You can lead Ray Comfort to contradiction…

A few weeks ago, Ray Comfort offered to send anyone who asked him a free copy of his book You can lead an atheist to evidence, but you can’t make him think, as well as The Atheist’s Bible. Well, not wanting to pass up an offer to get anything for free, I asked. Last week, the package arrive, but since I was then in the middle of Sam Harris’ The End of Faith, I didn’t have time to start reading it until now. Last night, I opened the book for the first time. Last night, after two sentences, I was already contemplating throwing it away.

But, just as Darrin Rasberry, Atheist told me in the foreword, I endured, if only to be able to honestly say that I’ve heard Ray’s argument and not dismissed it out of hand.

I will return with a more in-depth review of the book at a later time, but just to wet your appetite a little, here’s a little preview of what I suspect my review will mainly consist of.

Page 8:

There are some cultures in which people show so much contempt for a family member that has wronged them they actually deny his existence. [...] That’s what the professing atheist does with God, and his or her reason for doing so is moral. It’s not intellectual. It if was an intellectual issue there wouldn’t be any argument.

Page 35:

However, the reason your conscience has nothing to say about your atheism is that atheism is not a moral issue. It’s an intellectual issue.

It is truly a miracle that someone who can’t even remember what he himself wrote 27 pages ago, can still be trusted as authority when it comes to dismissing scientific evidence and rational thought.

“Mohan… Is your family Nigerigan?”

Wow… I’m not even sure this is spam, it’s just too good. You be the judge:

My  Dear ,
My name is Rev Father Thomas Mohan ;
I am 76 years old now.. I have
been suffering in the sick bed for the past
7 years. Now I believe that my time has come to join my ancestors
in heaven. I got your  email address from the Internet, as the spirit of Almighty God
directed me to contact you for this charity work. I have
$11,000,000.00 deposited in a
safe location, which I want you to claim
on my behalf for an important
charitable project.  Can you honestly do
this for me?
Reply me soonest on my email address = revfrmohan@obfuscated.com
Remain bless in
the Lord.
Rev Fr Thomas Mohan

So, what do you think? Does this nice old reverend really want little atheistic me to handle his 11 million dollars for charity? Maybe he’s realized that i’d actually give that money in his honor because I actually wanted to, and not because I thought it’d please my god?

(Needless to say, this is one post that truly belongs in the “Skepticism” category)

Quote of the Day

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

- Christopher Hitchens

Ray Comfort’s Nemesis: The Eye

Earlier today, Google Reader picked up on a new post from Ray Comforts blog, Atheist Central. However, when I went there to read the comments, the post had been taken down. Now, given what the post was about, I’m not too surprised. In fact, I’m going to post it in its entirety right here, and let you all laugh at what was too stupid even for Ray Comfort to admit to ever writing:

Look at what Darwin said about the complex nature of and evolution of the eye:

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ['the voice of the people = the voice of God'], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”

Charles Darwin believed that the eye gradually evolved, absurd though it seemed.

The human eye is complex beyond imagination. It is a perfect and interrelated system of about 40 individual subsystems, including the retina, pupil, iris, cornea, lens and optic nerve. The retina has approximately 137 million light sensitive cells that send messages to the brain. About 130 million of these cells look like rods and handle the black and white vision. The other seven million are cone shaped and allow us to see in color. Incredibly, the eye, optic nerve and visual cortex are totally separate and distinct subsystems. Yet, together, they capture, deliver and interpret up to 1.5 million pulse messages a millisecond! Michael Behe, a biochemist from Lehigh University, coined a term for describing the design phenomenon inherent in molecular machines such as the bacterial flagella motor — “Irreducible Complexity” — “a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.”

But when we speak of the evolution of “the eye,” we are not talking about one eyeball. There are 1.4 million species in the world. Every single one of those species had to miraculously and coincidentally evolve two eyes, which were connected to 1.4 million different incredibly complex brains, from the amazing eagle eye, to the huge elephant eye, to the tiny eye of an ant, and not one of those eyes could function without every interlinked component doing its job. It’s also important to realize that each one of the 1.4 million species would remain totally blind, until all the components had evolved to maturity and began to work. Then each of the two eyes had to somehow connect themselves to the 1.4 million functioning brains that had also miraculously evolved to maturity.

But there’s more than that, that had to take place. There had to be 1.4 million different shaped skulls with the appropriately shaped eye-sockets, from the large skull of the elephant to the tiny skull of the ant. Each had to evolve with the correct working muscles, nerves and tendons to secure and synchronize both of the eyes in place. Each eye then needed two moving and coordinated eyelids, as well as duel and working tear ducts, fed by an outside source of extraordinarily high quality lubricant.

The thought that the eye could evolve by itself without an Intelligent Designer over millions of years is truly “absurd to the highest degree.” So how could anyone (in his right mind) believe such an obvious absurdity? Easily. The necessary ingredient is “time.” Scientific America explains: “Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.”

The miracle worker for the believer is “time.” It makes evolution believable. It performs miracles. The evolutionist wasn’t back in time to see the unseen do its impossible work, but he unquestioningly believes beyond the reasonable, and accepts as gospel that which is utterly ridiculous.

There it is, boys and girls. Ray Comfort has still not learned a single thing about the theory of evolution, or how it works. He still actually expects us to uncover a CrocoDuck, and that for every species of animal, a male and a female had to evolve independently of each other, find each other when adults, and mate. Really. What has been explained over and over again to Ray Comfort has not made a single dent in his Jesus-armour. It is utterly impervious.

“Hey kids, today is Satanist prayer day!”

Nick Gisburne has an enlightening demonstration of the real, actual outcome of suggestions that school prayer should be allowed. It really is interesting how those arguing for less separation of church and state argue that it is more fair for everyone, yet they rarely, if ever, consider anyone other than those included in their own faith group. The obvious danger of “true faith” is the enormous egotism that goes right along with it. “If it’s not good for me, it’s not good for anyone“, and of course the reverse is considered equally true.

[youtube]siKcq-FGAd0[/youtube]

I also highly recommend watching another one of his videos, “God’s Unconditional Love“, a beautiful telling of what the word “unconditional” actually means to some people. (hint: God’s love is only unconditional under certain conditions)

Pat Condell’s Godless Comedy

Pat Condell is a rude, condescending and mean old man. Yet he’s also bright, reasonable, rational and, most important, largely right. He has, on his website, a list of Frequently Asked “Questions” which he answers in his own, particular style.

If I were to highligt just a few of these answers, I would choose…

Q: You don’t understand Christianity/Islam.
A: I don’t understand smallpox or typhoid either, and I’m equally disinclined to get acquainted with them.

…And…

Q: Prove God doesn’t exist.
A: That’s a tough one. Show me how it’s done by proving Zeus and Apollo don’t exist, and I’ll use your method.

Not to steal any more of his website traffic, read the rest of his answers right here.

Intelligent PR

A new atheist bus ad is going up in Chicago soon. This one I really like. It especially gives new meaning to the tired idea of Intelligent Design.

“Intelligent Design – the idea that man invented an intelligent creator to explain away all the things otherwise unexplainable at the time”

Now that’s a philosophy I could get behind!

True Ignorance

Ray Comfort is at it again. After a short period of trying to act serious and humble, he’s right back to insulting the intellects of atheists everywhere, while still claiming that he has good reason to believe what he believes.

Let’s dissect his statement:

I also love science.

No, he doesn’t. He probably doesn’t even know what the word means.

In case you didn’t know, “science” is God allowing man to discover the secret workings of His incredible creation.

As usual, simply assuming that the world is created is more than enough evidence to prove that it is. Ray Comfort loves science, but doesn’t understand the first thing about it.

Einstein (a theist who didn’t believe in a personal God) rightly said, “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”

Ah, here we go with Einstein again. You would think a Christian would show some respect for the dead, but not our dear Ray. Einstein was not a theist, at the very most he was a deist, but even that is up for discussion since he hints at having a definition of a god that isn’t really a god at all. It’s more of a term simply to describe the wonders of the world itself, and not an intelligent force, whether personal or not. I’ve quoted him before, but I’ll do it again:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Back to Ray.

But [atheist scientists] also intellectually disqualify themselves from speaking on behalf of science, because their basic worldview of “nothing created everything” is a scientific impossibility.

He holds on to his most beloved strawman as it he’d die without it. Metaphorically speaking, he probably would. Without his delusion that atheism somehow implies any stance on creation whatsoever, he would wither up and crumble. It’s his only weapon, and all it does is irritate and annoy. Regardless, if he maintains that it’s true that atheists believe “nothing created everything“, then it’s equally true that all Christians firmly believe that “nothing created God“. However, as soon as you mention that, Ray and his followers will start screaming that “God has always existed, he’s outside time” as if that answers all the questions. But, if believing that our universe didn’t have a creator is “intellectually dishonest”, why is it reasonable to believe that God didn’t have a creator as well? I’ve never understood this, nor have I ever gotten an honest answer out of any Christians whom I’ve asked.

Einstein said, “I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” If you also want to know God’s thoughts, read your Bible.

This, of course, right after Ray himself said that the god of Einstein wasn’t the personal, theistic God of Abrahamic religion. Ray doesn’t care if his logic is flawed. In fact, he flaunts his errors in order to troll for more insulted atheists to hang around his honey pot blog.

You love creation. I love the Creator and will escape His terrible swift sword, because I trust in His mercy.

I have no feelings whatsoever towards the creation of the universe. Why would I? It’s an impersonal event billions of years in the past. How do you have feelings towards a giant cosmic expansion-event?

It’s my earnest prayer that you would also trust Jesus for your own eternal salvation today. He doesn’t promise you tomorrow.

He doesn’t promise anything, because he isn’t real.

Quote of the Day

I entirely reject, as in my judgment quite unnecessary, any subsequent addition ‘of new powers and attributes and forces,’ or of any ‘principle of improvement, except in so far as every character which is naturally selected or preserved is in some way an advantage or improvement, otherwise it would not have been selected. If I were convinced that I required such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish. . . I would give absolutely nothing for the theory of Natural Selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.

- Charles Darwin

God’s Divine Plan

Wonder what happened to “The thing that made the things for which there is no known maker”? Well, he went and got himself a number of angels with which to discuss his plans to sacrifice himself to himself to end all blood sacrifice. His angels didn’t really feel that idea, though, and suggested… You know what? Just watch the whole thing yourselves.

[youtube]zOfjkl-3SNE[/youtube]

I’ve been asking for answers to these questions for years now. If I’d know they where right there on Youtube, I wouldn’t have bothered all those Christians about it.