Sunday, July 19, 2009

News Flash: “Great Debate” Decides the God Question Once and for All !!

The following is taken directly from a fundie’s posting on an atheist board in Facebook on July 18, 2009. Brace yourself:

A great debate between Dr. William Lane Craig (Christian) and Mr. Frank Zindler (atheist). After weighing the evidence from this great debate it is clear that it is time that you Atheists just accept that you are wrong. I am not here to debate you guys or stay in your little group. I will leave the debate up to the professionals in this great Debate that you all clearly need to watch :)

The polls from the debate with two of the top debaters in their field results are listed below :)

  • 7,778 people attended the debate with thousands & thousands more tuning in on TV and Radio Channels.
  • 6,168 filled out the ballots after the great debate
  • 97% voted the case presented for Chistianity (sic) was the most compelling by a long shot
  • Even 82% of the non-christian (sic) voted the case presented for Christianity was stronger
  • Even 47 people who came to the debate indicated that they have now become believers
  • Not one person became an Atheists (sic)

Please Wake Up Now! Jesus Loves You :)
Jay Adams”

Well, that settles that! Evidently this one and only “great debate” (as “Jay” has proclaimed it) was so lopsided, so overwhelming a victory for the supporters of God that this unfortunate fundie accepts it as some sort of proof of God’s existence, and affirmation of his belief. He is so excited, so relieved, so buoyed by the result that clearly he is ecstatic.

Indeed, how could we atheists all not just “Wake up Now!,” abandon all reason and fall to our knees following said debate? Plus, Jesus loves us!!

Of course the theist mind-slave had no idea this debate took place over 18 months ago, January of 2008. And naturally “Jay” couldn’t or wouldn’t provide a source / link that substantiate those stats he provided, because they were almost entirely made up by him or a Christian source he’d prefer not to divulge. After all, a little fabrication, embellishment and hyperbole on behalf of the Lord have always been endorsed by the Christian fathers. As I’ve often said, lying is a sacrament to them. But worse, they are such bad lies, so blatantly silly, that a child could see the fallacy of them, especially the conversion statements, irrespective of who presented the better argument.
After all:

  • How could two men on a stage debating the existence/non-existence of the supernatural be perceived by any person with all their faculties as having proven, decided, and resolved an age old issue to the point where anyone could proclaim the question settled once and for all?

  • How does anyone listen to a single debate, discarding all previous debates, and with no evidence or proofs offered for the supernatural, declare it as a nullification of non-belief and validation of belief?

  • Where would one find an audience of non-believers so vapid and devoid of thought that they’d “come to Jesus” and abandon their logic and reason simply as a result of the efficacy of one man’s debate skills?

  • How could the alleged “conversions” be verified as having been non-believers?
But most baffling of all… how does a Christian as stupid and insipid as “Jay” dress himself, find the bus stop, and get to his fry station at Burger King on time for the morning rush?

I wonder what it’s like to be a fundie and never have to be burdened by genuine thought.


NewEnglandBob said...

What I am wondering is that if I listen to this debate and then become a believer, do I, like Jay, lose my ability to spell? Do I also lose my ability to structure meaningful English sentences? Do I then become a liar? Do I lose rationality? My critical thinking ability?

Dromedary Hump said...

Well Bob, it's like the chicken and the egg paradox: does becoming a believer make you stupid, or is one stupid and thus inclined to become a believer.

I've always been inclined to go with the latter, but there are arguments for both ;)


BathTub said...

I am waiting for the recent Darwin vs Calvin debate to come online, that has the most rigged debate I have ever heard of, especially since the guy playing darwin started talking about social darwinism during the pre-debate video.

Engineer of Knowledge said...

Hello Hump,
I was at a book club discussion tonight and we were discussing our latest reading, an article on Stem Cells. There was a new member attending and his views were much like everyone’s there. We had no problem using Stem Cells for research, etc. At the end of the meeting, this new person announced that he used to be a Southern Baptist Minister for the last 20 years until he could not stand the fact that he realized he was just spewing out Bull Crap to a bunch of brain dead, non-thinking, believers. Their only reason for their faith was based on the fact this is what they needed just to function in a world that had dealt them a low rent crap life. They had no education, so the only jobs they could get were bottom of the base pay scale…..But They Had Their Faith That God Would Make It All Better At Sometime!!!

Someone made the comment that it must have been tough to walk away. He said that he use to be a welder so he just went back to welding. But he could not lie to those people anymore. Now he feels so much better about himself after relieving the burden of not running the con job any longer. I wonder how this fits into the fundies evaluation.

Dromedary Hump said...


in deed. so often theists love to point to people who claim to have been atheists who "came to jesus", yet they never reflect on the fact that so many people have left droves.. as indicated by the Pew poll earlier this year.

Its selective thinking. The same kind of selective editing they use to interprete the Bible as a good and peaceful book, and from which they pick and choose what they like to support their particular flavor of stupidity.

But no one has ever accused theists of being objective and open to fact. afterall, that's why they are theists.


No Guy in the Sky said...

Hump - I suffered through the debate. Our defender was lacking any semblance of debate skills. He could have used your book. By the way I am almost done with it, and will write a review. My reading time is limited to my lunch time. Usually I never have other things going on, but ... lol I love it, so far.

WL Craig is a better speaker and debater. His arguments were lame, and any attempt to answer these from Frank. He would have won. Frank buddy ignored Craig and pretty much gave a presentation. While he was right, it did not come off well. I call it a draw at best, only because Frank was pathetic.

Well, I was irritated over poor showing of atheist. I went to WL Craigs website( ) and in his ask a question box. I challenged him. Hump you should too.

This is what I said. "I have watched your video debates. I find your arguments child like. I would love to debate you. If you like please feel free to visit my blog. I routinely destroy typical Christians who employee your logic. Like your definition of Atheist. Morals. Your God. :)

You debate nice poor speaking debaters. Mr. Frank Zindler was correct during the debate, but does not understand how to debate. I am smart fast witty and will beat you like the donkey your imaginary deity whipped to ride after he stole it. I understand debate.

If you are up for dialog please feel free to email me at


Well, I wonder if he will at least respond. lol

Dromedary Hump said...

No guy,
I saw snippets of the debate last year.

yes... the christian made the atheist look like an incompetant debater.

I'm willing to concede the Criatian's presentation and oratory was deemed best by the audience. Thus, he wins...lets say. Fine.

Obviously my issue with the fundie "Jay" isn't that the xtian may have been deemed the winner, my issue is that for this poor unfortunate mental deficient he embues this "win" with some theological significance. Astounding ignorance.

Good luck getting him to debate you. I hope you are successful at calling him out.
But, my guess is unless he can get a semi-known atheist who he thinks he can whip (aka who has limited debate skill), and thus get media exposure, he won't take on challenges from an anon atheist whose liable to hand him his ass.


No Guy in the Sky said...

Hump - No response from WL Craig. Ducking verbal combat. You would think his God could grow him some balls. :)

Dromedary Hump said...

No God,

well, if god doesn't restore the limbs of devout christian amputees, why should he give that clown a set of balls?


Dromedary Hump said...

OOPs... "No God" = "No Guy"


Anonymous said...

William Lane Craig is an asshole that debates by berating his opponent. If the day came that the sky opened up and Jesus Christ jumped out of a cloud and gave me a chance to accept him, I would ask, "Is William Lane Craig going to heaven, too?" and if the answer was yes, I would punch Jesus in his stupid face.

Dromedary Hump said...


Dromedary Hump said...

sorry JD... i don't have the patience for theist morons tonight.
and the shoe fits you.

Dromedary Hump said...

no jd, i never claimed this to be a democracy..its my blog.

You want democratic treatment?
Perhaps you could experience it in theocratically controled Europe during the dark ages. It's pretty much where you come from any way.

JD Curtis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dromedary Hump said...

sorry JD, i didnt read your post, I just responded to the email advisory that you posted, and used it to remove the comment. find a site that gives a shit about your opinions.

this one doesn't.

Anonymous said...

I am always connect with friends through blogger.nice post Thanks for Sharing
More templates easy to download

Angel said...

Hump: "I wonder what it’s like to be a fundie and never have to be burdened by genuine thought."

Oh please don't even entertain that thought more than with the energy it took to type that sentence. You'd lose at least 40 points off your IQ and it just isn't worth it.