The Atheist Blogger » ray comfort

Thunderf00t vs. Ray Comfort

Adrian Hayter — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:00:30 +0000

Earlier this month, Ray Comfort agreed (well, the second time) to a discussion with Thunderf00t. The rules were simple: the two men, one room, and one camera. Any questions were on the floor for discussion, and each man would get a copy of the video to use as they wished. As it turned out, Ray Comfort had a separate cameraman (for higher quality video I guess) in the room, but overall the debate was as stipulated.

Thunderf00t has uploaded the entire discussion, uncut from start to finish, and if you have a spare 90 or so minutes, I advise you watch it all! Ray Comfort’s points are torn apart in front of him one by one, as Thunderf00t explores the deeper meaning of Ray’s arguments (evidently not done by Ray himself) such as the “how do you know it is creation?” rebuttal to any claim of the kind “creation needs a creator” in reference to the universe itself.

Here is the entire debate as a YouTube playlist, so sit back and watch the Bananaman get defeated by common sense and logic, as played by Thunderf00t.

Enjoy!

Possibly Related Posts:

Ray Comfort is Still a Coward…

Adrian Hayter — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 23:00:34 +0000

…but at least Thunderf00t will get his discussion.

Yes, it’s (kinda) official now. Ray Comfort phoned up Thunderf00t and accepted his proposal for a discussion. This can only be good news, as it means we actually get to see Ray try to make up some arguments without appealing to emotion. It will be one room, with only a camera and the two men.

Of course, what Comfort did originally (attempting to get Thunderf00t to pay the fee for Richard Dawkins) is utterly reprehensible; it was a cowardly attempt to use Thunderf00t (who was the person offering the discussion in the first place) to get a debate with Richard Dawkins.

So maybe Ray is slightly less cowardly now, but to be honest, knowing Ray, I have my doubts. I predict he will still try to pull someone on this one. Whether it involves having an actual audience (so he can use appeals to emotion) or just being dishonest concerning the actual discussion plan. I hope he doesn’t, but over a year of reading Ray Comfort’s blog has left me with a distinct level of distrust surrounding the man; everything he does seems to have an ulterior motive.

Possibly Related Posts:

Ray Comfort is a Coward

Adrian Hayter — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:22:58 +0000

A few months back, Ray Comfort asked Richard Dawkins to debate with him. Dawkins agreed, but requested a $100,000 donation to his foundation for reason and science (the standard rate he requests), and that the debate would be recorded. Ray offered $20,000 instead, and Dawkins refused. Ray could have left it at that, saying he was not able to pay anything higher, but instead he released a video with a futile attempt to mock Dawkins over a quotemined section of “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”. That alone was cowardly, but what happened a few days ago is enough to disgust any upstanding member of society.

As most people know, Thunderf00t is a very popular atheist YouTuber, and also a commentator on science, mainly evolutionary biology. He has been featured on many blogs, including Pharyngula, on certain issues such as the VenomFangX DMCA debacle and his popular “Why do people laugh at creationists?” series. Thunderf00t is, by all accounts, a mainstream and prominent atheist. He might not have books, but he has over 50,000 subscribers and the entire atheist blogosphere behind him.

So Thunderf00t decided to ask Ray Comfort to a discussion, since he was going travelling and would be close to where the Living Waters ministry is based. He dutifully contacted Living Waters, but they told him to contact Ray directly on his blog. This is the comment (now removed from Ray’s blog as requested) that Thunderf00t left:

For the attention of Ray Comfort,
Your staff (T Ramos) suggested I post this here.

I run the popular pro-science youtube channel under the screen name of Thunderf00t.

For context.
Thunderf00t 54 000 subscribers
Thewayofthemaster 9 000 subscribers

This summer I will be touring the US and should passing near to LA (the Mnt Wilson Observatory).

You have previously stated that you wish to have a public discussion with “prominent atheists.”;

My proposal would be simple and honest.
You and me, one room, one camera. Through civil discourse we examine our points of contest and points of agreement. We both then take a copy of the video. I will put it up uncut on my channel.
You are free to do with your copy as you wish.

If you have an interest in such a project, let me know some windows of opportunity and we will see if we can converge on a date.

If you accept or decline the offer, please delete this post. To otherwise will lead to pointless speculation about motives.
I would rather not have made such an invitation in public but it was suggested by your staff

Best wishes,
Thunderf00t

Polite, honest, and with all good intentions. Thunderf00t established himself as a popular science-minded atheist, and proposed a simple format for discussion. He didn’t even want a debate! He just wanted the two of them to sit down and discuss their views as any two men would do in a polite conversation. He requested it be recorded, so that others may watch, and Ray can do whatever he likes with his copy. The key thing to note at this point is that Thunderf00t demanded no money.

Ray Comfort accepted the proposal, but with his sick and twisted sense of morality:

Regarding your request for a debate. I would be more than happy to do this. The only condition would be an honorarium of $US100,000, payable to “Professor Richard Dawkins,” on my behalf.

In other words, Ray wants to use Thunderf00t to get to Richard Dawkins. He gets a decent and well-thought out proposal to a discussion, and Ray turns it around and throws back an insult. This is a despicable act of cowardice, and is deeply unfair to Thunderf00t, who was willing to give Ray the discussion he wanted, for free, and by means of a civil conversation. What kind of morality is that? Punish a person who comes to you with an honest request in order to get back at someone who you failed to meet the requirements of before? It’s beyond Ray’s usual ridiculous nature; this was pure greed, coupled with the kind of scheming you get from stereotypical “evil geniuses” in films.

Ray once agreed with Ben Stein’s criticism of Richard Dawkins, that he was fine with Intelligent Design, just not certain designers, like God. Well now Ray has shown his true colours, we can say a similar thing about him. Ray is not interested in debate or discussion with “prominent atheists”, only discussions with certain prominent atheists…namely Richard Dawkins.

Of course, who better to explain this than Thunderf00t himself:

Do Thunderf00t a favour and favourite his videos, rate them with 5 stars (it counters the votebotes that attack his account regularly), and leave a comment on his channel. He certainly deserves it.

Possibly Related Posts:

Creationism Caption Competition #1

Adrian Hayter — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 01:00:20 +0000

In my random stumbling around on the internet, I found a bunch of creationist websites that contained photos of various creationists as part of some kind of “about our team” page. Now some of these pictures are just plain and boring, but there are a few that simply cry out for a funny caption. So I’ve decided to create a caption competition in order to correct this massive lack of creationist captions, and here is the first picture.

So dear reader, what exactly is Eric Hovind reaching for? Why does he have a look of terror on his cute creationist face? Why is he clinging to that rock so desperately? The answer to those questions is up to you.

Now onto the issue of a prize. As a student I generally don’t have any money, which means I cannot promise a prize, although I do have an extra signed copy of Ray Comfort’s latest masterpiece “You can lead an atheist to evidence, but you can’t make him think”. To be quite honest, such a book would be better off as a booby prize instead, but it is all I can offer at the moment. Perhaps I could get some cheap badges made, I’m open to suggestions.

So really, it’s a double competition now: Whoever comes up with the best caption and a great idea for some cheap (but cool) prizes will win…er…one of the prizes (and a copy of Ray’s book that I will sign / doodle in). You have a week to do so; off you go!

Possibly Related Posts:

(Almost) Daily Dose of Comfort – Hilter & Evolution

Adrian Hayter — Sat, 30 May 2009 17:38:57 +0000

: Image via Wikipedia

Ray Comfort’s latest stroll into the land of irrational thought has produced yet another blog post that attempts to link the theory of evolution with Adolf Hitler. It’s common knowledge that Hitler was a creationist, at most believing in some form of “micro-evolution”. Hitler never mentioned Darwin in any of his books, and the mentions of “evolution” that Ray gives us are almost all references to social evolution. Hitler can be accurately described as a social Darwinist, a political theory that has no relation to Darwin or to the biological theory of evolution that is studied today ^[1]^[2]. With this in mind, after reading through the 5 or so quotes in the post, the rational thinker is left with the resounding question “Ok, so what?”.

Let’s leave the fact that Hitler was a creationist, that his politics were not based on science but on racism and white supremacy. Instead, I want to examine the “so what?” that often gets ignored, yet is actually very important in analyzing Comfort’s argument. We shall begin by assuming that Ray Comfort is completely correct; that Hitler was a believer in the theory of evolution. We shall also assume that Hitler was so devoted to the theory, he decided to use it through social Darwinism in order to justify genocide. What does this tell us about the theory of evolution? Nothing. A theory is not defined by how people use it, but by what it tells us. The theory of evolution says nothing of “higher species” or that organisms must systematically wipe out all those who are “inferior”. In fact, the theory of evolution gives us no help in pinpointing which species are “more evolved” than others, or even what that would entail.

For instance, human beings are considered to be more evolved because of our consciousness, yet some bacteria have genomes hundreds of times larger than our own. So how do we calculate inferiority when we have two opposing lines of measurement, one based on evolved attributes, the other based on number of mutations. I don’t think one could make a good argument for either, especially given the further problem of how to compare attributes (is consciousness a better attribute than metabolizing citrate for example?). This all points to the conclusion that most would agree on; that science tells us about the universe in which we live by describing and explaining it, but it does not tell us what to do with this knowledge.

Science told us how to make the nuclear bomb, but science did not tell us to drop these bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. If science was responsible for these actions, then you could easily justify Newton as responsible for the deaths of everyone killed by projectiles. The reason creationists like Comfort do not extend their argument to include men like Newton is that they accept the theory of gravity (and yes, it is just a theory Ray). By holding Darwin and his theory as responsible for the actions of men he never knew, yet not doing the same for other scientists like Newton, Nobel, Einstein, etc reveals Ray’s dishonesty and unwillingness to discuss evolution on an intellectual level. Instead, he prefers to launch a thinkly veiled ad-hominem attack in the hopes that people will focus on the supposed “link” and not the attack itself. This may have worked well for him in the past, but not today, and not on this blog.

Possibly Related Posts:

(Almost) Daily Dose of Comfort – The Birdlike Reptile

Adrian Hayter — Thu, 28 May 2009 19:13:05 +0000

With the recent discovery of Ida, also known as Darwinius masillae, it was only a matter of time before Ray Comfort got on the case and started spouting his usual rubbish. The cartoon provided with the post is rather amusing, and also quite ironic. There are no doubts that Ida is “definitely ape”, but then there are also no doubts that homo sapiens are “definitely ape” either! You only make this kind of statement if you believe (as Ray does) that apes and humans are completely different “kinds” and not related to one another.

Ray responds to a commenter’s challenge to come up with characteristics that one would “expect to see in a transitional reptile/avian fossil?” by dismissing the question outright, claiming that such thinking is mere “speculation”. Well of course it is speculation in Ray’s eyes! We know he doesn’t accept the theory, so any hypothetical question about the theory is going to be speculation for him. The point was for Ray to imagine a world where evolution were true, and then imagine what characteristics he would expect to see in a transitional fossil. It’s a very easy question, and it’s actually how science works. We come up with a hypothesis: “I think twins can communicate telepathically with one another”, and then make some predictions which are speculations based on the idea that the hypothesis is true: “If my hypothesis is true, then twins under controlled conditions should be able to communicate”. We then do experiments, and if the prediction remains true throughout the experiments, we are able to confirm the hypothesis. Ray’s rejection of the question is just evidence that he rejects science, yet he claims in his post: “I believe in true science, not in the pseudo-science of evolution.”. No Ray, you do not believe in true science. One cannot believe in true science and yet reject outright the scientific method.

I think another tell-tale sign of Ray’s rejection is this statement:

I have said that there is no scientific evidence of any species “evolving” into another species. That’s the evidence that is still missing.

Of course, the evidence is not missing, and every time we show it to Ray, he simply rejects it. He has said on his own blog that there is no evidence that would convince him of evolution, since evolution contradicts the Holy Bible. This kind of closed-mindedness reveals Ray as the hypocrite he is; always asking for evidence but never accepting any of it because of his presuppositions.

You have your own definition of evolution, but ask the average person on the street what they believe it is, and they will say that Darwin said that man evolved from primates–that our great, great, great grandfather was an ape.

The definition of something is based off the people who know the most about it, not the “average” person on the street. The average person on the street in countries like Sweden thinks that Christianity is ridiculous; does that define Christianity as ridiculous for you Ray? Darwin never stated that our great, great, great, grandfathers were apes; only creationists did that. It is not surprising that people disbelieve in the theory when most people are taught complete lies about it.

You believe in a common ancestor (like a branch on a tree of common descent), they don’t. They believe we are direct ancestors. That we are apes.

The common ancestor of modern apes and humans was (not surprisingly) an ape. We are direct descendants of these ancient apes, just as modern apes are. We are not direct descendants of modern apes. Just in the way both myself and my cousins are direct descendants of my grandmother, but not of each other. The only difference is that with evolution, it takes much longer than 2 generations.

It is very clear that there is no empirical evidence for Darwinian evolution.

Fossils aren’t the only empirical evidence. Now that we know how DNA functions, we can see evolution in action. We have told you this, but you never listen. My only hopes are that some of your followers will read this and explore science for themselves, and hopefully rid themselves of your lies and misinformation.

Possibly Related Posts:

(Almost) Daily Dose of Comfort – Ray’s “Apology”

Adrian Hayter — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 23:00:04 +0000

Ray Comfort has issued an apology for his banana video in which he described how the banana had certain features that made it appear designed, insinuating the “designer” was the Judeo-Christian God. As you will see when watching the “apology” below, it doesn’t cover Ray coming up with a bad argument; it is more of an excuse, blaming atheists for editing the original video to appear out of context.

The video presents some very bad logic in the first 30 seconds, when it tries to explain the “bananaman” reference:

“Bananaman” is a reference to an illustration presented by Comfort, in which he compared the complex design elements of a coke can to the complex design elements of a banana, in order to demonstrate that thoughtful design by an a designer is required for both examples. (0:20 -- 0:35)

Ray wants us to believe that God made the banana, but even knowing this is untrue (at least in regards to the modern banana) all it does is prove what we know already; that certain things in the world are the result of human intervention. Whilst it is true that the banana is a product of design, the same cannot be said if you replaced the banana with a wild blackberry, which is perfectly edible, very sweet, and not the product of human intervention. Replace the blackberry with something like the pineapple or the coconut, and you immediately have to start questioning the sanity of the “designer” Ray implies on such things. Pineapples and coconuts have to be some of the hardest fruits to get into, not to mention the amount of preparation needed before eating.

When you do not know the process in which certain things are created, you cannot compare them to things of which the creation process is known. It is a logical fallacy. In fact, the creation process of the wild banana is partially known, and we refer to it as the theory of Evolution. This doesn’t explain the entire process of the banana creation, but it certainly gives a mechanism for understanding how it could have possibly come about. This is a far greater explanation than the idea that “God did it” which has no evidence and holds no grounds in proper scientific debate.

Ray presents to us his often-repeated lie that atheists somehow misrepresented his point in the banana video:

However, atheists removed the coke can from the video version, and sent it across the internet, saying that Comfort believed the banana was conclusive proof of God’s existence, missing the point of the illustration completely. (0:42 -- 0:55)

You see this simply contradicts the last point, as Ray admits that the comparison was to show that a designer is needed for both coke can and banana. In the original video (even in the edited version which only shows the banana) Ray mentions God as the creator of the banana, and he also mentions the coke can in comparison. His exact words were:

Now if you go to the top of the banana, you’ll find as with the soda can makers, they placed a tab at the top, so God has placed a tab at the top.

Implying that there must be a designer, and then stating that the designer is God, therefore proving God’s existence seems to be exactly what Comfort had in mind. If Ray had not mentioned God as the designer, then he may actually have a point about not trying to prove God’s existence, but as soon as he said “so God has placed a tab at the top” he left the realm of speculation and entered the realm of certainty.

They also said that the banana had been modified over time by man to fit in the palm of the hand, and not by God (0:55 -- 1:02)

Well yeah, that’s because it has been. This intervention is very well documented.

But in their effort to make him look foolish, atheists gave Ray Comfort and international platform for his message. (1:03 -- 1:09)

Effort? I think you’ll find Ray does enough to make himself look foolish without us there to help. Anyone with a (to quote Ray) “brain that works” can tell his arguments are weak, and his views on science are stuck in the middle ages. The number of times simple scientific concepts have to be explained to him reveals his as the willingly ignorant fool that he is. Now for his “apology”:

Comfort apologized for his mistake about the banana saying “My apologies for not explaining myself more clearly. I was not aware that the common banana had been so modified by hybridization, however, the truth remains that God gave man the knowledge and ability to modify it, so that it perfectly fit into his hand.” (1:31 -- 1:50)

So once your original premise is destroyed, you simply move the goalposts back a bit? Nice work Ray, but while this “truth” might be logical to your warped mind, you don’t give any evidence that God exists to give us this knowledge. In fact, since your original reason for using the banana argument was to show that certain things must have a designer, and that the designer of the banana is God, I fail to see how you can simply assert God exists when your argument for him via the banana was so utterly destroyed. I can do the same thing see: My car was designed, and the designer was God, therefore God exists. What’s that? My car was designed by Ford? Well…God gave Ford the knowledge and the materials to design the car in the first place! It isn’t a proof if you have to assume God exists for the proof to work.

Ray also leaps on the chance to misquote Richard Dawkins in the film “Expelled”, claiming he thinks aliens seeded life on this planet.

In “Expelled No Intelligence Allowed”, when Ben Stein asked Richard Dawkins, ‘What do think is the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?’ he answered,

‘at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably by some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet … and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe.’ (2:17 -- 3:22)

The beginning of this quote is left out, and the full thing reveals some vital clues to Dawkins’ explanation, specifically the words “It could come about in the following way: it could be that at some earlier time somewhere…”. This clearly shows that Dawkins is speaking hypothetically, in response to the question by Stein. Dawkins is a scientist, and as such he isn’t going to close his mind to the possibility of intelligent design. However, if he is going to explain it, he is going to do it rationally and scientifically, not by mentioning some sort of supernatural deity.

Dawkins again says in the middle that such ideas are a “possibility”, that they are “intriguing”, and that you might find evidence if you looked at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology. However he never stated that he believes such things, nor that any evidence has been found to suggest it. He goes on to say that such intelligence would have had to come about by some kind of natural (and possibly Darwinian) means. Things don’t just magically appear out of nowhere, at least not in the realms of science.

So Professor Dawkins believes that highly intelligent aliens from somewhere else in the universe may have created us. (3:46 -- 3:54)

No Ray! No. Commenting on an idea, or even trying to explain some form of natural intelligent design does not automatically mean you believe it. As I said before, Dawkins is well aware that there is no evidence for such views, and he didn’t attempt to present evidence in the film. He was commenting on a hypothetical basis for intelligent design in the universe. Stein may have had ulterior motives for asking the question, but Dawkins answer was accurate. Aliens seeding life on Earth is at least one possibility of intelligent design that doesn’t invoke the supernatural.

Will there be a debate between Comfort and Dawkins? I doubt it, but one can dream. I’d personally love to see both Dawkins and Hitchens take on Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron for a double smackdown of logic.

Possibly Related Posts:

(Almost) Daily Dose of Comfort – Interview with Darrin Rasberry

Adrian Hayter — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 20:34:38 +0000

The foreword to Ray Comfort’s latest book You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence but You Can’t Make Him Think was written by a then-atheist named Darrin Rasberry. Darrin is a student at Iowa State University and also a member of the Debunking Christianity blog team. When the book got published, Ray claimed in a WND article that Darrin had “backslid”, although what to he never mentioned. I contacted Darrin to see if there was any truth in this, and it was confirmed that he had indeed backslid to agnostic. I then asked Darrin whether he would do a short interview for the blog, and he agreed.

As I have previously mentioned, I was sent a signed copy of Ray’s latest book, and over the next few weeks I will be going over it chapter by chapter; reading and debunking its content so you don’t have to. For now though, I thank Darrin for agreeing to this interview, and for his thorough answers to my questions. The interview is pretty long, so it’s below the fold of this post.

Since reading Ray’s book, you say you have backslid to agnostic. Could you expand on your beliefs a bit further? Are you using the more modern definition of agnosticism as being “unsure”, or are you more of an “agnostic” atheist as defined by Thomas Huxley?

I have indeed “backslid” to agnostic, as Ray wrote on his WorldNetDaily article, although Ray did not indicate in the article the exact position where I ended up, nor did Ray directly link my reading of his book with the cause of this backsliding. So, in a sense, Ray is absolutely correct, but in a way that’s completely misleading. I wrote him to thank him for the copy, as he and Kirk took their time to sign it for me, but I had just received the book in the mail and had not had time to read it yet. My “deconversion” from atheism came before that time. I mentioned my newfound agnosticism and asked if we could speak on the phone again, but he said he was busy with sixty-odd interviews or something. That response was quite terse and unconcerned compared to the previous times we’d spoken, and that was the end of our contact.

There are certainly many different definitions and breeds of agnostic. Many agnostics (and a few Deists, for that matter) come across as poorly as many of the atheists that I address in the foreword for Ray’s book, and express a wish to do no more than troll Christians, ignore their responses, and fail to check any arguments, so they can simply get a rise from believers.

I am not one of this breed; if I were to specify with an exact label, I’d call myself a “searching Agnostic” – although my personal research is currently centered around the validity and consistency of the Christian faith in particular (I plan to begin studying Islam and Judaism soon, as well), my main focus is discovering for sure the basis of it all: whether or not a creator God exists. All further questions regarding whether such a being designed this hypothetical “spark” of creation and cared about us humans that followed are also routinely considered, but my main focus is currently on all arguments for God’s existence (excepting the Ontological Argument, which has been, even in Plantinga’s stronger formulation, decidedly refuted, and also excepting the Teleological Argument, which begs the question).

I turned agnostic because I recognized three points following a personal meeting in November with Dr. William Lane Craig, a prominent Christian apologist and debater:

(1) As mentioned, I have not reflected adequately upon the arguments for God, with the greatest strength weighing on Bill’s (Dr. Craig’s) “Kalam Cosmological Argument.” I had heard this as an atheist, and simply recycled such soundly refuted counters like “who made God?” and positing such things as cyclic models of the universe and inflationary models and all that. After discovering that such responses are long in their graves, I’ve moved onto Dr. Morriston and Dr. Quentin Smith’s counters to Kalam, and even after reading those, I still find myself questioning and inventing counterarguments against both sides. This fence-sitting contributed to my agnosticism.

(2) My worldview neither entails nor denies that God exists. I found this out on personal reflection, and since this would take us too far off-topic, I will withhold further comment on this matter.

(3) Most importantly, I discovered that my reason for maintaining my atheism – namely, that “no proof for God is proof against God” – is a logical fallacy. One cannot reach “no proof for X, therefore not-X”; that’s a fallacy called (formally, not pejoratively) the argument from ignorance. I’ve been offered by Dr. Richard Carrier that such a position was, in fact, valid and *not* the argument from ignorance, and I will follow up on the evidence for his saying that (we did not have time before his debate with Craig in Missouri to address it in full personally), but until then, I can neither say God does or does not exist, specifically because I am exploring whether the Universe was or was not created – or, more broadly in the since of Aquinas, at least necessary proceeding from such a being.

I think most atheists probably know Ray Comfort for his “banana argument”, his new argument that claims “An atheist is someone who believes that nothing made everything.”, and his ignorance on the theory of evolution. Why should atheists listen to Ray when he misrepresents both us and science so much?

Curiously enough, I did not know Ray Comfort that well when I did the intro, and had discovered his link somewhere in the maze of the blogosphere. Noticing the large amount of comments under his top few articles, I figured he was some type of apologist. I’d seen references and Googled links to this “banana argument,” but did not find them worthy of my time, being that his association with my old childhood hero Kirk Cameron piqued my attention more. I did not properly research the man beyond some street-preaching videos on YouTube.

I wrote the introduction shortly thereafter, within a commentary thread linked to a blog post requesting atheists to write potential introductions. I was fresh off of a fight with a YouTube atheist whose name ought to go unmentioned, and still had a bitter taste in my mouth from some comparatively poor “new” atheist arguments I’d read in the popular literature and seen on the Internet (with the bottom of the barrel being the faulty Horus-connection Christ Myth theory as presented by the worst film ever made, “Zeitgeist”). Perusing the other “introductions” in the thread yielded one or two decent ones out of dozens of outright insulting polemics, and I blew my top and wrote what I did. I figured by the spirit of the book that Ray would have chosen one of the many angry polemics to back up the title he had planned, so I was shocked when I received the message that mine was chosen over the others in the thread for printing.

That intro was sparked by anger, but the words weren’t caused by it – I felt the same way while I still held to atheism even after my anger subsided, and I still feel the same way today, so it’s not simply some fire-starting David Berlinski-esque trolling. Like Tony Flew, I’m pretty mad at the state of skepticism today. Thus, in the intro, I invited atheists to read and refute Ray’s arguments, and even though I later discovered that they were not particularly strong, I doubt many skeptics read anything beyond the first chapter available on Amazon.

It may not be worthy of the work to refute even a sentence, some may say, but Ray is a popular voice, and that alone validates some kind of action from the atheist and nonbeliever (I will put in a few of my own counters here, myself). The Rational Response Squad, with whom I’ve disagreed on many occasions, offered a relatively patient response to Ray on national television, and none of them exploded in rage like many of Ray’s readers do.

Rationally tempered frustration for Ray, especially when he does not listen to matters about evolution, is valid, however; but, if Ray does not change and show a willingness to learn, one must (to paraphrase the “Good Book”) simply dust one’s feet and walk to someone more willing to stick to the arguments, as cursing obviously does no good. If Ray is not worthy to argue against, then in your view, wasting too much time on Ray and not approaching the caliber of the works from an Alvin Plantinga, say, will do nothing but further distort your view on the stronger arguments for Christianity that will at least give you a greater respect for those who hold the religion and practice it in a consistent and open manner.

As for the Banana Argument – well, people have to understand something about Ray. Many do not know this, but Ray is being groomed by Calvinists, including the popular speaker Paul Washer and the knowledgeable debater and podcast host Dr. James White. Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis, and the hyper-Calvinist Dr. R.C. Sproul Jr. are quoted on his back cover, and Ray’s book teems with typical Calvinist approaches (for instance, Ray refers to John 6, a popular Calvinist passage, in his answer to the question at the bottom of page 45 in his book).

Ray himself told me he was “on the fence” about Calvinism – which, for those who are unfamiliar, is a minority, albeit vocal, Christian worldview that holds that man doesn’t have the free will to choose God and that the “truly saved” are chosen by God – and shows nearly schizophrenic signs both for and against the position on his blog and in his book. I don’t know how much he actually knows about this subject (he calls Arminianism, or the general name for the majority of Christians who do hold to free will as commonly defined, “Armenianism” somewhere in the book), but the coaching from his Calvinist friends is clear throughout. Odd, really, given Kirk’s participation in “Left Behind” – a movie series based on books to which Calvinist eschatology (loosely meaning “end times” Biblical interpretation) stands vehemently opposed.

Presuppositional apologetics, a methodology of some subdivisions of Calvinism, is a way of delivering the Christian message without calling you to convert to God, since due to their belief in God’s sole choice in saving one cannot come to believe on evidence or old time “Pentecostal Sunday conversion.” Thus, the presuppositionalist presents Christianity in a way that demonstrates how, if taken as a presumption, “life, the Universe, and everything” is explained. In the (paraphrased) words of my Calvinist friend Ben Maas, presuppositionalism simply says “this is what your worldview says about this matter, and here is the way Christianity explains it. Now isn’t that simpler and more consistent?” Dr. Greg Bahnsen, the late apologist who clashed with Gordon Stein in the 80’s, is perhaps the best known practicer of this method, and used the foundations of logic as his centerpiece for his presuppositionalist take on Christianity.

With that background in place, let’s take a look at Ray’s infamous crown jewel. Unfortunately, the Banana Argument is not as well thought-out as Bahnsen’s position, but when I saw the video I knew exactly what Ray was doing, especially considering his presuppositional Calvinist background that his friends no doubt have given him.

Ray is explaining from the Christian position how the banana was designed to be eaten, so as to better allow for the survival of all the species that God supposedly created with a diet that included that fruit (namely, to Ray, humans who have the means to utilize the “tab”). Now, if I recall correctly, the banana in that format was actually developed by men to be that way, and I still think the example itself is VERY weak despite this fact, but I might be one of few skeptics who know what Ray was attempting to demonstrate. It wasn’t a “proof for God,” and cannot be; as above, it was supposed to be an example on Ray’s part of showing how the presupposition of God’s design better explains the existence of such a fruit rather than supposed “random, blind evolution.” It fell flat, and I’m disappointed to see him call his own argument a joke in his book after he got called out on it – that does nothing more than openly demonstrate that the man’s embarrassed.

Does the Banana Argument stink? Yes. But if you see it from the above approach, it at least demonstrates that the man is not totally insane. Ray has a talent for speaking, as his introductory speech in the RRS debate shows, but (as that speech’s content and his book in general likewise shows) his arguments need strengthening. Listening to his opponents who behave rationally would be a good start for him, but in many cases he ignores these opponents, and many opportunities I witnessed in later viewings of his site, which tackled tougher questions than those which do appear in his book, have been ignored.

What arguments do you think Ray uses that would most likely convince a non-believer, i.e. what are his most powerful arguments in the book?

None. Ray bases the bulk of his arguments in his book on the Bible, reflecting his aforementioned presuppositionalist grooming. I am not particularly a fan of this method; even from a believer’s standpoint, it drives the nonbeliever absolutely nowhere unless it’s presented in such a way to spark his or her interest in the Bible (negatively or positively). After all, if it is God that does the work, presenting the Gospel the way Ray does is all that’s left for the apologist to do.

I suppose if I were forced at gunpoint to answer, I would say Ray’s “nothing created everything?” argument against atheism, but it is flat-out invalid the way he presents it, since he keeps insisting that, according to atheism, there must have been some big black extant “nothing” (like in the Neverending Story or Heidegger’s depressed writings or something) that pooped out a Universe. But there is no “before the Universe,” since time began with the Universe, and there is no existent state of “nothing” – even an unstable vacuum, which is not the case sans the Universe, is *something*.

You mentioned in the foreword that most new atheist books demonstrate a “lack of both logic and knowledge” when talking about Christianity. Which atheist books do you think do this the most, and which books would you recommend as good critical reading?

I would like to preface this by stating that I deconverted in the Sagan/Randi/Penn and Teller era, before the “new” atheists were anything more than Richard Dawkins’ (wonderful) book “Blind Watchmaker.” There was still a shred of respect in that era, as Penn’s recent “Gift of a Bible” video demonstrates – a video all skeptics should watch and consider, by the way, before yelling at the next person offering them a New Testament with kind words.

I will not go deeply into this, but like my fledgling days as an atheist, these books typically demonstrate an inadequate consideration of Christian arguments before launching into diatribes. I have not yet read Dan Dennett’s book, but as for the other three “four horseman,” they are not of much comparative worth despite their popularity. Harris has much to say (including a very good establishment of morality very close to my own convictions on the subject), but I believe his attacks on modernism in religion and its enabling of extremism are unfounded, and the book ends on a very sour note with some sort of mystical consciousness-denying exercise.

I suppose Dawkins’ book is the strongest of the three I’ve read out of the “Four Horsemen,” although many books on the back shelf of philosophy and religion are much better and do not reuse many of the old canards that Dawkins states (example: “the even more complex designer” argument). Compare that last parenthetical argument of Dawkins’, for instance, with its fellow arguments in “The Improbability of God,” and you can see how weak the New Atheists’ spokespersons actually grasp the philosophical considerations needed to properly address the reasonable and well-learned believer’s arguments.

Vic Stenger is commonly regarded as another horse, and although “God: The Failed Hypothesis” soundly refutes the Argument from Design, it fails on many other counts, including a well-refuted pile of counterarguments for the nonexistence of God. If you want a New Atheist book to get, though, I guess I would say this would be the one to pick up to begin wading out of the shallow end of the pool.

I’ve saved Hitchens for last for a reason – he’s a hilarious polemicist and probably a joy to meet in person, but after watching his debate with Turek and seeing that he was unprepared for many of Frank’s arguments, I would like some kind of stage here to warn him that his debate in a week and a half with the aforementioned Bill Craig will be much more challenging (even many atheists I know concede this). Craig is no Banana Man and does not launch into the polemics of a Dinesh D’Souza (who Chris did effectively debate). The Hitch needs to do what he can in the time he has remaining to prepare – read some debates Craig had with Quentin Smith or Ray Bradley, for instance, as they are the only two people I’ve seen in many debates who actually beat Craig. I don’t like some of Hitch’s tactics, but I like the guy in general and do not wish to see him embarrassed. I am not joking at all when I say that he will belly-flop resoundingly if he comes ill-prepared.

And as for good material on the atheistic side, pick up “Improbability of God” or “The Empty Tomb” (both various authors) from Amazon. Richard Carrier’s “Sense and Goodness Without God” is a philosophical guidebook that can establish a reasonable philosophy behind the rampant so-called “scientism” today. For the theistic side (and yes, all skeptics ought to at least familiarize themselves!), get “Reasonable Faith” by Craig for the best overview of the arguments, and “Debating Calvinism” by Dave Hunt/James White for an introduction-by-proxy to the depth of the two prominent opposing Christian worldviews today. For good overviews from authors with whom you can easily interact, try “Why I Became an Atheist” by John Loftus, opposed by “The Impossible Faith” by his (equally famous) opponent J.P. Holding, both of whom I’m proud to call feisty (but helpful!) friends. Oh, and YouTube the Greg Bahnsen/Gordon Stein debate I mentioned above before you run headlong into the “Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence” – if you’re an internet atheist, and you don’t know what this means, believe me … you will eventually!

Every nonbeliever, by the way, should read the Bible and understand exegesis and Christian interpretation. Reusing old canards will get you nothing but disrespect, and coming unprepared and angry will get you nowhere. If this is your approach, take up gardening and stay far away from the subject. Nobody should engage in controversial study if he is not willing to at least learn what the “other side” thinks.

Finally, keep away from the Christ Myth and all of its various forms. They are weak, loosely linked, and very obviously designed to do nothing but provide the frothing atheist with nothing but a “Ha! Ha! Your beloved Jesus didn’t even exist!” nose-thumbing type of argument. It’s horrible, it’s invalid, Jesus existed in history (read Bart Ehrman’s chapter on this subject in “Jesus: Interrupted”), so get over it.

You are a member of the Debunking Christianity blog team. Have you thought more critically about your rejection of Christianity since reading Ray’s book? Would you say you are more open to religion now?

I am not “open to religion” specifically – rather, to be intellectually honest, I am open to facts, and if that necessitates the existence of God, or even of the YHWH of Christianity, so be it. I’ll act accordingly; what is true comes first, and how I act proceeds.

My friend John (DC’s site owner) knows I differ from him on the “Debunking” standpoint, and yet has kindly provided me a platform to critically explore – I come from more of a “discussion” approach, and the only Christianity I wish to debunk out of existence is the Fred Phelps type and those advocating the top-down approach to theonomy and dominionism. My main beefs with Christianity aren’t even religious – they’re political (see: evolution and creationism in schools), and one thing I’ve learned in my studies of the religion is that a good Christian does not have to be a good Republican, as well; in fact, many Christians – including fundamentalists! – vehemently are *not.*

That’s about all I have in response to your thought-provoking questions. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my position on Ray and with this whole ordeal, and to let me stand on my own streetcorner for awhile and preach a little at your blog. All comments and criticisms are welcome, but as my parting message to all the New Atheists, don’t engage in polemics when talking to a Christian who is attempting to be rational and is doing the favor of leaving politics out of the discussion. Return the favor and listen to the response, or just take up a new hobby or something. To echo the misquote attributed to Joe Friday, “just the facts, ma’am.”

Possibly Related Posts:

(Almost) Daily Dose of Comfort – Who is the Painter?

Adrian Hayter — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 22:00:56 +0000

Ray Comfort is back from his “debate” which I’m sure he lost on actual content. There is only so far you can go denying reality and actually having a credible argument. Ray simply argues from ignorance, and eventually someone will educate him on the truth. Of course, it doesn’t help that Ray has repeatedly asserted that he would never consider any evidence for Evolution, because that would directly contradict his scripture. This makes Ray not just ignorant, but willingly ignorant.

Ray was quizzed on his “painting implies painter therefore creation implies creator therefore God exists” argument by a reader of his blog:

Ray, when you see a painting, it is reasonable to assume that a painter painted it. Is it reasonable to assume that his name is Alan Jeffrey Pinkerton? How would you go about validating your claim? Would it be enough for you if someone just told you his name was Alan Jeffrey Pinkerton? What if somebody else told you that Alan Jeffrey Pinkerton never existed and it was really painted by Cecil P. Fitzwilliam? Imagine that it is your job to find out who really painted it. How would you begin your investigation? You see, creation = creator is all well and good… but how do I establish who that creator was?

In other words, if we assume Ray’s argument stands, how do we know which creator created creation? Ray takes a stab at this question, and fails miserably.

The One who created the universe must be supernatural. With all our “genius,” humanity can’t create one grain of sand, a leaf, a flower or a bird, from nothing. The Creator must have powers that are infinitely greater than the greatest human being.

It’s true, humanity with all our genius cannot create sand, a leaf, a flower, or a bird from nothing. That would defy the laws of physics. However Ray makes his first mistake here, because he is setting the goalposts too far away. Nobody is arguing that nothing created everything, this has been established many many times to him, but Ray never seems to get it (willingly ignorant anyone?). The Big Bang was a rapid expansion of space-time, and to be an expansion, something must already be there. The initial condition of our universe is often considered “nothing” because it is considered to be extremely small, sometimes thought to be a singularity. However none of these are “nothing”.

Given that his premise is completely flawed, the rest of his argument falls down in style. He claims that the creator must have infinitely more power than the “greatest” human. Since the universe did not just spring out of nothing according to latest theories, any “creator” has to be more complex than the universe itself. There is no need to have some “infinite” attribute unless the creation is also infinitely complex. If there is anything we have learned through the last 500 years of science, it is that the universe is finite and it can be understood by a bunch of ape-like beings that have evolved on one of the planets that forms part of that universe.

So, if the “creator” does not need to be infinite, it doesn’t need to be supernatural, thus nulling is original statement. Ray then continues to answer the question:

The claim of the gospel is that this Creator will reveal Himself to all who repent and trust Jesus Christ.

Of course this answer does not cover the full question, as the reader specifically asked Ray to explain how you would validate that claim. To Ray this task is impossible; you just have to have “faith”, but this has problems when you come across people like me who have believed and realized that Christianity has no answers. Evidently Ray’s method of knowing the creator does not work, as there are many atheists who have been even more fundamentalist than Ray Comfort with their previous Christian beliefs. Ray’s only answer to these people is that they were never “true” Christians, but this really begs the question: how Christian do you have to be to be “true”?

The whole problem with the “painter” argument is that Ray is taking something for which we know the process of creation (i.e. the painting, the book, the car) and comparing it to something for which we either do not know the creation, or do not know if there even was a “creation”. Before the argument can work, Ray must prove that what he cites as “creation” was in fact created. To do this, he must disprove the Big Bang theory, and although he has attempted to do this many times, he has always failed because the simple truth is this:

Ray Comfort is a willingly ignorant fool.

Possibly Related Posts:

(Almost) Daily Dose of Comfort – Bone of Contention

Adrian Hayter — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 21:29:45 +0000

So Ray Comfort is off to his home country of New Zealand in order to participate in a debate about Evolution. I don’t see how a person who has repeatedly shown to not understand the theory can even think about participating in a debate about it, but Ray has drawn up a great debate plan:

1. An atheist is someone who believes nothing created everything. If he denies that and believes that “something” created everything, he’s not an atheist.

Ok, so the subject is Evolution, the scientific theory. It’s a debate concerning one of the fundamentals of biology, but why not throw in philosophy as well? Given that evolutionary biologists are often religious, I do not see how Evolution can been seen as a purely “atheistic” idea. On the subject of the whole “atheists believe nothing created everything”, the so-called “Ray Comfort Fallacy”, please read my previous blog post.

2. Man can’t create a grain of sand from nothing. How intellectually dishonest is it then to say that there was no Intelligent Designer?

Still not even close to the area of evolutionary biology. True, man cannot create a grain of sand from nothing, but why does this mean that some unknown “Intelligent Designer” has this ability? Humans are very intelligent designers, and yet we have limits as to what we can do in this universe. How do our failures imply that there exist beings that can do these things? It’s not intellectually dishonest to say that there is no evidence for an Intelligent Designer, simply because there isn’t any evidence, and we never will. A natural explanation will be found for everything, because to imply some kind of supernatural being is no explanation at all. Even if we can’t explain things naturally, there is no saying we won’t be able to at some point, and it certainly doesn’t make the supernatural any more viable.

3. Where did females come from (in every species)?

Finally, 3 stops down on the debate train and we get to biology. We also see Ray Comfort’s dishonesty out in the open, because he knows the answer to this question already. It has been explained to him at great length by P.Z. Myers after a few blogs post went back and forth between Ray’s blog and Pharyngula. After Ray challenged P.Z. to explain the origins of sex, P.Z. did so, and did so with gusto. I don’t think you could ask for a better summation of the evolution of species and sex, so I won’t even try to write one.

4. Which came first? The blood, the heart or the blood vessels?

Ray needs to learn how to use Google, because the results for a simple search will reveal far more than you could ever want. Panda’s Thumb has a great article about it.

5. There are variations within species, but no species to species transitional forms in the fossil record.

Nope, there are no transitional forms in the fossil record. I repeat, there are no transitional forms in the fossil record. Every time this argument comes up I still find it hard to believe it’s still being used.

6. God made Archaeopteryx with teeth and a tail. It’s a bird, not a dinosaur. He made many weird animals. There’s a huge mouse with a pocket in its front that hops all over Australia, horses with stripes, weird desert animals with humps on their backs . . . and He made some birds with teeth.

Calling Archaeopteryx a “bird with teeth” is a gross understatement. The fact that the creature has more in common with small dinosaurs than birds isn’t just confined to teeth, but the claws, tail, toes, and other skeletal features. Archaeopteryx is a bird, but it is also a dinosaur, and it is clearly a transitional form that shares elements of both, showing how dinosaurs first started evolving into birds.

7. Paleontologists have a huge incentive to twist the truth, just a little. If they can find a bone with a lump on it, theorize that it was a limb or a feather, give it an impressive name, say it is 73 million years old, and suddenly he has his picture on the cover of National Geographic magazine, has a book deal and lectures for life. The human propensity to gullibility is evidenced by evolution’s many believers. Malcolm Muggeridge: “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution . . . will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future.” Evolutionists have done to science, what hypocrites have done to religion. We have men who call themselves scientists, when they should have instead got a job with Disney as imagineers.

Ray presents this view but doesn’t go into detail with specific examples of paleontologists doing this. Double blind dating is done on fossils to ensure the result isn’t skewed, so I don’t know where Ray gets the idea that numbers are simply placed on fossils at random. The theory predicts we should find these fossils, and when we do find them, they should rightly be presented to scientific enquiry. Evolutionary biologists have advanced science beyond the realms thought possible, and we now know so much more about our origins. In return, we have used this knowledge to forge a better future for our race. Where religion kills and feeds a misleading doctrine, science shows us the true light, and we are much better for it.