The Atheist Blogger

Ray Comfort tried very hard to show that atheists are unreasonable but inadvertently highlighted the same method Creationists use to try and disprove Evolution. Ray claimed that atheists simply do not like the idea of Hell and therefore do not believe in it. He then goes on to say that we use this kind of logic on God as well. We (apparently) don’t like the idea of God and so choose not to believe in it.

You could carry this further if you didn’t like gravity, history, the wind or love. Those things can’t be seen, and therefore wouldn’t exist if you didn’t believe in them either. Anything that you don’t like will not exist if you just say that you don’t believe in it.

Before I continue it should be stated quite clearly that the reason atheists do not believe in God or Hell has nothing to do with not liking either. In fact, my disbelief in Hell came as a direct consequence of my disbelief in God. I do not believe in God for multiple reasons, none of which are simply because I “don’t like the idea”.

Secondly, whilst Ray is quite correct that gravity, history, wind, and love cannot be seen (although given his past allusions about sight I have no idea how he came to this correct conclusion), he fails to mention that such things can be observed and tested based on their interactions with the rest of the universe. History is the one exception because it is simply the human expression for what has happened in the past, but this can too be observed by its affect on the present.

What is really striking is Ray’s last sentence. Anything that you don’t like will not exist if you just say that you don’t believe in it. Ray reckons this is exactly how atheists live their life. I wasn’t too concerned with his ridiculous argument though. I was more wrapped up in the obvious irony of such a statement.

As a Creationist, Ray Comfort subscribes to the same idiotic idea that he is trying to oppose above. Namely, that they do not like Evolution (it goes against the Bible) so they say they don’t believe it in, and they reckon that is a good enough argument to refute it. They don’t look at the evidence, and simply use the same arguments over and over, even though they have been refuted so many times by science.

The subject of existence, belief, and reality can be summed up very easily.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away. ~ Philip K. Dick

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Comedy website Something Awful have a load of photoshopped reverse magazines that PZ Myers pointed out. A “reverse magazine” is the process of taking a well known magazine (New Scientist etc) and rewording the title / front cover so it covers exactly the opposite of what it should. There are quite a few religion / belief based ones which I found amusing.

1. New Scientist to Old Scientist, with the great science behind Flat Earth. Alas the last gathering of online Flat Earthers (or FE’rs as they liked to be called) have abandoned ship, but their website and forums can still be viewed in the Wayback Machine.

Read the rest of this entry »

It seems that the Creationist organisation Discovery Institute is attacking Richard Dawkins over his involvement in the Louisiana “academic freedom bill” which allows teachers to discuss theories that oppose Evolution. Simply put, it is allowing Intelligent Design into the classrooms.

The Discovery Institute reported that Barbara Forrest, leader of LA Coalition for Science has written an article on the Richard Dawkins website, pleading people to contact the Louisiana Governor and stop this bill being passed. The Institute rather snobbishly remarked:

Newsflash for Richard, we’re not a British colony anymore.

Well pointed out, but of course they forget that Richard Dawkins runs The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, a charity registered in both the UK and the USA. They also seemed to overlook the fact that his website isn’t tied to any specific country and as such has a large majority of American visitors. Forgetting as well that the article in question wasn’t even written by Dawkins but by a citizen of the United States, and their accusation that Richard Dawkins is somehow trying to “dictate education policy” to the U.S falls completely apart.

Read the rest of this entry »

What’s the best way to support the theory of Evolution? Make a 2 hour Creationist propaganda film packed with every lie every told about the theory. You may think you have heard all the idiotic arguments that try to undermine Evolution, but I bet there are still some in this documentary that have eluded you.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2783773121996810582

The movie is quite old so you may have seen if before, or seen parts of it (the Peanut Butter bit on YouTube), and if you haven’t yet seen Expelled, this movie is probably just as funny.

Matt’s Notepad has a great article in which he debunks some of the most well known Creationist / ID arguments concerning Evolution.

The arguments can be found here: http://mattcbr.wordpress.com/2008/04/25/repeated-ignorant-creationistid-arguments-a-solution/

Some similar arguments that debunk Creationism have been written by Talk Origins, and Richard Dawkins has a list of “Debate Points” that cover Evolution, atheism, and faith that you might find interesting.