Our New Home
Thursday, July 31, 2008
In any event, I am not one of the hard-core atheists who jumps against anybody who has the slightest belief in God. I have found that believing in God has been helpful for some people around me. Simple people who might not be able to handle their everyday lives and problems without it. (Quite condescending, eh?) I do not know if I am altruistic, or idealist, or whatever, but really, I did not care about the fundies belief in God, just about making them see that ray was abusing them. Then I learn that they abuse their children's psychology quite strongly, shit! Then they prejudice so easily on so many things that should not bother them whatsoever (like homosexualism), and so on. So, i started fighting them on everything!
Why am I writing this? Well, I was over there at Stephen Law's blog. Anyway, Andrew Louis and me ended up talking there about our motivations, and Andrew reminded me that he is a theist, and I knew already, and I asked Andy if there was a way of helping these fundies out of their prejudices at the least. His answer is obvious, but I had to read it so I could remember: attack their fundamentalism not their belief in God. Maybe it should be attack their prejudice not their belief in God. But we all get it, right?
So, I want the idealist outcome: Peace. I want the fundies to stop prejudicing, to stop thinking atheists or people of other religios are out there ready to do evil of the worst kind, to stop thinking that gay marriage will undermine their marriages, to stop pretending to mess science with creacionism (and understand why this is necessary), and so on.
Of course, I note that this post coincides with Dale being horribly upset and attacking Rob. By the way Dale, my sympathy for the loss of your friend. I just want to add that to me, is it of uttmost importance to be able to accept that we are different and still be happy and understanding despite our differences. Do you think we can attain that goal? Once I told Ray that if he wants to accuse me of having blind faith, this would be it: A faith that we can learn to live together without those strong prejudices. I have a good set of those prejudices myself. I am concious of them, and I work on them. This is what I think we can learn to do. What do you think Dale? What do you think guys?
You do not have to agree with me. As I said, I appreciate our diversity, and I have learned a lot from you guys.
By the way, did you read what Kippastrophe wrote at ray's in response to keith the ex-atheist (who is, after all, the same despite I showed him the lies of AiG). That is another christian I can truly respect.
Felix was one of the Rob Penn love festers that came down on me pretty hard. OK.
Rob has now stated on his blog that he loves Weemaryanne, Flinging Dust and etcetera because they are so accepting. Well, good for them. I hope they find solice in being validated by this fucktard. It concerns me not.
What does concern me is how the Rob lovers can reconcile their comments to me, versus their comments that I observe them making to the people at Ray's blog. How is Rob Penn's beliefs any different from Ray's? Does Rob make sense of miracles?
Rob likes to come off as this Rational Christian, but there is no such thing, and for you people to mock me and equate me to Terry Burton for my disbelief, Fuck You. Yes, that would be you, Felix.
If I come back here and find my account deleted then so be it. I don't particularly give a flying fuck, if you know what I mean. I've been fighting the effects of these fundies since most of you were little kids, in some cases, not even born yet.
Having said all that, I'll get out of here.
Benjamin - The Sower said...
PhilG said:You can't have something that is 'really unique' Unique is a property that either is or isn't.Okay everyone, that noise you're about to hear are the heads of countless lurking and participating atheists popping off as I point out the following...Ray, Phil gotchya' there...[gasp] this doesn't make me a "Raytractor" does it?
Benjamin - The Sower said...
Pvblivs: (sincerely sorry if I've spelled in incorrectly...you wrote: Aw, Benjamin, you read my blog.Actually, I don't think I have... Just the mudskipper, the raytractors and my new friend dan...Yours will have to wait - I'll forgo calling you a liar though - just a big assumer...
And in other news: Is local Resident Terry "The merry cherry" Burton in denial?
firstname.lastname@example.org (Terry) said...
@ Allfiredup (impersonator)I will not acknowledge yourcomments or respond to a 'spook'.Get a Life, turn on your REAL profile, otherwise just 'buzz off' you pest. You are not the real 'Allfiredup' commentator! Get a Life atheist!
The illustration next to Ray's post shows the transitional "concept" well...a creature turning into another creature, like a fish into a land animal.
Yes, Seeker. You found us out. If evolution were really happening we should expect to see a living fish just suddenly sprout a fully formed leg. And then they would be confused as to how to grow the other three legs. Since we don't see that happening, there are no transitional species. I think you've completely overthrown the scientific paradigm. Better sit by your phone. The Nobel committee should be calling you any minute.
Or maybe the only thing that cartoon demonstrates is that Richard Gunther has an even poorer understanding of evolution than Ray Comfort does. If such a thing is even possible.
The reason for this, I believe, is that if he let comments flow through more frequently, people would realize that the very first atheist comments succinctly deal with the errors in his post and they would not bother to add their 2 cents after that (other than the usual suck-ups and Terry Burtons, of course).
See his latest piece of crap on 'transitional forms'. I was sucked in too this time and half the responses all say pretty much the same thing. Without this lag time his comment numbers would disappear.
He is far more cunning than I gave him credit for and we need a plan if we're going to avoid him pulling our strings.
I suggest that we destroy whatever inanity he has most recently posted, and then pick out the best of our comments to be sent over (referencing the ongoing discussion at Raytrators, of course) for publishing at the ol' Soapbox (remember the good old days?).
Quite frankly, I'd like us to move onto a more wide-ranging scope of discussion and take the spotlight off Comfort's dishonesty for a while, but there's just so much WRONG over there that needs addressing!
You are living, dear reader, at a watershed in human history. This is the century during which, after 2,000 years of what has been a pretty bloody marriage, faith and reason must agree to part, citing irreconcilable differences. So block your ears to the cooing voices on Thought for the Day, and choose your side.
“But how can you be sure?” Oh boy, am I sure. Oh great quivering mountains of pious mumbo-jumbo, am I sure. Oh fathomless oceans of sanctified babble, am I sure. Words cannot express my confidence in the answer to the question whether God cured a nun because she wrote a Pope’s name down. He didn’t. Mere language does no justice to my certainty about whether God might be waiting for the return to their Biblical lands of the Israelites, before arranging the Second Coming. He isn’t.
Shout it from the rooftops. Write it on walls. Carve it into rock. He didn’t. He isn’t. He won’t.
291 reader comments after the post, some interesting reading as the 2 camps post their stuff
Another day, another asinine post at Atheist Central. This time Ray makes it clear that a species-to-species transitional would have to be something like Tiktaalik - a transitional form "between fish and land animals" or Archaeopteryx - a transitional form "between reptiles and birds" as quoted by the scientific journal; The Guardian newspaper (well, at least it's not AIG).
At this point I was wondering when the stupid was going to kick in becuase this almost sounds like he knows what he's talking about...
"Of course, the above claims can’t be substantiated. Archaeopteryx (unlike Archaeoraptor) is not a hoax—-it is a bird, not a "missing link" between birds and reptiles. The missing link is still missing, and I'm still waiting for the first piece of genuine evidence for the theory of evolution." - R. Comfort
Ah, there's the stupid!
So he defines it as something like Tiktaalik, only Tiktaalik doesn't count because, well, erm, you see.... if you see a building, you know it must have had a builder....
Just to be clear; he is definately baiting to try and get us to return, don't fall for it (unless you really want to) my fellow Raytractors, stay strong!
But consider this: we could just as easily call the universe "the natural realm," which defines metaphysical naturalism into existence, and belittle Ray for not seeing the obvious.
(Ray might respond that the word "universe" means "one word," which implies the existence of a Speaker. But when using the word "universe," I no more mean to say "that which is spoken by God" than Ray, when saying "bless you" to someone who has sneezed, means to say "you appear to have the Black Plague, please keep your distance.")
So we can both do a service to our respective theories depending on what term we use for the universe. Ray can say it implies a creator, I can say it implies naturalism. But who's actually correct? Whose theory does the universe we observe confirm?
To answer that, let's look at what each of our theories predicts and compare those predictions to what we observe, keeping score along the way.
Christianity predicts: A universe in which Earth and humans are the main feature, the basic reason for it existing in the first place.
Naturalism predicts: A universe in which neither humans nor their homeworld are anything special in the grand scheme of things.
What we observe: A universe in which humans and their world are lost among countless trillions of stars; not only are we not the center of the universe, we can't even see the center of the universe, being so far away.
Score: Ray 0, atheists 1.
Christianity predicts: A universe in which the beginning of the universe and the beginning of humans are seperated by a matter of days.
Naturalism predicts: A universe in which the beginning of the universe adn the beginning of humans are seperated by vast periods of time, millions or billions of years, it taking that long for life to develop from inanimate matter through natural processes.
What we observe: A universe that has been around for about 14 billion years, but a human species that has only been around for several thousand.
Score: Ray 0, atheists 2.
Christianity predicts: A human race created by as simple and efficient a means as an extremely powerful spiritual essence could manage.
Naturalism predicts: Life arising, if at all, through some sort of chemical "code" which copies itself and is subject to mutation so as to be able to change form from inanimate to animate matter.
What we observe: Billions of years of evolution, and DNA.
Score: Ray 0, atheists 3.
Christianity predicts: Intelligent minds which, being made of spirit (whatever that is), exist and function completely independently of any physical body.
Naturalism predicts: Any mind which exists is made of the same stuff as the universe and biological life, and therefore suffers from the same limitations and drawbacks as that stuff.
What we observe: Intelligent minds are produced by a physical machine, the human brain; by altering the physical state of this brain, we can change the mind itself.
Score: Ray 0, atheists 4.
Christianity predicts: The existence of a being who is powerful enough and knowledgable enough to prevent human suffering, and who loves them and cares about them enough to do so.
Naturalism predicts: No such being necessarily exists.
What we observe: The existence of enormous amounts of unprevented suffering.
Score: Ray 0, atheists 5.
Christianity predicts: The existence of a being who has a specific and vitally important message for mankind, namely the gospel message, and is powerful enough to deliver that message individually to each and every human.
Naturalism predicts: No such being necessarily exists.
What we observe: Widespread unawareness of the gospel message, and equally widespread reasonable nonbelief therein.
Score Ray 0, atheists 6.
With some creative work, any theory, including Christianity, can be modified to become compatible with these observations, but that proves nothing unless the modifications themselves are independently proven. For example, Joe killing Steve is inconsistent with the proposition "Joe is a morally good person." A Joe-apologist could modify that theory to state that Steve had a nuclear bomb, was about to detonate it in the middle of a city, and that killing him was the only way to stop him. But the fact that the theory is able to be modified in such a way is, by itself, insufficient to salvage the "Joe is good" theory; we would have to have independent confirmation that Steve had a nuke, that he was about to detonate it, and that Joe's only option was indeed to kill Steve.
Therefore, if the Christian wanted to solve the problem of, say, the vast size of the universe by saying that God had some important reason for creating trillions upon trillions of light years of apparently empty space for a universe created especially for humans, that would not prove anything -- not unless the Christian could prove, to the same standard of proof as the original question, that such a desire on God's part actually exists. He can't.
Similarly, any attempt to make God compatible with suffering by citing, say, free will fails unless accompanied by (1) a logical proof that a world in which all beings freely make choices that avoid suffering is impossible, (2) some sort of proof of the existence of Satan or whatever malevolent entity is responsible for natural suffering, and (3) some sort of proof of the existence of a desire on God's part that all beings have free will, and that his desire that this obtain is greater than his maximal love for us. These must all be proved independently -- both from one another and from the original theory that God exists in the first place -- and to within the same standard of proof as the original theory. Needless to say, this has not been done.
So there you have it. The natural realm implies naturalism -- and this is so obvious that Ray and the Raybots are fools for not seeing it. Now let's look at how this meme defeats Ray's meme:
Q: Doesn't a builder imply a builder?
A: Is there any building in New York City that was built by a discorporeal spirit? In Chicago? In Moscow? Tokyo? Sydney? Cape Town? Bellweather, CA? Of course not -- all buildings were built by physical beings who arose by natural processes.
Q: Doesn't a painter imply a painter?
A: Was the Mona Lisa painted by a ghost? Starry Night? The Last Supper? No, they were all painted by humans. Physical beings. Natural beings.
Q: Doesn't creation imply a creator?
A: Christians and atheists disagree on whether the universe is a creation -- in the sense that it was created by an intelligent being -- but there is a set of objects -- buildings, painters, cars, etc. -- that we do agree are creations. Can the Christian name one of those objects, just one of them, that was created by something other than a finite physical being? Of course he can't!
So if the universe is a creation by an intelligent being, then all the evidence suggests that the creator of the universe is some sort of finite physical being as well, and none of the evidence suggests the contrary.
Therefore, the universe was caused to exist either by a natural person or by impersonal natural processes -- consistent with the predictions of naturalism, contradictory to the predictions of Christianity.
Score: Ray 0, atheists 7.
The natural realm implies naturalism. QED.
Not to mention, my answers to quite a few of the questions would start "We don't know but this is the current theory...", which I hold as reasonable. The chances of McGrade agreeing with me would be remote though, since her questions show no understanding of any science, especially Evolution. Such questions as:
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?Other cells. It doesn't take a genius to work it out, and Laura seems to think that Evolution works by one single organism evolving at a time, when in fact the entire species evolves. She is also making the assumption that as soon as an organism evolves a new way of doing something (in this case reproduction) it immediately loses the previous way.
How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code)create any NEW,IMPROVED varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)Point to note, I don't think Chinese is an improvement to English. Joking aside though, you are comparing a 26 letter alphabet with a finite number of words to a 4 letter alphabet with an infinite amount of words. Just because taking the word "Evolution" and mutating it to form "Etolltipn" doesn't make sense in English, doesn't mean that taking the DNA string "ATCGTGC" and mutating it to "AATCGGTC" won't make sense in DNA. Mutations never happen this much in short spaces of time though, and on much smaller scales.
Her last question "Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?" is neither scientific nor based on anything other than her delusions that the natural world is somehow supernatural, and that if you don't believe in gods you must therefore think that nothing exploded and formed everything.
If anyone wants to spend the time answering her other questions (which due to the multi-part nature of most probably exceeds 100) then you are welcome, but I have other things to do rather than waste my time trying to combine philosophy with science and answer unanswerable questions. Instead, I pose one single question to her:
Why, when science is unable to explain something fully (knowing that science has had precious little time as it is), do you have to resort to the wild assumption that "God" did it?
Unlike God, science is not the omnipotent being that somehow thinks that writing one book and claiming it is infallible constitutes valid proof. Science is the ever growing research into mystery that has numerous breakthroughs every single day. Never claiming to be infallible, never trying to control or force people to believe. Only going on the evidence that is presented and using the powers of logic and reason to evaluate the possible and the probably.
Which is more beautiful?
My girlfriend and I aren't telling, and God does not exist -- but, unlike you, I'm open to the possibility of being wrong. Presumably you aren't "in sin" the same way you think we are, so God would hear your request if you made it. And even though I don't imagine God would go around giving out peoples' passwords as a matter of course, in my case he would God would have a motivation for telling you what my password is: it would save my soul.
That's right, Ray: tell me what my password is, and I'll accept that as sufficient proof that Christianity is true, and accept Jesus on the spot.
I'll give you seven days to respond. So as to not make my password public on the off chance that God actually comes through, please email your answer at silentdave47 at gmail dot com. You only get one guess -- which is all you should need, presumably having an infallible source -- so make it count.
What do you say, Ray?
Oh, my head hurts.
Edit - Fixed the link and made it pop - MacGyverJr
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
So, what do you guys think? Are we up to the challenge to start discussing this "debunker"?
Not convinced? Well, maybe because you eat babies. Just kidding.
But seriously, this guy (taking a look at his posts) is seriously just as hateful as Ray is against Atheists.
Dan (The Great Debunker) Said...
Clostridiophile,"Why not Lord Brahma, or Aman Ra or the other ten thousand
gods that humans have made up? "
You answered it in the way you asked the
question. Humans have made up many gods for themselves, Satanists and atheists
under the umbrella religion of Secular Humanist choose to worship "self." There
is only one Creator and that is who I worship. I suggest you do the same.
You will never guess the password. It is really unique. Only three people know what it is: 1. The person who set up the site for me (a trustworthy friend). 2. Myself. 3. And God.
Posted by Ray Comfort on 7/30/2008 04:49:00 PM 0 comments
Poor Ray, he needs to whine about everything. But, just out of curiosity... What if Ray knew nothing of this blog and it was his friend all along...Kirk?
As of right now, that would be my preferred course of action. What do you guys think?
So, why aren’t millions of evolutionists jumping up and down with excitement? It’s because the ugly little fellow has nothing to do with a monkey except that he kind of looks like one.
Of course, Pigmonkey didn't prove anything in the first place, since evolution -- the real evolution, not the badly-dressed scarecrow that idiots like Ray Comfort like to call evolution -- doesn't predict pigmonkeys and crocoducks. It's my fault, I suppose, for bringing it to his attention in the first place. But considering Ray's fetish for the aforementioned scarecrow, I think it's only fair to ask him this question:
Ray, how can we be sure that, if Crocoduck really is found, your response won't be "he has nothing to do with a duck except that he kind of looks like one"?
Oh, and by the way -- the reason millions of evolutionists aren't jumping up and down with excitement in the face of pigmonkey is because, here in reality, evolution was a done deal before anyone currently living was born. It'd be like millions of scientists jumping up and down with excitement at proof of atomic theory, which I know darn well you'd deny as well if your favorite book and that warm fuzzy feeling you call God told you to.
Terry! My brother in Christ!I write to you in sincerity and Christian love =) a request: PLEASE do not post about the disgusting goings-on of atheist blogs. This is the second time I have read one of your posts where it mentions (in way too much detail in my opinion) the depraved and pornographic contents of an atheist's blog. I understand you are rebuking them (and you are 100% right to do so), but can you please do so on their own blog, or in email, and not post it here?I find it very disgusting, sick and offensive and do not want to even read about it at all. So please, sincerely, can you not mention these details again?I don't visit the atheists sites or blogs for this reason. I know they are almost ALWAYS perverse and disgusting, not to mention blasphemous to a sick extreme, because they have been given over to wallow in their sins like pigs in filth. You choose to visit their sites and post on their blogs, and that is your choice, but it is not mine. So can you please refrain from sharing the filth from their websites here? Thank you. =)
Unbelievably, Ray has this to say:
"So, why aren’t millions of evolutionists jumping up and down with excitement? It’s because the ugly little fellow has nothing to do with a monkey except that he kind of looks like one. He is one of five piglets recently born to a sow, and the mother pig brought forth after her own kind, even though her own kind is an ugly duckling.
The piglet's rare condition is thought to be caused by a form of holoprosencephaly, a brain development disorder that can cause cyclopia, the failure of eyes to properly separate. That’s similar to a condition evolutionists have in the face of the evidence of intelligent design. It effects the working of the brain, and so the eyes don’t see the genius of the hand of Almighty God so evidenced in creation."
If this is the case, that is, that is that the evidence for ID is overwhelming, then why say this when there is a clear example of a FUCKUP! Also, if we are God's top priority, then why are so many humans afficted with similar birth defects?
Nervous system or brain problems - such as learning disabilities, mental retardation, behavioral disorders, speech or language difficulties, convulsions, and movement trouble. Some examples of birth defects that affect the nervous system include Autism, Down syndrome, Prader-Willi syndrome, and Fragile X syndrome.
Sensory problems - such as blindness, cataracts and other visual problems, and varying degrees of hearing loss including deafness
Metabolic disorders - involve a body process or chemical pathway or reaction, such as conditions that limit the body's ability to get rid of waste materials or harmful chemicals. Two common metabolic disorders are phenylketonuria (PKU) and hypothryroidsim.
Degenerative disorders--are conditions that might not be obvious at birth, but cause one or more aspects of health to steadily get worse. For example, X-linked adrenoleukodystrophy (X-ALD), which was the focus of the movie Lorenzo’s Oil, Rett syndrome, muscular dystrophy, and lysosomal disorders are examples of degenerative disorders.
I guess, I would expect that a loving God...who is the genius of all geniuses...would be able to produce each one of his special creations, made in his own image, without fucking up so much. All of us know people who have birth defects, I have a few family members. Wouldn't they and their families be happier if everything had just gone right? Couldn't jesus have presumably fixed the problem, or set things up so there wouldn't be problems during development? The all knowing, all loving, totally able card is really hard to play right now. Luckily, I have Ray to prevent me from being all thinky.." so the eyes don’t see the genius of the hand of Almighty God so evidenced in creation". Sorry, the thinky side of my demands this question be asked: "Why would Ray talk about "intelligent design" and "the genius of God" and put a picture of a wildly fucked up creature? A critter so fucked up, we describe it as having "holoprosencephaly". Otherwise, we would have just named it "Babe". Is Ray a transition between an idiot and a moron, or a moron and a fuckstick?
I don’t feel bad for Todd Friel, the third part of Ray’s trinity, because he spews just as much lies as Ray. Listen to WOTM Radio, and you’ll see him blab his mouth. Dan Barker did well against him, but Todd Friel is just a prick. I seriously want to see him debate Christopher Hitchens. See how “great” he really is.
I wonder if the people working with Ray realize that Ray really isn’t such a smart guy. And that Todd spreads propaganda against Atheism. Perhaps they can do some research on the other side, and I wonder how hard they’ll have to trick themselves to remain on Ray’s side. Fear tactics and threats of Hell shouldn’t be something you’re proud of using. Using your mind should.
Oh, and on a side note, Russell from the AE Show and Non-Prophets Podcast decided to confirm his post.
Vera posted this miraculous piece of scripture-twisting over in Raytown (Ignorant Knuckle-draggers post):
"For example, there used to be land bridges that connected Russia and Alaska and Australia with Asia. This is also mentioned in the Bible (Genesis 10:25)"
And, of course, when you check it out, Genesis 10:25 says:
Two sons were born to Eber; the name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided; and his brother's name was Joktan. - New American Standard Bible
And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan. - King James Bible
I clearly don't have Vera's knack for 'discernment' or, as I like to call it, 'making shit up as you go along'. Can someone please explain to me how the human mind can convince itself of this tripe?
I so nearly posted a reply, but I stood strong despite the temptation (if only some diety would commit suicide so I wouldn't have to worry about temptation anymore, eh?)
Viva la Rayvolution
A pig-faced monkey has been discovered in a small village in China. The animal has a simian jaw, bulging forehead, small snout and eyes that are so close together that they appear almost attached.
After more than 100 years of waiting, we finally have a species-to-species transition. Have I been wrong all these years to say that there are no transitional forms, and that the Bible is right when it says that every animal brings forth “after its own kind”?
So, why aren’t millions of evolutionists jumping up and down with excitement? It’s because the ugly little fellow has nothing to do with a monkey except that he kind of looks like one. He is one of five piglets recently born to a sow, and the mother pig brought forth after her own kind, even though her own kind is an ugly duckling.
The piglet's rare condition is thought to be caused by a form of holoprosencephaly, a brain development disorder that can cause cyclopia, the failure of eyes to properly separate. That’s similar to a condition evolutionists have in the face of the evidence of intelligent design. It effects the working of the brain, and so the eyes don’t see the genius of the hand of Almighty God so evidenced in creation. Posted by Ray Comfort on 7/30/2008 10:25:00 AM
I found this on an atheist website. Wow, they don't cut him much slack. No doubt Patrick thought he was doing the right thing (as far as atheism was concerned), and now they have turned on him. Please pray that he reads the copy of How to Know God Exists, that I sent him. Posted by Ray Comfort on 7/29/2008 11:07:00 A
"and now they have turned on him". Yeah, fuck you, Ray. I'll remember that the next time you and your followers start talking about true and false converts and the Catholic Church. How do you ride your bike with your head stuck so far up your ass?
and this from some asshole called "firefighter's gal":"But back on topic - it is humorous to see the "atheist fundies" (yes, I said "atheist fundies") turning on one of their own for a breach of doctrine. Tell me it's not a religion. Tell me again."
It's not doctrine, it's free speech. It's the first amendment, asswipe.
Head to Head: Does God Really Exist? Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron debating with the Rational Response Squad.
I was excited. I mean, why shouldn't I be? I love Jesus, and people need to know that he's out there. No debate will ever be the thing that makes any one convert, but at the very least a national broadcast of this debate can show the world that willful ignorance and stupidity are not prerequisites to Christianity.
And then, I watched the videos.
There are basically five overall problems with the methods that they used.
Firstly, never ever claim that you can prove God's existence without using the Bible, only to turn around and quote the Bible. Ray and Kirk did this in the opening statements, even before the actual debate started. Once you claim to be able to do something, you will be held to it by those who are trying to prove you wrong, and failure to follow through is a mark against God, not you.
It's a really bad idea to try talking about God without using the Bible to begin with. At some point, you have to describe the God that you're discussing. What is the authority on God's Character? Where do we, as Christians, go to discern truth from lies concerning the creator of the universe? What is the "yard stick" by which we measure all other experiences in our faith?
The canon. The Bible. talking about God without it is not likely to ever be a successful endeavor, because unless the evidence is shown to line up with the God of the Bible, then the evidence doesn't line up with anything at all.
Secondly, realize what kind of person you're talking to, and adjust your speech accordingly. Talking to scientific people in "Christianeese," or overtly spiritual terms, is always a bad idea. Things get lost in translation. It produces an image of "holier-than-thou." It creates a separation between the believer and the nonbeliever to whom they are speaking. That is a devastating mistake, because no one cares what you know until they know what you care.
What the heck does it mean when you say "God is eternal," "He dwells outside of time?" People in Christianity know, but nonbelievers who haven't been surrounded by the Christianeese terms may not be thinking the same thing we are.
Also, if you meet a person who is overtly spiritual, then talking in scientific terms is equally as bad an idea. You have to adjust your speech to the person you're talking to. That's part of communication.
If you know that an important discussion is coming, prepare for it. I have walked into a conversation many times, only to walk away with "let me read up on that and get back to you," but if you know what their arguments are in advance, then why not go ahead and prepare accordingly? I can't describe to you how angry I was that Kirk and Ray were so unable to answer simple questions as "Who created God?" "But the Bible says that you will be forgiven for whatever you ask forgiveness for, right?" Most of their questions were based off of scriptures that are taken out of context. Their assumptions, such as the assumption that the Bible MUST be inerrant and literal in every single verse and word, are faulty. If you're "preparing" for a conversation, know what the other side thinks as much as possible. If the other side has a website on the internet, then look at it and base your points around their beliefs.
A woman took a statement that Ray made which was something like "It's clear that God made man because man's body is designed so well," and asked the obvious question. "If God designed humans so well, why is there cancer?"
Now, if you look at this woman as she's asking, it is very clear that this is a personal question. This woman is hurting. She is in pain. The absolute worst thing to do in this scenario is to take an obviously personal question, and generalize it. Rather than direct your answer to the world, direct it to her.
Let me explain this further. Ray started his answer by looking at the entire audience and saying "There is suffering in the world because..." and the woman repeatedly interrupted him and said "NO, NOT suffering, I'm asking about CANCER!" He did this two or three more times, with the woman interrupting him two or three more times before he finally asked the woman to stop butting in. Yeah, he used those words.
The way to help a person in pain is to treat them like a real person. Look her in the eyes, and talk about why there's cancer in the world. Don't talk to the world about all of the world's suffering. Talk to her about her suffering. That's the way to bring people healing.
People don't care what you know until they know that you care.
Throughout the entire ordeal, Kirk and Ray gave off copious amounts of holier-than-thou vibes. There is nothing wrong with showing the world that you're a new creation. I hope and pray to God that people can see that I'm different in some way. There is nothing wrong with telling people that without God, they are sinners. It's all about how you do it. That's what makes the difference. If you impress people with how righteous you are, they won't care what you have to say.
Because people don't care what you know until they know that you care.
I hope to contribute more to this site about Ray's beliefs and methods that I take issue with. I don't want to bash Ray, but it seems that I can't critique and question Ray without him refusing to answer and his bigger fanatics jumping my case.
I welcome any discussion. Go.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
"Ron Carlson is to evolution what Paris Hilton is to circumspect modesty; they know nothing of one another."
This inspired me to come up with similar formulations:
"Vera is to science what aphasia is to speech: The greater the effort, the more complete the garblage."**
"Sye's logic is like a cow shitting in a hurricane: Produces something potentially useful while simultaneously wasting it."
Hmm. Okay, that second one is lame. But the first ain't bad.
Anybody else wanna play?
(*if you haven't read it yet, what are you waiting for? It's here.)
(**nope, not a typo, I'm a poet, I live to create neologisms and comma splices, so sue me)
Whatever term you choose, I have a group of accomplished Haruspexes that are willing to subsidize my further education. That will cover about one half of the cost of the course of study (not including the corpses.)
I am sure that I would not be presumptuous to ask you all for a bit of ching to help me out on this, right? Good. That being settled, I'll put a little donation calendar at the end of this communication and, also a very gratified and smiling picture of ME! dale! You can post this on your kitchen bulletin board so your kids can sacrifice a pittance for your your beloved friend, dale. Right? Thanks!! luv ya!
Love, Love, Love **send money** Love,
Joshua S. Black
If you have any expired pets, you could also further "my" cause by pacing them in Dry Ice and ship them Secind Day Air to the address at the conclusion of this comment. Thank you for your cooperation in advance.
Here's how I would build my defense:
I would say that creation is absolute 100% scientific proof that there is a Creator. A creation cannot create itself, from nothing. But that's what the atheist believes--that nothing created everything from nothing. That's a scientific impossibility, and only a fool would believe that.
A week later, when it turned out that this guy was actually serious, here's what Ray actually did:
(W)e temporarily removed the sticker from our site and contacted our lawyers for their thoughts. They told us to leave it in their hands to contact the atheist directly.
That afternoon the lawyers sent their letter to him. It said that his lawsuit was ridiculous and said that the moment he filed they would take him to Federal court. It said that there were 1200 Christian lawyers involved in the organization (the Alliance Defense Fund), and that they take threats of this nature very seriously.
The atheist immediately called them and politely withdrew the threat, and followed it up with a faxed confirmation.
So much for having the courage of your convictions.
(And speaking of lacking courage, I couldn't help but notice that Ray has removed the part from the former post that says go ahead and sue me, my name is Ray Comfort and I live in Bellweather, CA. Interesting statement about character, no?)
There is nothing I can do for such people. Nothing I ever show or say to them will ever convince them otherwise--it can't, because they start with the assumption that their belief in Christ has to be true, therefore right from the start everything I say or do is always going to be a lie or the product of some delusion. They don't need any evidence of this, because to their thinking it must be true. Such people are trapped in their own hall of mirrors, and for them there is no escape. They will never know they are wrong even if they are. No evidence, no logic, no reason will ever get through to them.”
Yep, Ray thinks that the 40 Atheists from his Dinner with 40 Atheists helped him out on this one...
Really, it was the guys from the Atheist Experience who encouraged Atheists to email Patrick... Not Ray's god.
(on a side note, Matt D. really seems to want to have a debate with Ray Comfort, which he makes known several times in his Podcast)
There's the comment. Was it from Russell (Kazim)? I think so. And notice early on Ray doesn't use a spell check... Maybe his computer does not "alloow" it.
"Meanwhile, Joe had turned on his giant-screen television and popped in a DVD. Next thing I knew, I was looking at the preposterous face of former television sitcom star Kirk Cameron. I slumped in my chair. The church had been steadily force-feeding us lessons from a video evangelism series called The Way of the Master, starring the aforementioned Cameron and another like-minded Christian lunatic, a demented Sonny Bono clone with a Fuller-brush mustache and a British accent named Ray Comfort.
The series is a sort of Beavis and Butt-head-style PG-rated love story in which the two earnest, constrictively dressed Christians go out into the world and regale happy pedestrians with threats of Hell until they lumber away from the cameras looking confused and miserable."
Make an effort to get a hold of a copy and read chapter 11, starting at page 209. There are more antics of Kirk and Cameron to make you laugh.
Apparently, Alvis Delk, a 72-year old amateur archeologist, has found a slab of limestone which bear the footprints of both human and dinosaur, and the dinosaur's print overlaps the human one, showing that the dinosaur print occurred after the human print.
Before you get too excited, let's consider a few things:
One: a photo of the print:
While the human footprint may look reasonably accurate (with the exception of the ridiculously deep impression left by the big toe), the "dinosaur" footprint is a joke. It looks like Alvis made the hole with a template cut from plywood with his jigsaw.
As for the mysteriously deep human toe print, maybe back then, humans had big killing claws on their big toes, like velociraptors. :P
Two: Due to a serious fall from a ladder eight months ago, Alvis has racked up some expensive medical bills. Deciding to sell some of his finds to keep the wolves from the door, he started to "clean" the chunk of limestone with the dinosaur footprint, only to "discover" the human footprint. Well, that's fortuitous, isn't it?
Three: To date, the "fossil" has been inspected and certified as authentic by only one person: its new owner, Dr. Carl Baugh. Guess who he is.
Wait for it...
Carl Baugh is the founder and director of the Creation Evidence Museum.
With "certification" like that, does anything else need to be said?
We can only hope that Ray and his Raytards seize on this as the "evidence" they've been praying for.
Seems like these folks are fighting the same fight as us. I'm going to send an email.
Monday, July 28, 2008
He reaches realm of fundie nuttiness Ray could only dream of. I once heard Ray actually knows Jack. Yeah, imagine spending eternity with those two and throw Terry Burton in the mix. That should be enough reason to turn away from Christianity for any sane person.
Below is a movie version some clever person made of one of my favorite Chick Tracts...Doom Town!
It's an anti-homosexuality screed that is probaly the most homoerotic thing I've ever seen in my life. Send the kids out of the room and enjoy!
If it doesn't work, visit http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3454662743009947826&q=atheist+experience+foolish+atheists&ei=ohGOSPifK6eQqwPt1KjBCA&hl=en
Do you remember the post Ray had where an angry atheist threatens to sue over a bumper sticker? Well, He calls into yesterdays episode of the Atheist Experience. this is the whole episode, so you'll probably have to watch a little before you get to the caller who sent Ray the message. Nonetheless, it's an excellent show either way.
She said, "I am just fed up! I am fed up with being pushed around." She spat out "Why did God allow the Nazi holocaust!" I explained that Hitler, not God caused the slaughter of the Jews, and that happened because of the evil heart of mankind.Ray has informed us that God did not cause the Nazi Holocaust in response to a woman's question of why God allowed the Nazi Holocaust. Apparently only Hitler was responsible. Ray's position is that God is not responsible for the Holocaust which killed millions of Jews.
Even if this is the case, which I don't think God not causing the Holocaust resolves him allowing it to occur, what of the fate which awaits those Jews who did not not accept Jesus and denied him as the Savior? And of the other non-Christians exterminated in it? After that miserable life and death, they are sent to Hell. Is God not responsible for Hell either?
Not to belittle in any way the horror of the Holocaust, but Hell is, by the definition offered by its proponents, infinitely worse than anything that could occur here in this life. God will allow Hell to occur for all eternity. I suppose, though, that Ray's response to this would be the same: it's not God who caused them to be in Hell, it's themselves. Or perhaps, it's Satan who is torturing them in Hell, therefore he, not God, is responsible.
I said that I didn’t know why God allows certain things, but that we all have sin in our hearts and we need His mercy.While you may claim not to know why God doesn't allow certain things, you do claim to know why God does allow certain other things, such as Hell. He allows Hell for those people who were unconvinced that Jesus was God or a Savior or anything along those lines. He allows Hell for those people who were killed before they may have converted to Christianity.
Hitler killed the Jews for (among a number of reasons) because they were Jews -- they didn't believe that Jesus was the Savior. And now God is going to cast them forthwith into Hell because they were Jews as well -- they didn't believe that Jesus was the Savior?
What a miserable deity. He not only allows the Holocaust to happen, but he then allows an infinitely worse, eternal Holocaust to happen to those same people. And God is any less responsible for either the Holocaust or Hell because he merely didn't cause it but nonetheless allows it?
"It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author and debater)Interesting. I was naturally intrigued to see what sort of materials Flew considered an argument for design, and whether this meant Flew was accepting the existence of the Christian god, or merely a "god" that does nothing more than fulfill the requirements of a First Cause argument. So, I did a little research.
Fortunately, over at the Secular Web Kiosk, Richard Carrier does a truly excellent job of running down this controversy, start to finish, with exactly the information I was looking for. The article is a bit long, but I highly recommend reading it in its entirety. In the interim, here are some highly relevant snippets:
The fact of the matter is: Flew hasn't really decided what to believe. He affirms that he is not a Christian--he is still quite certain that the Gods of Christianity or Islam do not exist, that there is no revealed religion, and definitely no afterlife of any kind (he stands by everything he argued in his 2001 book Merely Mortal: Can You Survive Your Own Death?). But he is increasingly persuaded that some sort of Deity brought about this universe, though it does not intervene in human affairs, nor does it provide any postmortem salvation.It's funny how Ray fails to mention any of this, but instead cherry-picks one statement from Flew. Does Ray know that Flew still emphatically denies the existence of the Christian God? Does he care? And will the Raytards do even the most cursory of research themselves this time around, or will they just accept Ray's word as Gospel (again)?
Antony Flew has retracted one of his recent assertions. In a letter to me dated 29 December 2004, Flew concedes:"I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction."In the meantime, Flew wrote "My 'Conversion'" for the Autumn 2005 issue of Think (pp. 75-84), the only article Flew himself has ever written about his conversion. This article is so confused and unclear that in it he fails to affirm belief in any God and actually suggests he is still an atheist.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Would people who just read stuff tell me if it is worth doing this much effort to debunk the same all same, already debunked, and re-debunked crap that the likes of Ray post? I know the fundies do not listen, so who does? Does this help you when confronted with fundies in real life? Do you have any experience confronting fundies and got stuck because you did not know how to answer but now you know better? Did your understanding of evolution get better? Do you learn something new because we make these efforts?
So what do you think guys?
Not from an actual tract. Just another novelty image.
Emily,I have finally figured out the whole evolution situation.I'm afraid the evolutionists are right and the prime example is to their dismay.....that's right. Christians !! You see over many millions of years the human brain has been constantly evolving to adapt and develop.Christians are proof that some brains have evolved the capability to see those things which are spiritual whilst others such as atheists have been denied this adaptation by natural selection.It is important that we are patient with them for as we see from the fossil record, any organism that is unable to adapt is destined for the evolutionary trash heap.One last thing....It may be a consideration that in some cases we are "Casting our pearls before swine". Nuff said. Keep looking up.Luke 21:28 Blessings.RD
LOL! Epic Fail. You've never actually taken a biology class have you, Reddog?
Smith, theories aren't facts. But thanks for the chuckle. =D
And Joshua, I believe eventually it will have a funeral, but it will simply be replaced with a new theory that can best be summed up as "Not God".
As we can see, Emily here knows the TRUE meaning of a scientific theory! We can all let go of the gimmick now. She figured us out.
But thanks for the chuckle.
Click on the image and you can download a calender where you can mark in the days on which you "will commit" to pray for him! He then states, " Please print and post somewhere where you will see it often and remember to pray for me!!"
Josh, settle down. I am looking directly into your eyes and I want to tell you that you are self centered nut wad. Get a fucking job and save your money and pay your own goddamned way through school. Who the fuck do you think you are? If you were one of my kids acting like some begging wimp asshole I would tell them the very same thing.
It is obvious by reading your blog that it isn't anything about god, it's everything about what you can get out of it for your own gratification. You are definitely a taker and not a giver. You need some real education.
For a good ol' helping of christian greed, check this out. And they talk of humility!
To him [the person who does not deny evolutionary theory], evolution is a license to act like an animal, and he does.I explored the idea of the Bible being the real license to act like an animal in my blog post about it:
It seems, though, the men are your Book were restrained by nothing more than basic instinct, and that was far before humans were classified as animals. They repeatedly murdered, raped, and enslaved. I believe I'm an animal descended from lower forms of animals, and I have yet to murder, rape, or enslave anyone. Seems I'm already doing better than the godly men of the Old Testament. The men of the Old Testament and the God of the Old Testament were both animals, in every sense of the word. They murdered hundreds of thousands, sparing only the virgin women so that they can enslave them and rape them. Is that the sort of basic instinct, the sort of sexuals prowls that you say evolution gives them a license to commit? Apparently, you have evolution confused with your Bible and God, who gave men the license to commit such despicable acts.The Bible grants an even greater license than that, though. In civil law (which he took a swipe at), if you violate the law, you are held accountable for it and are appropriately punished for it. In Christian law, though, if you violate the law, you are in no way held accountable for it as Jesus has already served the punishment for anything you do... as long as you want to be forgiven, you will be.
If man believes in the Bible, he can justify murder, rape, misogyny, racism, and slavery, because he can simply cite the chapter and verse.
Ray wrote that evolution is a license to act like an animal (a complete non-sequitir), but the Bible is the ultimate carte blanche. Fill in whatever immoral value you wish, as Jesus has already signed his name to the check.
pity this busy monster, manunkind
not. Progress is a comfortable disease:
your victim (death and life safely beyond)
plays with the bigness of his littleness
--electrons deify one razorblade
into a mountainrange; lenses extend
unwish through curving wherewhen until unwish
returns on its unself.
A world of made
is not a world of born – pity poor flesh
and trees, poor stars and stones, but not this
fine specimen of hypermagical
ultraomnipotence. We doctors know
a hopeless case if – listen: there’s a hell
of a good universe next door; let’s go.
I know everybody here remembers Ray's recent post entitled "Sad News for Some." It’s not the first time Ray has posted a fake obituary for himself. The bleevers always scold him "Don't do that to me, Ray!" and he always ignores them and does it again.
If you asked him, "Ray, why do you shock your friends like that? You know they'll believe anything they read on your page, you know what their reaction will be, so why do you do it?" he would protest that he does it as a joke on the atheists and that no harm is meant by it.
He might even add, “And if anybody’s dumb enough to believe it, that’s their problem.”
Here’s a not-totally-unrelated story that came to my mind when I read that post.
A schoolmate of mine, R., was a lovely young woman – tall and graceful, with dark hair, dark eyes, creamy skin and a throaty contralto voice. She was also painfully shy and self-conscious. Her brothers teased her cruelly, partly because their father did nothing to stop them.
One evening R. was babysitting her younger siblings when the phone rang. A male caller, who did not identify himself, informed her that her parents had been killed in a car accident. With shaking hands, she hung up the phone and sat down at the kitchen table to cry.
R. got another shock a couple of hours later, when the door opened and her parents walked in, alive and well.
Long story short: The unidentified male caller was R.’s own father. He had slipped away from whatever function they were attending and made a prank call.
He thought it was hilarious.
I’ve always wondered whether he thought R.’s subsequent breakdown was also funny. I certainly hope he was entertained by paying the bills for her meds and psychotherapy. It was months before R. could return to school, and years before she could be described as “normal” again. She’s still fragile – definitely not the woman she might have been – and while she seems to be on good terms with most of her family, she maintains as little contact with her father as possible.
I know that we neighbors were less than amused by the whole thing.
* * * * * * * * * *
[Aside to those who may be wondering why R. didn’t recognize her father’s voice: On the rural phone lines of thirty years ago, it was a wonder that any actual communication ever took place. They were that bad. And Call Display was still years in the future.]
* * * * * * * * * *
Of course I know that families hurt each other all the time, it’s not intentional, “it’s all fun ‘n’ games until someone loses an eye,” or their sanity, or something.
But some things simply shouldn’t be forgiven, not even by family – perhaps especially by family.
I’ll never understand why R.’s mother didn’t walk out of the house that night and take all six of her children with her. I’ll never understand why R.’s sister works for her father to this day. I can’t believe any of the kids actually trust their father. I know (the whole neighborhood knows) that the oldest son is busily, methodically robbing the old man blind and when he takes over the family business it will be bankrupt in less than six months, and I’ll never understand why this smart and successful businessman keeps this thief in his employ.
Then again, family is family. It’s not like you can simply pick another father, or another son. I’m reliably informed that mafiosos trust each other precisely because they can’t trust anybody else -- right up to the day when they turn on each other.
I know why Ray lies to his friends (same reason he lies to everybody else). I just don’t understand why they continue to follow him. It’s not like there aren’t other – and more appealing – bible-pounders available. I wonder what he could say that would convince any of them that he ain’t all that.
And (irony alert) they think we’re the miserable ones. At least we don’t feel obligated to keep company with people who can’t be trusted to behave properly.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
PhatPhil said..."There's a name for someone who sells something that doesn't exist..."
Ahhh but that's the crux of the matter isn't it. There is no way you cannot prove that God does NOT exist.I have evidence that He does exist by creation. No matter how much you detest that evidence, God indeed exists and there's really nothing you can do about it.You choose to make an obsession out of debunking Christianity (funny I don't hear you guys going out of your way to debunk Hinduism).I have yet to see an atheist site devoted to debunking other religions as much as they do Christianity.Every wonder about that?There is a reason.
Did you read that, there is no proof that God does NOT exist. Hmmm. There is also no proof that unicorns don’t exist, that the FSM doesn’t exist, that Zeus doesn’t exist. This is the oldest excuse in the book. It’s easily dismissed if you ask me. So, creation points to God huh? So, any person that has never even heard about God can look at a tree and say, “Jesus died for me!”? That’ll be ludicrous.
Christianity is everywhere. It’s leaking in our government, in our education system, and is practiced by the majority of Americans. We are responding to what we see, and so far Muslims and Hindus have not been trying to teach us their version of creationism in schools as much as Christians. That’s the reason. And, there are atheists out there who debunk religions they were brought up in. Kafir Girl blogs about the Qur’an. Eat that! We can debunk any religion we want, kind of how many Christians tend to try to argue solely against Atheists. Ever think about that?
There is a reason
Allfiredup, you should change your name to AllTiredUp.
Then, pile on all of the great works of literature apart from science of all the writings before and after the "bible," you would end up with the stadium full of books written by women and men, packed to the eaves, and there is that one seat with the dusty book on it. That may be construed as a point of strength for a fundy, but the sillyness of it it is not lost on me.
The reason for the sillyness? Mental illness?
Probably not, yet a person with the propensity for ignoring the obvious and wanting to believe in irrational systems that include supernatural entities that they cannot show any evidence for outside of their anecdotal and highly charged emotional experiences, does have some "ISSUES."
Early Cognitive dysfunction affets this type of flawed reasoning. There is a lot of work being done on this as I type. And it gets more interesting by the minute.
If you want to read more, go to the "Edge." http.www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bloom07/bloom07_index.html.
Just now though, I want to adress Erikloza.
"It is clear that the hypothesis of evolution can easily be used as justification for lust, fornication, pornography, rape, incest, homosexuality, etc. Because if we are merely animals, then what the Bible calls the sinful nature devolves into "the way we naturally are," and sin becomes acceptable."
You only present one half of the proposition, and that is that religious people also do all those things you mentioned. You, yourself have commented that you "saved ones" continue to "sin." That is why we call it "Human Nature." K?
You made it plain that you hate the teachings of Joel Osteen. You Hate. I rest my case. What say you? You won't say a thing because you are a phoney and a fraud.
Returning to the question of "Mentally Ill?' No, but definitely impaired by early cognitive experiences.
This reveals why believers in the theory of evolution have the convictions of religious zealots. It also reveals why those who don’t believe as they do are seen as ignorant knuckle-draggers. If evolution is true, then man is simply an animal. That means he is free to embark on his sexual prowls, because it is nothing but a basic instinct to do so. It’s his procreative nature to fornicate, and therefore not a sin. For the atheist, this is a hill to die on.As one evolutionist says, "We are humans, yes, we are apes too. What you seem to ignore is that classifications need levels of categories. For instance, Chimps are chimps, just like humans are humans, and we both are apes (higher order of classification). The ape equation, we being animals too, is a natural conclusion, nothing to do with being 'sinners.'" (Italics added).Evolution swings open a door to do whatever the evolutionist pleases, as long as what he does is within the bounds of a civil law he is ever expanding to accommodate his sinful desires. If man is an animal he can even justify homosexual and bestiality, because “other” animals do it. To him, evolution is a license to act like an animal, and he does. The dictionary says that an animal is "any such living thing other than a human being." The word human means "lowly" or "frail," and the word being means that we are aware of our existence. We are unique among God’s creation in that we are not only morally responsible, but we are aware that we are going to die. There is a basic instinct within all sane human beings that wants to live. So, let me concede slightly and let you call it “an animal instinct.” Now, obey your basic instinct--turn from your sins, trust in Jesus Christ, and God will make you fit to survive on the Day of Judgment.
Posted by Ray Comfort on 7/26/2008 11:30:00 AM 2 comments
Well, now that Ray realizes he knows nothing of science, he goes on the attack. Kind of like an animal. ;)
Becoming a Christian is basic instinct? Since when? Was it an instinct before Jesus came down? Is it in our genes? If so, why are there tons of other Gods?
"God will make us fit to survive on the Day of Judgement"? Boring. That's not even a good shot at attempting to be funny. Even your jokes are used up.
What are your thoughts on this?
Epic Fail of the Day
JOSHUA S BLACK said...
Oh, the venom that will displayed...on someone else's blogs!!! You know, the atheist strike could not have come at a better time.
Joshua, you're right. Maybe some Rayniacs will post "GREAT POST RAY". And, "ATHEISTS ARE SO DUMB! I R TEH SMART JOHN 3:16 RAY YOU ARE DA BEST! WE CHRISTIANS ARE SO MUCH MORE RASHUNAL BECUZ WE BLEEVE IN A GAWD BY FAITH! TOTAL EVIDENCE! EVOLUTION HAS NO PROOF!"
Can someone tell me how I can experience God experientially?
I want to have an experience like Ray had"
stranger.strange.land gave a standard reply invoking guilt and fear. And then added:
"But this is a crucial point. You will then either harden your conscience to what you have experienced, or you will be broken and see Jesus (through the preaching of the gospel) as your only hope."
stranger is correct. The kind of emotional breakdown that follows the understanding of the christian concept of sin and guilt, and the release from that because of jesus' sacrifice brings about an overwhelming emotional response. I know because I have experienced it, and I suspect, so have some of the Raytractors.
Interestingly, at the baptist church I used to attend we were warned against relying on feelings and emotions. We were taught to put faith first, and feelings would follow. if we chased the feelings we would eventually be disappointed and, like relationships that founder after the first bloom of romance is gone we could spend out time forever searching to recapture that emotional "rush".
After years of being deeply entrenched in fundamental Baptist doctrine, a slow drift away from the church and its influence allowed me to re-assess. I saw that I was basically no different from your average joe in the street, and yet I was supposed to be filled with the Holy Spirit. The internet, atheist blogs, and particularly Ex-Christian.net allowed me to break free from a guilt-ridden, supersticion-based way of living.
But here a core doctrine of Ray Comfort and his Rayniacs. I was what they would call a "false convert" How can they ever know if they will turn out to be false converts too? the parable of the sower gives examples of plants that grew up healthy before they were choked with weeds. On top of the guilt must be this constant fear of loss of faith, of backsliding.
On the one hand they accuse us of being blind because we can never know jesus personally like they do, of not having faith. And yet they must also be aware that because of the failings of our minds and senses, "knowledge" based on the emotional, based on things we have "felt" must be the most fragile, and ephemeral of all.
Friday, July 25, 2008
I really don't feel like explaining evolution to you, others already have for the nth time. What I want to pose is this: even if evolution were unfounded, debunked, etc...how does that make the jesus story true? Obviously you are trying to debunk science because it threatens your faith...but even if evolution is false..doesn't make Christianity true. If you really want to demonstrate that we are wrong, provide evidence that would justify your claim...you haven't done this.
Under which of the following circumstances are you justified in believing the absolute statement, "John's Black Marble Theory is false"?
- Under no circumstances.
- Only if you check each and every marble in the barrel to make sure there are no black ones there.
- By observing only one white marble in the barrel.
In his classic novel Childhood's End, Arthur C. Clarke wrote about the Overlords, extremely powerful aliens whose giant silver spaceships hover a few miles above the capital city of every nation on Earth.
Under which of the following circumstances are you justified in believing the absolute statement, "The Overlords, as described above, do not exist"?
- Under no circumstances.
- Only if you check the skies over the capital cities of each and every nation on Earth to make sure there are no giant silver spaceships there.
- By observing the skies over only one capital city, such as Washington, and failing to find a spaceship.
Christians have a theory: that God exists. God is described as having the characteristics (among others) of being all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good. One of the logical consequences of that definition is that such a being cannot create a universe containing suffering, or even co-exist in the same universe as any instance of suffering, because such suffering would be prevented from existing by that being.
It doesn't matter what excuses Christians offer for the existence of suffering in the actual universe (such as "free will"), any more than it matters what excuses might be offered by someone who believes that 2+2=5, because excuses cannot resolve a logical contradiction. God and suffering are logically contradictory.
Under which of the following circumstance are we justified in believing the absolute statement, "God does not exist"?
- Under no circumstances.
- Only if you search the entire universe and fail to find proof that God exists.
- By observing only one instance of suffering.
Ray Comfort states, and has in fact stated for many years, that an atheist requires absolute knowledge to be justified in saying that God does not exist.
Ray Comfort is:
- A fool.
- Has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious.