Ray Comfort, I have a challenge for you. It is a challenge to prove the existence of a being. No, not God -- we've had that challenge to you open for many years now, and you haven't come through, so it's reasonable to assume you never will. No, this is a much easier challenge, a challenge to prove the existence of a mere human. Specifically, a human named (or pseudonymed) James D. Franz.
That is the name of the atheist who, I have learned through a little bit of research, wrote not only the letter you quoted in your latest spewing-forth, but in fact an entire series of letters to you, which were published in book form along with your responses. Just give me a) enough identifying information for me to verify that he exists, and b) a means of contacting him so that I can verify he is the same person who sent you that letter in the 1990s, and with whom you co-authored a book in 2006. This shouldn't be too difficult, particularly since this Franz person is described by at least one website as a "prominent" atheist -- despite the fact that I've never heard of the guy outside of his alleged correspondence with you.
The reason I put forth this challenge you can probably guess: I don't think James D. Franz exists. I think he is nothing more than a character you invented.
I don't claim to have hard evidence for this theory, only strong intuition. You see, like Clostridophile, I find it hard to believe that any atheist worth his intellectual salt would give you such a softball. I find it very easy to believe, however, that you would pull a stunt like this -- particularly given Paul's instruction to take on different personae and lie to people for the sake of Christian evangelism (1 Corinthians 9:22).
As I write this, it's July 24, 2008, a few minutes before midnight local time -- what the hell, let's call it July 25. I know you read this blog -- and have, in fact, quoted from the comments section on your own blog on at least one occasion. I'll be keeping count of the number of days you pretend this challenge doesn't exist. I suspect I'll be counting for the rest of my life. Fortunately, this being the information age (that's right, Ray -- in spite of your best efforts, human progress has continued forward), the counting process is easily automated. So it's up to you how long you want to be embarrassed by your own silence.
"Start the clock."
Our New Home
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well written. I'm sure if the CHRISTians[;p] over at Ray's read this, they'll complain on how we "always want evidence". Are we losing critical thinking skills? All we want is some information. That shouldn't be so hard right?
ReplyDeleteAh, but wanting information is EVIL, RS, didn't you know that? What with the Tree Of Knowledge and all? EEEVVVIIIIILLL!!!
ReplyDeleteI won't hold my breath but I eagerly await Hand Banana's response to this challenge - I know it will be contentless but it's likely to be freakin entertaining.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure that James D. Franz works for the International Institute of Strawmen.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI certainly wouldn't be surprised if "James D. Franz" isn't an actual person. He's probably as real as "Man with a Badge" and "Wild About the Gospel". There are three hits when you Google the name; one from here and two connected to Comfort. I'm still trying to find the source for the Plato quote. Just give me the work and I'll read it myself. Did Ray come across it on one of his many readings of The Republic?
ReplyDeleteWe don't have to post this challenge, which I find very intriguing, to his blog. It would suffice sending him an email (I hear he gets so many real emails from real people ;) ) and saving that to have evidence he's received the challenge.
ReplyDeleteSilent dave said: "particularly given Paul's instruction to take on different personae and lie to people for the sake of Christian evangelism (1 Corinthians 9:22)"
ReplyDeleteUh, I'm pretty sure he meant to put oneself in other's shoes :-)
Cheers,
Sye
Sye is likely correct on this.
ReplyDeleteI read the verse in context, and it fits that assessment. Even without an absolute standard of truth.
Felix said: "I read the verse in context, and it fits that assessment. Even without an absolute standard of truth."
ReplyDeleteThen how do you know that? Still though, I don't expect professed atheists to do proper exegesis.
Cheers,
Sye
Most Holy of Holy fucks, Sye.
ReplyDeleteSomeone agrees with you, and you leap on them anyway.
You act like they need an absolute standard to read the Bible.
"Uh, I'm pretty sure he meant to put oneself in other's shoes :-)"
Are you certain about it? 100%? That doesn't sound like certainty to me.
HOW DO YOU LIKE YOUR ARGUMENT NOW?
No more feeding the troll from me. I just couldn't resist.
So that's the famous Sye, eh? I've read about him. I didn't think I'd see him in one of my own threads. Well, I guess we have three choices:
ReplyDelete1) Ban him from the blog, thus making us no better than Ray Comfort,
2) Respond to him, thus feeding his desire for attention and seeing us pissed off, or
3) Ignore his, thus giving him a free pass to say whatever the fuck he wants.
That, my friends, is a true Trilemma. I don't have a good answer to it. Not yet, anyway. Stay tuned.
Sye sez:
ReplyDeleteThen how do you know that? Still though, I don't expect professed atheists to do proper exegesis.
Sye, he was agreeing with you, you dolt.
Just how stupid can a Fundie get? Is there no limit?
Silent Dave sez (regarding Sye):
ReplyDeleteWell, I guess we have three choices:
1) Ban him from the blog, thus making us no better than Ray Comfort,
2) Respond to him, thus feeding his desire for attention and seeing us pissed off, or
3) Ignore his, thus giving him a free pass to say whatever the fuck he wants.
I believe choice #1 would be an error, both for the reason you cited as well as the additional reason that it will make Sye a martyr, and you know that he'd just love that. As I said earlier, banning him makes him seem important. He's not.
Choice #3 is out as well. Sye isn't here for honest discourse, so failing to respond to him won't make him go away. It will only cause him to crow about how no one can refute his "arguments" (I use the term loosely). Leaving Sye's poisonous talking points unrefuted in the threads will still disrupt the discussion, and give newcomers the wrong idea.
Choice #2 is the only alternative. While it will feed his neurotic need for attention, there's no need for it to piss us off. Just slap down his moronic talking points and move on. As long as he posts arguments, refute them and keep the thread moving. If he feels it necessary to resort to physical threats or personal attacks again, we can nuke those posts as they occur.
Just slap down his moronic talking points and move on.
ReplyDeleteI'd just like to point out that Maragon has a lot of questions that were left unanswered. That will be my only comment unless he wants to actually debate/converse about something new.
Do I feel leapt on? No.
ReplyDeleteI give Sye the benefit of the doubt. He likely misread my post.
If he didn't, so what. Says more about him in that case. Nothing worth more than a *rolleyes*.
I'd never claim to do 'proper' exegesis. When an exegetic argument or claim is presented, I either understand it, or I don't and ask for further explanations.
Lance sez:
ReplyDeleteI'd just like to point out that Maragon has a lot of questions that were left unanswered.
As do I. As do many others, I'm sure.
When faced with a question he can't answer and can't sidestep, Sye's reaction is usually to flee the field...which works out nicely for us. c^_^ɔ
I know little about this book coming out, and my post doesn't validate the existence of Ray Franz, but I wanted to show that a Ray Franz type does exist. His name is Penn of Penn and Teller.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JHS8adO3hM
Penn only makes a small comment about evangelism so it may not be comparable to the Ray Franz letters, but just wanted to share.