Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

You Have to Hear This

Ray recently posted this video:

Meanwhile, the atheists:

Image by Richard Gunther.

Can anyone think of ANYTHING we could use to discredit these? I don't want to admit I was wrong about atheism.


  1. Gunther forgot to capitalize his p, so if he's fallible about capitalization, maybe he's fallible about God? I dunno. Help me out!

  2. Just go to the link for the YouTube video and look at the comments. Some of them apparently refutes one of the arguments in the video

  3. I was expecting that second one. The original cartoon was bait, nothing more.

    I just wish I'd got in early enough to call it.

  4. Kaitlyn
    You are completely right if we can't trust him to capitalize properly how can we trust him on anything!!
    Also he's not a very talented artist...just my opinion!!

  5. Ok, so I went to see the video and I got 'We're sorry this video is no longer available'. WTF??

    Can someone who saw it summarize it for me please?

    And does anyone know why it was pulled?


  6. The video still works for me.

    Anyway, the video is about "The Dawkins Delusion," in which the host makes fun of Richard Dawkins' argument. It was really well done.

  7. I even went to YouTube. It says the video has been removed. I give up.

  8. That "LEFT HAND" is actually a "RIGHT HAND," unless somehow that guy was holding the book with the back of his hand instead of the palm.

    I don't think the Bible ever tells anyone not to make fun of bad drawings.

  9. Once upon a time, a friend's four year-old daughter heard the well-known joke about a dog with no nose and thinking she understood the principles on which it worked, proceeded to say:

    "My dog has no legs."
    "How does it smell?"

    That video is the exact analogue.

  10. @ Kaitlyn:

    The Dawkins Delusion...

    My friend has that book as well as the God Delusion. Ravi Zechrias (I think that's how it's spelled...) is pretty awesome from what I've heard.

  11. Ravi Zechrias (I think that's how it's spelled...)

    Heh. Wrong Theologian. oops...

  12. @Rob,
    Thanks for the suggestion/

    But right now, we need to find some sort of argument to dismiss what Ray said so we (and by "we" I mean "I") don't look foolish.

  13. On another site (IIDB) Janus February 10, 2007, 12:20 AM said:
    As for how we know Richard Dawkins exists, well, I've seen dozens of pictures, watched many videos, read a few of his books, articles, and interviews. I've also read and heard from people who say they've met and talked to him, or have worked with him, or have debated him, people from all sorts of different backgrounds and agendas, people who have no reason whatsoever to pretend that a non-existant Richard Dawkins exists, people whose accounts of Richard Dawkins combine to form a coherent depiction of the man.

    Most importantly, it's worth noting that the claim that a British biologist exists is pretty easy to believe.
    On the other hand, the claim that our universe was created by a super-intelligent, supernatural entity, who just happens to be accurately described by the ravings of primitive, superstitious Bronze Age tribesmen, seems much more implausible.
    As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

  14. Jill D, I think you're onto something, but maybe if you simplify your answer so it's less wordy... yes, that might do indeed!

  15. I got it!

    The bigger the claim, the more evidence you need to back it up.

    It's not difficult to believe a British biologist named Richard Dawkins exists because the evidence for that claim (books written by him, videos, photographs, first hand accounts) more than justifies such a common-place claim.

    However, the extraordinary claim that a super-powerful and omnipotent deity exists requires just as much evidence or more, but the only evidence available are unverifiable first and second hand accounts.

  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

  17. Well, the contest is over, and Ray went with option D (leave it as-is and try to bluff his way through, by claiming that the person depicted in the comic was dyslexic or something, or that the error was intentional, to draw out all of us nit-picking atheists). He even used the phrase "nit-picking". Classic Ray.

    It's especially amusing how Ray chose the one option I didn't include in my post on "Atheist Central". He's so easily manipulated.

    I originally billed option D as an "outside chance", but now I see that I was mistaken. Without a convenient way to retroactively change the situation to make it appear as if he was right all along, Ray could only bill it as intentional, since he can never, ever admit any fault in front of his sycophantic groupies.

    Thanks ever so much, Ray, for proving us right about you once again. Always a pleasure. ^_^

  18. Kaitlyn said...

    "we need to find some sort of argument to dismiss what Ray said so we (and by "we" I mean "I") don't look foolish...."

    Why so hurried to avoid look foolish? If we were wrong, then that's all there is to it. I'm not saying we were wrong, mind you. Just that we went along with Ray's bait, if perhaps a bit too zealously. Then again, this whole thing is a bit juvenile, don't you think?

  19. @Ornitheologist,

    Maybe you're right. It's just, I have so much pride, I don't want us to look like we lost to Ray's arguments even if we did.

  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

  21. @ Kaitlyn

    "I don't want us to look like we lost to Ray's arguments even if we did."

    Argument? Where? You can't lose to Ray's arguments when there isn't one to lose to. Beside that, if Ray just set the whole thing up to feed his ego, then rationalizing and making excuses about it is exactly what he wants us to be doing. So we fell for his bait, bid deal. That proves nothing.

    I certainly don't think any less of you, or anyone, for falling it. But I do think less of Ray for setting us up to fail. Immature? Heck yeah.

  22. Bother... that was supposed to say "falling for it."

  23. Rob Penn, it's nice to see you, but I thought your imaginary friend didn't want you to play with us any more?

  24. Bound for Glory said on AC:

    Hate to be picky mark w laine, but your mirror writing is reversed HOIZONTALLY, and by providing the wording BELOW in reverse line order you give the impression that it is supposed to be mirrored VERTICALLY which it isn't.

    If you did this on purpose, in order to further parody the left shoulder/right shoulder mistake, then, well done, very funny.

    If, however it is just another cods up, then I apologise for my pedantry

  25. I have so much pride, I don't want us to look like we lost to Ray's arguments even if we did.

    I'm going to suggest that we emphasize and clearly display our mistakes. It's one of the fundamental differences between our group and Ray's:

    We allow for the possibility that we're not always correct.

  26. Kaitlyn,

    Others have said it before me, but I see no problem with being wrong. It is just neither of these things are proof of anything.

    If there was just half as much evidence for God as there is for Richard Dawkins, then I would be more likely to believe. Hell, even if I give Ray his argument that creation has to have a creator, that still gets no where in proving the God of the Bible and Jesus as his son and himself, are the creator.

    Secondly the cartoon is just stupid and shows that the only fulfilled prophecy is self-fulfilling ones.

    Evidence is necessary for my belief and I have seen none.

  27. @ Weemaryanne:

    Rob Penn, it's nice to see you, but I thought your imaginary friend didn't want you to play with us any more?

    I still read the stuff that's posted up here. I just don't want to take part in tearing down Ray's ministry.

    Having the label of Raytractor attached to me would have done that, simply because that's the purpose of the Raytractors.

    However, in this post, I saw a conversation about theology rather than about Ray. So, I put in my two cents. ^_^

  28. Check out this reply from one of the classic fundies at AC;

    beamstalk-rocky said,

    "By the way, I plan on going to see Dawkins here soon and talk to him, shake his hand, get his autograph, etc. Let me know when God is doing a book signing."
    Storeytwin A said

    "What a stupid thing to say. Your god, richard dawkins, is helping to lead you to hell, and you worship him still.

    Oh, there will be a book signing alright...but you won't like it.

    Revelation 20:11-15
    "And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away: and there was found no place for them.

    And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the BOOKS were opened: and another BOOK was opened, which is the BOOK OF LIFE: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the BOOKS, according to their works.

    And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

    And whosoever was not found written in the BOOK OF LIFE was cast into the lake of fire."

    October 2, 2008 10:39 AM

    Can you feel the love?

  29. StorytwatA is incapable of any sort of debate or logical argument. She beats Vera in the stupidity department, and I didn't think that was even possible.

  30. Yeah, I saw that expatmatt. I have already responded to it. Although I doubt she will comprehend that I don't agree with Dawkins on some things fundamentally.


Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.