The Atheist Blogger

…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.

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.

As I previously mentioned, I’ve been invited to a discussion of the book “The Dawkins Letters” by David Robertson. At the time this blog post appears on the site, we will have just started recording. The plan was to do one show focusing on 3-4 of the “atheist myths” presented in the book, but we have since decided to record two shows and discuss more issues. I’m not entirely sure when the shows will be broadcast now, but as soon as I know the details I will of course inform everyone.

The first show will cover the topics of atheist rationality and tolerance, the “inherent” evil of religion, and religious child abuse. It might be prudent to note here that David’s book is very well written and I agree with a lot of his points he makes against Dawkins’ arguments. I think the whole tolerance issue comes down to the difference of opinion that both theists and atheists have. I don’t think a general rule can be made that separates theists from atheists in terms of tolerance; it all depends on your outlook. I agree though that there isn’t an “inherent” evil in religion, but rather I would consider some aspects of religion evil, and the way people twist and use religion as ammunition of hate is one of them. The issue of religious child abuse seems to have been entirely lost in David’s book, as he seems to think that simply labelling a child as a “Christian child” is what Dawkins (and atheists) would refer to as child abuse. What I believe, and what I suspect Dawkins also meant, is that not explaining different worldviews and beliefs to a child and simply telling them “this is how it is” would count as child abuse. It is what I saw when watching a recent BBC documentary.

The second show will cover godless morality, the immoral Bible, and the cruel Old Testament God. This is where I will probably concede some ground, as I haven’t got the 25 years of Biblical study that David claims in his book. I can handle morality fine; I think there are perfectly naturalistic explanations for it and the fact that morality changes over time is evidence that there is no “absolute” moral code that people live by. This would lead me onto the morality of the Bible, which as David explains, must be read in historical context. In this sense, he destroys his argument for Biblical morality, as he has to concede that interpretation of the Bible changes over time, and what was considered moral back when we burnt “witches” would not be considered moral now, even though the words are still there. The issue of the cruel Old Testament God is also down to interpretation. I interpret the Genesis story as cruel, seeing that God supposedly created our curiosity and then sees fit to punish us for it, as well as seemingly setting up the whole thing to fail (as Ricki Gervais says “Either don’t have the snake or the tree…it’s an accident waiting to happen!”). David says he finds incredible beauty and compassion in the Old Testament though, and I’ll have to ask him a few questions to get his view.

The shows are all about discussion rather than debate, and I will try to keep everything as light and friendly as possible, because I respect the book David has written, and I think his opinions need some careful consideration. David is obviously a very intelligent man, and I hope that we can both go away from the discussion a bit more educated in each other’s philosophy and outlook.

Finally, thanks to everyone who has wished me well on Twitter and on the blog. Your comments are most appreciated.

I’ve been invited to a discussion of the book “The Dawkins Letters: Challenging Atheist Myths” on the Premier Christian Media’s radio show “Unbelievable?“. The discussion will be between lil’ old me and the author of the book, David Robertson and will focus on 3 – 4 of the apparent “atheist myths” he outlines in his book:

1. The myth of Higher Consciousness
2. The myth of Godless beauty
3. The myth of atheist rationality and tolerance
4. The myth of the cruel old testament god
5. The myth of the science/religion conflict
6. The myth of the created god and the uncreated universe
7. The myth of the inherent evil of religion
8. The myth of godless morality
9. The myth of the immoral bible
10. The myth of religious child abuse.

Of course having not read the book I’m unsure of what the arguments for all those are, but I’m being sent a copy to read before the discussion, and I’m told I’ll be able to influence the decision over which ones we talk about, which is always good. After all, just by reading the topics I’m not sure I would argue against some of them; the “inherent evil of religion” for example; I don’t think all religions are “inherently” evil, I just think most of them do more evil than good. The “science / religion” conflict I could speak reams on however.
It’s not a live show though, so that at least gives me less to worry about and more time to concentrate on having a good discussion, raising all the important points.

The people organising the discussion say it will probably air on Saturday 28th March at 2:30pm, and will be available digitally in London on DAB radio, or 1305, 1332, 1413 MW. You can also listen throughout the UK on Sky Digital 0123, Virgin Media 968, and Freeview 725. Those of you who are lucky enough not to live in the UK can listen to it live online at http://www.premier.org.uk/, or they can get the podcast form  http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable.

Right now I’m slightly nervous, mainly because I’ve never actually been on radio before, let alone been invited to a one-on-one discussion/debate! It’s really quite exciting when I sit down to think about it for a bit, I just hope David Robertson’s book is an interesting read and not just repeated arguments. I want a challenge for once!

Tonight at 11PM (UTC+1) we will be discussing Hemant Mehta’s book “I Sold My Soul on eBay” in the IRC Channel. Find out what time you need to be there using this worldclock. The discussion should last about an hour depending how many people turn up, and as usual a forum discussion thread will follow.

Hemant Mehta is going to try to turn up for the discussion, so you will have your chance to share your views with the author.