didn’t give them anything to work with I don’t believe.
Thankfully, my view of God is based on faith, because if it was based on any of the evidence that Ray and Kirk presented, we’d all be lost…
thanks Tony.
I was astounded by Comforts claim that he could prove God within minutes to the atheists. This thing seemed doomed from the beginning. I am always cautious when guys want to put down the sword to debate with sporks.
btw, I have no clue what the coke can on a tree is supposed to mean.
Good point erik! Comfort began with a Coke illustration. (I thought he was going to pull the tab and then ask where Coke got the idea for a tab. Then, boom, right into some bannanna-rama. :-) ). In short, it’s the only photo I have of a Coke can.
Matthew, you are right. I came away wanting something more to think about. Pretty vague.
Blessings, men! Tony
[…] despite this, some theists think Comfort did well. Seriously. And more than one theist crackpot thinks this… On the Shepherds Scrapbook site, the post […]
It’s a bit surprising that a couple of guys who run a ministry that claims to convert atheists and who initiated the debate did so poorly. Luckily for them the atheists didn’t have their arguments polished nor did they have a particularly good style or presentation. Though really it just says even less for the Way of the Master guys to be beaten by such poor debaters.
Does the state of the Coke can represent both the arguments of Comfort and the atheists?
Laz … ;-)