Is Ray Comfort the Ultimate Christian Ignoramus?

Remember that video which claims banana’s are the atheists ultimate nightmare, because “only God (presumably meaning Yahweh and not Zeus) could have designed something which fits so neatly into the human hand”?

Well the guy in it has his very own blog and it’s everything you’d imagine it to be – and then some.

While you have to stand in awe of anyone who can regularly get 100 plus comments on just about every single blog entry, don’t be too quick to become dismayed or delighted, depending on how you look at it. Very few of the comments are from people who agree with a single word he has to say, and of the ones who do, there’s a distinct sense of organisation about the way they write – as if they’re professional money raisers in Jesus name, with a distinct interest in making Ray seem more credible than his actual words and ideas could possibly allow, even in the most twisted of mind-sets – of which Ray has surely been in all of his life and will be until it ends.

What’s astounding to me is the lengths to which people will go, to prove to themselves and their kind, that their imaginary fears are valid, while completely ignoring people who’ve proven they are not.

The threat of eternal damnation for refusing to accept falsehoods as truth, means nothing to people who aren’t religious – yet it is all religious people can threaten non-believers with.

Almost as an acknowledgement of this simple fact, Ray attempts to go one further than the fire and brimstone gobbledegook we’re accustomed to, by deliberately misquoting Newton, Einstein and Hawking in his blog’s header summary and writing in a style which appears to make light of the daily bombardment his blog receives from the hundreds of normal people currently filling up his comments section, in a futile attempt to remind Ray of the schoolboy errors in his circular thinking, with good old fashioned logic.


6 comments on “Is Ray Comfort the Ultimate Christian Ignoramus?

  1. I didn’t know somebody that idiotic could figure out how to work a blog. While interesting to scroll through, I don’t think I could spend much time deciphering through the atheist/christian squabble before getting a vicious headache.

  2. I agree. It’s a bit too annoying to stick around for long. As soon as he opens his mouth you don’t know which compulsion is strongest; to shut it again for him or laugh hysterically at him until you piss your knickers.

  3. “The threat of eternal damnation for refusing to accept falsehoods as truth, means nothing to people who aren’t religious – yet it is all religious people can threaten non-believers with.”

    If there is no truth to there being a God, who created the universe and so would probably be the one you’d be answering to one day for breaking his laws and loving it, then why do you feel threatened? I can assure you that Christians are not looking to threaten anyone. No one likes being hated. But the bible says what it says. Its either a lie (not) or you are bothered by it because God has put a sense of right or wrong in you (your conscience). Which bothers you everytime his word is preached.

    I listened to the recent interview with the evolutionist “Christian”. Ray was asked if he was a scientist, and I wondered, hmmm, why does evolution start to be taught in school? The question wasn’t answered as to why there are no transitional forms (which darwin predicted would be found IF evolution was true) and yet evolution is being held up as truth?! With a science background, I was taught to question scientific theories. But it seems that somewhere along the line evolution was deemed truth without evidence to support it and much more against it.

    When did projections as to what could have happened in the past when no one was there hold a candle to a divine AND historical book??

    Ray isn’t ignorant at all with respect to scientific theories. Anyone who can read can see the holes in evolution. At least I know he isn’t as ignorant as you are of the bible. And feeling threatened by what the bible says only says to me that you are are wishing and hoping the God of the bible doesn’t exist so they can be their own gods and not have to answer to him some day.

    You should at least be able to ask yourself what if Ray is right? Ask yourself why you would rather be willing to swallow evolution. If its because you are “factual and only believe what you can see and prove” then ask yourself what are the facts. I think you’re going to find that you want to believe evolution, you choose to believe in it because the only other option is a belief in God the creator.

  4. Firstly, Abigail, Hello.

    Secondly, I can assure you that I do not find the threat from Christianity bothersome because I am confused about the origin of morality. The point I was making is that those of us who believe in one god less than Christians (who are themselves atheistic with regard to gods from other faiths) are not beholden to the same rules of conduct which Yahweh worshipers superimpose upon the golden rule—do unto others as you would have them to unto you.

    No, the threat I feel in my life, day to day, from Christianity is far more important than semantics about where common sense and good conduct come from. You need look no further than the hospitals of Baghdad to see what Christian militants are capable of in this regard—and, indeed, no further than the rehabilitation centres for those wounded in the 7/7 London bus bombings, to see what Islamic terrorists are just as capable of doing in return.

    The licence to act in utterly inhuman ways, towards your fellow man, is underlined by the arrogance of religious certainty. When you assume that you are right, about whatever you choose to overlay scriptural ambiguities upon, regardless of what compulsions in the contradictory evidence tells you, you enact a deceit in which generations of the faithful have willingly suspended their disbelief on everything from the age of fossils, to the human rights of a cell culture less complex than a house fly.

    Comfort is projecting upon the canvas of limitless imagination. The trouble with having no limits, is that you have no way of differentiating the facts from the fiction. Hence, I might suggest, why no-one outside of Evangelical Christianity has shown the slightest interest in the verisimilitude of his baseless fantasies.

    Unfortunately for Comfort (and all so-called young-Earth creationists) the notion of “transitional forms” is proving to be something of a dead end—not that you would know it from their rhetoric. I won’t go into too much detail here, since in the next few days I will begin shamelessly selling my book, which deals specifically with these matters, but suffice to say that, even if a dearth of evidence had not been unearthed showing, for example, that Whale fins are adapted from Hippo ankles, that does not mean a supernatural explanation for life on Earth is somehow more valid, simply because these transitions were previously missing from the fossil record.

    As it happens, in fact, the transitional forms which Darwin himself did indeed admit would be handy if they were ever found, have now been unearthed. Consequently, adaptation by natural selection has been corroborated in hundreds of thousands more taxonomic groupings than were known to have existed in Darwin’s day.

    On top of the fossil record becoming more complete year on year, we now have the additional YET ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT information from the DNA record—which shows in the case of Ungulates, for example, that they have over 12 thousands DNA protein strands in common between species, spanning 100 million years of progressive adaptation linking cloven hoofed Antelope to Sheep, Pigs and Cows to Whales, Hippos and Kangaroos.

    And yet, in the creationist rhetoric there is no mention whatsoever of the ever unfolding evidence in favour of, not just evolution by Darwin’s standards, but by the information as revealed over the past 150 years of critical analysis which has been built up ever since. Each and every one of these studies were devised with the in-build reliability of the scientific method; meaning that if any of the findings unearthed contradicted natural selection in even the slightest way it would be investigated, tested, verified and if found to be the case, ultimately ruled out.

    The reason that this has never happened is not because we have yet to find a way to induce supernatural intervention into logical hypothesis—it is because, in even attempting to do so, we must first establish what the divine is and is not capable of doing. The only way to establish that is to turn the question of who He is back upon those who still dogmatically believe He exists, despite the contradictory evidence. To which the answer always comes back the same—an externalisation of the ego into the care of an arbitrary set of ideals in which the neophyte happens to have an emotional investment. Q.E.D., you are your own God.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s