I Choose Life

This is a copy of the testimony I posted over at Atheist Central under the "What's the Big Deal" Thread. It came out more profound even than I was expecting.



I'm feeling a bit philosophical at the moment, so I'd like to make points against a few of your beliefs and where they lead, Mr Comfort. Please note: the following is way out of line for me. I usually limit my comments to scientific claims, because I really don't have an objection to modern Christianity. But occasionally, I decide to tell it like I see it.

I don't actually want to spark any deconversions here, though it may seem that way, but I do want to make it clear why I don't consider Christianity any better than any other religion.

This comment is directed at anyone who shares Ray's beliefs.

You believe that all humankind is tainted by sin, and that the only way to remove that sin (and gain eternal peace) is by accepting your Lord into our hearts. We are miserable, pathetic, sinful wretches, living out a meaningless temporary existence on a tainted world before passing into eternal punishment. Only His mercy and sacrifice can spare us this fate, and bring us to eternal peace in heaven.

What hope is there for the future then? None on this planet, certainly. Indeed, your bible portrays an endless spiral into sin, until finally God steps in on Judgement day and destroys it. Our descendants cannot hope for a better life than ours: they will be born into a progressively more and more sinful world, until the final generation is burned off of the earth in God's final act.

So all of your hope is regulated to the afterlife: where God will purge you of your sins and keep you in eternal peace. This existence, means nothing compared to that, right? You have sold the only life you will ever have to slavery to religion, to an invisible Lord, in return for the promise of eternal life. But you have no way to ensure that promise is kept: you have no way to ensure that promise was even made in the first place. Even worse, as part of this slavery, your Lord demands that you do not question the promise, condemning any doubts rather than allaying them.

You claim we are all miserable sinners: worthy only of hatred from God, and eternal punishment. How then can you love another human? Rather than seeing them as beautiful, you see them as hateful sinners, evil by nature. God can forgive us only with eternal mercy: do you claim to have the same level of mercy for your loved ones? Do you compare yourself to Him?

Love is a shared respect for the other individual, an acceptance of everything that they are, including their 'sins'. To steal a quote from the 2004 Hellboy movie: "we like people for their qualities but we love them for their defects." How can you accept another’s sin, when even God's infinite mercy can only go so far as to forgive it, and even then only if we accept Him first? I hate to ask this, but are you even capable of love?

What about logic, and reason? The only feature that sets us human apart from the animal kingdom is our brain, and your Lord expressly forbids using it. Look at Adam and Eve's tale: they ate from the tree of knowledge, and they and their descendants were cursed for all eternity with the very thing your God so despises: sin. If this isn't a metaphor for the promotion of blind obedience to authority, nothing is.

In comparison, those philosophies based on atheism generally promote the use of logic, reason and curiosity. The modern scientific endeavour descended from those philosophies. Us atheists see hope in progress, in the ability to make life better for those who come after us, or at least not make it worse.

We don't see life as wretched, the twisted result of perfection lost: instead we see it as beautiful, something complex that has come out of the relatively simple laws of nature to make the universe its own.

Our life is the only one we have: it is something that cannot be replaced. In that we find value: how can we justify taking something impossible to replace? Where you see something temporary and meaningless compared to eternity, we see something that, despite it's brevity and seeming insignificance, has more meaning than anything else in the entire universe.

You have sold your only life, your hope for the future of this world, your logic and reason and your ability to love another to the dictates of a 2000 year old book, in exchange for an empty promise from someone you can not meet in this world that He will spare you from punishment after death. You hang every speck of your hope, not on the beauty and nobility that is life, but on death, and the afterlife beyond it.

It is your choice to continue to worship death. I choose life.

Another casualty in the un-ending battle of superstition over science...

As most of you know, the LHC was turned on yesterday (although it will not begin smashing things to sub-atomic pieces for a while yet) and many people were worried that it could spell 'THE END OF LIFE AS WE KNOW IT' dum dum daaaaa!!!!!

Well, one girl in India took things into her own hands and decided to poison herself rather than watch the world get destroyed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7609631.stm

A 'Sick World' indeed.

Ray, if you're reading this; it is folk of your ilk who promote willful ignorance and loathing of science that are responsible for holding people back in Bronze Age superstition and fear. If this little girl had been educated about why the LHC wasn't going to blow up the planet instead of being fed pseudo-science and Doomsday prophecies then she would still be alive. (and no, I'm not blaming Ray for the girl's death - just to be clear on that)

From the article:

"These people are constantly airing series on black magic, blood-sucking vampires; even sensationalising a natural phenomenon such as an eclipse by saying that it means bad omen," she told the BBC.

"Now prophesising that the Big Bang would bring doomsday! Such programmes can have a disastrous effect on an emotionally weak person."

It's not just emotionally weak people who are at risk from those with an agenda based on ancient mythology and fear-mongering....

Matt

Ray Breaks His own Rules

In the title of Ray's most current post, About the god You Don't Believe In, he didn't capitalize "god". Irukandji brought it to his attention. How long before he changes it or tries to hide it some other way?

Uh oh, here they come... (C13/C12 dating news)

I'm sure we are going to be hearing about this soon/a lot. Just thought I'd preemptively inform the community. Basically new research funded by the National Science Foundation at the University of Miami is shows that carbon dating (the ¹³C/¹²C ratio used to infer age) in the ocean can only be trusted up to 150 million years ago. Link So prepare for the "scientists say carbon dating isn't reliable arguments."

Edit: Corrected isotope to ¹³C not ¹⁴C

PS (added from my comment): I know this isn't about "normal" carbon dating, but do you think that the Ray Comforts, Casey Luskins and Ken Hams of the world will understand that this is a different method of dating? I fear not and it will just be blanketed in with ALL "carbon" dating. Hence the reason I posted it.

Ray's latest HYPOCRITICAL BULLSHIT.

Here's the text of Ray's latest post over at "Atheist Central":

After 14 years of preparation, a new scientific wonder of the world opened for business Wednesday with the official startup of Europe's Large Hadron Collider.

The $10,000,000,000 particle accelerator is the biggest, most expensive science machine on earth, designed to probe mysteries ranging from dark matter and missing antimatter to the existence of extra, unseen dimensions in space.

All well and good, until you look at the picture associated with the post - which is a picture of a starving African child.

The implication is clear...we shouldn't be spending money on godless Science while children go hungry. Admirable enough...except I remember just how much Living Ministries clears in a year, as well as the value of the house in which Ray Comfort lives.

Here's the text of my reply to his post over on "Atheist Central". I'm reposting it here because I'm pretty sure it won't make it past Ray's "filter":

Hey Ray,

How much do you make from Living Waters ministries again? What's the worth of your house again?

Charity starts at home, hypocrite.

(BTW, feel free to censor this comment. It'll be up over at the Raytractors.)

Isn't there more than a few Scripture passages where Jesus rails against "the hypocrites"? Funny how Scripture counts only when you want it to, isn't it, Ray?


UPDATE: It appears that my comment about Ray's income and living arrangements was indeed censored. Oh Ray, you're so predictable...

Can I get a rAMEN??

I do not concern myself with gods and spirits either good or evil nor do I serve any.
~Lao Tzu

Evangelical Christians Censor Sir David Attenborough Documentaries.....

From the article:


The world's best known wildlife broadcaster, Sir David Attenborough, has called on the BBC to stop Christian fundamentalists from deleting references to evolution from his documentaries.

Censored versions of Sir David's award winning programmes have been broadcast in Holland without any references to evolution, speciation, descent and timescales of millions of years, after being censored by Christian creationists who are opposed to Charles Darwin's ideas.

I don't even have words right now for just how wrong this really is.

If this isn't logical, I don't know what is....

Today I got an anonymous email informing me that I should repent of my heathenish ways and beg god for his mercy.

Now, I've gotten many of these previously, as I'm sure many of you have - but there was one big difference with this email that I find too funny not to share.

I need to believe in jesus because I'm just "too pretty to go to hell."

Yes, that's what he/she wrote.
Yes, I'm serious.

I guess that's a better reason than "because my invisible friend said so."

Vera's God Works Supernaturally Naturally

Over at Ray's it seems the "Ark Dimensions" thread is dying, but that has not stopped Vera from giving us some humorous gems:

"The object of this event was to wipe out mankind, not the animals and I think I might have an idea why. This is my own personal belief and I have no evidence other than Scripture to propose it and I am not 100% of its truth. But it is a "possibility." I believe it is possible that Adam and Eve had children before the fall of mankind and these children's children were somehow superior to the rest. They were giants so to speak. There was a problem with this and the evil that was occurring as a result was more than problematic. There is no reason to suppose that technology wasn't on the advance. After all, some artifacts suggest that there were some toying around with batteries etc in the ancient world. So God not only destroyed that whole group of men and women but the animals in the area except for what was brought to the Ark.

There is the possibility that this is Atlantis. I saw a documentary on Atlantis that would suggest that it might be, of all places, in the Mediterranean."

Although she believes in giants and Atlantis, Vera does seem to be coming around as she suggests her god is not omnipotent:

"I believe the answer to your question then is that God didn't create new animals because the whole process would have had to have started all over again and that would have been a very ineffective use of the time and energy it took to get to that point."

And she no longer believes that her god is magical:

"God doesn't work through magic. He works supernaturally naturally through His creation and authority."

She has a lot more good stuff in that thread including her take on mtDNA, statements about the biblical model being testable, and some Hugh Ross worship. I just can't wait for the day that she claims that the Smurfs really existed.

The Anti-Atheist Starter Kit

If you are a beginner anti-atheist, there's a belief system you should embrace and a language you should learn, or you will find yourself in trouble. Here are twelve suggestions for the novice:

1. The key point to remember when dealing with atheists is this: Do not, under any circumstances whatsoever, admit the possibility that they are right. Your objective here is not to arrive at the truth, but to serve God and to win the debate (not necessarily in that order), and you'll do neither if you give any ground to the atheist. Even if you're doubting, even if you know for a fact that the atheists are right, don't you dare admit it.
   
   
2. The only necessary yardstick for measuring truth is whether it contradicts what the atheists say. For instance, if a scientific theory confirms atheism, then it is stupid, boneheaded, and even demonic -- but if it disconfirms atheism, then it is intelligent, and the brave and faithful scientist who invented it should be applauded.
   
   
3. Sometimes you may lose track of your previous statements, and the atheist will accuse you of contradicting yourself. But as long as you are contradicting the atheist, it stands to reason that you will always be correct. Remember, when dealing with atheists, you are absolved of all culpability, both intellectual and moral, for what you say.
   
   
4. Be as illogical and irrational as you can. This will help you, not hinder you, since logic and reason are the tools of the atheists, and you won't get anywhere by playing on their field. Besides, God isn't constrained by logic or reason, so why should you be?
   
   
5. Consider setting a timetable for yourself as follows: Spend a few days or a week talking to atheists directly, or saying things to anger them, and goad them into being angry with you, thus giving you the appearance of the moral high ground. Then spend a few days or a week ignoring them, turning your attention to other matters while letting them, and your audience, stew in the wisdom of your words. Then repeat your points.
   
   
6. Explain your position clearly to atheists, because they obviously don't know what the Bible says. Many claim to have read the Bible in its entirety, but this is clearly false -- if they have read it, obviously they would believe it!
   
   
7. Do not alter anything you say in the light of anything the atheist says. Remember, atheists are wrong, therefore, so long as you are contradicting them, you are right -- no ands, ifs or buts.
   
   
8. Do not waste time learning anything about what the atheists' actual positions are. Atheists are all idiots, so you can state their position better than they can anyway.
   
   
9. Call atheists names, and insult them every chance you get. Believe it or not, atheists respond well to that -- and, of course, your anti-atheist friends will love it.
   
   
10. After a certain amount of time, you'll have atheists responding to what you say, and this should be welcomed for the following reason: About one percent of what the atheists have to say to you will be, or can be made to sound when removed from context, either stupid or perfectly patterned to one of your talking points. Take this stuff, use it -- it's gold to you. (As for the the other ninety-nine percent, just pretend that doesn't exist.)
    
    
11. Physical force is generally frowned upon; however, there is precedent for it. Use your own judgment.
    
    
12. Finally, remember the words of Paul: "I become all things to all men in order to save." This means that you shouldn't be afraid of hypocrisy, and outright lying, so long as you're serving the purpose of Christianity, thus defeating atheism. Your ends always justify the means. You can be as immoral, as hypocritical, as ignorant and as stupid as you want, and you'll still end up a better human being than the atheists. Why? Because they're atheists, and you're not. If that's not all that matters to you, then you have no business being an anti-atheist.
    

In Ray's Own Words . . .

"G.E.’s "I also think racism is stupid" reveals something about his own low character. I suppose he thinks rape and pedophilia are also stupid."

--Ray Comfort

Any questions?

Not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but...

...has anyone seen Terry lately? I feel a lot safer when I know where he is and can see the crazy ones.

'Tis a Puzzlement

Why would God (Ultimate Insider),

Be opaque, or choose to hide, or

Wish to conceal

What may be revealed

By CERN's new Large Hadron Collider?

***************

(blush)  Eh, that one's not too awful.  

I'm currently trying to write a limerickal expression of my forbidden love for Dr. Stephen Cox, a perfectly adorable young man who works on the LHC.  You may encourage me in this dreadful habit by suggesting rhymes for:

• boson
• subatomic
• particle
• discovery

Many thanks,

Wee

Beware the Man of One Book.

Of course the title of this post was penned by "Saint" Thomas Aquinas, NoGod rest his uneternal soul, although his remains are the bedfellows of groundhogs an stuff.

I was going to send that to Weemaryann, but decided to make a feeble attempt at composing a post, in which I wanted to tell Wee that I used the phrase she coined here, on a comment over at the shit hole.

Unlike Lance, who stated he was stealing it outright, I liked the conciseness but will paraphrase,
"Science does not look to disprove god, that's just a side effect." As I was thinking about that, my Son walks by and says, "why are you smiling? You never smile." That further cracked me up so I mentioned this phrase to him. He was totally nonplussed and while walking away he's saying, "She should have said, 'Science does not look to disprove god,' that is just an unexpected source of amusement...."

All that, and I circle back to the topic, Beware the man of one book.
If I would just cutloose right now you would see a string of swear words that would please the best of you....but, I shan't. Watching these people base everything they do, while discarding logic and reason, on that one snapshot of the beliefs of bronze age humans, ***doublefacepalm***
Never mind, Peace Out, /d

Ray's Latest

Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Was Darwin a Racist?

"Shiver asked, 'So what was Darwin’s stance on racism?' G.E. answered, 'Pretty much against it. Especially if you take into account his historical and cultural context, which you guys like forgetting when attacking his character . . . I also think racism is stupid.'"

Darwin was nothing but a blatant racist, a bigot of a man, who held to the belief that black people are inferior to whites. This is what he said:

"At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." The Descent of Man, "The Races of Man" 1874, p. 178

Read it again slowly and make a note the comparison between black people and gorillas. His white robe is stained with bigotry, and his clan rally to his godless cause with religious zeal. Watch his hooded believers (those who had behind Internet unanimity) give a fiery defense of Darwin’s evil racist beliefs.

One more thing: G.E.’s "I also think racism is stupid" reveals something about his own low character. I suppose he thinks rape and pedophilia are also stupid. Yet it’s to be expected from those who deny that there is good and evil.

Posted by Ray Comfort on 9/09/2008 10:30:00 AM 0 comments



I would like to ask everyone who posts here to no longer post at Ray Comfort's site. Of course, I'm just asking. It's still a free country, for now. I'll never post there again. I won't give him the satisfaction or attention and publicity. This is the worse kind of baiting. But it's no surprise. He knows posts like this will keep his clan in six figure incomes.

OMG You All Have to Read this!!!

Any of you heard of "uncyclopedia"? It is basically bullshit knowledge. Ray's entry in here is hilarious:


"Early Life
Born ethnically half-Jewish (via his mother), Comfort was raised with next to no religious experience; in his words: "I went through life without any Christian instruction at all. I think I went to church about three times in about twenty years. I hated it. I found it's rules to be an insult to my intellect. However; I always found the preachers very sexually pleasing. I remember joking, 'If I couldn't sleep one night, I'd employ a preacher to come have sex with me; and it would get me off.' I was serious; it seemed to me to be completely erotic."
On April 1, 1972 at 1:30 AM, while banging a gay hooker, Ray had an epiphany, that he was indeed Jesus Christ incarnate. It was at that moment that the Angel Gabriel appeared to him and told him that "Every body dies, therefore there is a God, and that God is You". Then the Angel Gabriel disappeared. After Ray finished cleaning up the mess from dirty butt sex, Ray had a shower. Then Ray took the Gideons Bible from the cheap motel's nightstand and left, heading towards the nearest church. For the next 7 days Ray read the Bible over and over again, emerged from the church and declared that He had found God. Where He found God, was inside Him, where God had taken up residence since the day He was born.
His first act as savior was to find himself a wife so that he could procreate and father new holy sons of the Lord Almighty.

[edit] Personal Life
[edit] First Marriage
Ray met his wife Susan B while he was open air preaching in the greater Los Angeles area in 1981. For Ray it was love at first sight, however, Susan B had other plans. She was already engaged to a man of the Church, which posed a great problem for Ray. For months Ray lived in the tree beside her suburban home to ensure that the beast of a man, to whom she was engaged, did not deflower her while Ray came up with a plan. Finally one day, Ray enacted his genius wooing plan, and when Susan took out the garbage that day, Ray pushed her into a waiting Van and took her to the Living Waters compound. Over the next week she was gently convinced to marry Ray and bear his children.
After bearing Ray his third child on December 25 1997 Ray Jesus Christ Comfort Jr., Susan mysteriously disappeared from the compound. After a feverish nationwide search by Living Waters officials, Ray himself found Susan dead in a near by muddy ditch. Autopsy reports, done by forensic experts at the Living Waters church, showed that Susan had been walking alone by this ditch and had suddenly broke her leg. She immediately fell into the ditch and drowned in the black muddy water. By her request she was cremated immediately and after, her ashes made into Nesquik chocolate milk powder. Ray was noted as saying, "every time I drink chocolate milk, I know Susan is somewhere inside of me."
For hours on end Ray was devastated. It was then that a miracle occurred to Ray. Into the compound walked Kirk Cameron (From the critically acclaimed TV series Growing Pains.)
[edit]

New Love: Kirk Cameron Style

Kirk and Ray immediately hit it off and then took turns "hitting it" on/in each other. The Living Waters ministry is the only evangelical ministry in America to recognize gay marriage. Kirk and Ray are also the only two openly gay leaders of an evangelical ministry, however, many feel Ted Haggard, Pat Robertson, and George W. Bush are just about ready to come out of the closet to join them.

Ray believes homosexual activities were accidentally left out of the Bible by God to challenge homosexuals. He states that while there is no scriptural evidence is available, God revealed to him in a special revelation that Jesus himself liked the cock. From that revelation on, Ray has invaded as many orifices as possible to spread the good word."

AiG Tract

A few weeks ago at work, I got an Answers in Genesis tract called "Major Categories of Scientific Evidence for Special Creation" that was written by Carl Wieland. This was the first time I came across one of these and Rob Penn's post from earlier today inspired me to blog about it (yes, there is a million dollar bill tract hanging on a bulletin board in one of the hallways). The Wieland tract presents six arguments, none of which we haven't heard before:

1. Natural Law - Evolution doesn't take into account the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Even worse, Wieland mistates the law by saying that it applies to open systems.

2. Living Things - An evolutionary model is incapable of causing an increase in information, but the creation/Fall model works perfectly.

3. Fossils - The are only four or five transitional fossils, when there should be millions.

4. Age of Things - The Earth is young because all the evidence is opposed to the billions of years scenario. Some of the evidence provided is too little helium in the atmosphere, too little salt in the sea, and C-14 found in coal.

5. Cultural-Anthropological - Many cultures have stories of being flooded, so there must have been a global flood. Also, studies on DNA show very little genetic diversity among all "races" of humans.

6. Design and Complexity - Nothing more than a tired rehash on reducible complexity.

At the end, Wieland declares that I am a sinner and that I should give myself up to the Jesus Christ so his "holy" God will not have to be a part of my "everlasting destruction".

All of the arguments presented in the tract have been thoroughly debunked on talkorigins. I can see how those that are scientifically illiterate would be taken in by something like this. Wieland uses a lot of scientific sounding language to cover up the false dicotomy that states "if evolution is wrong, then creation is correct".

On a happier note, Friday was the best day of my life. I finally got the surgery to remove the infusion port in my chest that was used so the chemo drugs would not destroy my veins. I only got a local anesthetic and was able to watch the entire procedure. It was so cool to be able to look down and see the doctor removing tubes from an open incision in my chest.

Update:

Is it just me, or does storeytwin_a over at Ray's look and act like she could play Mama Fratelli in a remake of The Goonies?

So, I've got a job.

I've been working at DQ for a little over a week now. It's an old school DQ. Not a Grill and Chill. We serve Ice Creme and Hot Dogs. That's it.

And we use the old soft serve recipe as well. So it doesn't suck.

Any way, on our bulletin board in the back, I happened to notice that something resembling money was stuck up. But something was funny about it.

A closer look revealed that some customer left a million dollar tip to one of our workers. I had to laugh. I wonder what my co-workers would think if they all knew that I'm a false prophet...

A facetious retelling of the Flood that despite its obvious stupidity is about one million times better than the infantile explanation Ray supports

This is from a BBC Radio 4 show called That Was Then, This Is Now, written by and starring Richard Herring. I refer you to the blog title above.

RICH: According to the chronology of insane 17th century nutjob Archbishop James Ussher, the Great Deluge that prompted the creation of Noah’s Ark began on 25th November 2348BC. Gotta admire that specificity! Still he lived in the 17th century so maybe he can be forgiven for believing the world was created in 4004BC. What I find hard to countenance is that despite the wealth of evidence to the contrary some people still believe he was right today and I am not allowed to call them mental or ignorant for doing so, but have to respect their beliefs and their decision to live their lives based on the idea of one old book being infallibly true, even though it openly contradicts itself all the time and is at odds with all the geological, archaeological and biological evidence available to us. So I do respect that. Well done, you people. Noah’s Ark is literally true and happened 4000 years ago, even though a 6 year old child would be able to point out a hundred reasons that it makes no sense - so let’s celebrate that trueness now in the form of a skit.

GRAMS BIBLICAL MUSIC EST AND FADEFX BIBLICAL TIMES ATMOS UNDER.FX THUNDERBOLT

GOD Hello.

MRS NOAH Oh hello, God!

GOD Is Noah around?

MRS NOAH I’ll just get him. Noah. It’s for you.

NOAH Who is it?

MRS NOAH It’s God

NOAH Oh… oh hello! What can I be doing you for?

GOD I am fed up with the wickedness of the people that I created to be wicked so I have decided to destroy them all.

NOAH That seems a bit drastic…

MRS NOAH Yes you did such a good job creating everything…

GOD Silence! They are rubbish and they all must perish. Except you. You’re all right.

NOAH Oh thanks. That means a lot. Especially coming from you.

GOD So I am going to send a gigantic flood to cover the world and kill everyone else.

NOAH Gosh. That seems a very elaborate way to go about things.

MRS NOAH Couldn’t you just sort of magic all the people you didn’t like dead?

NOAH Or why not just magic them so they are good.…?

GOD Don’t question me. I’ve thought it all through. Only a flood will guarantee that everyone is killed.

MRS NOAH Everyone who doesn’t have access to a boat.

GOD No, cos we’re inland so no-one has a boat.

NOAH The whole world isn’t inland though is it. Some of it is by the sea and people there will have boats and survive.

GOD Er…um… I will just magic it so that they die.

MRS NOAH Can’t you do that with everyone?

GOD No…. so for you to survive you will need to build a boat.

NOAH (quietly) It seems like a lot of effort…

GOD What?

NOAH Nothing.

GOD But a really big boat, because under the flood system I have implemented, all the innocent animals will die, so you need to go round and collect two of every species, one male, one female…

MRS NOAH You’re sure you don’t want to rethink the flood thing.

GOD Shut up. It’s a good idea.

NOAH A lot of animals are really dangerous though – won’t they eat me?

GOD I will magic it so they don’t.

MRS NOAH Can’t you just magic it that they are temporarily aquatic or can fly?

NOAH Or that the people you don’t like die without all this flooding and boat building.

GOD I could go off you, Noah. You’re just being lazy.

NOAH I’m not lazy. But building this boat and collecting all the animals. It’s a logistical nightmare. I mean most of the world is undiscovered so far and there must be loads of animals I don’t even know about…

GOD Yes there are! Billions. And I need you to discover them, develop the technical expertise to determine a male and female of each species and bring them back here to put on the boat which you also have to build. And don’t cut corners. When you get to the Galapagos Islands for example you will find 13 essentially similar, but slightly different species of finches and you must get two of each. I created them especially to make it appear as if a thing called evolution existed, so I could test people’s faith and I will be furious if they perish.

MRS NOAH So presumably we’d better collect 2 of every race of people as well.

GOD No, just you two and your sons Shem, Ham and Japheth and their wives, from whom all future humans will be descended.

NOAH With the best will in the world, God, I and all my sons are Jewish and even if their wives happen to be Chinese, African and Aborigine, which seems pretty unlikely given Jewish traditions, do you really think it’s conceivable that they will have people a multi-cultural and racially diverse world in just 4000 years?

GOD …. I will magic it so they do.

MRS NOAH Can’t you just magic it so…

GOD No, I want a flood and we’re having a flood. Why are you being so prediluvian about this?

NOAH It just seems a little bit implausible and unnecessary. Can’t you come up with something a little bit more likely? Maybe it’s just a localised flood and I manage to cobble together a raft and save a dog? Then maybe anyone over 5 can believe it actually happened.

GOD You have to believe, Noah. If Father Christmas can get round to all the children of the world in a single night, then you can build an ark and collect all those animals in an hour.

NOAH An hour?

GOD Didn’t I mention that?

FX THUNDER BOLT. RAIN STARTS POURING DOWN UNDER.

Mrs NOAH You’ve got to be kidding, you mentalist.

GOD Right half an hour.

NOAH Oh God.

GOD That’s my name don’t wear it out.

Fx SAWING AND BANGING FX OUT

RICH Take that God! I wouldn’t like to be Him once that sketch is broadcast. We got him!

Google "Atheist Central."

Oooh, what's that I see on the top? XD (Thanks to Lance for pointing this out.)


Also, this would appear to be the 500th post on Raytractors. Congrats everyone!

A thank-you note to Ray Comfort:

I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank our good friend Ray for doing his part to advance the cause of rational thought (by giving his cause - fundie creationist nonsense - yet another bullet in the foot).

In his post, "Ark Dimentions", Ray attempts to lay out the case (via a letter from Richard Gunther) that Noah's Ark was designed perfectly for its purpose, being the perfect length (its length matching the distance between two average ocean wave crests), and being large enough (having a volume of approximately 1,396,000 cubic feet) to comfortably house the "two of every creature" stipulated in the Bible (as well as supplies for all present).

Unfortunately, this argument holds no water (pun intended), as many commenters were quick to point out:

"There's no evidence of a global flood, though, so the idea is allegory at best.
And even with a craft that large, it still would have been unable to store 2 of every species, let alone the food and environment to sustain those beasts."

- Whateverman


"Even if we assume Noah only took two million species (the total amount of species cataloged and named), and gathered them at a rate of one pair per minute, it would take nearly 1,400 years just to collect them all.

Let's forget the fact that Noah would need a round-the-clock staff of thousands upon thousands to take care of the animals already captured. "

- Kaitlyn


"The volume of the ark doesn't take into account the structural elements needed to keep the ship from snapping like a twig, so you can easily subtract 20% from the ammount of space. More actually, because that's the number used for normal-sized wooden ships, it doesn't include the upscaling.

And that's ignoring the fact that Noah would still need access to the animals, so that's another (conservative) 10% gone on walkways.

And in the square foot left, you don't only have to keep the animal, you also have to put food and water for a little under a year of travel time.

Not to mention the problem that some animals only eat fresh foods, such as koalas."

- Alcari


"Noah's Ark as described in Genesis is, on the one hand, too small for the task described. Assuming that biblical "kinds" correspond roughly to modern genera, the total weight of the animals placed aboard, plus fodder for them all for a year, would have exceeded the Ark's displacement, meaning that Noah would have constructed the world's first, and last, gopher-wood submarine.

On the other hand, it is too large for a craft constructed of wood (no metal is described as part of the construction). There's a reason that ships of that size were not built prior to the 19th century: before metal construction, ships of that would require most of their internal space to be taken up with bracing, assuming you didn't want them to simply bend, leak, and break up shortly after launching. The shape may be good; the construction materials are not adequate to a ship that size.

Of course, there are additional problems: if we accept that all terrestrial tetrapods alive today are descendants of animals on the Ark, we have a problem accounting for the genetic variety in many species (especially if one wishes to argue that, e.g. lions, tigers, pumas, house cats etc. are descendants of a single pair of ur-felids aboard the Ark): chimpanzees, for example, have vastly more genetic variety within their species than H. sapiens does. Every land vertebrate species on Earth should show signs of having gone through a very narrow genetic bottleneck some 5000 years ago, if the Noah's Ark account is true, yet scarcely any of them do."

- Steven J.

It should be clear at this point that the Ark fable that Richard Gunther originally attempted to portray as reasonable has several glaring problems. To us, this comes as no big surprise...but what I thought was worth mentioning was the reactions of some of the fundies to these arguments:

"There's no evidence because a group of people with a vested interest in the Bible not being 100% true say there's no evidence."

- Jinx McHue

" With God's protection against extinction during the Deluge, survival would have been assured."

"It has been said that in nearly all groups of animals there is at least an indication of a latent ability to hibernate or aestivate. Perhaps these abilities were supernaturally intensified during this period. With their bodily functions reduced to a minimum, the burden of their care would have been greatly lightened."

- Trkent

So there you have it...rational objections to what is obviously a fairy tale are met with equal parts denial and even more magical thinking. I won't even get into the retarded "kinds vs. species" argument that invariably rises from this particular debate.

And fundies wonder why they're not taken seriously...

I'm ashamed...

I was wrong and I see that now.  Ricky Gervais has shown me the error of my ways.  I'm turning in my Raytractors card. [Warning: Briefly NSFW language]

Look, Ray, Here's All You Need To Know About Atheists

Atheists : God :: Ray Comfort : Darth Vader

10 Questions to Ask Your Pastor

Ebonmuse over at Daylight Atheism commented on a tract given to students listing ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution. In response, he posted a list of 10 questions he'd like to see Sunday School students ask their pastors:

1. Why is God called loving or merciful when, in the Old Testament's stories of the Israelite conquest, he specifically orders his chosen people to massacre their enemies, showing no mercy to men, women, even children and animals?

2. Does it make sense to claim, as the Bible does, that wrongdoing can be forgiven by magically transferring the blame from a guilty person to an innocent one, then punishing the innocent person?

3. Why does the Bible routinely depict God as manifesting himself in dramatic, unmistakable ways and performing obvious miracles even before the eyes of nonbelievers, when no such thing happens in the world today?

4. Why do vast numbers of Christians still believe in the imminent end of the world when the New Testament states clearly that the apocalypse was supposed to happen 2,000 years ago, during the lifetime of Jesus' contemporaries?

5. Why do Christians believe in the soul when neurology has found clear evidence that the sense of identity and personality can be altered by physical changes to the brain?

6. If it was always God's plan to provide salvation through Jesus, why didn't he send Jesus from the very beginning, instead of confusing and misleading generations of people by setting up a religion called Judaism which he knew in advance would prove to be inadequate?

7. Since the Bible states that God does not desire that anyone perish, but also states that the majority of humankind is going to hell, doesn't this show that God's plan of salvation is a failure even by his own standard? If this outcome is a success, what would count as a failure?

8. Why didn't God create human beings such that they freely desire to do good, thus removing the need to create a Hell at all? (If you believe this is impossible, isn't this the state that will exist in Heaven?)

9. Is it fair or rational for God to hide himself so that he can only be known by faith, then insist that every single human being find him by picking the right one out of thousands of conflicting and incompatible religions?

10. If you had the power to help all people who are suffering or in need, at no cost or effort to yourself, would you do it? If so, why hasn't God done this already?

Atheist Central

http://www.atheistcentral.net

Take that, Ray.

I Can't Go Through With It

Rex Mundane has either:

Gone nuts,
Converted to xtianity, or
Is scamming the Rayolators.

I thought this looked like fun so I fell in behind him for a couple comments until this happened:


Freed said...
dale said... Rex Mundane,You wrote,"I hope that you and other Atheists here will come to your senses as well, when you get tired of your dependence on the lies, I have a book I can recommend, contains nothing but honest truth.

"That was a heartwarming comment. I am thinking of joining with you on this; I tire of telling the lies so I can continue in my debaucheries. I mean, I guess heaven might be a pretty nice gig.

Sincerely, dale

Then Freed reponded,
For real Dale??? Honestly?Seriously?

Freed is a 61 y/o woman and she is very kind and well meaning, and I would never want to lie or scam someone like this. It's not the right thing to do inthis case, thus I have abandonded my plan. I just could not lie to this woman, even in jest.

Atheist Central

http://www.atheistcentral.net

Take that, Ray.

Sarah Palin's Religious Views (NY Times)

Perhaps lipstick isn't just the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull, but also the difference between Ray Comfort and the next vice president. Let that thought settle in.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/06/us/politics/06church.html?hp

Unfortunately, although these views may play a key role in guiding Palin's actions in government, it is taboo to demand that politicians explain their religious beliefs:

Maria Comella, a spokeswoman for the McCain-Palin campaign, said Ms. Palin
had been baptized Roman Catholic as an infant, but declined to comment further.

“We’re not going to get into discussing her religion,” she said.

Thus we're left to wonder whether Palin believes the end of the world is near, whether she's looking forward to seeing Israel pummelled by war to inaugurate the rapture, and other little things.

I propose this as a rule of fair play and good sense: Politicians who won't explain their religious beliefs in detail and answer questions about them should not ever mention religion or god in public discourse. If you say that religion is an important guide and suggest that your adherence to your religion is a qualification for office, then those topics are fair game.

A Small Request . . .

When posting material from Ray's site or some other Christian's site, don't just post the material without comment, or with a mere "how stupid is this" comment. Include a few sentences about why it's stupid, or why it's wrong.

I probably won't need to be told myself, but there are Christians who read this site who honestly won't get it at first. This isn't their fault -- they're just used to taking whatever Ray says as gospel (hee hee!), and unused to considering the possibilities that we atheists take for granted. So spell it out for us.

Thanks!

Well, I guess the strike is over.

I have to admit that I recently broke down and posted there myself. What is it people say when they quit smoking? Lapses happen, you have to forgive yourself and move on -- because I, personally, won't be posting there any more. I wish you guys were with me on this.

I ask myself this, in retrospect: what's so important to me that Ray acknowledges what I have to say? Of course I have this recurring fantasy that something I say actually gets through to him, and suddenly he's willing to listen, and we can have an intelligent conversation, and finally I bring him around to reason.

But I know full well that it's just that: a fantasy. Ray makes a living doing this -- he's too old to find a new career, and if he admits he's wrong then he loses the old one (and his tax documents make it clear that running a Christian non-profit can be quite profitable!), not to mention his reputation with so many people and the chance to be on TV. So of course he's not going to come around, no matter what I or anyone says.

So I'll simply speak my piece here, and at my home blog, where at least my words, like my thoughts, are free. I really encourage you guys to join me.

Why does it hurt soooo bad?

From Ray's latest foolishness:

Science discovered that when a certain object moves at a certain speed it supersedes the law of gravity, and can fly. If we could go back 500 years in time, almost every thinking scientist would have said that such talk is utterly foolish. They would have maintained that it was impossible for an object the size of a 747 jumbo jet to fly like a bird. However, we now know that even though the law of gravity remains, the flying object has moved into a higher law, the invisible law of aerodynamics.

Easy Does it, Kids

It's Friday nite. I can't believe my luck, hehehe. I didn't think I would get home till tomorrow but the group I was visiting was doing everything they could to get this shit tied up today, so we did.

Then, I get home and find my wife heading off with her Mom to have dinner with some friends. And, so what do I do?

Something that I never stated here is that I love poetry. There are some forms of poetry that absolutely crack me up. There are the ones with the little messages being pooped out at the end. Anyway, Ogden Nash. gets to me and one of our friends, Weemaryanne has come up with some weeners. In fact, I found out a while back that we share a favorite poet, Robert W. Service. He was a gypsy from eastern Europe, landed in the Yukon, his stuff is on the net (Try, "The Cremation of Sam McGee." But I digress.............................

Make no mistake, I have even been boo'ed on my own blog for posting poetry, and I know I risk your ire if I do it here. But like I said, It's Friday nite and you people need to take a break and be a little less serial. MMK?

***Whispering***Billy Collins is hilarious , read his poem, "The Dead." (the video is better) Billy is our contemporary.


And more back to the point, my daughter found this one and sent it to me last week. She says she hates poetry, yet she's frequently reading it....hmmmmmmm.

This one is by Nazir Qabbani, and you gotta love a guy whose name starts with a Q and there is no U. He was a Syrian, died in '98. His wiki bio is fairly compelling. I can't believe I was not aware of him at the time. I hope you can see what is as funny about this as I did, and I am not sure what language he wrote it in, but ...let me know what you think. And if you don't like it, I don't give a flying fuck. /dale
OK here we go,



When I love
I feel that I am the king of time
I possess the earth and everything on it
and ride into the sun upon my horse.

When I love
I become liquid light
invisible to the eye
and the poems in my notebooks
become fields of mimosa and poppy.

When I love
the water gushes from my fingers
grass grows on my tongue

when I love
I become time outside all time.

When I love a woman
all the trees
run barefoot toward me...

Nizar Qabbani

Throw all the rotten fruit you want!
And to make sure I stay on topic, Ray Comfort is an *expletive deleted.*

Spittake!

Terry Burtons sez:

@ 'fake' Allfiredup

you said "Just because we can't see Him or hear Him doesn't mean He doesn't exist. If we use this reasoning to it's logical conclusion, then NOTHINNG exists UNTIL we see, taste, touch or hear it - a truly stupid approach to reality."

Watch your name calling brother, or whatever you are. You criticize others, yet call names at non-believers.

You give evangelists a bad name. I would have used "illogical" instead of "stupid".

If you want us to take you seriously, come out of the closet and reveal your profile. For all we know, you are just an atheist pretending to be a Christian.

Praying for you! Hope you see there is no "LOVE" in your last statement. It destroys your credibility. God Bless !!! :)
HBKS video! HBKS video! my blogs.

Terry calling out another Christian for impolite behavior and impersonating someone else? Destroys their credibility? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Let's Say That Ray's Right . . .

Let's say, just for a moment, that Ray is right when he says that we professing atheists aren't really atheists at all. Let's say that we're really all just pretending, for whatever reason, that God does not exist. Let's say that we all really do believe that God exists -- in fact, that we know that God exists, in the same sense that Ray himself knows it.

What would that change?

After all, we'd still have all the evil and suffering that we have in the world, which contradicts the existence of a perfectly loving God.

We'd still have all the doctrinal confusion and dispute that we have, which contradicts the existence of a God who wishes to communicate with us.

We'd still have evolution and the old earth, which contradicts the existence of a God who divinely authored the Bible and rendered it inerrant.

And most importantly, we'd still have the immutable, unassailable laws of logic, which contradicts the existence of any sort of theistic God whatsoever.

I know of only two atheistic arguments, the arguments from nonbelief and from reasonable nonbelief, which are based on the existence of actual atheists. Take those two away, and you'd still have several dozen perfectly sound arguments for God's nonexistence -- and about six billion people unwilling to acknowledge them, instead of three billion. These arguments are sound, and would remain so even if I, personally, were to repudiate them.

Brute facts are not subject to human whim. General relativity is now commonly accepted as a proven fact, but prior to 1905, the percentage of the human race who acknowledged it was zero. At no point between then and now did planets alter their orbits based on this new model of physics. Brute facts are what they are. God does not exist, regardless of how many people believe otherwise -- that's between three and four billion people, I would estimate, but if Ray Comfort wants to make it six and a half billion, fine. It doesn't change a thing.

The evidence itself doesn't care, you see. It doesn't need an audience; it is what it is. We can acknowledge the evidence with our hearts and mouths, or with our mouths alone, or not at all -- it doesn't matter one iota.

God does not exist. If I believe otherwise, then I am wrong. It's that simple.

Jean, Please Watch

Was this part of god's war plan?

Disturbing Images

Everyone. Imagine Ray Comfort's face. Now; imagine Ray Comfort's face when he's having sex. You're quite welcome.

Raytractorism

I can't believe this wasn't thought of already...

The Religion of Raytractorism (note capitalization)

Pope: MacGyver Jr
Bishops: Can't be arsed to list them all. Just look in the list of contributors...
Holy City: Blogger, Google, The Internet, Earth
Creed: "Ray Comfort is a cunt mouth lying sac of shit." (thanks to dale)
Holy Book: That one which Ray is writing and wanted our help with atheism on...*free copy w00t!*
Fellowship: Rational minds
Faith: The belief that our knowledge of Ray Comfort's ignorance in everything is correct (which it is).
Agenda: To debunk Ray Comfort, deconvert his followers, bankrupt Living Waters, and preside over the gay marriage of Ray and Kirk.
Moral Code: If Ray Comfort agrees with it, you can be pretty sure it's immoral.
Language: Skeptish
National Holiday: Every fucking day.

The Democratic Faith

Since Dave stole my entry for Raylianism and Kaitlyn stole my entry for Republican Religion (which you should have a look at), I, being the godless conservative that I am, submit the Democratic Faith: (Odd that I didn't think of it before Republicans.)

Firstly, it qualifies for Ray's definition of religion as it is a cause "pursued with zeal." And luckily mine was already capitalized (as it is, indeed, a religion).

Finally, it has the necessary aspects of the religion:

Pope: B. Hussein Obama (Satan)
Bishops: Bill Maher, John Stewart, Larry Flynt, Bill Clinton
Holy City: San Diego, CA (in the southern gay district)
Creed: Fetusus above people.
Holy book: An Inconvenient Truth
Fellowship: Blue Staters
Faith: People are too incompetent to manage their own lives and money
Agenda: Destroy America
Moral Code: Whatever Osama Bin Laden says
Language: Arabic disguised as English
National Holiday: October 31

Set S

(S1) All propositions in Set S, without exception, are true.

(S2) Everyone knows, and is infallible in knowing, that all propositions in Set S, without exception, are true.

(S3) Anyone who professes that they don't know that all propositions in Set S, without exception, are true is an idiot.

(S4) Everyone is morally imperfect, and professing unbelievers in the S-propositions especially so.

(S5) Anyone who does not make a good faith effort to correct moral imperfections on his or her part is an idiot.

(S6) God does not exist.

(S7) No proposition entailed by God's existence is necessarily true, and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.

(S8) Silent Dave, and only Silent Dave, may add propositions to Set S, modify propositions on Set S, and remove propositions from Set S.

(S9) If a disagreement arises over the interpretation of an S-proposition, then Silent Dave, and only Silent Dave, shall be the final arbiter of this disagreement, and his decisions shall be binding.

(S10) Confirmation by a cosmically supreme being is unnecessary to have confidence in an S-proposition, or any other proposition.

(S11) Normal epistemological considerations shall not render any S-proposition untrue, nor provide rational ground for nonbelief or professed nonbelief in any S-proposition.

(S12) All Christian evangelicals are idiots.

(S13) All idiots will go to hell, but intelligent people will go to heaven.

(S14) In the event of a conflict between Set S and any other set of propositions, S wins.

(S15) Ray Comfort owes Silent Dave $10,000.00.



To use Set S in your conversations, simply reference the S-proposition you wish to invoke in parentheses. For example:

It doesn't matter if I'm the only one who professes belief in Set S (S11), it's still true.

The Bible says that S1 is wrong? Well, the Bible is wrong (S14).

I fear that Ray Comfort's eternal fate is in serious jeopardy (S12, S13).

Remember, a non-S-er is an idiot (S3) who knows full well that Set S is true, but pretends otherwise (S2).

S15 says that Ray owes me ten thousand dollars. S15 is true (S1). Therefore, Ray owes me ten thousand dollars.

Et cetera.

Terry Burton has a Twin Brother

From Ray's "Palin Rocks" thread:

"AMEN brothers! The blessings just keep flowing to our nation. My brother (twin) and I are in total agreement. "

Am I the last to find this out? Is this brother real or imaginary?

God of War (and natural gas pipelines)

"Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a "task that is from God."

Whether one is for or against the Iraq invasion, the above should be an insult to anyone’s intelligence. Furthermore, it is a huge insult to the sacrifice of our military personnel and their families, as well as, the Iraqis who have suffered. Of course, she is not the first to use this propaganda. I don’t know if she really believes it or is just using it as a political tool. Either way, fuck her. Hey you dumb bitch, The Blues Brother were “on a mission from gad”, too.

Censorship is alive and well at "Atheist Central".

Ray, replying to a comment by "Christ Follower" on the "Welcome to the Real World" thread, writes:

CF...your comments will not be posted in future until you change your name. Thanks.

In case you're wondering, here's the comment from CF that drew Ray's ire:

I was a bible-believing Christian for years. It wasn't until I started thinking and actually checking its claims that the scales fell off my eyes. I desperately tried to believe, it would have been much easier if I did, but no amount of wishing would change the fact that Christianity is just NOT TRUE.

Well, now, isn't that interesting. This comment doesn't violate Ray's ridiculous "rules" in any way, and something tells me that someone called "Christ Follower" that was on Ray's side would be encouraged to post all they wanted.

So why can't CF post anymore? This follow-up question from "Rob Penn" (a question to which CF is now unable to respond) holds the answer:

Just a question, CF.

Why do you call yourself Christ Follower if you do not believe that Christianity is true?

CF has some of the more reasonable theists asking questions. It's only a matter of time before they start thinking for themselves, and that's the bane of any religion, especially Ray-Comfortism.

Ray-Comfortism

My entry into DI's little contest. It's pretty obviously a work of fantasy, as I have logically proven that Ray Comfort is, in fact, an atheist -- but never mind that, and enjoy.


RAY-COMFORTISM

Pope: Ray Comfort

Bishop: Kirk Cameron

Holy City: Bellflower, CA, USA

Creed: The Way of the Master

Holy Book: The collected writings of Ray Comfort

Fellowship: Whoever Ray bothers on the streets, as well as the membership of Comfort Food -- I mean, The Soapbox -- I mean, Atheist Central.

Faith: The belief that everything that Ray Comfort says that God says is completely true.

Agenda: To pretend really, really hard that they, and not we atheists, will win in the end.

Moral Code: Whatever Ray says that God says.

Language: Wishful Thinking Out Loud.

National Holiday: December 5

First Raytractor Contest

Well, Ray seems persistent with this nonsensical stream of posts on how atheism is a religion. Instead of responding further to this, I have a challenge for the Raytractors to post in this blog or in their own blogs:

Using Ray's definition, show how some cause, principle, or activity is a religion:

It’s interesting to note that one definition of religion is:

"A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."

That rightly describes the ardent atheist cause. Despite protests to the contrary by its faithful adherents, atheism is a form of religion.

And remember, like Ray, you have to arbitrarily capitalize whatever you are addressing, regardless of the grammatical incorrectness of it:

Atheists may not like it, but even though they do not believe that they owe allegiance to God, like Buddhism, Atheism (note the capitalization) is a religion and those that adhere to its beliefs are "religious."

So, if yours is on stamp collecting, be sure to make it Stamp Collecting, and then make a reference to note the capitalization.

Finally, define the various aspects of the religion:

Pope: Charles Darwin
Bishops: Richard Dawkins • Daniel Dennett • Sam Harris • Christopher Hitchens
Holy City: Oxford, England
Creed: Darwinian evolution
Holy book: Origin of Species
Fellowship: Universal
Faith: The belief that there is no God
Agenda: The stop the advance of Christianity
Moral Code: Societal dictates
Language: Speculation
National Holiday: April 1st.

Just as a note, don't be afraid to misconstrue or redefine whatever you are addressing to make it fit, like Ray did with atheism:

Although many flinch at the thought that they have faith in anything, they believe that there’s no God, and even have "works" to confirm it.

I shall submit mine at a later time :-)

P.S. I'm rather interested to see Kaitlyn's submission ;)

Memory Verse for Ray

It's clear Ray has no interest in understanding why atheism is not a religion, as it does not fit into his stump speech and conclusions.

"A fool finds no pleasure in understanding; but delights in airing his own opinions." (Proverbs 18:2)

Yet Another Challenge To Ray Which I Know The Damn Coward Will Never Answer

Try to find a definition of "religion" which includes atheism but excludes stamp collecting.

Poe declared

I realise I'm a bit of a stuck record on this point, but Ray has managed to achieve new depths of inanity with his latest post.

Anyone else given such a comprehensive kicking would think, 'Hmmm... Maybe I shouldn't mention that again'. But not Ray 'My brain makes grinding noises when I try and think' Comfort. Noooo! No, Raymundo thinks, 'I know! I just repeat the same retarded point using slightly different words'.

Poe! No one could be this stupid yet manage to trim a moustache (even a stupid Mr Potatohead one like his).

Ray Sources Debunking Dan, Perhaps?

Have you seen the edit in the Ray has made about the court case which declared atheism a religion? The article appeared on WorldNetDaily on 8-20-2005 and refers to "yesterday." If you do a little looking, that is referring to the case Kaufman v McCaughtry which was decided on 8-19-2005. For those who read either my blog or Dan the Debunker's blog, it should sound familiar.

That's because Dan over at Debunking Atheists made a post entitled Atheism is a Religion! wherein he cites this case as proving atheism is a religion. I read through the case and, last month, posted an article On Free Exercise of Irreligion. The judge in the case himself says that atheism is not a religion and they are only considering it for the purposes of protection under the First Amendment.

In other words, the decision was "atheism qualifies as a religion for the purpose of protection under the Free Exercise Clause" as opposed to "atheism is a religion." This distinction seems to be lost on Dan and Ray, or is simply overlooked as it doesn't fit into their conclusion. As I point out in my post last month on it, Ray and Dan would probably conclude, then, that corporations and churches are literally people because they qualify as persons for the purpose of protection under the law.

Why I'm glad Jean Gasho-Musuka can't vote in the US

In comments the other day Jean had this to say about Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee: (Since I see Jean is going back and deleting her comments on the post I'll just cut and paste them here.)

"Non magic, am so glad you are not Bristol's mother. Thats all I can say. God has blessed her with godly parents, hope she realizes how fortunate she is. This blog has made me appreciate Palin even more, I really like her now. I mean it. She is on the right path."



"Even if it was not her desision, at least she is obedient and obeying her parents. She made her bed she has to lie in it. There are always consequences to sin. Her parents knows whats best for her. Killing the baby is not the answer.
Dont know much about American politics, but I already love Sarah Palin. Heard she is Pro- life and hates killing unborn babies. She has a lot then to offer...."

Why am I glad Jean can't vote in the US? Because just like Ray, she and other evangelicals tend to pick out one single hot button issue like abortion and vote solely on that issue instead of looking at the candidates overall position on many different issues.

Jean also made a snap decision that she liked Palin simply because Palin's daughter is knocked up and she is keeping the baby. Just like that, Jean loves the woman.

Well, Jean, this woman whom you called a "godly parent" also slashed funding for a state program benefiting teen mothers in need of a place to live. How "godly" and "on the right path" is she now, Jean??

And here's the guy that her daughter is going to marry with Palin's blessing. (Quote from the article):

"On his MySpace page, Johnston proudly declares: "I'm a f---in' redneck."

"I live to play hockey. I like to go camping and hang out with the boys, do some fishing," he says on the site.

He also warns that if anyone messes with him, "I'll kick ass."

The Web site, before it was removed, appeared not to have been accessed for a year.

On it, he admits to having a girlfriend.

On the part where it asks about children, he wrote, "I don't want kids."



Now, maybe he'll turn out to me a decent father to the child. We won't know that for awhile. But my point is that it doesn't seem very "godly" or "on the right path" to endorse a marriage between your daughter, who is still a child, and a guy who is still a child himself and clearly doesn't want kids.

But, Jean, you might still be in luck. Palin also has a thing for banning books and that's pretty godly, right? Hell, Jean, maybe she'll try to bring back slavery, that ought to make you pretty damn happy.

From the Design Department

Ken Ham Abandons Creationist Model

A new model has moved in. Yes, it aligns itself more with the scientific explanation of the geologic column.

After following Ken through his ministry here in the US, I have observed certain changes in his dogma that allow for scientific findings. He still has that problem with "kinds," but hey, what is Hell among friends.....

The new article at AIG represents one of the most significant and utterly drastic changes that the fundies have attempted to catch up with the intellect of their more educated minions. They can see their irrational beliefs going up in the smoke of reason. I knew the Hamster would have to move, but I didn't think it would happen this quickley. hehe

Ray Comfort Is An Atheist

A Formal Logical Proof



Definitions:

God = A being whose existence necessitates that all facts given in the Bible are true.

Ray Comfort = A rational person.

Atheist = One who does not believe that God exists.

Proposition A = Jesus was born in, or prior to, the year 4 B.C.

Proposition B = Jesus was born in the year 6 A.D.


Premises:

(1) If rational person P believes that entity Q exists, then P believes that all propositions entailed by Q's existence are true.

(2) A rational person does not believe that two logically contradictory propositions are both true.

(3) The existence of God entails that propositions A and B are both true.

(4) Propositions A and B logically contradict one another.


Conclusions:

(5) If Ray Comfort believes that God exists, then Ray believes that all propositions entailed by God's existence are true. (from 1)

(6) If Ray Comfort believes that God exists, then Ray believes that propositions A and B are both true. (from 3 and 5)

(7) Ray Comfort does not believe that propositions A and B are both true. (from 2 and 4)

(8) Therefore...

Ray Comfort does not believe that God exists.
Ray Comfort is an atheist.



Possible Objection: God's existence does not entail the truth of proposition A.

Response: God's existence entails the truth of the Bible. The Bible states that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod. King Herod died in 4 B.C.


Possible Objection: God's existence does not entail the truth of proposition B.

Response: God's existence entails the truth of the Bible. The Bible states that Jesus was born during a census prompted by a taxation made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. This census occurred in 6 A.D.


Possible Objection: There are definitions of God (and therefore of atheism) which do not entail the inerrancy of the Bible.

Response: If Ray Comfort wishes to define God in such a way, thereby negating every Biblically-supported argument he has ever made, I will concede the argument.


Possible Objection: A rational person need not believe a proposition entailed by Q's existence in order to believe that Q exists.

Response: The logical law of modus tolens entails that the falsehood of that proposition entails the nonexistence of Q; such a person would thus find himself in the position of believing that Q exists and does not exist, and there would therefore not be rational.


Possible Objection: Ray Comfort is not a rational person.

Response: If Ray wishes to make this objection, thereby negating every rational-sounding utterance he has ever made, then once again, I will concede the argument.


Possible Objection: A person might not be aware that Q's existence entails a particular proposition; such a person would thus be unaware that it contradicts any other proposition. There's no reason to think that such a person could not be rational and still believe in Q's existence.

Response: Although I think the issue is debatable, I will stipulate that 6 follows from 3 and 5 only if Ray Comfort is aware that 3 is true. If he wasn't already aware of 3 -- which I seriously doubt -- then he will be so upon reading this post.


Possible Objection: Although the Bible may appear to entail both A and B at first blush, perhaps it only entails one of them (at most) due to historical factors of which we are presently unaware.

Response: That possibility has been considered and rejected by historians.


Possible Objection: Ray Comfort may not agree with the findings of historians.

Response: If he has rational grounds for doing so, then let him present them; if they turn out to be valid, then I will concede the argument as stated. I will then rephrase the argument to invoke one of hundreds of other Biblical contradictions I have waiting in the wings.


Possible Objection: Ray Comfort may disagree with the historians' findings on grounds which are not rational, or which are logically fallacious.

Response: If he does so, and nonetheless maintains that he is correct and the historians are not, then this objection is tantamount to the objection that Ray Comfort is not a rational person -- see above.


Possible Objection: Ray Comfort may disagree with the historians' findings on non-rational or fallacious grounds, but actively deny that his grounds are irrational or fallacious, or that he himself is thereby irrational.

Response: Any hypocrisy on Ray's part is his problem, not mine.


Possible Objection: Turn or burn!

Resopnse: I accept your surrender.

Atheism is a Religion!

According to Ray Comfort. To save you trouble, I'll repost what he wrote.

"We have told all of you a gazillion times: atheism is NOT a religion." G.E.

It’s interesting to note that one definition of religion is:

"A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."

That rightly describes the ardent atheist cause. Despite protests to the contrary by its faithful adherents, atheism is a form of religion.

Though their numbers are small—-only 2 percent of the world’s 6.5 billion inhabitants—atheists are an ever-growing group of people with a "belief" system. Although many flinch at the thought that they have faith in anything, they believe that there’s no God, and even have "works" to confirm it.

Their lifestyle is fruit of their belief system.

As far as I know, you do not have to profess to believe a god does not exist, you just have to lack a belief in a god. So, in most cases, atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief (Of course, though, I do believing a god does not exist, depending on the god). Of course, Ray would never admit that because it does not fit his description. But, we do pursue reason. So, by the one definition Ray uses on RELIGION, I guess even pursuing reason is a type of religion (Which is absurd).

Oh well, Ray never wants to admit his views on atheists are incorrect.


--Update--

I just finished reading Ray's picture to go along with the post. I immediately thought of two things.

1) We ask questions to get answers. And at least if we don't get any, we don't automatically assume that God did it. We keep searching.

2) It also seems Ray is mocking the process of learning. That explains so much.

--Update Number 2--
Extra Extra! Ray uses World Nut Daily and court hearing for justification.
Ray can accept court hearing, and yet probably does not accept the separation of church and state, and the teaching of evolution in public schools while keeping creationism out.

Credulity

Hi guys,

Well, I have been waiting for a set of long posts by Dan "debunking atheists," and he is finally done with it.

Now, before you jump to Dan's blog to destroy his arguments, this is what I really want to share with you today:

I started blogging to Ray because I saw the "evolution" video. I felt furious because these guys were lying blatantly to the Christians, and I could not believe it. Well, this is what I detest, the way the likes of Ray, Kirk, Ham, the whole of answers in genesis, and all, abuse the trust of the fundies.

In the case of Dan, well, the guy does an awful job mostly because what he does is ... he trusts these guys! So, he simply copies from some creationist web site whichever propaganda he finds. Thus, he does not even understand properly what he is posting (he admits to it), and yet, he expects us to just believe that he gave us a good "debunking." Setting aside how foolish this is, the guy exposes himself to ridicule, and when I warn him about this possibility he thinks I am insulting him, which he often calls an ad hominem.

So, where is this going? Well, Dan is an excellent example of why I detest Ray and the like. There you have it. A guy who candidly posts stuff that has already been shown to be fallacies and lies, thinking he is doing a good job. The guy gets a good beating, but seems not to notice, but I bet he will notice one of these days (though he seems to forget what we say from one thread to the next, so this might take a while).

I do not know, maybe I am too compassionate, but I truly think Dan is somewhat naïve, and that in his innocence he is risking to have his trust in humanity destroyed because, if you cannot trust those you should be able to trust (aren't Christians supposed to be guided by high standards of morality, especially if the issue is their deeply held beliefs?), then what is left? Those "amoral" atheists? (unless he also gets to understand that atheism does not lead to lack of ethics).

Dan does not seem to be brilliant, but he tries to be honest. Still, either he will become a cynic, just like Ray and the like, or he will understand. What is your bet?

G.E.

Ray shows us flaws in the legal system

Ray says....

"Chuck, angry police officers showed up with a warrant for your arrest. They have video of you going 80 MPH through an area set aside for a blind children’s convention. There were clear warning signs everywhere saying that 15 MPH was the maximum speed. You are in big trouble. Add to that, the fact that just ten minutes prior to that happening, they stopped you for drunk driving and confiscated your driver’s license. You were in serious trouble with the law. The judge was furious, and handed down a massive fine. He said that if you couldn’t pay it, you were going to be thrown in prison for a very long time. I knew you didn’t have any money, so I sold my house, my car, and I used all my savings to pay that fine. You are free to go." 

First off what is a "blind children's convention"?  Ray has used this analogy before and maybe I'm just ignorant but to me that just sounds like being blind is an occupation or something. Do such conventions exist? Anyway, more to the point I think this shows a major flaw in the legal system of many countries. Are fines really just? Is the billionaire who has to pay a $200 fine punished just as much as the guy making minimum wage who has to pay a $200 fine for the same crime? Likewise do either of these people learn their lesson if someone else pays their fine? 

I want to address another thing Ray said:

"You could try and trivialize your crimes, but before you do, think of this. If I lied to my dog, it wouldn’t be a big deal. If I was caught in a lie to my wife, I may have to spend the night on the couch. If I lied to my boss, I may lose my job. If I lied to a Supreme Court Judge, I will spend a long time in prison. Even though it’s the same crime, the penalty increases according to the importance of the one to whom I am lying."

I don't believe this is a good analogy either.  The penalty does not increase according to the importance of the one whom you are lying to but rather the lie itself changes. When I lie to a Supreme Court Judge I'm not going to lie to him/her about whether I took out the trash or not I'm going to tell a lie that could land an innocent person in jail or let a guilty person go free. This makes one lie a more serious crime than another.  

Sarah Palin is the best thing to happen to Democrats....

Well, I guess they just lost the conservative Christian vote.....

Bristol Palin, 17 and un-wed is knocked up.

Hell, even as a liberal I think that's pretty fucking bad parenting. I guess this is what happens when you teach 'abstinence only'.