Iron Chariots Wiki - User contributions [en]

Talk:The Non-Prophets

2013-02-11T15:21:27Z

Arensb: /* Hiatus */

Could someone from the cast of the show bless the image used in this article ([[:Image:Non-prophets cast.png]]) with his permission? --[[User:Zx-man|Zx-man]] 17:34, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
: So blessed. Although that picture may be obsolete pretty soon... --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 20:25, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

== Intro titles ==

Denis gave the names of the last two fallacies he used for the introduction (appeal to authority and strawman), but I had to guess about the others. Perhaps someone who knows Denis can get the "official" titles from him.

For that matter, if he writes his intros in a computer file, it might be easiest for him to copy and paste them here, rather than for someone else to transcribe the show.
--[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 10:06, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

== Spoon video ==

The YouTube video added under "external links" had no description, an no obvious reason for a reader to follow the link.
Also, it's not clear that the spoon challenge is noteworthy enough to be worth adding to the show page. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 13:40, 19 June 2009 (CDT)

== Hiatus ==

[http://www.nonprophetsradio.com/ http://www.nonprophetsradio.com/] says that new episodes are scheduled starting Feb. 12, 2013. Is the announcement of the death of the Non-Prophets premature? Or does someone have information that the rest of us dont? --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 20:17, 10 February 2013 (CST)

:That appears to be an automated calendar that noone has turned off. They announced in early November on the AXP blog that the show was "dead", but that the hiatus isn't necessarily permanent. [[User:Jdog|Jdog]] 08:36, 11 February 2013 (CST)

:: Ah, yes. Here it is: http://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2012/11/06/open-thread-on-tae-786-gb-233/
:: --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 09:21, 11 February 2013 (CST)

Talk:The Non-Prophets

2013-02-11T02:17:45Z

Arensb: /* Hiatus */ new section

Doctor Darrel Ray

2012-12-13T14:50:44Z

Arensb: moved Doctor Darrel Ray to Darrel Ray: On this wiki, people -- even people with doctorates -- get pages with just their name, not their title.

#REDIRECT [[Darrel Ray]]

Darrel Ray

2012-12-13T14:50:44Z

Arensb: moved Doctor Darrel Ray to Darrel Ray: On this wiki, people -- even people with doctorates -- get pages with just their name, not their title.

Dr Darrel Ray is an organizational psychologist and author of two popular books, Sex & God (2012) and the God Virus (2009). He lives in Kansas, USA and is 62. He is also a prominent atheist; carrying extensive research into the relationships between sex and religion. He was raised a fundamentalist Christian.

See the below links for more information:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrel_Ray#section_3

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_and_organizational_psychology

http://blip.tv/the-atheist-experience-tv-show/atheist-experience-645-the-god-virus-3273699

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_religion

http://blip.tv/the-atheist-experience-tv-show/atheist-experience-790-sex-and-god-6462828

Atheism plus

2012-11-08T00:16:12Z

Arensb: Took out some polemics. Added refs.

'''Atheism Plus''' or '''Atheism+''' is a subset of the larger [[atheism visibility movement]] that incorporates social issues alongside "[[dictionary atheism]]".

As originally defined by [[Jen McCreight]], Atheism Plus means:<ref name="atheism-plus-post">[http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/08/atheism/ ''Atheism+'', by Jen McCreight at Blaghag]</ref>
: We are…
: Atheists ''plus'' we care about social justice,
: Atheists ''plus'' we support women’s rights,
: Atheists ''plus'' we protest racism,
: Atheists ''plus'' we fight homophobia and transphobia,
: Atheists ''plus'' we use critical thinking and skepticism.

== History ==

Atheism Plus was started with posts by Blag Hag, Jen McCreight, in August of 2012.
[http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/08/how-i-unwittingly-infiltrated-the-boys-club-why-its-time-for-a-new-wave-of-atheism/]
<ref name="atheism-plus-post"/>

Atheism Plus initially received a mixed reception in the atheist community. (citations and expansion welcome)

== Projects ==

=== A+ Scribe ===

"The mission of A+Scribe is to bring access to media in the Atheism Plus movement (and eventually beyond) to Deaf and Hard of Hearing readers.

We will strive to honestly, accurately, and completely transcribe as many media resources as we are able."[https://a-plus-scribe.com/doku.php]

A+ Scribe was announced on August 30, 2012 with Greta Christina's blog post, "Atheism+’s First Project: A+ Scribe!"<ref>http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/08/30/atheisms-first-project-a-scribe/</ref>

=== Atheism+ Emergency Support Project ===
On October 20, 2012, After a vote in the Atheism Plus forum for a big project, members decided to start the Atheism+ Emergency Support Project: "A freecycle-esque project to give support to those who need it. We would do things like give information to people who are in emergency situations- for example, connecting someone in an abusive situation with information on a local shelter- or connecting people in need of goods with others who have things to spare."<ref>http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2235</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

== External links ==
* Blog post: [http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/08/how-i-unwittingly-infiltrated-the-boys-club-why-its-time-for-a-new-wave-of-atheism/|''How I Unwittingly Infiltrated the Boy’s Club & Why It’s Time for a New Wave of Atheism''], by Jen McCreight
* Blog post: [http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/08/atheism/|''Atheism+''], by Jen McCreight
* [https://a-plus-scribe.com/doku.php|A+ Scribe]

User talk:WhatsAGoodUsername?

2012-09-09T22:09:42Z

Arensb:

{{Welcome}}
It's good to see allies in the fight against [[Ray Comfort]]. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 03:21, 28 October 2011 (CDT)

== Discussion ==
Put stuff you wanna talk about here, I like to debate and stuff.

I'm back, computer was broken, couldn't get a new one, got an iPhone 4s for my birthday, may do some editing from time to time.
I plan on adding more to Ben stein's expelled: no intelligence allowed about their dishonest editing of an interview with Richard Dawkins.

== Ideas for New Pages ==
I'll list pages I've started here that need more info. Sorry, I dont know how to link things, so you have to search them yourself.

[[Harold Camping]]

To make a link you type <nowiki>[[Harold Camping]], </nowiki>it comes out as, [[Harold Camping]], there is more [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Editing here] on a different site. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 03:16, 31 October 2011 (CDT)

== Transfer ==

Another user removed stuff you wrote and I can't prevent this as they outrank me. I've transfered what you wrote to [http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Ray_Comfort Ray Comfort] where I'm the chief administrator. You are very welcome to edit [http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Atheism Wiki]. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 04:06, 1 November 2011 (CDT)
I DIDNT GIVE YOU PERMISSION!!!!! No, its okay, I dont mind, but you should ask before you do that to people in case they get offended (but then again, some find our very existence offending.).
can you do some research on Harold Camping and Ben Stien? i feel they need more info, but I couldnt add much from memory...

== Preview and broken links ==

In the [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=21312&oldid=19808 change log] for your edit to ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', you wrote:
{{quote|New section, unsure if link works, section may need cleaning up. Will test link.}}
In case you didn't know, you can use the "Show preview" button when submitting an edit. This allows you to do things like check for broken links before committing the change.
If you're worried about navigating to a new page, then hitting "back" and finding that your browser has forgotten your edits, you can always open the link in a new tab or window. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 08:30, 9 September 2012 (CDT)
: See, the problem is, I'm using an iPhone, and I did test the link, however I was unsure if it would work with a proper computer, as my iPhone has a YouTube app, and that's where I got the link from, and I wanted to be certain.
:: Ah, sorry. I missed that part. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 17:09, 9 September 2012 (CDT)

User talk:WhatsAGoodUsername?

2012-09-09T13:30:55Z

Arensb: /* Preview and broken links */ new section

File:Creationistretardcopy.jpg

2012-08-17T22:06:28Z

Arensb: List for deletion

{{Delete|Not used anywhere}}
{{to PNG}}

Uploaded for my own amusement - don't use for any article (even creationism). It's a bit too polemic.

[[Category:Images]]
[[Category:JPEG images]]
[[Category:Images with no licensing information]]
[[Category:Drawings]]

File:Fgfds.png

2012-08-17T22:05:36Z

Arensb: List for deletion

User talk:Arensb

2012-08-10T18:14:46Z

Arensb: /* Still more spam accounts, eh? */

By the way, have I met you? I'm assuming you're a Non-Prophets listener, do you show up in the chat room? Great job on your contributions so far, by the way. -- [[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 11:30, 18 July 2006 (MST)
: I doubt it. I've never been to Austin (though if I'm ever there, I'd love to stop by Threadgill's and meet y'all). I ran across the Non-Prophets and Atheist Experience podcasts by chance while looking for something to listen to while doing yard work.
: And no, I haven't contributed to the chat room. They tend to turn into major time sinks, unfortunately. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 11:41, 18 July 2006 (MST)

== Famous atheists link fix ==

Thanks for catching the redlink I caused on the Main Page when I deleted the "Famous atheists" category. I recategorized the relevant articles but forgot to check "What links here". (I didn't think there was a good reason to have a separate category for "famous" atheists since if an atheist isn't famous in some sense, they really wouldn't warrant an article here.) - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 00:00, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

: Nae problem. I figured that was what had happened. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 08:29, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

== Status and admin stuff ==

I've upgraded your permissions to sysop and bureaucrat. It seemed reasonable, but let me know if there's a problem with that. Also - drop me an e-mail when you can[[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 13:03, 6 April 2007 (CDT)

== Sysop ==

Welcome to The Inner Circle. <g> I see Matt has made you a sysop. I've added an entry to [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Administrators]] for you. You can describe yourself briefly there, if you wish. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:33, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

== One syllable? ==

Regarding the pronunciation of your name, how do you make it one syllable? I would have thought "Eh-rensb" (hence, two syllables). What is the appropriate vowel sound? So it rhymes with "farms" or "cairns"? - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:44, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
: Gah. You're right. (Counting syllables is easy in Russian and French; it's much harder in English.)
: As for the initial A, the easy answer is that I don't really care as long as you get all the letters in the right order. The fuller answer is that in English I pronounce it as in "air" or "cairns", and in other languages I pronounce it as in "father".
: Hopefully this brings some much-needed confusion to this issue. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 23:06, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

== Category sortkey question ==

You asked about [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Religion&diff=6179&oldid=5458 my categorization] of [[Religion]] using the "*" sortkey. It is [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Categorization#Priority sort keys|customary on Wikipedia]] to force articles having the same name as a category to be listed first among articles in that category. The "*" sortkey does this (as does a sortkey starting with a space, which some people prefer). I've just carried that convention over to this wiki. We don't have to do it that way, if you want to lobby for a different style. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:40, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
: Thanks. I suspected as much, but wanted to check. I'm not as well-versed in either MediaWiki or Wikipedia lore as I'd like to be. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 17:52, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

== More categorization issues ==

I don't agree with [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Thomas_Jefferson&diff=prev&oldid=6193 your decision to remove] [[:Category:People]] from articles already in one of its subcats, such as [[:Category:Atheists]]. I know there is a big push on Wikipedia to avoid categorization into "adjacent" categories (i.e., a category and its immediate parent), but if a reader doesn't already know whether a given person is an atheist, they will have a harder time finding the article for that person using our category structure. Besides, keeping atheists separate from everyone else just don't feel right.... OTOH, thanks for adding the last-name sortkeys. BTW, did you notice [[#Sysop|my other comment above]]? You haven't edited [[Project:Administrators]], so I wasn't sure. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 14:46, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
: I figured the whole reason for having categories within categories was to put articles in the most specific categories. You're right that there's a certain logic in putting articles in both a generic and a specific category, but there ought to be some guidelines as to how to do it: Douglas Adams goes in [[:Category:Atheists]] because he's an atheist, and you could argue that he goes in [[:Category:People]] because he's a celebrity. But what about Richard Dawkins, who is well-known for being an atheist?
: I suppose the guiding principle should be to put articles in those categories where they'll do the most good, but I don't know how to turn that into a set of editorial do's and don'ts.
: Oh, and I haven't updated my line in [[Project:Administrators]] because I haven't come up with a pithy one-liner with which to summarize the totality of my life and relevant experience.
: --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 17:01, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

We can discuss this at [[Project talk:Categorization]] if you think other people should weigh in on this issue. (Which reminds me... it's still hard to get the attention of a lot of editors at once, since the wiki is relatively low-traffic, and discussion of the wiki as a whole has been going on mostly off-wiki, in [http://forum.ironchariots.org/ the forum(s)]. In particular, see [http://forum.ironchariots.org/viewtopic.php?t=618 this post of mine].) - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 14:59, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
: One of these days, I should probably sign up for the forum. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 17:01, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

== What is you policy about imports ==
: Unable to spell "your". Ten points from Gryffindor. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 10:27, 9 February 2009 (CST)

The Wikipedia article on Human sacrifice was referenced.[[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 06:44, 9 February 2009 (CST)

I don't know that Iron Chariots has a formal policy on this sort of thing, but if there were, I'd recommend that it be against importing articles wholesale from other sites, particularly Wikipedia:
# There's already a [[Template:Wikipedia]] that can be used to point the reader there.
# Any imported articles will quickly become out of date as articles on Wikipedia are updated and their local copies aren't.
# As you may have noticed, pages don't necessarily import cleanly: the text you imported was chock full of dead links, with templates and categories that don't exist here and likely never will.
# Since this is a specialized wiki and not a general reference work, it's better to concentrate on the atheism aspect of topics covered here.

--[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 10:27, 9 February 2009 (CST)

:: See [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Editing guidelines#General guidelines]] for our "policy" about copying Wikipedia articles over to this wiki. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 04:57, 26 March 2009 (CDT)

Arensb, there seems to be issues that organizers of this site have not cleared out yet. ''Arguments, and syllogisms particularly, are not owned by their authors''; however, the articles ''explaining the arguments'' are rightly owned. It is ''not plagiarism'' if one imports a syllogism or formal argument from another site.--[[User:Wissam hemadeh|wissam hemadeh]] 10:10, 24 June 2010 (CDT)

== Wiki's recent changes log... ==

The wiki's clock seems to be off by more than a week.... The history pages are showing the wrong dates. [[User:Jwissick|Jwissick]] 00:01, 7 April 2010 (CDT)

In fact if you check the history of this page, you will see that this comment was left on March 25, even though today is April 6th. [[User:Jwissick|Jwissick]] 00:02, 7 April 2010 (CDT)

==Spam==
Blocking spambots is usually a waste of time, they create new accounts easily and rarely or never come twice. Blocking human spammers can work, depends if they have a static or dynamic IP adress. The best protection against spambots is a [[Wikipedia:CAPTCHA|CAPTCHA]], [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 08:52, 27 October 2011 (CDT)

: Yeah, I know. But I don't have privileges to install MediaWiki modules or change the wiki's configuration. For that, you'd have to talk to one of the Real Admins™. [[User:Sans_Deity]] or [[User:Kazim]] might be able to point you in the right direction.
: Deleting spam and banning accounts used to spam is about as far as my superpowers go. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 10:41, 27 October 2011 (CDT)

Thanks for helping again with spam, I think it helps discourage spammers if they see that more than one admin is active. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 13:19, 9 November 2011 (CST)

Thasnks yet again, I went out and enjoyed myself offline but I kept thinking, "There'll be a mountain of spam to clear when I get back." Now there isn't. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 12:49, 12 November 2011 (CST)

I've lost Internet access at home so I can't help with spam very much for the moment, sorry. I'll check the sites where I'm an administrator from time to time from public computers Engineers are due next week to look at my Internet connection. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 08:17, 18 November 2011 (CST)

hey, have you noticed the calendar is glitched? [[User:WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]

==Miracles and wiki links==
Hi Arensb. I see that you deleted the redirect I created from [[Miracles]] with the comment "Just use miracles", which I'm afraid I don't quite understand. I believe it is common policy on most wikis to create articles in the singular and then create redirects in the plural. I understand that to be [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes_of_redirects wikipedia policy]. It's certainly much easier to create wiki links where the linking "from" article has the plural form as first usage.

Consider this page [[Miracles in history]] which pretty obviously needs a link to "miracle". The first use of the word is the plural "miracles". If there is a redirect then it can be linked as <nowiki>[[miracles]]</nowiki> but if the redirect is not allowed the then the redirect has to be either <nowiki>[[miracle]]</nowiki>s or, even worse, <nowiki>[[miracle miracles]] - both of which are more difficult than if the redirect were in place.

Furthermore the redirect means that a search on "miracles" will go direct to "miracle".

I'm not trying to pick a fight over this I'm just wondering if you could explain your decision. Cheers. --~~~~</nowiki>

: Sorry about the changelog. It should have read "Just use <nowiki>[[Miracle]]s</nowiki>". It seems like an unnecessary redirect, given that you can put the "s" outside of the brackets. It's just cleaner that way, and the [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Iron_Chariots_Wiki:Editing_guidelines#Links style guidelines] list that as good usage. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 11:32, 25 November 2011 (CST)
::Hi Arensb. :-) OK, but:
::#The style guide doesn't relay explicitly say that you can't create redirects in such cases, rather it tells you how to link if there is no redirect.
::#If the style guide really says that you shouldn't create redirects in such cases then it is badly worded.
::#The style guide also says: ''"if this is a "redlink" → <nowiki>[[apologist]]</nowiki> create a page there with this content → <nowiki>#REDIRECT [[Apologetics]] </nowiki>"''
::#The Wikipdia folks have thought about these things long and hard and their solution is plurals for redirects.
::#If you go to a page with things which look like they should be linked you can just highlight the word and click on the "AB" tab at the top of the page. This automatically adds the square brackets. This is a lot easier than it is to manually enter four square brackets while carefully ensuring that the last two are between the root word and the final "s".
::But if you still feel that this isn't permitted by the guidelines then I'll take it up at the style guidelines page. Again, I'm not looking for an argument, but this wiki is short of internal links and I was setting about creating them (check my contributions) and redirects are a lot more efficient than having to mess about with individual wiki-code for each one.--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 11:59, 25 November 2011 (CST)
:::Hi. Can I take your silence as implicit agreement? I ask because I'd like to continue adding links but before doing so I would like conformation that this wiki is going to follow standard internal wiki-linking conventions. Thanks. --[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 11:47, 26 November 2011 (CST)

There is a problem that administrators spend too little time at this wiki. I did a lot of work, then got into trouble because this wiki wants a more polite approach than I was using. It would have been much better if the admins had said something tactful to me earlier on. Later I got into trouble because I called another user a troll '''after''' that user had had accused me of trolling, see [[Iron Chariots Wiki talk:Editing guidelines#Kazim's response]]. Presumably administrators had insufficient time to read that I was responding to someone else’s accusation. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 13:25, 26 November 2011 (CST)
:Hi Proxima. To be honest I don't really want to get involved in any other disputes you may be having as - and I hope you will pardon my saying this - you do have a tendency to get involved in misunderstandings.--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 16:39, 26 November 2011 (CST)

== Still more spam accounts, eh? ==

I thought installing the spam blacklist would have helped, but apparently it's not enough, so I'm turning account creation back off until I decide what else to do. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 14:11, 11 March 2012 (CDT)

: Apparently the spammers are evolving. On the plus side, though, there does seem to be a lot less spam than before. Though the endless list of "new user created" changes is slightly annoying. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 14:42, 11 March 2012 (CDT)

:: There was less because I had turned off account creation for a while. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 06:23, 12 March 2012 (CDT)

::: What it looks like from the change history is that you turned off account creation for a while; then you turned it back on and dozens of new accounts started appearing but not editing anything. I assume that those were spammers who got past the account-creation hurdle, but not the blacklist hurdle. And then a few managed to get through anyway, though far fewer than before.
::: I wish I could recommend a good antispam plugin, but my other wikis are all on private networks so I haven't had to look at what's available. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 08:04, 12 March 2012 (CDT)

How are you feelings about the spam levels now? We've got public IP blacklists as well as CAPTCHA involved for every edit. As I see it, we're getting still getting just a trickle of attempted fake accounts, which is annoying but still at a manageable level; and only once every few days do they manage to actually post any junk. I'm optimistic, how about you? --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 14:56, 27 July 2012 (CDT)

: The purist in me is annoyed by the large number of spammer accounts being created, even if they don't actually do anything, but I can easily point him at Twitter or YouTube and distract him so he shuts up.
: But yeah, in practice it looks as though spam has fallen to a much more manageable level. I no longer spend a good chunk of my morning cleaning up spam. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 15:25, 27 July 2012 (CDT)

::That purist is in me too. I feel tempted to wonder whether it would be a bad thing if I went to the database with a regular expression for user names like "If username has a name that is in camelcase with exactly two capital letters, and ends in one digit, and they have never posted anything, nuke the account." I wonder how many that would destroy. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 10:08, 28 July 2012 (CDT)

::To answer my own question: '''select * from wiki_user where user_name rlike '[A-Z][a-z]*[A-Z][a-z]*[0-9]$' '''
::There are 750 results (and not all of them are fake; for instance, "AgnosticAtheist1" sounds legit). By comparison, there are 8093 total wiki users, which is really not very many in the grand scheme of things. Less than 10% match that pattern so, meh, let them have their fun. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 10:23, 28 July 2012 (CDT)

::: Oh, sure, it's easy when you have direct access to the database :-)
::: Now that you have a list of 750 users, you can use your second criterion: pick only the ones with zero edits to their name. It's possible you could catch an innocent user who hasn't had time to make any edits yet, but I suppose you could ignore the accounts created in the last few days.
::: Another approach, if you have access to the relevant logs, would be to check for users who try to make changes but fail the captcha too often in too short a period of time.
::: Or just leave 'em be. Again, it depends on how loud your inner purist is yelling. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 11:05, 28 July 2012 (CDT)

::::I don't think it's that safe to just nuke people from the database, since I have no idea what connecting tables will also start causing errors. I guess I could use the search to generate a giant list of comma separated strings, and see if there are any scripting tools in MediaWiki that will do the delete. Also, if they were failing the CAPTCHA then they wouldn't be able to create accounts at all now. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 11:37, 28 July 2012 (CDT)

::::More trivia: 770 users have made any revisions. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 11:44, 28 July 2012 (CDT)
::::And about half of those have made more than 2 revisions. This is fun. Any data requests? :) --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 11:47, 28 July 2012 (CDT)

::::: Yeah, I don't know much about MediaWiki, but I do know that its database is a twisty maze of tables, all different. I wouldn't advise you to go poking around with SQL; rather, there's got to be some API out there for doing this sort of thing. Unfortunately, I can't recommend one, because the last time I looked, it was all in Python, and I haven't learned that yet <nowiki>[hangs head in shame]</nowiki>. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 12:41, 28 July 2012 (CDT)

So... yeah. Sigh.

The levels of actual spam posts are still manageable, but the number of new accounts created is out of control. I'm looking into the [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ConfirmAccount ConfirmAccount] extension right now. It will require all new accounts to be approved, but anyone with Bureaucrat powers can confirm them, so all the work won't fall on me. It's ridiculous that it has to be even that extreme, but I can't see a better solution at the moment. Until I'm sure this extension works, account creation is disabled. Again. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 07:58, 10 August 2012 (CDT)

: While new accounts are through the roof, I'm not ''too'' upset, because they don't actually require any action on my part, other than deleting the announcements from my RSS aggregator. Yeah, it'd be great to cut down on the number of new accounts, but it doesn't feel as urgent as cutting down on actual spam did a few months or years ago. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 13:14, 10 August 2012 (CDT)

User talk:Arensb

2012-07-28T17:41:15Z

Arensb: /* Still more spam accounts, eh? */

User talk:Arensb

2012-07-28T16:05:50Z

Arensb: /* Still more spam accounts, eh? */

User talk:Arensb

2012-07-27T20:25:40Z

Arensb: /* Still more spam accounts, eh? */

Talk:List of predicted dates for the end of the world

2012-05-22T16:25:13Z

Arensb: /* Major and minor predictions */

== Major and minor predictions ==

Not all predictions are equal. There ought to be some way of distinguishing widely-reported or -believed predictions (like [[Harold Camping]]'s), from the rantings of some disregarded street preacher. Perhaps a star before the date or something? Anyone got any suggestions? --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 11:58, 18 February 2012 (CST)
:I'd suggest sectioning this page by the church / religious group that the prediction was under the banner of, thus pretty much cutting out the lone wolf predictions that barely anyone knew about. And I suspect the majority of people reading and editing the list are only really interested in one particular religious group anyway, so that'd be easier to follow. --[[User:Jaban|jaban]] 17:28, 21 May 2012 (CDT)

::IMHO the value of this page (if it's properly fleshed out) would be to be show it to the next person who says the world is about to end, and say "look, all of these people sincerely believed that the end of the world was just around the corner, and they were all wrong. Why should I believe that your sincere belief is any different?"
::So while it might make sense to split the list up by Christian Rapture vs. Aliens vs. Mayan calendar or some such, I wouldn't further subdivide by denomination or anything like that. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 11:25, 22 May 2012 (CDT)

== <nowiki>[citation needed]</nowiki> ==

Ideally, all of these predictions should be accompanied by references. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 15:05, 18 May 2012 (CDT)

Talk:List of predicted dates for the end of the world

2012-05-18T20:05:09Z

Arensb: /* [citation needed] */ new section

Jesus Camp

2012-03-29T14:58:50Z

Arensb: Link to where you can watch the movie

{{Movie-stub}}
{{Wikipedia}}

'''''Jesus Camp''''' is a documentary movie about a Christian summer camp.

==External link==
* ''[http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/jesus_camp Jesus Camp]'' viewable online

[[Category:Movies]]

Talk:Brian's Paradox

2012-03-28T19:37:09Z

Arensb:

LOL. Would it be appropriate to include what I consider to be an alternative rendition: "Heads I Win, Tails you Lose"? --[[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 13:42, 28 March 2012 (CDT)
: Works for me. I think I prefer [[Brian's Paradox]] as the official page (unless it can be merged into some other page), and "Heads I win..." as the redirect. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 14:37, 28 March 2012 (CDT)

Poisoning the well

2012-03-28T18:38:05Z

Arensb: Flesh out why it's a fallacy. Mark made-up example as such.

{{argument-stub}}

'''Poisoning the well''' is a [[logical fallacy]] in which the person making the fallacy seeks to discredit an opponent before that opponent has presented any arguments.

The negative information presented to discredit the opponent may be either true or false, but, as it is known to be negative, is presented solely to persuade the audience to view the opponent's later arguments as false regardless of their rationale.

==Examples==
* "When John E. Jones decided in 2005 to 'traipse into' the controversial area of evolution and science education, deciding the scientific merit of intelligent design as a federal court judge in Dover, PA, he may have only dreamed of the day when he would see himself on the silver screen. [...] Now PBS and NOVA are teaming up to produce what may be Judge Jones' dream come true. 'Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial' is a special 2-hour program devoted to the Dover trial as Judge Jones saw it." -- [http://www.discovery.org/a/4300 Anika Jones, "What NOVA Won't Tell You about Dover"]
* "Scientists at Los Alamos — the good folks who unleashed the terror of atomic bombs on the world — are now proposing that we use bees to sniff out bomb-toting terrorists." (fictional example) 

==Discussion==
The quality of an argument does not depend on the person making the argument, or that person's character, or any unsavory qualities the person might possess. The argument should stand on its own.

However, people can easily be biased against anything a "bad" person says. Poisoning the well exploits this propensity.

==See also==
* [[Argumentum ad hominem]]

[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Nonoverlapping magisteria

2012-03-28T18:20:42Z

Arensb: Ref-ify

'''Nonoverlapping magisteria''' (or '''NOMA''') is the concept, originally presented by [[Stephen Jay Gould]], that:
{{quote|Science and religion are not in conflict, for their teachings occupy distinctly different domains.}}

This position is accepted by many modern [[theist]]s as it allows them to reconcile apparent contradictions. With [[science]] and [[religion]] in non-competitive domains, one is free to hold [[supernatural]] beliefs and still accept scientific explanations of the [[natural world]].

The NAS released a statement endorsing this same idea in 1997:<ref>http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=R9</ref>:
{{Quote|Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each.}}

==God of the gaps==
Nonoverlapping magisteria has something in common with [[God of the gaps]], basically when science could not yet explain something or when Gould did not know or consider that science and philosophy could explain something it was put into a different magisteriun.

==Compromise and isolation==
NOMA attempts a compromise between science and religion. Science should, according to NOMA inform how the world is, that means when scientific observations, contradict or appear to contradict the [[Bible]] or other “Sacred” texts the scientific findings should be accepted as accurate. So far this is reasonable, for example we can accept scientific statements about [[evolution]] or astronomy/cosmology even when ''"sacred texts"'' appear to contradict science. Then Gould suggests that religion should determine questions about ultimate meaning whatever that is, moral values, beauty, religion etc.

NOMA may tend to isolate the religious fundamentalists from the more liberal believers. Fundamentalists do not accept that science can be correct in any area that contradicts their faith based position while liberal believers tend to find NOMA acceptable. NOMA also risks separating those scientists who accept NOMA from scientists who take research where the [[Scientific method]] leads even when this challenges some NOMA based positions.

==Objections==
The primary objection to this premise, by both religionists and scientists, is that acceptable boundaries cannot be defined.
*Morality should not be forced to conform to faith based “sacred” texts. Which Texts? [[The Bible]]? [[Qur'an|The Koran]]? [[The Upanishads]]? Something different? Should moral decisions be based on religious texts written in the Bronze Age, the Iron Age, the Roman Empire or other centuries old texts considered sacred but written before the development of modern science? [[Christianity and divorce|Divorce]] is just one example where leaving rulemaking to religious people causes great harm, to partners in unhappy marriages and to children growing up in those marriages. Social scientists who understand the effects or different rules and systems should have an input in moral decisions.

*Beauty cannot be measured scientifically but human reactions when creating something considered beautiful or appreciating something beautiful can be studied empirically as can other aspects of human behaviour. Therefore treating art as somehow separate does not make sense.

*NOMA reasonably advocates that for example Bronze Age texts in the [[Old Testament]] suggesting that the sun stood still<ref>[http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/jos/10.html#12 Joshua 10-12] in [[The Skeptic's Annotated Bible]]</ref> conflict with science and what astronomers say rather than the Bible should be accepted. Then NOMA goes on to say unreasonably that the same unreliable Bronze Age texts give moral decrees that scientists cannot question.

*[[Fundamentalist]]s and [[Biblical literalist]]s believe that placing limits on religion is tantamount to placing limits on [[God]] and that God's [[transcendent]] nature dictates that nothing is beyond the scope of religion. For these believers, the answers provided by science are acceptable until they contradict so-called ''knowledge'' revealed by God.

*Christians routinely seek to impose their [[faith]] based moral values onto scientists, for example trying to ban some types of stem cell research or banning it, see [[Wikipedia:Stem cell controversy]]. Meanwhile scientists are expected to accept without question limits that believers impose on them.

*Many scientists argue that an obvious boundary exists (natural/supernatural) but that religion generally refuses to remain within its domain, while religionists argue that science is continually encroaching into its territory by examining the questions of human origins, consciousness and even morality. [[Materialist]]s respond that religion overstepped its boundaries long ago, by filling gaps in our knowledge with [[dogmatic]] assertions that, as our understanding has grown, have been replaced with naturalistic explanations.

*This observation is historically supported, and the [[conflict between science and religion]] is well documented. If something is initially considered supernatural (magnetism, for example) and science later provides a naturalistic explanation, how can anything be considered beyond the scope of scientific investigation?

* Indeed, scientific investigation rooted in [[rational]], naturalistic materialism has proven to be the most consistent and [[reliable]] method of explaining [[reality]].

* Gould defined magisterium as "a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution" - However, one could argue that within religion there is no meaningful discourse or resolution or tools for such ends, as such religion isn't a magisterium at all. Discourse and resolution never happens since different [[faith]] groups hold different, sometimes mutually contradictory faith based beliefs and no amount of discussion can decide which if any are correct.

* NOMA serves to, as Richard Dawkins argues, shield religion from scientific scrutiny. The God hypothesis that there exists an all powerful man who created humans and other life forms and created the universe is at its core a scientific hypothesis open to falsifiability.

==References==
<references/>

==Parodies==
* Not Opposing Metaphysical Asininity

==External links==
*[http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html Stephen Jay Gould's description of NOMA]
*[http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_18_2.html A response from Richard Dawkins]
*[http://www.godslasteraar.org/html/gould_s_non_overlapping_magist.html Gould's Non Overlapping Magisteria, a Review]

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Science]]

6th commandment

2012-03-28T18:17:06Z

Arensb: /* Counter-apologetics */ Rephrase. Collapse redundant counter-arguments.

{{Ten Commandments}}
{{Bible|Exodus 20:13}}:
{{Bible-verse|13|Thou shalt not kill.}}

{{Bible|Deuteronomy 5:17}}:
{{Bible-verse|17|Thou shalt not kill.}}

{{Bible|Exodus 34:21}}:
{{Bible-verse|21|Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.}}

Some translations read: ''Thou shall not murder''.

==Counter-apologetics==
* This commandment is often cited as proof of the morality of the Bible or the necessity of the [[Ten Commandments]]. However almost every law code in the history of the world has included this rule. A society in which people were free to kill each other with no adverse consequences would almost certainly fall apart very quickly, or at least fail to thrive.
* The Jewish people in the story traveled across the desert before finally being told that killing isn't acceptable?
* Thou shalt not kill, unless thou be on Crusade, or if the other fellow be a heathen.
* Does this mean that capital punishment is wrong? What about self-defense? What about war? What about euthanasia requested by the terminally ill? The drawback of this law is absoluteness—good laws make distinctions. Since the actions and commands of God burst with bloodthirstiness, this commandment seems to lose its import. Besides, prohibitions of murder existed long before the Ten Commandments or the Israelites appeared on the scene. It is not as if the human race never would have figured out that it is wrong to kill without some tablets coming down from a mountain. Laws against murder and manslaughter based on self-preservation and social stability have found their way into almost every culture before and after Moses, and it would be odd if the Israelites did not have a similar principle.

==In United States law==
* This commandment is a part of U.S. law. Laws in the united states generally prohibit the killing of another individual. U.S. law goes beyond a simple "do not kill" statement. It makes exceptions in some cases for the killing of another individual (justifiable homicide, personal self defense, etc). U.S. law also goes further in that it defines tiers of severity for different types of killing. First Degree murder is considered more of an offense than less malicious killings (manslaughter, etc.). It is worth noting that this prohibition appears in some degree or form in virtually every society in the world, whether it is a Christian dominated society or not.
* Many [[apologist]]s (such as [[Ray Comfort]] and [[Kirk Cameron]]) reference {{bible|Matthew 5:21-22}} as another form of "murder." In this passage, Jesus warns against being angry at your brother without cause, and seems to equate it with murder. This act, however, is not illegal in any part of the United States - in fact, most would consider it absurd to attempt to bring charges on anyone who was angry at another without just cause.
[[Category:Commandments]]

Why Are You Atheists So Angry?

2012-03-28T16:43:04Z

Arensb: /* Chapter One: Why Are You Atheists So Angry? */ Summary of chapter 1.

{{book-stub}}
'''''Why Are You Atheists So Angry?: 99 Things that Piss off the Godless'''' is a book by [[Greta Christina]] published Mar. 18, 2012.

==Contents==
===Chapter One: Why Are You Atheists So Angry?===
A list of outrages caused or encouraged by religion, such as female genital mutilation and activism against same-sex marriage. This chapter is adapted from the blog post ''[http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html Atheists and Anger]''.

===Chapter Two: Some Answers to the Questions I Know I'll Get Asked===
===Chapter Three: Why This Really Is Religion's Fault===
===Chapter Four: Yes, This Means You: Moderate and Progressive Religion===
===Chapter Five: Yes, This Means You: New Age Religion===
===Chapter Six: Yes, This Means You: "Spiritual but Not Religious"===
===Chapter Seven: Yes, This Means You: Ecumenicalism and Interfaith===
===Chapter Eight: The Top Ten Reasons I Don't Believe In God===
===Chapter Nine: Why "Religion Is Useful" The Santa Delusion===
===Chapter Ten: What Do You Want, Anyway? One Atheist's Mission Statement===
===Chapter Eleven: Is Atheist Activism Valid?===
===Chapter Twelve: Is Atheist Activism Effective?===
===Chapter Thirteen: On Other People's Behalf: Anger and Compassion===
===Chapter Fourteen: What Now?===
===Chapter Fifteen: Resources===
A list of atheist organizations; online forums and resources; blogs and podcasts; and books that may be of use to atheists and people hoping to learn more about atheism.

[[Category:Books]]
[[Category:Atheist books]]

Why Are You Atheists So Angry?

2012-03-28T16:38:47Z

Arensb: /* Chapter Fifteen: Resources */ Quick summary.

{{book-stub}}
'''''Why Are You Atheists So Angry?: 99 Things that Piss off the Godless'''' is a book by [[Greta Christina]] published Mar. 18, 2012.

==Contents==
===Chapter One: Why Are You Atheists So Angry?===
===Chapter Two: Some Answers to the Questions I Know I'll Get Asked===
===Chapter Three: Why This Really Is Religion's Fault===
===Chapter Four: Yes, This Means You: Moderate and Progressive Religion===
===Chapter Five: Yes, This Means You: New Age Religion===
===Chapter Six: Yes, This Means You: "Spiritual but Not Religious"===
===Chapter Seven: Yes, This Means You: Ecumenicalism and Interfaith===
===Chapter Eight: The Top Ten Reasons I Don't Believe In God===
===Chapter Nine: Why "Religion Is Useful" The Santa Delusion===
===Chapter Ten: What Do You Want, Anyway? One Atheist's Mission Statement===
===Chapter Eleven: Is Atheist Activism Valid?===
===Chapter Twelve: Is Atheist Activism Effective?===
===Chapter Thirteen: On Other People's Behalf: Anger and Compassion===
===Chapter Fourteen: What Now?===
===Chapter Fifteen: Resources===
A list of atheist organizations; online forums and resources; blogs and podcasts; and books that may be of use to atheists and people hoping to learn more about atheism.

[[Category:Books]]
[[Category:Atheist books]]

Brian's Paradox

2012-03-28T16:23:25Z

Arensb: Slight cleanup

'''Brian's Paradox''' occurs when all outcomes result in [[theist]]s winning. It was coined by [[Tracie Harris]] and is inspired by the Monty Python movie ''The Life of Brian''.

:'''Brian''': I'm not the [[Messiah]]! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand? Honestly!
:'''Girl''': Only the true Messiah denies His divinity.
:'''Brian''': What? Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right! I am the Messiah!
:'''Followers''': He is! He is the Messiah!

Why Are You Atheists So Angry?

2012-03-28T16:21:25Z

Arensb: List of chapters

{{book-stub}}
'''''Why Are You Atheists So Angry?: 99 Things that Piss off the Godless'''' is a book by [[Greta Christina]] published Mar. 18, 2012.

==Contents==
===Chapter One: Why Are You Atheists So Angry?===
===Chapter Two: Some Answers to the Questions I Know I'll Get Asked===
===Chapter Three: Why This Really Is Religion's Fault===
===Chapter Four: Yes, This Means You: Moderate and Progressive Religion===
===Chapter Five: Yes, This Means You: New Age Religion===
===Chapter Six: Yes, This Means You: "Spiritual but Not Religious"===
===Chapter Seven: Yes, This Means You: Ecumenicalism and Interfaith===
===Chapter Eight: The Top Ten Reasons I Don't Believe In God===
===Chapter Nine: Why "Religion Is Useful" The Santa Delusion===
===Chapter Ten: What Do You Want, Anyway? One Atheist's Mission Statement===
===Chapter Eleven: Is Atheist Activism Valid?===
===Chapter Twelve: Is Atheist Activism Effective?===
===Chapter Thirteen: On Other People's Behalf: Anger and Compassion===
===Chapter Fourteen: What Now?===
===Chapter Fifteen: Resources===

[[Category:Books]]
[[Category:Atheist books]]

Great chain of being

2012-03-28T16:07:23Z

Arensb: Slight wikification. Typo.

{{Stub}}
{{Wikify|suggest=fact-checking}}

'''The Great Chain of Being''' or ''Scala Naturae'' is a medieval model of the universe and life. It outlines the perceived hierarchy of all things from the [[Christian]] [[god]] at the top down to perceived base minerals like dust.

==Unchangeable vs. mutable forms==
An important distinction is that between the unchangeable [[spirit]] and the changing or mutable earthly-form. In the middle of these two is the human form which contains both elements of spirit and mutable flesh. Spirit through the adherence to absolute [[morals]] is considered the path to righteousness and the primal desires of the flesh are seen to drag one away from [[heaven]].

==Rationale==
The concept of a Great Chain of Being rests on the existence of a Christian god and exists purely as a result of people trying to explain the role of the Christian god. It adds no compelling reason to further believe in a god.

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Jesus Camp

2012-03-28T16:03:38Z

Arensb: Removed part copied from Wikipedia, leaving only a stub.

{{Movie-stub}}
{{Wikipedia}}

'''''Jesus Camp''''' is a documentary movie about a Christian summer camp.

[[Category:Movies]]

Category:Movie stubs

2012-03-28T16:02:52Z

Arensb: Copied from :Category:Book stubs.

These articles about [[:Category:Movies|movies]] need to be expanded. To add an article to this category, add {{tl|Movie-stub}} to the page.

[[Category:Stubs]]
[[Category:Movies]]

Template:Movie-stub

2012-03-28T16:01:55Z

Arensb: Copied from :Template:Book-stub

{{Stub master|movie}}<noinclude>

; Purpose
: To mark [[Project:stub|stub]] articles related to movies. Articles so marked appear in [[:Category:Movie stubs]].

; Usage
: {{t|movie-stub}}

; Note
: This template is a special case of the more general [[Template:Stub master]]. See [[:Category:Stub templates]] for others.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Movie-stub}}
[[Category:Templates]]
[[Category:Special-case templates]]
[[Category:Stub templates]]
[[Category:Movie stubs]]
</noinclude>

Category:Citation needed

2012-03-28T15:36:16Z

Arensb: Cat

Pages in this category contain claims that are not adequately supported by external citations.
Pages are automatically added to this category when they include [[:Template:Citation needed]].

[[Category:Maintenance]]

Category:Citation needed

2012-03-28T15:34:26Z

Arensb: Some descriptive text.

Pages in this category contain claims that are not adequately supported by external citations.
Pages are automatically added to this category when they include [[:Template:Citation needed]].

Template:Citation needed

2012-03-28T15:28:25Z

Arensb: First draft.

[citation needed]
<includeonly>
[[Category:Citation needed]]
</includeonly>
<noinclude>
Mark a claim as lacking supporting citations.

Parameters:
* date: Date when the claim was marked as insufficiently-supported. Defaults to current month and year.

[[Category:Maintenance templates]]
[[Category:Inline templates]]
</noinclude>

Bible contradictions

2012-03-28T14:40:38Z

Arensb: Propose merging

{{Merge|Bible#Contradictions within the Bible}}

'''Bible contradictions''' appear throughout the text as one would expect from writings by fallible human beings. The [[Bible]] is clearly not an authoritative text inspired by an [[Omniscient]] [[God]] who [[omnibenevolence|wanted to give humankind]] reliable and unambiguous information and [[omnipotence|could give]] clear information.

==External links==
*[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html A List of Biblical Contradictions]
*[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html Bible Inconsistencies: Bible Contradictions?]
*[http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm Biblical Contradictions]
*[http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-contradictions Bible Contradictions]
*[http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html Contradictions in the Bible]
*[http://ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/?t=contra Bible Contradictions]

{{stub}}
[[Category:Bible]]

Nothing Created Everything (book)

2012-03-23T19:50:06Z

Arensb: Ref-ify

'''Nothing Created Everything: The Scientific Impossibility of Atheistic Evolution''' is a book authored by [[Ray Comfort]] in 2009.
==Preference==
Comfort starts off by sharing his relationship with atheists as a love/hate relationship: he loves atheists and atheists hate or at least deeply dislike him. This is hard to imagine why, especially when Ray Comfort constantly calls atheist fools, intellectually bankrupt, wicked, and such. Ray Comfort tries sharing that Christian love speech while distorting facts and deliberately being dishonest to his audience. When atheists point out his errors and lies, such as with his famous [[banana argument]], Comfort later claimed it was a hoax set up by atheists to make him look bad. Ray will do anything it takes to make atheists appear wicked or dumb. Ray Comfort obviously does not love atheists, his grudge against them is evident of that. Ray claims, as a Christian, he loves everyone, but what does that mean? If a person spreads love around to everything, then love loses its true meaning. Thus, when Ray says he loves atheists, his notions are meaningless and he knows it.

Moving on, Comfort shares his experience giving meals and books to atheists. He points out that atheists love to ask for books and concludes perhaps they use them as doorsteps or find spiritual things interesting. His response from atheists have been cheerful.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Maybe it is atheist are interested in learning new things, or perhaps they just want to smell what Comfort is spewing.}}

Comfort then shares a story of a police officer who was upset with a minister because his wife stays at church on Monday for too long that he does not have a cooked meal ready for him at home (what a selfish punk, it is only once a week. Try to be independent). The pastor responded that he would cook for the policeman. During this time, they made a friendly bet on a football game. If the pastor won, the policeman would join them for Sunday church. The policeman lost, and as promised the policeman showed up. After several months of this, the police officer wanted to be born again.

Ray then addresses atheists (why does he keep calling them that? He already argued -and failed- that atheists do not exist, so why continue to call them that?). He wants to make a friendly bet with atheists, that if one should lose they must give up something. Ray says if he fails to prove the existence of God and the importance of Christianity, Ray will give up going to Heaven. However, if he succeeds, atheists must give up going to hell.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Although this is very promising, it is already clear that Ray has no intention of changing his mind. As shown in a [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rational_Response_Squad_debate_with_Way_of_the_Master debate with the Rational Response Squad], Ray Comfort and [[Kirk Cameron]] already failed to prove the existence of God scientifically, and they knew that they had no case going in. So already, the bet is over Mr. Comfort. The bet is over long before Comfort wrote this book. Comfort failed then, and is not more likely to have a better case here since Comfort has a bad habit of just repeating himself over and over in different books and episodes. Give up going to heaven Ray. Of course, Comfort may not read this article or ignore it when presented to him from another source. Even from a critique from a third party, Comfort will never admit that he has failed to prove God. Regardless, this book will be reviewed and show why Ray Comfort has failed to make his case.

Only in Ray's narrow definition and version of Hell is depicted as a fiery place of torment. Some Christians do not believe in a literal hell, some believe it is a place separated from God. As of yet, there is absolutely no proof of God, heaven, or hell. Hypothetically, perhaps there is some form of heaven, but it is only a realm for atheists and those brave enough to question or doubt God, whereas everyone else goes south. If there is a God, he does not believe in a higher power, making him an atheist as well.

As comedian Jim Jeffries pointed out in one of his stand up comedies,<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZJ-_OTvsqo</ref> as far as we know about hell being a fiery place of eternal torment, that is what is in the Bible. As far as we know, we have not heard the other side of the story. The devil has not written a book. We have God writing all these bad things about the devil, and it seems the devil is being the bigger man and not responding to god's negativity. God says he sends drunks, thieves, and pricks to hell. Even if there is a hell, why would the devil punish you? You are one of his boys. He is going to dig you.}}

==Chapter 1: The Evolution Illusion==
The chapter begins with Ray sharing his experience at the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle Grand Galerie de L'Evolution in Paris November 2008. After spending time searching for [[evidence]] for [[evolution]], all he found was an 'ugly-looking stuffed monkey' labeled "Lucy." Based on this, he concluded that there was no evidence for [[evolution]].
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Given Ray's track record of deliberately misrepresenting evolution, he either was not sharing with his readers what else he saw at the museum or he had no idea of the facts before his eyes. His use of the word "monkey" deliberately misleads the reader to think this thing looks like a monkey, when it reality it is a reconstruction of what Homo floresiensis may have looked like. It clearly has more human features than a monkey.<ref>[http://hopsea.mnhn.fr/pc/flores/flores.html MNHN Link]</ref> The stuffed monkey in question is Australopithecus afarensis, one of the many intermediate fossils in human evolution. Australopithecus afarensis proved to be a fully bipedal ape whose hands, feet, teeth, pelvis, skull, and other physical details were exactly what creationists challenged us to find, yet they’re still pretending we never found it. But worse than that, we didn’t just find that one. In 1977, three years after we discovered the no-longer-missing link in the human evolutionary lineage, Harvard paleontologist, Stephen J. Gould mentioned an “extreme rarity” of other clear transitions persistent in the fossil record until that time, and his comment, -taken out of context- remains a favorite of creationist quote-miners to this day. But in the more than 30 years since then, there has been a paleontological boom such that we now have way more transitional species in many more lineages than we ever needed or hoped for.

Ray fallaciously concludes the entire theory of evolution is based on a single intermediate. However, scientists have discovered thousands of transitional fossils and the theory of evolution does not rest on a single intermediate, nor does it rest solely on fossils. This is a [[god of the gaps]] fallacy. In fact, every fossil is a transitional fossil, which has been pointed out to Ray in [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rational_Response_Squad_debate_with_Way_of_the_Master a debate with the Rational Response Squad]. In 1999, National Academy of Sciences reported that the total number of transitional fossils were so large, lots of biologists and paleontologists now consider that list “innumerable” especially since the tally of definite transitionals keeps growing so fast! Several lineages are now virtually complete, including our own. Every species living today has definite relatives both extant and extinct, and evident in the fossil record. And in one sense, all of them, even the things still alive, count as transitional species.}}

Ray provides a quote from Berkley University that evolution is a testable, observable phenomenon and a fact. Ray then says scientists believe creatures like Archeopteryx is an intermediate fossil. Ray disagrees, calling it a full bird while providing a reference to an article from [[Answers in Genesis]].
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Answers in Genesis has a biased view and dismisses any evidence in all fields that contradicts scripture,they make that very clear on their web page. Archeopteryx is indeed an intermediate, it has many avian features but has more dinosaurian traits than bird traits, such as: teeth on premaxilla and maxilla bones, neck attached to skull from the rear, claws on three unfused digits, and over 100 other differences from birds (Chiappe 2002; Norell and Clarke 2001)<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html Archeopteryx].</ref>}}

Comfort says one of the main key tools in proving evolution is distraction. Ray provides a quote discussing the differences between elephant seals in different areas, and say evolutionists conclude based on this that man and apes have evolved. All animals and organisms on the planet evolved, man is no exception. Evidence for common descent in seals is not a distraction, because the evidence of common descent of humans is complete on its own.

===The Eye===
Perhaps creationist's favorite topic: the eye. Unfortunately, this mater has been settled hundreds of times, and yet creationists are still pretending evolution has no evidence for the origin and development of the eye. Here, Comfort takes the opportunity to kick the dead horse. Comfort provides a lecture from Berkley on the evolution of the eye. In it, it asks why do these eyes have similar characteristics? Ray inserts his own argument that planes have similar features, but they are all created by the same maker using similar blueprints. What Ray does not provide is actual evidence or tests to support his claims.

Comfort then provides a quote from a Christian who once "believed in evolution" but he does not share who.
<blockquote>
"We need to revisit (again and again) what Darwin said about eye evolution:

''Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.''

"If we like, we can continue to quote the next (and the next) paragraph but his case for evolution just gets weaker.

"Darwin is using the simplistic method of picking and choosing various eyes from various animals and 'demonstrating' gradations of eye development, all the while not showing the fossil evidence which actually and scientifically demonstrates this actually happened. 'How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us...' '...facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light.'

"What? Glossing over something like that is ridiculous. We have light-sensitive nerves (both rods and cones), a lens, focusing muscles, another nerve network to pick up that info, send it to the brain and invert the image, and Darwin explains the general principles of how it all came into being in one (excuse me, two) paragraphs? And that's supposed to be convincing to us? Wow.

"Let's be honest -- all this really takes faith. A blind leap. I know because I used to believe it myself. Until I started to ask some REAL questions to my biology professor and he shut me down. Romans 1:25: 'They exchanged the truth of God for a lie...
</blockquote>
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed, and there is a great amount of evidence for this. Faith is believing in things not seen. Going though Darwin's chapter of the eye, his arguments does not get weaker, in fact they become firmer. Darwin continues with three more pages describing a sequence of plausible intermediate stages between eyelessness and human eyes, giving examples from existing organisms to show that the intermediates are viable.}}

===Lets Make an Eye===
In this section Ray addresses the complexity of the eye. In a dramatic tone, he goes on about how complex the eye is that we do not have the technology to replicate one. What he does not include are the flaws and imperfection in the eye.

Russell D. Fernald, Professor of Biology at Stanford’s School of Humanities and Sciences, said:
<blockquote>
"At present, we do not know whether eyes arose once or many times, and, in fact, many features of eye evolution are still puzzling. How did eyes evolve? Darwin, the great English naturalist who first brought the systematic explanatory power of evolution to bear on the bewildering biological complexity of our planet, felt that eyes offered a special challenge to evolutionary thinking because they are such '...organs of extreme perfection and complication...' (1859). He was quite explicit on this point, saying '...that the eye....could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree'. More than a century later, with new insights that reach from molecular to macroscopic levels of analysis, new mysteries reinforce Darwin's prescient writing. We still have much to learn from the evolution of eyes, both about the existing eyes as well as the processes of evolution that produced them....First was the production of simple eye spots which are found in nearly all the major animal groups and contain a small number of receptors in an open cup of screening pigment. Such detectors cannot play a role in recognizing patterns but are useful for distinguishing light from dark. The second stage in eye evolution is the addition of an optical system that can produce an image."<ref>http://www.karger.com/gazette/64/fernald/index.htm</ref>
</blockquote>
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray does not provide the entire lecture this quote is taken from. In the article it provides steps to how the eye evolved and such stages exist in nature. Even in the quote, the person does not hint that the evidence of the evolution of he eye is lacking. Rather, Fernald explains the gradual evolution of a system that does not work well, but well enough, and over time new modifications make a better eye. Evidence for natural selection and evolution can be see in organism that lost their eyes due to dwelling in dark environments.}}

Ray then uses a quote from Kenneth R. Miller, Professor of Biology at Brown University (a Catholic and staunch defender of evolution) adds:
<blockquote>
"Critics might ask what good that first tiny step, perhaps only five percent of an eye, might be. As the saying goes, in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king. Likewise, in a population with limited ability to sense light, every improvement in vision, no matter how slight, would be favored -- and favored dramatically -- by natural selection."<ref>http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/lgd/index.html</ref>
</blockquote>

Ray asks how could any sane person believe that the eye simply evolved? Comfort answers the necessary ingredient to believe, is "time."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=A more appropriate question is how can any sane person not accept the eye evolved. To do so is to ignore and deny the evidence that supports the evolution of the eye.}}

Comfort goes on to provide a quote from Scientific America:
<blockquote>
"Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the 'impossible' becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles."
</blockquote>

Richard Dawkins said, "Given sufficient time, the non-random survival of hereditary entities (which occasionally miscopy) will generate complexity, diversity, beauty, and an illusion of design so persuasive that it is almost impossible to distinguish from deliberate intelligent design."<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/09/darwin.dawkins1</ref> This an [[argument from authority]], and does not give special credit to intelligent design. What it does show is that natural selection can create patterns that can please the human perspective, giving it the appearance of design. However, if Ray wishes to provide a useful argument for intelligent design, then he must come up with model an collect actual data and perform tests to confirm unnatural interference. To this day, no intelligent design proponent/creationist has done so.

Ray concludes time performs miracles. Ray calls this "child-like faith" which "causes Professor Kenneth R. Miller to abandon all sense of reason":
<blockquote>
"Intelligent-Design advocates contend that evolution could not have produced such complex structures and processes because its instrument, natural selection, simply isn't up to the task. Such advocates agree that natural selection does a splendid job of working on the variation that exists within a species. Given a range of sizes, shapes, and colors, those individuals whose characteristics give them the best chance to reproduce will pass on traits that will increase in frequency in the next generation. The real issue, therefore, is whether or not the 'input' into genetic variation, which is often said to be the result of random mutation, can provide the beneficial novelty that would be required to produce new structures, new systems, and even new species. Could the marvelous structures of the eye have been produced 'just by chance?' "The simple answer to that question is 'no.' The extraordinary number of physiological and structural changes that would have to appear at once to make a working, functioning eye is simply too much to leave to chance. The eye could not have evolved in a single event. That, however, is not the end of the story. The real test is whether or not the long-term combination of genetic variation and natural selection could indeed produce a structure as complex and well-adapted as the eye, and the answer to that question is a resounding 'yes.'"<ref>http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/lgd/index.html</ref>
</blockquote>
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Kenneth Miller is correct that the eye could not evolve in a single moment, and that evidence shows that the eye can evolve over time. In fact, a study by Nilsson and Pelzer[Proc Biol Sci. 256:53-58, 1994. Available online in JSTOR archives] were able to perform a computer simulation of the evolution of the eye using tiny, non-overlapping steps. Despite using very conservative parameters, they found the modern eye could evolve in less than 400,000 generations - a blink of the eye in geological time.}}

Ray argues: "Long term" (time) performs the impossible miracle for the wide-eyed professor. When Richard Dawkins was asked how an eye could possibly have evolved, he simply said, "Audiences nevertheless appreciate an answer, and I have usually fallen back on the sheer magnitude of geological time." No one was back in time to see the unseen do its impossible work, but those who believe don’t need to see. They simply believe, says Ray.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Unfortunately, they do not "believe" in this sense. Genetic and fossil evidence shows the eye can evolve naturally. Such developments take time, but so does the development of stars and such. Ray's creationist beliefs holds that God created everything as they are instantly, which is why Ray ridicules any natural model that requires time. But as Nilsson and Pelzer showed us, it does not take that much time. The main difference between evolution of the eye and Ray's personal beliefs is that scientific evidence supports the evolution of the eye.}}

Richard Dawkins, in ''A Devil's Chaplain'' says:
<blockquote>
"The evolution of the vertebrate eye must have been progressive. Ancient ancestors had a very simple eye, containing only a few features good for seeing. We don’t need evidence for this (although it is nice that it is there). It has to be true because the alternative—an initially complex eye, well-endowed with features good for seeing—pitches us right back to Hoyle country and the sheer cliff of improbability. There must be a ramp of step-by-step progress towards the modern, multifeatured descendant of that optical prototype.

"Of course, in this case, modern analogs of every step up the ramp can be found, working serviceably in dozens of eyes dotted independently around the animal kingdom. But even without these examples, we could be confident that there must have been a gradual, progressive increase in the number of features which an engineer would recognize as contributing towards optical quality. Without stirring from our armchair, we can see that it must be so."
</blockquote>
Ray argues that mutations only modify or eliminate existing structures, not create new ones and scientists have yet to find even a single mutation that increases genetic information. The fact is that there is no evidence showing that mutations have ever created any new features.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is completely incorrect. There have been many mutations that add information.<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html</ref>
*Kinfolk in the village of Limone Sul Garda in northern Italy have a mutation which gives them better tolerance of HDL serum cholesterol. Consequently this family has no history of heart attacks despite their high-risk dietary habits. This mutation was traced to a single common ancestor living in the 1700's, but has now spread to dozens of descendants.
*The Glycophorin A somatic cell mutation which has been identified in some Tibetans, which allows them to endure prolonged periods at altitudes over 7,000 feet without succumbing to apoplexia, or “altitude sickness”. A different, but similar mutation was identified in high altitude natives in the Andes.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21030426</ref>
*We’ve also identified an emerging population of tetrachromatic women who can see a bit of the normally invisible ultraviolet spectrum.
*The CCR5-delta 32 mutation. About 10% of whites of European origin now carry it. But the incidence is only 2% in central Asia, and is completely absent among East Asians, Africans, and tribal Americans. It appears to have suddenly become relatively common among white Europeans about 700 years ago, evidently as a result of the Black Plague, indicating another example of natural selection allowing one gene dominance in a changing environment. It is harmless or neutral in every respect other than its one clearly beneficial feature. According to Science-Frontiers.com, if one inherits this gene from both parents, they will be especially resistant, if not immune to AIDS.
*there’s a family in Connecticut who've been identified as having hyperdense, virtually unbreakable bones. A team of doctors at Yale traced the mutation to a gene that was the subject of an earlier study. In that study researchers showed that low bone density could be caused by a mutation that disrupts the function of a gene called LRP5. This clued them that a different mutation increased LRP5 function, leading to an opposite phenotype, that is, high bone density. According to their investigators, members of this family have bones so strong they rival those of a character in the Bruce Willis movie, 'Unbreakable.'<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180253/</ref>}}

Comfort provides a quote from S. G. Scott, making it seem he doesn’t speculate.
<blockquote>
"There are no examples of natural inorganic (non-living) materials ever forming themselves into living (organic) material, let alone organizing themselves to the level of being able to duplicate themselves; not to mention developing a system that could store and retrieve the information on how to do it so that their offspring could also duplicate themselves, and could also pass the information on to their offspring, and so on, and so on, and so on..."

"...mutations do not lead to an increase in information. Indeed, reducing the number of legs may alter the body plan, but it does not explain the origin of legs in the first place. Nor does it explain where the genetic information to produce wings came from."...

"Successful macro-evolution requires the addition of new information and new genes that produce new organs and systems."
</blockquote>
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=We know that Spanish, Italian, French, and Portuguese all evolved from Latin, a vernacular which is now extinct. Each of these newer tongues emerged via a slow accumulation of their own unique slang lingo –thus diverging into new dialects, and eventually distinct forms of gibberish such that the new Romans could no longer communicate with either Parisians or Spaniards. Similarly, if we took an original Latin speaking population and divided them sequestered in complete isolation over several centuries, they might still be able to understand each other, or their jargon may have become unintelligible to foreigners. But they won’t start speaking Italian or Romanian because identical vocabularies aren’t going to occur twice. It works the same way in biology. Mutations are degrees of variation which are usually quite subtle but cumulative, normally harmless, and occasionally advantageous. Any change in information is different information, not already present, and therefore can only be considered “new”. But of the many types of mutations known to occur, there are additions and duplications as well as deletions and the rest. So yes, genetic material can be added or taken away. But as to whether “information” has been added as opposed to lost, we can’t really tell because creationists won’t tell us what they think “information” is or how to measure it. They’ll readily state (as if it had somehow been confirmed) that it takes more "information" to make a bird than it does a dinosaur, but if you ask 'em how much more, they’ll shut right up. And if you demand to see the data that justifies how they could even make that claim in the first place, they’ll to change the subject.}}

Finally, Comfort provides one last quote from Scientific American, March 2003 issue:
<blockquote>
"Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers."<ref>http://www.yale.edu/eeb/prum/pdf/Prum_n_Brush_2003.pdf</ref>
</blockquote>
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Here is something Ray did not show in this article: "Very recent contributions from several fields have put these traditional problems to rest...Together these advances have produced a highly detailed and revolutionary picture: feathers originated and diversified in carnivorous, bipedal theropod dinosaurs before the origin of birds or the origin of flight." Studies have indeed shown how new structures like digits, limbs, eyes and feathers have merged. Ray tries to give the false impression no studies exist or have eve been done.}}

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text='''Verbal Magic'''
# Probably a mistake, but Ray misstates the date of Neil Turok chair appointment by 30 years... Unless he actually believes that Turok was appointed Chair of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge at 9 years of age.
# Ray takes Turok's statements out of context and twists his encouragement to investigate the origin of the universe into a 'disproof' of evolution. This is blatantly dishonest and something he does in virtually every book he 'writes'.
# Ray offers his (incorrect) opinion as fact that Archaeopteryx is a not a dinosaur / bird transitional but just a bird. This is in direct contradiction to the views of the entire paleontological community. Archaeopteryx clearly has more dinosaur features that are not in birds as opposed to bird features that are not in dinosaurs. This clearly makes it a transitional fossil, yet he tries to twist and turn it into a bird that has no bill, and has teeth....
# Ray facetiously attempts to compare the eye's evolution to the 'evolution' of the 747 from a single engine private plane. This is a fallacious comparison. This is not even in the apples to oranges type, but more akin to comparing a pine cone to a dolphin.}}

==Chapter 2: The Intellectual Embarrassment==
Finally, at the end of the chapter, Ray addresses scientists who say the universe came from nothing. Ray says the scientists do not phrase it the same way Ray does, and they may protest on how he phrases it. This is one of the rare moments when Ray is being honest, but it ends quickly. Ray says, instead the scientists would phrase it that the universe came about by chance. Chance, according to Ray, is nothing. Ray ends the chapter by saying that the universe came from nothing is intellectual madness.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Of course Ray interpretation of the scientific consensus is far from what they actually say.<ref>''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo Origin of the Universe]'' by Lawrence Krauss</ref> Dr. Sten Odenwald (Raytheon STX) for NASA, Education and Public Outreach program, 2001 spelled out what scientists mean when they say "nothing:"

<blockquote>How can 'nothing' do anything at all, let alone create an entire universe? When physicists say 'nothing' they are being playful with the english language, because we often think of the vacuum as being 'empty' or 'nothing' when in fact physicists know full well that the vacuum is far from empty. The primordial 'state' at the Big Bang was far from being the kind of 'nothingness' you might have in mind. We don't have a full mathematical theory for describing this 'state' yet, but it was probably 'multi- dimensional', it was probably a superposition of many different 'fields', and these fields, or whatever they were, were undergoing 'quantum fluctuations'. Space and time were not the things we know them to be today because our world is a lot colder than the way it started out. Nothingness was not nothing, but it was not anything like the kinds of 'somethings' we know about today. We have no words to describe it, and the ones we borrow (that are listed in the Oxford English Dictionary) are based on the wrong physical insight.</blockquote>

The irony is that the ones who claim that the universe was created from nothing is exactly what Ray and his fellow creationists argue for. According to the book of Genesis, God spoke things into being and they were good. Basically an incantation (i.e. MAGIC) brought everything into being. Ray says we have never seen matter create itself. You know what we have never seen? We’ve never seen anything “created”. No one has ever seen a complex life-form (or anything else) magically pop out of thin air. But that’s what creationists are arguing for!}}

==Chapter 3: How did life begin?==
In this chapter, Ray addresses [[abiogenesis]], but falsely equates it to evolution and the [[Big Bang Theory]]. He says evolutionists say that life evolved from something, like rocks.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Evolution makes no comment on the origin of life, evolution only matters once life forms and begins to diverge. Nor does evolution say anything about the origin of earth or the solar system.}}

Ray asks where did this come from all the way back to the [[singularity]], and scientists cannot tell what came before that. Ray labels theses scientists Genesisophobics.

Ray then addresses several hypotheses how life could have evolved.
* Meteorites - we have found amino acids, molecular building blocks of nucleic acids, and water on meteorites.
* Organic soup and the heterotrohpic hypothesis -
* Cairns (and others) ideas of chemical determination from clay
* and finally "There are others. Of course the pseudoscience ideas are always thrown in by religious interests, but of course are not substantiated by scientific investigations."

Ray says any notion or idea that claims God as the genesis of life is excluded as [[pseudoscience]].
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is fairly accurate, since science is based on testing and empirical evidence, God cannot be used in the scientific method.}}

Ray then quotes Andrew Knoll, a Harvard professor, about the origin of life. Knolls said there are many explanations, but the thing is we just don't know exactly how. {{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=While Knolls is correct that many explanations exist and each provide evidence to support them, we are not sure which one is entirely responsible for the origin of life or if multiple, or all, of the explanations were responsible.}}

Comfort then includes a article from ''Times'' that perhaps life could be from alien forms. Using this, Ray quote-mines [[Richard Dawkins]] from the film [[Expelled]] to make it appear that Dawkins accepts the idea that life could have come from extraterrestrial life.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, when put in context, Dawkins was putting for a hypothetical scenario of how [[intelligent design]] might be plausible, but he never said to believe in aliens. While it may appear far-fetched to most people, the alien scenario can be testable and is more likely then we are the products of a invisible magic man.}}

Ray goes on about life from comets. He asks were did these molecules come from? Who made them? Why are they on comets? The question "who" is misleading. That mater is not who, but what and how.

Moving on to the Primordial soup, Ray asks where did these molecules come from and why were they there? Immediately, Comfort concludes that the Primordial Soup does not answer the questions at all. Comfort says scientists now believe it was not in a pond but actually the ocean, which he says is a problem because it is larger and deeper. {{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=How can Comfort just turn from the issue so fast and come to a conclusion before examining the evidence? Life forming in the ocean is not a problem at all for the origin of life. Life can even form '''below''' the earth bed, under all the pressures of the oceans and atmosphere. Life can form naturally under very harsh conditions. Conventional wisdom has held that nothing smaller than 150 nanometers - 150 millionths of a meter - can survive independently as an autonomous life form, because that is the minimum size needed to contain the necessary genetic and other life support material. That is until nanobes discovered by Dr Uwins, however, were only 20-150nm in diameter - remarkable considering that the size of a single ribosome (site of protein synthesis) is roughly the same as the smallest nanobes. Equally as amazing, the nanobes most likely came from a sandstone rock sample retrieved from 3-5km below the ocean bed, where the pressure is around 2,000 atmospheres and the temperature ranges from 115-170°C.}}

Ray says life did not originate in a "leisure" place Darwin envisioned. Comfort quotes German microbiologist Karl Stetter that life may not have formed in a warm pond, but a "hot pressured cooker."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The bottom of the ocean contains many volcanic, hydrothermal vents. These provide a remarkable ecologic niche. The gas from the vents contains carbon dioxide and methane and can serve as a hot reducing environment for the synthesis of prebiotic compounds.
These vents have been proposed as sites for the evolution of life itself. The high temperatures characteristic of these volcanic vents are especially suitable for the evolution of heat-loving, or thermophilic, Archaea.}}

Comfort says that scientists have come up with a lot of ideas, tossed out a few, but have not come to a general consensus of what they accept as the best hypothesis for the origin of life.

Ray ends this section with a fraction of an article "How did Life Begin? New Research Suggests meteorites may have Helped" by Joel Kontinen. Joel Kontinen is a translator and novelist currently living in Finland. His background includes an MA in translation studies and a BA in Bible and Theology, but nothing in science or biology.
<blockquote>
Since Charles Darwin's day, theories about the birth of life have come and gone. Darwin famously speculated about life having begun in a warm pond. Researchers tested the idea in 2006 and found it wanting. They examined hot puddles in Kamchatka, Russia, and Mount Lassen in California and discovered that "hot acidic waters containing clay do not provide the right conditions for chemicals to assemble themselves into 'pioneer organisms'. "

Stanley Miller and Harold Urey conducted a famous experiment in 1953. While it has been used as a propaganda device for evolution, Jonathan Wells and other Darwin skeptics have pointed out its flaws. Wells said:

"The Miller-Urey experiment used a simulated atmosphere that geochemists now agree was incorrect, it was not the 'first successful attempt to show how organic molecules might have been produced on the early Earth.' When conditions are changed to reflect better knowledge of the Earth's early atmosphere, the experiment doesn't work."

Others have looked to outer space as a potential source of life. Sir Fred Hoyle, convinced that life could not have originated on earth, suggested that it was brought here from space. While this panspermia view has its advocates, the naturalistic answer to how life began on Earth remains as elusive as ever.
</blockquote>
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Reminder Kontinen has no degree in biology or science, his representation of the evidence of abiogenesis is blatantly misleading. The Miller experiment is not and never was propaganda, nor have Johnathan Wells or other "Darwin skeptics" refuted it. The Miller experiment tried to prove spontaneous generation was possible, not prove how life first arose. Wells argument is 50 years out of date. What Wells does not share is that there have been more than 40 articles written since 1997 which cover nearly every imaginable prebiotic environment and still create certain types of organic material. The complaints of Wells and other creationists about the Miller-Urey experiments are without merit.

The question “How did life first evolve on earth?” is one of the most intriguing questions in biology. Examination of the wide range of modern organisms has provided a wealth of clues about some of the necessary chemicals and conditions required. While many models have been proposed, some are clearly better than others. One of the most likely is a protometabolism-transfer RNA model, consisting first of The Age of Chemicals providing the necessary organic compounds, followed by The Age of Information involving the co-evolution of polymers of RNA and protein. This model shows that the origin of life was not so intractable that only a divine creator could do it. Given the rapidity and apparent ease of the origin of life on earth, it is likely that many of the other planets in the universe also have intelligent life.}}

===From Dust to Dust===
Here Ray tries to present a case that if God created man we would expect many elements from the soil to be found in the human body. He lists six elements: potassium, calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, iron, and maganese. Comfort does not mention carbon. Instead, Comfort uses an article called "Did Life Begin in the "RNA World?" by L.J. Gibson of the Geoscience Research.
<blockquote>
For many years there has been a general dissatisfaction with the protein hypothesis of the origin of life. Proteins cannot replicate themselves, making them unsuitable as a starting point for the development of life. However, there seemed to be no naturalistic alternative available until recently. This newer hypothesis has been dubbed the “RNA World” (Gilbert 1986). The basis for this model is the discovery that certain RNA molecules have catalytic properties. Since RNA also serves as a carrier of information, it seemed reasonable to suggest that ancient RNA molecules might have acted as a starting point for the origin of life. The “RNA World” hypothesis for the origin of life seems a significant improvement over the protein hypothesis, and has been the subject of considerable discussion.
</blockquote>
His article concludes with:
<blockquote>
The “RNA World” hypothesis for the origin of life requires implausible events at each step in the sequence outlined. Small molecules are highly unlikely to have been available in any plausible model of a primordial earth. Even if small molecules were present, they would be highly unlikely to produce the large protein and nucleic-acid molecules useful for life. Even if the large molecules were present, there is no known mechanism whereby they might be organized into functional cellular or subcellular units. The “RNA World” hypothesis suffers from many of the same problems as the protein hypothesis, and has additional problems of its own. Considering the conditions necessary for the establishment of life, it appears that the most plausible explanation for the origin of life is an intelligent creator.”
</blockquote>

==Chapter 4: Intellectual Degradation==
Comfort begins by stressing the point that man cannot create anything from nothing. Ray says that belief the universe began from nothing is preposterous and "atheism is off the charts in human folly. By contrast, the flat-earther is a real genius."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=When properly put forward, replace "atheism" with "creationism" is folly and makes a flat-earther look like a genius. Atheism does not comment at all about origins, meaning Ray lied from the start.}}

Ray goes on explaining the functions of the moon, and says atheists mock Genesis 1:16 that says the moon "rules the night."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The verse says "The greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night." But the moon is not a light; it only reflects light from the sun. And why, if God made the moon to "rule the night", does it spend half of its time moving through the daytime sky? }}

Ray makes it clear that when a person, no matter who, professes to be an atheist is thereby "immediately disqualifies himself to speak as a representative of science because his premise is a violation of the fundamental rule of science." Ray then lists several scientists who believe in (and loved) God.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray has no degree in any scientific field, or even in theology or religion. Ray is the only one here who believes everything came from nothing, not atheists, so the only one here that is excluded from commenting on science is Ray Comfort.}}

Ray says he and his Christian friends love science, but as he quotes Einstein, Ray says those who leave out God in the equations "are lame" and are disqualified because their premise of "nothing created everything" is a scientific impossibility.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Einstein said "science without religion is lame" not "science without God is lame." Again, Ray is the one who is disqualified from commenting on science, not just for having no degree in science, that his creationist beliefs hods that Go magically created everything from nothing. So he goes beyond "everything from nothing" he invokes magic in the equation (a scientific impossibility).}}

He quotes Einstein again: "I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I wont to know His thoughts. The rest are details." Ray says the Bible will reveal God's thoughts.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Does it? There are over 30,000 denominations in Christianity. Then why can't genuine Christians agree what god thinks or wants?}}

===My "Dishonesty" and Evolution===
Ray says that he is accused of not accepting evidence for specie-to-specie transitions and he does not understand the theory of evolution. Ray wants to "settle this once and for all." He goes on to explain what a "missing link" is by citing an article and italicized parts of it.
<blockquote>
Discovered: the missing link that solves the mystery of evolution. Scientists have made one of the most important fossils in history: a missing link ''between fish and land animals'' [change from one species to another] showing how creatures first walked out of the water and on to dry land more than 375m years ago. Palaeontologists have said that the find, a crocodile-like animal called the ''Tiktaalik roseae'' and described today in the journal ''Nature'', could become an icon of evolution in action - like ''Archeopteryx'', the famous fossil that bridged the gap ''between reptiles and birds'' [change from one species to another]. As such, it will be a blow to proponents of intelligent design, who claim that the many gaps in the fossil record show evidence of some higher power.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/apr/06/evolution.fossils</ref>
</blockquote>
Ray says the above are not substantiated. He says Archeopteryx was a full bird and not a missing link. Ray ends this section with, "The missing link is still missing, and we're still waiting for the first piece of genuine evidence for the theory of evolution."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=It is a mystery how Ray seemed to miss another transitional mentioned in the article: Tiktaalik. Archeopteryx is not a full bird. It has many Dinosaurian traits include the following:
* no bill
* teeth on premaxilla and maxilla bones
* nasal opening far forward, separated from the eye by a large preorbital fenestra (hole)
* neck attached to skull from the rear
* center of cervical vertebrae that have simple concave articular facets
* long bony tail; no pygostyle
* ribs slender, without joints or uncinate processes, and not articulated with the sternum
* sacrum that occupies six vertebrae
* small thoracic girdle
* metacarpals free (except third metacarpal), wrist hand joint flexible
* claws on three unfused digits
* pelvic girdle and femur joint shaped like those of archosaurs in many details
* bones of pelvis unfused
...and over 100 other differences from birds (Chiappe 2002; Norell and Clarke 2001). The missing link is no longer mising, and it hasn't for a very long time. A decade ago, Kathleen Hunt, a zoologist with the University of Washington, produced a list of a few hundred of the more dramatic transitional species known so far,<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html</ref> all of which definitely fit every criteria required of the most restrictive definition. Myriad transitional species have been, and still are being, discovered; so many in fact that lots of biologists and paleontologists now consider that list “innumerable” especially since the tally of definite transitionals keeps growing so fast! Several lineages are now virtually complete, including our own. Now the problem for evolution is that there are too many contenders, while a compounding problem for creationists is that not even one of them should exist if their story was true. And yet they do –by the bushelful! Despite their complaints to the contrary, the intermediate gradations in the human evolutionary line are now so fine that paleoanthropologists can’t agree whether they’re all different species or merely mildly modified varieties of the same ones, such that there are no more links needed for human evolution anymore.

But creationists still say we’ve never found anything that was “half-ape and half-human”. Adhering always to black or white absolutes, and being thus unwilling to admit any degree of variance other than 100% or zero, they make sure to divide every find into one of two boxes even when they can’t make up their minds which side of that imaginary partition each one belongs to.

Demanding an “ape-man” is actually just as silly as asking to see a mammal-man, or a half-human, half-vertebrate. How about a half dachshund, half dog? It’s the same thing. One may as well insist on seeing a town half way between Los Angeles and California. Because the problem with bridging the gap between humans and apes is that there is no gap because humans ARE apes –definitely and definitively. The word, “ape” doesn’t refer to a species, but to a parent category of collective species, and we’re included. This is no arbitrary classification like the creationists use. It was first determined via meticulous physical analysis by Christian scientists a century before Darwin, and has been confirmed in recent years with new revelations in genetics. Furthermore, it is impossible to define all the characters exclusively indicative of every known member of the family of apes without describing our own genera as one among them. Consequently, we can and have proven that humans are apes in exactly the same way that lions are cats, and iguanas are lizards, and whales are mammals. So where is the proof that humans descend from apes? How about the fact that we’re still apes right now!}}

===Confessions of a Backsliden Atheist===
Ray introduces a "backsliden atheist" A. N. Wilson, a friend of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens who openly announced in 2009 he became a Christian. Comfort says that he became an Christian because of the fear of death.

Ray concludes this section by repeating his "creation requires a creator" argument. Comfort points out Wilson's question: how do materialists think language evolved?

===The Secret Plan===
Ray begins by sharing a time when he and his wife watched a Charles Dickens film "A Tale of two Cities." Ray points out the film left out the main character converted to Christianity in the last few days of his life. Ray then addresses the characters role to give life for another, which he equates to what God did when he became Jesus.

==Chapter 5: Ignorant knuckle-draggers==
In this chapter, Ray tries to convince the reader that belief in evolution leads to many social evils because evolution teaches that we are just animals. Ray equates those who say we are animals as fact are like religious zealots.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Evolution does not teach that humans are animals; biology in general does. More specifically, humans are a species of primate, which is a category of mammal, which is a category of vertebrate, which is a category of animal. This was known more than 2000 years ago.

This is a common creationist tactic with linking evolution to many wicked things, such as: homosexuality, abortion, bestiality, and others.

Ray says that accepting evolution leads people to lust and fornication. What Ray fails to understand is that description does not imply promotion. Mistaking "is" for "ought" is the naturalistic fallacy. The theory of evolution no more promotes promiscuity and lust than germ theory promotes getting infectious diseases.}}

Ray quotes from an unidentified dictionary that animal is defined as "any such living thing other than a human being." Wherever Ray got this definition, his source is incorrect. In a section, Ray shares his experiences asking atheists about the origin of the universe. He says atheists ''choose'' not to believe that the cause was God. He then says the Bible says atheists are blind (1 Corinthians 4:3-4). According to Ray, atheists make an absolute claim when they say "There is no God." Ray says for one to make an absolute claim is to have absolute knowledge of the universe. Turn the tables around, Ray makes an equally fallacious claim when he says "there is a God." However, Ray dances around this and says Christians don't need knowledge because they experience God through conversion. Ray never does provide any evidence for the authenticity of his conversion. If a Muslim is equally convinced Allah is real through conversion, what makes Ray's point any more reliable? Ray also ignores that the brain can cause many intense feelings that seem real. Consuming mushrooms, such as entheogens, produce many spiritual feelings that have been used by shamans and other religious figures.

Ray then makes an argument that faith in God is not faith but trust. He then goes on to use his parachute analogy, that is that if you were in a plane that was going down and people offered you a variety of gifts, you would reject them. However, when someone offers you a parachute, you take it and put your trust in it to save your life. He compares this parachute with faith in Jesus Christ.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is Ray's '''[[Parachute Analogy]]''', which is a reversion of the flawed argument known as [[Pascal's Wager]].}}

==Chapter 6: The Dinosaur in the Bible==
Skeptics have pointed out, says Comfort, that dinosaurs existed and therefore God does not. Ray tries to show that the God of the Bible mentioned such creatures in Job 40:15-24.

Ray then quotes from a source at says most dinosaurs were plant eaters. In verse 18, which says that the bones must be a strong as bars of iron, Ray says that the bones of Argentinosaurus must ave been strong to support its weight. Ray concludes, due to verse 20-23, that God slew the dinosaurs. In verse 24, Ray uses the dinosaur Argentinosaurus was so large it broke the branches with its nose.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The "tail like a cedar," which creationists think indicates a large dinosaur, is not even a real tail. "Tail" was used as a euphemism in the King James version. A more likely translation for the phrase is, "His penis stiffens like a cedar" (Mitchell 1987). The behemoth was probably a bull, and the cedar comparison referred to its virility.}}

===The Whale===
Here, Ray tries to convince people to not believe everything their teachers tell them (especially regarding the theory of evolution). Ray quotes an anonymous person who says they have known from the fourth grade that the blue whale is the largest creature on the planet, then Ray shows that on such dinosaur was in fact larger.

Ray ends this section with linking similarities with himself and Einstein.

==Chapter 7: The Blind Faith in the Theory of Evolution==
The chapter begins with Ray addressing evolution not having a mind guiding it to certain ends. He then falsely equates it to gravity, since evolution does not explain where gravity came from. He says are we just "fortunate" that gravity exists? When asking where it came from, he is not satisfied with answers like "chance" or accident." He asks evolutionists to explain where such laws came from.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The problem with this is that biology says nothing about cosmology or physics, so he is asking the wrong people. And once biologists cannot say, because it is not in their field of expertise, Ray jumps onto this saying "see, the scientists don't know." But do physicists provide an answer for such questions? Physicist Victor J. Stenger in his book ''God: The Failed Hypothesis'', Chapter 4: Cosmic Evidence explains where the laws of physics came from. His conclusion, based on the evidence, is that the laws were not created and appear as we would expect if the universe formed under natural forces.}}

Ray goes on to question gravity. He says Newton explained gravity, but could not explain the nature of gravity. Ray says Newton answered that question with God, but he provides no reference to such a claim.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray is known to deliberately quote mine, and frequently says Newton was a smart man who believed in god, not evolution. The problem with this, of course, Newton died many years before the ''Origin of Species'' was published.}}

Next, Ray brings up [[Ben Stein]], maker of the propaganda movie [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]], why he made the movie, Stein replies "Well, if there is no [[intelligent design]], where did gravity came from?"

Ray admits he gets mocked by evolutionists for asking where gravity came from. Ray says evolutionists say it just is. How can Ray find this unbelievable, but at the same time thinks that his God has no cause or beginning?

Ray then examines the human hand. For a moment, he tells the reader to put aside evolution and intelligent design. He goes on to say the hand is wonderfully ''made''...
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text="'''Made'''" - not a good choice of words Ray, this shows us that you yourself did not put aside anything for this experiment. While humans have two hands, according to Ray, primates have four. This is false, primates only have two hands. Ray tries to compare the limbs of humans and primates to make it appear that they are fundamentally different and could not be the result of evolution. Ray then tries to equate evolution as a form of religion by saying we should get down and praise our hands and limbs.}}

Ray ends this chapter with a preachy ending. He goes on to say atheists and everyone should repent to be saved from hell. Unlike other "man-made religions" Ray says they do not acknowledge that God is perfect, and thus his law demands moral perfection. He repeats his usual guilt trip using his narrow selection of the Ten Commandments. Ray says that we all should become missionaries for God just as Ray did.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The problem with this Ray, it turned you into a uneducated lying hypocrite.}}

==Chapter 8: The Straw Man==
Ray addresses Epicurus famous work
<blockquote>Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then He is not omnipotent.
Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent.
Is He both able and willing? Then hence cometh evil?
Is He neither willing nor able? Then why call him God?
</blockquote>

Ray says that Epicurus makes a good case, but does not include the "longsuffering of God." Ray says God will punish evil, but we do not see ourselves as being evil. Ray then quotes the Bible what God thinks about humanity in Romans 3:10-18 (but this is not God's words, they are Paul's).
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Overall, Ray does not address or answer the question. He just says be patient with God and do not think of him as evil.}}

Ray then talks about an atheist named Kat who comments on his blog "Atheist Central" claiming Ray is a hateful person. When he pressured Kat to find one example, and after a period of time, she wrote back saying that she found so many it broke her heart and would refuse to comment on Ray's blog any further. Ray says that she failed to provide one example.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Well, Ray how about when you insult atheists by saying "all I need are eyes to see and a brain that works" or when you insult fellow believers that your particular narrow view of God is correct and theirs is a form of idolatry. Ray admits in this book that mockery is a legitimate form of debate. Ray says he constantly mocks the theory of evolution (which he once proclaimed to believe), but he only mocks it in the most dishonest way possible because he would rather believe in an fantasy that accept a testable and verifiable reality. It is also clear he never accepted evolution, because he falsely compares it with cosmology and social ills. It is also clear that, due to his religious beliefs, Ray is also intolerant of homosexuals.}}

Ray ends this chapter with addressing Kat one more time. He says Kat is tender-hearted and cannot handle a civil debate.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=That is rich Ray, unlike you who admits that mockery is legitimate in a debate, and also prey on people's fears and emotions. Not to mention your deliberate misrepresentations of science and outright lying to deceive your audience.}}

==Chapter 9: Who killed JFK?==
The chapter begins from a paragraph authored by an atheist. It mocks Ray for believing in a man who can fly in the air, and yet Ray has the gall to mock atheism.

Ray counters this paragraph if you examine what an atheist believes, (creation has no creator, no design in nature, etc.) it is more ridiculous. Ray has failed to provide any evidence for such claims, so now it is not ridiculous not to believe in something without any proof. Ray does not stop there, he says atheists do have beliefs, they just do not what to admit it because it would show they have faith of some sorts. He says atheists ''believe'' the earth is several millions of years old. People accept the earth is old, not believe, because belief implies there is little evidence to support it. However, there are mountains of evidence to prove that the earth is indeed old.

Ray moves on to discuss the assassination of [[JFK]]. Since we do not know what happened several decades ago, how can we know what happened several million years ago? [It appears the author does not examine the question, Since we do not know what happened to JFK several decades ago, how can we know what happened to [[Jesus]] two millennia ago?]
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is a fallacious argument. Just because we are not sure what happened in this one small period of history does not mean we throw out everything we know that happened in the past. Unlike the JFK incident, scientists have multiple ways of testing what happened in the past.}}

Ray goes on to explain miracles. Ray says he has no problem believing in miracles. He believes in the following: Creation; all animals brought onto Noah's Ark; global flood; splitting of the Red Sea; stopping the lions from eating Daniel; God guiding the rock from David's sling; feeding thousands with a few fishes and bread; and a man rising from the dead. Ray says it is easy to believe in such miracles every time he sees a bird fly, because he is witnessing God's handiwork. Even though Ray will not admit it, there is evidence for the evolution of feathers and flight.<ref>[http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/Padian/kpslides.html#birds Kitzmiller v. Dover: Padian demonstrative slides]</ref><ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/biblio/flight.html</ref>

==Chapter 10: The Mirror==
Comfort begins this chapter with saying it is easy for humans to use sin as an excuse for bad behavior, such as lying, stealing, and murder. Ray tries to portray his version of the [[Ten Commandments] to make them appear as a "mirror" for us to look in and see our sins.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=What Ray does not mentions is that sin AND obedience to god's law both create bad behavior. Following God's word often leads to more suffering than sin, history and modern times testify to this. Even Ray, who firmly believes in the absolute rule of never lying, constantly breaks this rule when he attacks evolution. It seems lying is okay, if you are doing it for Jesus, but if this makes lying okay then would it also justify murder?}}

Comfort asks is it "unfair" to create rules that say don't kill, seal, lie, or commit adultery? Ray says the First Commandment is reasonably justified.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, is it reasonably justified? "I am your Lord thy God, thou shall not have any other Gods before me.” Notice it says ‘before me’ does that imply that other gods do indeed exist? What about any gods after him? This was spoken by Elohim (ironically, a plural name for the god El), who is the “Lord” of the Israelites. This is the equivalent of establishing the nation of Israel, not the United States of America. It can be taken as either monotheistic (only one god) or henotheistic (only one supreme god), and in any case is contrary to the American constitutional guarantees of freedom of conscience and against an establishment of religion. In the United States, we are free to worship many gods, one god or no gods at all. Elohim does not appear in any of the growing documents on which our country was founded.}}

Ray mentions that a person emailed him, explaining that lust is involuntary, and is therefore unlawful to make something out of our control a crime. Ray tries to justify his beliefs by claiming lust, not sex, is an "unlawful" desire. Ray says sex should be confined within marriage. Ray blames the spread of STDs on the failure to keep the "rules" of marriage as instructed by the Bible.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray does not stop to think and blame the spread of STDs due to religion and its dogma to teach kids abstinence, a failed system that it appears to be no accident that states with the highest levels of religiosity teach abstinence only, but also have the highest rates of STDs, teen pregnancies, and abortions.}}

Ray says that lusting for someone in your mind is adultery, and using the "involuntary" excuse will not do with God.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray did not fully address or answer the question. Lusting is indeed involuntary, and that is know to anyone familiar with psychiatry. There are pathways inn our brains that stimulate pleasure from things that are required for our survival, such as eating. We must eat to survive, so our mind evolved to seek pleasure in eating. Same with lust an sex, since we must reproduce to survive, our minds have been programed to seek and desire sex.}}

===Who is the Painter?===
This section begins with an anonymous person addressing Ray's favorite argument, the [[argument from design]] in the form of a painting. A painting is proof there was a painter says Ray.

==Chapter 11: The Subject of Lying==
This chapter begin with several quotes by atheists accusing Ray Comfort of lying. Here, Ray wants to address this by asking where do the atheists get their sense of right and wrong from. He does not bother tying to defend himself or justify his lies, instead he tries to attack his critics as lacking a moral compass.

Ray says that atheists have no moral absolutes. Ray says that accusing him of lying is meaningless if here is no god.

Ray then says atheists are without excuse [Romans 1:10] and the evidence for God is axiomatic because "creation requires a creator." Ray then quotes an article which he believes explains the justification for the damnation of atheists.

Addressing the definition of atheists as having a lack of belief in God, Ray tries to counter this by saying "I lack a belief that my Ford had a maker" means that nothing made his Ford. He goes on to conclude that does not make the Ford maker disappear from reality.

Moving on, he addresses the definition of Homo Sapiens, which means "wise man." Comfort argues that humans do not have the amazing abilities other animals do (such a sniff out drugs or catch a Frisbee in their mouth 6 feet in the air). Ray argues that scientists are still looking for a transitional fossil. He cites Archeoptryx, which scientists thought was more than just a bird because "it has large claws." Ray says they are "'theorizing.' They are merely imagining."

===Children and Their Propensity To Do Wrong===
This section begins with an anonymous person taking note of Ray's belief that everyone is born a sinner. By this view, why would people want to have children. Ray tries to answer that the ones who think they are sinners are the ones having children whereas the ones who think humanity is good are the ones having abortions.

Ray says that children know how to lie and steal, because they are born in a sinful nature and the Scriptures say the heart of humanity is wicked to its core. Ray quotes 2 Peter 2:2-3 about Bible preachers who use faith to draw in money.

Ray say he emailed a very famous atheist (not Richard Dawkins) once Christian the following email: "Judas lasted three and a half years. You managed to fake it for nineteen yeas. Amazing." The atheist told him to never contact him again. Ray did not reply because the atheist was a lawsuit frenzy person. Ray calls hypocrites, like this atheist, a faker. A pretender who never understood the cross. Comfort labels this atheist as bitter and hates the God he supposedly loved.

==Chapter 12: The Missing Link Finally Found==
Ray begins the chapter with the claim that creationists have been called liars for years, while providing a quote that points creationists and the public to a source of a wide library of transitional fossils. Next, he provides a article regarding Ida as if scientists have finally found the missing link. Next he provides a quote from CBS News "So while we don't know exactly what Ida means to human origins, she's proof we are endlessly fascinated by where we come from." He includes another quote from Wall Street Journal. From this, Comfort concludes that the missing link is still missing.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The truth is the "missing link" is not missing. It hasn’t been for a long time now. There was a missing link in 1859 when there were only two species of humans yet known in the fossil record, and no intermediate fossils to link them with any of the other apes we knew of at that time. Since then, we’ve found the fossils of thousands of individuals of dozens of hominid species, many of which provide a definite link to the other apes. But there were two particular pieces predicted to complete the puzzle: First, it was never supposed that we evolved from any ape species still alive today. Instead the theory held that chimpanzees and humans were sibling species, daughters of the same mother. So the first link we needed to find was an ancient ape apparently basal to either of us –to prove there was a potential progenitor of both groups. We had already found that link in Europe five years before Darwin went public. So we already had an evident “chain” of transitional species from which only one more “link” was needed. The theory then required that another extinct hominid be found in strata chronologically between the Miocene Dryopithecus fontana and the earliest known human species, which from 1891 to 1961, was Homo erectus. We’ve found lots of candidates, as many as fifty species of apes which are now all extinct. But more than that, the theory also demanded that we find one “half-way” between humans and other apes in terms of morphology. We found exactly that too way back in 1974. Australopithecus afarensis proved to be a fully bi-pedal ape who’s hands, feet, teeth, pelvis, skull, and other physical details were exactly what creationists challenged us to find, yet they’re still pretending we never found it.}}

Comfort goes on to examine the cause of human intelligence. He summarizes that the human intelligence must have a cause and the Creator must have a higher intelligence because we cannot create a grain of rice from nothing.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=If this argument was valid, then the mind of God not being a random jumble of synapses would require a higher intelligent creator. Evolution does explain human intelligence. Intelligence has obvious advantages that can help with survival, so it is consistent with evolutionary theory.}}

Ray provides more articles about scientists and what they "believe."

Ray argues that because species have similarities is NOT proof of evolution, instead they have a common creator. Comfort also argues that disease is not proof of evolution because it proves the biblical notion we live in a "fallen" world.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Regarding the first part, evidence for a creation must begin by specifying (before the fact) what is expected from a creator. When do we expect similar forms, and when do we expect different forms? The difference is that evolution theory has made predictions, and the pattern of similarities and differences that we observe accords with what evolution predicts. Disease is not proof of a "fallen" world. Why would God create humans with immune systems if disease did not exist before the Fall?}}

Next, Ray points out that science changes their "beliefs" as time goes by and new data is collected. Because science always changes, what we accept today may be wrong in a hundred years.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, evolution and gravity will remain. We observe both in nature right now and will always be a part of nature. As more evidence accumulates, scientific findings become more and more certain. Theories that have withstood several decades of study may undergo more refinement of details, but it is almost inconceivable that they would be overturned completely.}}

Ray notes that the fossil record only shows changes ''within'' a species, and never once shows evidence of specie-to-specie transition. Thus, the fossil record speaks of special creation. Whenever Ray asks a scientist what is the evidence for evolution, the scientist replies "science" and "fossils," but when asked specifically they say "I am not an expert."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=It is clear that whoever Ray was interviewing was not the person to be addressing the evidence for evolution, if he did interview them at all (it is hard to verify the credibility of an anonymous person). If you want an expert opinion on evolutionary theory, then talk to an expert. Start with a university professor, a evolutionary scientist, and such. As for the fossil record, it does not provide any proof of creation. The fossil record shows a gradual change in taxa and arise of new species. Many transitional fossils exist. We’ve found millions of evolutionary intermediaries in the fossil record, much more than Darwin said he could reasonably hope for. There are three different types of transitional forms and we have ample examples of each. But creationists still insist that we’ve never found a single one, because what they usually ask us to present are impossible parodies which evolution would neither produce nor permit, such as [[Kirk Cameron]] and his [[Crocoduck]]. A decade ago, Kathleen Hunt, a zoologist with the University of Washington, produced a list of a few hundred of the more dramatic transitional species known so far, all of which definitely fit every criteria required of the most restrictive definition. Myriad transitional species have been, and still are being, discovered; so many in fact that lots of biologists and paleontologists now consider that list “innumerable” especially since the tally of definite transitionals keeps growing so fast! Several lineages are now virtually complete, including our own.}}

Comfort provides quotes by a Christians. The first says evolution is a theory, and theories are speculations. The Christian demands proof that archaeology and history does not support the Bible. He says the Bible's history is very accurate and experts rely on it. The second says that they were brought up to accept evolution in school, but later when demanding for evidence and facts, nobody could explain what the "facts" are. He concludes that evolution is a worldview philosophy and not a science.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=None of the above is accurate at all. Evolution is presented in schools because it is the only explanation for life's diversity and the facts do exist. Whoever this anonymous Christian asked for evidence either was not an expert or did spell out the evidence for him, but this Christian did not know what he was seeing or choose not to accept it outright.}}

===Charles Darwin Believed Man Evolved from Monkeys===
Opens with comments explaining that humans and apes share a common ancestor. Ray says that there are 350 species of primate.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=And we belong in one of them.}}

In this short section, Ray provides a quote from Charles Darwin that compared the traits of monkeys and primates, and briefly included humans.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=What Ray does not share is that Darwin was not the first to categorize humans are apes. The first was Charles Linnaeus, the father of taxonomy and a creationist, placed humans as primates many years before Darwin was even born.

It is irrelevant what the above people believed, even if Ray is quoting them correctly and honestly. It is what the evidence provides. Humans indeed share a common ancestor with other primates and we are without a doubt apes now.}}

===The Catholic Church and Evolution===
The Vatican recently released a notice the Christianity and evolution are compatible. Ray Comfort in response argued that they were not compatible at all. According to Ray, God made man "instantaneously" in his own image (what does that even mean? And how can he make humans in an instant?). Ray quotes Scripture to show that man's flesh is different from other animals.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Unfortunately Ray, the Bible does not help you here. The Bible tries to make it appear humans are special. Of course our flesh is different from scales and such, but we are still mammals, vertebrates, and such which are all categories of animal.}}

At the end of the section, he includes a quote from William Donahue, president of the Catholic League responds to Ray Comforts pitiful arguments that the Vatican has chosen to believe Darwin over Jesus and not exercising "common sense." Ray does not prove any part of Donahue's response or arguments to show why he thinks that way.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Not revealing the rest of Donahue's objections (and we can be sure he had some interesting things to say), Ray goes on to say that the diversity of the Vatican is encouraging atheism. Perhaps the diversity of Christianity alone (over 30,000 denominations) is driving people away from religion, since none can agree how to interpret the Bible correctly and often commit acts of violence against each other.}}

===Smile Test===
A girl asks her mother when did the human race appear? Her mother relied when God created Adam and Eve. The girl then asks her dad the same question, he replies the human race came about through evolution. The girl is confused, she goes back to her mom, who says that both parents have told her a story, now she had to decide which to believe.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Not really good parenting. They should at least teach their girl how to think critically. And why would you let the child decide? You are foregoing your intellect in favor of fanaticism and things that are not supported by any shred of evidence, and you are not just raising a nation that is utterly ignorant about science, but why would you let the children decide? Do you let your children decide on when to go to bed? Do you let your kids decide on when to drink beer? No, you are the adult, you are supposed to be educated enough to think and to use reason and make a fair judgment that is not based on fanaticism or anything like that. You owe it to the kids to not teach them that and to decide for them what I reasonable and what is not. To teach them creationism and things like that, you are utterly failing them.}}

==Chapter 13: The Atheist's Amazing Imagination==
Ray mocks the idea science claims that things can be as old as 14 billion years. Such things to Ray are the products of imagination.

===The Open mind of an Atheist===
Here an atheist mocks Ray for believing that snakes can talk. Ray tries to counter this by pointing out that some species of primates know many human words. He points out some birds speak English words and pets seem to understand their masters and their master seem to understand them at times. Ray presumes the reader believes fish evolved into humans, so how hard can it be to imagine that an animal can communicate with humans.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, this does not make Ray's problem go away. We are dealing with a snake, a creature with no linguistic or vocal tools, and yet can speak perfectly with a woman. The problem is actual evidence. If someone you trusted told you they saw a cat speak Spanish to someone, you would demand proof. How about in the Gospel of Peter where a piece of wood actually speaks? "''When therefore those soldiers saw it, they awakened the centurion and the elders; for they too were hard by keeping guard. And, as they declared what things they had seen, again they see three men come forth from the tomb, and two of them supporting one, and a cross following them: and of the two the head reached unto the heaven, but the head of him that was led by them overpassed the heavens. And they heard a voice from the heavens, saying, Thou hast preached to them that sleep. And a response was heard from the cross, Yea.''"

How would Ray try to respond to that? Possibly that the gospel of Peter is not included in the Bible, written much later than the other gospels, or it was not written by Peter himself. True it is not included in the modern Bible. The Council of Carthage met in 397 C.E. to determine what early Christian writings would make up the canon of the New Testament. They voted to exclude the Gospel of Peter. Some scholars argue that the Gospel of Peter predates other Gospel accounts, perhaps having been written as early as 45 AD. And was it written by peter himself, who knows? But then again, we do not know who wrote the canonical gospels and we know many of the epistles (supposedly all written by Paul) are in fact forgeries.}}

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray says atheists will not believe anything as long as its in the Bible, but this is a false accusation. The Bible is full of extraordinary tales, and thus require extraordinary evidence. The claims that are not proven or do not have enough evidence (if any at all) are what atheists and non-Christians decline to accept. Even the vast majority of Christians do not accept everything that happened in the Bible, such as God creating Adam and Eve in a garden 6,000 years ago. However, making a huge accusation that atheists will not accept anything no matter what is in the Bible is simply false. For instance all atheists accept Jerusalem existed in the time of Jesus. Atheists are not closed minded as Ray tries to paint them as.}}

Comfort then asks if you think fire existed before man discovered it?
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Yes, it did. It existed on Earth probably as soon as the atmosphere contained enough oxygen to support combustion. He notes that fire needs fuel to burn. He then jumps into the "justice" of the Bible, noting that just because one cannot observe something [[Argument from ignorance|does not mean it does not exist.]] By this logic, a invisible gnome could be floating behind your back at all times, does that mean therefor they exist? No. The ones making the positive claim that such a thing does exist thus has the burden of proof. Ray has failed to meet that burden of proof.}}

===Getting Things Humming===
Ray says a group of evolutionists have gathered together to create a hummingbird from nothing, as in the genesis of life's origins. They go over what parts are required for the male bird, including the ability to reproduce after its own "kind." However, the scientists cannot get started because their first problem is creating something from nothing. They say that over time and better understanding will produce the answers. A small committee of scientists discuss the problem, making the same conclusion as found in Romans 1:20-21.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray demonstrates yet again his lack of understanding of evolution and science overall. Evolution, [[abiogenesis]], the [[Big Bang Theory]] does not say that life forms (like birds) came about fully formed from nothing. Actually, Ray's position of Biblical [[creationism]] says that such life forms sprung from nothing by magic. Can ray produce or test a hummingbird coming from nothing, whether through magic or prayer? Of course not, and thus he is really ridiculing himself in this section. And why must the scientists make a single male hummingbird? Here is one problem Ray has never understood and failed to understand (or willingly ignore) is that evolution does not take place with the individual, but the population. But why stick with using the male? Here is something to think about, why do all mammalian males have nipples? As any biologist would tell you is that the female is the foundation of the species, not the male. This is something that Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions got very wrong.

What does Ray mean by "kind?" Creationists have identified kinds with everything from species to entire kingdoms. By the narrower definitions, variation to new kinds has occurred. By the broader definitions, we would not expect to see it in historical time.

Finally, Romans 1:20-21 says "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." Basically, everyone is without excuse for ignoring the Christian god, but this is not more valid than the Islamic Primordial Covenant where we all were in the presence of Allah, testified that he is our creator, and thus when we die we are without excuse. Quoting Bible verses does not present any valid evidence for Ray's case.}}

===Tough Answers for Atheists===
Ray shares he watched a video (assuming it was presented by an atheist) that proves a Christian dented his car and if they do not pay him he will burn them alive. He then compares that to Christianity, since that is its message. Ray then uses his own analogy with policemen found evidence that connects you to the murder of six girls. The evidence is very strong, and you thought it was funny. The judge, according to Ray, is utterly perfect and holy and will punish you. He says an God considers adultery to be rape and hatred to be murder.

Ray says it is common sense that a creation has a creator, and theists are pretending to be atheists. When they deny this common sense, they discard all common sense. {{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, Ray only labels this as common sense as a veil to hide all the problems behind this line of reasoning. When Comfort says creation requires a creator, this is an example of [[begging the question]], as the point which he's attempting to prove is contained in his premise. Anything created must have a creator, but he hasn't demonstrated that what he means by "creation" (the universe, everything, humans, etc.) is actually a creation. The appearance of design, purpose or complexity alone is not sufficient to posit an intelligent creator. When he asks questions like, "When you see a building, how do you know there was a builder?", his answer is "The building is absolute proof of the builder." This avoids the important question about how we recognize design. He's relying on common sense and a lack of critical thinking, to support the idea that this is a natural, obvious and reliable assumption.

In truth, we recognize that the building is designed because we have an abundance of evidence that supports that conclusion and no evidence to support the idea that buildings are naturally occurring. We possess, or can attain by research, empirical evidence about the history of a given building; who designed it, who built it, what methods they used, etc. We can also learn about the general history of buildings and other structures, throughout recorded history. All of this evidence, and more, in conjunction with a lack of evidence supporting the idea that buildings occur naturally, lead us to the reliably supported conclusion that a given building had a builder. We're not always consciously aware of this process, as we've come to trust our intuition without constantly analyzing why this trust is deserved. Additionally, when humans create things, they use pre-existing material. To compare the creation of the universe by a god to the creation of objects by humans is to imply that this god used pre-existing matter to do it. This, of course, still leads one to ask, "where did this matter come from?" }}

Then Ray address how the suns were made. Even though scientists explain how they were formed, Ray asks where did those materials come from. According to Ray, they cannot form themselves otherwise that would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Ray concludes that theists have the answers, atheists don't.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=But how does the 2nd law of thermodynamics prevent the formation of suns? The law says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. Entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000). Even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system. In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time, but where did the materials for the sun come from? The molecules required to form a sun are heavy elements such as carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen. Scientists have already established and observed how these elements form stars.<ref>http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/how-do-stars-form-and-evolve/</ref> Ray would ask where did these molecules come from, and of course Ray says theists have the answer (God) and when someone offers and answer or is honest and says they don't know, Ray concludes his personal beliefs is confirmed by reality. Comfort offers no testing in this section, this book, or any of his materials. However, this belief is refuted by two things: [[Occam's Razor]] and the first law of thermodynamics (matter cannot be created and thus always existent).}}

===How Big is the Universe?===
This section starts off with a question for Ray to answer how big the universe is, what light is, and what life is?

Ray later on discusses the cause of material. Ray says that atheists get "stumped" and cannot give a credible account for the cause of material for evolution to bring life into being.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is another old straw-man, evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang or abiogenesis. Ray concludes the cause for material must be immaterial. In summary, he concludes the ''Spirit'' of God moved upon the face of the waters in Genesis 1:2. Why must the cause be immaterial? Did God have a cause? If not, then why not save a step and say matter had no cause. Note, at the quantum level, the laws of cause and effect disappear, meaning that a cause was not necessary for the universe to come about through the Big Bang. How can God exists as a "spirit" moving upon the waters before the earth was formed? Say God is a spirit does not add up, because it violates proper ontology, lacks empirical evidence and violates the very nature of existence. Saying God is a spirit is the same as saying a bed is made of sleep, you cannot exist or be made of a character trait.}}

Ray brings up the question "Who Created God?" Ray says atheists think this is a dilemma for Christians (it seems to be, since both Ray and Kirk choked when this was brought up in the debate with the [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rational_Response_Squad_debate_with_Way_of_the_Master Rational Response Squad]), but Ray dodges the question and says this is not a problem for Christians. He says the real problem is that atheists cannot comprehend how God can exist eternally. Comfort asks how can any of us comprehend the infinitude of space? He uses an analogy of using a very powerful laser beam, shooting lasers off into space at great speeds and even after millions of years they will not hit an end.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, the universe is made of energy and matter, and the laws of physics says that energy cannot be created or destroyed, thus making it eternal. So it is possible to comprehend something eternal, and this was brought up in the debate with the [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rational_Response_Squad_debate_with_Way_of_the_Master Rational Response Squad], who also used [[Occam's Razor]] to prove that God is likely not to exist. Neither Ray or Kirk have anything to say or respond to this, except for when the moderator asked if they had anything else to say, Kirk in a low voice say "I think the people can figure it out."}}

==Chapter 14: The Power of the Imagination==
Atheists reject the Biblical Fall and its explanatory power for suffering, disease, and death. They often quote Monty Python that "Their thought is that if God did exist, He alone, not man, is responsible for the pains of this world.

Comfort goes on to say many believers are "idolaters" for creating a God they are comfortable with. They "quote-mine" Scripture to make God all loving, kind and such, but leave out that God is holy and just. Comfort says the idolaters God does not exist. Atheists on the other hand do the opposite, they quote-mine Scripture to create a harsh and repulsive God. Ray says, same as the idolaters, this God projected by atheists only exist in their imagination.

===By the Light of the Silvery Moon===
Comfort provides a quote from an atheist that says the Bible cannot be accurate, giving an example of the moon does not produce its own light (Genesis 1:16).

Ray's first objection to is to the fools who included moonlight in the dictionary as noun - "the light of the moon." They should also ban Shakespeare for saying "Thou has moonlight at her window sung..." in "Midsummer's Night Dream." Next, he brings up the "ignorant" scientists at NASA who are "deceived that moonlight exists." He provides a quote from an article that explains the difference between sunlight and moonlight is its intensity (a difference by 400,000). Then there is country singer LeAnne Rimes for including moonlight in a song.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=What first needs to be pointed out is that it says the sun and moon are "two great lights" ("great lamps" in the original Hebrew) created to "light" the earth, "for signs and seasons" on earth, to "rule the day and night" on earth. The Bible says only one moon was created, but Mars has two moons (raising her total of "great lamps" to "three," obviously God felt that Mars needed lamps to brighten its nights too). Neptune has four moons, Uranus has eleven, Jupiter has sixteen, and Saturn has at least eighteen moons. The earth only gets one moon, which does not "rule the night" since 3 nights out of every 28 it abdicates its "rule," and doesn't "light" the earth at all.

Also, there is a difference from being a source of light and a source of reflection. The Bible says the moon generates its own light, which is not accurate at all. Moonlight does exist regardless, in the context of being a reflection. The Dictionary may define it, but it does not say "light produced by the moon."}}

===An Important Question===
An atheist argued, "Jesus did not abolish death. People still die and, as before his birth, people's soul still live on forever." Ray agrees Jesus abolished death by quoting 2 Timothy 1:10, and says that there are only two options: either those who believe death was abolished are mentally challenged, or there is something here not clearly understood.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The problem with using 2 Timothy as a reference or as evidence is that the vast majority of critical scholars agree that 2 Timothy is a forger, it was never written by Paul. Therefore, the Bible contains books of a deceiver.

According to Ray, sin was the result of capital punishment for humanity (Romans 6:23), but we can only be saved by repenting to Christ. He says God gave the saved a "light" and those who do not believe walk in darkness (John 8:12). It is easy and not surprising that a book which was obviously written with an agenda would label nonbelievers as people who "walk in darkness." However, with no valid proof for its extraordinary claims, it is irrational to accept a religion such as Christianity.}}

===Berkeley Brainwashing - Trees Are Our Cousins===
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Tree's are our cousins? Interesting choice of words. You share more traits in common with your siblings than you do with your cousins due to the recent ancestors you share with them, your parents. Deeper down, you share more in common with those in your extended family than you do with neighbors and classmates, etc., people you don’t recognize as part of your biological family. But you must realize that on some level you’re still related. Deeper down, one could likely recognize subtle indications of cultural demes which most people will still agree all descend from one common ancestral lineage –despite their current apparent diversity and unfamiliar ways. Deeper down, we've seen that new breeds of barnyard birds, domestic pets, livestock, corn, even bananas have to some degree been engineered by human intervention via artificial selection, and new sub-species have occurred in the wild via natural selection. In both cases, these stem from common ancestry, be that hundreds of breeds of dogs coming from one strain of wolves, or dozens of commercial bovines being derived from the now-extinct European Aurochs. Overall, we are all related, we are all part of and products of the Earth. We are all genetically linked, but Ray would have you believe that we are separate and only humans are special. This sort of thinking has led religious zealots to accept that different races within humanity is a deliberate act (or curse) from God, but as a biologist would tell you that "race" does not exist.}}

Ray defines biological evolution as descent with modification.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This leaves out a lot of details, but a more accurate description of evolution is: Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population.<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html</ref>}}

Ray says the result of the theory of relativity caused man to have no sense of right and wrong.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=How can this be? Comfort points out that men who are certain they are correct when claiming that no one can be right seems absolutely sure of himself. He argues fallen politicians draw the line of right and wrong on a relative line, but Ray argues that right and wrong is written on stone. Time, according to Ray, has shown that violators of God's law meet justice. Ray summarizes that the fallen politician can only be tried by civil law, and the same will happen to us all on Judgment day since we are all criminals in God's eyes and must be saved.

How does the theory of relativity have any impact on morality? Very commonly, Ray blames evolution and lack of faith on the ills of society, now the theory of relativity is also to blame?

So morality is absolute? Then why does Ray not keep slaves, castrate himself, or drink poison as instructed in his own Bible? Comfort [[Cherry picking|cherry-picks]] those verses that he is morally comfortable with and ignores those that are morally repulsive. So Ray is living proof morality is not absolute. As far as we can gather, morality comes ''within'' humanity, and thus it is dangerous to talk about cosmic moral absolutes. This sort of thinking, such as God hates heathens, has lead to the mass murder of countless people. Morality is flexible. We believe it is wrong to lie, but we can lie for a good purpose such as lying to a Nazi during the Third Reich that you were hiding a Jew in your basement. We believe theft is wrong, but don't we consider Robin Hood a hero? Christianity says Pride is a sin, but anyone who wears more garments or jewelry that is not necessary to keep him/her warm displays pride.}}

===The Investigator===
Ray tries to defend Biblical reliability of the authors' testimony. He uses an analogy that an investigator interviews four eye-witnesses about a bank robbery. Three of them say there were two robbers, but the last says there was a third. So the investigator must harmonized the conflicting accounts and settles with one of the bank employees played a part in the robbery. If the investigator concluded that the four eye-witnesses were liars he would not be an investigator. He must set aside all prejudices and harmonized the conflicting accounts. Ray argues one must do the same when examining the conflicting accounts in the gospel.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The difference between the above analogy and the gospels is that investigation shows that none of the four authors were eye-witnesses. We do not know who wrote the gospels, but we can verify that Luke and Matthew often copied verbatim from Mark. Mark may have been written as a fiction.<ref>http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#2</ref> The gospels contradict each other in fundamental ways that there is no way to rationally "harmonize" them. Read for instance Jesus' bad weekend before he died.<ref>http://atheism.about.com/od/gospelcontradictions/p/Resurrection.htm here</ref> We also know the four accounts have been meddled with, interpolated, and forged. We do not know if anyone in the 2nd century did any investigation to validate the claims made in any of the gospels. Any decent investigator would first account the problems with the accounts and little certainty can be drawn from their claims. External evidence is also lacking, such as we do not have any artifacts made by Jesus, no letters written by him, or anything. Read the [[historicity of Jesus]] to see the lack of historical evidence to support Jesus of Nazareth.}}

Next Ray talks about fear, and he is thankful for fear. He says fear prevents him from walking over a cliff and say away from poisonous animals. Fear, according to Ray, has a bedfellow: common sense. Common sense tells you to not walk over a cliff and such. He argues that people should not become Christian over fear of Hell, they should "come to Christ out of fear of a God that can cast them into Hell." He says the two are separated by "Moral Law." The law shows Ray Comfort that the law is perfect and holy and he deserves Hell, which reveals to him God's love and mercy. He then brings up polls that shows a steady increase of a minority of school students have stolen things, and a majority of religious school kids admit to lying to their parents. The polls say that they think they are alright and not the worst people in the world. However, Ray says they violated God's law, no matter how small.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Of course Ray would be thankful for fear, he is well known to play with people's fear to support his agenda. Fear by itself does not prevent you from walking off a cliff or handling poisonous animals, human experience presented knowledge of harmful activity that we should avoid. Fear is not always connected to common sense, some people have particular fears and phobias but that does not mean they rely on common sense. For instance, if a person is afraid of balloons, do they rely on common sense? (Not being disrespectful)

Common sense tells you to evaluate certain claims that fly in the face of logic and science. The Moral Law presented by Comfort do not prove God anymore than the 5 Pillars of Islam prove Allah or the Code of Hammurabi proves the god(s) of the Sumerians.}}

===Painted Into A Corner===
Starts off with a paragraph of an atheist addressing the evolution of sex. To this person, it seems irrelevant to him, but Ray should look at not what Darwin thought about the evolution of sex, but what modern data shows about it.

Ray says it does not matter about solving all the questions of the theory, its just when you eliminate a Creator you are "stuck with the ramifications." He says that "believers" in evolution accept that before their were two sexes, organisms reproduced asexually, until over time male and female evolved.

Ray notes the Charles Darwin "went to meet his maker" in 1882. Darwin was planned to be buried in a churchyard in Downe, until the President of the Royal Society arranged Darwin to be buried in Westminster Abbey. Darwin talked about the mind of Newton, which Ray finds interesting because Newton (according to Ray) was a theist.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray does not mention that Newton also practiced alchemy or any of his other beliefs, but nevertheless his personal thoughts about theology and such were irrelevant to his scientific discoveries.}}

Ray asks how can all the species of animals evolve a female partner at just the right time? Ray provides a brief explanation for a anonymous "believer" in evolution.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=It is not simply a matter of being sexual or asexual. There are many intermediate stages. A gradual origin, with each step favored by natural selection, is possible (Kondrashov 1997). The earliest steps involve single-celled organisms exchanging genetic information; they need not be distinct sexes. Males and females most emphatically would not evolve independently. Sex, by definition, depends on both male and female acting together. As sex evolved, there would have been some incompatibilities causing sterility (just as there are today), but these would affect individuals, not whole populations, and the genes that cause such incompatibility would rapidly be selected against. }}

Ray flat out states that if evolution is true, then the Bible is a fallacy.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Well, unfortunately for Ray evolution is true and a fact, however evolution does not refute the Bible (just a literal interpretation of the Bible).}}

Ray says scientists have no idea why organisms changed from asexual to sexual.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=What he does not share, willfully ignorant or not, many hypotheses have been proposed for the evolutionary advantage of sex (Barton and Charlesworth 1998). There is good experimental support for some of these, including resistance to deleterious mutation load (Davies et al. 1999; Paland and Lynch 2006) and more rapid adaptation in a rapidly changing environment, especially to acquire resistance to parasites (Sá Martins 2000). }}

Ray repeats the old creationist lie that "believers" in evolution are passionate, because if Darwin was right then man is just an animal with no moral accountability.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Darwin never proposed that man is an animal, biology in general does. Man is a category of mammal, vertebrate, and such. This knowledge has been known for thousands of years.}}

===An Atheist's Honest Question===
An unknown atheist asks Ray if Christ makes you righteous as in compassion and loving, or righteousness in the sense of pure and saved? Or is it something else? Ray answers there are two types of righteousness. What Ray and Christians mean to live in righteousness is called "imputed" righteousness, that is the one that saves us from death and Hell. He explains by using an analogy. Your father tells you that your mom died because a drunk driver killed her, so you swear to never drink and drive (even though you already have no car or license), but one day you have to much to drink and take your friends on a joy ride, and you get into a huge accident and are in serious trouble. But at court, your dad pays your huge fine, saving you from prison time. This is what Christ did for humanity when he died on the cross. This is "imputed righteousness." You could not justify yourself, you knew you were guilty, and your fathers payment made you right with the law. After the payment, you immediately call yourself righteous, even though you do not deserve it.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Seems like good cop out for very violent criminals. As soon as your about to be charged and found guilty, a unknown person pays your fee and you are cleared.

The above message is the message of Christianity: we all violated God's law and Christ can save us. Unfortunately, the "Law" (Ten Commandments) do not prove God anymore than the 5 Pillars of Islam prove Allah. Comfort plays with people's emotions and sense of morality by setting up a scenario were no one is innocent and only his particular narrow version of God can save you without proving beforehand that his God really exists. Ray keep hammering that we will be accounted for on "Judgment Day" but fails to provide any evidence of such a day. In fact, history has shown that they are all wrong.<ref>http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/appendix3.html</ref>}}

Ray asks the reader to set aside all questions, doubts and arguments (yeah right, you would like that Ray) and humble yourself to God. Comfort constantly pushes mortality upon the reader and should make a decision quickly. He ends this chapter that when you see the "truths of what I just told you" you should join the ranks of Christians.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Unfortunately, very little truth, or any at all can be found in this book. Ray has yet to make a convincing rational case.}}

==Chapter 15: Bird Brain==
Ray begins be observing the marvelous bird. Afterwards, he says it is tragic for atheists because they have no one to thank for this. They cannot see the intelligence of a mind behind all of this. He says Einstein and Newton saw it. He says atheists eat their meals, but choose not to taste it.

===The Unanswered Prayer of the Atheist===
Ray talks about a boy being injured. A prayer is given to heal him, but the boy dies (some say God wanted him to go to Heaven). Atheists say this is an unanswered prayer. However, if the boy survived, atheists would conclude that the body would heal itself. Ray asks is this a miracle, who knows? He concludes only God knows, but prayer has nothing to do with gods existence. So he tries to explain why. If his wife's car had a problem, and Ray concludes the car has no manufacturer because they will not return his calls. Comfort goes on to say that God's existence has nothing to do with people who experience miracles, visions, or hear God's voice. He says the sun does not exist because we see its light or feel its warmth, nor does it disappear when a blind man cannot see its light. The sun exists regardless. Ray does not stop there, he says God's existence does not depend on the Bible or its authenticity. God existed before Scripture, before creation, and even if the Bible is proven fraudulent God would still exist.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Here Ray tries to weasel out of admitting that God is an unfalsifiable being. Each of the following" prayer, the Bible, miracles, etc. are all used to prove God exists, but when each are proven to be wrong Ray dances around it and say that does not mean God does not exist. By this logic, any infinite number of Gods can theoretically exist. In a debate with the [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rational_Response_Squad_debate_with_Way_of_the_Master Rational Response Squad], Ray argued that the existence of God can be proven scientifically without invoking the Bible or faith. Spoiler, he failed and constantly used the Bible and faith to support his claims. Ray could not prove the existence of God, and he constantly tried with using the Bible. So how can he use the Bible to prove God, but when the Bible is shown to be incorrect he says that does not matter because God still exists. He provided three "irrefutable" evidence for a creator, but each was refuted at the debate. One of Ray's proofs was creation. Although there are many flaws in Ray's argument, Jainism has made great argument against creation.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism_and_non-creationism#Jain_opposition_to_Creationism</ref> The second was conscience, but evolutionary theory already explains in detail how conscience could come about. Finally, the last evidence for a creator was conversion through Christ, but if it can be demonstrated (and it has) that conversion can produce spiritual experience that can be triggered by stimulating parts of the brain, does Ray dodge this and say this "irrefutable" evidence for a creator somehow does not disprove a creator?

Even without refuting miracles, the Bible, visions and such, many atheists, philosophers, and scientists have created models that show God cannot exist (such as Victor J. Stengers book [[God: The Failed Hypothesis]]).}}

===Evolution and Beginnings===
Ray lists the vast amount of animals discovered by zoologists. He then presents several questions: Which came first, the heart or blood? What was it that carried the blood to the heart if there were no vessels. Why would the heart beat if there was no blood to pump. When did blood evolve, was it before or after the vessels evolved? If before, what were the vessels for? If blood evolved before the heart, what kept it in circulation?

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=First thing to point out this is an [[god of the gaps]] fallacy in which if we do not have the answer then Ray gets to conclude his God is responsible. What is important to note is that some animals and organisms are alive without blood, such as the jellyfish and plants. Some animals have blood but no heart. But keep this in mind, blood has to change too. Not all blood has ever been the same as human blood. How did the blood transfer through the body? Every organism has some muscle-like functions to spread things inside the body, such as digestion. The first veins may not be as veins as we picture them, but as some form of muscle that would assist in blood flow. After many generations when the species grow in size, it makes sense that a device that would help move the flow of blood would be very advantageous than those without it.}}

===Which Came First===
Comfort provides some attempts to answer the question about the vessels, blood and the heart, but they are all very brief comments from non-experts. They all appear to be from people with little or no background in the required field because they provide no scientific studies or use their terms or examples of anatomy, but they are all honest and want to set Ray straight on what evolution actually presents. Some are speculation, or not even real attempts to answer, one says Ray will not listen regardless (definitely got that one right).

Ray concludes, without bothering to research into any scientific article, that the only answer is: Almighty God made it supernaturally. He then reads a biography of Abraham Lincoln (what? how is that relevant?). Ray is saddened by this story and is glad to know the man through his own words. He then says 150,000 die in 24 hours, and this should fire you up to spread the gospel.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Why just the gospel? Ray excludes all the other holy texts known to man because of his biased personal beliefs. The fact that many people die everyday shows that death is very common and can be prevented to a degree. Christianity (and many other religions) plays a role in the death of thousands of people everyday, such as witch hunts and genocide.<ref>http://www.christianaggression.org/tactics_violence.php</ref>

This affirms Rays continual use of the [[god of the gaps]] fallacy. Just because he provides quotes from nonexperts in the field, Ray thinks he can conclude that his narrow version of God is responsible. Ray never actually seeks to get a scientific explanation from an actual expert, or when he does he rudely does not let them finish or share the whole thing (giving the impression the "expert" had no evidence to present).<ref>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Evolution_%28Way_of_the_Master%29#A_real_expert</ref> Comfort admits that God did create the circulation system through magic (supernatural means). The part including Abraham Lincoln is completely irrelevant to the question about the circulation system. Comfort only uses it to learn about the person himself, but that says nothing about the evolution of blood or the heart. He uses this as an attempt to imply that reading the gospel can give you an emotional insight to the character of Jesus, but this is not evidence. People can feel an emotional attachment to the characters in Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter, but that does not mean the characters in the stories actually exist. In summary, Ray Comfort [[appeal to emotion|appeals to emotion]] to push his faith upon people.}}

===The God of the Old Testament===
Starting off with Richard Dawkin's description of Yahweh, Ray says God of the New Testament is just as offensive as the God of the Old Testament. Comfort says God never changes. He then presents several stories in the Old Testament when God kills people, such as a couple who told a lie (Acts 5:1-11) and condemns unbelievers and everyone because we have all violated God's law. Ray defends the notion that God will punish unbelievers with several Bible verses (John 3:36, Ephesians 5:6, and Romans 2:8-9. Ray includes 2 Thessalonians 1:8). James 4:4 says God calls us his enemy and liars will be punished (Revelations 21:8) And yet this does not scare or bother Ray one bit. At the end, Ray says the two scenarios of God is fictional, and God really is all good and merciful. He defends that God is merciful because he became the flesh and paid the price for our sins.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray barely scratches the surface of the evils committed by God. Ignoring that God murdered all the lives of humans, plants, and animals (including infants and unborn babies) in the great flood, slaying the first-born of Egypt (from the royal prince to the small child of the salve at the mill. ALL of them), and many others. Here is a short example: In I Samuel 6, the ark of the Lord was being transported across country. Five farmers of Bethshemesh “rejoiced to see it.” They opened the box and made a burnt offering to the Lord, and for this terrible sin God “smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the Lord, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the Lord had smitten many of the people with great slaughter.” Is it moral to kill 50,000 people for a petty offense? He slew them all for the crimes of five other men? And exactly what was the crime? These men were trying to worship this very god, in their own way. Wouldn’t a God of mercy understand their innocent mistake? What if one of your children gave you a birthday card with the words “Daddy/Mommy, I luv you” and you punish them for spelling the word wrong? There are many many other stories that reveal God's evils.}}

Ray ends the chapter with an encounter with a man named Joe on the plane. He asks him several questions, such as what were the highest mountains before Mt. Everest. Ray says it has always been Mt. Everest. He pulls the old "are you a good person?" tactic, but Joe does not believe in a Haven or Hell, so Ray says to Joe to try and pretend they do and then decide where you would rather go to. Seriously, just pretend? Well, that is basically all that can be done. No evidence exists for an afterlife or a realm that matches the description of Hell or Heaven, so all Ray Comfort can do is pretend that they do in order to evangelize and make money.

==Chapter 16: Right on the Money==

==Chapter 17: What Really Matters==
The chapter begins with a question to Ray Comfort from a Christian. He asks Comfort how does he prove God exists to non-believes? Ray says he does not have to prove God exists, because they already know God exists. Every person has a "god-given" conscience. He also has the evidence of mere creation. Ray say he does no waste much time trying to prove God exists. Ray says people need to be shown instead that sin exists and they need a savior.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is faulty and fallacious logic. A Muslim could argue Ray and everyone knows Allah exists with no further prof required. If Ray doe not bother wasting time and energy tying to prove God exists, then why publish over 60 books? Why go to debates to prove God exists?}}

===The Absurdity of Christianity===
Ray agrees that preaching of the cross is "absurd" even the Bible says so in 1 Corinthians 1:18.

On page 197, Ray says that God will forgive your sins, which is "confirmed by the fact that God had raised Jesus from dead."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is not a confirmed fact. If it was, where is the evidence?}}

Ray then says that salvation cannot be achieved through works, but by grace (while citing Ephesians 2).
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray skips (willfully or not) verses like Matthew 16:27 which spells it out nicely "For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works." When Ray was asked why can't God just forgive? Ray says God is bound by his holy character. Ray thus admits God is limited. }}

Ray says God's law s perfect, and thus God is perfect.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The law is perfect? The law says nothing about rape, child molestation, torture, etc. How is that perfect? What is perfect?
P1) A perfect being is not subject to change.
P2) A perfect being knows everything.
P3) A being that knows everything always knows what time it is.
P4) A being that always knows what time it is, is subject to change.
P5) A perfect being is subject to change.
P6) A perfect being is not perfect being; Finally therefore;
C) There is no perfect being.}}

===This is what you are saying...===
Starts off with a quote from someone who is not sure what right o wrong is. The person would favor a pro-life world, but would vote pro-choice. Ray compares this to wanting a Germany who does not kill anyone, rather have them kill on how I vote. Ray points to that part of not being able to identify right and wrong and says atheism provides no moral anchor.

===Species-to-species definition===
Here, an anonymous person accuses Ray of lying about transitional fossils. Ray tries to counter this by trying to define species as "Biology: a major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species."<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/species</ref> Ray says wolves, German Shepard, and coyotes are the same species (Canine family or "kind"), but cannot breed with cats or the tiger (the feline family or"kind").
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray chooses not to quote from a scientific definition. Has Ray ever seen an Aardwolf? It looks like a fox, but it is more related to cats.}}

Ray says when he is taking about a transitional species-to-species fossil, he do not see a skeleton of a cat evolving into a dog, or a chicken evolving into a fish, or a horse into a cow.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Here, Ray only further shows his incredibly misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution does not say chicken evolved not fish, fish far predate the time of chickens, and horses and cows are not in the same family. If you go back int the history of cat and dogs, the fossil record has shown that t family of cats, dogs, bears, and weasels once shared a common ancestor, that possibly looked like raccoons.<ref>http://webh01.ua.ac.be/funmorph/raoul/fylsyst/Flynn2005.pdf</ref>}}

Ray concludes that the Biblical Creation is supported by the evidence and nature "screams [[intelligent design]]." Ray ends is section with: "If you think that's a lie, then so be it."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=If nature does scream evidence for biblical creation and intelligent deign, where is it? What is it? Because each of the arguments presented for “irreducible complexity” (the best arguments creationism ever had) were disproved scientifically and exposed in court. And apart from a series of frauds and falsehoods - the only arguments anti-science evangelists have ever had seem limited to nothing more than ignorant criticisms of dwindling and already irrelevant gaps in the ever-enveloping advancement of science. But vague criticisms against science still wouldn’t count as evidence for creationism even if those arguments weren’t all completely wrong. Even if there was evidence of gods, it might not be their god. Even if it was, that wouldn’t be evidence of creation either, because that still wouldn’t dismiss any of the evidence for evolution and against mythology; nor could it change the fact that humans are still apes. Creation relies on a false dichotomy –rejecting all other options and insisting that there can only be two alternatives; So they can imagine that criticizing the one will vindicate the other by default. }}

===The Game of Speculation===
Here, Ray points out the often occurrence when scientist use the words like "maybe", "possibly", "perhaps" etc. Ray says he does not believe in fairy tales like a pumpkin turning into Cinderella's coach or the "unscientific theory of evolution." Ray does not believe reptiles turn into birds or chickens were not once dinosaurs billion of yeas ago.

Ray says he never said that evolutionists believe that cows turn into dogs, it is just he sees no scientific evidence for any species "evolving" into another species. Ray says he asks people on the street how they define evolution, and they say that their great-great-great-grandfather was an ape. Ray says that evolutionists believe that we share a common ancestor with apes, but they [the public] believe we are direct descendants from apes. Ray say they are confused by the "speculation" of evolutionist like Richard Dawkins "We admit we are are all like apes - In truth, not only are we apes, we are African apes."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Both the public and evolutionist are right, we are apes and we share a common ancestor with other apes. Because the problem with bridging the gap between humans and apes is that there is no gap because humans ARE apes –definitely and definitively. The word, “ape” doesn’t refer to a species, but to a parent category of collective species, and we’re included. This is no arbitrary classification like the creationists use. It was first determined via meticulous physical analysis by Christian scientists a century before Darwin, and has been confirmed in recent years with new revelations in genetics. Furthermore, it is impossible to define all the characters exclusively indicative of every known member of the family of apes without describing our own genera as one among them. Consequently, we can and have proven that humans are apes in exactly the same way that lions are cats, and iguanas are lizards, and whales are mammals. So where is the proof that humans descend from apes? How about the fact that we’re still apes right now!}}

Using an article about Ida, Ray quotes Dr. Dr Jørn Hurum, the palaeontologist from Oslo University's Natural History Museum who assembled the scientific team to study the fossil. "It tells a part of our evolution that's been hidden so far. It's been hidden because the only [other] specimens are so incomplete and so broken there's nothing almost to study." Ray says drop the "almost" and the truth is revealed. Carl Sagan said "We [scientists] re not afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact." Ray says if you believe in evolution, you have failed that.

===Open-Minded Evolutionist===
Opens with a question from an anonymous person asking Ray if he label everyone who disagrees with him as an "atheist"?

==Chapter 18: Bikers, an Atheist, and Vampires==
Ray begins by sharing that he had a discussion with four pastors on the subject of atheism, that Ray pointed out one in four university professors were atheists/agnostic and atheism has doubled in the last two decades. Ray says that he knows how to make atheists backslide by asking them if they really believe everything came from nothing (he says he caught this on tape, but where is it?)
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=If the idea that everything came from nothing is absurd, and Ray seems to agree, then he has proven creationism is indeed comical and false. Atheism does not say anything about how everything came to be, it simply the lack of belief in God.}}

Ray then retells his story of going fishing with one of the pastors. He was told plenty of non-Christians ride bikes in the area. Ray saw them, all tough and wearing Nazi helmets. Ray introduced himself to them, telling them that their chances of getting in an accident is higher, and he wanted them to know about God. So Ray takes them through the old and dishonest [[are you a good person?]] routine and the court room analogy. Later when Ray arrived with his Christian friends at the lake, he was amazed by its beauty that he reasoned no atheist could be here -although they may be atheists in rat-infested, crime-ridden, overcrowded, smog-drenched city.

Afterwards he meets a man named Abel, who that day became a Christian and is a fan of [[Way of the Master]].

Ray claims that God has a plan for use all by citing Romans 8:28. When Ray's flight was delayed, he reasoned God wanted him to take the longer route so he could talk to a passenger. He meets a man named Nick reading a novel about vampires. Ray takes him through the old and dishonest [[are you a good person?]] routine. When Ray arrives home in Los Angeles, his wife tells him there was an earthquake. Several ornaments over the TV fell but did not break. Ray, appearing like a caring husband, tells her he put straps on the TV to prevent it from falling. When Ray shows her by shaking the TV, the ornaments fell and brake.

===Conclusion===
Ray thanks the reader for reading this book. He includes a comment on his blog,<ref>http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2009/06/ever-stood-infront-of-big-fan.html</ref>
<blockquote>
"Imagine a scenario where you are suddenly presented with absolute proof that God exists. Not proof that you can reproduce in a lab or record in scientific journal, but experiential proof that is clear and undeniable...but only to you. I can’t tell you what that proof looks like, because it’s different for just about everybody. I can tell you what it looked like for me, and I’ll do so shortly. The mind of the Natural man (atheist) will buck against imagining such a thing, and resist even considering the scenario, but I’m asking you to try anyway. Take yourself, with all of your vast scientific knowledge of the universe, and imagine that the Christian God revealed himself to you in an undeniable way. How would such a thing change your life? What would happen to all the knowledge that seemed to so clearly disprove God just a minute ago? I can tell you exactly what would happen, because it happened to me (minus the vast scientific knowledge part). All that stuff stops mattering. You begin to realize that what we don’t know outweighs what we do know by an astronomical amount. You realize that What We Know is only an insignificant grain of sand on an unimaginable desert of 'Things to Know.' You begin to realize that in spite of the fact that we can’t agree on what happened throughout eternity, eternity still happened, and something happened inside of it. Lots of somethings. You begin to realize that sometimes both sides of an argument can claim the same piece of evidence. It’s all about perspective. So there you stand. Everything that you once KNEW laying shattered and broken at your feet, and the searchlight of your curiosity that drove you to become so knowledgeable about science and stuff is now focused on the Bible, the one and only source of knowledge about the magnificent creator of the universe. Can you imagine how it feels to suddenly know that such an awesome being actually exists? Have you ever stood in front of a powerful fan and tried to breath? Every breath you take in fills you up to bursting, and you feel wide open and a little afraid. That’s kind of how it feels on the day you start to believe God exists. It is an awesome day, let me tell you. I’ve got chills remembering when it happened to me. I was an atheist in an atheist chat room. One day someone came into the room and typed, 'imagine a scenario where you are suddenly presented with absolute proof . . . As I imagined, I began to realize that God was POSSIBLE. Afterward, my natural curiosity took the wheel and it was all over for me. God had his revenge, and I became an anti-intellectual (or whatever it is you guys call us these days). The thing is, I read the posts in this blog, from all of your great minds that have such a clear love for learning, and I get excited because you guys are going to be strong soldiers in God’s army when you finally discover the one truth that can change your life. I’ll gladly call you my brothers and sisters on that day." Jim
</blockquote>

An atheist will not just be closed to such experiences. It has been tested an observed hundreds of times that the brain is capable for producing such experiences the feel so real it cannot be denied. Michael Harner, and anthropologist who lived among the Jivaro Indians of the Ecuadoran Amazon, described his experience with ayahuasca as follows:
<blockquote>
“For several hours after drinking the brew, I found myself although awake, in a world literally beyong my wildest dreams. I met bird-like people, as well as a dragon-like creature who explained they were the true Gods of this world. I enlisted the services of other spirit helpers in attempting to fly through the far reaches of the Galaxy. Transported into a trance where the supernatural seemed natural, I realized that anthropologists, including myself, had profoundly underestimated the importance of the drug in affecting native ideology.”
</blockquote>
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Notice the blogger, Jim, says "minus the vast scientific knowledge part." Someone unaware of neuroscience and such both before and after can fall for explaining away such terrific feelings with the supernatural. Both sides make claims about certain evidences, but only the scientific side tests them to verify their accuracy. Where is the proof that the Christian God is the same God of your Christian neighbor? There are over 30,000 different denominations in Christianity that have different views of God and the Bible. How does Jim know that the God who convinced him was real is not a trickster pretending to be God? Jim only accepts that God exists though blind faith.}}

Finally at he end of the book, Ray tells a story of his film crew and himself in Las Vegas outside the Bellagio Hotel. A song "Time to Say Goodbye" brought back memories and reminds the reader about death. Ray compares Christians as people in a village built by a dam. The Christian can see the dam losing control and this warns the villagers, butt they refuse to listen. Ray says when he dies, he knows that he will see his family again. He urges the reader to carefully examine the Ten Commandments (which version Ray?)

== Incidentally ==
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=”Nothing created everything” does not mean quite the same thing as, “Everything exists without a creator”. Clearly nothing can have absolutely no effects. According to believers, “Nothing created god/the gods" makes sense while “Nothing created the physical universe” is unreasonable. There is no logical reason for this distinction. }}

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Apologetic literature]]
[[Category:Books]]
[[Category:Ray Comfort]]

Appeal to emotion

2012-03-23T19:41:59Z

Arensb: Punctuation.

[[Image:SMBC-20081103.gif|thumb|''Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal'' cartoon illustrating the fallacy of appeal to emotion.]]

An '''appeal to emotion''' is an argument tactic that is very similar to an [[Appeal to popularity|appeal to popularity]] which attempts to circumvent [[rational]] thought in the hopes of “supporting” a conclusion with an [[emotion]]al response in the place of real evidence. Many times, this fallacy is committed in concert with other fallacies as well, ''e.g.'' [[ad hominem]].

==Example==

*"Aren't you afraid to go to [[hell]] when you die?"

The above statement appeals to the listener's emotion of fear, but [[Begging the question|begs the question]] by assuming that hell exists in the first place.

*"[[Hitler]] was an [[evil]] [[atheist]]; you don't want to be a Nazi, do you?"

The [[premise]] of this argument is faulty; Hitler was actually a devout [[Catholic]]. Even if the premise were granted, however, the attempted link between atheism and Nazism relies on an [[Enthymeme|enthymeme]] (missing premise).

==Counterarguments==

Whether or not something is appealing has no bearing on whether it is true. Not everything that is real is pleasant, and not everything an evil person does is evil.

For example:
* "Hitler was a vegetarian. Do you want to be like Hitler?"
* "Hitler wore a mustache. Do you want to be like Hitler?"
* "Hitler believed in the theory of gravity. Do you want to be like Hitler?"

The fact that Hitler was a vegetarian and sported a mustache does not mean that those things are immoral. And the fact that he believed in gravity does not make it untrue.

Similarly:
* "This X-ray shows that you have a tumor on your liver. You don't want to have liver cancer, do you? Therefore, the X-ray is wrong."

This is an inverted form of [[wishful thinking]]: wanting something to be true doesn't make it true, and wanting something to be false doesn't make it false.

{{Logical fallacies}}

[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Appeal to emotion

2012-03-23T19:41:40Z

Arensb: i.e. != e.g.

[[Image:SMBC-20081103.gif|thumb|''Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal'' cartoon illustrating the fallacy of appeal to emotion.]]

An '''appeal to emotion''' is an argument tactic that is very similar to an [[Appeal to popularity|appeal to popularity]] which attempts to circumvent [[rational]] thought in the hopes of “supporting” a conclusion with an [[emotion]]al response in the place of real evidence. Many times, this fallacy is committed in concert with other fallacies as well, ''e.g.'' [[ad hominem]]

==Example==

*"Aren't you afraid to go to [[hell]] when you die?"

The above statement appeals to the listener's emotion of fear, but [[Begging the question|begs the question]] by assuming that hell exists in the first place.

*"[[Hitler]] was an [[evil]] [[atheist]]; you don't want to be a Nazi, do you?"

The [[premise]] of this argument is faulty; Hitler was actually a devout [[Catholic]]. Even if the premise were granted, however, the attempted link between atheism and Nazism relies on an [[Enthymeme|enthymeme]] (missing premise).

==Counterarguments==

Whether or not something is appealing has no bearing on whether it is true. Not everything that is real is pleasant, and not everything an evil person does is evil.

For example:
* "Hitler was a vegetarian. Do you want to be like Hitler?"
* "Hitler wore a mustache. Do you want to be like Hitler?"
* "Hitler believed in the theory of gravity. Do you want to be like Hitler?"

The fact that Hitler was a vegetarian and sported a mustache does not mean that those things are immoral. And the fact that he believed in gravity does not make it untrue.

Similarly:
* "This X-ray shows that you have a tumor on your liver. You don't want to have liver cancer, do you? Therefore, the X-ray is wrong."

This is an inverted form of [[wishful thinking]]: wanting something to be true doesn't make it true, and wanting something to be false doesn't make it false.

{{Logical fallacies}}

[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Appeal to emotion

2012-03-23T19:40:53Z

Arensb: Added counterarguments. Also, not a stub anymore.

[[Image:SMBC-20081103.gif|thumb|''Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal'' cartoon illustrating the fallacy of appeal to emotion.]]

An '''appeal to emotion''' is an argument tactic that is very similar to an [[Appeal to popularity|appeal to popularity]] which attempts to circumvent [[rational]] thought in the hopes of “supporting” a conclusion with an [[emotion]]al response in the place of real evidence. Many times, this fallacy is committed in concert with other fallacies as well. ''i.e.'' [[Ad hominem]]

==Example==

*"Aren't you afraid to go to [[hell]] when you die?"

The above statement appeals to the listener's emotion of fear, but [[Begging the question|begs the question]] by assuming that hell exists in the first place.

*"[[Hitler]] was an [[evil]] [[atheist]]; you don't want to be a Nazi, do you?"

The [[premise]] of this argument is faulty; Hitler was actually a devout [[Catholic]]. Even if the premise were granted, however, the attempted link between atheism and Nazism relies on an [[Enthymeme|enthymeme]] (missing premise).

==Counterarguments==

Whether or not something is appealing has no bearing on whether it is true. Not everything that is real is pleasant, and not everything an evil person does is evil.

For example:
* "Hitler was a vegetarian. Do you want to be like Hitler?"
* "Hitler wore a mustache. Do you want to be like Hitler?"
* "Hitler believed in the theory of gravity. Do you want to be like Hitler?"

The fact that Hitler was a vegetarian and sported a mustache does not mean that those things are immoral. And the fact that he believed in gravity does not make it untrue.

Similarly:
* "This X-ray shows that you have a tumor on your liver. You don't want to have liver cancer, do you? Therefore, the X-ray is wrong."

This is an inverted form of [[wishful thinking]]: wanting something to be true doesn't make it true, and wanting something to be false doesn't make it false.

{{Logical fallacies}}

[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Proof by logic

2012-03-23T19:09:13Z

Arensb: Ref-ify

=Overview=

[[Logic]] is a fantastic tool for guiding one's investigations into reality, however, sometimes people don't understand it's application to the practicalities of reality, and its limitations.

One of the frequent [[theist]]ic attempts at demonstrating their [[god]], is a method known as '''proof by logic''', or "''logicing God into existence''". The basic idea is that, devoid of any [[Empiricism|empirical]] [[evidence]] demonstrating the existence of the god, they will attempt to [[proof|prove]] the existence using nothing but logical arguments.

==Examples==

* [[God is love|God is love. Love exists. Therefore, God exists.]]
* [[Transcendental argument|Logic exists as a concept that requires a mind. Logic transcends human minds, so a transcendent mind must exist to hold that concept. That transcendent mind is God.]]
* [[Kalam cosmological argument|Everything that began to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist, therefore has to have a cause. Since we need a starting point, as opposed to an infinite regress, that cause is the "uncaused cause", which could only be God.]]
* "Concepts existed before us. Concepts require a mind. That mind is God."<ref>[[The Atheist Experience]], episode #680, Caller quote at 0:14:30</ref>

None of these are confirmed true, and they rely on axioms that are dubious.

Sometimes, people believe that if an argument is logically ''sound'' (described as "logical"), it must therefore be true; for instance, that [[creationism]] is true because it's logical.

==Discussion==

It's important to note that the concept of "proof" only really exists in math as an absolute claim. Once we start examining reality, the mathematical concept can only be used to approximate. For instance, one can define a perfect circle within mathematics, but we are incapable of creating a physically perfect circle in reality.

A perfect circle is defined as a set of points (in a 2D plane) that are equidistant to a center point.

If we're drawing on paper, and one of the atoms is off by a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of the diameter of an electron, the circle is no longer perfect, because one of the atoms is not exactly equidistant with the other atoms. Logical claims versus reality have similar issues.

There's a number of ways, overall, in which proofs by logic are dubious.

===Validity of Premises===

The primary reason why these arguments fail is because the premises of a logical argument must be 100% umambiguously correct, valid, and unassumed. Each premise must be demonstrably true. They never are.

For instance, the Kalam cosmological argument makes the following undemonstrated assumptions:
* Everything has a cause - have they ''checked'' everything in existence to make sure it has a cause?
* The universe couldn't be eternal - voiding the "began to exist" clause.
* Even if the universe had a cause, that therefore it had to be intelligent, as opposed to another natural mechanism.
* That in reality, it's an endless cycle of universes, etc.

This argument cannot possibly work, because it relies on assumptions being plugged into the required logical premises. The fact is, we have little to no information about what happened "before" the big bang, or even have a complete understanding of causality beyond our simplified Earthly understanding of how things work. Just like we couldn't extend [[Newtonian mechanics]] into approaching-the-speed-of-light speeds, we aren't justified in extending our current laws of physics into the extremes, as discussed in this argument, where the laws break.

===Limitations of Common Sense===

Not only does "common sense" not work in all situations, but in advanced sciences, rarely ever works, because we're digging deeper into realms that aren't "common" to our understanding yet.

===Limitations of Current Knowledge===

Ultimately, the only way that logical proofs can work outside of [[mathematics]] is if one is [[omniscient]]. As it stands, we could discover and learn something new about reality tomorrow that demolishes one of the premises to a logical syllogism. As theists frequently point out, this happens in science. Thus, we cannot rely on the premises to be wholly accurate, but rather, a tentative assessment of what we currently know for the moment. The absolute logical arguments then fail because of that.

Logic, as applied to reality, works best as a guide to investigation, not as an end-all proof for claims.

===Logic and the Scientific Method===

'''Typically, when attempting to build a [[theory]] with the [[scientific method]], the process follows a basic pattern:'''
# Observe a phenomenon and gather information.
# Using '''logic''' and analysis, propose a model that describes the phenomenon.
# Using '''logic''', propose a series of testable [[hypothesis|hypotheses]] to validate the model, possibly [[falsifiable|falsify]] the model, and [[exclusion|exclude]] other explanations.
# [[Testable|Test]] hypotheses, and return to #1 with results to revise model, until model converges on a stable answer.
# Theory is now well supported ("proved").

One example is the history of our [[knowledge]] about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#History black holes]. For a long time, all the evidence we had regarding gravity and light seemed to point to this idea that a star can be so massive that light couldn't escape. It wasn't until we had tested hypotheses, with empirical evidence, that the scientific community accepted that black holes were real. We didn't stop at making a logical argument for black holes, stop there, and assume we've proven they exist, even though the logical argument was very compelling.

'''A proof by logic follows the following basic pattern:'''
# Observe a phenomenon and gather information.
# Using '''logic''', propose an explanation that describes the phenomenon, using bits of data that appear to fit the argument.
# Make no attempt to confirm the argument, or exclude it from other possibilities.
# Assertion is now "proved".

People making this error end up simply skipping the most important part of the scientific method - testing and revision. Even more importantly, they often make no attempt to find ways to falsify their claims, which is critical in science. In this way, proofs by logic are functionally very similar to [[conspiracy theories]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:logic]]

Beauty

2012-03-23T18:16:59Z

Arensb: Propose merging

{{Merge|Argument from design}}

Beauty is an argument for the existence of [[god]]. For example "How can you look at all the beautiful things in the world and not believe in a god?". A counter argument is to just ask the same but with something ugly, for example: "How can you look at a bubonic plague victim and believe in a god? A counter-apologist might also reply "Who are you to assume you and God have the same taste in interior decorating?"

A more proper name for the argument would be the "Argument from Aesthetics."

Template:Common objections

2012-03-23T17:29:33Z

Arensb: Link to a non-redirect page.

{{Navbox|name = Common objections
|titlestyle = background:#FFC9C1;
|title=[[Common objections to atheism and counter-apologetics]]
|groupstyle = background:#FFDDDC;

|group1=Personal
|list1=''[[Why are you trying to tear down other people's faith?]]'' · ''[[Why can't everyone just have their beliefs?]]'' · ''[[What are your qualifications?]]'' · ''[[Atheists believe in nothing]]'' · ''[[You are a communist]]'' · ''[[Why do atheists inspire such hatred?]]''

|group2=Religious
|list2=''[[That's not in my Bible]]'' · ''[[They're not true Christians]]'' · ''[[You just want to sin]]'' · ''[[Atheists know there is a God]]'' · ''[[It takes more faith to disbelieve than it does to believe]]'' · ''[[God doesn't believe in atheists]]'' · ''[[Science is a faith]]'' · ''[[Atheism is a religion]]'' · ''[[Atheists worship materialism]]'' · ''[[Hypocrisy of celebrating religious holidays]]'' · ''[[Atheism is based on faith]]''

|group3=Science and logic
|list3=''[[You can't prove God doesn't exist]]'' · ''[[Science can't touch god]]'' · ''[[God can't be defined]]'' · ''[[So you think we came from monkeys|So you think we came from nothing / pondsoup / monkeys?]]'' · ''[[If God didn't create everything, who did?]]'' · ''[[That might be true for you, but its not true for me]]'' · ''[[Religion is another way of knowing]]'' · ''[[God is trying to trick you with dinosaur bones]]'' · ''[[Satan is trying to trick you with dinosaur bones]]'' · ''[[Tides come in, tides go out. You can't explain that.]]''

}}

Fundamentalism

2012-03-23T16:50:06Z

Arensb: Fix links to look prettier. Add references section.

'''Fundamentalism''', in a [[religious]] context, is when a religious group believes that its [[scripture]] is the absolute [[truth]], an exact representation of the world, its origins, and/or its eventual fate. Fundamentalism is a sociological movement that is observed in religions other than [[Christianity]]. This article deals only with the Christian situation. Christian fundamentalism has its roots in the 1800s. The liberal and conservative strands of Christianity can be traced to the [[Wikipedia:Age of Enlightenment|Age of Enlightenment]] in the 1700s. Two major items are believed to have brought about the fundamentalist movement; these are higher biblical criticism<ref name="robinson">http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_hcri.htm</ref> as practiced by German scholars since the Enlightenment, and evolution theory as published by Charles Darwin.

==Higher Biblical Criticism==
A few terms need clarification. These are: higher biblical criticism, and Age of Enlightenment or just Enlightenment. Higher biblical criticism is the study of who wrote the Bible. On the link above to Religious Tolerance<ref name="robinson"/> there is a fairly good article by B. A. Robinson on biblical criticism. I disagree with Robinson on one point. Robinson says, “Biblical criticism originated with anti-Christian writers who valued reason and logic over faith and revelation.” My problem is with the term “anti-Christian.” I have studied some of the theologians or writers Robinson refers to, and from my perspective as an ex-Christian I think they were every bit as concerned for the true Christian faith as were the fundamentalists. Thus, I disagree that they were anti-Christian; I also disagree that they “valued logic and reason” over “faith and revelation.” The rest of the article looks fine.

== The Age of Enlightenment ==
The Age of Enlightenment, often just called the Enlightenment, lasted from approximately 1750 to 1800. According to [[Wikipedia:Age of Enlightenment|the Wikipedia entry on the Enlightenment]], the Enlightenment was a result of the work of people such as [[Wikipedia:Galileo|Galileo]] (1564-1642) and [[Wikipedia:Isaac Newton|Sir Isaac Newton]] (1643-1727). The Wikipedia entry further says the leaders of the Enlightenment “believed they could lead their states to progress after a long period of tradition, irrationality, superstition, and tyranny which they imputed to the Middle Ages.” In other words, instead of relying uncritically on traditional Christian belief, they believed reason would be a better way to truth. Many of course were Christians and assumed that reason would lead to Christian '' “truth” ''.

When Enlightenment thinking was applied to the Bible (higher biblical criticism), it was discovered that Moses probably did not write the [[Pentateuch]] (first five books of the Bible), and that most of the prophecies were probably written after the fact. These thinkers analyzed the Bible critically, just like they analyzed other ancient writings such as Homer’s Iliad. For some reason, biblical criticism did not take hold on American soil until after the [[Wikipedia:American Civil War|American Civil War]] (1861-1865). Even after the Civil War the former Confederate States resisted biblical criticism up till the [[21st Century]] and they formed the [[Bible Belt]] today.

== After the American Civil War ==
After the American Civil War, conservative American theologians became aware of the advances being made by German scholars in biblical criticism. Darwin had published his [[Origin of the Species]]<ref name="oos">find copy here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html</ref> in 1859. By 1874, Charles Hodge of Princeton Seminary had published his three-volume ''Systematic Theology''<ref>find copy here: http://www.ccel.org/h/hodge</ref>. Hodge argues that the facts in the Bible are for the faith what the facts of nature are for science. Hodge had a powerful impact on conservative Christianity. Because of this, he might well be called the father of Christian fundamentalism.

== Scopes Monkey Trial ==
Fundamentalism came to the fore in 1925 at the [[Wikipedia:Scopes Trial|Scopes Monkey Trial]]. According to the Wikipedia entry, the state of Tennessee passed a law on March 13, 1925 forbidding “any state-funded educational establishment in Tennessee” to teach "any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals." In other words, teaching evolution was forbidden.

The following paragraph is a direct quote from the article in Wikipedia:

John Scopes, a high school teacher, was arrested for teaching evolution from a chapter in a textbook which showed ideas developed from those set out in Charles Darwin's book The Origin of Species. The famous trial was made infamous by the fictionalized accounts given in the 1955 play Inherit the Wind and 1960 Hollywood motion picture of the same name. END OF QUOTE.

==Hidden fundamentalism and re-emergence==
According to present-day American scholars such as George M. Marsden (sociologist) and Mark A. Noll (historian), fundamentalism “went underground” for several decades and re-immerged in the last quarter of the twentieth century. Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority in the 1980s is generally thought to be the formal re-immergence of Christian fundamentalism. Fundamentalism today focuses on three main items commonly called “[[gay rights]],” abortion, and [[creationism]]. In other words, Christian fundamentalists are against equal rights for homosexuals—esp. around issues such as marriage, the adoption of children, and in some states the holding of political office. Fundamentalists are also against the teaching of evolution in public schools and against [[Stem cell research]]. In addition, they oppose a woman’s choice for an abortion under the argument that life begins at conception and therefore abortion is murder. The same Conservative fundamentalists tend to oppose state funded medical care although the death rate is higher in the United States than in other developed countries with free universal health care. They oppose killing a fetus while it is in the uterus but after a baby is born they are prepared to do less that political liberals do to keep that baby alive.

"See, the really hard core people [(fundamentalists)] will say that life begins at fertilization. Fertilization, when the sperm fertilizes the egg... But, even after the egg is fertilized, it's still six or seven days before it reaches the uteris before pregnancy begins and not every egg makes it that far. 80% of a woman's fertilized eggs are rinsed and flushed out of her body, once a month during [a period]. They wind up on sanitary napkins and yet they are fertilized eggs. So basically what these anti-abortion people are telling us is that any woman who's had more than one period is a serial killer," (George Carlin, Pro-Life is Anti-Woman).

As stated in the opening sentence of this article, Christian fundamentalists believe that the Bible is the absolute truth, an exact representation of the world, its origins, and/or its eventual fate. However, exactly how this ''”truth”'' looks in everyday life, or how the world actually came into being, and exactly how it will end, are hotly disputed items of theology over which churches can split. While they all agree that the Bible is the inerrant, divinely inspired, infallible Word of God, they disagree sharply on its true meaning.

==Literal meaning and metaphor==
Whether “true meaning” or “correct interpretation” is the better term is debatable. I opt for the former because, so far as I know, fundamentalists do not accept that interpretation takes place. A thing is what it is; the question for them is whether a statement is meant to be taken literally or spiritually/metaphorically. Though fundamentalists are often accused of taking the Bible literally in all cases, the fact of the matter is that they don’t. The Bible is so ambiguously written, and contains so many internal contradictions, that taking it literally in all cases is impossible. The Bible is not a step-by-step instruction manual and they don’t take it as such. I don’t know whether any formal studies have been done on this, but personal observation suggests that disagreement centers on exactly what portions of the sacred text should be taken literally and what portions should be taken metaphorically or spiritually. Though there is no room to discuss this here, the centuries-long dispute on the appropriate age for baptism—whether infant or believer’s baptism—is one important example of this.

==Fundamentalism and morality==
Christian fundamentalists are more effective at driving sin underground than preventing it.
<blockquote>States that banned gay marriage had 11 percent more porn subscribers. The level of agreement in a state with the statement that "Even today miracles are performed by the power of God" predicted higher pornography consumption. States claiming to have old-fashioned values about family and marriage purchased substantially more adult-content subscriptions.<ref>http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/200903/why-conservatives-spend-more-pornography</ref></blockquote>

Why is this? Possible reasons could be that Internet pornography is safe, users can take care that they will not be found out. When someone is sitting by a computer Internet pornography is never more than two or three clicks away. Weak minded people have trouble resisting temptation. The more sexual repression there is in a state or a community the more people are tempted or driven to find whatever outlet they can.

==Books==
A few books that may lend further insight on the Christian fundamentalist movement are:

Barr, James. "Fundamentalism." London, SCM Press, 1977.

Harding, Susan Friend. "The Book of Jerry Falwell: Fundamentalist Language and Politics." Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 2000.

Marsden, George M. "Fundamentalism and American Culture." New York, Oxford University Press, 1980.

Noll, Mark A. "A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada." Grand Rapids, MI, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1992.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]

Talk:What about all the good things religion has given us?

2012-03-23T16:38:50Z

Arensb: /* Suggestions */ Rename to "Argument from utility"?

This article seems to miss a fundamental point in the proposition it is refuting; Atheism and religiosity are not synonymous. That religions sometimes do good is not the same as saying theists do good.

==Suggestions==
I like the idea of this article, but it needs some work. Here are my suggestions:
* The title ought to be more general, so "sub-arguments" can go under the same topic.

* A general argument against anything 'good' claimed to be the sole product of religion.

* Some sort of statement that such an argument, even if accepted, would not prove religious claims are correct. The claim that there is a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars is unfounded, even if the person making the claim has opened a hundred non-profit hospitals for sick children.

* A logical format. A numbered list of "good" things said to be provided by religion.

* Reasoning or examples to back up the assertions where each item is stated to be:
** not '''only''' provided by religious groups,
** not principally motivated by religion itself,
** provided better or more fairly by non-religious organizations.

* A list of 'bad' things religions do in accomplishing the 'good' things they do.

Also, recognize yourself that the fact that something could be does not show it is. If you say, for instance, that there is some other motivation for people to help in soup kitchens, don't argue as if that is the only motivation. A sense of obligation to one's religious group is also a motivation. We really just want to show we're not '''all''' greedy, miserable wretches without religion, not that '''none''' of us are.--[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 14:34, 30 December 2009 (CST)

: May I suggest that this page be renamed to [[Argument from utility]] (see [http://www.alternet.org/belief/151833?page=entire The Santa Delusion] by Greta Christina). It could also be the main article for a [[:Category:Arguments from utility]] category: ones that argue that religious claims are useful, not that they're true. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 11:38, 23 March 2012 (CDT)

== What about the Dark Ages? ==

The section currently says ...
*''•Christianity caused the dark ages...''"
While I would be among the first to to point out the multiple failings of religion and religious thought I think this one goes a bit too far. A quick reading of the relevant [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_%28historiography%29 Wikipedia article] would not seem to support the claim. At the very least the claim needs to be sourced.--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 10:05, 10 November 2011 (CST)

:I found [http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/tragedy-of-theology.asp The Tragedy of Theology: How Religion Caused and Extended the Dark Ages] but I haven’t had time to read it all. Certainly the barbarian hordes that overcame Rome were part of the cause and Christianity didn’t cause it all. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 15:01, 10 November 2011 (CST)
::Self evidently the fall of Rome was not "caused" by Christianity. The "dark ages" which followed can be considered "dark" for two reasons: it was somehow a "dark" time for humanity, or they were "dark" in the sense of "historically obscure". I see that the comment above has been toned down a bit now but it still doesn't seem to be a fantastic argument. --[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 01:07, 11 November 2011 (CST)

Why Are You Atheists So Angry?

2012-03-23T15:58:42Z

Arensb: Stub

{{book-stub}}
'''''Why Are You Atheists So Angry?: 99 Things that Piss off the Godless'''' is a book by [[Greta Christina]] published Mar. 18, 2012.

[[Category:Books]]
[[Category:Atheist books]]

Greta Christina

2012-03-23T15:56:11Z

Arensb: Book link

'''Greta Christina''' is a professional author and blogger who writes on "[[Sex]], [[atheism]], politics, dreams, and whatever." She is best known for her blog post [http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2007/10/15/atheists-and-an/ Atheists and Anger] examining the "angry atheists" stereotype, and containing a thorough list of justifiable sources of anger for atheists. She now blogs at [[FreeThoughtBlogs]].

==See Also==
* ''[[Why Are You Atheists So Angry?]]: 99 Things that Piss off the Godless''

==External link==
*[http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta Greta Christina's Blog]
*[http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2008/06/11/site-map-2/ Site Map], a list of particularly good posts from 2008 and before.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Christina, Greta}}
[[Category:People]]
[[Category:Atheists]]

Problem of evil

2012-03-13T13:51:28Z

Arensb: Add missing reference. (But I'd rather delete that whole section.)

{{Wikipedia|color=#DAE3FF;}}
The '''problem of evil''' points out a [[logical contradiction]] in the traditional conceptions of the nature of [[God]] and the world.

Suppose we have the following four premises:
# God is [[omnipotent]].
# God is [[omnibenevolent]].
# God is [[omniscient]].
# [[Evil]] exists.

We get the following contradiction. If God is omnibenevolent, then he does not want evil to exist. If God is omniscient, then he must know about all evil in the world. If God is omnipotent, then he must be capable of doing something about it. Therefore, evil should not exist. Dropping any one of those four premises would resolve the contradiction, but dropping #4 would require us to fundamentally redefine evil in some way, and dropping the other three would undermine the Christian concept of God.

As [[David Hume]] wrote, (paraphrasing [[Epicurus]]):
{{Quote-source|Is He willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is impotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Whence then is evil?|''Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion''}}

"So how do theists respond to arguments like this? [The Argument from Evil] They say there is a reason for evil, but it is a mystery. Well, let me tell you this: I'm actually one hundred feet tall even though I only appear to be six feet tall. You ask me for proof of this. I have a simple answer: it's a mystery. Just accept my word for it on faith. And that's just the logic theists use in their discussions of evil." [Quentin Smith, "Two Ways to Defend Atheism"]

==Theodicy==
A [[theodicy]] is a proposed solution to the problem of evil. Coined by [[Wikipedia:Gottfried Leibniz|Gottfried Leibniz]] in 1710, in a work called "Theodicy Essay on the Benevolence of God, the Free will of man, and the Origin of Evil".

A theodicy can generally be divided into four categories, each typically rejecting one of the four premises used to make the argument. The argument is, after all, not an argument for the non-existence of God but an argument for the non-existence of God with the characteristics of [[omniscience]], [[omnipotence]], and [[omnibenevolence]] in the presence of evil. Some arguments aren't solutions to the problem but justifications.

When compared to an easily prevented, extremely "evil" act, such as the rape and murder of a child, or a gross atrocity like the holocaust, [[slavery]] or other [[genocide]]s, most theodicies crumble, quickly exposing them as sophistry with worse implications than the original problem.

===God is not omnipotent===
====Free will====
It is often claimed that evil exists because God gave humans [[free will]]. According to the Bible, God's gift of free will led to the fall of [[Adam and Eve]] through their [[original sin]]. Free will is assumed to be a greater good than the evil that it causes or is needed by God to serve some purpose. For example, free will is required for people to love God in a free and open fashion. So if a young girl is raped and murdered, this is because God needed the rapist's free will so that his actions could result in greater good or so that the rapist could freely love God.

As Mackie asked: "Why could [God] not have made men such that they always freely choose the good?" Even if man is believed to have free will, God could have created humans such that they would always freely choose the good. This he did not do and is therefore ultimately responsible and blameworthy for any evil act which humans perform.

"For at least some theists, this difficulty is made even more acute by some of their further beliefs: I mean those who envisage a happier or more perfect state of affairs than now exists, whether they look forward to the kingdom of God on earth, or confine their optimism to the expectation of heaven. In either case they are explicitly recognizing the possibility of a state of affairs in which created beings always freely choose the good. If such a state of affairs is coherent enough to be the object of a reasonable hope or faith, it is hard to explain why it does not obtain already."

This argument fails in that free will is given a definition which relies on the ability to perform actions. The implication is that humans must be free to commit actions which would qualify as "evil" as well as "good" in the argument, in order to have free will. In this case, all humans born without this capability, possess no free will. Also, those who have an advantage, of strength, size, or skill, are presumably, more free in their will, in comparison to their potentially smaller, weaker, or less skilled, victims. Therefore, this objection to the problem of evil can only apply where this standard for free will is actually applied. Paradoxically, this puts God in the position of denying free will to someone regardless of God's position on an action, whether God intervenes, or not.

This argument also fails to explain why God allows natural disasters, such as hurricanes, tsunamis, and earthquakes. These events kill large numbers of people in specific geographical locations, which indicates that the concept of "evil" is not necessarily tied to what people do. Furthermore, it fails to account for evil done to people against their will. The argument of free will is used to justify why an infant can be killed, however the infant invoked no measure of free will to allow for this evil to result. So in order to give the gift of free will to this infant, the child is murdered without having any choice in the matter.

Even if we define natural disasters as not being evil, there remains the fact that they occur, and that God does not prevent them or the deaths and suffering they cause. If we replace "evil" with "suffering" in the discussion above, the problem remains: either God is unaware of people's suffering, and is therefore not omniscient; or he is unable to do anything, and is therefore not omnipotent; or he is unwilling to intervene, and is therefore not omnibenevolent.

There is also the question of [[heaven]]. Heaven, being a perfectly wonderful place, does not contain evil. Does this mean that inhabitants of heaven no longer retain their free will? Or does their will suddenly become perfectly good?

Bertrand Russell notes: "[I]t is clear that the fundamental doctrines of Christianity demand a great deal of ethical perversion before they can be accepted. The world, we are told, was created by a God who is both good and omnipotent. Before He created the world He foresaw all the pain and misery that it would contain; He is therefore responsible for all of it. It is useless to argue that the pain in the world is due to sin. In the first place, this is not true; it is not sin that causes rivers to overflow their banks or volcanoes to erupt. But even if it were true, it would make no difference. If I were going to beget a child knowing that the child was going to be a homicidal maniac, I should be responsible for his crimes. If God knew in advance the sins of which man would be guilty, He was clearly responsible for all the consequences of those sins when He decided to create man."

See also: The Free Will Defense Refuted and God's Existence Disproved [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/raymond_bradley/fwd-refuted.html]

A Sound Logical Argument from Evil
[http://www.qsmithwmu.com/a_sound_logical_argument_from_evil.htm A Sound Logical Argument of Evil by Quentin Smith]

Quentin Smith distinguishes three kinds of freedom:

1. External freedom:A person is externally free with respect to an action A if and only if nothing other than (external to) herself determines either that she perform A or refrain from performing A.

2. Internal freedom: And a person is free with respect to an action A at a time t only if no causal laws and antecedent conditions determine either that he performs A at t or that he refrains from so doing. A person is internally free with respect to an action A if and only if it is false that his past physical and psychological states, in conjunction with causal laws, determine either that he perform A or refrain from performing A.

3. Logical freedom: A person is logically free with respect to an action A if and only if there is some possible world in which he performs A and there is another possible world in which he does not perform A. A person is logically free with respect to a wholly good life (a life in which every morally relevant action performed by the person is a good action) if and only if there is some possible world in which he lives this life and another possible world in which he does not.

These distinctions, according to Smith, constitute a sound logical argument from evil. It is possible to be internally-externally free but logically determined with respect to being morally good. This is the case with God, who is both internally and externally free but who does only good actions in each possible world in which he exists.

1. God possesses the maximally valuable consistent conjunction of great making properties.

2. If it were intrinsically better to be logically free with respect to a morally good life than logically determined, and this logical freedom were consistent with God's omnipotence and omniscience, then God would possess this logical freedom.

3. Logical freedom with respect to a morally good life is consistent with omnipotence and omniscience.

4. God is logically determined with respect to a morally good life.

Therefore

5. It is false that it is intrinsically better to be logically free with respect to a morally good life than logically determined.

Premise (3) is true because "x knows all truths" does not entail "It is not logically possible for x to perform a morally wrong action," and "x is all-powerful" does not entail "It is not logically possible for x to perform a morally wrong action." Nor does the conjunction of omniscience and omnipotence entail this.

It follows that a possible world WI containing N number of persons who always do what is right and who are logically determined with respect to moral goodness is (all other things being equal) a more metaphysically valuable world than a world W2 containing N number of persons who are logically free with respect to a morally good way of life. And this suggests that God, if he existed, would have created W1 rather than W2.

Although Plantinga does not address this issue, an unspoken assumption of his argument is that there are no possible creatures who are internally-externally free with respect to a morally good life but logically determined. This assumption is false, for "x is an internally-externally free creature with respect to a morally good life" does not entail "x is logically free with respect to a morally good life." If it did, there would have to be some relevant difference between God and creatures that ensured the entailment goes through in the case of creatures but not God. But what could this difference be? None of the divine attributes (other than necessary goodness) entails necessary goodness. Nor does a conjunction of two or more of these divine attributes entail it. Further, the relevant nondivine attributes do not entail logical freedom with respect to a morally good life. For example, "x knows many but not all truths" does not entail "x freely chooses to do something wrong in at least one possible world in which x exists." Nor is this entailed by "x has the power to do many but not all things." a nonomniscient person can have only true moral beliefs, if only for the reason that it is possible to know all moral truths and not know all mathematical truths. Such a person would be necessarily morally good.

6. It is possible that there is a nonomniscient mind x such that: for each possible world W in which x exists, and for each circumstance in which x is faced with a moral choice, x knows all the factual and moral truths he needs to know to make a correct choice.

7. This mind x is neither causally determined nor causally influenced by any external or internal factors.

8. Necessarily, if a perfectly free mind knows all the moral and factual truths needed to make the morally correct choice in any morally significant circum stance in which he finds himself, then this mind will make the correct choice.

If such persons are possible, worlds containing only such persons and God and no nature (a physical realm) are possible; in these worlds, there is no moral or natural evil. The counterfactual argument that it is possible that if God created these persons in certain circumstances, they would do something wrong, fails because these persons are necessarily good. Accordingly, Plantinga's free will defense cannot be used to show that a world containing these persons is not creatable.

The idea that there are possible creatures who are necessarily good and that God could have created a world containing only them does not depend on the truth of Plantinga's theory of counterfactuals of freedom. At first glance, it might appear there is a dependency because presumably God, if he existed, would have known logically prior to creation counterfactuals about these creatures and made his decision to create a world with them on the basis of this knowledge. For example, God would know prior to creation:

9. If the individual essences of some necessarily good creatures were to be instantiated, the instantiations of these essences would always do what is right.

Proposition (9) is true logically prior to creation even if Plantinga's theory is false, for (9) is analytically true and thereby does not require similarity relations among worlds to make it true. Proposition (9) is true because the antecedent entails the consequent. Accordingly, if the Stalnaker-Lewis theory of counterfactuals is true, there are no logically contingent counterfactuals of freedom that are true logically prior to creation, but there are logically necessary counterfactuals of freedom that are true logically prior to creation, and the latter are all that God needs to know which world to create.

The fact that necessarily good creatures are possible supplies the missing proposition (p') that will enable the conjunction of (G), (E), and (p') to form an explicit contradiction.

Statements (G) and (E) we recall, are

G. God exists and is wholly good, omnipotent, and omniscient.

E. There is evil.

There are several ways to formulate (p'), one being based on a proposition in Plantinga's first discussion of the free will defense in his article "The Free Will Defence".

10. If God is all-good and the proposition God creates free humans and the free humans He creates always do what is right is consistent, then any free humans created by God always do what is right.

If the negation of (E) is to be deduced from (10) and (G), then (10) needs to be a necessary truth. But we need further premises. One is

11. It is consistent that God creates free humans and the free humans he creates always do what is right.

Another is

12. It is possible that: free humans who always do what is right exist without there being any natural evil, and if God creates these humans, he will not create natural evil.

If (10), (11), and (12) are all necessary truths, then the proposition (p') is the conjunction of ( 10), ( II), and ( 12 ) because the conjunction of these three propositions with (G) entails

-E. There is no evil.

This would give a sound logical argument from evil, for it would show that the theist is committed to a proposition two of whose conjunctions are there is evil and there is no evil.

In "The Free Will Defence" Plantinga attacks (10). He writes, "There seems to be no reason for supposing that (10) is true at all, let alone necessarily true. Whether the free men created by God would always do what is right would presumably be up to them; for all we know they might sometimes exercise their freedom to do what is wrong."

In one sense Plantinga is right, for humans are logically free with respect to a morally good life and being logically free and being logically determined are plausibly thought to be essential properties. There is no possible world in which humans are logically determined with respect to a morally good life. But Plantinga over- looks the possibility that there are possible rational creatures who are internally- externally free but logically determined, and if we take "humans" in (10) in a broad sense as referring to any rational creature, then Plantinga's purported refutation of (10) fails. Thus, the logical argument from evil goes through unscathed by Plantinga's criticism.

The soundness of the logical argument from evil can be seen more clearly if we consider a relevant proposition from Plantinga's God, Freedom and Evil, a proposition that he concedes "for purposes of argument" is a necessary truth (although he subsequently makes no attempt to show it is not a necessary truth). The proposition is

13. An omniscient and omnipotent [and wholly] good being eliminates every evil that it can properly eliminate.

A being properly eliminates an evil state of affairs if it eliminates that evil without either eliminating an outweighing good or bringing about a greater evil. A good state of affairs g outweighs an evil state of affairs e if the conjunctive state of affairs 9 and e is a good state of affairs. Given these definitions, it is plausible to think that (13) is a necessary truth. If a state of affairs is eliminated by its actualization being prevented, and if a possible world is a state of affairs (a maximal state of affairs), then (13) entails

14. God prevents from being actual any world W1 that contains evil if there is another creatable world W2 containing at least as much good as W1 and no evil.

There is no world containing evil that contains more good than a creatable world W2 that contains no evil and that consists of God and an infinite number of necessarily good and internally-externally free rational creatures who perform an infinite number of good acts. This is true by virtue of the mathematics of infinity, for the addition of more creatures or acts to a world containing an infinite number of them does not increase the amount of good, for infinity plus N for any finite number N equals infinity. Thus we cannot say that there is a possible world containing evil and infinity-plus-N good acts and that this world contains more good than a world containing an infinite number of good acts and no evil. Of course, we can get more good acts if we add to a world with aleph-zero good acts an additional aleph-one acts, where aleph-zero is the number of all finite integers and aleph-one is (by the continuum hypothesis) the number of all real numbers. But this sort of argument can be blocked by supporting there is another world with no evil but with aleph-one good acts. The same holds for any other transfinite cardinal greater than aleph-zero.

The above arguments about necessarily good free rational creatures show that

There is some possible creatable world W2 containing only God and an infinite number of necessarily good free rational creatures who perform an infinite number of good acts.

This gives us our explicit contradiction, namely, the conjunction of the following propositions:

G. God exists and is wholly good, omnipotent, and omniscient.

E. There is evil.

14. God prevents from being actual any world W1 that contains evil if there is another creatable world W2 containing at least as much good as W1 and no evil.

15. For any possible creatable world W I containing evil and an infinite number of free rational creatures who perform an infinite number of good acts, there is another possible creatable world W2 containing no evil and an infinite number of necessarily good free rational creatures who perform an infinite number of good acts.

-E. There is no evil (from G, (14], and (15]).

=====Does free will exist=====
Against all this is that psychologists are sceptical whether free will exists at all. What moral choices we make depends partly on our culture, on our upbringing, on our genes, even on the state of our brains since some types of brain damage affect our moral decisions and our capacity to lead a morally good life. Brainwashing also restricts any free will that might exist and apparently to God the freedom of those who do brainwashing matters more than the freedom of the victims.
*On the one hand God cares a great deal about free will so that allowing extreme suffering is better than limiting free choice.
*On the other hand God cares relatively little about free will and is unwilling to prevent the restrictions on free choices that exist.
The above is in strict logic possible but intuitively implausible and improbable.

====Best of all possible worlds====
Apologists such as [[Alvin Plantinga]] have made the claim that although there may be some evil in the world, this is in fact the best of all possible worlds. {{Wikipedia|Pangloss|color=#DAE3FF;}}

This theodicy suggests that no improvement may be made to the world. Preventing children from dying in a [[tsunami]] or the [[Holocaust]] from happening would be impossible for God. Plantinga argues that God's power is limited in that he cannot sin and cannot violate free will. However, there are plenty of improvements one could make to this world without violating free will or requiring God to sin.

Although it is not a direct problem with the claim itself, it is important to note that many theists who propose this claim also believe in [[Heaven]], which is believed to be an even better world than this one. If this is the best world able to be created then Heaven cannot be created.

See also: The Free Will Defense Refuted and God's Existence Disproved [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/raymond_bradley/fwd-refuted.html#entailment]

====Tough love====
[[Apologists]] often claim that what appears to be harmful to humans may, in fact, be for humanity's good. How can we learn, the argument goes, without making our own mistakes?

The "tough love" argument only works if God is limited in power. If God is omnipotent there is nothing he can not teach us gently that he can teach us harshly. If he is benevolent than he would never choose to teach us a harsh lesson when it could be taught, with exactly the same impact, gently.

Another problem with this argument is that although according to this argument, God wants us to grow as people by learning from our mistakes, according to most religious doctrine he also wants worship. Worship involves complete obedience and submission, whereas learning from mistakes requires using one's intelligence. It is contradictory to claim that God wants us to be both completely obedient and make decisions for ourselves, since complete obedience means blindly obeying authority, for example the story of Abraham and Issac ({{Bible|Genesis 22:1-19}}). Abraham was called "righteous" because he blindly obeyed God's command to murder his son. The fact that God stopped Abraham before the knife fell means nothing- even if he had allowed the murder, Abraham would still be called righteous for obeying God's command.

====Really powerful, not all-powerful====
God is not all-powerful in the sense that he can create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it. So, God is omnibenevolent, omniscient, and really really powerful.

If a child is raped and killed, is this because God is not powerful enough to prevent it? I could prevent that and would strive to with the smallest degree of foreknowledge. So if this argument is to succeed it must conclude that I am more powerful than God. And more benevolent.

====God does not exist====
God is unable to prevent evil because God does not exist.
Argument does not apply to non-existing gods.

===God is not omnibenevolent===
====Redefining benevolence====
One way to redefine the term 'benevolence' is to cite limited human perspective in space and time. A parent might spank a child for running into traffic, or take a child to the doctor for painful, life saving, injections. It is only in the limited, child's-eye-view that these things are malevolent.

As with the "tough love" argument, this view of God implicitly denies his omnipotence or, at least, his omniscience. What kind of parent purposely takes his child for a surgery which he knows the child does not need or want?

Another way to redefine 'benevolence' is to argue that God may be benevolent to specific humans or to non-humans. Our entire history may exist for the positive influence it may have on aliens we have not met. We may be actors in a puppet show that makes these beings happy. After all, it is perfectly possible for benevolent humans to play comically violent video games with their delighted children.

But this argument is sophistry. To win the argument the apologist defines a God that neither we nor he would have much reason to worship. For example, if the creatures in a violent "Run and Gun" video game were to gain self awareness, would we expect them to view us as benevolent beings worthy of their love and trust as we blast them into electronic oblivion?

And, if God is not benevolent toward humans, then what differentiates him from a human sociopath or from the [[Devil]]?

The problem of evil must be taken up in the context of humanity. No other context would make a God useful to humans in any realistic way. A God that is benevolent to others at lethal expense to humans is, by definition, malevolent, or at least indifferent, toward humans. It is an unusual apologist indeed who believes in this type of God.

====God is benevolent to the point of impotence====

Some claim that since God is omnibenevolent, he loves all his creatures, even Satan, who is considered by many to be the embodiment of evil. Therefore it would violate his omnibenevolence to simply destroy Satan or any other evil creation. This of course implies that God is not omnipotent. It is also contradicted by the Bible, which states that God hates evil.

====Evil is a consequence of disobeying God====
Evil exists not because it was created by God but because it results from our disobeying God's divine laws.

This explanation argues that God has created an earthly consequence for disobeying divine laws. There are two problems with this argument: 1. Innocents being victims of evil. 2. Immoral people escaping earthly consequence. If this argument was indeed true, infants, children, and otherwise good people would not suffer and murderers, thieves, and the like would not live comfortable lives.

====Perfection implies no lacking====
God is also evil. The argument does not apply.

====God allows evil so that the good is appreciated====
God wants to be loved and is very vain. He wants to be loved so much that he allows many evils to befall mankind so that they appreciate the good more. Much as the blind man healed by Jesus appreciated his sight more because of his blindness.

===God is not omniscient===
Unlike the other characteristics of God, omniscience isn't necessarily required for the argument. Any situation God doesn't see can still be created as intended through the power of omnipotence.

====God does Good. Satan does Evil.====
God only has limited omniscience, he cannot see the future. God simply did not know that Satan would turn against him because he cannot know the future. Satan blindsided God, who lacks future knowledge, and created evil himself. God was betrayed and Satan is the reason evil exists.

If God is all-good and all-powerful, he should snuff out Satan and promptly remove all evil from the world.

===Evil does not exist===
====Redefining evil====
As with "benevolence", "evil" can be redefined. What is "evil" for humans may not be evil for God. In fact, anything that God chooses to do can be construed as "good". Using this argument, "evil" can not exist in any definable terms when applied to God.

Besides the arguments already used in the "Tough Love" response (an all powerful God would have no reason even to appear evil) here, the apologist treads dangerously close to moral relativism. We know from information in the bible that moral rules have changed at the will of God. Is God, then, a moral relativist?

If the answer is that God is following a moral plan, then the apologist opens himself up to the [[Euthyphro dilemma]]. If the answer is that God changes as he sees fit and anything that god declares as good is good, then what is the difference between being a relativist and following a relativist God?

When an apologist tries to redefine the premises of "the problem of evil" he finds himself in a morass of relativism, but when he tries to work with the premises he finds himself unwittingly limiting the unlimited God of his religion.

====Evil is an illusion====
We believe that evil exists because we view things like genocide as bad. We are simply wrong, all of these things are good.

Which suggests that everything which has ever happened is objectively good: [[rape]], the holocaust, [[slavery]], genocide. In order defend this theodicy, a proponent would need to agree that any horrific thing you could mention is a good thing to do.

====It is all part of the plan====
God's divine plan is good. What we think is evil is not, rather it's a part of God's plan we are misidentifying as evil because we cannot see the big picture.

The holocaust is part of God's divine plan? Young girls being raped and murdered is part of God's plan? If such things are part of God's plan, even without seeing the big picture one must conclude that it's a really bad plan. Furthermore, what is the point of a plan if one is all powerful? There are no steps needed; simply create the end results.

====Evil is a test====
Evil is needed so that God can test people.

The holocaust is a test of faith? Whose faith is tested when a child is murdered? If God is omniscient, then God already knows what humans will do in any test, rendering the exercise (and the pain caused by evil) pointless and unnecessary.

====Evil is the absence of Good====
Just as cold is the absence of hot and dark is the absence of light, evil is the absence of good.

This contradicts an omnipresent deity. Furthermore, if accurate then an omnipotent omnibenevolent deity should employ his omnipotence to be omnipresent in order to stand vigilant against evil.

Are evil deeds an absence of some corresponding good? Is rape an absence of unrape? Is murder an absence of unmurder? (How many people have you unraped or unmurdered today? We're committing unsins constantly!) Conversely, if baking your neighbor cookies [or name any random act of kindness] is a good deed, what is the absence of that good deed?

===Justifications===
====You bring evil on yourself====
God is good and does good, but any evil you do you brought upon yourself. This principle is the theodicy of Islam.

If you are raped, you were bad. If you have a holocaust happen to you, you were bad. If something bad happens to you, you brought it on yourself. This theodicy consists of blaming the victim, in the case of a baby born sick or disabled it blames the parents.

====Heaven exists after this world====
After you die you can go to heaven which evens everything out in the end. Regardless of what pain and suffering exists here, heaven will balance out the scales. This was often used by religious authorities to justify torture and murder during the many inquisitions and crusades. The victims' temporary agony was justified if it saved them from the eternal agony of hell.

This has nothing to do with the argument, rather it's a conclusion that it doesn't matter if there is evil, rather than address the logical consequence of a deity incompatible with an evil filled world.

'''Another refutation of theodicies:'''

The Moral Argument from Evil is expounded by Dean Stretton in his article on the subject. Here is the full formulation as given by Stretton:<ref>http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dean_stretton/mae.html</ref>

A1. The most rational theists know (i.e., have a justified, true belief) that God exists.

A2a. For any possible world W, if God exists in W, then every instance of evil in W is objectively justified.

A2b. If God exists, then there is objective justification for any actual instance of evil, including those evils for which there is a human onlooker

A2. If God exists, then there is objective justification for every actual instance of evil, justification that will occur even if no onlooker intervenes to stop or prevent that evil.

A3. Some members of the class of most rational theists (as I have defined that class) are theists who know A2.

A4. Some of the most rational theists (namely, those who know A2) know that there is objective justification for any actual instance of evil, justification that will occur even if no onlooker intervenes to stop or prevent that evil.

A5. If human person P knows that there is objective justification for evil E, and that this justification will occur even if P does not intervene to stop or prevent E, then P is morally justified in allowing E to occur.

A6. Some of the most rational theists (namely, those who know A2) are morally justified in allowing any actual evil to occur.

A7. If the most rational theists know that God exists, then some of those theists (namely, those who know A2) are morally justified in allowing any evil to occur.

A8. Even the most rational theists (including those who know A2) are not morally justified in allowing just any evil to occur.

A9. Even the most rational theists do not know that God exists.

A10. If the most rational theists do not know that God exists, then no theist knows that God exists.

A11. No theist knows that God exists.

A12. For any given theist, that theist’s belief that God exists is either false or unjustified.

A13. If God exists, then some theists are justified in believing that God exists.

A14. If God exists, then no theist has a false belief that God exists.

A15. If God exists, then some theists know (i.e., have a justified, true belief) that God exists.

A16. It is not the case that some theists know (i.e., have a justified and true belief) that God exists.

A17. God does not exist.

This argument can be summarized as follows:

A1 to A2 – If God exists, then all instances of evil are morally justifiable by definition.

A3 to A7 – If all events are morally justifiable, then some believers know that they should not try to stop any instance of presumed evil.

A8 – Yet they do intervene.

A9 to A17 – Therefore their own behaviour proves that God does not exist.

==False trilemma?==
One could argue that the argument above does not cover all possibilities, much like C.S. Lewis's trilemma "[[Liar, Lunatic or Lord]]", which does not consider alternate possibilities like "Legend". The argument does not account for a God who is not able and willing, which creates the problem, as paraphrased by Epicurus, that if he is not able or willing, then why call him God?

However, the problem of evil can be restated as follows:
# If evil exists, and God is omniscient, then God knows about it.
# If God knows about evil, and is omnibenevolent, then he wants to prevent it.
# If God wants to prevent evil, and is omnipotent, then he can prevent it (if God wants something to happen, then it happens).
# Therefore, if God is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent, then evil should not exist.

There is a logical rebuttal to this version of the problem of evil posited by Alvin Plantinga, a prominent philosopher, called the [[Free will defense]]. This defense is widely regarded as solid by the philosophical community, even with some mentionable critisisms.

==The problem of good==

It is fairly easy to flip the argument around: if we postulate that
God is all-evil, the problem of evil becomes the problem of good: why
would an infinitely evil god allow good to exist?

Many or all of the arguments against the problem of evil can easily be
turned around to argue against the problem of good:
* People do good deeds because God gave us free will, which in turn allows us to torment each other in ways that mere automata couldn't.
* Natural beauty, such as sunsets or the majesty of a starry sky, exists so that we may more deeply appreciate the ugliness around us.
* Mystery: while some instances of good may remain unexplained, who can claim to understand the mind of an infinitely evil god?

If the existence of evil in the universe that also includes a lot of
good does not point to an infinitely evil god, then it follows that
the existence of good in a universe that also includes a lot of evil
does not point to the existence of an infinitely good god.

==See also==
* [[Theodicy]]
* [[Problem of Hell]]
* [[Kalam Cosmological Problem of Evil]]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Problem of Evil]
* [http://www.chsbs.cmich.edu/John_Wright/Hume%20Dialogue%2010.htm Hume and the Evidential Problem of Evil]
* Stephen Law, ''[http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/03/god-of-eth.html The God of Eth]'' — the problem of good
{{Def-word|sophistry}}

{{Arguments against god}}

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments against the existence of God]]
[[Category:Empirical arguments]]

Ray Comfort

2012-03-12T23:11:56Z

Arensb: Ref-ify

{{Ray Comfort}}
'''Ray Comfort''' is a [[Christian]] [[apologist]] from New Zealand who co-hosts ''[[The Way of the Master]]'' radio show alongside his partner [[Kirk Cameron]].

==Way of the Master==

[[The Way of the Master]] is a Christian evangelism ministry founded in 2002, lead by Ray Comfort, [[Kirk Cameron]] and [[Todd Friel]]. The organization, together with Living Waters Publications, produces a television show, a radio show, books, tracts, and training courses.

==Atheist Central==

Ray Comfort runs a blog called 'Words of Comfort'. The blog was initially called 'Comfort Food', however it was later renamed to 'The Soapbox' as Ray Comfort felt the name to be misleading, as it gave the impression of the blog being a "cozy corner for Christian fun, food, and fellowship".<ref>http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2008/05/why-name-change.html</ref>

In 2009, the blog was once again renamed, this time to 'The Atheist Central'. Ray Comfort states that the reason behind the name is because atheists flood towards his blog as bugs would towards a barbecue.<ref>http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2009/08/once-again-despite-title-of-rays-blog.html</ref>

In December 2011, the blog was once again renamed, this time to 'Words of Comfort'. This rename includes a change in direction beginning January 1, 2012. Ray admitted to not being involved in the blog for the last 6 months, instead using old posts because he was, "bored with atheism". He vowed to once again begin daily blogging with a wider focus than just atheism.<ref>http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2011/12/words-of-comfort.html</ref>

==Arguments==

* [[Are you a good person?]]

* The [[Banana argument]]

* The [[Crocoduck]]

* The [[Parachute analogy]]

==Live appearances==
===Debate with the Rational Response Squad===
On May 5, 2007, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron engaged Rational Response Squad members Brian Sapient and Kelly O'Connor in a debate on the existence of God. ABC's Nightline aired the debate online, and a two-part summary was shown on their May 9 broadcast. Comfort and Cameron claimed they were able to prove the existence of the Judeo-Christian god scientifically without the use of the [[Bible]] and [[faith]]. It was also during this debate that the [[crocoduck]] argument was first made.

===Appearance on ''The Atheist Experience''===
On 27 March 2011, Ray Comfort was a call-in guest on [[The Atheist Experience]], with hosts [[Matt Dillahunty]] and [[Russell Glasser]].

==Written Material==
===Books===
Ray Comfort has written many Christian books including:
*''[[Nothing Created Everything (book)|Nothing Created Everything]]: The Scientific Impossibility of Atheistic Evolution''
*''[[You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think (book)|You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think]]: Answers to Questions from Angry Skeptics''
*''[[How to Know God Exists (book)|How to Know God Exists]]: Scientific Proof of God''
*''[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evolution:_A_Fairy_Tale_for_Grownups Evolution: A Fairy Tale for Grownups]''
*''[[God Doesn't Believe in Atheists (book)|God Doesn't Believe in Atheists]]: Proof That the Atheist Doesn't Exist''
*''Hell's Best Kept Secret''
*''[[Scientific Facts in the Bible (book) |Scientific Facts in the Bible]]: 100 Reasons to Believe the Bible is Supernatural in Origin''
*''[[The Evidence Bible (book)|The Evidence Bible]]: Irrefutable Evidence for the Thinking Mind ''
*''[[Defender's Guide for Life's Toughest Questions (book) |Defender's Guide for Life's Toughest Questions]]
*''The School Of Biblical Evangelism''
*''[[Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution (book)|Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution]]: Letters to an Atheist''
*''How to Bring Your Children to Christ..& Keep Them There: Avoiding the Tragedy of False Conversion''
*''Out of the Comfort Zone''
*''Overcoming Panic Attacks ''
*''The World's Greatest Preachers''
*''Wesley Gold''
*''What Did Jesus Do? : A Call to Return to the Biblical Gospel''
*''How to Live Forever Without Being Religious''
*''What Hollywood Believes: An Intimate Look at the Faith of the Famous''
*''Thanks a Million!''
*''Hollywood Be Thy Name''
*''Russia Will Attack Israel''

===Gospel Tracts===
Ray Comfort and Way of the Master produce many gospel tracts, which generally include abridged versions of the arguments presented in his books and Way of the master episodes. Some of these tracts are decorated with attention-getting gimmicks, such as optical illusions, fake million dollar bills, penny presses, etc. Most notably:

*''Saving Yourself Some Pain'' is a gospel tract by Ray Comfort, presented to new Christians and unbelievers. It contains a exhortation for all Christians to be [[baptism|baptized]], even though Ray usually claims that sinners are saved only by grace, not by works.
*''Scientific Facts of the Bible'' is a shortened version of Ray's book, ''Scientific Facts in the Bible'' (see above).

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*"[http://raytractors.blogspot.com/ The Raytractors]" now at "[http://www.wearesmrt.com/ WeAreSMRT]", Ray Comfort's Detractors, a community of atheists and theists who critique and respond to Ray and the Way of the Master.
*[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ray_Comfort Ray Comfort] on RationalWiki
*[http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/The_Way_of_the_Master#See_summary_of_videos_in_this_series Way of the Master] This gives summaries and refutations of individual videos from the series
*[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/08/29/ray-comfort-is-a-fraud/ Ray Comfort is a fraud] on Pharyngula
*[http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Long_article_on_Ray_Comfort This is a very long article for people who want to learn a great deal about Ray Comfort]
*''[http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ Atheist Central]'', Ray Comfort's weblog (former title: ''Comfort Food'').
*[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rational_Response_Squad_debate_with_Way_of_the_Master Rational Response Squad debate with Way of the Master] at Rational Wiki
*[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Atheist_Experience_debates_Ray_Comfort The Atheist Experience debates Ray Comfort] at Rational Wiki

{{DEFAULTSORT:Comfort, Ray}}
[[Category:People]]
[[Category:Christian apologists]]
[[Category:Ray Comfort]]

Victor J. Stenger

2012-03-12T22:52:26Z

Arensb: Redirect

#redirect [[Victor Stenger]]

The Secular Web

2012-03-12T22:45:54Z

Arensb: Propose merging

{{Merge|Internet Infidels}}

The Secular Web is a website operated by the [[Internet Infidels]], a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to defending and promoting a naturalistic worldview on the Internet.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Secular Web, The}}
[[Category: Atheist web sites]]

Religious test

2012-03-12T22:43:25Z

Arensb: References for MD constitution. Minor cleanup.

{{stub}}

Article VI of the [[US Constitution]] states:
{{Quote|no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.}}

This is taken to mean that there can be no law requiring an elected official to belong (or not belong) to a particular [[religion]], or to profess [[belief]] in a [[god]].

Voters may, however, decide whether or not to vote for a candidate, based on that candidate's religious views.

==State Laws==
Several states have clauses in their own constitutions requiring a religious test.

===Arkansas===
1 Article 19, Section 1: "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court".

===Maryland===
2 Declaration of Rights, Art. 36: "...nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God..."<ref name="md-const">http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/43const/html/00dec.html</ref>

Declaration of Rights, Art. 37: "That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution."<ref name="md-const"/>

===North Carolina===
3 Article 6, Section 8: "The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God. "

===Pennsylvania===
4Article 1, Section 4: "No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."

===South Carolina===
5 Article 6, Section 4: "No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."

:In 1993, Herb Silverman, professor of math at the College of Charleston, tried to apply as notary public. In the pre-printed application there was an oath he had to sign, which ended with "so help me God". He crossed out the "God". His application was thus turned down.

:Herb contacted the ACLU. They filed a lawsuit against the state of South Carolina. In 1997 the state Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional as it violated both the first and the sixth amendment.

===Tennessee===
6Article 9, Section 2: "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State. "

===Texas===
7Article 1, Section 4: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."
Article 4, Section 2: "No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who denies the existence of the Supreme Being...."
Article 6, Section 2: "No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."

===Massachusetts===
General Laws of Massachusetts, Part IV, Title I. Chapter 272, Section 36: Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.

==Note==
These laws are generally considered unenforceable. However, the prohibitions against atheist witnesses and jurors may have the unfortunate effect of reversing convictions. Should an atheist witness testify against a defendant in Arkansas, for instance, the defense could argue against the admissibility of the evidence, and if convicted, this issue could be subject to appeal. Similarly, if there is an atheist in the jury pool drawn for the case, the defendant likely has grounds for appeal: If he is convicted with an atheist on the jury, the state has convicted him in violation of its own laws. If an atheist jurist was struck for cause, the defendant's right to a jury of his peers has been abridged.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Law]]

I don't know

2012-03-12T22:26:37Z

Arensb: Propose merging

{{Merge|Argumentum ad ignorantiam}}
"I don't know" is a statement that means the we do not have the answer to a particular question.

Many people are uncomfortable with the notion of human ignorance. In the face of our ignorance, many people feel the need to incorrectly insert a deity into the picture to explain away the unknown(merely an [[Argument from ignorance]]).

In most situations, "I don't know," is simply telling the truth of the matter - such as, we don't know definitively how the universe came to be or what the meaning of life is (if there is one).

Most situations where people say, "I don't know" in response to a particular question is due simply to the lack of technology (which people are, indeed, building upon everyday which furthers our understanding of these unknowns) to gather sufficient evidence to reach a sound conclusion.

NOTE: This is not to be confused with [[I don't understand]].

Hypocrisy of celebrating religious holidays

2012-03-12T22:19:23Z

Arensb: Ref-ify

This argument is most frequently used as a means of criticizing [[atheist]]s, or perhaps those of other [[faith]]s than their own, for celebrating a holiday not of their faith (or no faith). The argument does not seem to address anyone's actual beliefs aside from identifying what they are, and then quite possibly criticizing the person, so in that sense the argument is an [[ad hominem]].
It doesn't have much of a purpose in an actual argument or debate and usually leads to a pointless attempt to discredi the opponent or make them look silly or in a bad light.

==Counter-apologetics==
It may also be useful to realise that, for atheists, the holiday in question is not celebrated for its religious values and should not be considered hypocritical on any level. This is probably true for most other faiths although there is most likely some variation, the same holiday may be celebrated for different reasons by different Cultures or [[Religion]]s.

Also, most holidays have been co-opted by newer religions which they then claim as their own. Both Christmas (see [[Sun#The sun in religion|The sun in religion]]) and Easter are old pagan celebrations that Christianity claimed.
<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas#Pre-Christian_background</ref>
<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/03/easter-pagan-symbolism</ref>
<ref>http://www.thercg.org/books/ttooe.html</ref>

Another thing to point out is what people do on a Thursday. Thursday was originally the celebration of the Norse God Thor, the god of thunder. Every day of the week is a celebration of some sort to a Roman, Norse, or pagan god. There is a similarity for the origins of names for certain months.

So the counter argument is simple, the apologetic is unknowingly hypocritical, they are themselves celebrating the holidays of other religions.

==References==
<references/>

{{Common objections}}

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Criticisms of atheism]]

Islam

2012-03-12T22:10:28Z

Arensb: Fix the prophet's name to avoid a red link.

{{wikipedia|color=#E7E7E7;}}
'''Islam''' is the predominant [[religion]] in the Middle East and is the second-largest religion in the world. Not limited to the Middle East, it has approximately 1.4 billion members, 80% of which are non-Arabs. It is one of the fastest growing religions in the world. Its adherents are called "Muslims" (also spelled Moslem), historically "Musselman", "Muhammedans", or even simply "Turks" in Europe and North America. In Arabic, a Muslim is "one who submits to [[God]]" ([[Allah]]).

Muslims, like Jews and Christians, are monotheistic and trace their roots to Abraham. However, they receive their instruction from the [[Qur'an]] (also spelled Koran) rather than the [[Bible]] or [[Torah]]. Islam's beginnings as a distinct people can be traced back to the 7th century under the leadership of [[Muhammad]] and his followers. An universalizing (evangelizing) religion, it spread throughout the world by military conquest and Muslim [[missionaries]].

Islamic fundamentalism is fairly strong in middle-eastern regions, one result being the oppression of women. Spurred by, though unlikely exclusively due to, inflammatory passages of the Qu'ran, there have been instances of terrorism in the name of Islam, including suicide bombings, beheadings and public [[stoning|stonings]].<ref>http://nazret.com/blog/index.php?title=islamists_stone_to_death_somali_woman_fo&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1</ref><ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27484976/</ref>

Moderate Muslims are more prevalent in Europe, but despite this there are still extremists in Europe who a large part of the time push to silence criticism of their religion and of Muhammed rather than addressing the criticisms.

==A Religion of Love and Peace?==
Islam is often called a "religion of peace" but the Qur'an contains many violent quotations.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nxxJIKD_ak&feature=fvsr Just a few of many violent quotes from the Qur'an]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[Problems with Muslim Sharia Law]]
*[[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]]

==External links==
Videos
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR9LVf_KMO0&feature=related The myth of Islamophobia]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3_qelW5qp4&feature=related The religion of fear]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9dXGJ2rYdA&feature=related Appeasing Islam]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F5aCUNE4Z8&NR=1 Islam is not a victim]

{{Islam}}

[[Category:Religions]]
[[Category:Islam]]