I’m a regular visitor to my good friend Ray Comfort’s blog. He’s a very smart guy who believes in young Earth Creationism and has actually said you can’t be a Christian if you are one for an extended period of time and still ‘believe’ in evolution.
OK, in his defense, I’m not sure whether or not he used the micro- vs. macro- evolution save. If the opportunity presents itself, I’m sure he did. After all, he knows viruses evolve and wants to use our medicine to extend his very valuable life, but doesn’t believe in that heathen part where humans evolved from monkeys.
God damn it man, I’m almost at nerves end reading this guy’s blog. Before someone decides to defend him, let me just say that I’m sure he’s a completely normal and cool guy if you know him, sinner or not. No, really. But for all intents and purposes, Ray Comfort is a douche like no other, with the possible exception of his partner in anti-crime, Kirk “Dumbass” Cameron.
Anyway, I decided to check up on his website for Way of the Master. There you can view some clips, or more appropriately, here. The Pink Hair/Plane Talk got me, because, you KNOW if someone has hair that is of an alternative colour they’re a hell-bound sinner, NO EXCEPTIONS! Let me just say this: if I were stuck on a plane with him, I would probably jump from the plane.
But that’s all besides the point. The point isn’t really a point, but the point is, guy has a blog. Don’t click it if you’re not ready to have your faith in atheism as well as evolution tested to the limit! lol. Faith. I’ve dealt with fundie whackaloons before, but never someone as vehement as Ray Comfort. Go to his blog and you’ll become a Christian, I swear it, thanks to the completely logical points he has. The man that brought us the banana argument couldn’t do any wrong, after all. Besides the sinner part.
Top Ten Predicted Atheist Ojections to the Below Statement:
“Water is wet.” — Ray Comfort1. “You know nothing about water or science!”
2. “This is hateful and judgmental and is an example of circular reasoning.”
3. “I suppose you believe that your imaginary friend made it wet.”
4. “You know very well water molecules are dry. You liar!”
5. “Darwin knew that it was wet years before you did.”
6. “Jesus would be ashamed of this statement! You are quote-mining.”
7. “You are saying there was a world-wide flood. You are such a hypocrite.”
8. “So, how old do you believe that this ‘wet’ water is?”
9. “There is no evidence that it is wet. The burden is on you to prove it!”
10. “This statement proves that you are viciously anti-Catholic.”
Saying “water is wet” is nothing like saying that everything around us needs a creator. A creator who watches us all the time, has ten commandments that he wants us to follow, and if we don’t, will send us to a place that burns with fire and smoke and you will suffer for all of eternity… but he loves us all very much… and he NEEDS MONEY!
Which reminds me, everyone watch some of George Carlin’s shit on Youtube, it’s spectacular.
Then there’s this:
The Atheist Worldview
“There’ve been several hundred gay marriages enacted in California in the past few days. Maybe a couple of thousand by now, I haven’t checked the numbers. And in the non-gay-marrying Midwest, they’re fighting floods, while in California it’s fair and dry. How is The Golden State managing to escape the wrath of your imaginary friend, I wonder?” Weemaryanne
Maryanne. At present there are 840 wild-fires that are burning at once in California, destroying many homes. The fires were started by lightning strikes. Guess who’s in charge of the electrical department? These are from thunder storms that have no rain. Guess who gives the rain? You said “while in California it’s fair and dry.” We are having the worst drought in our recorded history. Last year 1,155 homes were destroyed. You live in an imaginary world. I suggest you get out more.
Because there is no way in blue hell wildfires happen, and just because it’s the worst drought in recorded history (is that even true, anyway?), he’ll assume it’s god doing it. Hey, here’s an idea: why don’t he send down fire from the sky like he did on Sodom? That’ll get our attention instead of doing something which, y’know, happens naturally and yearly.
Either he’s thinking too big or his god is too small.
Then Ray decides to go on a tirade declaring light, the only thing that is truly visible, to be invisible:
Thank God for Science
The essence of “white” light is invisible. We can’t see it. Despite this, science has taught us that it’s actually made up of seven beautiful colors that are undetectable to the human eye until they are refracted through a prism. Of course, we know that the seven colors are the amazing colors we see in a rainbow–red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet.
What the hell, Ray? Darkness is invisible, not light. Darkness doesn’t exist anyway, it’s just the absence of light.
You say thank god for science, but you know nothing of science. You never have. You never will. In fact, by reading your god forsakened blog, I have lost at least 100 points off of my IQ, leaving me at about 26 now. Yes, I saw the jokes coming and decided to clear that up right off.
Ray Comfort: if god exists, he’s going to hate you for your distortion of the reason and logic you seem to throw to the wind.
I assume god put evidence for evolution, the big bang, and global warming here to test your faith? No dude, I’ve figured this out. God put you here to test my faith.
Every time I visit Ray’s blog I end up wanting to explain to him what his misconceptions are. I sometimes leave comments. I sometimes get responses from him and he usually doesn’t really understand what I post. He posts about topics he knows nothing about as proof of his god. It’s rather sad science education failed him so bad…
I stumbled across Ray’s blog at work once and almost mistook it for FSTDT.com. This guy is flat out nuts.
The first time I heard of him was back when he did that stupid “debate” with the RRS; what a joke. The douchebag couldn’t even keep to his own rules.
In all fairness, no serious Christian apologist is going to look to Ray Comfort for training in defending the faith.
While I have listened to some of his materials in the past, you are correct his arguments are oft times just silly. I will refrain from listing all of the credible Christian philosophers and apologists, but as you know this little fellow from New Zealand does not make the list.
Best Regards,
SA
Christian Apologetics is rather lame anyway. But if that’s your game, which it seems to be, cool I guess.
I would say my”game” is not necessarily apologetics rather philosophy. I would have to ask you for a little more detail regarding the lameness of apologetics. I am not sure what you mean.
This is not meant in an adversarial way, as I would also argue that some apologetics disciplines (say evidentialism) for example is lame in a way. I would also say that Ray Comfort’s brand of apologetics is also lame.
I would not however say that Malebranche, Anselm, Descartes or other Christian Philosophers are lame.
Best regards,
SA
Christian Apologetics as defined by Wikipedia;
The First Epistle of Peter (3:15) declares that Christians must be ready to give a reason for their faith. Christian apologetics are designed to present non-Christians with reasons to adopt the Christian faith or to strengthen the belief of current Christians. Also, apologetics within the Christian community provide arguments that describe, support and strengthen the doctrinal and moral tenets of the Christian faith.
That’s lame. Presenting non-Christians with reasons to adopt the Christian faith sums up my point of contention within this train of thought.
Copache,
I enjoy this sort of dialog. Actually I think Wikipedia might be misrepresenting the scripture in this case. The first thing that 1 Peter 3:15 calls the Christian to do is to exalt Christ as Lord, and be ready to give an answer for the hope that you have. (Admittedly, this is a paraphrase as well).
The point is, apologetics is employed *when* someone asks you why you have hope, you are to be ready with an answer. I think there is a misconception that this is the same as evangelism. The two certainly go together but they are not one in the same.
Why then is *not* lame to blog or write about reasons for atheism? Wouldn’t atheism or agnosticism be subject to the same criticism? In other words if it is lame for the Christian apologist would not it be lame for the non-Christian as well?
I’m only going to address the last point, cause I’ve said all I care to on apologetics, no disrespect meant.
Truth be told, atheism is much different. Atheism isn’t a religion. There’s no central character, no set of beliefs…
The main difference between support for atheism and religion is that religion tells you certain FACTS which you can’t deny. In religion, you can accept that the big bang occurred, but god did it.
With atheism, we have everything around us. We see the universe and question every aspect of how it got here. As one person put it, “We have the fossils, we win.”
Religion has the facts and builds the world around it. Atheism has nothing but the facts found in the world around it. That’s the difference.
How does atheism win because it has the fossils? How do you know that your interpretation of the facts is the correct one?
When you say “religion” are you referring to Christianity specifically or generically for theism?
Atheism isn’t a belief. It’s a lack of beliefs. We figure things out based upon what exists in the natural world whereas theism does the opposite and figures things in the world out based upon pre-existing beliefs.
Copache,
Atheism has its own set of presuppositions, what you are asserting is patently false. The Christian theist has presuppositons that he or she brings to the table just as the atheist does.
In an ultimate sense what you are saying is that the test of truth is based on empirical observation, a position that Plato rightly refuted centuries ago.
Since you mentioned science and seem to rail on Creationism perhaps you need to be reminded that science is based on inductive inference and therefore can never be certain of anything. Science is a best guess but an honest scientist has to admit that even the best induction is only probablistic.
Furthermore, your atheism does not provide for the uniformity of nature that is so desperately needed by science. In a universe that has no specific order or design the uniformity of nature and your use of inductive inference is a non-sequitar.
Say what you will about Christians and creationism I really don’t give a rats’ ass. But remember epistemologically your worldview reduces to absurdity. You use immaterial invariant abstract laws of logic in order to attempt to argue against an immaterial invariant Deity, this is my definition of foolishness.
Atheism assumes that the natural world can be explained through natural causation.
“Uniformity of nature [...]“? What? Your argument doesn’t make any sense.
It’s like this: my worldview says that we’re here by chance, and though science is never perfect, it’s the greatest tool we have. I’d like to see creationists complain about evolution when they’ve got an antibiotic resistant superbug. But that never happens, why’s that? Why not just pray?
Because when you just pray, people die. Science changed that.
Furthermore, you’re just another Ray Comfort trying to act like you’re an intellectual superior. In reality, you, like most creationists, are nothing but a coward bound by superstition you can’t justify but to undermine the very workings of reality.
That’s what the rats ass thinks about yourself.
Natural causation? Atheism cannot rationally justify inductive inference. My argument makes perfect sense, you have not interacted with it because you do not understand the philosophical ramifications entailed by your atheistic worldview.
I am nothing like Ray Comfort, and if you think this is just an act, deal with my arguments instead of offering an ad hominem. You have also assumed that I am a creationist, how do you know this? Did you ask me?
You are the one who cannot make sense of reality. Your arguments are sophomoric and pedantic and reak of sophistry.
Street apologist…
You are trying so hard to sound intelligent… it is transparent.
You and your arguments lose authenticity when you reach for clichéd jargon or specialized concepts and catch phrases… your choice of jargon reveals your weakness.
Don’t hide behind obscure words and concepts not readily know to others involved in an argument. If you’re really concerned about your readers, don’t use words in an effort to show off your intelligence. Your are all about communicating an argument with the reader, (which you have failed to do in the confines of your statements) and not about you.
Creationists can’t get the “big word” thing right, I’ve found. Somewhere along the line the words go from big to WTF gigantic and at the same time make the transition from meaningful to meaningless, transparent, hollow, etc.
Quite fun to watch, really.