Interview with Ray Comfort: Discussion, Pt. 2

Recently, we had well-known evangelist Ray Comfort here for an e-interview.  We tried to stick to honest questions rather than attempting to create some kind of theological traps, but we're still going to comment on his ideas.  As I noted in the first part of this discussion, Comfort is obviously quite busy, so I don't expect him to be able to respond here personally, but as usual, anyone who feels that they can shed some light on my questions about these issues is more than welcome to comment.

The next question concerned the Biblical "kind" and how such a concept would be defined in biological terms.  Comfort's answer:

The word "kind" is the biblical word for "species." God created dogs to reproduced dogs, cats to reproduce cats. Every animal was created to bring forth after its own kind. The Book of Genesis repeats this many times in the first chapter to make it clear, for those of us who are a little slow. We see evidence of this, both in the fossil record, and in living creation. The meaning of the word "species" has changed over the years. At one point it was synonymous with "kinds." However, nowadays it is used differently in different circles.

Those who are familiar with Comfort's work will be unsurprised at the ignorance of basic scientific and biological concepts here, but on the off chance that Mr. Comfort himself is reading this, let's see if I can explain this in simple language.

Regardless of what the Book of Genesis states, organisms do not remain biologically identical from generation to generation.  Even a very small amount of "genetic drift" is all we need for natural selection to begin working.  The Genesis definition of "kind" is interesting, but it's not useful as a scientific criteria, is it?  Within relatively few generations, organisms can undergo very significant changes from the original species.  I mean, we would expect a useful definition of "species" to be able to tell us when speciation has effectively occurred, right?

That's what we would be looking for, here.  Because we pro-science folks claim that speciation does occur (we can even cause it in a lab, right in front of our eyes, no less), to debate that claim we obviously have to agree on a definition of species that would tell us when the organisms would become a different species.  By your biblical definition of "kind," we could show you organisms bred in different directions for any length of time, becoming vastly different organisms, and they would literally be impossible to ever get to two different species!

The next question is all about this fun biology stuff, too.  I'll just reprint the whole thing:

"Have you met, chat[tted] with or otherwise communicated with an Old Earth Creationist named Adnan Oktar (pen name of Harun Yahya)? His argument for creation is that despite Millions of years of existence, the fossil record shows that all kind[s] of creatures does not display any form of change at all. A fossil of a fish seems to be the same as a modern fish, a fossil of a bird seems to be the same as a modern bird, etc. He says that this clearly shows that creative genius of his Creator, Allah. What fossil evidence can you point out to him that he is clearly mistaken, that micro-evolution does happen and that an ancient fish is very dissimilar to a modern fish. An ancient bird is very dissimilar to a modern bird, etc.? What physical evidence can you show him to demonstrate that the God of the Bible is the creative force behind all of these micro-evolution? Evidence that is so compelling that nothing in the Koran can dispute to it's truth?"

Comfort's answer:

 I have never heard of Mr. Oktar and I am therefore not familiar with his arguments, other than what you have related. Those who believe that a fish fossil is "ancient" reveal their unquestioning faith in dating methods. The fact that a fossil of a bird is different from a modern bird simply means that the Creator made them different. There was no transition from one species to another, so micro-evolution has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution. We can see micro-evolution throughout the entire creation of God--both in the fossil record and living things--from the small finch to the large albatross, from the massive Great Dane to the tiny chihuahua. These are variations within species.

As for the God of the Bible being the Creator. That's simple. The moral Law , which Moslems embrace (the Law of Moses), leaves all of humanity condemned to death and on the path to Hell. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only God-given means of escape. Islam has no answer to that, our biggest dilemma (see John 8:31-32).

Again, if you are reading this, Mr. Comfort, I apologize.  I really, genuinely don't wish to make fun of people, but  please try to understand how scientifically ignorant that first paragraph is.  I myself have no more than a layman's minimal self-education in the most simplistic, dumbed-down scientific concepts, and even I can tell that these statements are so hilariously wrong that I nearly pissed myself laughing.

First off; "unquestioning faith" in dating methods?  Mr. Comfort, take this as friendly advice in how to increase the effectiveness of your ministry.  To people who understand the scientific method and are willing to look at the evidence without biased assumptions, the reliability of scientific dating methods can be proven about as thoroughly as the fact that you'll lose your house if you refuse to ever pay your mortgage again.  Even if you could show 100 cases of grossly inaccurate dates derived with radiocarbon dating, isochron dating, etc., you would still not be approaching the hundreds of thousands of verified accurate cases.

On a side note, why do evangelists like to take basic conclusions like the general reliability of scientific dating methods and insist that we must have "faith" in them?  They themselves claim that faith is a reliable method of discovering truth!  When pressed, some religious persons have even insisted that faith is simply a religious, spiritual synonym for "reason," and that they hold things by "faith" only when those claims have stood up to evidence and logic (an entertaining statement in it's own right).  Whatever the definition used, how on earth do they disparage our conclusions for supposedly being faith-based, while simultaneously claiming that their own claims are very reliable exactly because of faith?!?!

Secondly, about there being no transitions from one species to another - this is, again, a clear indication of gross scientific ignorance.  This is really just horrifyingly inaccurate.  There are, or course, multiple instances of observed speciation; there is even an entire classification system for organizing speciation events, for Pete's sake.  The claim that so-called "micro-evolutionary changes" only occur within species is not only falsified by direct observation, this artificial distinction betrays an ignorance of the scientific method as well.  Ziztur and I have blogged about this before, but briefly, science doesn't test histories (because then science couldn't operate on any phenomena outside of our direct observation), it tests mechanism and predictions.  The mechanisms that operate in so-called "micro-evolution" are the exact same mechanisms of "macro-evolution," yet creationists must claim that while evolutionary predictions can be directly tested and verified on a small scale, they will be grossly inaccurate on a large scale!  Since there is no meaningful distinction here, any tests of predictions of the mechanisms will serve to either support or falsify evolution as a whole.  If there is a meaningful distinction to be made between "micro-" and "macro-evolution," then creationists who wish to falsify evolution theory have to first describe what separates the two mechanisms, and then show that while the predictions of "micro-evolution" are accurate, they will somehow be inaccurate on a large, "macro" scale.  Obviously, they have not even tried to do this.

You have to wonder just how deeply ignorant a person must be of basic, fundamental biology to arrive at such grossly inaccurate conclusions, but we get verification of Comfort's scientific ignorance - ". . .from the small finch to the large albatross, from the massive Great Dane to the tiny chihuahua. These are variations within species."  Yes, ladies and gentlemen, 'birds' are a species.  It was at exactly this point that I came dangerously close to peeing in my pants.

No, Mr. Comfort, Aves are actually a "Class," several levels higher in taxonomy than "Species."  Actually, there are some 10,000 different species in the Aves Class.  Seriously?  You don't know that a Finch and an Albatross are different species?!?!  Wow.  Wow, wow, wow.  My brain and bladder hurt.  I give up for today.  More later.  We're such gluttons for punishment.

Interview with Ray Comfort: Discussion

After several days off for the holidays, we're back to discuss some of Ray Comfort's ideas that we saw in his e-interview that he was kind enough to provide for us.

The first question observed that many Christians don't recognize Ray Comfort's name, and asked if he was possibly more famous among atheists.  His reply:

Not every Christian watches TV or reads books. However, it seems that most atheists (thanks the Richard Dawkins and others) are pretty familiar with the brainless idiot known as "banana-man."

It's not just Comfort, though; if you name Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, William Lane Craig, etc., I wouldn't be at all surprised to find a higher proportion of atheists recognizing these names than Christians.  I can't cite hard data here, so this is just speculation rather than observation, but bear with me.

Two possible perspectives on this possibility.  From my perspective as an atheist, it seems to be the case that self-described "atheists" as a group are self-selecting for people who seek out other perspectives and willingly challenge even widely-held opinions.  In a culture like America, so saturated with religious and spiritual belief, people who reject religious and spiritual claims are clearly far less likely to simply "go with the flow" and accept the perspective of their culture.  This is not to say that all atheists are shining beacons of rationality, incapable of error - far from it (there are certain conspiracy theorist nutjobs I could mention, and there's always Ayn Rand . . .).  Even these individuals, though, are still more likely, as a rule, to actively familiarize themselves with differing perspectives.

Of course, the common theist has a simple response; we atheists (or any other culturally non-conformist label) are clearly quite convinced that we're wrong on some level, and we are "seeking answers" not because we want to be certain that we're not mistaken, but because we actually believe that we are mistaken.  When Ziztur and I visit different churches, on occasion we will politely inform church-goers who ask about us that we're atheists.  Far and away, the most common response we hear is that we've found ourselves in the pew because we are being "called" or "led" to search for God.  To this, all I can say is that in my own limited experience, such church services or apologetic books are no more convincing to we atheists than the "new atheist" books are to your average theist.  After many churches and many books, our atheism is, if anything, is less dispute than it ever was.

The next question was, seemingly, an extremely simple theological question; it asked Comfort to define "the Gospel."

In a nutshell--that Christ died for our sins and rose again on the third day. The word "gospel" means good news, and the gospel doesn't make sense until we see why we need it, in the same way the good news of a cure makes no sense until we understand that we have a disease. The terminal disease is sin. If it's allowed to take its course, it will not only kill us, it will justly take us to a terrible place of punishment called "Hell"--because each of us has violated God's Law (the Ten Commandments). He sees lust as adultery and hatred as murder. He is morally perfect, and that leaves us all in big trouble. The good news is that God is rich in mercy, became a human being, and took our punishment upon Himself. That means, because Jesus paid our fine and rose again from the dead, God can legally let us walk out of the courtroom. He can forgive us and let us live. Our case can be dismissed upon repentance and trust in the Savior. The good news is that any of us can have everlasting life. Read the Gospel of John for details.

Interestingly, this "Gospel story" is possibly the single largest barrier to my ever becoming a Christian (and that's saying something, considering all the other reasons I could name).  To put it simply, if I tell you that this season's particular strain of the flu could be very nasty, and that you should get vaccinated ASAP, I can explain why.  If you ask, in all innocence, "So this flu thing . . . is that bad?  Why?"  I can explain that the flu could give you headaches, muscle aches, a cough, and just generally make you feel like crap, and that a few people who are particularly susceptible can even die from it if they catch it from you.  Now, here's the important part - if you ask, "Why does the flu do that?" I could answer that it's simply a result of how the flu virus reproduces with the living cells in your body.  I could say that the flu doesn't have a mind, and that if it did, it would be wrong for the flu virus to hurt and kill people like it does.  Thus, it's easy to understand why you should get vaccinated (in theory, anyway . . .).

I should mention, first of all, that not all Christians believe in a literal hell, to their immense credit.  With or without this traditionalist theology, though, the Gospel story raises more questions than it answers.  Why does God feel the need to punish us with eternal torture simply for disbelieving in him?  Why is there such a harsh penalty for having lustful thoughts, especially when every single human being has lustful thoughts, without exception?  Even without a literal hell, are "anger" and "lustful thoughts" still sins?  Who should rationally be held responsible for lustful thoughts or anger being universal amongst human beings, us or the being(s) who created us?

Additionally, how does the death of Jesus Christ absolve us of our crimes?  I've noticed that whenever Comfort discusses our "criminal actions" as sinners, he almost always uses the analogy of a legal fine being paid for us so that our case can be thrown out of court.  I would have thought that it's obvious why this analogy isn't convincing to non-believers:  If a crime of any significant severity is committed, the court doesn't just administer a simple fine - the offender goes to prison.  If hell is an appropriate punishment for sin, then the analogy of a legal fine is grossly inaccurate (in fact, there really is no good comparison at all, because in America we don't even punish our very worst criminals by torturing them to death, which is still far more humane than the traditional concept of hell).  Perhaps the closest we can come is the death sentence, or in societies that don't even permit the death sentence on ethical grounds, perhaps life imprisonment without any possibility of parole.  Why doesn't Comfort use these punishments as an illustration of the punishment we deserve for our sin?  Why does he use the very lightest punishment that our system has for any crime, a mere fine?  It's possible for a person to pay a fine for someone else, simply because there's no good way to make sure that the guilty person pays it themselves.  A prison sentence, to say nothing of a death sentence, on the other hand, obviously must always be paid by the person who committed the crime. 

So, there's one of the single, largest questions I have about Christianity.  It seems to me that the very first principle of anything resembling justice is that you punish the person who actually committed the immoral act, and do not punish someone else in their place.  Imagine a society built around the principle that a person who commits a wrongful act cannot atone for their own wrongdoing, and the only way for justice to be served is for an innocent person to be punished ( and that the more innocent the punished person is, the more righteous and just the punishment will be).  If this society does every single other thing with their courts, prison system, and police force correctly, they are still doing nothing correctly.  They could get justice right in every single other way, and would still basically have a completely unjust society.  This Christian, Gospel idea of wrongdoers being incapable of atoning for their immoral actions and instead being redeemed by the punishment of a completely innocent person is not simply incorrect justice, it is not merely mistaken justice, it is the polar goddamned opposite of justice.

More about Ray Comfort coming soon.  Obviously, I would love for Ray to hang out here and reply to our perspective, but I totally understand that he's very, very busy, so I won't see his absence as proof that he can't answer our questions.  Of course, our standard modus operandi is to welcome any dissenting opinion, so I look forward to anyone who can shed some light on this seeming contradiction.  That last question, in particular, about Gospel justice has vexed me all my life.

Interview with Ray Comfort!

The other day I got the opportunity to send Ray Comfort (who blogs here and writes just about everywhere) some questions. Here they are!

Dear Mr. Comfort,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to e-interview you on my blog. I know you do lots of interviews, so I tried to ask you some questions in this interview that are a little bit out-of-the-box. Of course, you're not obligated to answer any of them. Some of them are questions that were suggested by my commenters.

A very odd thing happens when I try to talk to Christians about this famous Christian named Ray Comfort – none of them seem to know who you are! Do you think you're more well-known to atheists or to Christians, and why?

Not every Christian watches TV or reads books. However, it seems that most atheists (thanks the Richard Dawkins and others) are pretty familiar with the brainless idiot known as "banana-man."

(Asked by my friend Pastor Keith): What is the gospel?

In a nutshell--that Christ died for our sins and rose again on the third day. The word "gospel" means good news, and the gospel doesn't make sense until we see why we need it, in the same way the good news of a cure makes no sense until we understand that we have a disease. The terminal disease is sin. If it's allowed to take its course, it will not only kill us, it will justly take us to a terrible place of punishment called "Hell"--because each of us has violated God's Law (the Ten Commandments). He sees lust as adultery and hatred as murder. He is morally perfect, and that leaves us all in big trouble. The good news is that God is rich in mercy, became a human being, and took our punishment upon Himself. That means, because Jesus paid our fine and rose again from the dead, God can legally let us walk out of the courtroom. He can forgive us and let us live. Our case can be dismissed upon repentance and trust in the Savior. The good news is that any of us can have everlasting life. Read the Gospel of John for details.

(Asked by reader Gord) Can you define "kind"? What is the closest equivalent to "kind" in taxonomy? Species? Genus? Something else?

The word "kind" is the biblical word for "species." God created dogs to reproduced dogs, cats to reproduce cats. Every animal was created to bring forth after its own kind. The Book of Genesis repeats this many times in the first chapter to make it clear, for those of us who are a little slow. We see evidence of this, both in the fossil record, and in living creation. The meaning of the word "species" has changed over the years. At one point it was synonymous with "kinds." However, nowadays it is used differently in different circles.

(Also asked by Gord, long question): Have you met, chat[tted] with or otherwise communicated with an Old Earth Creationist named Adnan Oktar (pen name of Harun Yahya)? His argument for creation is that despite Millions of years of existence, the fossil record shows that all kind[s] of creatures does not display any form of change at all. A fossil of a fish seems to be the same as a modern fish, a fossil of a bird seems to be the same as a modern bird, etc. He says that this clearly shows that creative genius of his Creator, Allah. What fossil evidence can you point out to him that he is clearly mistaken, that micro-evolution does happen and that an ancient fish is very dissimilar to a modern fish. An ancient bird is very dissimilar to a modern bird, etc.? What physical evidence can you show him to demonstrate that the God of the Bible is the creative force behind all of these micro-evolution? Evidence that is so compelling that nothing in the Koran can dispute to it's truth?

I have never heard of Mr. Oktar and I am therefore not familiar with his arguments, other than what you have related. Those who believe that a fish fossil is "ancient" reveal their unquestioning faith in dating methods. The fact that a fossil of a bird is different from a modern bird simply means that the Creator made them different. There was no transition from one species to another, so micro-evolution has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution. We can see micro-evolution throughout the entire creation of God--both in the fossil record and living things--from the small finch to the large albatross, from the massive Great Dane to the tiny chihuahua. These are variations within species.

As for the God of the Bible being the Creator. That's simple. The moral Law , which Moslems embrace (the Law of Moses), leaves all of humanity condemned to death and on the path to Hell. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only God-given means of escape. Islam has no answer to that, our biggest dilemma (see John 8:31-32).

(Asked by EdW) You have talked to a huge number of people about their beliefs over the years, atheists and Christians alike. According to your understanding of Christianity, broadly speaking how many would go to Heaven if the world ended tomorrow?

God only knows. The only way anyone can have assurance of everlasting life is to repent, trust Jesus alone for their salvation (without good works--see Ephesians 2:8-9) and show the genuine nature of your repentance by living a life free from hypocrisy (something the Bible calls "holiness"). You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that there aren't too many who do that. The modern church is full of pretenders, and they will be sorted out from the genuine, on the Day of Judgment.

Can you comment on the claim that part of your introduction to the 150th anniversary edition of Origin of Species was plagiarized?

No.

You're voting in a local election, and you have a choice of voting for two candidates: one candidate advocates all of the policies you advocate for, and seems rather intelligent, qualified and is an atheist. The other candidate stands against all of the policies you stand for, does not seem qualified, seems a little dim and is a Christian. Who do you vote for and why? (For me, if the situation were reversed and I had the choice of voting for an unqualified atheist or a qualified Christian, I would not hesitate to vote for the Christian)

I would never vote for anyone who advocated the murder of children in the womb. If an atheist was pro-life, of course I would vote for him. However, I will qualify that answer. A person who is surrounded by creation and yet denies the axiom that there is a Creator, isn't smart in the truest sense of the word. So an atheist disqualifies himself from the race, by the very nature of his life-philosophy. Any person who is a Christian, however dumb he may be in your eyes, is very wise because he has obeyed the gospel and has everlasting life. The day will come when you will see that to be true.

Have you ever been really stumped by a question someone asked you on the blog or on the street? If so, what question stumped you?

There are many questions I can't answer. One is why God allows suffering (it's not that suffering exists--the Bible explains it in that we live in a "fallen" creation). But why does God allow it? This is a mystery but it is not a dilemma to me. The day will come when we (those that love God) will have complete understanding. In the meanwhile, I trust Him with all of my heart, mind, soul and strength (almost every other question has a rational answer. I published something called The Evidence Bible that contains 100 of the most commonly asked question of the Christian faith).

What do you think of all of the atheist billboards that are going up across the USA?

I love them. They make people think about God.

Do you think that atheists and theists should try to coexist? Why or why not? How?

Yes, I think we should co-exist. There is a problem though. I regularly pray for atheists, buy them meals, send them money/vouches to restaurants, give them gifts, and yet they return hatred for my love. If you think I am exaggerating, Google my name and get ready for your ears to tingle. So the problem isn't with Christians--we love atheists. It's with the angry, militant, God-hating, God-blaspheming, God-denying atheist, who sees it as his mission in life to rid our country of any semblance of God. These folk meet regularly to talk about God and how He doesn't exist. They write books about Him. They hang around Christian blogs like bugs around a campfire. They put up billboards about God, and they see us as the enemy. So if a sword exists, it comes from your side, not ours.

Obviously, I have read your entire book (You Can Lead an Atheist To Evidence, but You Can't Make Him Think), given that on my blog I responded to something on almost every page. What books by modern biologists or atheists have you read? Have you read any to the same depth?

Evolution For Dummies (I'm sure some would say that that is an appropriate book for me). The Wild World of the Future talks about future evolution speculation, as opposed to the usual evolution speculation of past. The last book I read was the modern biologist's bible--On the Origin of Species. I read it from cover to cover and found it a difficult read because most of it is pretty boring. I have heard atheists say the same thing. However, thanks to our generous giveaway of a total of 205,000 copies, others can read for themselves what Darwin actually believed, and make up their own minds. Thanks for letting me give my side of the argument. Best wishes.

I’m interviewing Ray Comfort

Ray Comfort, the person who wrote You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But you Can't Make Him Think and who recently published a 150^th anniversary edition of Origin of Species with a special 50 page introduction, has agreed to do an email interview with me on this blog.

You might remember that we analyzed all (and I mean all) of Ray Comfort's You Can Lead… and so getting to correspond with Comfort after all of that blog fodder is an interesting prospect. Obviously, Comfort and I disagree on a great many things, but we can certainly still have a civil conversation with each other.

Comfort actually answers a lot of questions in interviews that are challenging to his viewpoint, but I'd like to ask some out of the box questions – something he might not hear everyday. Here are some I am thinking of asking:

A very odd thing happens when I try to talk to Christians about this apologist named Ray Comfort – none of them seem to know who you are! Do you think you're more well-known to atheists or to Christians, and why?

If you take a gander at statistics, you'll see that the rate of crime has fallen since 1990. There are lots of different theories floating around as to why this is. What's your take?

You're voting in a local election, and you have a choice of voting for two candidates: one candidate advocates all of the policies you advocate for, and seems rather intelligent, qualified and is an atheist. The other candidate stands against all of the policies you stand for, does not seem qualified, seems a little dim and is a Christian. Who do you vote for and why?

Have you ever been really stumped by a question someone asked you on the blog or on the street? If so, what question stumped you?

What do you think of all of the atheist billboards that are going up across the USA?

Do you think that atheists and theists should try to coexist? Why or why not? How?

Obviously, I have read your entire book (You Can Lead an Atheist To Evidence, but You Can't Make Him Think), given that on my blog I responded to something on almost every page. What books by modern biologists or atheists have you read? Have you read any to the same depth?

Do you guys have anything you're just dying to ask him?

Ray on Occasional Days: 8:7 and we're DONE!

This is it. It's official. This is the last bit of Ray's book, so this will be the last "Ray a day"/"Ray on Occasional Days".  I must say, Ray really goes out with a bang. Read on. This was originally printed on Ray's blog, so I'll quote the whole thing:

Hello. My name is “Unreasonable.” I am a very proud demon. I love to hate, and I live for lust. I am extremely prejudiced. Come too close, and I will hiss out my venom. I don’t fear God or man, and I live in the House of Atheist.

If you want to enter my house, know that I control who and what gets in, and I'm in complete control of what comes out. Try knocking to see if I will open the door. Before you even try, let me tell you that I despise truth and will not let it enter . . . unless I think it’s in my best interests.

Take the subject of bats. The Bible says that bats are "birds," probably because they have wings and fly. That’s ridiculous. Bats are not birds. Now if science had said that having wings and flying makes them a form of bird, then that makes sense. In fact, it makes perfect sense.

How about Cain and his wife? Where did she come from? They say he married a sister. I won’t even come to the door on that. It's moronic. However, if science said that we trace our human ancestry back to one individual, then that truth is welcome, because it makes sense.

I can look directly at this vast, intricate creation and say that it’s not proof that there is a Creator. I need give no explanation. Such talk flies in the face of reason and common logic, but I don’t care.

There is a reason I don’t like truth. It’s because it carries light, and I don’t like light . . . unless I can control it. There is a room inside my house that I like to keep dark. Very dark. It is what I call an "adult" fantasy room. You know what I mean. That room keeps the residents here, and it keeps me in control.

I like to call evil good, and good evil. I do this because I hate absolutes, because absolutes speak of truth.

Each time I am unreasonable, I fortify my house.

I love living in the House of Atheist with my other demon friends. That's because we are very welcome here. When the resident is seized by my master and taken to his permanent place, I will just move on and find another house. There are plenty out there.

Actually, I know that everything the Bible says is true. The Word of God makes me tremble. In the face of what I have said, that makes no sense. I know that . . . I'm just being Unreasonable.

Part of me just wants to let this sit here. Essentially, I think it speaks for itself. Alas, the last nail of the coffin must be hammered in. I really wanted you guys to read that without breaking it up. Now we can go through it bit by bit.

Hello. My name is “Unreasonable.” I am a very proud demon. I love to hate, and I live for lust. I am extremely prejudiced. Come too close, and I will hiss out my venom. I don’t fear God or man, and I live in the House of Atheist.

Ohai! Unreasonable means something like ‘inconsistent with reason, logic, or common sense”. Sure, I would not disagree that atheists reject common sense, but I have no idea what hate and lust have to do with atheism or unreasonableness. Unless Ray is just trying to throw in as many negative-sounding words as he can to describe the target of his bigotry.

If you want to enter my house, know that I control who and what gets in, and I'm in complete control of what comes out. Try knocking to see if I will open the door. Before you even try, let me tell you that I despise truth and will not let it enter . . . unless I think it’s in my best interests.

So this demon “Unreasonable” has this house called the “House of Atheist” where I guess the atheists go. Got it.

This is coming from a guy who continually goes on about how much he cares about atheists. If I said this about my mother, would you think I cared for her? It is so interesting how people like Ray can claim to care about someone while at the same time denigrating them. This type of writing is patently irresponsible – by creating a strawman of “atheists” as evil, vile people, publishing it in a book that millions can purchase and read, Ray is doing nothing more than perpetuating hatred for an entire group of people who, to my knowledge, are just as moral and ethical (often more moral and ethical) than theists. Imagine, for a moment, that these words were written about gays, or woman, or blacks, or Catholics.  Imagine if, “House of Atheist” was instead, “cathedral”. The bigotry is oozing out Rays ears.

Take the subject of bats. The Bible says that bats are "birds," probably because they have wings and fly. That’s ridiculous. Bats are not birds. Now if science had said that having wings and flying makes them a form of bird, then that makes sense. In fact, it makes perfect sense.

It is easy to take lame examples of Bible contradictions that non-theists don’t care about, show how silly they are, and then proclaim that therefore non-theists are absurd. I don’t care that the Bible labels bats as birds. The Bible labels bats as birds because the Bible is not a science book. It also says you can breed animals in front of spotted sticks to create spotted animals. This is demonstrably false. If the Bible is divine, it should not contain demonstrably false information. Of course, once you have magic on your side, you can beg your way out of any question. Maybe back before there was a lot of sin, you could breed animals next to spotted sticks to produce spotted animals! Maybe back then, the laws of physics operated differently!

The point that people make when they point out inconsistencies in the Bible is this: if the Bible is supposed to be completely, absolutely perfect, then it should contain no errors. If it contains errors, then it is not perfect. This would not be a problem if people did not claim the Bible was inerrant in the first place. Pointing out consistencies is a way of showing someone how absurd it is to say that a book is inerrant.

It’s fascinating when apologists try to do the same thing to, say, Origin of Species, as if pointing out an error in the book will falsify evolution. We don’t think Origin is perfect, so pointing out an error will likely lead us to say, “Yup. And?” It just doesn’t have the same power, because no claims of inerrancy were made.

How about Cain and his wife? Where did she come from? They say he married a sister. I won’t even come to the door on that. It's moronic. However, if science said that we trace our human ancestry back to one individual, then that truth is welcome, because it makes sense.

Cain and his wife is a very legitimate criticism of the morality of the Bible and the story of creation. So are criticisms of Abraham Solomon having 700 wives and 300 concubines while being praised by the Christian god repeatedly. As an outsider, I ask myself why we might want to teach our children these stories, along with other stories in the Bible which promote sexism, racism, genocide, etc.

‘Science’ does not say things. Scientists makes observations, use reason and logic to develop mechanism for how those observations came to be, experiment, and come to conclusions. Scientists do not posit that our ancestry can be traced back to one individual. Biblical creationism does, however, so I find it quite interesting that Ray uses this as an example. If our observations, rational thinking and experimentation led us to conclude that we did arise from a single individual, then of course I would accept that. Our observations/rational thinking/experimentation do not come to this conclusion, and so nor do I.

This is what being open-minded means – allowing your conclusions to be amenable to evidence. When I am in a disagreement over someone about some objective trust, I like to ask them what evidence they would need in order for them to change their mind. If they respond by telling me nothing can change their mind, then our conversation is over. Their mind is closed.

I can look directly at this vast, intricate creation and say that it’s not proof that there is a Creator. I need give no explanation. Such talk flies in the face of reason and common logic, but I don’t care.

Saying that creation proves there is a creator is begging the question, or using circular logic, which flies in the face of reason and common logic. Circular reasoning is one of the first logical fallacies people tend to learn about. If you assume your conclusion in your premise, you can prove anything. For example: I can look at this vast whorl of a universe designed by processes not guided by an intelligent force and say it is proof that the universe was not created. This is an absurd argument because it presupposes in the premise what I am attempting to conclude. As far as explanations go, plenty of those have been given. Plenty of explanations have been given to Ray himself, so I do not understand how he can miss them.

There is a reason I don’t like truth. It’s because it carries light, and I don’t like light . . . unless I can control it. There is a room inside my house that I like to keep dark. Very dark. It is what I call an "adult" fantasy room. You know what I mean. That room keeps the residents here, and it keeps me in control.

Here are some more examples of Ray’s bigotry toward atheists – claiming we hate ‘light’ (an obvious metaphor for ‘good stuff’) and love ‘dark’ (blatantly a metaphor for sexual depravity).

I like to call evil good, and good evil. I do this because I hate absolutes, because absolutes speak of truth.

What does “I like to call evil good, and good evil” have to do with absolutes? I can’t speak for all atheists, but I am no moral relativist Most Comfortian Christians are moral relativists, even as they decry moral relativism.

Moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Christians do this all the time to explain why they do not follow the Bible with regard to behaviors like stoning disobedient children or not eating shellfish. There was a reason for the law then, or for that culture, or for those individual people, but not now.  Or, it is perfectly just for god to order individuals to hack off 200 foreskins, but it’s not okay for me to hack off 200 foreskins. This is the definition of moral relativism!

It is interesting that Christians cling to this idea of moral absolutism, because moral absolutism in their mind implies a moral lawgiver, which implies their god. Yet they are moral relativists, and so is their holy book.

Each time I am unreasonable, I fortify my house.

So whenever the demon Unreasonable is unreasonable, he makes the House of Atheist stronger.  Ray sounds like the demon of bigotry, again.

I love living in the House of Atheist with my other demon friends. That's because we are very welcome here. When the resident is seized by my master and taken to his permanent place, I will just move on and find another house. There are plenty out there.

The “resident” I guess is an atheist? Is the “master” in this metaphor a god, or Satan?

Actually, I know that everything the Bible says is true. The Word of God makes me tremble. In the face of what I have said, that makes no sense. I know that . . . I'm just being Unreasonable.

If everything in the Bible is true, then your god is a jackass.

Thanks Ray. It was a good ride. I really wish you would stop reinforcing the fact that atheists are the most hated minority in the US, though. It's irresponsible and disgusting.

Ray on Occasional Days: 8:6

Onto the last stretch of The Atheist Starter Kit:

8. Deal with the threat of eternal punishment by saying that you don't believe in the existence of Hell. Then convince yourself that because you don't believe in something, it therefore doesn't exist. Don't follow that logic onto a railway line and an oncoming train.

Let me answer your analogy with another analogy, Ray.  If we were standing on a busy railway line with a train approaching, you would be quite correct to flail your arms like a lunatic, screaming that we're going to die unless we get off of the tracks.  Happily, we're actually standing in the middle of a grassy field with no train, or even train tracks, in sight.  You are still madly flailing, foaming at the mouth, insisting that we're in imminent danger of being hit by a train.  We politely ask the crazy person exactly how he comes to that conclusion, and you reply that we actually do know that the train is coming, we just don't want to have to move off of our nice, comfy patch of grass.  We politely ignore you and finish our picnic.

And this is why Christians should stick to respectful discussion, without devolving into condesending mockery of atheists' conclusions.  We can make fun of Christian beliefs too, and frankly, it seems that we're better at this game.

9. Blame Christianity for the atrocities of the Roman Catholic church--when it tortured Christians through the Spanish Inquisition, imprisoned Galileo for his beliefs, or when it murdered Moslems in the Crusades.

Wow, we really love the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, don't we, Ray!

The Roman Catholic Church and Christianity were synonomous until just a couple hundred years ago.  What does Comfort think happened between 100 AD and 1517, when Martin Luther puked forth the Protestant Reformation?  Did Christianity simply not exist during this time?

Also, again, Protestant denominations have been no less bloodthirsty, simply on a somewhat diminished scale (and this due to comparative lack of numbers and resources, obviously not a difference of ideology):  The "hunting" and slaughter of "witches" with massive bodycounts, Oliver Cromwell, institutionalized slavery, or one could actually read the writings of John Calvin or Martin Luther (or Adolf Hitler, who admired Luther a great deal, without reservation).  Protestants are certainly no strangers to atrocities.

I find it telling that a Protestant's complaints against the Catholic Church, such as those above, are so strongly supported by a biblical ideology. The root conflict, as a Protestant claims, is that Catholics don't follow the Bible strictly and to the exclusion of all other factors, yet out of all the actions committed by the Catholic Church, on any scale, the persection and slaughter of heretics is perhaps the easiest to justify with explicit Biblical scripture.  It's very entertaining that guys like Comfort, who wish to distance their own religion from the atrocities committed by others of that same religion, must resort to criticizing those horrifying actions on some vague humanistic basis.  Do they realize, on some level, that you simply can't condemn discrimination and even genocide against any variety of "unbeliever" on a strictly scriptural basis?

10. Finally, keep in fellowship with other like-minded atheists who believe as you believe, and encourage each other in your beliefs. Build up your faith. Never doubt for a moment. Remember, the key to atheism is to be unreasonable. Fall back on that when you feel threatened. Think shallow, and keep telling yourself that you are intelligent. Remember, an atheist is someone who pretends there is no God.

Again, this is hilarious.  The massive irony here is that The Atheist Starter Kit is posted on Ray's website/blog; Atheist Central.  The vast, overwhelming majority of atheists that have read this Starter Kit are visitors to a blog all about how stupid atheism is!  Ziztur and I are always up for dialogue with a theist; we consider such discussion to be the very best and most entertaining type of conversation there is.  We go to a different church each week, for fuck's sake!  We read Comfort's blog and his books (obviously), we listen to Bott Radio 91.5 FM, we read every apologist book that we can get our hands on.  Both of our libraries are stocked with Lee Strobel.  Our next piece of meat is C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity.  I have several friends who believe in God, and we talk about religion all the time.  If atheists so desperately need to only hang around and listen to other atheists to cling to their shallow belief system, we are obviously failing miserably to disbelieve the way we should.

Apparently, we atheists have to be so unreasonable to maintain our lack of belief.  If this is the case, then how is it that virtually all arguments for the existence of God rest on logical fallacies?  Why can every such argument be easily shown to be invalid when applied to other situations?  If atheism is so unreasonable, then why can't anybody seem to show what's wrong with it?  I hope, Mr. Comfort, that over the course of your latest book we've demonstrated pretty conclusively how flawed your beliefs are.  We don't tell ourselves that we're intelligent, we strive to improve our thinking by rigorously testing our conclusions and discarding those that fail.

Again with the "an atheist is someone who pretends there is no God" shit.  Okay, listen.  Here's my question about this, Ray.  You insist that we actually do believe in God.  If we did believe in your God, then shouldn't it be obvious that we've broken his law with rampant sin?  If we did believe in your God and the Bible, then we would also believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we're sinners and are going to hell.  My question is; why on earth would we then reject your god, and Jesus?  The reason you always give for our rejection of your god is that "we want to remain moral free-agents."  If our motivation really is completely selfish, as you insist, then there's no conceivable way we would reject Jesus and go to hell.  Your whole assertion makes no sense.

The simple fact that we do reject Jesus should demonstrate conclusively that we don't believe in your god, or his moral code, or his threat of hell.  It's obvious why a person would believe in your religion, even if they turn out to be wrong; it could give them comfort regarding their own mortality, or it could be nothing more than an evolutionary by-product of pre-human societies.  We can accept these explanations of your beliefs, while still concluding that those beliefs are mistaken.  You cannot do this; your Bible insists that everyone has a knowledge/belief in God, so that's what you claim, but it simply makes no sense at all to insist that we believe in your God and Bible, and thus in your god's morality and hell, but that we still reject him.  The only this could possibly make logical sense is to claim that we have a terribly misguided moral principle that causes us to reject your God, even if we sacrifice ourselves in hell to stand up for that principle.  However, you then go on and on about how we only reject God out of pure selfishness.

It's just staggering, Ray.  The sheer breadth and depth of your worldview's logical failures astounds me.

Ray on Occasional Days: 8:5

Onto the rest of the Atheist Starter Kit, reprinted in the back of Ray Comfort's You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence:

4. You can also deal with the "whoever looks on a woman to lust for her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart," by saying that there is no evidence that Jesus existed. None.

Well, one could potentially refute Comfort's assertion that any degree of lust is a terrible sin by pointing out that there is little evidence for a historical Jesus, and even less evidence for his divine, spiritual authority as the earthly incarnation of God.  The assertion itself is an Argument from Authority fallacy; Comfort (as well as just about everyone else who would claim that looking at someone with lust is exactly equivalent to adultery) makes no attempt to justify this statement, except to say that God says so.

However, this just doesn't get to the heart of the matter.  Even if it is a logical fallacy, simply pointing this out doesn't necessarily prove the assertion false.  Much simpler to just point out how stupid it is to insist that there's no difference between feeling lust for someone and, say, cheating on a committed partner behind their back.

Comfort is extremely fond of this line.  The appeal is obvious, I suppose; lust is one of the most nearly universal aspects of human existence.  What better way to make your religion's guilt system truly inescapable than to make simple, unenacted lust a capital offense?  I could also point out that it's sexist; from this line, one would assume that Jesus was completely ignorant of similar female biological urges.  Could it be that Jesus's opinion was formed in the culture of that place and time, where women weren't expected to have sexual urges?  The simplest way to point out the idiocy of this statement:  It ignores a relatively common situation:  What if the persons in a relationship are actually *gasp* half-way mature, rational people, who aren't offended by their partner(s) being attracted to other people?  Ziztur and I point out hot chicks and dudes to each other all the time, even if we would never in a million years deceive each other to fool around on the sides, behind each other's backs.

5. Believe that the Bible is full of mistakes, and actually says things like the world is flat. Do not read it for yourself. That is a big mistake. Instead, read, believe, and imitate Richard Dawkins. Learn and practice the use of big words. "Megalo-maniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" is a good phrase to learn.

Daniel 4:10-11 describes how the king saw a vision of a great and mighty tree standing in the middle of the earth; it was "visible to the ends of the earth."  Obviously this is only possible if the earth were flat, but it would clearly be dishonest to insist that "the Bible says that the earth is flat" on the basis of this verse alone, even if it is slightly suspicious that Daniel, full of the wisdom and knowledge of God, failed to correct the king of this obvious scientific ignorance.  Revelations 1:7 claims that when Christ returns, "every eye will see him."  Still, some liberal or open-minded Christians would counter that the whole of Revelations is so outlandish and bizarre that the whole book is likely metaphor.

On the other hand, Matthew 4:8 says that Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of earth at once, from a tall mountain.  Is this story of Jesus's temptation a mere metaphor?  I think a vast majority of Christians would claim that this story must be literal truth, yet it could not have occured on a spherical earth (unless one claims that the writer of this story was ignorant of all the human civilizations in the Americas, further out into Europe and Africa, and the Far East, which is hardly a better position if one wishes to defend the Bible's scientific knowledge).  Isaiah 40:22 states very matter-of-factly that God "sits enthroned above the circle of the earth;" a circle, of course, being a two-dimensional (read:  flat) object, exactly as one would describe the earth if they believed that it was flat.  I'm very entertained that so many Christians actually insist that the Bible claims a round earth based on this verse.  All of this nonsense about the Bible not describing a flat earth also completely ignores the obvious fact that the Christian faith considered the earth to be flat for thousands of years (and this conclusion was based exactly on the Bible), until science conclusively proved that the earth was spherical.  There is no record of anyone, ever, claiming that the Bible said that the earth was a sphere or ball until after science had proven that it was.  It is either utter stupidity, gross ignorance, or complete intellectual dishonesty to claim that the Bible describes a round earth.

In any event, I sincerely hope that I've made it painfully obvious that atheists do, in fact, read the Bible.  In fact, I have found that on average, self-described atheists know more about the Bible than most self-described Christians.  Even Dr. Brad Harrub, a young-earth creationist and fundamentalist Christian, admitted this to Ziztur and I as we chatted after one of his seminars.  As I've said in the past, in response to Comfort's assertion that atheists avoid reading the Bible like the plague (an analogy that is not entirely inappropriate, even if it's factually incorrect), I didn't know anything about science, philosophy, or other world religions when I gave up my belief in Christianity.  I simply read the Bible.  I would never ban or restrict the Bible from being sold, distributed, or read in any way - not only would such censorship be unethical even if it did create more Christians, but it would remove the Bible itself as a resource for atheism.

Conversely, I didn't read any Dawkins at all, until a few months ago.  I was an atheist for years before I read The God Delusion.  I've never read any Hitchens, very little Harris, and hadn't heard of Dennett until a couple months ago, but I have read the entire Bible several times.  Many Christians do this with the few famous atheists out there; they seem to project their own following of an authority onto non-believers.  Do they simply assume that because they, as fundamentalist Christians, must have an authority to blindly follow in life, that outspoken atheists do too?

6. Say that you were once a genuine Christian, and that you found it to be false. (The cool thing about being an atheist is that you can lie through your teeth, because you believe that are no moral absolutes.) Additionally, if a Christian points out that this is impossible (simply due to the very definition of Christianity as one who knows the Lord), just reply "That's the 'no true Scotsman fallacy.'" PLEASE NOTE: It cannot be overly emphasized how learning and using these little phrases can help you feel secure in dismissing common sense.

I know that when I say that I was a Christian, that I believed in God, and that Jesus was his son who saved me from my sins, you have to believe that I'm lying.  As has been pointed out before, yes, this is the No True Scotsman fallacy.  Ray, you don't even try to show how a No True Scotsman fallacy can, in fact, be a rational argument.  Additionally, your fallacy is especially stupid.

I take it that Comfort believes that he is a *True Christian* (TM).  Even if we do accept his NTS definition of a "Christian," it's still quite possible to change your mind about something that you thought you "knew" for certain.  A child can easily say that they "knew" that Santa Claus existed, before they grew up and realized that he doesn't.  Does this mean that they were never really believers in Santa?  I used to say that I "knew" that evolution hasn't occurred, yet now I realize how ignorant I was of the scientific method.  Comfort insists (though only on this particular issue, of course, when it suits his purpose) that if you ever change your mind, you didn't actually have that opinion in the first place.  The really bizarre part of this ridiculous definition is that if you can't be a True Christian unless you never change your mind about it, then we can never know if you're a True Christian!  Because we human beings have finite intellect, we can never be 100% certain that we won't change our mind on a particular subject.

7. Believe that nothing is 100% certain, except the theory of Darwinian evolution. Do not question it. Believe with all of your heart that there is credible scientific evidence for species-to-species transitional forms. When you make any argument, pat yourself on the back by concluding with "Man, are you busted!" That will make you feel good about yourself.

A great deal of Comfort's material is good for a laugh; you've gotta give him that much.  This is hilarious.  Now, again, I didn't know anything about evolution or science itself until years after I gave up belief in God, and a huge portion of Christians (many of the more intelligent and ethical ones I've known) accept the fact that evolution is exceptionally well-supported science.  I also don't know how so many Christian fundamentalists can insist that atheists, who so often subject every single sacred cow they find to the most violent questioning and rigorous skepticism, accept evolution theory on blind faith.  It's particularly entertaining to me that the only anti-evolution argument that he attempts in this small sound bite is the certifiable "there are no transitional forms!", even going so far as to insist that accepting the existence of transitional forms (which is a misconception in and of itself) requires you to "believe with all of your heart."

I quite like The Atheist Starter Kit, actually, it's a very conveniently-compressed dose of Ray Comfort's unique brand of insanity.  Stay tuned, folks.

Ray on Occasional Days: 8:4

Almost there! Nearing the end of Ray Comfort's book, "You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, but You Can't Make Him Think." A long while ago, Ziztur and I briefly had a laugh at Comfort's expense over this. In the back of the book, entertainingly, right after a rant about how he preaches to us because he loves us so much, he reprints "The Atheist Starter Kit," a wonderfully insulting, dismissive, and sarcastic how-to for budding atheists.

If you are a beginner atheist, there's a belief system you should embrace and a language you should learn, or you will find yourself in trouble. Here are ten suggestions for the novice:

First off, this is a common misconception.  While it's possible that an atheist could potentially claim that his or her lack of belief in God is itself a belief, I've never met an atheist who claims this.  It seems that the vast majority are like Ziztur and myself; that our lack of belief in a god is more accurately described as a conclusion than a belief.  I have no difficulty acknowledging a Christian who might claim that they don't believe that Jesus is God, they have come to that conclusion by weight of evidence.  Of course, I think that they're wrong, but I can simply argue that they are mistaken, or don't have all the facts.  I don't have to insist that they have no "evidence" for their "belief."  As for the "system" and "language" an atheist should learn, they're nothing more than critical thinking skills, logic, knowledge, perhaps the scientific method, and humanistic ethical principles.  I should add that everyone should learn these things, not just atheists, and that these things are, more often than not, the cause of atheism, not ideas embraced after the fact.

1. Whenever you are presented with credible evidence for God's existence, call it a "straw man argument," or "circular reasoning." If something is quoted from somewhere, label it "quote mining."

When I originally read this, my first thought was, "What's with the quotation marks around 'straw man argument' and 'circular reasoning'?  Does he believe that an opinion can still be valid even if it's a logical fallacy?  Does he know what a logical fallacy is, or how logic works at all?"

I'm afraid that this is exactly the situation in far, far too many cases.  A "straw man argument" is when you distort or misrepresent your opponent's position as a position that can be easily rebutted.  For example, Comfort continually insists that atheists believe that nothing created everything.  This is completely counter-intuitive, but it's not what atheists "believe," so he hasn't accomplished anything.  If this still isn't clear to those who don't understand basic logic, let's try a different example:  If an atheist like me says that, "Christianity claims that you will get anything you pray for, but this doesn't happen, so Christianity is false," have I proved anything?  No, because Christians don't claim this.  I've committed a strawman fallacy (even though this is still debatable, because the Bible does, in fact, say this).

If your argument can be applied in the exact same way that you use it to a different situation and your logic completely breaks down, that means that there is something wrong with your logic.  This is all that's necessary to show what's wrong with a "circular" argument.  When Comfort says that "Creation proves the existence of a creator," he's assuming in his premise that the universe is, in fact, a creation.  An atheist can say that "The naturalistic, undesigned universe proves that there is no creator," and say the exact same thing:  nothing.  An atheist stating this as evidence that the universe has no creator would obviously be completely illogical, yet this is the exact same type of logic that Comfort must rely on to "prove" the existence of his god.  He seems to be mocking us atheists because we point out the glaring logical failures of his thinking.  I'm very curious as to how someone would even attempt to make the case that a blatantly circular argument is perfectly rational.

2. When a Christian says that creation proves that there is a Creator, dismiss such common sense by saying "That's just the old watchmaker argument."

Comfort is correct that simply saying, "That's just the old watchmaker argument." isn't a valid rebuttal.  The point of that response is that the "design argument" for the existence of God has been rebutted so many times that, at this point, any rational conversation about this argument would have to begin with the theist's response to the rebuttal.  Since Comfort does not do this, it's probably safe to assume that he doesn't understand the rebuttals to this old, tired argument.

3. When you hear that you have everything to gain and nothing to lose (the pleasures of Heaven, and the endurance of Hell) by obeying the Gospel, say "That's just the old 'Pascal wager.'"

Again, the point of that seemingly-simplistic response is that, frankly, Pascal's Wager is a top contender for the single stupidest argument for the existence of God (or more accurately, the stupidest argument for the desirability of claiming that you believe in God, even if you're lying).  When an atheist says something like "That's just the old (extremely old and rebutted a thousand times over) argument," it's not that they don't have a response.  It's just their frustration at hearing these stupid arguments over and over again.  You have probably heard these responses from atheists in the past, Ray.  Just trust me, they weren't trying to dodge the question, they're just very dissapointed that you didn't have any intellectual weight to add to the conversation.

There are ten of these helpful hints altogether, so stay tuned!

Ray on Occasional Days: 8.3

We're in the final throes of Ray's book, You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think, in the section entiled, "Further Food For Thought".

What Ray says in this section can also be found here, so I feel it is appropriate to reprint the whole thing:

Do you like to snuggle up in a warm bed on a cold night? Do you have a favorite position for going to sleep? Have you ever woken from a nightmare, and taken about ten minutes to shake off a feeling of terror?

Has your whole body suddenly "jumped" because you thought you were taking a step, just before you dropped off to sleep?

Do you get annoyed when someone asks you personal questions, or do you feel a sense of identification, because you have had these experiences?

I hope you do identify with me. The reason for this is that it's my knowledge that you are just like me that drives me to try reach you with the gospel.

Whether you like it or not, you are like me. You have many of the same loves, fears, desires and concerns. You, like me, want to enjoy the pleasures of this life. No one in his right mind wants to be unhappy, and you therefore instinctively don't want to die. Everything within you pulls back from the experience of death. It's the ultimate root-cannel for which there is no pain-killer outside of conversion to Jesus Christ.

So, if you don't know the Lord, ask yourself some personal questions about me. What is my motive for pleading with you like this? I don't get paid for having a blog. I don't sell advertising on it. I have never asked for your money, nor do I want it. Christianity doesn't do anything for my ego. Neither is my motive to get you to join a church or a religion. It's simply a deep concern for your eternal welfare. Please, repent and trust the Savior before death seizes on you, and it's too late.

Of course we're alike. We're both human beings. There is a very good reason we're so alike. Humans evolved as a population of animals to do the things that we do. It's no wonder we are so similar.

Ray is  right that we don't usually want to die. We fear death. If, as a species, we did not fear death or have an insatiable urge to survive, then we probably would not survive. Death is the ultimate root canal for which there is no painkiller, and the sentence should end right there. there is no compelling proof that Jesus ever existed. there is no compelling proof that your god exists. If your god did exist, he would be a vile entity and I would not worship him or pretend he is the most amazing entity alive because I fear death and want to survive it. I would rather die and join the army of Satan than follow that character. In a religion where one's biggest enemy is one's god, oneself, and one's own inability to follow impossible rules, it boggles my mind how people can love their god so much; how they can see it as a pillar of perfection while it supposedly orchestrates and carries out the vilest acts imaginable. I really don't understand, and the more I immerse myself in Christianity, the less I understand it.

People hate knowing that one day they will die. It's hard to imagine that one day your brain and heart will stop, and your body will decay. It's hard to imagine that the building you are in will one day crumble. Your city will one day crumble. The earth will one day be uninhabitable by any living creature. Humans as a species will die out, and the universe will die a slow, aching death.

Knowledge of one's own mortality is a powerful, scary thing. As an outsider, religion and god look to me like a way to see noneternal things as eternal. Gods are eternal, souls are eternal - they remain when everything else passes away.

Think of a sandcastle some children (perhaps your own children) have just built on a beach. Their sandcastle is beautiful and magnificent, yet the sun is setting and the tide is rolling in. Most people would be compelled to "immortalize" the image of this sandcastle - to photograph it, to draw it, to at least take it in and let the image of it burn into their memory. We want to keep it but we know we cannot, so we make an image of it.

The sandcasle is worth building, even if it is washed away and no images are made of it.

Ray on Occasional Days: 8.2

For today's decimation of Ray Comfort's book, we're going to look at a little story Ray tells his readers. He tells the story of a friend of his who is going overseas to visit New Zealand, but New Zealand officials deny him entry into the country because he has a previous jail record. The guy is nice, a "Genuine Christian" but the rules of the country bar entry to former criminals. He says that even though he was angry at this New Zealand has the right to make rules about who can and cannot enter their country.

Heaven apparently is a lot like this. Lawbreakers are not allowed in, but if you believe in Jesus and become a Christian, your criminal record is erased and you become a new person.

I'm glad the justice system we have does not work like this - people should pay equally for their crimes. I hate to be crude but I completely understand why so many criminals in prison convert to Christianity - they may not have their crimes washed away in this life, but they can have them washed away in the afterlife.

It is interesting that Ray shrugs his shoulders and says, "well, that's okay. NZ has the right to have rules". What if the rule was that if you were a criminal NZ officials locked you up on a floating cage and let seagulls consume your flesh until your body fed the fishies in addition to not allowing you into the country? Would Comfort shrug then? I hope that illustrates how much this analogy doesn't apply.

Moving on, Ray makes one more unfalsifiable appeal: he says that becoming a Christian is like this:

If I look at a heater and believe the heater is hot,  I have an intellectual belief. But if I say to myself, "I wonder if it really is hot" and reach out and grip the bar, the second my flesh burns, I stop believing it's hot. I now know it's hot. I have moved out of the realm of belief into the realm of experience.

That's what happens the moment you are born again (when you become a Christian). You will move out of the realm of "belief" into the realm of "personal experience." A Christian is not someone who has a "belief," but someone who has a relationship with the living God. You come to know him.

(P.S. you can read this text for yourself here.)

This would be a great analogy if there were independent, objective verification of the phenomenon known as the Christian god. What if we were to add to this analogy that other people touched the heater and were not burned - in fact they felt no heat at all? How about if we had a group of people who once were burned by the heater, but could now put their hands all over it without feeling any heat? What if instruments used to measure heat registered the heat of the heater as being right around room temperature, while true believers in the heater continued to burn their hands while simultaneously receiving no actual, physical burns?

We would think that the people with burning hands but no evidence of burning were insane.

Unless they insisted that they respect the fact that they were experiencing terrible burns, or got angry at us for denying their experience. In that case we'd be forced to say it gently, "we think there is the chance there could be another explanation..."

I know this may be hard to understand but experience by itself does not equal knowing. If you believe something will happen but have not experienced it and then you experience it, you've moved from belief with non-experience to belief accompanied by experience.  One might consider this a form of knowledge, but said knowledge should still be subject to revision. If you hear voices in the room, but no one else hears those same voices, you might be right to conclude that they are a product of your own neurons and not due to actual voices.

Ray's analogy can once again be used to prove just about any supernatural belief one wants to prove. If belief+experience = knowing, then I know that the universe is entirely materialistic and guided by natural, rather than supernatural processes. A crystal healer knows that crystals balance the qi and heal cancer. A UFO abductee knows he's been abducted by aliens and somehow infused with alien sperm. These people don't have beliefs - they know.

The best part about learning to deconstruct arguments is that one can learn how to argue by learning how not to argue.

Ray on Occasional Days: 8.1

You might have noticed that Ray a Day has become something more like Ray on Occasional Days. I figure you won't mind so much, as you survived without it for almost a month.

Moving on to the conclusion of Ray Comfort's book, You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, but You Can't Make Him Think, Ray posits a thought experiment:

Imagine he is offering you a choice of these gifts:

1. The original Mona Lisa.
2. A new car.
3. A million bucks.
4. A parachute.

Which do you pick? Here's some additional information - you have to jump out of an airplane, flying high.  Obviously, you'll choose the parachute because none of those other things will keep you from falling to your death.

Apparently, this is analogous to which religion you should choose among:

1. Hinduism
2. Buddhism
3. Islam
4. Christianity

Here's some additional information: One day we will die. Just like in the airplane scenario, you know what the law gravity will do to you if you jump. Similarly, you know about the moral law (you know, the one that tells us that the Christian god's rotten behavior means he is extra perfect, while our good behavior means nothing because we're filthy sinners) and how to use it to make a choice when you die. You fear god's law. You know about the ten commandments. The Bible is true, and you know you're going to be judged one day. So which religion do you choose?

Ray goes though each of the four religions and explains why none of those other religions are True®:

Hinduism: Those people believe in reincarnation, which is like "when you jump out of the plane, you'll get sucked back in as a different passenger"

Buddhism: They don't believe in any god! They believe life and death are an illusion which is like saying "I'm not really here, and there's no such thing as the law of gravity"

Islam: Those guys believe that doing things, rather than believing things, will get you a ticket to the afterlife, like "jumping out of a plane, and believing that flapping your arms is going to counter the law of gravity"

Christianity of course, is totally different, because Jesus gave you a merciful and awesome parachute. Christianity is the only religion that fits. therefore Christianity is obviously the best one.

Pardon me if I get a little snarky here - but no shit, Sherlock! This is a very complicated and yet still unimpressive way to create a giant circular argument, where Comfort's premise (that Christianity is the One True Religion®) is the same as his conclusion (that Christianity is the One True Religion®).

You could literally use this thought experiment to conclude that any religion or belief system is true.  Example:

We know that bald men are going to be creampied for eternity in the everlasting cock of our God, Oneeye, unless they grow hair or get a wig before they die.  So which religion do you choose?

1. Christianity
2. Hinduism
3. Buddhism
4. Oneeyeism

Christianity:  believes you have to believe in Jesus. That's like believing gravity will just work for you.

Hinduism: Those people believe in reincarnation, which is like "when you jump out of the plane, you'll get sucked back in as a different passenger"

Buddhism: They don't believe in any god! They believe life and death are an illusion which is like saying "I'm not really here, and there's no such thing as the law of gravity"

Oneeyeism is the right religion, because Oneeye gives you a loving and merciful parachute if you'll just grow your hair or wear a wig.

 Here's a little secret: if your argument can be broken down into its component parts and applied in a similar situation, but if in that situation your argument completely breaks down or can prove anything, then that means there is something wrong with your argument. A Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist could use this same analogy to show that their religions lead to the "parachute" while the others do not - A Muslim, for example, could say that Christianity is like jumping out of an airplane and believing that you'll be saved, whereas Islam is like actually putting the parachute on. The entire analogy rests on the presumption that Christianity is true.

Comfort goes on to tell us how awesome Jesus is for dying for our sins, and says that in the airplane situation, the individual handing us the parachute is the one whom we will find the most credible. I suppose this is supposed to mean that we should find him credible, but again, any other religion could say the same thing about adherents of their religion.

Of course, Comfort has abjectly failed to demonstrate that Christianity is the One True Religion®, where as it is actually demonstrable that a parachute is preferable to a car when one is jumping out of an airplane, assuming one wants to live. Obviously, if Comfort's particular version of Christianity is true then these other religions will fail at allowing you to obtain your salvation. Here is the argument, broken down even more simplistically:

1. Religion X is true.
2. Your have to follow religion X to obtain salvation.
3. You want salvation.
4. There are other religions which are not religion X.
5. These other religions will not lead to salvation according to religion X.
Therefore
Religion X is true.

Or perhaps even simpler:

X = Christianity is true
Y = all non-Christian religions are false

If X, then Y
Y
Therefore X

--Which is a shining example of the formal fallacy known as Affirming the Consequent. Dude, how many fallacies can you wrap into one thought experiment?

A personal Thank You to Ray Comfort

This past week, Ray Comfort sent Flimsy and me a $25 gift certificate to Red Lobster, no strings attached. He also sent over a copy of The Atheist Bible and a signed copy of "You can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think: Answers to Questions From Angry Skeptics - yeah, so now we've got two copies of this book.

Obviously, a thank you is in order - not only has Ray given me a wonderful springboard for blog posts, but he has now fed Flimsy and I - and you know how much atheists love food.

Ray and I completely disagree with each other theologically, and I am against a lot of the things he stands for. We've obviously come to completely different conclusions about the nature of morality and how the universe operates.  At the same time, It is clear that Ray sincerely believes what he preaches. He sincerely believes that his god is real, that we have souls, and does not want to see said souls spend an eternity in maximal punishment.

I'll echo something similar to something Penn Jilette said - if I sincerely believed that a meteorite were going to crush your house with you inside of it, I would do everything in my power to get you out of your house. I would not care if you believed a meteor were coming. I would not walk away because I felt it would disrespect your beliefs to drag you kicking and screaming out of your house. To leave you in your house and not bother to pull you out would make me a terrible person.

In a way, Ray and I are doing the same thing - we've come to a conclusion about the world, and we're acting on it because we sincerely care about those around us. Obviously, I have many reasons for thinking that my conclusion actually reflects the nature of reality.  My methodology is much better, but that's beside the point.

So, Ray Comfort - thank you. You care about us more than your god does.

Ray a Day: 7.6

Today, as we near the end of our painful dissection of You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think by Ray Comfort, Ray's angry skeptic asks why Jesus had to die to pay our debt to god, given that Jesus and the Christian god are one and the same. Ray responds by saying that god is inseparable from moral law, since both his god and his god's law are perfect, holy, just and good.  So the ten commandments is issued directly from the character of his god, and said law is written in stone.

He asks us to:

Think of it like this. A man has viciously raped and murdered six young girls. He is not insane... the judges wrath will be in direct proportion to his goodness. If he is a good judge, he will be unspeakably furious at that wicked man ... God's wrath is in direct proportion to his goodness...

Oh. So the Christian god is supposed to be unfathomably wrathful, because he is also unfathomably good. I get it. So when his god goes around generally being the most hateful character in all of existence, this actually demonstrates his holy perfection! We're supposed to look at all of this hate and understand that his god's wrath is only so incredibly immoral and wrathful because he is actually absolutely perfect. I don't know if I need to explain how bizarre this is - I think it stands on its own.

Fury is not the mark of a "good judge". The mark of a good judge, I think, it the ability to consistently, logically and objectively apply the law to individuals. Fury is entirely unnecessary. In Ray's worldview, the better the judge, the more fury he should have at minor crimes - with his god being the most perfect judge of all, who flips out and gives people maximal punishment for the most minor of crimes, or for arbitrary behaviors said judge has labeled as crimes. In other words, the more horrible his god is, the more he demonstrates his perfection.

Wow, the implications of that line of thinking.

Ray goes on, saying that the judge himself came down and paid the fine himself, which demonstrates the justice of a holy god and the love of a merciful god, and we can't understand how awesome this is until we humble our hearts.

I don't know how humbling my heart will make me understand this thing. To be, this god character Christians love so much has a totally arbitrary and nonsensical thought process. If it actually made sense, it would make sense to me whether I believed in this god or not. Humbling one's heart is not an objective way to get at truth.

Last, Ray relates to his reader a story of meeting up with two rollerblading atheists on the street, and convincing them to understand his god's perfect judgment.  He relates his story about these two atheists not being able to answer where cows came from.

Just because you think you have all the answers does not mean that you do. I would much rather say, "I don't know" then make something up that sounds good. Really, it's okay not to know.

And that, my friends, IS THE END OF THE BOOK, except for the 15-page conclusion, which has more goodness in it for us to go over.

Ray a Day: 7.5

Today we get to talk about cute kittens! Ray's angry skeptic points out that if the flood actually happened, then God drowned all of the kittens. Here's my favorite line, "Kittens, Ray. He drowned jillions of kittens - and you worship him.

Ray asks his questioner why he is so upset, and says that since he is an atheist, he believes that no one made those kittens, that being an atheist means that life has no rhyme or reason, and that there are no moral absolutes. If there are no moral absolutes, Ray says, then his god didn't do anything wrong.

He goes on to ask is the questioner is angry at veterinarians for killing kittens, and says that if his god made the kittens, then his god has the right to kill said kittens - besides, kittens have to die in order for there not to be jillions of kittens overpopulating the streets.

Last, he says that if someone believes in evolution, then evolution kills all kittens, so we should all lighten up.

First of all, I and every other atheist I know would strongly disagree that there is no "rhyme or reason" to life and no moral absolutes. Why is it that Christians like Ray insist that atheists believe there are no moral absolutes? I find this especially hilarious because Christians who believe that the Bible is completely true are necessarily moral relativists, even as they flail about, insisting that moral relativism is evil.

1. In the Old Testament culture, it was morally just to stone blasphemers.
2. in our modern culture, it is not morally just to stone blasphemers.

If you believe that it was just for blasphemers to be killed in the OT, and you think it is unjust now, then you, my friends, are a moral relativist, holding that morality is relative to culture or time.

I hold the position that there are rational, objective moral absolutes - of Secular Humanism. I believe that the ethical moral system of secular humanism is morally right, regardless of culture or time. Whether one lives in 6000 B.C.E, 2009 A.D., England, Israel, or wherever. This is moral absolutism - the position that morality is the same, regardless of culture or time.

Now then, here is the problem. Because I hold the position that there are moral absolutes, and Ray believes in moral relativism, he believes it it okay for his god to kill jillions of kittens. He believes his god did nothing wrong, because his god is incapable of doing wrong. I am going to go out on a limb and assume that Ray thinks it is immoral for me to drown a jillion kittens. This is also moral relativism:

1. It's perfectly moral for god to drown a jillion kittens
2. it's not perfectly moral for me to drown a jillion kittens.

So, Ray thinks that if you're an atheist, life is meaningless and there are no moral absolutes, so his god was right to drown a jillion kittens. If you're Ray, you think your god was right to drown a jillion kittens, because whatever god does is right.

Ray does on to say that veterinarians kill lots of kittens, so he asks why we're not out picketing veterinary offices.

Perhaps Ray does not see the difference between torturing 99.999999999999997% of humanity by drowning them, and putting kittens to sleep due to their illness or overpopulation problems. Surely though, there is a difference between an entity torturing another entity, and an entity ending the life of another entity in a humane way.

If we are to lighten up about Ray worshiping a god who kills kittens (almost all of life on earth), then I suppose we should lighten up about people who, say, drown their infant children in toilet water. After all, that kid would have died one day anyway, right?By drowning that kid, mom gave him a one-way ticket to heaven, right?

WRONG.

I do not respect, nor worship, any entity that supposedly tortures other living creatures. The problem is that this particular god Ray worships tortures other living creatures, and he calls this god perfect, perfectly just and perfectly loving. Then, he berates atheists for having no moral absolutes and just being able to justify doing whatever pleases them.

Also, I have yet to hear an appropriate justification for why an entity that creates another entity has the right to do whatever he pleases with his created entity, including torture, drown or destroy it.  Why? 

Just because kittens have to die in order to prevent overpopulation does not make it right to drown a jillion kittens. Overpopulation is not a justification for drowning kittens. People have to die too in order to prevent overpopulation of people, but that is absolutely not a justification to drown people.

"evolution" does not kill kittens. Even if one were to make that argument, that does not mean it is right to kill something just because some other process kills something.

So, lighten up, I will not. Torture of living creatures by a sentient morally-aware conscious being is not something anyone should "lighten up" about, and I am simply flabbergasted that Ray would suggest such a thing. Honestly, I am glad that the world is not populated by people who think like him - as he believes torture is morally permissable and that we should ligthen up because it's perfectly okay for the character he bases his moral convictions on to torture living things.

Ray a Day: 7.4

We're back to doing Ray a Day's, aren't you happy?

For those of you who've just started reading this blog in the last month and a half, Your fearless bloggers Flimsy and I have been using bits of Ray Comfort's book, You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, but You Can't Make Him Think" as a springboard for blog posts. We've actually gone through almost the entire book at this point.

Today's gem is a little letterbox on page 115 (which was also published here) that reads:

A loving Christian brother just emailed me and said, “Man-o-man. There are some bitter, furious, Christian hatin' bloggers out there!!!” I told him that he is seeing comparatively nice ones. They know that I delete anything with blasphemy or cussing. He’s right though. Some of the atheists that are part of this blog are pretty nasty. So, I have decided to return a bit of the fire (in love, of course).

There are some bitter, Christian hating bloggers out there, but there are probably equal or more atheist-hating bloggers. Some people are just angry, and that's fine. Anger on it's own is amoral. Sometimes anger is justified.


When people are part of a group that is hated and oppressed, vilified for being immoral when morality is incredibly important to them, told to shut up for suggesting that people can be good without believing in god, and bombarded with viewpoints they don't agree with on a near-daily basis. it tends to make those people angry. I think that when Flimsy and I personally express anger on this blog, it is justified.

My new theory is that perhaps atheists evolved from the chicken, because they not only have chicken characteristics--a head, eyes, mouth, skin, neck, heart, earlobes and legs (homology structures), but they also have the chicken’s tendencies--they are chicken livered. They hang around Christians like annoying little bugs hang around light, trying to inject their poison whenever they can.

I don't understand why "chicken tendencies" are described as hanging around with Christians like bugs, trying to inject poison. I don't think chickens hang around people like bugs and inject poison. I recall that earlier in Ray's book, he told his readers that atheists only like to hang out with other atheists so they can reinforce their own beliefs. Which is it?

If you are an atheist, I hope I’m ruffling your feathers. I want to get under your skin and ask why you don’t have the courage to even whisper to Muslims what you keep shouting at Christians. Prove me wrong. Get onto a Muslim website and tell them that you don’t believe their god exists. Do your little “I don’t believe in Zeus” thing. Tell them they believe a myth. Make sure you use the word "fairytale." Talk about Mohammed as you do Jesus (use your usual lower case for Mohammed). Do your “I don’t believe in the flying spaghetti monster” thing. Tell them that you believe that they weren’t made by (a) god, but that they evolved from primates (that will go down well).

This really doesn't get under my skin. Not addressing Muslims has nothing to do with cowardice or fear. I live in the United states, where Christianity has more of a direct effect on me than Islam. Muslim's aren't trying to get creationism taught in the schools in my country, for one. I've only encountered a few Muslims in my life. I haven't read the Quran. If I were approached by a Muslim who wanted to engage in a conversation about our differing beliefs, I'd be happy to do so. If I lived in a Muslim country, Islam would be my main focus.

I could say the same thing about Mr. Comfort. How come you haven't addressed Buddhists? Why don't you go tell those guys that you believe they will go to hell instead of being reincarnated? Further, why don't you have the courage to whisper to Muslims what you shout at atheists? Prove me wrong - go start a Muslim Central blog, where you do your "Muslim's deny Jesus so they can be moral free agents" thing. Tell them you think Allah is a false idol.

Explain that you think they are blind simpletons to believe the way they do, and that even though there is a creation, you don't see any evidence that there is a Creator. Let them know that you think that it's intelligent to believe the way you do. You may as well explain that even though you don't believe in God's existence, you use His name as a cuss word, because you think it's worthless. Also, let them know in no uncertain terms that you believe that the Koran is full of mistakes (give some examples), and that their mosques are full of hypocrites.

I think that the reason people use your god's name as a "cuss word" has nothing to do with their subjective feeling of worthiness. I think it has more to do with social upbringing.  I'm not even sure what Ray means by this. By cuss word, do you mean saying "god damn it"?

Profanity is a really interesting subject for me, and I'd really like to study it from a neurological point of view. What parts of people's brains light up when they read expletives, or say them, or hear them? How does that compare to expletives from other countries, or regular words spoken as if they were an expletive? But we're getting off topic.

You wouldn’t dare, because you are chicken-livered. You know that they are not like Christians. Despite the “anonymity” of your little chicken coop, they would come after you to lop off your head. And when they find you, you would fall on your knees and be praying to God for help, quicker than I can move a fly swat . . . and I'm pretty quick. So, think about what you are doing, and think about how much you value your life. Then think about what we are telling you. Think.

You sir, are a bigot, both toward atheists and Muslims. You're seriously saying that Muslims are so hateful that if someone says something negative about their religion on a message board, they will hunt you down and kill you. Wow.

See, part of the reason that SOME Muslims express hatred toward Americans is because of people like you. When you're bigoted towards a whole group of people or a whole religion, that tends to happen. You express hatred toward them, they express hatred toward you, in a vicious cycle of stupidity.

Hey I know - Maybe those hateful Muslims aren't "true Muslims" because no true Muslim would hurt anyone.