Iron Chariots Wiki - User contributions [en]

Talk:Morality

2012-03-26T22:51:09Z

Feredir28: Created page with "Saw the Template:Philosophy and wondered if the Objective morality piece on this article be moved? ~~~~"

Saw the [[Template:Philosophy]] and wondered if the Objective morality piece on this article be moved? [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 17:51, 26 March 2012 (CDT)

Golden Rule

2012-03-26T18:49:45Z

Feredir28:

{{philosophy-stub}}
{{wikipedia|Ethic of reciprocity|color=#F0FFD5;}}

The '''Golden Rule''' is often stated, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," or more simply, "Treat others as you would like to be treated." Also known as the '''ethic of reciprocity''', the same concept has been the basis of social [[morality]] in many cultures throughout history. Although the Golden Rule is often attributed to [[Jesus]], many forms of the ethical principle long predate him. Jesus himself, in {{Bible|Matthew 7:12}}, describes it as the "sum of the law and the Prophets."

==Golden Rules in the Bible==

Several passages in the Bible can be interpreted as being different forms of the "true" Golden Rule:

* {{Bible|Leviticus 19:18}}
{{Bible-verse|18|Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.}}

* {{Bible|Matthew 7:12}}
{{Bible-verse|12|Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.}}

* {{Bible|Luke 6:31}}
{{Bible-verse|31|And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.}}

* {{Bible|Romans 13:9}}
{{Bible-verse|9|For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.}}

==Non-Golden Rules==
Sometimes the Golden Rule is misinterpreted as, "Do unto others as they would do unto you," or, in an even more problematic formulation, "Do unto others as they have done unto you." Both versions tend to encourage a kind of "tit-for-tat" ethics. The latter version in particular suggests retaliation and [[revenge]], not unlike the "[[eye for an eye]]" style of "justice" promulgated in several places in the [[Old Testament]]:

* {{Bible|Exodus 21:23-25}}
{{Bible-verse|23|And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,}}
{{Bible-verse|24|Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,}}
{{Bible-verse|25|Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.}}

* {{Bible|Leviticus 24:17-22}}
{{Bible-verse|17|And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.}}
{{Bible-verse|18|And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.}}
{{Bible-verse|19|And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;}}
{{Bible-verse|20|Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.}}
{{Bible-verse|21|And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.}}
{{Bible-verse|22|Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God.}}

*{{Bible|Deuteronomy 19:19-21}}
{{Bible-verse|19|Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.}}
{{Bible-verse|20|And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.}}
{{Bible-verse|21|And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.}}

==Criticism==
Some apologists make the argument:
* "If I didn't know Jesus, I would want someone to teach me about him so I could be saved. Therefore, I should witness to non-Christians wherever I discover them."
With this argument, minor but significant flaws of the Golden Rule become apparent. Where people's needs differ significantly, a strict interpretation of the Golden Rule can tend to strain relationships rather than smooth them.

An alternative (sometimes known as the Platinum Rule) can be stated:
* Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.
Treat people how they actually want to be treated, rather than how you assume they would want to be treated. The needs of others are considered more important than the individual's assumption on how the other should be treated. With this alternative, one cannot instill his own values on another without the other's consent.

=="The Golden Rule is a Christian invention!"==
This rather a snarky comeback directed to atheists who claim that they base their morality on the Golden Rule. This is type of response is typical from Christians who are not familiar at all with history, or from someone who essentially does not care.

The truth is that the Golden Rule predates Christianity, and by that fact alone destroys this argument. Furthermore, if Christians argue that atheists "stole" from a christian worldview, they must keep in mind that Christianity took the Golden Rule from the Jews, who earlier on adopted the Golden Rule from the pagans.

The Golden Rule does not require religion to come into existence. Mere empathy alone can develop the Golden Rule. Historically, the Golden Rule can be found in ancient Egypt, Babylon, China, and even within Native American tribes. The Golden Rule did not come into existence with the development of Judaism or Christianity. Therefore, an atheist who uses the Golden Rule as a guide for their morality, did not borrow or stole it from a Christian worldview.

==External link==
*[http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm Versions of the Golden Rule in 21 world religions]

{{Philosophy}}

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Morality]]

Morality

2012-03-26T18:38:08Z

Feredir28:

{{wikipedia}}
'''Morality''' refers to the concept of human [[ethics]] which pertains to matters of [[good]] and [[evil]] — also referred to as "right or wrong". Morality is generally discussed within three contexts:
# matters of individual conscience;
# systems of principles and judgments — sometimes called moral values — shared within a cultural, religious, secular, humanist, or philosophical community; and
# codes of behavior or conduct.

'''Theistic morality''' is based on the assumption that there is a [[god]] who has absolute understanding of right and wrong, and orders people to obey rules as a condition for goodness, see [[Christian morality]] for an example. See also [http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y67mor.html Divine Command as the Foundation of Morality]

'''[[Secular morality]]''' is a complex subject and is discussed in a separate article.

==Absolute and relative morality==
Absolute morality postulates that what is moral and what is immoral is unchanging and can be laid down well in advance. Thus it is very popular with religions and their reliance on holy texts to determine moral and ethical guidelines and commandments. Moral relativism (which should under no circumstances be conflated with relativity) on the other hand postulates that morals can be somewhat flexible and develop as education and understanding progresses, and accepts the subjective nature of morality. This acknowledges that cultural differences across different times and different regions may mean that what people consider moral can change. This change, particularly over time, is sometimes known as the moral zeitgeist, from the German "spirit of the times". Hence once slavery was accepted in parts of the western world, it now is not - or at least it has been outsourced to poorer countries and prisons. Moral relativism isn't without criticism as it is viewed as lending justification to clearly immoral acts by effectively saying "well, they do things differently over there".

A formal moral argument put forth for divine existence goes as follows;
*P1) If 'God' does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
*P2) Objective moral values and duties do exist.
*C) Therefore, God exists.

According to [[William Lane Craig]], a proponent of this argument, to say that there are objective moral values (OMVs) is to say that something's good or evil independently if anyone believes it to be so. But if moral values are independent of everyone's evaluation, this leaves you with significant problems. One is if two humans perform an action, one thinking it is evil while the other has no sense of doing evil, what they believe about their behavior is not irrelevant to our moral assessment. If someone is genuinely ignorant of what they do, we do not accept their harmful behavior and we restrain it if possible, but we do not call it "evil." Craig's idea that something is evil regardless if anyone believes so clearly doesn't reflect the way we tend to make moral judgments. The idea of evil is only relevant in proportion to an agent's understanding, which is one reason why we do not judge other animals by human standards. Craig thinks that nonbelievers who see anything special about human morality have "succumb[ed] to the temptation of speciesism." But noting that humans have greater capacity for moral reflection than other species is not 'unjustifiable bias' its a relevant difference. In fact, given Craig's own claim that no moral dimension exists for non-human animals, then the real speciesist would be God. After all, what do we make of a being that has decided only 1 species of the billions on earth are morally accountable, so that the human child killer is evil but the lion who kills other lion's cubs has done nothing wrong.

However, a more basic problem for Craig is that values are the result of evaluation process. Moral values of what we prefer to what we judge morally valuable or important. So to say that they imply "independently" of anyone's evaluation, that somethings have unevaluated value, becomes unintelligible. It also lacks any practical application. We may dismiss things right now which may, given other information, we'd value. But we can't go beyond the range of our own awareness to see how unknown information would alter our values. So to unknown values, if they existed, would only be relevant from the moment of their discovery, at which point it would be far less metaphysical extravagant to simply say then made evaluation than to say we discovered an unknown unevaluated value. It is true that given more information, justifications for certain attitudes and behaviors will be exposed as false. It is true that there could be subjective facts. If you burn your finger, the pain you feel won't be merely a matter of opinion even though it is subjective. It is also true, as John Mackie noted, that given specifically specified standards of morality, it will be an objective issue (a matter of true or falsehood) on how well any particular specimen measures up to those standards. Of course, the choice of standards still wont be objective, but nor will it be completely arbitrary because what we value isn't completely random but highly influenced by the kind of creature we are. So we can agree with Craig when he says "most people think there is an objective difference between torturing a child and caring for it...that these are not morally indifferent acts." However, just because we distinguished torture for caring and finding one bad and the other good, doesn't mean we have to agree these behaviors are good or evil independently of what anyone thinks.

Some defend objective values by claiming 'moral values' is a property we detect with a special faculty of moral perception. But notice this is no longer supporting divine existence as the moral argument is claimed to. And only proposing new phenomenon in need of their own independent support, and each has problems. For example, how can it be shown that Q is morally good, they have detected a value of goodness that is part of Q itself rather than making a subjective evaluation that Q is good. We can't appeal to consensus. Agreement of Q still doesn't tell us the goodness is part of Q rather than something we are ascribing. Besides, this particular moral argument is Premise 2 deems agreement irrelevant. Nor can we appeal to innate tendencies even if it can shown to have predisposition to find Q good. That wouldn't show Q has objective goodness, it would only indicate that we predisposed to value Q subjectively. We may value life, but from sliding from "I value to life" to "life has subjective value" makes the same mistake as sliding from "I find slugs revolting" to "slugs are intrinsically revolting." It is falsely projecting our own attitude onto the object of our attitude.

As Mackie notes, wants and demands give rise to the notion of something being objectively good or having intrinsic value by reversing the direction of dependence. So instead of saying our evaluation of a things goodness depend on our desire, our desire for a thing seem to depend on the thing's goodness.

Saying "intuition lets us KNOW what's morally good or bad" also needs to be challenged. The weaker claim that moral intuition is a kind of instinctive judgment can be granted. It is true that instinctive feelings can lead us judge actions immoral without conscious reasoning. For example, empathy leads us quickly to apprehend that the distress of a child being attacked, a moral judgment may arrive in our awareness almost instantly. Our brains process information rapidly, and its easy to see how having protective instincts came to give us an advantage while trying to survive together on a hostile planet. But having useful advantageous instincts isn't evidence that we are accessing objective moral knowledge. We do well to treat our intuition with more caution, they frequently mislead us.

Contrary to appearance, these squares are not moving [http://www.google.com/imgres?q=illusion+moving+squares&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1440&bih=638&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=aFOiJd7Dw7vWDM:&imgrefurl=http://www.opticaliillusions.com/digital_optical_illusions_2.htm&docid=XHo5At7cRBX-sM&imgurl=http://www.opticaliillusions.com/rolling_squares_moving_wave_motion_effect.gif&w=702&h=703&ei=riK-TrTzIq7YiAK53uicAw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=839&vpy=135&dur=3768&hovh=225&hovw=224&tx=104&ty=94&sig=108951183480818893223&page=1&tbnh=136&tbnw=134&start=0&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:0], but we seem hardwired to make a false interpretation. Much of what we discover about ourselves and about the world is counter-intuitive. For example, we tend to care and donate more when charities show us cases of a single rater than a mass suffering. A fascinating article looking into this 'identifiable victim' effect (Slovic, P. 2007. Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, no. 2), Paul Slovic notes how we are generally less effected as the number of victims presented to us increases and discusses the unsettling implications it stands on our moral tendencies. Sometimes what one intuitive thinks X to be self-evidently morally bad, another intuitive states X is self-evidently morally neutral. If they both appeal to intuition, this only tells us that they they each 'know' they're right. To make a valid case, they need to do more. This subjective experience of believing a thing to be so obvious is to require no explanation, no self-guaranteeing. This is especially true with morality when people are prone to mistaken feelings for moral knowledge. While intuition may be a source of useful questions, our brains are too error-prone to regard in as a reliable source of objective answers.

Moving to "moral duties," when Craig says that we have "objective moral duties" is to say we have certain moral obligations regardless whether or not we think we do. This is a concept with similar empirical in-conceptual problems. If '''absolutely no one''' is aware of a duty to do X, the idea of ''having'' such a duty gets us no purchase. Again, there is no problem in saying given better information, justifications based on falsehoods get to be eliminated while new justifications emerge. If the members of society X are genuinely protective of others from a state of mental disorder for demon possession they see as a threat, they may feel a moral duty consistent with these attitudes, may be a duty to destroy their perceived threat. If they outgrow their belief in possession and learn about brain dis-function, they may feel a new duty to care for those with mental disorders. It is not that they discovered a hither or two unknown objective duty to help than rather harm these people, it is given their initially protective attitude, their sense of duty changes in response to change in information. As before, much of the sense of what we ought to do may come initially from instinct rather than conscious reasoning. Again, empathic instincts influence much of our behavior, and it is easy to see how much this instinct would evolve, how natural selection would favor groups of humans whose instinct was to protect each other over individuals who were trying to survive on a hostile planet with no one to protect them. But as before, having advantageous instincts that motivate us to behave or stop behaving in a certain way, isn't evidence of objective duties.

===Is or ought===

In the 18th century, David Hume objected to the authors of morality should shifted from statements like "is" or "is not" to other connected by "ought " or "ought not" which he said "expressed a new relation." To Hume, it seemed "altogether inconceivable" that all relationships were deducible from "is" ones as "entirely different." This is commonly interpreted to mean: we cannot infer what we morally ought to do from purely factual premises. We can't derive an "ought" from an "is." Further reading gives a different emphasis. Here is what Hume says about willful murder, "The vice entirely escapes you as long as you consider the object. You will never find it until you turn your reflection into your own breast and find a sentiment of disapprobation that derives from you towards this action." Here is a matter of fact: but 'tis the object of feeling, it lies in yourself not in the object. In other words, evil isn't a feature of willful murder but in a judgment arising in sentiment.

When Hume objects from the shift from "is" to "ought" he is criticizing those who mistake their own feelings about things like murder for intrinsic qualities like murder, echoing the for mentioned of error for projecting ones own attitude onto the object of that attitude. Of course, whatever Hume's original meaning, the idea that we can't derive moral "oughts" from factual "is" statements has spawned a great deal of debate in our own time.

Is the so-called "is or ought" problem really a problem? All it is saying is that moral obligations aren't deducible purely from nonmoral facts. And this seems quite true if moral obligations involve emotional elements. I don't like pain, but my dislike of pain isn't arbitrary. I am biologically biased to dislike pain. Indeed, the inverse quality of disliking pain protects us by prompting our retreat from harmful stimuli. Knowing also that I have no valid basis for thinking my comfort is not uniquely important. If I don't want other people to hurt me, then to avoid hypocrisy, this obliges me not to hurt others. This obligation isn't unconditional, it arises largely from biologically influenced preferences.

Some say preferences has no role in our morality. After all, rapists like raping, but we don't say they ought to rape. But of course that is misleading. Morality has never meant doing whatever you prefer no matter who it hurts. Part of morality's essence is considering our impacts upon others. And asking "why rapists shouldn't do what they prefer" completely ignores the preference of the victim. No one is saying ALL preferences are morally relevant, but some are. We have numerous moral prohibitions about inflicting pain, but our dislike of pain ultimately reduces to preference doesn't diminish its relevance. When we dissect any moral obligation, we always find some element of preference, even if it is a preference largely determined by biology.

As Mackie notes, for any argument that supports an evaluated conclusion, whether this conclusion has some action guiding force that is non-contingent of our desires or chosen ends, someway into the input of this argument there will be something that cannot be objectively validated, some premise which is not capable of being simply true, or some form of argument not valid by any logic whose authority or cogency is not objective.

===Objective grounding===

Craig claims that if God does not exist, there is no ground for objective moral duties because there is no moral lawgiver. The implication being that a lawgiver could provide that ground. But this is false, lawgivers are still subjective beings and their presence doesn't guarantee moral objectivity. Even if a divine lawgiver required certain duties of us, all that would be necessarily true is that it required certain duties of us. It would not follow that the certain duties were therefore objectively good or objectively grounded.

Craig thinks he can achieve objective grounding by making use of Anslem's notion of a "greatest conceivable being.' According to Anslem's ontological argument: one can understand what's meant by 'a greatest conceivable being' such a being can exist at least in thought, but if it existed only in thought one can think of a greater being existing in thought and reality. Therefore, Anslem insists, if one claims to be able to conceive of the greatest being without ascribing to its real existence, one is contradicting oneself, and states the "greatest conceivable being" is one whose NON-existence is inconceivable. Of the well known flaws in this argument, perhaps the most basic, is that even if person A has in her mind a concept of the greatest conceivable being, no logic requires her concept to correspond with reality. As Kant pointed out, "whatever and however much our concept of an object may contain, we must go outside the concept of we're to attribute the object with existence." No ontological argument has establishes that there must be a god, that this god must have an essential nature, or that essential nature must be good. This leaves Craig's claim to objective grounding no more than the unsupported assertion of a god and qualities Craig '''wants''' it to have to make his moral case.

We value generosity, compassion and fairness because we experience and appreciate their positive effects. When these are proclaimed "divine qualities", this isn't because anyone has observed these qualities from a god, no god has been established to exist, let alone one whose nature we can study. All what is happening is the qualities already judged ''independently'' to have value are being ascribed to an entity declared to exist and be good by definition. If we want to imagine an "idealized being" as a way of developing some basic principles of conduct, the most appropriate model we can relate to is something with human biology.

Rooting morality into a being "beyond our comprehension" only pushes morality beyond our comprehension. It is even worse when what we choose as a model is a god of ancient scripture depicting moral principles we hold being most basic (such as Ez. 9:5-6, God commands "slay the little children without pity.") When we tell ourselves there is an all-powerful entity that can do this, and still be "morally perfect," we create the very conditions that far from leading us to moral truths '''guarantee''' a moral confusion. Even if a god created our universe, nothing about the act or power of grand creation requires moral perfection. And even if the universe was created by a god somehow 'intrinsically good' no logic would require the being still to exist. Imagine if such a god existed yesterday but destroyed itself today, would torture suddenly stop being a moral issue? If so, then this god can't have embodied values of enduring relevance. Severing any connection with any objective moral values. If not, we admitting that this god does not need to exist, destroying this moral argument's conclusion for the existence of god. There would be equally overwhelming problems with claiming that "moral values and duties are transcendental in nature, and therefore require a supernatural creator." As soon as we require things to be viewed supernaturally with "goodness" "badness" or "oughtness," as soon as we allow the supernatural feature in '''any''' of our explanations, the idea of a single supreme deity becomes just one of countless unknowable untestable concepts, all with their unhooked justifications.

In this case of transcendental values and duties could just as easily be the creation of a group of supernatural experimenters, arbitrarily making things "good" and "bad" as to study the effect on animal behavior. If moral values and duties '''had''' to have been created supernaturally, '''this alone''' would count against their objective validity. For that matter, any argument for the existence of god (even if they were valid), wouldn't provide a logical pathway to a god of any particular religion or scripture.

===In summary===

Reviewing the moral argument;
*P1) If 'God' does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
**The implication of Premise 1 that the existence and only the existence of one god could grant moral objectivity is not established.

*P2) Objective moral values and duties do exist.
*C) Therefore, God exists.
**Not only do objective values and duties lack necessary support, we have good reason to reject those concepts as incoherent, leaving Premise 2 and therefore the Conclusion undemonstrated. This moral argument does not establish the existence of any god.

The motive for objectifying moral values and duties is understandable, as Mackie notes, we need morality to regulate inter-personal relations. Often against people whose natural inclination, we therefore want our moral judgments to be authoritative, and many think that only objectivity can achieve this authority. In the words of Thomas Nagel, "There is a tendency to seek an objective account for everything before admitting its reality. But often, what appears to be a more subjective point of view cannot be accounted for this way." The common misconception that if morality isn't entirely objective, it is therefore subjective and therefore "only opinion" or "arbitrary" is obscured and hijacked much on this discourse subject. These arguments ("only opinion" and "arbitrary") should ultimately be discarded.

==See Also==
*[[Golden Rule]]
*[[Secular morality]]
*[[Christian morality]]

[[Category:Morality]]

Atheism

2012-02-29T16:52:22Z

Feredir28:

[[Image:Button_atheism.png|right|Atheism]]
An '''atheist''', in the general sense, is a person who does not believe in the existence of any [[god]]s. '''Atheism''' is the corresponding philosophical position. Atheism is not a position of faith. Atheism may or may not refer to a stance on the theistic question, depending on the individual in question. Arguments over whether or not atheism constitutes a belief are often based on one side assuming that the term always does or always doesn’t constitute a positive statement, and therefore, a belief.

==Types of atheism==

===Strong atheism===
''Main article [[Strong atheism]]''

A "strong" atheist is one who positively asserts that "there is no god." Strong atheism is the form of atheism that most theists reference in debates, since most don't know the distinction between strong and weak atheism. However, strong atheists are rarer than most people think.

For the above reason, strong atheism is sometimes criticized for "requiring [[faith]]." This criticism often rests on the assumption that faith is a fault, which, if spoken by an arguer whose stance rests on faith, is self-defeating in a direct sense. Most often it is argued as a 'your stance is no better than mine' argument. Often, this is successful in derailing the conversation, as many atheists are uncomfortable with admitting that any element of their thoughts contain faith. Users of this wiki are advised to consider that, in the literal epistemic sense, all knowledge eventually requires some basic assumptions, and that assumption is functionally identical to faith. The difference relies not in avoiding faith/assumption, but in grounding one's knowledge in firmer and more well-reasoned thought.

===Weak atheism===
''Main article [[Weak atheism]]''

A "weak" atheist is one who doesn't claim to ''know'' that there is no god, but instead simply ''lacks belief'' in a god. This form of atheism is the most common, and is sometimes called "[[agnostic atheism]]" (see our discussion of [[atheist vs. agnostic]]). Every newborn baby is (unknowingly) a weak atheist, and remains so until the concept of god is introduced to him or her.

Weak atheists often argue that theirs is the only rational position, as both theism and strong atheism make positive claims.

==Discussion==
Apart from not believing in the existence of any gods, there is no official atheist [[doctrine]]. There is no atheist [[pope]] or [[church]], and there are no atheist rules to live by. This does not mean that atheists do not also follow societal and [[legal]] rules, nor that they are not religious (as atheism is a component of some religions). It does mean that there is nothing specific about atheism that tells you how you should live. However, there ''are'' comprehensive philosophical positions that include atheism as a part of the overall philosophy ([[secular humanism]] being the most well-known example).

==Other views==
Not everyone (not even all atheists) agree with the definitions above. For instance, the authors of [[Evil Bible]] seem to [http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm define atheism] as denial of the existence of any gods, or the (positive) belief that there are no gods. [[Richard Dawkins]], author of ''[[The God Delusion]]'', does reserve the terms ''theism'', ''agnosticism'' and ''atheism'' on a Spectrum of Theistic Probability from 1 (''I know that a God does exist'') to 7 (''I know that a God does not exist''). In other words, "atheist", for Dawkins, is synonymous with "strong atheist", as above.

===Lack of Belief in Gods===
So how is atheism properly defined? Picture this: a group of people watches footage of a court room trial, the accused is brought in and some of the group immediately form beliefs about her guilt or innocence based purely on her appearance. As the trial continues, people form beliefs based on other factors. When all the evidence has been presented and the closing statements have been made, several people in the group despite paying close attention to the proceeding still have not formed a belief on whether the accused is guilty or not. It is often demanded of us that after given the statement X we must immediately arrive at a belief that this is either true or false. But this idea needs to be challenged. The truth or falsity of a statement may be indeterminate for example and we may have no reason or motivation to form a belief either way. Just because a statement can be true or false doesn't mean its not inevitable or even necessarily desirable that we form a belief one way or the other. As Yale professor William Graham Sumner observed in 1906, "Men educated in [the critical habit of thought]...are slow to believe. They hold things as possible or probable in all degrees, without certainty and without pain."

Merely having a belief is no indicator on how carefully you thought about something, people form superficial beliefs all the time. Having beliefs grant no one privileged status, nor is there any special reason for the acquisition of beliefs to be a particular goal. When scientists construct theories, for example, the aim isn't for people forming beliefs about them being true, it is to account for available data with the model that has the greatest explanatory and predictive power. There is more than one way to lack in someone's guilt. You may believe they are not guilty or you may not believe one way or the other. Likewise, there is more than one way to lack belief in the existence of a supreme god. You may form a belief that no such being exists or you might form no belief either way. Demanding that people have only two options (god or no god) is a symptom of flawed black and white thinking. Non-belief either way is often confused with agnosticism, but agnosticism is not about belief it concerns ''knowledge''. An agnostic is someone who holds the view that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of a proposed phenomenon (in this case a god). It is completely possible to hold this view while holding a belief that there is a god, believing there is none, or having no belief either way. Agnosticism is not some middle ground in believing X or not believing X, it is an independent category compatible with belief and non-belief (agnostic theism or [[agnostic atheism]]).

Some people, even respectable dictionaries, define atheism as the "belief that there is no God" (with a capital G) but this definition cannot be adequate because it would include polytheists who believe there is no supreme God. The dominance of monotheistic religions has left people with the tendency to forget that one God or no God is not the only two options, but even with the monotheistic approach there are complications because the word "God" can mean billions of different things. This is why some people do not label themselves as atheists because atheism does not reflect a persons attitude towards every given version of God presented to them. If a person made the claim "God exists" and by God they mean 'a single supernatural being that created our universe' an atheist would reject said claim as "irresolvable" because no procedure available to us could reliably establish the existence or non-existence of such an unscientific entity. If on the other hand the person meant the Biblical God, an atheist could respond by saying that the statement was not only irresolvable but also demonstrably false. Given certain properties of God, like claiming God is perfect and requires our worship is contradictory. A perfect being would by definition have no deficiency and need nothing and would certainly have no use for worship. These two qualities are incompatible, if there is a God it is not the multi-self-refuting biblical god.

Because an atheist's responses differ according to each theistic claims, which cannot be known how they differentiate until they are presented, the term that fits most atheists is the general definition for atheism as the "lack of belief in gods" and all that means is that "gods don't feature among the things that I do believe that exist."

There is some extraordinary resistance by some people to ignore this definition of atheism. Many rather insist that atheism should rather be defined as "the (positive) belief that no God exists" because they want to make it seem like a position of faith. Clearly if you feel you are at a disadvantage because your beliefs are faith-based and insupportable by logical evidence, then pretending that those who lack your belief also have a faith-based position demands much less intellectual discipline than facing up to the burden of proof '''you give yourself''' when you insist that other believes as you do.

But one does not have to believe no gods exist to recognize and expose theistic claims as indefensible. Say we have two people, but who debunk every theistic claim presented to them. One of them believes there are no gods ([[strong atheism|strong atheist]]) while the other is simple unconvinced (no positive belief that no gods exist). Either way, the theistic claims are debunked, even if atheism was redefined as "belief that no gods exist" there would still be non-belief outside that category dismantling theistic claims. Defenders of theism who fixate on strong atheists are either misidentifying or trying to distract attention from their REAL problem: that their claims have no valid foundation and consistently collapse under critical scrutiny.

Some have complained that atheism cannot be a lack of belief in gods or we would have to classify rocks and dogs as atheists (seriously, they make such poor arguments). It is the immense loss of perspective that happens around the subject of atheism that statements as puerile are made. If you had a big family celebration and someone came up to you and asked "which ones aren't married?" would you need them to specify that that they are talking about people and not items like furniture and family pets? Those who can't approach discussion with a basic level of intelligence or maturity shouldn't expect to be taken seriously. Besides, the suffix "-ist" in "atheist" is used and understood to denote a personal noun. That said, while there is no point in applying the term atheist to things that lack the cognitive capacity to grasp the ideas involved, it can be useful to remember that none of us start life with belief in any gods. A lack of belief in god IS the default position. That is not to say that the default position is always preferable, after all the default position is the complete lack of coherent understanding of our universe, but it is a reminder that in the marketplace of ideas when you want to move people away from their default lack of belief towards your belief, it is you (not they) who has to provide justification. If you want anyone to believe that any gods exist, the burden of proof is on you, not on those who are simply skeptical of your claims.

Some have tried to claim that one cannot lack a belief in god because one needs to believe something about gods in order to reject them. This is among the most deeply confused arguments against atheism about atheism. Replacing the term god with other terms like "English-speaking planets" show the absurdity of the claim. If this form of argument were valid, then we would have to believe in everything whose existence we reject. An atheist rejects theistic claims. Without evidence from gods themselves its only claims of human beings that insist atheists take the existence of gods seriously, and an atheist can reject those on the basis of defective reasoning, defective definitions or lack of evidence (without believing anything about gods).

Some have complained that defining atheism as a lack of belief says next to nothing about atheists' attitudes. However, when one says they are a theist, this also says next to nothing about them. Given the potentially infinite variety of things that people might mean about gods, a statement of lack of belief OR belief in gods will be fairly basic in the first instance. People have an enormously diverse reasons for not believing in gods, it is unrealistic to expect those reasons to be distilled in the definition of a single word. If hearing that someone is an atheist doesn't tell you all you want to know about someone, the why not ask more questions? Of course, not every atheist will find another conversation about gods that are worthwhile use of their time, especially if they are not the first to bring up the subject.

Some theists who are determined for atheism to mean more than a lack of belief note how fervent atheists are in discussions and point out that fervency does not just come from a lack of belief. No, it doesn't. A great deal of fervency is a response to the hostility directed towards atheists for simply not believing in gods. To be condemned, marginalized, criticized and dehumanized by people who are unwilling to allow atheists to live their lives, who impute our morality (atheists have no morals!) and who tell us that we do not belong in the same country we were born in (this is a Christian country so get out!), who dispute our education (inserting creationism and myths into our schools), attempt to monopolize government (forbidding atheist candidates) and ostracize atheists for not participating in their rituals (no pray, no stay!). Treat any group of people with such profound disrespect and it would be surprising NOT to see fervency from some of them. Fervency is not the result of simply being an atheist, but nor is it solely a response to the disgusting manner in which atheists are treated. It also comes from a wide sense of injustice of the way human beings are being mistreated around the world. How church leaders are invoking baseless religious privileges to keep the details of child sexual abuse cases secret. How children are dying from torture and neglect after being branded as witches or demon-possessed. How adulterers are being stoned to death and homosexuals being criminally hanged, and all sorts of acts that are being committed all in the name of an entity whose '''basic existence''' can't be demonstrated. If we were all to witness a mass execution of people being sacrificed to appease some sun god, which of us would not see the dangerous ignorance in that bloody reasoning?

==See also==
*[[Atheist vs. agnostic]]
*[[Atheism vs. rationality]]
*[[Agnostic]]
*[[Secular humanism]]

{{Atheism}}

[[Category:Atheism]]

Are you a good person?

2012-02-22T22:37:28Z

Feredir28: /* More Counter-Apologetics */

In discussing the necessity of accepting [[God]] and/or [[Jesus]], [[apologist]]s will often pose the question, "'''Are you a good person?'''" The idea is to sow the seeds of doubt in the listener's mind by using the [[Ten Commandments]] and play on the fear of eternal damnation to make belief in God more attractive. This is one of many cases where [[Religion provides hope#Religion also provides fear|Religion causes fear]] more clearly than hope.

See also [[Pascal's Wager]].

Any admission of imperfection is regarded as equal: stealing a piece of candy as a child is equivalent to robbing a bank, as they are both "[[sin]]".

==Apologetics==

One version of the argument, as used by [[Ray Comfort]] for example, goes something like this:
* '''Apologist:''' Do you think you are a good person?
** '''Unbeliever:''' (Does not matter whether they answer yes or no or anything in-between, or even point out the errors in the question or present their own views on how to identify a good/bad person)
* '''Apologist:''' Well, let's find out if you are a good person. Have you ever told a lie?
** '''Unbeliever:''' Well yes, everybody has at some point...
* '''Ap:''' What are you called if you tell a lie?
** '''Un:''' A liar.
* '''Ap:''' Have you ever stolen anything, regardless of its value?
** '''Un:''' A little thing when I was young.
* '''Ap:''' What do you call a person who steals?
** '''Un:''' A thief.
* '''Ap:''' Jesus said that anybody who looked at a women in lust is guilty of adultery in his heart. Have you ever looked at a woman with lust?
** '''Un:''' Well, yeah.
* '''Ap:''' Have you ever used God's name in vain?
** '''Un:''' Yes.
* '''Ap:''' You've taken the name of the God who gave you life as a cuss word? Have you said things like "OMG" or "God dammit"? That's called blasphemy.
* '''Ap:''' So, by your own admission, you are a lying, thieving, adulterous, blasphemer, and when [[Jesus]] comes again on judgment day, how do you think he's going to treat you? Would you go to heaven or hell?
* '''Ap:''' Now imagine you are in a court standing before the judge. You plead with the judge to have mercy and you point out that you have done many good things in your life, but since he is a righteous judge and you have violated the law, he must punish you. You are found guilty, but then suddenly a man you do not know walks in, approaches the judge and pays your fine. That is what Jesus Christ did for you. He died on the cross, and paid the fine for your sins.

The Apologist may follow up by using the [[parachute analogy]].

The apologist's goal of the "Have you ever told a lie?" question of this argument is to get the person to call themselves a liar. Should the mark not answer "liar" when the apologist asks the mark "What does that make you?", perhaps answering with "human", or "normal", etc., the apologist will counter with "If I told many lies, what would you call me?", and this usually draws out the word "liar" from the mark.

The lying part is supposedly connected to the 9th commandment; thou shalt not bear false witness. It should also be noted that [[Ray Comfort]] has no problem with lying should it suit his purposes. He has 'born false witness' against evolution and atheism on countless occasions knowing that what he was saying to be false.

As it turns out, [[Ray Comfort]] wrote on his blog that it is wrong to lie or steal EXCEPT in the cases such as lying to your grandma that her hat looks nice or stealing a loaf of bread to feed your eight starving children[http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2011/04/atheism-and-intellect.html]. So it appears, when asking a lay person if they have ever told a lie, it seems to Ray that some lies are justified. However, he never includes this little detail in his street evangelism, rather making it appear that lying in general is absolutely immoral, and thus Ray labels the person a "liar" or "thief."

==Counter-apologetics==

If you reverse this argument, you could equally well ask: Have you ever done something nice for a person? Then you are a good person. Everything everyone says can be considered good or bad by someone, so by this logic everyone is bad. For instance, I consider that by making all his emotion-based arguments, Ray Comfort is doing something bad. It then follows, by that logic, that Ray is a bad person.

This question could also be re-written as "Are you a good Jew?" since the [[Ten Commandments]] were given by God to the Jews - the Chosen People. These laws were not instructed for the Canaanites and such, only the Jews. Imagine if the same question was asked in the same manner, but rather than using the Ten Commandments as a criteria, instead use the 5 Pillars of Islam or the Eightfold Path of Buddhism. Of course the first objection would be that a religious bias is set up to examine a person if they follow the provided guidelines to impress said faith ("are you a good Muslim?" or "are you a good Buddhist?") However, none of these are actually attempting to discover if you really are an actual good person in the sense of the word. Rather, they are asking if you are worthy for the reward offered by said religion (in a sort of in-or-out fashion), not are you good in general.

To discover if a person is really good, the best criteria to use should be divorced from religion, and based more on secular humanitarian values. These values understand that humans are humans, which means they are all different and are all capable of experiencing many feelings, emotions, and actions. If good is based on morality, then morality by any definition is the reduction of harm and suffering. We do not harm children for drawing on walls, because they have no capacity to grasp the reasons for not doing this. We do not wish to harm others, but often a person can find themselves in a bad situation. For instance, we harm people out of self-defense, and not all Christians are pacifists.

Determining if a person is "good" or not cannot be done by religious criteria. Ray Comfort's method of using the [[Ten Commandments]] is no more effective than using the 5 Pillars of Islam, especially because the books they come from list situations when it is okay to break them, such as "thou shalt not kill" from the ten commandments of the bible being null and void when it comes to atheists, stoning rebellious children, witches, wizards, and pretty much every second non-Jew in the old testament. To be good is to be moral, and if morality means anything, it is minimizing suffering and doing no harm. Hitler may have been a nice guy to those closest to him, but his overall impact on society heavily makes him pure evil.

A second objection to this fallacious question (which was already pointed about above) is which of the Ten commandments is this criteria based on? If you read the IronChariots article on the [[Ten Commandments]], you will see that there are multiple different versions of the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments used as a criteria in this question were not written on stones, were not called the "Ten Commandments" nor are they the original. Does Ray Comfort go about asking people "Have you followed the 40-60 Judgments?" rather than "Have you kept the Commandments?" Just saying "Commandments" is very vague (although Comfort says he follows the traditional commandments) but the Greek and Hebrew word for "commandment" is word - and God gave 40-60 "words" in Exodus 21 to Exodus 23. Another note, there are 613 laws that God commanded the Jews to keep, does Ray (who says he is Jewish) follow any of those?

It is well known that the Bible is not a great source for determining whether a person is good or not. At one point, genuine Christians believed they were good people who followed their divine duty to kill Native Americans, witches and gays (and they do so to this day). In this sense, religion is used to dehumanize others (even to the point of demonic) thus eroding empathy and diminishing compassion and the guilt felt when abusing them. History clearly testifies about the horrors religion can enable. Even on smaller scales, religion enables parents to beat their children for simply misbehaving. At one point, you were a bad person if you were a male with long hair. You were wicked if you were suspected of practicing magic, but this stance disappeared when education and science revealed that this suspicion was without merit and thus was a false accusation.

There are many instances in the Ten Commandments that causes no identifiable harm, such as no work on the Sabbath. If the Bible declared ''"Smiling on a Tuesday was immoral and it was immoral to break this law"'', we would laugh at such a law because it does not cause harm and thus has no valid ground for declaring it immoral. If this was how morality worked, then any trivia (talking on a Friday, wearing lime-green, hopping on one foot for one yard, blinking one eye at a time) could be made immoral. We do not base morality from revelation from authority, that would render us merely obedient. Moral behavior is doing what is right, not what we are told (unless what we are told is also right). This is why when asking "why is X immoral", appealing to scripture or a divine figure gets us nowhere. There must be valid independent reasons to define what is moral, right or wrong, good or bad.

Science (the tools that help us discern what is true or false) can provide a larger contribution to moral development because it relies on reasoned logic and evidence. Empathy and experience (how our actions affect others) are human sources independent of religion that can help us determine how to be a good person. Religion needs these scientific moral progresses, but science does not need religion.

===Are Christians "good"?===
This section is not to declare that all Christians are not good, since there are plenty of Christians who live good lives. Rather, Christians and theist apologists may argue and declare that they are "good" because they follow the moral compass as their deity. Neurological advances are pulling back the curtain in religious moral thought. In a revealing study by Nicholas Eply (Eply, N. et al 2009, "Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 106), Christian volunteers were asked to report their own views, the views of their deity, and the views of others on a range of controversial issues (such as legal euthanasia) while having their brain activity scanned. Results show that thinking about divine views activated the same brain regions as thinking about their own views, indicating that when believing themselves to be consulting the divine moral compass, theists may instead be doing is doing what the rest of us do: searching their own conscience.

As noted earlier, simply following the demands of a divine being does not reveal a person as good, rather simply obedient. This brings up the problem of the [[divine command theory]], that if a theist's deity declared that genocide was morally right, then the theist must accept it regardless. If they do not, this reveals that the theist already follows their own moral compass despite the demands of an authoritative figure.

The God of the Bible commanded numerous atrocities such as familial cannibalism. Theists often say God is mysterious and beyond our understanding, but even still they believe God is just. If a human did commit familial cannibalism, we would immediately consider it depraved and immoral. This shows that God is not the source of our morality, and claiming God is just is a direct conflict, and invoking divine mystery does nothing to result that conflict. Responding to these atrocities with biblical examples of mercy is not helpful either, it just shows the Bible contains both mercy and atrocity. Hitler forgave people close to him and showed mercy, but that does not cancel out the immoral monster he was. Emphasizing the New Testament over the Old does not help either, given the numerous times when Jesus endorsed certain atrocities (such as Mt. 15:1-6).

Bottom line, using the Ten Commandments, Scripture, or personal views of a certain deity does not help in the slightest in determining whether or not a person is good or not - and as history reveals, it often leads people away from good behavior. The best way for us to determine and achieve goodness is secular humanitarian values and promoting education and understanding. Morality develops over time through experience and education, and yet the Bible's unjust teachings have not changed for centuries. The ancients did not know better, we do. It is not a virtue that religious dogma does not change, it is the utmost failing. Moral systems that cannot develop in responses to our greater understanding cannot edify, they ossify.

==More Counter-Apologetics==
Here are several reasons why this argument ad line of thinking fails;

* Another, substantially different set of rules is explicitly labeled as "the [[Ten Commandments]]" in {{bible|Exodus 34:12-26}}. None of them say anything about lying, thievery, adultery, and such. God does not refer to the rules in Exodus 20 as the "Ten Commandments" nor did he write them down in stone. Apologists dishonestly [[cherry picking|cherry-pick]] which version of the Commandments to fit their agenda without providing proper information.
* Have you ever told the truth in your life? Yes? Then you're a truth-teller. God loves truth-tellers... Have you ever told a lie? You have? Wow, you really are honest!
* Being imperfect isn't the same as being [[evil]].
* The Commandment "Thou shall not lie" '''is not there. Period.''' Thou shall not lie is completely incorrect. The correct Commandment is that "thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor." That is, you shall not produce false testimony against your neighbor. Bearing false witness actually has to do with property and dealing in the courts, not just simply lying about someone else.
** While Revelations 21:8 condemns liars, it is not a Commandment. It is therefore irrelevant to Ray's above argument.
* Bearing false witness against your neighbor is a misinterpretation of the [[9th commandment]]. Most ancient systems of justice were "guilty until proven innocent". After an accusation was made, one would be asked to prove his or her innocence or be punished for the presumed act. If a person could prove their innocence, their accuser would be guilty of false witness and might be put to death. The act of accusing a person of a crime was a more serious one in the past than it is today with our "innocent until proven guilty" standard; the closest analogy would be filing a false police report, rather than simply lying.
* The biblical prostitute Rahab was considered virtuous because she lied to protect Israelite spies. While she directly and consciously lied to the authorities, James says she was "righteous" (James 2:25)
* Genesis 12:10 and onward tells a story of Abraham lying about his wife Sarah (claiming she is his sister) to avoid punishment from the Egyptians. When the truth is later revealed (right after the Pharaoh married Sarah) the Pharaoh asks Abraham "why did you lie to me? Why tell me she was your sister? If I knew of your relationship and she already belonged to another man, I would not have married her." The Pharaoh gets punished, Abraham gets rich, and then the Pharaoh tells Abraham and Sarah "Get out of here!" Abraham goes unpunished for this lie. Abraham lied, and yet was rewarded.
* Another liar is the brother of Joseph. Joseph is the most beloved of all the brothers and the brothers hate him for it, so they conspire to kill him (Genesis 37) but they settle for something else. Joseph ends up being sold to slave traders. The brothers tell their father that Joseph was eaten by an animal (they lied). Joseph becomes employed by the Pharaoh, warns the Pharaoh a famine is coming, and when it does the hungry come to Egypt because it was prepared for the famine. Among the hungry was Joseph's family. When the father discovered that Joseph is alive, what was the punishment for Joseph's brothers? Nothing. Who are the brothers? Ruben, Benjamin, Judah...as in the forefathers of the 12 tribes of Israel. Yes, the forefathers of Israel were a bunch of liars who conspired to murder their own brother.
* Taking the Lord's name in vain to mean cursing is a mistranslation of the [[3rd commandment]]. The more proper translation (seen in many better translations) is takes the name of God in a false oath, or in a vain oath. It is a prohibition against swearing to God falsely, effectively turning the third commandment into grounds on which a trustworthy contract could be made. It is not simply cursing or shouting "Oh my God" or, as Ray Comfort suggests, even using euphemisms such as "oh my goodness" or "oh my gosh."
* ''I once stole some candy as a kid.'' "What do you call someone who steals?" ''A thief.'' Actually, in Christian doctrine called Age of Accountability. It is not explicit in the Bible, but it is implicit and explains even though a child is born in sin, they really cannot be held accountable for their sin. Nice try Ray.
* In the book of Genesis, Jacob steals from his brother, lies to his father, and is continually rewarded by god.
* Jesus himself is fine with stealing. In Mark 11:2-4, Matt 21:2-3, and Luke 19:30-31, Jesus instructs two of his disciples to go into a village (perhaps Bethany) and locate a colt tied up near the entrance, and to return with it. If someone stopped them they were to explain that the Lord had need of it. Otherwise, they were simply to steal the colt without paying for it or obtaining permission. Thus, Jesus would be guilty of thievery.
* "Adultery" in the Bible did not depend on the man's marital status, but the woman's. Bloodline was reckoned through the male. "To adulterate" means to introduce a foreign substance into something, thus adultery meant corrupting another man's bloodline by having sex with another man's wife.
* Looking at a woman in lust is a thought crime. Lust isn't a conscious action, and one is to be punished for human nature.
* All humans perform acts in their lifetimes that could be described as bad, good and every shade of gray in between. The truth is, one action does not define an individual's entire character. Furthermore, this act of "spot judgment" is the very thing the [[Bible]] prohibits [[Christian]]s from doing to others in {{bible|Matthew 7:1-5}}, {{bible|Mark 4:24}} and {{bible|Luke 6:37-42}}.
* The argument relies on drawing an equivalence between minor imperfections and grave crimes: shoplifting a piece of candy from a store when one was a child is equivalent to robbing a bank as an adult. Because the crime (sin) is against an infinite God, it demands an infinite punishment, regardless of the severity.
* The words "liar", "thief", etc. apply to those who lie or steal habitually or more than average, or in reference to a specific instance that negatively affected the speaker. To apply the word "liar" to all who have ever lied would not only render the word meaningless, but is a dishonest use of words.
* The biblical God is also guilty of lying (told Abraham that he had to kill Issac, made it appear that Lazarus was dead, etc.), stealing (at least by proxy... See pretty much all of the Book of Joshua), adultery (um... Mary anyone? anyone?) and even murder (everybody really, but of course specifically Canaanites, Amorites, et.al.). Pretty tough for a "Just Judge" to sentence someone to eternal punishment for sins he himself is guilty of... right?
* The argument is a poor one to use on [[atheist]]s since they don't believe that any gods exist and so don't give the opinions and judgments of purported gods any weight at all.
* An honest person would not answer if he or she was a "good person" as it is an subjective opinion. It would be similar to asking, "Are you a handsome person?" or "Are you an intelligent person?"
* "What are you called if you tell a lie?" "Well, since everybody lies at some point, I suppose I would be called a human being."
* "Have you ever looked at a woman with lust?" Think about what this commandment is saying: "God has to punish you because the sex drive ''He'' put in you is working properly", which makes absolutely no logical sense. Another rebuttal could be: "Of course I did. If I didn't, I wouldn't have wanted to marry her. How long would the human race survive if people didn't want have sex with each other?"
* Given the choice between a certain death by plane crash and using a parachute that might save one's life, the rational decision would be to use the parachute. What one believes about the parachute is irrelevant. If someone did not know what a parachute was, then they wouldn't believe it would be useful. Knowledge is always superior to blind faith.
* A country in which a person was tortured for the rest of their life for a single lie or a thought-crime would be considered absolutely barbaric. A God who uses this sort of penal system is just as barbaric, yet the believers twist their logic and their sense of morality to assume that he is perfect and therefore so is his system. They might argue that he must punish us because he is so perfect and he can't stand one sin. But this makes no sense. A grownup is more civilized than a child, and this doesn't give him reason to punish children more severely. If your teacher is a mathematical genius, that's no reason for her to give you stricter marks than if she was just an average teacher.
* Brainwashing works by first lowering a person's self-esteem, and then raising them back up. Which is what is done here: make the unbeliever feel guilty and small, then bring out the good news of how Jesus will forgive him anyway. Some sects can use similar tactics to lure unsuspecting people in: Give them a personality test, the results of which supposedly show how completely messed up the person is, then say "Fortunately, we can help you."
* Often, people who use this mantra are basing this on the idea that God will judge one based on the ten commandments. Yet they never ask: "Have you ever worked on a Sunday?" Most likely, few of them would consider the latter immoral.
* "Was there any time you ever doubted your faith?" "Yes, of course." "That makes you an atheist."

==See also==
* [[Morality]]
* [[Secular morality]]

==External links==
* [http://www.christiananswers.net/gospel/goodperson.html An essay by Ray Comfort] advancing the argument
* [http://www.areyouagoodperson.org/ Interactive quiz] based on this argument

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Morality]]
[[Category:Ray Comfort]]

Christianity invented science

2012-02-13T18:08:33Z

Feredir28: /* Counter-Apologetics */

==Overview==
Many Christians, such as [[Roman Catholic]] Father Stanley Jaki and Christian sociologist Rodney Stark, claim that modern day science formed in Christian-centered Europe, and thus [[Christianity]] was responsible for the development of science.

==Argument==
"As a new generation of historians, sociologists, and philosophers of science has proven, biblical religion was not the enemy of science but rather the intellectual matrix that made it possible in the first place. Without key insights that Christianity found celebrated in the Bible and spread throughout Europe, science would never have happened.... The evidence is incontrovertible: It was the rational theology of both the Catholic Middle Ages and the [[Protestant]] [[Reformation]]--inspired by the explicit and implicit truths revealed in the Jewish Bible--that led to the discoveries of modern science." - Robery Hutchinson, "The Biblical Origins of Modern Science" (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2007. pg. 139)

Rodney Stark, and other conservative Christians defend the above statement, arguing that since Christianity arose in Christian Western culture, that Christianity was therefore was not just the cause of modern science, but that Christianity was ''required'' for the origin of science.

==Counter-Apologetics==
Christianity as is clearly not responsible for the invention of science. when the cause is in place, its effect is seen. The religion dominated the whole of the Western world from the fifth to the fifteenth century, and yet in all those thousand years there was no scientific revolution. Nor did any scientific revolution occur in Eastern Christian world, such as the Byzantine Empire, even though the East was just as prosperous and largely peaceful for five centuries.

Apologists may dismiss Byzantines as somehow the "wrong kind" of Christians (Lynn White Jr. "What Accelerated Technological Progress in the Western Middle Ages?" in Scientific Change, ed. A. C. Crombie (New York: Basic Books, 1963(pg.272-91)); however, in addition to being a [[No true Scotsman]] fallacy, the point remains that largely Christian civilizations took over a thousand years to develop science.

The ancient Greeks were the first to use science, in fact they invented reason (in the very sense he means, developing the formal sciences of logic, philosophy, mathematics, and rhetoric). Nevertheless, the scientific method was first formally described centuries later by [[Francis Bacon]]. Certainly most of the early scientists of the Renaissance were Christian (i.e., [[Galileo]] and [[Newton]]). However, the church was often openly hostile to scientific inquiry and on guard for potential [[heresy]]. While not always openly hostile to science, the both the Catholic and Protestant churches were quick to attempt to silence anything that appeared to contradict Biblical history, as in the cases of [[Galileo]] and [[Charles Darwin]]). The Vatican Observatory didn't come into existence until 1891, and not for scientific inquiry but to establish a better calendar to determine the time to celebrate religious events.

Finally, another fallacy is the conflation of necessary, sufficient, and contributing causes. A good case can be made that scientific thinking was actually the byproduct of early pagan theology (Persuasively argued in David Sedley, ''Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity'' (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007)). But even if so, no one would conclude from this that paganism was required. Many aspects of pagan religion could contribute to the rise of science, but it does not follow that only paganism can have these attributes. It is not even certain they are all required. It may have provided values that helped science develop, which science could still have developed without, or that other worldviews could have encouraged just as well.

Certain Christians, such as D'Souza in his book ''What is So Great About Christianity'', claims before science came into the picture, the dominantly held belief was [[animism]]: the idea that everything had a spirit. After that developed polytheistic beliefs, then eastern beliefs, until the first religion to be based on reason: Christianity. D'Souza says that Judaism and Islam were religions of law whereas Christianity is a religion of creed. Here, D'Souza claims that Christianity is the only religion built on reason and there are no theologians in the history of any other religion. But as just explained earlier, reason was invented by the ancient Greeks -who were pagans! So, D'souza is essentially arguing that Christianity is based on paganism. And any attentive reader of the Bible knows Christianity was from the beginning based on scripture, inspiration, and revelation, not "reason"(On the original epistemology of Christianity: Richard Carrier, ''Not the Impossible Faith: Why Christianity Didn't Need a Miracle to Succeed'' (Raleigh, NC: Lulu, 2009): pg. 329-68, 385-406). To see what a religion actually based on reason looks like, just look at the formal theologies of the Greco-Roman philosophers. Yes, the pagans invented theology too.(Theology as a rational science in antiquity: Aristotle, ''Metaphysics'' 6.1 1026a); Sextus Empiricus, ''Against the Professors'' 9.12-194 (= Against the Physicists 1.12-194 = Against the Dogmatists 3.12-194); and John Dillon, ''Alcinous: The Handbook of Platonism'' (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993): pg. 57-60, 86-89.)

===No Science in Antiquity?===
Rodney Stark does not stop there. "Greek learning stagnated of its own inner logic. After Plato and Aristotle, ''very little happened beyond some extensions of geometry.''" (Stark, ''Victory of Reason'', pg. 20)

For the record, Rodney Stark is a sociologist, not a historian of any sort, and he makes a very lousy historian. Stark's entire argument rests on the above sentence. However, if he had done any scholarly work (as a scholar is obliged to do) he would quickly learn that his key premise is utter rubbish. The truth is that the Greeks and Romans achieved tremendous and continual advances in science and mathematics after Aristotle. Here are a few examples,

*Aristotle performed numerous dissection and vivisection experiments in animal anatomy and physiology - composing the most scientific range of zoological works then known.
*His successor, Theophrastus, extended this work to botany and plant physiology, and the first person to produce the first known works in pyrology, mineralogy, and other fields.
*His successor, Strato of Lamsacus, extended their experimental method to machines and physics - by which many of Aristotle's physical theories had been altered or abandoned.
*A research institute was built in Alexandria, Egypt in the third century BCE, in which Ctesibius and Philo completed the first known scientific works in experimental pneumatics.
*Eratosthenes invented the science of cartography and was one of the first scientist in history to measure the diameter of the earth (he was off by 15% - not bad), and he analyzed the effect of the moon on the tides.
([[Tides come in, tides go out. You can't explain that.]] Bill O'Reilly needed to know this was explained in the third century BCE and was sadly out of date.)
*Herophilus became the first scientist to dissect human cadavers. Also, he and his pupil Erasistrus originated neurophysiology, establishing with detailed experiments that the mind is a function of the brain and the specific mental functions were controlled in specific areas of the brain, and they distinguished motor from sensory nerves and mapped them throughout the body. Altogether. their study of the human body and its bones, muscles, and organs, was so thorough that we still use much of their anatomical terminology.
*In Sicily, their colleague Archimedes was advancing sciences of mechanics and hydrostatics, and discovering, describing, or explaining the first mathematical laws of physics.
*Aristarchus began measuring the distances of the moon, sun and planets, and proposed the first heliocentric theory.
*In Rhodes, Hipparchus discovered and measured celestial precession, observed the first supernova, established the first detailed scientific star charts, made numerous advances in planetary theory, and developed the first scientific system for predicting lunar and solar eclipses.
*Seleucus of Babylon discovered the effect of the sun on the tides (not just the moon), developed the first mathematical lunisolar tide theory.

During the Roman Empire, science reached its pinnacle of achievement, producing works not exceeded until the Scientific Revolution. Just to name a few,
*Dioscorides in botany, mineralogy, and pharmacology
*Hero in mathematics, pneumatics, and theatrical robotics
*Ptolemy in astronomy, cartography, optics, and harmonics
*Galen in anatomy, physiology, and medicine

Many of the scientific discoveries refuted or replaced many of the Aristotle's ideas. Example, by the Roman period, Aristotle's conclusion that comets were an atmospheric phenomenon lost ground when Hipparchus developed an increasingly correct theory of projectile motion and refuted Aristotle's belief that the heavens never change. Also, Herophilus had refuted the Aristotelian theory that the soul resided in the heart, with precise experiments proving all thought and sensation occurred in the brain - a conclusion reinforced by Galen, who showed that the brain controlled human speech.

==Christianity and Science go hand to hand==
A likely follow up argument is that Christianity and science are harmonious and complementary. This is often done by quoting a selected few verses from the Bible that seem scientific (and thus claiming that Christians knew of the scientific fact before it was discovered) or saying that religion and science are not in conflict with each other (while pointing out a few instances when religion ''promoted'' science advancement).

[[Bill Donohue]], the President of the Catholic League, said "It was the Catholic Church that created the first universities, and it was the Catholic Church that played a central role in the Scientific Revolution."[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2534633/posts]

===Counter Arguments===
The claim that Christianity and science are complimentary towards each other are easily refuted by the slightest knowledge in history, or awareness in today's society.

* Every religion that proposes supernatural causes for actual events.
* The Roman Catholic Church's treatment of Copernicus and Galileo.
* The opposition to Darwin's theory of evolution by fundamentalists among his contemporaries, and on down to modern times to promoting pseudoscience like [[intelligent design]]. This denial of science goes beyond biology, but to also geology, paleontology, and even astronomy that all point to a old earth.
* The denial of global warming based on the belief that God will not flood the earth again.
* Modern opposition to stem cell research by fundamentalists (mostly in the US).
* And the opposition to neuroscientific evidence that points to the fact a soul does not exist.

As for Christianity occasionally promoting science, one must understand that often times various branches adapt to the growing knowledge of science. For example, at one point Christianity did not accept that the sun was the center of our galaxy. When the evidence was overwhelming, dogma had to change. In the same sense, many Christian churches (like the Roman Catholic Church) had to accept the theory of evolution. The claim that Christianity promoted naturalistic thinking at one point, while Christianity also suppressed certain scientific fields, does not point to the conclusion that Christianity and science go hand to hand. All it points to is that religion is very selective when it comes to promoting their dogma.

{{Christianity}}

[[Category:Christianity|*]]
[[Category:Religions]]

Christianity invented science

2012-02-07T18:16:20Z

Feredir28: /* Counter-Apologetics */

==Overview==
Many Christians, such as [[Roman Catholic]] Father Stanley Jaki and Christian sociologist Rodney Stark, claim that modern day science formed in Christian-centered Europe, and thus [[Christianity]] was responsible for the development of science.

==Argument==
"As a new generation of historians, sociologists, and philosophers of science has proven, biblical religion was not the enemy of science but rather the intellectual matrix that made it possible in the first place. Without key insights that Christianity found celebrated in the Bible and spread throughout Europe, science would never have happened.... The evidence is incontrovertible: It was the rational theology of both the Catholic Middle Ages and the [[Protestant]] [[Reformation]]--inspired by the explicit and implicit truths revealed in the Jewish Bible--that led to the discoveries of modern science." - Robery Hutchinson, "The Biblical Origins of Modern Science" (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2007. pg. 139)

Rodney Stark, and other conservative Christians defend the above statement, arguing that since Christianity arose in Christian Western culture, that Christianity was therefore was not just the cause of modern science, but that Christianity was ''required'' for the origin of science.

==Counter-Apologetics==
Christianity as is clearly not responsible for the invention of science. when the cause is in place, its effect is seen. The religion dominated the whole of the Western world from the fifth to the fifteenth century, and yet in all those thousand years there was no scientific revolution. Nor did any scientific religion occur in Eastern Christian world, such as the Byzantine Empire, even though the East was just as prosperous and largely peaceful for five centuries.

Apologists may dismiss Byzantines as somehow the "wrong kind" of Christians (Lynn White Jr. "What Accelerated Technological Progress in the Western Middle Ages?" in Scientific Change, ed. A. C. Crombie (New York: Basic Books, 1963(pg.272-91)); however, in addition to being a [[No true Scotsman]] fallacy, the point remains that largely Christian civilizations took over a thousand years to develop science.

The ancient Greeks were the first to use science, in fact they invented reason (in the very sense he means, developing the formal sciences of logic, philosophy, mathematics, and rhetoric). Nevertheless, the scientific method was first formally described centuries later by [[Francis Bacon]]. Certainly most of the early scientists of the Renaissance were Christian (i.e., [[Galileo]] and [[Newton]]). However, the church was often openly hostile to scientific inquiry and on guard for potential [[heresy]]. While not always openly hostile to science, the both the Catholic and Protestant churches were quick to attempt to silence anything that appeared to contradict Biblical history, as in the cases of [[Galileo]] and [[Charles Darwin]]). The Vatican Observatory didn't come into existence until 1891, and not for scientific inquiry but to establish a better calendar to determine the time to celebrate religious events.

Finally, another fallacy is the conflation of necessary, sufficient, and contributing causes. A good case can be made that scientific thinking was actually the byproduct of early pagan theology (Persuasively argued in David Sedley, ''Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity'' (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007)). But even if so, no one would conclude from this that paganism was required. Many aspects of pagan religion could contribute to the rise of science, but it does not follow that only paganism can have these attributes. It is not even certain they are all required. It may have provided values that helped science develop, which science could still have developed without, or that other worldviews could have encouraged just as well.

Certain Christians, such as D'Souza in his book ''What is So Great About Christianity'', claims before science came into the picture, the dominantly held belief was [[animism]]: the idea that everything had a spirit. After that developed polytheistic beliefs, then eastern beliefs, until the first religion to be based on reason: Christianity. D'Souza says that Judaism and Islam were religions of law whereas Christianity is a religion of creed. Here, D'Souza claims that Christianity is the only religion built on reason and there are no theologians in the history of any other religion. But as just explained earlier, reason was invented by the ancient Greeks -who were pagans! So, D'souza is essentially arguing that Christianity is based on paganism. And any attentive reader of the Bible knows Christianity was from the beginning based on scripture, inspiration, and revelation, not "reason"(On the original epistemology of Christianity: Richard Carrier, ''Not the Impossible Faith: Why Christianity Didn't Need a Miracle to Succeed'' (Raleigh, NC: Lulu, 2009): pg. 329-68, 385-406). To see what a religion actually based on reason looks like, just look at the formal theologies of the Greco-Roman philosophers. Yes, the pagans invented theology too.(Theology as a rational science in antiquity: Aristotle, ''Metaphysics'' 6.1 1026a); Sextus Empiricus, ''Against the Professors'' 9.12-194 (= Against the Physicists 1.12-194 = Against the Dogmatists 3.12-194); and John Dillon, ''Alcinous: The Handbook of Platonism'' (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993): pg. 57-60, 86-89.)

===No Science in Antiquity?===
Rodney Stark does not stop there. "Greek learning stagnated of its own inner logic. After Plato and Aristotle, ''very little happened beyond some extensions of geometry.''" (Stark, ''Victory of Reason'', pg. 20)

For the record, Rodney Stark is a sociologist, not a historian of any sort, and he makes a very lousy historian. Stark's entire argument rests on the above sentence. However, if he had done any scholarly work (as a scholar is obliged to do) he would quickly learn that his key premise is utter rubbish. The truth is that the Greeks and Romans achieved tremendous and continual advances in science and mathematics after Aristotle. Here are a few examples,

*Aristotle performed numerous dissection and vivisection experiments in animal anatomy and physiology - composing the most scientific range of zoological works then known.
*His successor, Theophrastus, extended this work to botany and plant physiology, and the first person to produce the first known works in pyrology, mineralogy, and other fields.
*His successor, Strato of Lamsacus, extended their experimental method to machines and physics - by which many of Aristotle's physical theories had been altered or abandoned.
*A research institute was built in Alexandria, Egypt in the third century BCE, in which Ctesibius and Philo completed the first known scientific works in experimental pneumatics.
*Eratosthenes invented the science of cartography and was one of the first scientist in history to measure the diameter of the earth (he was off by 15% - not bad), and he analyzed the effect of the moon on the tides.
([[Tides come in, tides go out. You can't explain that.]] Bill O'Reilly needed to know this was explained in the third century BCE and was sadly out of date.)
*Herophilus became the first scientist to dissect human cadavers. Also, he and his pupil Erasistrus originated neurophysiology, establishing with detailed experiments that the mind is a function of the brain and the specific mental functions were controlled in specific areas of the brain, and they distinguished motor from sensory nerves and mapped them throughout the body. Altogether. their study of the human body and its bones, muscles, and organs, was so thorough that we still use much of their anatomical terminology.
*In Sicily, their colleague Archimedes was advancing sciences of mechanics and hydrostatics, and discovering, describing, or explaining the first mathematical laws of physics.
*Aristarchus began measuring the distances of the moon, sun and planets, and proposed the first heliocentric theory.
*In Rhodes, Hipparchus discovered and measured celestial precession, observed the first supernova, established the first detailed scientific star charts, made numerous advances in planetary theory, and developed the first scientific system for predicting lunar and solar eclipses.
*Seleucus of Babylon discovered the effect of the sun on the tides (not just the moon), developed the first mathematical lunisolar tide theory.

During the Roman Empire, science reached its pinnacle of achievement, producing works not exceeded until the Scientific Revolution. Just to name a few,
*Dioscorides in botany, mineralogy, and pharmacology
*Hero in mathematics, pneumatics, and theatrical robotics
*Ptolemy in astronomy, cartography, optics, and harmonics
*Galen in anatomy, physiology, and medicine

Many of the scientific discoveries refuted or replaced many of the Aristotle's ideas. Example, by the Roman period, Aristotle's conclusion that comets were an atmospheric phenomenon lost ground when Hipparchus developed an increasingly correct theory of projectile motion and refuted Aristotle's belief that the heavens never change. Also, Herophilus had refuted the Aristotelian theory that the soul resided in the heart, with precise experiments proving all thought and sensation occurred in the brain - a conclusion reinforced by Galen, who showed that the brain controlled human speech.

==Christianity and Science go hand to hand==
A likely follow up argument is that Christianity and science are harmonious and complementary. This is often done by quoting a selected few verses from the Bible that seem scientific (and thus claiming that Christians knew of the scientific fact before it was discovered) or saying that religion and science are not in conflict with each other (while pointing out a few instances when religion ''promoted'' science advancement).

[[Bill Donohue]], the President of the Catholic League, said "It was the Catholic Church that created the first universities, and it was the Catholic Church that played a central role in the Scientific Revolution."[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2534633/posts]

===Counter Arguments===
The claim that Christianity and science are complimentary towards each other are easily refuted by the slightest knowledge in history, or awareness in today's society.

* Every religion that proposes supernatural causes for actual events.
* The Roman Catholic Church's treatment of Copernicus and Galileo.
* The opposition to Darwin's theory of evolution by fundamentalists among his contemporaries, and on down to modern times to promoting pseudoscience like [[intelligent design]]. This denial of science goes beyond biology, but to also geology, paleontology, and even astronomy that all point to a old earth.
* The denial of global warming based on the belief that God will not flood the earth again.
* Modern opposition to stem cell research by fundamentalists (mostly in the US).
* And the opposition to neuroscientific evidence that points to the fact a soul does not exist.

As for Christianity occasionally promoting science, one must understand that often times various branches adapt to the growing knowledge of science. For example, at one point Christianity did not accept that the sun was the center of our galaxy. When the evidence was overwhelming, dogma had to change. In the same sense, many Christian churches (like the Roman Catholic Church) had to accept the theory of evolution. The claim that Christianity promoted naturalistic thinking at one point, while Christianity also suppressed certain scientific fields, does not point to the conclusion that Christianity and science go hand to hand. All it points to is that religion is very selective when it comes to promoting their dogma.

{{Christianity}}

[[Category:Christianity|*]]
[[Category:Religions]]

Are you a good person?

2011-11-22T21:51:08Z

Feredir28: /* Apologetics */

In discussing the necessity of accepting [[God]] and/or [[Jesus]], [[apologist]]s will often pose the question, "'''Are you a good person?'''" The idea is to sow the seeds of doubt in the listener's mind by using the [[Ten Commandments]] and play on the fear of eternal damnation to make belief in God more attractive. This is one of many cases where [[Religion provides hope#Religion also provides fear|Religion causes fear]] more clearly than hope.

See also [[Pascal's Wager]].

Any admission of imperfection is regarded as equal: stealing a piece of candy as a child is equivalent to robbing a bank, as they are both "[[sin]]".

==Apologetics==

One version of the argument, as used by [[Ray Comfort]] for example, goes something like this:
* '''Apologist:''' Do you think you are a good person?
** '''Unbeliever:''' (Does not matter whether they answer yes or no or anything in-between, or even point out the errors in the question or present their own views on how to identify a good/bad person)
* '''Apologist:''' Well, let's find out if you are a good person. Have you ever told a lie?
** '''Unbeliever:''' Well yes, everybody has at some point...
* '''Ap:''' What are you called if you tell a lie?
** '''Un:''' A liar.
* '''Ap:''' Have you ever stolen anything, regardless of its value?
** '''Un:''' A little thing when I was young.
* '''Ap:''' What do you call a person who steals?
** '''Un:''' A thief.
* '''Ap:''' Jesus said that anybody who looked at a women in lust is guilty of adultery in his heart. Have you ever looked at a woman with lust?
** '''Un:''' Well, yeah.
* '''Ap:''' Have you ever used God's name in vain?
** '''Un:''' Yes.
* '''Ap:''' You've taken the name of the God who gave you life as a cuss word? Have you said things like "OMG" or "God dammit"? That's called blasphemy.
* '''Ap:''' So, by your own admission, you are a lying, thieving, adulterous, blasphemer, and when [[Jesus]] comes again on judgment day, how do you think he's going to treat you? Would you go to heaven or hell?
* '''Ap:''' Now imagine you are in a court standing before the judge. You plead with the judge to have mercy and you point out that you have done many good things in your life, but since he is a righteous judge and you have violated the law, he must punish you. You are found guilty, but then suddenly a man you do not know walks in, approaches the judge and pays your fine. That is what Jesus Christ did for you. He died on the cross, and paid the fine for your sins.

The Apologist may follow up by using the [[parachute analogy]].

The apologist's goal of the "Have you ever told a lie?" question of this argument is to get the person to call themselves a liar. Should the mark not answer "liar" when the apologist asks the mark "What does that make you?", perhaps answering with "human", or "normal", etc., the apologist will counter with "If I told many lies, what would you call me?", and this usually draws out the word "liar" from the mark.

The lying part is supposedly connected to the 9th commandment; thou shalt not bear false witness. It should also be noted that [[Ray Comfort]] has no problem with lying should it suit his purposes. He has 'born false witness' against evolution and atheism on countless occasions knowing that what he was saying to be false.

As it turns out, [[Ray Comfort]] wrote on his blog that it is wrong to lie or steal EXCEPT in the cases such as lying to your grandma that her hat looks nice or stealing a loaf of bread to feed your eight starving children[http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2011/04/atheism-and-intellect.html]. So it appears, when asking a lay person if they have ever told a lie, it seems to Ray that some lies are justified. However, he never includes this little detail in his street evangelism, rather making it appear that lying in general is absolutely immoral, and thus Ray labels the person a "liar" or "thief."

==Counter-apologetics==

If you reverse this argument, you could equally well ask: Have you ever done something nice for a person? Then you are a good person. Everything everyone says can be considered good or bad by someone, so by this logic everyone is bad. For instance, I consider that by making all his emotion-based arguments, Ray Comfort is doing something bad. It then follows, by that logic, that Ray is a bad person.

This question could also be re-written as "Are you a good Jew?" since the [[Ten Commandments]] were given by God to the Jews - the Chosen People. These laws were not instructed for the Canaanites and such, only the Jews. Imagine if the same question was asked in the same manner, but rather than using the Ten Commandments as a criteria, instead use the 5 Pillars of Islam or the Eightfold Path of Buddhism. Of course the first objection would be that a religious bias is set up to examine a person if they follow the provided guidelines to impress said faith ("are you a good Muslim?" or "are you a good Buddhist?") However, none of these are actually attempting to discover if you really are an actual good person in the sense of the word. Rather, they are asking if you are worthy for the reward offered by said religion (in a sort of in-or-out fashion), not are you good in general.

To discover if a person is really good, the best criteria to use should be divorced from religion, and based more on secular humanitarian values. These values understand that humans are humans, which means they are all different and are all capable of experiencing many feelings, emotions, and actions. If good is based on morality, then morality by any definition is the reduction of harm and suffering. We do not harm children for drawing on walls, because they have no capacity to grasp the reasons for not doing this. We do not wish to harm others, but often a person can find themselves in a bad situation. For instance, we harm people out of self-defense, and not all Christians are pacifists.

Determining if a person is "good" or not cannot be done by religious criteria. Ray Comfort's method of using the [[Ten Commandments]] is no more effective than using the 5 Pillars of Islam, especially because the books they come from list situations when it is okay to break them, such as "thou shalt not kill" from the ten commandments of the bible being null and void when it comes to atheists, stoning rebellious children, witches, wizards, and pretty much every second non-Jew in the old testament. To be good is to be moral, and if morality means anything, it is minimizing suffering and doing no harm. Hitler may have been a nice guy to those closest to him, but his overall impact on society heavily makes him pure evil.

A second objection to this fallacious question (which was already pointed about above) is which of the Ten commandments is this criteria based on? If you read the IronChariots article on the [[Ten Commandments]], you will see that there are multiple different versions of the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments used as a criteria in this question were not written on stones, were not called the "Ten Commandments" nor are they the original. Does Ray Comfort go about asking people "Have you followed the 40-60 Judgments?" rather than "Have you kept the Commandments?" Just saying "Commandments" is very vague (although Comfort says he follows the traditional commandments) but the Greek and Hebrew word for "commandment" is word - and God gave 40-60 "words" in Exodus 21 to Exodus 23. Another note, there are 613 laws that God commanded the Jews to keep, does Ray (who says he is Jewish) follow any of those?

It is well known that the Bible is not a great source for determining whether a person is good or not. At one point, genuine Christians believed they were good people who followed their divine duty to kill Native Americans, witches and gays (and they do so to this day). In this sense, religion is used to dehumanize others (even to the point of demonic) thus eroding empathy and diminishing compassion and the guilt felt when abusing them. History clearly testifies about the horrors religion can enable. Even on smaller scales, religion enables parents to beat their children for simply misbehaving. At one point, you were a bad person if you were a male with long hair. You were wicked if you were suspected of practicing magic, but this stance disappeared when education and science revealed that this suspicion was without merit and thus was a false accusation.

There are many instances in the Ten Commandments that causes no identifiable harm, such as no work on the Sabbath. If the Bible declared ''"Smiling on a Tuesday was immoral and it was immoral to break this law"'', we would laugh at such a law because it does not cause harm and thus has no valid ground for declaring it immoral. If this was how morality worked, then any trivia (talking on a Friday, wearing lime-green, hopping on one foot for one yard, blinking one eye at a time) could be made immoral. We do not base morality from revelation from authority, that would render us merely obedient. Moral behavior is doing what is right, not what we are told (unless what we are told is also right). This is why when asking "why is X immoral", appealing to scripture or a divine figure gets us nowhere. There must be valid independent reasons to define what is moral, right or wrong, good or bad.

Science (the tools that help us discern what is true or false) can provide a larger contribution to moral development because it relies on reasoned logic and evidence. Empathy and experience (how our actions affect others) are human sources independent of religion that can help us determine how to be a good person. Religion needs these scientific moral progresses, but science does not need religion.

===Are Christians "good"?===
This section is not to declare that all Christians are not good, since there are plenty of Christians who live good lives. Rather, Christians and theist apologists may argue and declare that they are "good" because they follow the moral compass as their deity. Neurological advances are pulling back the curtain in religious moral thought. In a revealing study by Nicholas Eply (Eply, N. et al 2009, "Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 106), Christian volunteers were asked to report their own views, the views of their deity, and the views of others on a range of controversial issues (such as legal euthanasia) while having their brain activity scanned. Results show that thinking about divine views activated the same brain regions as thinking about their own views, indicating that when believing themselves to be consulting the divine moral compass, theists may instead be doing is doing what the rest of us do: searching their own conscience.

As noted earlier, simply following the demands of a divine being does not reveal a person as good, rather simply obedient. This brings up the problem of the [[divine command theory]], that if a theist's deity declared that genocide was morally right, then the theist must accept it regardless. If they do not, this reveals that the theist already follows their own moral compass despite the demands of an authoritative figure.

The God of the Bible commanded numerous atrocities such as familial cannibalism. Theists often say God is mysterious and beyond our understanding, but even still they believe God is just. If a human did commit familial cannibalism, we would immediately consider it depraved and immoral. This shows that God is not the source of our morality, and claiming God is just is a direct conflict, and invoking divine mystery does nothing to result that conflict. Responding to these atrocities with biblical examples of mercy is not helpful either, it just shows the Bible contains both mercy and atrocity. Hitler forgave people close to him and showed mercy, but that does not cancel out the immoral monster he was. Emphasizing the New Testament over the Old does not help either, given the numerous times when Jesus endorsed certain atrocities (such as Mt. 15:1-6).

Bottom line, using the Ten Commandments, Scripture, or personal views of a certain deity does not help in the slightest in determining whether or not a person is good or not - and as history reveals, it often leads people away from good behavior. The best way for us to determine and achieve goodness is secular humanitarian values and promoting education and understanding. Morality develops over time through experience and education, and yet the Bible's unjust teachings have not changed for centuries. The ancients did not know better, we do. It is not a virtue that religious dogma does not change, it is the utmost failing. Moral systems that cannot develop in responses to our greater understanding cannot edify, they ossify.

==More Counter-Apologetics==
Here are several reasons why this argument ad line of thinking fails;

* Another, substantially different set of rules is explicitly labeled as "the [[Ten Commandments]]" in {{bible|Exodus 34:12-26}}. None of them say anything about lying, thievery, adultery, and such. God does not refer to the rules in Exodus 20 as the "Ten Commandments" nor did he write them down in stone. Apologists dishonestly [[cherry picking|cherry-pick]] which version of the Commandments to fit their agenda without providing proper information.
* Have you ever told the truth in your life? Yes? Then you're a truth-teller. God loves truth-tellers... Have you ever told a lie? You have? Wow, you really are honest!
* Being imperfect isn't the same as being [[evil]].
* The Commandment "Thou shall not lie" '''is not there. Period.''' Thou shall not lie is completely incorrect. The correct Commandment is that "thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor." That is, you shall not produce false testimony against your neighbor. Bearing false witness actually has to do with property and dealing in the courts, not just simply lying about someone else. Read [[9th commandment|the IronChariots article on the Ninth Commandment]] to see why lying is not forbidden, as well as a list of several examples of liars in the Bible who were rewarded by God or were not being punished at all.
** While Revelations 21:8 condemns liars, it is not a Commandment. It is therefore irrelevant to Ray's above argument.
* Bearing false witness against your neighbor is a misinterpretation of the [[9th commandment]]. Most ancient systems of justice were "guilty until proven innocent". After an accusation was made, one would be asked to prove his or her innocence or be punished for the presumed act. If a person could prove their innocence, their accuser would be guilty of false witness and might be put to death. The act of accusing a person of a crime was a more serious one in the past than it is today with our "innocent until proven guilty" standard; the closest analogy would be filing a false police report, rather than simply lying.
* Taking the Lord's name in vain to mean cursing is a mistranslation of the [[3rd commandment]]. The more proper translation (seen in many better translations) is takes the name of God in a false oath, or in a vain oath. It is a prohibition against swearing to God falsely, effectively turning the third commandment into grounds on which a trustworthy contract could be made. It is not simply cursing or shouting "Oh my God" or, as Ray Comfort suggests, even using euphemisms such as "oh my goodness" or "oh my gosh."
* ''I once stole some candy as a kid.'' "What do you call someone who steals?" ''A thief.'' Actually, in Christian doctrine called Age of Accountability. It is not explicit in the Bible, but it is implicit and explains even though a child is born in sin, they really cannot be held accountable for their sin. Nice try Ray.
* In the book of Genesis, Jacob steals from his brother, lies to his father, and is continually rewarded by god.
* Jesus himself is fine with stealing. In Mark 11:2-4, Matt 21:2-3, and Luke 19:30-31, Jesus instructs two of his disciples to go into a village (perhaps Bethany) and locate a colt tied up near the entrance, and to return with it. If someone stopped them they were to explain that the Lord had need of it. Otherwise, they were simply to steal the colt without paying for it or obtaining permission. Thus, Jesus would be guilty of thievery.
* "Adultery" in the Bible did not depend on the man's marital status, but the woman's. Bloodline was reckoned through the male. "To adulterate" means to introduce a foreign substance into something, thus adultery meant corrupting another man's bloodline by having sex with another man's wife.
* Looking at a woman in lust is a thought crime. Lust isn't a conscious action, and one is to be punished for human nature.
* All humans perform acts in their lifetimes that could be described as bad, good and every shade of gray in between. The truth is, one action does not define an individual's entire character. Furthermore, this act of "spot judgment" is the very thing the [[Bible]] prohibits [[Christian]]s from doing to others in {{bible|Matthew 7:1-5}}, {{bible|Mark 4:24}} and {{bible|Luke 6:37-42}}.
* The argument relies on drawing an equivalence between minor imperfections and grave crimes: shoplifting a piece of candy from a store when one was a child is equivalent to robbing a bank as an adult. Because the crime (sin) is against an infinite God, it demands an infinite punishment, regardless of the severity.
* The words "liar", "thief", etc. apply to those who lie or steal habitually or more than average, or in reference to a specific instance that negatively affected the speaker. To apply the word "liar" to all who have ever lied would not only render the word meaningless, but is a dishonest use of words.
* The biblical God is also guilty of lying (told Abraham that he had to kill Issac, made it appear that Lazarus was dead, etc.), stealing (at least by proxy... See pretty much all of the Book of Joshua), adultery (um... Mary anyone? anyone?) and even murder (everybody really, but of course specifically Canaanites, Amorites, et.al.). Pretty tough for a "Just Judge" to sentence someone to eternal punishment for sins he himself is guilty of... right?
* The argument is a poor one to use on [[atheist]]s since they don't believe that any gods exist and so don't give the opinions and judgments of purported gods any weight at all.
* An honest person would not answer if he or she was a "good person" as it is an subjective opinion. It would be similar to asking, "Are you a handsome person?" or "Are you an intelligent person?"
* "What are you called if you tell a lie?" "Well, since everybody lies at some point, I suppose I would be called a human being."
* "Have you ever looked at a woman with lust?" Think about what this commandment is saying: "God has to punish you because the sex drive ''He'' put in you is working properly", which makes absolutely no logical sense. Another rebuttal could be: "Of course I did. If I didn't, I wouldn't have wanted to marry her. How long would the human race survive if people didn't want have sex with each other?"
* Given the choice between a certain death by plane crash and using a parachute that might save one's life, the rational decision would be to use the parachute. What one believes about the parachute is irrelevant. If someone did not know what a parachute was, then they wouldn't believe it would be useful. Knowledge is always superior to blind faith.
* A country in which a person was tortured for the rest of their life for a single lie or a thought-crime would be considered absolutely barbaric. A God who uses this sort of penal system is just as barbaric, yet the believers twist their logic and their sense of morality to assume that he is perfect and therefore so is his system. They might argue that he must punish us because he is so perfect and he can't stand one sin. But this makes no sense. A grownup is more civilized than a child, and this doesn't give him reason to punish children more severely. If your teacher is a mathematical genius, that's no reason for her to give you stricter marks than if she was just an average teacher.
* Brainwashing works by first lowering a person's self-esteem, and then raising them back up. Which is what is done here: make the unbeliever feel guilty and small, then bring out the good news of how Jesus will forgive him anyway. Some sects can use similar tactics to lure unsuspecting people in: Give them a personality test, the results of which supposedly show how completely messed up the person is, then say "Fortunately, we can help you."
* Often, people who use this mantra are basing this on the idea that God will judge one based on the ten commandments. Yet they never ask: "Have you ever worked on a Sunday?" Most likely, few of them would consider the latter immoral.
* "Was there any time you ever doubted your faith?" "Yes, of course." "That makes you an atheist."

==See also==
* [[Morality]]
* [[Secular morality]]

==External links==
* [http://www.christiananswers.net/gospel/goodperson.html An essay by Ray Comfort] advancing the argument
* [http://www.areyouagoodperson.org/ Interactive quiz] based on this argument

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Morality]]
[[Category:Ray Comfort]]

User:Feredir28

2011-11-17T17:11:06Z

Feredir28: /* My Work */

==About me==
For some unknown reason was unable to log into the discussion forum to properly introduce myself (perhaps someone up there is screwing with me... JK), so I will leave short introduction on here.

I am an atheist. I was "born again" at age seven, but discarded by faith around age 18. I came to the conclusion that christianity was false and convinced that religion is harmful. I am pro-science and a secularist. I am also a Jesus Mythicist, I am a history major and have looked for four to five years for evidence for Jesus but have not found anything. I have been very open about my atheism and speak out whenever I can, either on the internet or in public. I have been a long time fan of the Atheist Experience, and I deeply appreciate their work. I wish I had a similar job as they do, nothing would make me happier to help the rational cause.

I found this site through watching the Atheist Experience and I have loved it since. I am experienced on RationalWiki, I have created a few articles there contributing to reason and rational thought. I look forward to being a big help here on Iron Chariots as much as I can.

==My Work==
On Iron Chariots, as well as RationalWiki, I have developed a reputation as being a bookworm. I seem to have been building a reputation as the guy who reviews tons of books. That is fine with me, as a history major I spend a great deal of time in libraries. Yes, I review books containing [[pseudoscience]] or creationism and refute the @&%$ out of them. I am also know to be passively active against [[Ray Comfort]] and [[Way of the Master]], but I also keep an eye on other creatards (such as [[Lee Strobel]]).

I tend to focus on Ray Comfort more on IronChariots than on RationalWiki. Perhaps that is because IronChariots allows me to watch and critique the Way of the Master shows. I have critiqued all the ones done so far (except for episodes: Evolution, Atheism, Satanism, and Firefighter). It is a lot of work, and I enjoy doing it. However, I would ask for a bit of help - feel free to start a critique of any of the untouched episodes.

'''Articles I created'''
*[[Atheists know there is a God]] - I gave my best response, but I'm sure more can be added.
*[[Christianity invented science]] - I thought this new growing delusion had to be settled.
*[[Christianity invented secularism]] - This is a smaller delusion, but just as ridiculous.
*Every review/critique of the [[Way of the Master]] episodes except 1) Atheism 2) Satanism 3) Evolution and 4) Firefighter (so that makes about 22 reviews/critiques in total, and more to come)

User talk:Proxima Centauri

2011-11-15T20:30:12Z

Feredir28: /* Proposal for Ray Comfort articles */

I’m lonely here as nobody has spoken to me yet. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 03:03, 24 July 2009 (CDT)
:Awww. There, there. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 11:46, 31 July 2009 (CDT)
::<irony>Thanks for being so understanding. </irony> [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 01:04, 1 August 2009 (CDT)
:Glad to see there are some folks who actually use the chat functions on these wiki pages. I mostly just edit, but I guess I'll have to check them. Off hand, you wouldn't happen to know if there's any way to encode formal logic on this page, would you? The standard wiki form doesn't work. - JStein (8:49, 9/13/2011)

I see you started a WOTM program review. *Big hugs* I have made multiple requests for help on RW, YouTube, and [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Trolling_With_Logic TWL]. You are the first person to give a helping hand. Thanks mate, I really appreciate it. [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 15:25, 6 October 2011 (CDT)

==Multiverse==
Any chance that we could not use the '''Multiverse''' "theory" here? It's currently an untestable claim that has no evidence to support it, not a scientific theory. I certainly agree that it's ''possible'', but until we have a way of detecting other universes, it's an irrational claim and not suitable for use in counter-apologetics. [[User:Jdog|Jdog]] 09:36, 7 October 2011 (CDT)

:[http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam&curid=2213&diff=18138&oldid=18111&rcid=17057 I think the mustiverse theory prevents God being proved]. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 11:10, 7 October 2011 (CDT)

::It does no such thing. The multiverse ''concept'' (please provide scientific evidence for the claim or stop calling it a theory) simply moves the problem up one level; a theist just has to claim that "God caused the multiverse to exist" and you're back where you started, plus you've added another unprovable claim to the mix. If anything, the concept of parallel universes could potentially be used to explain the conflicts between omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence. [[User:Jdog|Jdog]] 20:54, 7 October 2011 (CDT)

I’ve taken it out as the issue is not worth so much trouble and I risk getting behind with refuting [[Ray Comfort]]. In my opinion the [[wikipedia:Multiverse|Muliverse]] is valid against [[Kalam]] because Kalam explicitly states, “Everything that '''starts to exist''' needs a cause and the Multiverse didn’t necessarily , '''start to exist'''. I agree the Multiverse does not work against general first cause arguments. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 02:35, 8 October 2011 (CDT)

==Ray Comfort==
Ray Comfort is, as they say on the Non-Prophets, an ASSHAT (anyone playing the Non-Prophets drinking game?). Pretend i said all this in an Australian pirate accent so it counts as six drinks if you are. Anyway, lets all unite against creationist asshats. I'm just doing some minor editing, correcting some spelling mistakes, maybe adding a sentence or two when needed. Does anyone else visit this site, or are the fundie asshats trying to get rid of us?
SOMEONE TELL ME HOW TO USE THE CHAT, i just did this by clicking edit on your page, then inserted my username how everyone else's was. [[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]] 0334, 30 October 2011 (CDT)

You can find out how active the site is by [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges Clicking this link], alternatively you can click Recent changes 3 lines below the picture of the chariot and horses near the top left hand side of the page. To talk a user you click on the icon saying, “Discussion” in the top left of the Userpage and to talk about an article you click on the icon saying, “Discussion” in the top left of the article.

This is an atheist website and Christians can’t stop us being ungodly here, see [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Neutral point of view]]. [[User:Feredir28|Feredir28]] has been working very hard helping refute [[Ray Comfort]] as have others. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 07:04, 30 October 2011 (CDT)

Okay, thanks. You're on here too much, all the edits I see are from me, you, and two other people. Kazim and Sans Deity need to start "plugging" this site on the Non-Prophets and the Atheist Experience more, we need more people! [[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]

== Spam/vandalism ==

Lol, when I tried saving one of those marked as spam, I was told you had just deleted it. <impolite>Don't you have a life either?</impolite>

Is there no way we can upgrade the MediaWiki software? The latest version should make user-management, and thus spam-prevention, within easier reach. Sure, it will add some bureaucracy to new user creation, but won't it be worth it?

:You could try asking, [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]], he's the site owner. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 05:24, 8 October 2011 (CDT)

::I see he's probably too busy. Especially as an upgrade, apparently ANY upgrade beyond the current version, would require an upgrade of PHP. Which looks like it would involve the ISP...
::Something tells me that the most effective solution would be to find a new ISP, export and import, and then transfer the domain name to the new site. All of course without stealing the domain from Sans Deity.
::Isn't this interesting? I didn't even know there was a forum. How much more work would that involve?
::I can feel myself giving up here. --[[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 05:53, 9 October 2011 (CDT)
Bother... I think I'll leave you to it. I'll stick to fixing typos... --[[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 02:31, 10 October 2011 (CDT)

::: He's going to get to it after wedding season. Be patient please, no coup is required. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 15:05, 31 October 2011 (CDT)

I think the computer must have delayed before you found out I'd deleted that stuff. While I'm checking regularly I don't need delete templates but if ever I can't check for any reason delete templates will be very useful. Any admin who gets to delete just needs to go to [[:Category:Pages for deletion]] and find a bunch of articles all together ready to delete. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 10:12, 10 October 2011 (CDT)

== Clean up ==

I rolled back some changes and I don't have time to monitor and fix everything. I've been getting complaints about some regulars adding sloppy speculation and changing the site from informative to a personal, sloppy, speculative bitch-slapping of apologists. Dig through your changes....and wherever you've added unfounded accusations, speculations or snide comments - remove them. I'm going to check back after the wedding and if there aren't improvements, I'll be locking the site down, upgrading it and changing policies and permissions. This isn't a place to talk shit about apologists or post things that might cause unnecessary problems. You CANNOT simply toss around accusations about financial motivations - that leads to legal problems, and I'd prefer if people didn't post sloppy arguments. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 01:22, 15 October 2011 (CDT)

:First, my thanks to Proxima about AtheistWiki, but before we go there mate, we have work to do. I will go through all my material on Ray Comfort - that includes the programs, books, and main page. Nobody here meant harm, but we will not be divide over this issue and continue to work together. [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 13:03, 15 October 2011 (CDT)

I haven’t got time to go through your edits and I’m going to bed soon, I’ve had an infection recently. On this wiki are writers who’ve done really good hard hitting stuff about the [[Problem of evil]] and other difficult topics. '''Please write nothing here that could offend those writers or which those writers may not like.''' You can write snark and offensive stuff at RationalWiki or [http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Atheism Wiki], '''just don’t break any libel laws'''. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 13:42, 15 October 2011 (CDT)
*:I appreciate the fixes. Please take a moment to check out the newly added "types of pages" section under [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Editing guidelines]] for a little more guidance in how pages ought to look. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 18:16, 15 October 2011 (CDT)

== Atheist groups in ... ==

I suggest merging all those '''[[Special:Deadendpages|Atheist groups in some-country-or-state]]''' pages into one '''List of atheist groups''' page, organised, naturally, by continent, country and state. The current state of myriad miniature "articles" seems... silly.

May I? [[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 07:02, 18 October 2011 (CDT)

Please ask [[User:Kazim|Kazim]] or [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]], both know more about this wiki than I do. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 09:36, 18 October 2011 (CDT)

:Yes please. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 15:04, 31 October 2011 (CDT)

==Praise and Glory to the FSM!==
What do you think of the edit I did on the page about the FSM? We need a [[War on Christmas]] page, but I'm going to sleep, its 3 Am(pacific time)[[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]

I like it but what the established administrators like counts for more here than what I like. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 06:17, 7 November 2011 (CST)

PLEASE CHECK MY NEW PAGE ON RICK PERRY. It needs more info, linked to my sources in the page, sorry i dont have time to look at my sources more and post more info, it is DAMNED important this gets up and running, as it might prevent another crazy religious president like Bush. One was enough. [[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]

I have no problem about the article on [[Rick Perry]] but please check with [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] as he is the site owner. I suggest writing mainly material demonstrating that Perry’s position on religion is irrational as this wiki is primarily about countering irrational religion. I suggest checking the sources in the RationalWiki article for information but here you should write respectfully. Googling [http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=rick%20perry%2Breligious%20nut&pbx=1&oq=&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=2f9736ba80af0173&biw=1198&bih=541&pf=p&pdl=3000 rick perry+religious nut] will get you information that will sometimes need rewriting respectfully. Googling [http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=rick+perry%2Breligious%2Birrational&pbx=1&oq=rick+perry%2Breligious%2Birrational&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=44304l47432l0l50604l11l11l0l0l0l0l178l1412l3.8l11l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=2f9736ba80af0173&biw=1198&bih=541 rick perry+religious+irrational] will get information that won’t need rewording respectfully so often. I also suggest that you look for websites where political material is expected.

I’m from the UK and I don’t fully understand American politics, I personally fear Mitt Romney because he stands the biggest chance of defeating Obama as far as I know. [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney Mitt Romney] flip flops so much nobody knows what he would do as president. RationalWiki accepts articles about all relevant issues over the [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/2012_U.S._Presidential_Election 2012 U.S. Presidential Election] and has articles about most of the [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/2012_U.S._Presidential_Election#Republican_Party possible Republican runners], you can register there and add to articles or write new ones but not all the editors are polite or well behaved. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 02:22, 9 November 2011 (CST)

I'm from Canada (different time zones suck) and i dont think if i put the bit about the N.A.R. by itself it would really do anything......however, if it is linked to rick perry, then people will notice (hopefully....). i know sans deity is the site owner, i joined this site because i heard about it from some old episodes of the non prophets. My source is legitimate, as it is from national public radio, and it seems unbiased. i dunno, just put it up there because it seems to have some relevance to me.what's your personal opinion of those N.A.R. folks?
anyways, let me know if you need help deleting spam, i have some free time on my hands. Right now, i think this website is a damn good reference, dont you agree? [[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]

I don't need help deleting spam as only administrators can delete. I don't know much about the N.A.R. Do you mean the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Apostolic_Reformation New Apostolic Reformation]? I know no more about them than what's in the Wikipedia article. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 03:22, 9 November 2011 (CST)

Yes, thats what i meant, the youtube video i linked is part of a series by that user that goes into detail about their beliefs (the npr article i posted,[http://www.npr.org/2011/08/24/139781021/the-evangelicals-engaged-in-spiritual-warfare Link] was great too, but less in detail and colorful, as well as being worth less laughs) , and how bat shit crazy they are. for the love of spaghetti, they think oprah is the freakin antichrist! they should cover that crap on the [[Non-Prophets]], it would get so many laughs! i mean, they are the new spanish inquisition without the torture and censorship (at the moment), and they are trying to gain popularity? thats like another hitler staging rock concerts![[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]

So, whats religion like in the U.K.?[[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]

We have some street corner evangelists but most people in Britain are apathetic about religion or skeptical. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 02:07, 11 November 2011 (CST)

Just like here. I know two and only two christian people under 20. ahhh religion, die already.
Been lotsa spam lately huh?
[[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]

I fear the spam will continue till one of the top administrators gets as [[Wikipedia:CAPTCHA|CAPTCHA]]. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 01:11, 13 November 2011 (CST)

Meh, it just shows how morally "superior" theists are.[[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]

== Proposal for Ray Comfort articles ==

Hi Proxima,

I'd like to make a modest proposal regarding the large amount of work you've done on all of Ray Comfort's works. I'm still having the feeling that you're seeing Iron Chariots as a private sandbox to go after Comfort's entire body of work, and the articles you're generating are coming in too fast for anybody to review them, or perhaps even read them. They don't seem to be strongly cohesive integrated with the rest of the site, the main focus of which is to be a resource for specific arguments with organized responses. However, here's my alternate suggestion.

A more focused website that is centered around your special interest in Ray would probably be a very useful and more appropriate resource. Call it whatever you want, make it as polemic and opinionated as you want. Make it the official "I Hate Ray Comfort" site if you like. Heck, "ihateraycomfort.com" is available, and I'm sure you could come up with other variations that suit your intentions. You seem like somebody who knows how to set up a website, but if not I'd be happy to recommend resources for getting started, and if necessary, help migrate those articles to HTML pages.

I'd be more than happy to have one main article about Ray Comfort which, in addition to providing short explanations and links to his common arguments, also links to your site. You could include a paragraph-long blurb in the links section saying how thorough and extensive it is, and you would have full creative control over it without my (I'm sure) annoying meddling.

What do you say? --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 08:41, 15 November 2011 (CST)

:Plus, you'd avoid my criticism when I actually do read one or two of the RC articles here. Thanks for removing the gay stereotyping from the "convert your family!" WotM episode review, though. [[User:Jdog|Jdog]] 10:32, 15 November 2011 (CST)

Feredir did most of the work, I don't want to remove what he wrote. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 12:03, 15 November 2011 (CST)
:Maybe you could start something jointly? --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 12:26, 15 November 2011 (CST)

Thank you for inviting me to this discussion. My thoughts on Kazim's idea are mixed. When I first arrived on IronChariots, I was aware that it was used to confront specific theistic arguments, but when I saw that IC had only 4 review/critiques of Ray's programs and barely a paragraph for one of his books, I thought perhaps there was a little more to IC. At the time, I thought the least I could do was muster some time and man-power to expand IC operations. Now, while I am sure my time and hard work is much appreciated, the thought of having a website is intriguing but an unsure feeling keeps creeping around me.

Proxima, would it be more suiting if we moved all our work (both yours and mine) to Atheism.wiki or would an independent website created by the both of us be more suiting? If the conclusion would be a website, the next difficult part is to make something "uniqueness" I guess. Several rationalist websites confront Ray Comfort (such as forums like WeAreSMRT and the Rational Response Squad) but none of them give a "walk through" of Ray's materials, pointing out and documenting every flaw in Ray's material. For my own two cents: if I had my own website confronting creationists, it would not focus entirely on Ray Comfort. But before I go any further into that, we must first decide if a website would be the best option, and if it would be the case, I would do what I can to contribute. If not, we will work things out. What say you? [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 13:22, 15 November 2011 (CST)
:It seems that Proxima has already moved a lot of the material I always wished to preserve the most to Atheism.wikia, for which I am most grateful (and soon I will be a user to contribute more). The question of the website still remains open, where Proxima and I (and possibly more) can both decide how to format whatever as we see fit. [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 13:35, 15 November 2011 (CST)

For several years [http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Atheism Wiki] has stagnated because I thought working to build up this site and RationalWiki would help the cause more. Recently I decided working more on Atheism Wiki is worthwhile because this wiki caters for intellectuals and RationalWiki is becoming steadily more intellectual. Nobody is catering for less intellectual types like high school students with religious doubts.

This is your website, it’s your choice whether you keep the Way of the Master Series or not. I’m sorry that you want to delete it because Google ranks it very high on the first page. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 14:08, 15 November 2011 (CST)

It’s up to you, Feredir if you want to do your own blog, I’m more experienced with wikis but learning how to do a blog could be interesting. I plan to work hard on refuting Ray Comfort on Atheism Wiki for 3 reasons.
#I already know how to work with wikis.
#Transferring work from one wiki to another is quick and relatively little needs doing to refit the material.
#On a wiki there is always the chance other people with bad experience of Ray Comfort will join the wiki and help us. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 14:17, 15 November 2011 (CST)
:I agree with you Proxima regarding working on a wiki. I too would prefer to work on a wiki since I already know how to do it. I already have my own blog, but I prefer working on wikis like RationalWiki, and info travels faster I think that way since anyone can take the time to contribute and spread the word. I like the sense of teamwork, which is why I helped create [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Trolling_With_Logic TWL] [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 14:30, 15 November 2011 (CST)

User talk:Proxima Centauri

2011-11-15T19:35:10Z

Feredir28: /* Proposal for Ray Comfort articles */

User talk:Proxima Centauri

2011-11-15T19:22:25Z

Feredir28: /* Proposal for Ray Comfort articles */

Morality

2011-11-12T07:40:17Z

Feredir28: /* Absolute and relative morality */

{{wikipedia}}
'''Morality''' refers to the concept of human [[ethics]] which pertains to matters of [[good]] and [[evil]] — also referred to as "right or wrong". Morality is generally discussed within three contexts:
# matters of individual conscience;
# systems of principles and judgments — sometimes called moral values — shared within a cultural, religious, secular, humanist, or philosophical community; and
# codes of behavior or conduct.

'''Theistic morality''' is based on the assumption that there is a [[god]] who has absolute understanding of right and wrong, and orders people to obey rules as a condition for goodness, see [[Christian morality]] for an example. See also [http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y67mor.html Divine Command as the Foundation of Morality]

'''[[Secular morality]]''' is a complex subject and is discussed in a separate article.

==Absolute and relative morality==
Absolute morality postulates that was is moral and what is immoral is unchanging and can be laid down well in advance. Thus it is very popular with religions and their reliance on holy texts to determine moral and ethical guidelines and commandments. Moral relativism (which should under no circumstances be conflated with relativity) on the other hand postulates that morals can be somewhat flexible and develop as education and understanding progresses, and accepts the subjective nature of morality. This acknowledges that cultural differences across different times and different regions may mean that what people consider moral can change. This change, particularly over time, is sometimes known as the moral zeitgeist, from the German "spirit of the times". Hence once slavery was accepted in parts of the western world, it now is not - or at least it has been outsourced to poorer countries and prisons. Moral relativism isn't without criticism as it is viewed as lending justification to clearly immoral acts by effectively saying "well, they do things differently over there".

A formal moral argument put forth for divine existence goes as follows;
*P1) If 'God' does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
*P2) Objective moral values and duties do exist.
*C) Therefore, God exists.

According to [[William Lane Craig]], a proponent of this argument, to say that there are objective moral values (OMVs) is to say that something's good or evil independently if anyone believes it to be so. But if moral values are independent of everyone's evaluation, this leaves you with significant problems. One is if two humans perform an action, one thinking it is evil while the other has no sense of doing evil, what they believe about their behavior is not irrelevant to our moral assessment. If someone is genuinely ignorant of what they do, we do not accept their harmful behavior and we restrain it if possible, but we do not call it "evil." Craig's idea that something is evil regardless if anyone believes so clearly doesn't reflect the way we tend to make moral judgments. The idea of evil is only relevant in proportion to an agent's understanding, which is one reason why we do not judge other animals by human standards. Craig thinks that nonbelievers who see anything special about human morality have "succumb[ed] to the temptation of speciesism." But noting that humans have greater capacity for moral reflection than other species is not 'unjustifiable bias' its a relevant difference. In fact, given Craig's own claim that no moral dimension exists for non-human animals, then the real speciesist would be God. After all, what do we make of a being that has decided only 1 species of the billions on earth are morally accountable, so that the human child killer is evil but the lion who kills other lion's cubs has done nothing wrong.

However, a more basic problem for Craig is that values are the result of evaluation process. Moral values of what we prefer to what we judge morally valuable or important. So to say that they imply "independently" of anyone's evaluation, that somethings have unevaluated value, becomes unintelligible. It also lacks any practical application. We may dismiss things right now which may, given other information, we'd value. But we can't go beyond the range of our own awareness to see how unknown information would alter our values. So to unknown values, if they existed, would only be relevant from the moment of their discovery, at which point it would be far less metaphysical extravagant to simply say then made evaluation than to say we discovered an unknown unevaluated value. It is true that given more information, justifications for certain attitudes and behaviors will be exposed as false. It is true that there could be subjective facts. If you burn your finger, the pain you feel won't be merely a matter of opinion even though it is subjective. It is also true, as John Mackie noted, that given specifically specified standards of morality, it will be an objective issue (a matter of true or falsehood) on how well any particular specimen measures up to those standards. Of course, the choice of standards still wont be objective, but nor will it be completely arbitrary because what we value isn't completely random but highly influenced by the kind of creature we are. So we can agree with Craig when he says "most people think there is an objective difference between torturing a child and caring for it...that these are not morally indifferent acts." However, just because we distinguished torture for caring and finding one bad and the other good, doesn't mean we have to agree these behaviors are good or evil independently of what anyone thinks.

Some defend objective values by claiming 'moral values' is a property we detect with a special faculty of moral perception. But notice this is no longer supporting divine existence as the moral argument is claimed to. And only proposing new phenomenon in need of their own independent support, and each has problems. For example, how can it be shown that Q is morally good, they have detected a value of goodness that is part of Q itself rather than making a subjective evaluation that Q is good. We can't appeal to consensus. Agreement of Q still doesn't tell us the goodness is part of Q rather than something we are ascribing. Besides, this particular moral argument is Premise 2 deems agreement irrelevant. Nor can we appeal to innate tendencies even if it can shown to have predisposition to find Q good. That wouldn't show Q has objective goodness, it would only indicate that we predisposed to value Q subjectively. We may value life, but from sliding from "I value to life" to "life has subjective value" makes the same mistake as sliding from "I find slugs revolting" to "slugs are intrinsically revolting." It is falsely projecting our own attitude onto the object of our attitude.

As Mackie notes, wants and demands give rise to the notion of something being objectively good or having intrinsic value by reversing the direction of dependence. So instead of saying our evaluation of a things goodness depend on our desire, our desire for a thing seem to depend on the thing's goodness.

Saying "intuition lets us KNOW what's morally good or bad" also needs to be challenged. The weaker claim that moral intuition is a kind of instinctive judgment can be granted. It is true that instinctive feelings can lead us judge actions immoral without conscious reasoning. For example, empathy leads us quickly to apprehend that the distress of a child being attacked, a moral judgment may arrive in our awareness almost instantly. Our brains process information rapidly, and its easy to see how having protective instincts came to give us an advantage while trying to survive together on a hostile planet. But having useful advantageous instincts isn't evidence that we are accessing objective moral knowledge. We do well to treat our intuition with more caution, they frequently mislead us.

Contrary to appearance, these squares are not moving [http://www.google.com/imgres?q=illusion+moving+squares&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1440&bih=638&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=aFOiJd7Dw7vWDM:&imgrefurl=http://www.opticaliillusions.com/digital_optical_illusions_2.htm&docid=XHo5At7cRBX-sM&imgurl=http://www.opticaliillusions.com/rolling_squares_moving_wave_motion_effect.gif&w=702&h=703&ei=riK-TrTzIq7YiAK53uicAw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=839&vpy=135&dur=3768&hovh=225&hovw=224&tx=104&ty=94&sig=108951183480818893223&page=1&tbnh=136&tbnw=134&start=0&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:0], but we seem hardwired to make a false interpretation. Much of what we discover about ourselves and about the world is counter-intuitive. For example, we tend to care and donate more when charities show us cases of a single rater than a mass suffering. A fascinating article looking into this 'identifiable victim' effect (Slovic, P. 2007. Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, no. 2), Paul Slovic notes how we are generally less effected as the number of victims presented to us increases and discusses the unsettling implications it stands on our moral tendencies. Sometimes what one intuitive thinks X to be self-evidently morally bad, another intuitive states X is self-evidently morally neutral. If they both appeal to intuition, this only tells us that they they each 'know' they're right. To make a valid case, they need to do more. This subjective experience of believing a thing to be so obvious is to require no explanation, no self-guaranteeing. This is especially true with morality when people are prone to mistaken feelings for moral knowledge. While intuition may be a source of useful questions, our brains are too error-prone to regard in as a reliable source of objective answers.

Moving to "moral duties," when Craig says that we have "objective moral duties" is to say we have certain moral obligations regardless whether or not we think we do. This is a concept with similar empirical in-conceptual problems. If '''absolutely no one''' is aware of a duty to do X, the idea of ''having'' such a duty gets us no purchase. Again, there is no problem in saying given better information, justifications based on falsehoods get to be eliminated while new justifications emerge. If the members of society X are genuinely protective of others from a state of mental disorder for demon possession they see as a threat, they may feel a moral duty consistent with these attitudes, may be a duty to destroy their perceived threat. If they outgrow their belief in possession and learn about brain dis-function, they may feel a new duty to care for those with mental disorders. It is not that they discovered a hither or two unknown objective duty to help than rather harm these people, it is given their initially protective attitude, their sense of duty changes in response to change in information. As before, much of the sense of what we ought to do may come initially from instinct rather than conscious reasoning. Again, empathic instincts influence much of our behavior, and it is easy to see how much this instinct would evolve, how natural selection would favor groups of humans whose instinct was to protect each other over individuals who were trying to survive on a hostile planet with no one to protect them. But as before, having advantageous instincts that motivate us to behave or stop behaving in a certain way, isn't evidence of objective duties.

===Is or ought===

In the 18th century, David Hume objected to the authors of morality should shifted from statements like "is" or "is not" to other connected by "ought " or "ought not" which he said "expressed a new relation." To Hume, it seemed "altogether inconceivable" that all relationships were deducible from "is" ones as "entirely different." This is commonly interpreted to mean: we cannot infer what we morally ought to do from purely factual premises. We can't derive an "ought" from an "is." Further reading gives a different emphasis. Here is what Hume says about willful murder, "The vice entirely escapes you as long as you consider the object. You will never find it until you turn your reflection into your own breast and find a sentiment of disapprobation that derives from you towards this action." Here is a matter of fact: but 'tis the object of feeling, it lies in yourself not in the object. In other words, evil isn't a feature of willful murder but in a judgment arising in sentiment.

When Hume objects from the shift from "is" to "ought" he is criticizing those who mistake their own feelings about things like murder for intrinsic qualities like murder, echoing the for mentioned of error for projecting ones own attitude onto the object of that attitude. Of course, whatever Hume's original meaning, the idea that we can't derive moral "oughts" from factual "is" statements has spawned a great deal of debate in our own time.

Is the so-called "is or ought" problem really a problem? All it is saying is that moral obligations aren't deducible purely from nonmoral facts. And this seems quite true if moral obligations involve emotional elements. I don't like pain, but my dislike of pain isn't arbitrary. I am biologically biased to dislike pain. Indeed, the inverse quality of disliking pain protects us by prompting our retreat from harmful stimuli. Knowing also that I have no valid basis for thinking my comfort is not uniquely important. If I don't want other people to hurt me, then to avoid hypocrisy, this obliges me not to hurt others. This obligation isn't unconditional, it arises largely from biologically influenced preferences.

Some say preferences has no role in our morality. After all, rapists like raping, but we don't say they ought to rape. But of course that is misleading. Morality has never meant doing whatever you prefer no matter who it hurts. Part of morality's essence is considering our impacts upon others. And asking "why rapists shouldn't do what they prefer" completely ignores the preference of the victim. No one is saying ALL preferences are morally relevant, but some are. We have numerous moral prohibitions about inflicting pain, but our dislike of pain ultimately reduces to preference doesn't diminish its relevance. When we dissect any moral obligation, we always find some element of preference, even if it is a preference largely determined by biology.

As Mackie notes, for any argument that supports an evaluated conclusion, whether this conclusion has some action guiding force that is non-contingent of our desires or chosen ends, someway into the input of this argument there will be something that cannot be objectively validated, some premise which is not capable of being simply true, or some form of argument not valid by any logic whose authority or cogency is not objective.

===Objective grounding===

Craig claims that if God does not exist, there is no ground for objective moral duties because there is no moral lawgiver. The implication being that a lawgiver could provide that ground. But this is false, lawgivers are still subjective beings and their presence doesn't guarantee moral objectivity. Even if a divine lawgiver required certain duties of us, all that would be necessarily true is that it required certain duties of us. It would not follow that the certain duties were therefore objectively good or objectively grounded.

Craig thinks he can achieve objective grounding by making use of Anslem's notion of a "greatest conceivable being.' According to Anslem's ontological argument: one can understand what's meant by 'a greatest conceivable being' such a being can exist at least in thought, but if it existed only in thought one can think of a greater being existing in thought and reality. Therefore, Anslem insists, if one claims to be able to conceive of the greatest being without ascribing to its real existence, one is contradicting oneself, and states the "greatest conceivable being" is one whose NON-existence is inconceivable. Of the well known flaws in this argument, perhaps the most basic, is that even if person A has in her mind a concept of the greatest conceivable being, no logic requires her concept to correspond with reality. As Kant pointed out, "whatever and however much our concept of an object may contain, we must go outside the concept of we're to attribute the object with existence." No ontological argument has establishes that there must be a god, that this god must have an essential nature, or that essential nature must be good. This leaves Craig's claim to objective grounding no more than the unsupported assertion of a god and qualities Craig '''wants''' it to have to make his moral case.

We value generosity, compassion and fairness because we experience and appreciate their positive effects. When these are proclaimed "divine qualities", this isn't because anyone has observed these qualities from a god, no god has been established to exist, let alone one whose nature we can study. All what is happening is the qualities already judged ''independently'' to have value are being ascribed to an entity declared to exist and be good by definition. If we want to imagine an "idealized being" as a way of developing some basic principles of conduct, the most appropriate model we can relate to is something with human biology.

Rooting morality into a being "beyond our comprehension" only pushes morality beyond our comprehension. It is even worse when what we choose as a model is a god of ancient scripture depicting moral principles we hold being most basic (such as Ez. 9:5-6, God commands "slay the little children without pity.") When we tell ourselves there is an all-powerful entity that can do this, and still be "morally perfect," we create the very conditions that far from leading us to moral truths '''guarantee''' a moral confusion. Even if a god created our universe, nothing about the act or power of grand creation requires moral perfection. And even if the universe was created by a god somehow 'intrinsically good' no logic would require the being still to exist. Imagine if such a god existed yesterday but destroyed itself today, would torture suddenly stop being a moral issue? If so, then this god can't have embodied values of enduring relevance. Severing any connection with any objective moral values. If not, we admitting that this god does not need to exist, destroying this moral argument's conclusion for the existence of god. There would be equally overwhelming problems with claiming that "moral values and duties are transcendental in nature, and therefore require a supernatural creator." As soon as we require things to be viewed supernaturally with "goodness" "badness" or "oughtness," as soon as we allow the supernatural feature in '''any''' of our explanations, the idea of a single supreme deity becomes just one of countless unknowable untestable concepts, all with their unhooked justifications.

In this case of transcendental values and duties could just as easily be the creation of a group of supernatural experimenters, arbitrarily making things "good" and "bad" as to study the effect on animal behavior. If moral values and duties '''had''' to have been created supernaturally, '''this alone''' would count against their objective validity. For that matter, any argument for the existence of god (even if they were valid), wouldn't provide a logical pathway to a god of any particular religion or scripture.

===In summary===

Reviewing the moral argument;
*P1) If 'God' does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
**The implication of Premise 1 that the existence and only the existence of one god could grant moral objectivity is not established.

*P2) Objective moral values and duties do exist.
*C) Therefore, God exists.
**Not only do objective values and duties lack necessary support, we have good reason to reject those concepts as incoherent, leaving Premise 2 and therefore the Conclusion undemonstrated. This moral argument does not establish the existence of any god.

The motive for objectifying moral values and duties is understandable, as Mackie notes, we need morality to regulate inter-personal relations. Often against people whose natural inclination, we therefore want our moral judgments to be authoritative, and many think that only objectivity can achieve this authority. In the words of Thomas Nagel, "There is a tendency to seek an objective account for everything before admitting its reality. But often, what appears to be a more subjective point of view cannot be accounted for this way." The common misconception that if morality isn't entirely objective, it is therefore subjective and therefore "only opinion" or "arbitrary" is obscured and hijacked much on this discourse subject. These arguments ("only opinion" and "arbitrary") should ultimately be discarded.

[[Category:Morality]]

Morality

2011-11-11T22:33:21Z

Feredir28:

{{wikipedia}}
'''Morality''' refers to the concept of human [[ethics]] which pertains to matters of [[good]] and [[evil]] — also referred to as "right or wrong". Morality is generally discussed within three contexts:
# matters of individual conscience;
# systems of principles and judgments — sometimes called moral values — shared within a cultural, religious, secular, humanist, or philosophical community; and
# codes of behavior or conduct.

'''Theistic morality''' is based on the assumption that there is a [[god]] who has absolute understanding of right and wrong, and orders people to obey rules as a condition for goodness, see [[Christian morality]] for an example. See also [http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y67mor.html Divine Command as the Foundation of Morality]

'''[[Secular morality]]''' is a complex subject and is discussed in a separate article.

==Absolute and relative morality==
Absolute morality postulates that was is moral and what is immoral is unchanging and can be laid down well in advance. Thus it is very popular with religions and their reliance on holy texts to determine moral and ethical guidelines and commandments. Moral relativism (which should under no circumstances be conflated with relativity) on the other hand postulates that morals can be somewhat flexible and develop as education and understanding progresses, and accepts the subjective nature of morality. This acknowledges that cultural differences across different times and different regions may mean that what people consider moral can change. This change, particularly over time, is sometimes known as the moral zeitgeist, from the German "spirit of the times". Hence once slavery was accepted in parts of the western world, it now is not - or at least it has been outsourced to poorer countries and prisons. Moral relativism isn't without criticism as it is viewed as lending justification to clearly immoral acts by effectively saying "well, they do things differently over there".

A formal moral argument put forth for divine existence goes as follows;
*P1) If 'God' does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
*P2) Objective moral values and duties do exist.
*C) Therefore, God exists.

According to [[William Lane Craig]], a proponent of this argument, to say that there are objective moral values (OMVs) is to say that something's good or evil independently if anyone believes it to be so. But if moral values are independent of everyone's evaluation, this leaves you with significant problems. One is if two humans perform an action, one thinking it is evil while the other has no sense of doing evil, what they believe about their behavior is not irrelevant to our moral assessment. If someone is genuinely ignorant of what they do, we do not accept their harmful behavior and we restrain it if possible, but we do not call it "evil." Craig's idea that something is evil regardless if anyone believes so clearly doesn't reflect the way we tend to make moral judgments. The idea of evil is only relevant in proportion to an agent's understanding, which is one reason why we do not judge other animals by human standards. Craig thinks that nonbelievers who see anything special about human morality have "succumb[ed] to the temptation of speciesism." But noting that humans have greater capacity for moral reflection than other species is not 'unjustifiable bias' its a relevant difference. In fact, given Craig's own claim that no moral dimension exists for non-human animals, then the real speciesist would be God. After all, what do we make of a being that has decided only 1 species of the billions on earth are morally accountable, so that the human child killer is evil but the lion who kills other lion's cubs has done nothing wrong.

However, a more basic problem for Craig is that values are the result of evaluation process. Moral values of what we prefer to what we judge morally valuable or important. So to say that they imply "independently" of anyone's evaluation, that somethings have unevaluated value, becomes unintelligible. It also lacks any practical application. We may dismiss things right now which may, given other information, we'd value. But we can't go beyond the range of our own awareness to see how unknown information would alter our values. So to unknown values, if they existed, would only be relevant from the moment of their discovery, at which point it would be far less metaphysical extravagant to simply say then made evaluation than to say we discovered an unknown unevaluated value. It is true that given more information, justifications for certain attitudes and behaviors will be exposed as false. It is true that there could be subjective facts. If you burn your finger, the pain you feel won't be merely a matter of opinion even though it is subjective. It is also true, as John Mackie noted, that given specifically specified standards of morality, it will be an objective issue (a matter of true or falsehood) on how well any particular specimen measures up to those standards. Of course, the choice of standards still wont be objective, but nor will it be completely arbitrary because what we value isn't completely random but highly influenced by the kind of creature we are. So we can agree with Craig when he says "most people think there is an objective difference between torturing a child and caring for it...that these are not morally indifferent acts." However, just because we distinguished torture for caring and finding one bad and the other good, doesn't mean we have to agree these behaviors are good or evil independently of what anyone thinks.

Some defend objective values by claiming 'moral values' is a property we detect with a special faculty of moral perception. But notice this is no longer supporting divine existence as the moral argument is claimed to. And only proposing new phenomenon in need of their own independent support, and each has problems. For example, how can it be shown that Q is morally good, they have detected a value of goodness that is part of Q itself rather than making a subjective evaluation that Q is good. We can't appeal to consensus. Agreement of Q still doesn't tell us the goodness is part of Q rather than something we are ascribing. Besides, this particular moral argument is Premise 2 deems agreement irrelevant. Nor can we appeal to innate tendencies even if it can shown to have predisposition to find Q good. That wouldn't show Q has objective goodness, it would only indicate that we predisposed to value Q subjectively. We may value life, but from sliding from "I value to life" to "life has subjective value" makes the same mistake as sliding from "I find slugs revolting" to "slugs are intrinsically revolting." It is falsely projecting our own attitude onto the object of our attitude.

As Mackie notes, wants and demands give rise to the notion of something being objectively good or having intrinsic value by reversing the direction of dependence. So instead of saying our evaluation of a things goodness depend on our desire, our desire for a thing seem to depend on the thing's goodness.

Saying "intuition lets us KNOW what's morally good or bad" also needs to be challenged. The weaker claim that moral intuition is a kind of instinctive judgment can be granted. It is true that instinctive feelings can lead us judge actions immoral without conscious reasoning. For example, empathy leads us quickly to apprehend that the distress of a child being attacked, a moral judgment may arrive in our awareness almost instantly. Our brains process information rapidly, and its easy to see how having protective instincts came to give us an advantage while trying to survive together on a hostile planet. But having useful advantageous instincts isn't evidence that we are accessing objective moral knowledge. We do well to treat our intuition with more caution, they frequently mislead us.

Contrary to appearance, these squares are not moving, but we seem hardwired to make a false interpretation. Much of what we discover about ourselves and about the world is counter-intuitive. For example, we tend to care and donate more when charities show us cases of a single rater than a mass suffering. A fascinating article looking into this 'identifiable victim' effect (Slovic, P. 2007. Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, no. 2), Paul Slovic notes how we are generally less effected as the number of victims presented to us increases and discusses the unsettling implications it stands on our moral tendencies. Sometimes what one intuitive thinks X to be self-evidently morally bad, another intuitive states X is self-evidently morally neutral. If they both appeal to intuition, this only tells us that they they each 'know' they're right. To make a valid case, they need to do more. This subjective experience of believing a thing to be so obvious is to require no explanation, no self-guaranteeing. This is especially true with morality when people are prone to mistaken feelings for moral knowledge. While intuition may be a source of useful questions, our brains are too error-prone to regard in as a reliable source of objective answers.

Moving to "moral duties," when Craig says that we have "objective moral duties" is to say we have certain moral obligations regardless whether or not we think we do. This is a concept with similar empirical in-conceptual problems. If '''absolutely no one''' is aware of a duty to do X, the idea of ''having'' such a duty gets us no purchase. Again, there is no problem in saying given better information, justifications based on falsehoods get to be eliminated while new justifications emerge. If the members of society X are genuinely protective of others from a state of mental disorder for demon possession they see as a threat, they may feel a moral duty consistent with these attitudes, may be a duty to destroy their perceived threat. If they outgrow their belief in possession and learn about brain dis-function, they may feel a new duty to care for those with mental disorders. It is not that they discovered a hither or two unknown objective duty to help than rather harm these people, it is given their initially protective attitude, their sense of duty changes in response to change in information. As before, much of the sense of what we ought to do may come initially from instinct rather than conscious reasoning. Again, empathic instincts influence much of our behavior, and it is easy to see how much this instinct would evolve, how natural selection would favor groups of humans whose instinct was to protect each other over individuals who were trying to survive on a hostile planet with no one to protect them. But as before, having advantageous instincts that motivate us to behave or stop behaving in a certain way, isn't evidence of objective duties.

===Is or ought===

In the 18th century, David Hume objected to the authors of morality should shifted from statements like "is" or "is not" to other connected by "ought " or "ought not" which he said "expressed a new relation." To Hume, it seemed "altogether inconceivable" that all relationships were deducible from "is" ones as "entirely different." This is commonly interpreted to mean: we cannot infer what we morally ought to do from purely factual premises. We can't derive an "ought" from an "is." Further reading gives a different emphasis. Here is what Hume says about willful murder, "The vice entirely escapes you as long as you consider the object. You will never find it until you turn your reflection into your own breast and find a sentiment of disapprobation that derives from you towards this action." Here is a matter of fact: but 'tis the object of feeling, it lies in yourself not in the object. In other words, evil isn't a feature of willful murder but in a judgment arising in sentiment.

When Hume objects from the shift from "is" to "ought" he is criticizing those who mistake their own feelings about things like murder for intrinsic qualities like murder, echoing the for mentioned of error for projecting ones own attitude onto the object of that attitude. Of course, whatever Hume's original meaning, the idea that we can't derive moral "oughts" from factual "is" statements has spawned a great deal of debate in our own time.

Is the so-called "is or ought" problem really a problem? All it is saying is that moral obligations aren't deducible purely from nonmoral facts. And this seems quite true if moral obligations involve emotional elements. I don't like pain, but my dislike of pain isn't arbitrary. I am biologically biased to dislike pain. Indeed, the inverse quality of disliking pain protects us by prompting our retreat from harmful stimuli. Knowing also that I have no valid basis for thinking my comfort is not uniquely important. If I don't want other people to hurt me, then to avoid hypocrisy, this obliges me not to hurt others. This obligation isn't unconditional, it arises largely from biologically influenced preferences.

Some say preferences has no role in our morality. After all, rapists like raping, but we don't say they ought to rape. But of course that is misleading. Morality has never meant doing whatever you prefer no matter who it hurts. Part of morality's essence is considering our impacts upon others. And asking "why rapists shouldn't do what they prefer" completely ignores the preference of the victim. No one is saying ALL preferences are morally relevant, but some are. We have numerous moral prohibitions about inflicting pain, but our dislike of pain ultimately reduces to preference doesn't diminish its relevance. When we dissect any moral obligation, we always find some element of preference, even if it is a preference largely determined by biology.

As Mackie notes, for any argument that supports an evaluated conclusion, whether this conclusion has some action guiding force that is non-contingent of our desires or chosen ends, someway into the input of this argument there will be something that cannot be objectively validated, some premise which is not capable of being simply true, or some form of argument not valid by any logic whose authority or cogency is not objective.

===Objective grounding===

Craig claims that if God does not exist, there is no ground for objective moral duties because there is no moral lawgiver. The implication being that a lawgiver could provide that ground. But this is false, lawgivers are still subjective beings and their presence doesn't guarantee moral objectivity. Even if a divine lawgiver required certain duties of us, all that would be necessarily true is that it required certain duties of us. It would not follow that the certain duties were therefore objectively good or objectively grounded.

Craig thinks he can achieve objective grounding by making use of Anslem's notion of a "greatest conceivable being.' According to Anslem's ontological argument: one can understand what's meant by 'a greatest conceivable being' such a being can exist at least in thought, but if it existed only in thought one can think of a greater being existing in thought and reality. Therefore, Anslem insists, if one claims to be able to conceive of the greatest being without ascribing to its real existence, one is contradicting oneself, and states the "greatest conceivable being" is one whose NON-existence is inconceivable. Of the well known flaws in this argument, perhaps the most basic, is that even if person A has in her mind a concept of the greatest conceivable being, no logic requires her concept to correspond with reality. As Kant pointed out, "whatever and however much our concept of an object may contain, we must go outside the concept of we're to attribute the object with existence." No ontological argument has establishes that there must be a god, that this god must have an essential nature, or that essential nature must be good. This leaves Craig's claim to objective grounding no more than the unsupported assertion of a god and qualities Craig '''wants''' it to have to make his moral case.

We value generosity, compassion and fairness because we experience and appreciate their positive effects. When these are proclaimed "divine qualities", this isn't because anyone has observed these qualities from a god, no god has been established to exist, let alone one whose nature we can study. All what is happening is the qualities already judged ''independently'' to have value are being ascribed to an entity declared to exist and be good by definition. If we want to imagine an "idealized being" as a way of developing some basic principles of conduct, the most appropriate model we can relate to is something with human biology.

Rooting morality into a being "beyond our comprehension" only pushes morality beyond our comprehension. It is even worse when what we choose as a model is a god of ancient scripture depicting moral principles we hold being most basic (such as Ez. 9:5-6, God commands "slay the little children without pity.") When we tell ourselves there is an all-powerful entity that can do this, and still be "morally perfect," we create the very conditions that far from leading us to moral truths '''guarantee''' a moral confusion. Even if a god created our universe, nothing about the act or power of grand creation requires moral perfection. And even if the universe was created by a god somehow 'intrinsically good' no logic would require the being still to exist. Imagine if such a god existed yesterday but destroyed itself today, would torture suddenly stop being a moral issue? If so, then this god can't have embodied values of enduring relevance. Severing any connection with any objective moral values. If not, we admitting that this god does not need to exist, destroying this moral argument's conclusion for the existence of god. There would be equally overwhelming problems with claiming that "moral values and duties are transcendental in nature, and therefore require a supernatural creator." As soon as we require things to be viewed supernaturally with "goodness" "badness" or "oughtness," as soon as we allow the supernatural feature in '''any''' of our explanations, the idea of a single supreme deity becomes just one of countless unknowable untestable concepts, all with their unhooked justifications.

In this case of transcendental values and duties could just as easily be the creation of a group of supernatural experimenters, arbitrarily making things "good" and "bad" as to study the effect on animal behavior. If moral values and duties '''had''' to have been created supernaturally, '''this alone''' would count against their objective validity. For that matter, any argument for the existence of god (even if they were valid), wouldn't provide a logical pathway to a god of any particular religion or scripture.

===In summary===

Reviewing the moral argument;
*P1) If 'God' does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
**The implication of Premise 1 that the existence and only the existence of one god could grant moral objectivity is not established.

*P2) Objective moral values and duties do exist.
*C) Therefore, God exists.
**Not only do objective values and duties lack necessary support, we have good reason to reject those concepts as incoherent, leaving Premise 2 and therefore the Conclusion undemonstrated. This moral argument does not establish the existence of any god.

The motive for objectifying moral values and duties is understandable, as Mackie notes, we need morality to regulate inter-personal relations. Often against people whose natural inclination, we therefore want our moral judgments to be authoritative, and many think that only objectivity can achieve this authority. In the words of Thomas Nagel, "There is a tendency to seek an objective account for everything before admitting its reality. But often, what appears to be a more subjective point of view cannot be accounted for this way." The common misconception that if morality isn't entirely objective, it is therefore subjective and therefore "only opinion" or "arbitrary" is obscured and hijacked much on this discourse subject. These arguments ("only opinion" and "arbitrary") should ultimately be discarded.

[[Category:Morality]]

Talk:RaÃ«lism

2011-11-10T17:23:17Z

Feredir28:

Lets not forget to mention that these religious atheists fully embrace sexual freedom and they host an annual "topless" march across the country. Man I love going to those events. ;p [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 11:23, 10 November 2011 (CST)

User talk:Feredir28

2011-11-09T18:52:24Z

Feredir28: /* Clean up */

== Template question ==

[[User talk:Dcljr#Template question|You asked]] about "''how to leave a link to the Way of the Master Template at the bottom of [the [[Conscience (Way of the Master)]] article].''" I'm not sure what you mean, since the template is there already. If you mean how do you link to your new article '''from''' the template, I [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Template:Wayofthemaster&diff=15033&oldid=11581 changed it] to do that. It doesn't show up as a link on [[Conscience (Way of the Master)#External links|the article itself]] (such self-links come out as bold text), but you can see the link at [[Template:Wayofthemaster|the template page]] and [[The Firefighter %28Way of the Master%29#External link|on other articles]] that contain that template. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 12:45, 15 January 2011 (CST)

Thank you mate. Sorry about wording my question like that, but you did what I asked. I wanted my article to be linked from the template. I have several more rebuttals to Way of the Master episodes coming later. Thanks. Have a good one. --[[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 11:45, 16 January 2011 (CST)Feredir28

== RationalWiki ==

What you're writing here and at RationalWiki on [[Ray Comfort]] is very good, at RatWiki short [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Blocking_policy Joke Blocks] are an enjoyable game. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 02:38, 15 September 2011 (CDT)
:Thank you very much for that. I do not fully get the game, it seems to me like a tag game. Whatever it is, I appreciate it but I think I will stick to what I do best. Also, a quick question, maybe you can help. Over the years, I have heard from many Christians that their religion is responsible for creating many things (reason, science, democracy, morality, ect.) and I am sure we have heard some form of it once. For this, I recently created the article [[Christianity invented science]] and explained why it is wrong. I chose this one because it is growing in the conservative academia and Christian apologetic literature. However, there is just one more topic I want to address, the delusion that Christianity invented secularism. I would not bother with this unless it was no growing as well, but I see it very frequently. Anyway, I know we already have a article on separation of church and state, but I wanted to know if I should create an entirely new article refuting the stance that secularism is a Christian idea and separation of church and state was invented to keep government out of religion and not the other way around. What should I do? [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 13:01, 15 September 2011 (CDT)
::If you feel you can write well on any topic please do. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 11:47, 28 September 2011 (CDT)

== Ray Comfort again ==

Google puts our article on [[Ray Comfort]] on its first page, can you help improve it still further? [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 11:48, 28 September 2011 (CDT)
:Really!? That's exciting! You can count on me to improve it. Oh, this is going to be fun. I just have to work on two of the programs, but don't worry, I will get around to it quickly. [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 12:07, 28 September 2011 (CDT)

== Christian morality ==

I've had it up to here with Christians calling us immoral. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 12:47, 11 October 2011 (CDT)
:You and me both. Im sick of the excuse, if there is no God, everything is allowed. Even my own mother totally accepts this. I plan to extend secular morality real soon, and a bit more on christian morality. [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 15:26, 11 October 2011 (CDT)

:I'm also thinking of starting an article or something addressing the problems of Christian absolute morality. What do you think? [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 15:39, 11 October 2011 (CDT)

:You don't need to ask me before you write anything. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 01:44, 12 October 2011 (CDT)

== Clean up ==

I rolled back some changes and I don't have time to monitor and fix everything. I've been getting complaints about some regulars adding sloppy speculation and changing the site from informative to a personal, sloppy, speculative bitch-slapping of apologists. Dig through your changes....and wherever you've added unfounded accusations, speculations or snide comments - remove them. I'm going to check back after the wedding and if there aren't improvements, I'll be locking the site down, upgrading it and changing policies and permissions. This isn't a place to talk shit about apologists or post things that might cause unnecessary problems. You CANNOT simply toss around accusations about financial motivations - that leads to legal problems, and I'd prefer if people didn't post sloppy arguments. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 01:21, 15 October 2011 (CDT)

I waited a few hours before responding so as not to write anything hasty. The most important, I feel is that we don't let the Christians divide us. Snide comments are often acceptable in RationalWiki '''provided they can be proved in a court of law'''. If the site owners don't want that sort of stuff here it's best removed or transfered elsewhere. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 04:37, 15 October 2011 (CDT)

A [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Black_swan Black swan] event has something in common with this. We were editing here, the position of the work we were doing was rising steadily in Google so we both thought we were improving the wiki. Then suddenly we opened our computers and found we were in trouble. I can’t at the moment think of a better or more robust way of dealing with this black swan than what I’ve already suggested, move the snide stuff elsewhere and explain that we didn’t mean any harm.

For the future please let us know sooner if we are editing in ways the regulars don’t like so we don’t waste a fortnight’s work. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 09:03, 15 October 2011 (CDT)

I haven't read, [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Editing guidelines]], as I said I've been unwell recently but both of us should read it carefully before we edit again. You can write snark and offensive stuff at RationalWiki or [http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Atheism Wiki], '''just don’t break any libel laws'''. You can write long articles there as well. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 13:50, 15 October 2011 (CDT)

My apologies for all this. Nobody here meant any harm, and we will see to it that we fix the material. I will get on it right away. [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 14:51, 15 October 2011 (CDT)
*'''Update''': I revised several programs and articles, but I must pause here. I just received notice that my great-grandmother just passed, and I must take off. Again, I'm sorry for all this, and I promise to get back to work when I can. [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 14:51, 15 October 2011 (CDT)
**I appreciate the fixes. Please take a moment to check out the newly added "[[Iron Chariots Wiki:Editing guidelines#Types of pages|types of pages]]" section under [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Editing guidelines]] for a little more guidance in how pages ought to look. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 18:16, 15 October 2011 (CDT)

There has been a problem with [[Jehovah's Witness (Way of the Master)]]. When I viewed [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G80lC6dIiZo the video] it didn’t start with the scene in Time Square that you described and we must be extra careful about accuracy on Atheist websites. People often/usually believe Christians unless a lie is proved and even if a lie is proved people may still excuse it because [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liars_for_Jesus Lying for Jesus] is imagined to be lying for a good cause. By contrast there is prejudice against atheists and if we’re caught out writing anything inaccurate, even if it’s unintentionally inaccurate we can easily get labelled deceitful immoral atheists. We need to be scrupulously accurate so people learn that they can trust what we write even though they can’t always trust the Christians. I don’t know what went wrong, perhaps Ray Comfort changed the video since you viewed it, just please do what you can to prevent such problems in future. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 05:32, 9 November 2011 (CST)
:I fixed it. The scene with the Time Squares can be seen on truegod.tv (seen [http://www.truegod.tv/v/1b3d here]). I made a special note that the YouTube episode does not have the Time Square part included. I know that theists will jump at the chance to point out every small bit when and where we are incorrect. [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 12:52, 9 November 2011 (CST)

God Doesn't Believe in Atheists (book)

2011-11-08T19:44:21Z

Feredir28: /* Foreword */ fixing link

'''''God Doesn't Believe in Atheists: Proof That the Atheist Doesn't Exist''''' is a book authored by [[Ray Comfort]], published in 1993, with a foreword by mister [[Kent Hovind]].

==Content==
In this book, Ray tries to make an argument that atheists do not exist and provide evidence of the supernatural.

BACK COVER:"''Contrary to popular opinion, the existence of God can be proven absolutely, scientifically, without reference to faith or even the Bible. It is also possible to prove that the Bible is supernatural in origin. This book will do just that.

It will also show the atheist that he doesn't exist, reveal the true motives of the agnostic, and strengthen the faith of the believer.''"

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray says he can prove the existence of God absolutely, scientifically, without reference to faith or even the Bible. Do not hold your breath. Ray always promises this, just like at the [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rational_Response_Squad_debate_with_Way_of_the_Master debate with the Rational response Squad]. Ray and Kirk Cameron failed to prove the existence of God and used the Bible and faith as evidence multiple times when they claimed they would not need to. If they knew this going in, and surely they did, then they knew they had no case and God could not be prove scientifically. It is likely in this book, Ray will use and repeat the same old long-refuted claims and stunts.}}

==Foreword==
In this section, [[Kent Hovind]] praises this book and attacks atheism. According to him, the debate of whether God exists or not continues. If there is a God, we should find out who he is and what he wants. However, if there is no god, we are in trouble since the earth is moving at great speeds into space with no one in charge. The universe operates according to natural law, and our safety is not a concern for the universe.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Hovind's idea and need for a god is to provide comfort and a safety relief, but his wishful thinking does not change reality.}}

Hovind says anyone with eyes that can see and a brain that can work can obviously spot the evidence for a creator. He uses a different version of [[Argument from design| Paley's watch argument]], that if you walked through the woods and found a painting on a tree, you would assume someone created that painting. We know a painting had a painter, but the core issue is contrasting between natural design or intelligent design.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=We see design in paintings, but we also see design in snow flakes, clouds, and crystals. The difference is that crystals and such form naturally with no intelligent being to shape or manipulate them. Ray Comfort and Kent Hovind claim to see design in the universe, but they have not provided any proof on intelligent design. They just label everything as intentionally designed by some supernatural agent. However, labeling something does not alter reality and the it's true nature.}}

Hovind claims in his 33 years of examining the creationism vs. evolution debate, he never encountered an atheist who did not use evolution to support his worldview. Hovind claims not a shred of evidence has been found to support evolution, and it requires a leap of faith to accept evolution, as well as to accept that there is no god. He claims that both atheism and evolution are religions.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Some atheists do not accept evolution, but evolution is not required for atheism. Many Christians, Popes, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and more accept evolution. There are mountains of evidence for evolution, Kent Hovind has been criticized as a charlatan and shameless scientific-illiterate liar. Evolution nor atheism requires faith. Evolution has many evidence to support it, and atheism is the lack of faith in any deity. Evolution as religion has been rejected by the courts:
<blockquote>
Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.
</blockquote>
The court cases ''Epperson v. Arkansas'', ''Willoughby v. Stever'', and ''Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist''. Atheism is also not a religion. Atheism has no doctrines, rituals, places of worship, saviors, priests, creation myths, tenets, sacred texts, and such. Although some religions do not worship any deities, such as [[Buddhism]], Raelism, and Satanism, they are indeed religions.}}

Hovind ends his remarks by claiming this book is meant to open the eyes of atheists to make them see the evidence for a loving creator and they all must repent of their sins. And this review will show when and where the evidence presented stands up to scrutiny and if indeed Ray comfort made his case if there is a creator.

==Introduction==
Ray Comfort shares a story that he offered to debate atheists, such as the American Atheists Inc. They turned him down. He then challenged Ron Barrier (a spokesperson of American Atheists) to a debate, who at first turned him down, but then later challenged him due to, according to Ray, pressure from other atheists. Ray concluded that the Bible was right, "with God, nothing is impossible."

==Chapter 1: Who made God?==
According to Ray, there are only three explanations for the misery of the world:
# There isn't a [[god]]
# God doesn't have the power to control his own creations, or won't, "which makes him a tyrant"
# The [[Bible]] tells you the reason for the state of the world.

===Faith is for Wimps===
Here, Ray wonders why using the word faith is "offensive" to nonbelievers. Ray makes the argument that we all have faith of some sort, such as that we believe the milk we drink is safe because of faith, rather than for a reason, such as that it is pasteurized in health-inspected facilities. He claims that we cannot ''know'' if Napoleon existed or who discovered America. For the small things in life, Ray says we "trust" that the coffee cup is clean or trust the taxi driver to keep his hands on the wheel. Ray argues that we have faith in information provided by others, such as weather men, historians, or scientists. Therefore, Ray concludes that atheists have faith in "erroneous information" and think they are "atheistic in [their] beliefs."

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Using the word "faith" has different effects on nonbelievers. Perhaps the main reason why many nonbelievers do not appease to Ray who use that word is because "faith" is because that word implies belief without evidence. When trying to have a rational conversation, when applying faith to know something means their claims are unsupported, baseless, and meaningless, which would mean the whole dialogue does not make any progress. Faith is an anchor that holds people into irrational beliefs, which is why many nonbelievers find it irritating to try to have a rational conversation with those who refuse to engage in a rational conversation. So the word "faith" is no 'offensive' but rather irritating.

We all do not have faith. This perspective is one put forward by a lot of people in our world, when something like faith is questioned and denounced. It expresses a general misunderstanding of the concept of faith. We do not blindly trust our loved ones though, nor do we get into a car and simply drive without any thought. Trust is contingent on evidence and experience. We tend to trust people who we know, people who have not wronged us in any significant way. Our love for a person may occasionally drive us to trust someone we would not normally trust, but as I stated before, misguided reasoning is not the same thing as faith. If you reason that your loved one deserves your trust, and you accept the risk of having it violated, you have still used reason and not acted on the blind thoughtlessness of faith.

As for the driving example, we do typically factor in some evidence and logic before we head out on the road. If it is particularly bad weather or if your tires are flat, most sane people will not just ignore such things and try to drive anyway. It is not operating on faith to go about one's day without taking every little possible worry into account either. It is possible that you could die in a car wreck, but experience tells us that we have survived many trips in the past, and unless there is some good reason for us to fear for our safety, it is perfectly rational to take the risk involved with driving. Faith is not a part of it, but reason certainly is. Indeed when we do drink milk, we check to see if it is not expired and safe to drink. We trust that whoever put the deadline on the carton is accurate, based on their calculations have often been tested and well understood. If the milk was not ready or the date was off, there are systems of correction (such as health inspection) before it reaches the grocery store.

We can know if Napoleon existed, because we have actual empirical proof that he did. We have letters and journals written by his own hand; portraits of him; hundreds of independent, contemporary, unbiased eye-witness accounts; artifacts made for him or by him; he left a legacy behind; he altered nations and policies; and much more. Also, if we did use Ray's logic, then we cannot ''know'' if Jesus Christ existed, although it is certain Ray would disagree because the Holy Bible is infallible and never lies - but his only justification for such a belief is blind faith.

Trust is not the same as faith. Faith is belief without evidence. We can drink coffee from a cup, but we often check to see if it is clean. Many times we know it is clean because we just washed it or washed it recently and thus know it is clean.

We do not have faith in the weather man, historians or scientists. Each of them have qualifications and they have evidence they base their claims on. They may often be wrong, such as the weather man who bases his claims on the instruments he has but weather is always in a constant state to change. Historians do deep research into several fields, and they base their works only on the data collected. Scientists are often the most trustworthy, because they test their work and they have other qualified people peer review their work and try to disprove it. When they cannot disprove it, it is accepted as true.

It is also illogical to suggest that one can have faith in the non-existence of anything. Do we take it on faith that leprechauns or fairies don't exist, or is it the belief in those creatures that is based on faith?}}

===Trump Card===
Here Ray addresses the question "Who Made God?" Ray dances around this question by saying anyone can find the answer by being ''reasonable.'' Ray claims that God has no beginning and no end, and God is not subjected to time since he created time. Of course, Ray quotes Scripture to support his claims (such as 2 Peter 3:18 and Hebrews 6:19). Ray says that God can "flip through time as you can I can flip through the pages of a history book." Ray believes prophecies is enough evidence to support this claim.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=First noting 2 Peter is considered by the vast majority of critical scholars as a forgery. Also, simply being "reasonable" is not enough or an excuse to accept the existence of the concept the universe was created by "invisible pink fairies" who are not bound by time. To be reasonable is to test and evaluate such beliefs and see if there is any truth to them, and Ray has not provided any.

Is God bound by time? Did God create time?
*P1) God is defined as the arbiter of all things, including time;
*P2) A decision requires transition from indifferences to will (requires time)
*P3) Since time cannot exist prior to its existence, God cannot choose to create time;
*P4) If God cannot choose to create time, he is not arbiter of all things;
*P5) Therefore, a personal entity cannot be the ultimate arbiter of all things;
*P6) Therefore, God as defined is internally inconsistent
*C) Therefore, there is no God.
The act of creating the universe is meaningful only in time. Is God in time or outside of it? Time isn't absolute. It’s elastic and is stretched by accelerating motions or fields of intense gravity, such as those around a black hole. A God contained in time would no longer be powerful because he would be subjected to the laws of time. A God outside time would be omnipotent, but unable to help us, since our actions happen in time. If God transcended time, then he would already know the future. If he knew everything in advance, why would he bother to become involved in the struggle of humankind against evil? God must be immutable and unable to create or else he is inside time and is not immutable. So how can an immutable entity create something? If there is an act of creation, is the creator involved or not? If he isn't then why call him the creator? If he is involved, then because creation inevitably occurs in stages, the something or someone involved in these stages is not immutable. Creation remains a process, and any process, whether temporal or not, is not compatible with immutability.

God is also defined as being omniscient, however if he is then Ray Comfort and other Christians who hold similar beliefs must admit there is no free will. For instance, imagine a person was walking down a road and approaching a left or right turn only. God, being omniscient, knows that the person will turn left. And then the person turns right, and God is surprised and thus God is not all-knowing. However, if the person did turn left, how is that different from not having free will. If god knows every action and decision we will make throughout our lives before we are even born, then he knows where we will spend eternity after death. And he would have know all this eons before he ever thought to create earth and humans.}}

===Atheist Test===
Finally, Ray tries to persuade readers that atheists do not exist. He provides a false definition of [[agnosticism]] and claims that atheists make an "absolute claim" that God does not exist. According to Ray, one must possess all the knowledge of the universe in order to make such a claim.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, Ray contradicts himself when he makes the absolute claim that God does exist. Atheists do not have to have absolute knowledge to not believe in green horses galloping on the surface of the sun, because there is no evidence to support such a idea. An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in a god (not "believe" there is no god), that is atheists do not buy what religion is selling. If theists like Ray Comfort claim to "know" God exists, they should be able to provide empirical data and evidence for their god, and to date not a single one has. It doesn’t matter how convinced you are; belief does not equal knowledge. The difference is that knowledge can always be tested for accuracy where mere beliefs often can not be. No matter how positively you think you know it, if you can’t show it, then you don’t know it, and you shouldn’t say that you do. Nor would you if you really cared about the truth. Knowledge is demonstrable, measurable. But faith is often a matter of pretending to know what you know you really don't know, and that no one even can know, and which you merely believe -often for no good reason at all.

Later in this book (pg. 71) Ray confidently asserts, “It doesn’t matter how many thousands of years pass, elephants don’t have giraffes, nor do monkeys have men.” How does Comfort envision himself escaping the snarky retort that, because he isn’t omniscient and didn’t witness the birth of every animal that ever lived, he cannot deny evolution? God doesn’t believe in creationists!}}

Ray ends this chapter with a tale of Mussolini. It is said that Mussolini stood on a pedestal, shouted "God, if you are there, strike me dead!" when God did not, he concluded that he did not exist. Ray says his prayer was answered later.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This was not an answered prayer, it is simply the result of time and fatal force.}}

==Chapter 2: Banana in hand==
In this chapter, Ray provides arguments for "Creation." Among them are the coca-cola can, the [[banana argument]], an apple, and other examples. His argument is basically that these could not have formed naturally and creation requires a creator.

Using the coca-cola can, he provides a straw man argument of the [[Big Bang]] theory.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The Big Bang does not claim anything came from nothing, nor does it comment or have anything to do with [[abiogenesis]] or [[evolution]]. The only one who does claim everything came from nothing is Ray Comfort, who believes his God created everything ex-nihlio by using incantations (i.e. MAGIC). So in an ironic sense, whenever Ray ridicules people who believe everything came from nothing, he is addressing himself while falsely disguising every other position as the same as his.}}

In a section, he says his arguments are scientific because science provides evidence that a creation must have a creator.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=No, science is about testing and observing. Ray provides no empirical data that there is a creator, and even if we allow Ray to make such a claim he provides no evidence that this creator is his narrow version of the Christian God, multiple gods, or any infinite deities that can theoretically exist. When Ray was on [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Atheist_Experience_debates_Ray_Comfort The Atheist Experience], he admitted his idea of testing was "common sense." Common sense is not testing, nor is it reliable. By Ray's logic, does lightning have a lightning maker? We see patterns and design in snowflakes and crystals, but we know they come about through purely natural forces without the help of the supernatural. What Ray has failed to do is provide proof or any data whatsoever that life is not the result of natural forces like a snow flakes.}}

He adds that atheism is a dying movement, providing quotes from articles but provides no reference.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, the actually polls show that church attendance is declining across the globe and atheism in America has recently doubled in the past decade. Atheism is not dying, it is rapidly growing. In fact, polls show more people leaving Christianity not only in America but around the world. In fact, last year 180,000 Catholics in Germany left the church.[http://www.christianmessenger.in/%E2%80%98180000-catholics-quit-church-last-year-in-germany%E2%80%99/]}}

==Chapter 3: Seeing is Believing==
In this chapter, Ray claims the evidence of God is self-evident.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, seeing is believing but not knowing. Believe as hard as you want to. But convincing yourself however firmly still can’t change the reality of things. Seeing is believing. But seeing isn’t knowing. Believing isn’t knowing. Subjective convictions are meaningless in science, and eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence.

For example, if I go into my front yard and I see a large sauropod walking down the middle of my street, I will of course be quite convinced of what I see. I may be even more satisfied when I follow the thing and find that I can touch it, maybe even ride it if I want to. When I gather sense enough to run back for my camcorder, I may not be able to find the beast again, because I don't know which way it went. But that doesn’t matter because I saw it, I heard it, felt it, smelt it and I remember all that clearly with a sober and rational mind. But somehow I'm the only one who ever noticed it, and of course no one believes me. Some other guy says he saw a dinosaur too, but his description was completely different, such that we can’t both be talking about the same thing. So it doesn't matter how convinced I am that it really happened. It might not have. When days go by and there are still no tracks, no excrement, no destruction, no sign of the beast at all, no other witnesses whose testimony lends credence to mine, and no explanation for how a 20-meter long dinosaur could just disappear in the suburbs of a major metropolis, much less how it could have appeared there in the first place, -then it becomes much easier to explain how there could be only two witnesses who can’t agree on what they think they saw, than it is to explain all the impossibilities against that dinosaur ever really being there. Positive claims require positive evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that’s what I’d need –since what I propose isn’t just extraordinary; its impossible. But since there's not one fact I can show that anyone can measure or otherwise confirm, then my perspective is still subjective -and thus uncertain. Eventually, even I, the eyewitness, would have to admit that, although I did see it, I still don’t know if it was ever really there –regardless whether I still believe that it was.

It doesn’t matter how convinced you are; belief does not equal knowledge. The difference is that knowledge can always be tested for accuracy where mere beliefs often can not be. No matter how positively you think you know it, if you can’t show it, then you don’t know it, and you shouldn’t say that you do. Nor would you if you really cared about the truth. Knowledge is demonstrable, measurable. But faith is often a matter of pretending to know what you know you really don't know, and that no one even can know, and which you merely believe -often for no good reason at all.}}

===Back to Da Vinci===
Ray provides a whole section repeating his argument a "painting had a painter." He then says that since man has not been able to create something as complex and magnificent as the human eye, it must have been specially created.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=What Ray refuses to acknowledge or admit is that nature through natural selection can and has created numerous types of eyes. There is more types of eyes than the human eye, much that are simpler and some more complex. All the steps to making an eye are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations (a blink of an eye in geological times).

Just because man cannot create something does not mean by default anything Ray or anyone can imagine exists or is responsible for the creation of anything. Ray's line of thinking also begs the question. How does Ray know that the eye, if it was created, was crafted by magical invisible pixies or Aton rather than the God of the Bible?}}

Ray further argues that atheism is a position that claims everything came from nothing, and challenges any scientist on the planet to create something from nothing.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is a deliberate lie invented by Christians to make atheism look foolish. Atheists and atheism does not make any claims about origins. Ray continues to use this straw man of the Big Bang theory, which he interprets everything came from nothing. However, this is not at all what physicists claim. 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>

What is ironic is that Ray is the one who claims everything came from nothing by supernatural/magic methods, and yet provides zero evidence to support this belief.}}

===Albert Knew===
Does not believing in something mean it does not exist? Ray says of course not. He argues a blind man may not believe in color, color still exists in the same way God exists.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, a blind person can be aware of color, but Ray does not believe that Allah exists although he is sure that Allah does not exist. What atheists argue is that it is unreasonable to hold such beliefs if they cannot be shown to be true or proven. Ray Comfort and other theists continue to make the positive claim that god exists, and so the burden of proof is on them to provide positive evidence, however what they are proposing is extraordinary and thus require extraordinary evidence. Thus far, Ray has used various logical fallacies; wishful thinking; and appeals to emotion and arguments from ignorance.}}

Can we believe in things we have never seen? Ray says no and uses the human brain as an example. Since you have never seen your brain before, do you conclude it does not exist?
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Unfortunately for Ray, we can see our brains. We can see them through operations, x-ray, or even cutting into a corpse. Ray is also wrong in his conclusion. We can believe in things we have never seen. Ray is living proof of this. Ray has never seen a supernatural being create a grain of sand from nothing, a man walk on water, or angels and demons. Ray believes in angels and Satan, but he has never seen one nor can he describe what Satan looks like. He can speculate all he wants on what he may look like, but he cannot provide proof to how he knows it but more importantly Ray cannot prove that Satan exists in the first place.}}

Ray also quote mines [[Albert Einstein]] and [[Stephen Hawking]] deliberately to make it seem as they believed in god; however, neither of these men held such beliefs.

Ray ends this chapter by repeating the [[Fine-tuned universe | fine tuning argument]], that is our earth is just in the right state of being for life to evolve.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This argument is flawed, weakened by the fact that it is a tautology, and proven false by quantum mechanics, the M-theory, the multiverse, and the Copernican Principle. Theists like to use the anthropic principle as proof that life can only be the result of divine creation, but there are several flaws in this argument. One such problem is the only form of life we are familiar with is here on earth which are carbon-based, there may be simpler forms of life elsewhere in the universe that are not carbon-based. Not to mention, theists like to portray earth as having all the right requirements down to such a precision to allow life. But what the anthropic principle fails is that it implies the universe is fine-tuned for life, however if the universe was fine-tuned for us, surely a bit more of it would be habitable. The numbers are so absurd that it defies comprehension. It is equivalent to a person after exploring 1.6 BILLION rocks like our Moon and finding one single virus particle on only one of the moons and collectively they are fine-tuned for life. Or having six MILLION Olympic-sized swimming pools that can collectively hold no more than a single molecule of water, yet claiming they are fine-tuned for water storage. Or claiming that a hard-drive the size of the earth that can only store one bit (1/0), or a hard-drive the size of Jupiter hold cannot even hold a single tweet on twitter is fine tuned for storing data. Or claiming that 2 MILLION 50 ton cranes that cant collectively hold more than a single proton are fine tuned for lifting. Or claiming that a plane at full speed travels less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the diameter of a proton over 10 billion years is fine-tuned for speed. If you think these examples are ridiculous, then you would agree that so too is the argument that the universe is fine-tuned for life. It does not take a genius to realize how absurd and flawed this argument truly is.

The Copernican Principle is the opposite of the Anthropic Principle and states that humans do not occupy a privileged place in the universe. Successive astronomical discoveries seem to support this principle. In the Middle Ages it was assumed that God created man in his image, and such, man and the earth were at the center of the universe. Copernicus and Galileo abolished the illusion that the earth was the center of the solar system and put the sun in its rightful heliocentric place. It was then found that the sun was not at the center of our galaxy, and Hubble showed that our own galaxy, the Milky Way, was not at the center of the universe. Finally, the multiverse concept suggests our universe may be just one of many constantly sprouting new universes, further diminishing the Anthropic Principle conclusion that the universe is here just for us. The Anthropic Principle emphasizes the rarity of life and consciousness while the Copernican Principle forces us to realize it was not all done just so we could exist.}}

==Chapter 4: Strawberries and garlic==
Ray begins this chapter by asking a series of questions, such as "Where does your hair grow from?" and "If you ever decide to get false teeth, will you have them made, or will you wait for 'chance' to make a pair for you?" in a attempt to drag the reader into wonder by thinking such instances can only be done by a creator.

Ray then uses arguments of [[irreducible complexity]] proposed by [[Michael Behe]]. Such examples include the blood clotting mechanism and argues such a system could not have evolved by small steps through natural selection.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, this has been debated and settled for many years that indeed the blood clotting system can evolve, both in the lab, nature, and in court. In the court case [[Dover vs kitzmiller | Dover v. Kitzmiller]], Michael Behe testified after years of research, no one has found a way how the irreducible system could have evolved. However, he was presented with many volumes of books, science articles, and peer reviewed tests that explain and demonstrate the evolution of the systems he claimed were "irreducible." However, Michael Behe, without examining any of them, said they were not good enough. This caught the attention of the judge as willful ignorance and deliberate deception.

Blood clotting is not irreducibly complex. Some animals -- dolphins, for example -- get along fine without the Hagemann factor (Robinson et al. 1969), a component of the human blood clotting system which Behe includes in its "irreducible" complexity (Behe 1996, 84). Doolittle and Feng (1987) predicted that "lower" vertebrates would lack the "contact pathway" of blood clotting. Work on the genomes of the puffer fish and zebrafish have confirmed this (Yong and Doolittle 2003). How did the blood clotting system evolve? The blood clotting systems appears to be put together by using whatever long polymeric bridges are handy. There are many examples of complicated systems made from components that have useful but completely different roles in different components. There is also evidence that the genes for blood clotting (indeed, the whole genome) duplicated twice in the course of its evolution (Davidson et al. 2003). The duplication of parts and co-opting of parts with different functions gets around the "challenge" of irreducible complexity evolving gradually. }}

Ray goes on to list several organs that seem irreducibly complex, such as the brain and the ear, and concludes that only a creator could design such features.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is an [[argument from incredulity]]. The brain is not irreducible. Brains come in many different sizes. The sea slug (Aplysia), for example, has only about 20,000 neurons in its entire nervous system. Coelenterates have an even simpler nervous system consisting of a nerve net and nothing even close to a brain. There are innumerable intermediate forms of brains between humans and brainless animals; gradual evolution of the brain presents no challenge. When Ray moves on to the eye, he quote mines [[Charles Darwin]] in his book ''The Origin of Species'' that even Darwin admitted that the eye could not have evolved. Ray commonly uses this quote-mine, even though he knows he is being deliberately dishonest. Darwin never meant at all that the eye could never evolve, he predicted that several small simple steps can create a complex system, which we have proven to be the case with the eye, ear, and brain. Darwin's predictions turned out to be true.}}

Ray ends this chapter by stating that even atheists stand in awe at such wonders of nature (Niagara Falls, the Grand Canyon, etc) and questions "How much more should we be humbled by the maker of these things?"
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Here, Ray is making up stories. For someone who constantly claims to not believe things on faith or settle for things that can be "absolutely" known, he makes a lot of generalizations that he has no way of knowing or verifying. Not all atheists are the same and many have different views of nature. Some may find wonders in nature, but they do not irrational equate such beauty to unprovable entities like leprechauns or sky pixies. Atheists and rationalists understand that nature contains beauty because we are a species who are biologically built to recognize and detect patterns. However, there is a difference between natural design and artificial design. We see design in paintings, but we know through observation and experience that paintings are artificially designed. We also see design, patterns and order in sand dunes, snowflakes, clouds, crystals, and such but we understand that these are naturally occurring and do not require any supernatural interference, which is what Ray is arguing for. Thus far, Ray has not provided any proof for such a belief or provided any model or method to distinguish how we know this universe is artificially designed.}}

==Chapter 5: Stronger than Sex Drive==
In this chapter, Ray plays on people's fear of death and appeals to emotion. Since we all die, we have an inner feeling to avoid death. Unable to find an answer for how or why this is, Ray concludes this feeling is given to us by God. Ray promises that faith in God will present us everlasting life if we repent.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is an [[argument from incredulity]]. There is an explanation for the need to avoid death. Every species has a tendency towards survival, which is an evolutionary trait. Creatures who are more prone to avoid death survive more than those creatures that don't. As for why humans want to seek life after death, the fear of death has a lot of explanatory power.}}

Ray uses an analogy similar to one he presented at the [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rational_Response_Squad_debate_with_Way_of_the_Master Nightline debate Rational Response Squad] of a television and signals. He says radio waves are invisible flowing through the air and our minds are transmitters. He says if we just push the power button, we will receive signals and see a picture. The same, according to Ray, will happen if we accept God and Jesus Christ: we will have evidence of his existence and know his laws. He claims that people just "won't" find god, and chooses not to try.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=If such a thing was provable as he says, then why does Ray's beliefs rest on faith? However, many people already have tried it and have not gotten the same results Ray has. He contradicted himself to, because he claimed that this is "provable" but then why has man made thousands of religions throughout history?

Some people learn that Ray's premises are fallacious, and many others find other deities. The human brain is capable of producing many religious experiences that ''seem'' real. A number of investigations have shown that deep temporal lobe stimulation in the area around the amygdala and hippocampus of the limbic system produces feelings of intense meaningfulness, of depersonalization, of a connection with God, of cosmic connectedness, of out-of-body experiences, a feeling of not being in this world, déjà vu (a feeling that something has been experienced before), jamais vu (a feeling something is happening for the first time even though it has been experienced before), fear, and hallucinations. Since the amygdala and hippocampus, all part of the limbic system, is closely connected to the frontal lobes (the area of the brain that senses what is real -touch, taste, smell, etc.) simulations of the amygdala and/or hippocampus is often perceived as real.}}

In the last paragraph, Ray says ('''bold emphasis''' added)
<blockquote>
"[Christianity] maintains that the invisible God of creation can supernaturally reveal himself to you. '''Despite the fact that it is illogical''', I have more that an air of confidence because what I am saying '''is provable'''."
</blockquote>
Ray asks skeptics to stop doubting and dares them to believe (despite the hundreds of reasons they can give why it will not work). He claims that people just "won't" find god, and chooses not to try. He says those who refuse to look at "willfully ignorant of the truth."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=If such a thing was provable as he says, then why does Ray's beliefs rest on faith? His proofs, which are not "proofs," are just as valid if you replace God in the equation with Allah, invisible pixies, or the [[Flying Spaghetti Monster]]. He contradicted himself too, because he claimed that this his beliefs are "provable" but he does not provide any proof that the "creator" is his particular version of the creator. Why has man made thousands of religions and deities throughout history? Ray must know that what he is proposing is illogical, he openly admitted it. His only support is personal experience, which does not provide any empirical proof. He tells us to seek and we shall find, but that requires that we must first perceive that god exists before we actually prove god exists to start with. This is similar to a person off to seek Big Foot, the person already believes Big Foot exists without first verifying that such a creature exists. It is also similar to seeking aliens/extraterrestrial life, ghosts, spirits, and such where they all have already assumed these things exist without question or prior evidence that they exist in the first place.}}

==Chapter 6: Atheist Obstacles==
Ray goes on to explain why atheists cannot defend their position.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This only further shows Ray's misunderstanding of atheism. Atheists have no position to defend, they are not the ones making any positive claims about origins or the cosmos. The ones making the positive claims have the burden of proof. Ray Comfort is the one making the positive claim that God exists, but he repeatably fails to provide any positive evidence to support his beliefs.}}

"It is because the atheist is neither omniscient nor omnipresent that he then takes an illogical leap by concluding that there is no god, because it cannot be proven that he doesn't exist. Such reasoning is absurd."

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The problem with this reasoning is that it is based on a fallacy. No one can prove a negative, the one making the positive claim (i.e. God exists) have the burden of proof to provide evidence to support their view. Since fairies and gnomes and many other mythical creatures that can theoretically exist cannot be disproved, by Ray's logic, we should accept they exist as well.}}

Ray goes on to prayer and miracles, claiming since atheists do not pray, they will not see miracles. Ray uses a story of a dying child to prove miracles. If a child dies of some disease while the family attempted prayer to save them and the child dies, the atheist counts that as an unanswered prayer; if a child lives, it's again unanswered, because the child's body simply healed itself. Next Ray claims that the prayers were answered because, according to Ray, even if a child dies, because god "took him to heaven because he wanted the child there."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Basically god answers prayer whether or not anything happens, and whenever a person dies God wills it so. This would mean God has planned all murders, abortions, miscarriages, homicides, wars, genocides, sacrifices, accidents, natural deaths, etc. If God wills a person to die, then prayer would be pointless. Likewise, the results of a person praying to God would get the same results praying to Allah, invisible pixies, or even a milk carton. There are no statistics or evidence that prayer works.}}

Ray talks about his car, and if it should become damaged, Ray argues, "What would be my intellectual capacity if I concluded that it had no manufacturer simply because I couldn't contact them about the dilemma? The fact of their existence has nothing to do with whether or not they return my calls."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The problem with this is that this does not take faith, since anyone can transport their cars to have them repaired. Ray is again confusing (willfully or not) that atheists claim that artifacts have no creator because they do not accept nature had a creator. As pointed out several times, there is no model or method to distinguish if this universe had a special creator. Thus far, Ray has not provided any proof that the universe had a special creator of any sort. In fact, science has shown that matter and energy cannot be created and thus did not require special creation.}}

Ray concludes in this chapter that God answers all prayers.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Well, Ray, you can argue that a milk carton answers all prayers too.}}

Ray then urges all readers, who are people in a failing airplane, to put on their parachute (faith in Jesus) and be saved before its too late.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This however, is an flawed argument known as [[Pascal's Wager]]. Ray Comfort says his parachute (provided by his invisible friend) is safe and harmless, but suddenly another passenger tells you "Don't use his parachute, it has holes in it. Use mine provided by my invisible friend." Then a third passenger announces “My invisible friend slashed all the parachutes on board. He takes care of his chosen people, and as none of you were born into the correct lineage, it’s too bad for you.” Some people refuse parachutes and urge others to do the same, because it would interfere with the master plan of the father of their invisible friend (these are the same people who refuse medical care in favor of prayer and faith healing). The drama goes on with the rest of the passengers, until you demand to actually see proof of a doomed plane and which parachute does work. Some say you must not demand for evidence and just have faith. Regardless, you inspect the plane and the parachutes. The plane is operating just fine in every way and each parachute has holes in them big enough you can fit your head through them. Some of the parachutes terribly constrict people, harming them. The plane reaches its destination safely, but the drama continues through the terminal, security, all the way out beyond the airport. You learn from airports around the world that many people have harmed many others and themselves due to their faith in their parachute provided by their particular invisible friend.}}

==Chapter 7: Worms transformed==
Ray goes on to repeat another of his favorite arguments against evolution. He claims that each male of all species must find a mate, who also must be equally evolved and have a desire to mate, that is they both must have evolved sex organs that fit each other. Like bolt and nuts, according to Ray, they are meant to fit each other.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This argument is absurd since some animals reproduce asexually and Ray continues to fail to realize two things: the female (not the male) is the foundation of the species, and evolution and change takes place in a population not an individual. Also, regarding his bolt and nut analogy, many people know that some people cannot reproduce since their sexual organs are too small or too large.

Ray also ignores the vast scientific depth into the evolution of sex. 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).}}

===A Coincidence===
When Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron ask how is it that leaves fall in a straight line and how our human bodies are like a car - perfectly designed with "little squirters called tear ducts."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is a simple repeat of [[intelligent design]] arguments, which do not stand up to scrutiny. The human body is complex and shares several functions that resemble that of car parts. Both Ray and Kirk asked how can leaves fall to form a straight line, implying how did the row of leaves extend or build up? Likewise, a car can be build from multiple smaller pieces. A car can also be broken down into smaller individual parts. For instance, a battery still functions as a battery. Take off the wheel, but the wheel does not lose its function. A car can still function without a motor or battery, it can function as a cart — a device that has been is use for centuries to carry goods. The motor just makes it easier, and thus more favorable.}}

==Chapter 8: Tombstone face==
In this chapter, Ray tries to persuade the reader to choose [[Christianity]] over all other religions. He uses his old guilt trip tactic "[[are you a good person?]]" in which he sets up a problem for everyone that only his God can fix by using the Ten Commandments.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The Ten Commandments are not evidence of God just as the Five Pillars of Islam are proof of Allah.}}

==Chapter 9: I'll resurrect her for you==
Ray begins this chapter with a series of questions and asks why "pseudo intellectuals [who] know the answer to everything except the issues that really matter...they haven't the faintest idea what they are doing here on earth."

In a section called "The Assumption" Ray calls evolution a fairy tale since there is no evidence to support it.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is a lie and willful ignorance of the massive amounts of evidence that support and confirm evolution.}}

Ray asks his readers to listen carefully to the language scientists use: believe, surmise, suspect, think, assume, perhaps, maybe, possibly, etc.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=What Ray fails to understand is that science does not claim to be infallible or always correct, since everything scientific must be falsifiable. Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron both use this type of language, but often use more absolute terms.}}

Ray then quotes Darwin, "I was a young man with unformed ideas, I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything: and to my astonishment the ideas took like wild fire. People made a religion out of them."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The problem with this is, this was never spoken by Charles Darwin. This is a quote from a woman who goes by the name "Lady Hope" (Believed to be Elizabeth Hope, a British evangelist) who supposedly was with Darwin at his death bed and reported that Darwin recanted. However, she was never near Darwin when he died, making all her claims about Darwin demonstrably false.}}

Moving on, Ray goes on to say those who believe in evolution is because of carbon dating. Ray quotes from an article by ''Time''[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,970345,00.html] to show that carbon dating is faulty and cannot be trusted.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This article is taken out of context and Ray ignores the vast amount of other dating methods scientists use.}}

Once again, Ray goes on to cast doubt upon the readers on evolution. Ray asks "Did the fish first that crawled out of the ocean to be come an animal have lungs or gills?" and how could the giraffes neck evolve?
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Comfort is now using a [[straw man]] against Lamarckian evolution, not Darwin's theory of evolution. Lamarck's concept pre-dated Darwin. Under Lamarckian evolution, physical traits were passed from parent to offspring (i.e. the muscles of your left arm were particularly strong from constant weight lifting, therefore your offspring will have a more muscular left arm).

Fossil evidence and the swim bladders of some modern fish support evolutionary theory regarding the evolution from gills and gill-like features to lungs in the earliest amphibians. Modern amphibians still posses many of these traits, though modified. Ray, in attempting to make this sound as absurd as possible, relies on our inherent inability to properly conceive of large spans of time, portraying one individual creature, at one point in time. This oversimplification of speciation doesn't accurately reflect scientific explanations. }}

Ray himself quotes from several people, appealing to authority, such as Sir Arthur Keith, Malcolm Muggeridge, and other articles from ''Time''.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Quotes from Keith cited by a number of creationists, appears to be completely fraudulent. Firstly, Sir Keith died in 1955 and couldn't have written the forward to the 100th edition of Origin of Species in 1959. He did write an introduction to an edition of Origin of Species but in 1928, over 30 years prior to the centennial. The quote attributed to him does not appear in that edition or in any other known work. As for Muggeridge (an obviously flawed argument from authority) Muggeridge is a non-scientist, fundamentalist Christian who was never involved in scientific research. The quote does nothing to further Ray's stated goal of demonstrating that the theory of evolution is 'unscientific'. What is unscientific is Ray's attempt to discredit evolution. The opinion of any individual, philosopher or scientist, has no bearing on whether a proposition is true or false. }}

Next, Ray talks about how scientists have been fooled by several hoaxes like Java Man, Heidelberg Man, [[Piltdown Man]], etc. Ray goes on to basically say "dogs produce dogs. Cats produce cats. Horses produce foals, and so on and so on."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=100 years ago, the only human fossils yet known were a few Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon, and Homo erectus. Then an English attorney and amateur archaeologist presented bones and associated artifacts of what appeared to be an as-yet unidentified species. British Imperialists were generally accepting of the news, but French and American scientists were skeptical, doubting that the skull and jaw even belonged together. The British museum touted the “Piltdown man” as authentic, but the American Museum of Natural History displayed it only as a “mixture of ape and man fossils”, which is what it eventually turned out to be.

There was no way to adequately examine such things back in 1915. Chemical tests –common today- didn’t yet exist and we didn’t yet have a practical understanding of radiation. And before the first australopiths were discovered, we didn’t know exactly what to expect of the links that were then still missing between humans and the other apes known at that time. But as we began filling in the gaps in human evolution with thousands of legitimate fossils, a pattern emerged which left Piltdown an increasingly obvious anomaly. Consequently it was taken off display and stored away almost continuously for decades. It lost importance in most discussions because, in light of everything else we discovered over the next few decades, it just never fit, and was eventually dismissed from the list of potential human ancestors for that reason.

As the years wore on, criticism arose against everyone who ever promoted the Piltdown collection because there seemed to be so much wrong with it. Finally, in the 1950s, it was taken back out of the box and scrutinized via more modern means. First fluorine dating revealed that it was much too recent, and it was shown to have been chemically-treated to give a false impression of its age and mineral composition. Then it was finally determined that the jaw must have come from an orangutan, and that it had been deliberately reshaped with modern tools in a well-crafted and deliberate forgery.

No one knows who did it either. And more importantly, why? Errors were already known and previously reported, but few ever suspected fraud because, what would be the motive? Nearly everyone who stood accused was a man of high reputation and credentials. Maybe that was the motive. Maybe Piltdown man was just a joke that had gone too far. But no one was laughing, and they weren’t going to let it happen again.

Even before the Piltdown hoax was officially exposed, an American paleontologist earned himself a life-time of embarrassment when he found a tooth from an extinct species of pig in Nebraska, and mislabeled it, Hesperopithecus. The cheek teeth of pigs and peccaries are fairly similar to ape molars, and this one was badly worn such that Henry Fairfield Osborne initially believed it to be human. But the real embarrassment came when he publicized his find in a popular magazine rather than submitting it for peer review first.

Creationists like to say that scientists were as duped by Nebraska man as they were by Piltdown man. But they weren’t. Everyone who saw the fossil agreed that it did look like an ape’s tooth. But with only a couple tentative exceptions, the entire contemporary scientific community either immediately rejected the accuracy of Osborne’s assertions, or they demanded more substantial evidence to back them. He obviously couldn’t provide that evidence despite another five years of searching. Eventually, he came to the sad realization that his fossil probably wasn’t really human after all. His more skeptical associate, W.K. Gregory then published a formal retraction in scientific journals.

Creationists often accuse scientists of contriving the illustration of Nebraska man and of conjuring a whole skeleton and facial construct out of a single tooth that was never even human in the first place. But the fact is that the magazine commissioned their own ‘artist’s impression’, and scientists of the day, including Osborn himself, immediately reacted with harsh criticism. As a result, the article was never reprinted. }}

Ray discusses the Big Bang theory, and how an explosion only produces chaos instead of order, and thus evolution cannot be true.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=What Ray fails to grasp is the the Big Bang deals with cosmology, not biology. Neither rely on each other for the other to be true.}}

On page 73, Ray adds "Mother nature can't do anything to stop the thousands of diseases that plague humanity. While evolution carries on for all of the animals, there will be no new lungs for those humans with emphysema and no new brains for those with brain disorders....The noses of those who live in Southern California will not evolve a smog filtration system, neither will orange pickers who have longer arms survive over the short-armed orange pickers. Men will not have their right hand evolve into a remote control, neither will drivers evolve hands-free cell phones on their chins."

Ray finally ends this chapter by claiming "If evolution is true, then the bible is not the creator's revelation to humanity."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=But this is a deliberate lie, since evolution does not refute or disprove any god(s). The Bible is a work of man, not any deities revelation to humanity.}}

==Chapter 10: Who wrote the letter?==
Comfort begins this chapter with a story of his conversion to Christianity. He is grateful that he has been given eternal life in Heaven and promised to read the Bible ever since to check if it is authentic and reliable.

Ray mentions and compliments the Dead Sea Scrolls, claiming they show Christianity has not changed.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, the Scrolls do little to help Ray Comfort's positions. The scrolls do not mention Jesus and the Gnostic writers had a different view of Christianity. Different Christianities did exist with opposing theologies and world views.}}

To prove the Bible, Ray goes into discussing the scientific foreknowledge found in the Bible. The first one he brings up is Job:26:7 "He hangs the earth on nothing." Ray claims that this passage means that the earth simply floats in space while, according to Ray, science thought that it sat on a large animal, or giant.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is false, since scientists held no such view (even Ray fails to provide a reference to his claim). The problem with this verse is that the earth does not "hang" nor is it above nothing. "Beneath" the earth is open space, cosmic dust, stars, and more. Unfortunately, that is not "nothing."}}

Ray then uses an out of date quote from ''Time'' to claim that science is in agreement with the creation account of Genesis. "Most cosmologists...agree that the genesis account of creation, in imagining an initial void, may be uncannily close to the truth (Time, December 1976)".
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Scientists now agree that the universe could be eternal. The law of conservation of mass and energy states that mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can only change forms from one to another. Based on this, the universe is most likely eternal, and was never "created."}}

Next, Ray claims: "Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power, and motion. Genesis 1:1-2 revealed such truths to the Hebrews in 1450 b.c. " In the beginning [time] god created [power] the heaven [space] and the earth [matter]…And the spirit of god moved [motion] upon the face of the waters…"
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This line of thinking is flawed and misleading. Authors of bible had a concept of time and space, though they may not know how to explain them. But claiming that the bible "revealed" these "truths" to people through scripture is an enormous overstatement.}}

Not stopping there, Ray claims the Bible reveals "the earth is round" from Isaiah 40:22. There are other Bible verses that contradict the concept of a round earth, but rather a flat earth with ends (Matthew 4:8, Isaiah 11:12, Revelation 7:1, Psalms 67:7, Daniel 4:20, Luke 4:5, and much more).
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, the verse Ray uses varies depending on translation. Some say "circle" but the earth is not a circle since a circle indicated a flat disk. If we use "round" it is still problematic, because the earth is closer to a sphere. Plus, there is some suggestion that the Egyptians knew of the earth's spherical size and shape around 2550 B.C.E. (more than a thousand years before Moses). The Greek philosopher Pythagoras, who was born in 532 B.C.E., defended the spherical theory on the basis of observations he had made of the shape of the sun and moon (Uotila 1984). If this information was known by educated Greeks and Egyptians during biblical times, its use by Isaiah is nothing special.}}

Ray repeats the misquote of [[Albert Einstein]] in Chapter 3 to make it seem he believed in God.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Einstein did not believe in a personal god; he may have been a deist.}}

==Chapter 11: Benevolent Jelly==
This chapter mainly consists of Ray Comfort preaching and repeating his usual theological arguments. He reminds people about sin and salvation through the blood of Christ and such.

==Chapter 12: The real thing==
In this chapter, Ray delves into the topic of Christians who perform horrible acts in the name of God (murder, war, genocide, etc.). Ray calls them "hypocrites" "pretenders" and "not real christians."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is a fallacy called [[No True Scotsman]]. There are over 30,000 denominations of [[Christianity]], each claiming to be correct, so there is no way of knowing which is the right kind of [[Christianity]].

There are many examples of Christians, who wholeheartedly believed they were doing the work of the Lord, and committed terrible crimes. Even to this day Christians condemn [[witchcraft]] and [[homosexuality]] in Africa, resulting in torn families and hundreds upon hundreds dead. Some Christian parents refuse to have their children treated with medicine because they think it would interfere with God's plan, their sick child has no say in the matter. This has resulted in the death of hundreds of innocent children and infants.}}

==Chapter 13: Death Sentence for error==
In this chapter Ray talks about bible prophesy, and how, if a prophet wasn't one hundred percent accurate, they would be put to death. This explains why many prophets spoke in very vague language, predicted inevitable outcomes, and often faked their prophecies.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=If "prophets" were put to death because their prophecies were not 100%, then the fate of Jesus being executed surely then points to that Jesus was a failure.}}

Ray goes through all of these different "prophesies" and cites things that have happened in the world, such as murders, earthquakes, etc., and claims these are proof of the bible's prophesies.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Unfortunately, these are not valid proofs. These things have happened throughout the history of mankind, and the world. Murder, earthquakes, and such are all things that constantly happen throughout history. People always engage in war, people get diseases, people kill others, etc.

There are several mundane ways in which a prediction of the future can be fulfilled:

# Retrodiction. The "prophecy" can be written or modified after the events fulfilling it have already occurred.
# Vagueness. The prophecy can be worded in such a way that people can interpret any outcome as a fulfillment. Nostradomus's prophecies are all of this type. Vagueness works particularly well when people are religiously motivated to believe the prophecies.
# Inevitability. The prophecy can predict something that is almost sure to happen, such as the collapse of a city. Since nothing lasts forever, the city is sure to fall someday. If it has not, it can be said that according to prophecy, it will.
# Denial. One can claim that the fulfilling events occurred even if they have not. Or, more commonly, one can forget that the prophecy was ever made.
# Self-fulfillment. A person can act deliberately to satisfy a known prophecy.

There are no prophecies in the Bible that cannot easily fit into one or more of those categories. The Bible also contains many unfulfilled prophecies [http://www.answering-christianity.com/bibles_unfulfilled_prophecies.htm</ref> and "imaginary" prophecies <ref>http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html].

Other prophecies in other religions exist, although Ray does not accept them. There are fulfilled prophecies in Zoroastrainism[http://www.bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/zoroaste.htm], Buddhism[http://bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/buddha.htm], Hinduism[http://bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/hindusa.htm], Native American[http://bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/nativeam.htm], and Mormon[http://bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/mormon.htm]. Why does not Ray accept any of these fulfilled prophecies? Because he knows the evidence supporting them is lacking, the prophecies are vague, and of course he already has a presupposition that they are all false — meaning he does not have to look at a single one of them before declaring them all wrong.}}

==Chapter 14: Bizarre to the insane==
This chapter discusses information that governs our thoughts. Ray warns us what information we accept. This goes into the theory of [[evolution]]. Ray says, "If you believe a drink contains poison, you won't drink it. If you believe it is safe, you will drink it. If you believe evolution is true, and from that premise believe that the bible is false, then you won't repent."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The last part is incorrect because there are theistic evolutionists who claim evolution is compatible with the Christian faith. Evolution does not rule out any deity and Ray knows that, but he continues to portray evolution as atheistic to mislead readers and make Christians fear evolution as damaging to their faith.

Ray concludes information will determine where your soul will remain after death, but Ray has not provided any proof that a soul, in all sense of the word, actually exist and survives after death.}}

===Cozy Cocoon===
Ray tries to explain how a Christian hides from such information that may harm their faith. Ray states that, like a caterpillar that wraps itself in its cocoon, a Christian likewise wraps himself/herself "with the rules and regulations, hiding from the real world in the cocoon of Christianity."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is actually one of the few honest things Ray has ever said. He admitted Christians do not live in the real world, which is accurate since they believe in fantasies like angels, talking snakes, drinking the blood of a ancient god, and prayer to certain deities. Hiding themselves from a world called reality and censoring themselves to observable facts, tested data, and proven theories like evolution.}}

===Light Relief===
Ray repeats an old argument known as [[Pascal's Wager]].

The chapter ends with Ray asking the reader to imagine and pretend Christianity is true and there is a Creator, Heaven, etc. "But if what I'm saying is true, the atheist will get the shock of his life - at his death. He will wake up dead, and will find that he truly has 'passed on'. I ask again, is it possible that you could be wrong? Come on, bend a little. Just between you and me, have you ever been wrong? Are you divinely infallible? Are you different from the rest of us?"
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=It is weird for someone who claims that atheists do not exist keeps referring them as atheists. Of course humans are fallible and make mistakes, but the evidence does not support Ray's position and thus atheists remain unconvinced. Could Ray be right about what happens after death? He could be, but so can every other imaginable scenario. A person could die and go to Valhalla, or Hades, or Avalon. Since any imaginable scenario is possible, this means that there are theoretically an infinite possible scenarios of what happens to a person after death, making Ray's narrow version of Heaven nearly impossible. Possibly, there could be a Heaven, but it is only a place for atheists. Say that the universe was created by a deity, but then comes along a trickster and deceives the world that there is a creator but that creator is the trickster. This means everyone in the world can be fooled, even Christians, and the creator only rewards those who do not fall for the trickster's deception. Since atheists do not worship or acknowledge the trickster as the creator, the true creator will reward them after death for not worshiping the trickster.

Ray has been asked many times "what if you are wrong and Christianity is not true?" of course Ray admits he could be wrong, but he does not "bend a little" because his beliefs are dogmatic. Ray has no interest in "bending a little" instead what he wants is more gullible followers. Professional creationists like Ray Comfort are making money hand over fist with faith-healing scams or bilking little old ladies out of prayer donations, or selling books (and Ray Comfort publishes several books every year and the books often are just repeats of previous books) and videos at their circus-like seminars. All of them feign knowledge they can’t really possess, and some of them claim degrees they’ve never actually earned. Were it not for this con, they’d have to go back to selling used cars, wonder drugs, and multi-level marketing schemes. They will never change their minds no matter what it costs anyone else.}}

==Chapter 15: Going for the spider==
Ray hopes the reader is convinced by his arguments by now. He addresses atheists as intellectually embarrassing. Ray repeats his argument a plane had a plane maker and we are all in the plane but will all have to jump.

He uses an analogy that we are sinners and doomed to an eternity in hell. We are all like people on a plane that will soon fail. We can be saved with a parachute, and in this case faith in Jesus is our parachute. However, those passengers who accept evolution will not put on the parachute and wait for one to "evolve" under their chair.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is a feeble straw man of evolution. Evolution explains the diversity of life, it does not state or imply that man-made artifices will sprout from seat cushions. As already explained in Chapter 6 of this book, Ray's parachute argument is a feeble and flawed rework of [[Pascal's Wager]].}}

===The Main Objections===
Here Ray addresses and generalizes non-Christians. By now, he expects us to be convinced that there is a Creator, now he moves on to talk about Judgment.

Ray says he is not here to convince anybody that the Moral Law exists, because everyone already know it exists because the Bible says so (Romans 2:15).
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This could not be more incorrect. Christianity's moral views are not shared by everyone, nor is it shared by all Christians. Quoting the Bible is not proof that everyone is aware of Christian moral values. Saying the law is written on our hearts is no more credible than the Islamic Primordial Covenant, which states that Allah's law is written on our souls before we even entered our bodies at birth. Ray says he is only focusing on trying to show us the "consequences" of breaking the law. What Ray has failed to show is that consequences will even take place.}}

Ray portrays God as: see's your youth days; see's your thought life; and he is perfect, just, good, holy and utterly righteous. Then Ray begins to move through the Ten Commandments while taking a person down the [[are you a good person?]] routine.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Bear in mind, this is only Ray's beliefs and projections of what God is like. Ray claims the God of the Bible is "just and good" and yet anyone can open the Bible and find God committing atrocious acts: making families eat their children, kill people for working one particular day a week, purposely deceieve people and then kill them for believing the lie, commanding forced abortions, and much much more. How do we respond to these acts? Declare them just? We know killing those known not to be responsible for the sins being punished is quintessentially unjust. Do we concoct an elaborate justification for anything Yahweh did? No, when we indulge any impulse to excuse or defend these acts, we are already going dangerously astray. If we justify these acts, what won't we justify? Do we brush Yahweh's atrocities under the carpet of symbolism, claiming they are not meant to be taken literally? Nothing in the Bible makes clear that Yahweh is acting symbolically, but even if they were the idea of an omni-benevolent baby punisher makes no more senses as a symbol than as a literal being. Do we claim that these particular passages are just merely beyond our understanding? Not only is that unconvincing, when we condemn humans who act this way without hesitation, it represents one of the most deplorably irresponsible attitudes towards morality and justice we encounter.

Non-Christians who cite biblical cruelties are often accused of cherry-picking. In fact, non-Christians can freely acknowledge both kindness and cruelties in the Bible. Particularly the cruelties that should concern any decent person are those who ignore and overlook the immoral content of religious scripture, who are truly cherry-picking. Theists who discard the less palatable parts of Scripture should at least be honest about the standards by which they do this and concede that they are applying their own independent judgment to Scripture. Obviously when we use our own moral sense to separate god and bad in Scripture, when we revise our interpretation of it to reflect the more enlightened view of our time, it is not Scripture guiding our morality. It is '''our morality''' guiding our perception of Scripture. }}

===The Law===
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The hypocrisy of Ray is demonstrated in this chapter. The back of the book said that he would not use the Bible to convince you of God, yet he has quoted the Bible continuously throughout the book, and has used a specific selection of the [[Ten Commandments]] (Exodus 20) as a witnessing tool.}}

===Not Even a Groan===
Ray walks the reader through his interpretation of the [[Ten Commandments]], starting with blasphemy. He wonders why people use Jesus Christ as a curse word rather than Buddha.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Many people use a variety of words as curse words, but perhaps the greatest reason that people use Christ as a curse word is because Jesus Christ has been used as a justification to curse, persecute, suppress, etc. others which gives it more weight as a curse word.}}

===Diamonds or Water?===
Ray asks the audience if he handed him a fistful of diamonds or a bucket of water, which one would they choose. Ray says anybody in their right mind would not choose the diamonds. However, Ray changes the scenario that if he offered the same options to a person in the desert, the person would choose the water or else they would die. Ray says Christianity offers the choice of sparkly diamonds of sin or the water of everlasting life.

The chapter ends with Ray explaining why automobile safety commercials show us dummies wearing seat belts and then crashing. They show us these scenarios to scare us, because of the risk of a car accident is fatal and thus we should wear a seat belt. Ray says that we should put on our seat belt: faith in Christ. Ray admits this is why he uses fear tactics, so we will know we must always wear the seat belt.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The difference between with scenario with faith in Christ is that the seat belt and dummy incident is testable. We can see and test accidents occurring and how to protect ourselves. Unlike Ray's "everlasting life" and God, we cannot test such things. At one point in history, cars were not made with seat belts until much later when the government mandated that cars include seat belts because it was ''rational'' and it kept people safe from physical harm. Ray's irrational pleas of hell and [[appeal to emotion]] have no evidential support, they cannot be tested as seat belts can, and there has been no proof of an afterlife. Fear is not a valid tool or a pathway to truth. Ray has not proven a god, an after life, judgment, or his particular version is the most accurate.}}

==Chapter 16: The Repellent==
Throughout this chapter, Ray [[appeal to emotion|appeals to emotion]], hoping the reader is uneasy and feels guilty for not following God's law and the Ten Commandments. Ray makes no further attempt to provide any proof for his claims, he just plays with people's fears and provides a solution that only his God can help. This ploy is called [[snake oil]].

Ray addresses the readers conscience, questioning if it is functioning correctly and parallel to God's laws and sin. If the readers conscience is not pointing in the right direction, Jesus' sacrifice will guide us once we accept and acknowledge our sin and guilt.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray only uses the Commandments from Exodus 20. What he keeps hidden from the reader is that the only time the Commandments are called the "Ten Commandments" are the ones listed in Exodus 34, and none of the ten mention lying, theft, murder, adultery, etc. at all. As long as Ray's audience remains unaware of knowledge such as this, his words will prey on people's fears that will bend people to his particular religion.

On Ray's website for taking the test if you are a sinner, he asks have you ever told a lie, stolen anything, lusted, blasphemed, etc. Even if you answer "No" to every question, the result is still the same: you are a sinner. So, in reality, this ten commandments ploy is nothing more than a little marketing tactic; like a trick question, in order to make you feel guilty in order to make you feel as if you need their god.}}

==Chapter 17: A Hopeful Presumption==
At this point, Ray continues to make the reader feels uneasy and begins to ask if the reader is ready to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. He assures it's readers to have faith, and in time God will fulfill all his promises.

Once Ray is finished with this approach, he shares a personal story of experiences what it is like to become a Christian. He talks about his home New Zealand and voyage to the United States.

==Chapter 18: Watch and Pray==
Ray shares his experiences in street preaching and his thoughts on the violence in the United States. He explains that he thought the best tool to counter this suffering is prayer.

Unsatisfied with the role of religion in America, Ray shares his thoughts that churches and missionaries should return to preaching of hellfire and brimstone. Ray's idea of addressing the people is that they need to know God is an angry, vengeful God and will destroy us unless we repent. According to Ray, many preachers are immoral (such as cheating on their wives) and not following an example of God's law.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=What Ray does not get into is why preachers do what they do. The common answer is to spread the good news, but there is another driving force: money. Based on how poorly this book is written, and that Ray publishes and distributes many books just about every year reveals something Ray is not admitting to us. Ray lives in a luxurious house in Southern California.}}

==Chapter 19: The Lost Altar==
Ray continues this chapter examining the ills of America. His reasons why these problems exist are predictable: not enough Christians (by Ray's definition) and the good news of salvation is not being widely distributed throughout the country.

Based on this, Ray instructs the reader what they should do to counteract the ills of America. This includes indoctrinating your children into Christianity.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Indoctrination has been strongly argued to be a form of child abuse, stripping the children of their individuality and ability to choose. Children are vulnerable and are used to accepting authority, so indoctrination takes advantage of them before they have developed critical thinking skills. Also, religion tends to separate children (that is Catholic children attend Catholic school, not an Islamic school). It is universally agreed that young children are too young to decide where they stand in politics, so why should we label them based on their parent's views of humanity within the cosmos?

Since Ray believes the lack of evangelical Christians in America is the source of the ills of this country, he has not considered that Christianity may be a source of the problem? And of course he does not want his readers to be aware of this. Throughout American history, Christianity has brought upon this country many ills, even to this day. Such examples include the following: suppression of Native American, women, homosexual, and atheist rights; endorsing slavery; murdering doctors; fanaticism; fundamentals promoting pseudoscience and anti-science; church sex scandals; promoting faith healing and exorcisms over medical treatment; blood libels; using tax money to build creationist parks and Arks; and so on.}}

==Chapter 20: Tampering with the Recipe==
In this chapter, Ray talks about how to make a marriage last. The advice is good, but can simply be reached through common sense really (like don't argue in front of kids).

At the beginning of the chapter, Ray talks about how christian marriages last, while others' don't, and how "nowadays secular and christian divorce statistics run hand in hand."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Wrong. According to a 1999 study done by a christian sociologist, George Barna, atheists have a 21% chance of divorce, while born again christians have a 27% chance. A six percent difference, but still a difference, with atheists in the lead having the lowest divorce rate than any other religious affiliate. It's clear though, that having a particular religion doesn't guarantee a couple to have a good marriage. There are people who have different religions, and their marriages are great. However, religious beliefs can also tear couples apart too.}}

==Chapter 21: If the average girl knew==
Ray starts off with telling the reader about an experiment. Two people were placed in separate rooms (they could still see each other through a window) and each person was told to hit a button as fast as they could once they saw a light come on. The one who wasn't fast enough in reacting to the light, was shocked by the winner, and the winner could choose the amount of shock that the loser got. The scientist did the experiment with sober, and intoxicated individuals, and when intoxicated, people sent a higher voltage of a shock into the person, than when they were sober. Ray concludes that this "proves" that people are born "wicked," and states this is exactly what the Bible predicted. Ray argues all the scientist had to do was open the bible to learn of this "truth."

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Human beings being evil by nature is debatable. This example just seems to be an observation of human behavior, by human beings, which made the claim as to the "deceitfully wicked" nature of man. Not that it "proves" the bible is inspired.}}

Ray next talks about a woman who wrote him about being terrified about potentially having homosexual thoughts. Ray goes into his bullshit about how people have been "hoodwinked into accepting many lies, and one of the greatest is that homosexuals are 'born that way'. If that is true, we are all born homosexuals."

Ray continues to talk about the "sinful nature" of humans, and how when you're a christian you should be even more aware of the fact that you're sinning all the time, it's just that when you're a christian, you feel guilty about it.

Next, Ray lists some things a person can do, in order to fight their feelings of "sexual lust" and of course claims that this is yet another sin.

===Diving or Falling===
Ray talks about how a "pretend christian" will "dive" into sin, while the true christian will "fall" into it. Basically, he's claiming that a true christian will do whatever they can to avoid sinning, yet Ray talks about his feeling guilty about taking "the biggest piece of chocolate cake," and that he can't help it, because of his sinful nature.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is a contradiction because if Ray didn't want to "sin" and have the bigger piece of cake, then he should have had the self control not to. This entire concept doesn't make the slightest bit of sense, because according to Ray his supposed sin is against his will, yet he willfully sins. If he looks at a woman and finds her attractive, or if he feels greedy by taking that bigger slice of cake, it's your own response to the women...you turned your head, you took the cake, and therefore you are responsible for your actions. Blaming it on some mythological concept of sin does not excuse you for being unable to control your behavior. That's simply a cop out.}}

The rest of the chapter is simply Ray using examples from the Bible, about Peter, and his sin, and yet again contradicting himself, because he has used the bible...and for the remainder of the chapter too, for his so called proof.

At the end of the chapter, though he restates his position in his book about atheists only using that as a label as a "weak and transparent shield for sin," and quotes the Bible, Psalm 14:1: "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no god'." Ray says "you no longer have to be a believer in the religion of atheism. You know there is a God. Your faith has been shattered. You don't believe you are an atheist."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Here Ray resorts to blatant and dishonest accusations. Atheism is not a religion in any sense. Atheists do not believe they are atheists, they know they are atheists. Theists are they ones who do not know there is a god, because faith does not produce knowledge. Knowledge is based on facts, which are testable and observable, not on blind dogmatic faith that Ray holds dear.}}

==Appendix: Reasoning for the Faith==
This last part of the book goes over questions that Ray found at a "Hollywood atheist organization" (page 179), whatever that is, and attempts to answer them. Some of these questions Comfort doesn't even answer and goes around the question. For example: on the very first question, it asks how you would define god, and why you're so convinced there is one, and Ray simply states that "god is the creator, the upholder, and the sustainer of the universe. He revealed himself to Moses as the one and only true god" (page 179). He doesn't even really answer the question as to why he's convinced there is a god...unless it's because of what the bible says, though that's not a logical answer to say the least.

*Question 3: "how can something that cannot be described be said to exist?"
Ray responds that since color cannot be described, it does not mean color does not exist. He also mentions plant life beneath the sea and planets not seen or described by man, but they nevertheless exist.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=If they have never been seen by man, how do we know they are plants? Unlike these examples Ray provides, God has not been shown to exist in reality. In fact, many have argued why God cannot exist in reality. Almost every religion tries to set itself apart from the rest and from the common definition of the word “religion” in some way, such as Buddhists claiming to be a philosophy. Rays answer is not satisfactory, but rather shown to be false based on the testimonies of ex-evangelical ministers.[http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Debunking_Christians/Page16.htm] Religions have rituals, sacred texts, creation myths, and worship, and indeed Christianity has all of these.}}

*Question 4: "Since there are countless religions in the world today claiming to be the one true religion, why do you think yours is truer than theirs?"
Ray answers no religion is "truer" than any other. He says religions strive to make peace with their creator, but Christianity does not do so. Instead peace has been given to man by Jesus. Ray concludes that Christianity is not a man made religion, but a personal relationship with Jesus.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, Christianity is indeed a religion.[http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Debunking_Christians/Page16.htm] Buddhism often tries to separate itself as a religion, however it remains a religion.}}

*Question 5: "Can more than one of these religions be right?"
According to Ray, "Jesus discarded all other religions as a means of finding forgiveness of sin." Ray then quotes Bible verses that supports Jesus as being the one true God (John 14:6, 1 Timothy 2:5, and Acts 4:12).
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Basically, this is self-promotion and provides no empirical data to support this claim. Note: 1 Timothy is considered a forgery by the vast majority of critical scholars.}}

*Question 15: "If God of the Bible is "all good," why does he himself say he created evil (Isaiah 45:7)?"
First Ray offers a translation for the word 'evil' in that verse. He says it means "calamity" or "suffering." Ray says God uses good and bad things to bring us to a relationship with him, but he did not bring evil into being. Ray goes on to tell the story of Adam and Eve in the garden, and God gave him a choice to obey or not. Once they were aware of good and evil, it was up to them to choose between the two.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray does not really address the question. Ray has admitted that God created all things, but will not say that God created evil. Does this mean good and evil exist independent of God? If so, then why would we need God to tell us what is good and bad?}}

*Question 16: "Is there a better way than reason to acquire knowledge and truth?"
Ray simply answers no. He then goes on to mention from the Bible "'Come now, and let us reason together,' said the Lord." Ray then mentions Paul reasoned with King Agrippa and Felix.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Comfort fails to mention certain important Christians like Martin Luther who said "Reason should be destroyed by all Christians."}}

*Question 17: "If you answered #16 with "faith," then why are there so many contradictory faiths in the world?"
Ray says that at least every nation acknowledges there is a Creator. However, Ray says they worship the sun, moon and idols. Ray says no one has ever found an atheistic tribe, because they were not that ignorant.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray pulls no punches from insulting other religions and those with no religion. Even if we could not find one atheistic tribe in the world, that does not give religion special credibility.}}

*Question 18: "If you believe, as many do, that all religions worship the same god under different names, how do you explain the existence of religions which have more than one god, or Buddhism, which, in its pure form, there is no god?"
Ray simply responds that those who do not worship the one true god will find any replacement, whether it be multiple gods or small wooden idol.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Again, Ray pulls no punches from insulting other religions, even his fellow Christians. He seems to have missed that some religions do not find a "replacement" because there is nothing to replace.}}

*Question 19: "What would it take to convince you that you are wrong?"
Ray does not provide a suitable answer. Ray's respond is that he already has been convinced, during the 22 years of his unconverted life.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=He does not share what would be the first step to show his beliefs are incorrect, perhaps he does not want them to be incorrect. This just reveals his dogmatic beliefs.}}

*Question 20: "If nothing can convince you that you are wrong, then why should your faith be considered anything but a cult?"
Ray defines a cult as a "system of religious worship and ritual" which reflects every man made religion.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, as Ray already described, he does not believe Christianity is a religion but rather a relationship with Jesus. He also argues he does not have a belief system, but rather a experience system once a Christian has felt the Holy Spirit. See the response to question 3 regarding Christianity not being a religion. Also, the human mind is capable of producing many types of experiences. Ray does not provide any data or criteria to explain what he is experiencing is real or accurate. Also, Comfort is quick to dismiss religious experiences from every other religion, but he will not critically examine his own?}}

*Question 21: "If an atheist lives a decent, moral life, why should a loving, compassionate God care whether we believe in him/her/it"
To Ray, it does not matter how much of a moral life we live we are still born in sin and violate the Ten Commandments, and thus we are damned.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=It is common for religions to set up a standard that no one is safe from unbelief. Basically Ray admits that God is not all-loving or all-merciful, otherwise we would not be punished just for being good or even born. Don't forget, Ray is only using his particular selection of the Commandments, but what about the Ten Commandments in Exodus 34?}}

*Question 22: "How can the same God who, according to the Old Testament, killed everybody on earth except for eight people be considered anything other than evil?"
After examining their lifestyle, Ray claims those people who did deserve to die. They rejected God. When a judge finds a criminal guilty, criminals never see the judge as righteous.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray wonders why people do not take him seriously regarding issues of morality. If Ray thinks that people who reject God deserve death, then about 90 percent of the population of Sweden deserve death, among several billion others around the globe. During the flood, God killed small infants to young to know anything about God, and unborn babies in their mother's womb.}}

*Question 23: "Must we hate ourselves and our families to be good Christians (Luke 14:26)?"
Ray says no, that bible verse is a "hyperbole." Ray says we should love God more than our families and ourselves. To place love in anything else, Ray considers it idolatry.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Here, Ray cherry-picks what is a hyperbole, metaphor, or fable. He does not provide a definition or criteria of what constitutes as a hyperbole or what is literal.}}

*Question 24: "Since the ancient world abounded with tales of resurrected Savior-Gods that were supposed to return from the dead to save humanity, why is the Jesus myth any more reliable than the others?"
Ray says, unlike those other myths that died off, the Jesus myth is true and provable. All one has to do is accept Jesus into their heart and experience the truth.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, these experiences do not change reality. The mind is capable of producing many experiences that seem spiritual, but all this proves is that these experiences are just products of the mind and not the supernatural. Also, when examining the [[historicity of Jesus]], it strongly seems Jesus was a myth.}}

*Question 25: "If the Bible is the inerrant word of God, why does it contain so many factual errors, such as the two contradictory accounts in Genesis?"
Ray says there are no contradictory accounts in genesis. Gen. 1 explains creation while Gen. 2 goes into detail.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=What Ray does not share is that the two stories get several things backwards. Neither does he mention or address Genesis account that plants came before sunlight. As for the other factual errors, Ray claims after reading the Bible everyday for 30 years he has never found an error. Then how about you read Dr. Helm's book "The Bible Against Itself."}}

*Question 26: "Why isn't the Bible written in a straightforward way that leaves no doubt about what it means?"
Ray says it is clear to those who obey God and those who are closed spirituality will not understand it.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This does not really address the question. Many people who no longer believe in God have had such spiritual experiences (and can produce them again), and they can fully read and understand the Bible. Ray does not mention why he does not follow certain demands included in the Bible, such as cutting off your own hand if you sin, which early church fathers did do and encourage their subjects and all Christians to do the same.}}

*Question 28: if anyone has ever been killed in the name of atheism?
Ray responds with the usual absurd argument about the communist regimes, and claims these were a result of atheism.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=As explained to him many times, communism is a form of state worship and not a single person was killed in the name of atheism. And if communism was the cause for all the deaths, then it is actually a problem for Christianity since communism predates Marx and can be found in the book of Acts. That's right, communism found in the perfect Word of God.}}

==External Links==
*[http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2007/12/god-doesnt-believe-in-atheists-proof.html Arizona Atheist Blog: God Doesn't Believe in Atheists Review]
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=CntF1S132L8C&pg=PT8&lpg=PT8&dq=Ray+Comfort+Ron+Barrier&source=bl&ots=Dzr_wp9ihE&sig=QEYjpdgPrRQ7fYgsEyekOn5rPrs&hl=en&ei=OvBdTbz-N4q8sQPR4NXfCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q&f=false Google Books: God Doesn't Believe in Atheists]
*[http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/comfortablieb.htm God Doesn’t Believe in Creationists: A Response to the Books of Ray Comfort]

==See also==
*[[Atheism]]
*[[Ray Comfort]]
*[[Way of the Master]]

[[Category:Apologetic literature]]
[[Category:Books]]

God Doesn't Believe in Atheists (book)

2011-11-08T19:24:18Z

Feredir28: /* The Main Objections */

'''''God Doesn't Believe in Atheists: Proof That the Atheist Doesn't Exist''''' is a book authored by [[Ray Comfort]], published in 1993, with a foreword by mister [[Kent Hovind]].

==Content==
In this book, Ray tries to make an argument that atheists do not exist and provide evidence of the supernatural.

BACK COVER:"''Contrary to popular opinion, the existence of God can be proven absolutely, scientifically, without reference to faith or even the Bible. It is also possible to prove that the Bible is supernatural in origin. This book will do just that.

It will also show the atheist that he doesn't exist, reveal the true motives of the agnostic, and strengthen the faith of the believer.''"

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray says he can prove the existence of God absolutely, scientifically, without reference to faith or even the Bible. Do not hold your breath. Ray always promises this, just like at the [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rational_Response_Squad_debate_with_Way_of_the_Master debate with the Rational response Squad]. Ray and Kirk Cameron failed to prove the existence of God and used the Bible and faith as evidence multiple times when they claimed they would not need to. If they knew this going in, and surely they did, then they knew they had no case and God could not be prove scientifically. It is likely in this book, Ray will use and repeat the same old long-refuted claims and stunts.}}

==Foreword==
In this section, [[Kent Hovind]] praises this book and attacks atheism. According to him, the debate of whether God exists or not continues. If there is a God, we should find out who he is and what he wants. However, if there is no god, we are in trouble since the earth is moving at great speeds into space with no one in charge. The universe operates according to natural law, and our safety is not a concern for the universe.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Hovind's idea and need for a god is to provide comfort and a safety relief, but his wishful thinking does not change reality.}}

Hovind says anyone with eyes that can see and a brain that can work can obviously spot the evidence for a creator. He uses a different version of [[Paley's argument | Paley's watch]], that if you walked through the woods and found a painting on a tree, you would assume someone created that painting. We know a painting had a painter, but the core issue is contrasting between natural design or intelligent design.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=We see design in paintings, but we also see design in snow flakes, clouds, and crystals. The difference is that crystals and such form naturally with no intelligent being to shape or manipulate them. Ray Comfort and Kent Hovind claim to see design in the universe, but they have not provided any proof on intelligent design. They just label everything as intentionally designed by some supernatural agent. However, labeling something does not alter reality and the it's true nature.}}

Hovind claims in his 33 years of examining the creationism vs. evolution debate, he never encountered an atheist who did not use evolution to support his worldview. Hovind claims not a shred of evidence has been found to support evolution, and it requires a leap of faith to accept evolution, as well as to accept that there is no god. He claims that both atheism and evolution are religions.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Some atheists do not accept evolution, but evolution is not required for atheism. Many Christians, Popes, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and more accept evolution. There are mountains of evidence for evolution, Kent Hovind has been criticized as a charlatan and shameless scientific-illiterate liar. Evolution nor atheism requires faith. Evolution has many evidence to support it, and atheism is the lack of faith in any deity. Evolution as religion has been rejected by the courts:
<blockquote>
Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.
</blockquote>
The court cases ''Epperson v. Arkansas'', ''Willoughby v. Stever'', and ''Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist''. Atheism is also not a religion. Atheism has no doctrines, rituals, places of worship, saviors, priests, creation myths, tenets, sacred texts, and such. Although some religions do not worship any deities, such as [[Buddhism]], Raelism, and Satanism, they are indeed religions.}}

Hovind ends his remarks by claiming this book is meant to open the eyes of atheists to make them see the evidence for a loving creator and they all must repent of their sins. And this review will show when and where the evidence presented stands up to scrutiny and if indeed Ray comfort made his case if there is a creator.

==Introduction==
Ray Comfort shares a story that he offered to debate atheists, such as the American Atheists Inc. They turned him down. He then challenged Ron Barrier (a spokesperson of American Atheists) to a debate, who at first turned him down, but then later challenged him due to, according to Ray, pressure from other atheists. Ray concluded that the Bible was right, "with God, nothing is impossible."

==Chapter 1: Who made God?==
According to Ray, there are only three explanations for the misery of the world:
# There isn't a [[god]]
# God doesn't have the power to control his own creations, or won't, "which makes him a tyrant"
# The [[Bible]] tells you the reason for the state of the world.

===Faith is for Wimps===
Here, Ray wonders why using the word faith is "offensive" to nonbelievers. Ray makes the argument that we all have faith of some sort, such as that we believe the milk we drink is safe because of faith, rather than for a reason, such as that it is pasteurized in health-inspected facilities. He claims that we cannot ''know'' if Napoleon existed or who discovered America. For the small things in life, Ray says we "trust" that the coffee cup is clean or trust the taxi driver to keep his hands on the wheel. Ray argues that we have faith in information provided by others, such as weather men, historians, or scientists. Therefore, Ray concludes that atheists have faith in "erroneous information" and think they are "atheistic in [their] beliefs."

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Using the word "faith" has different effects on nonbelievers. Perhaps the main reason why many nonbelievers do not appease to Ray who use that word is because "faith" is because that word implies belief without evidence. When trying to have a rational conversation, when applying faith to know something means their claims are unsupported, baseless, and meaningless, which would mean the whole dialogue does not make any progress. Faith is an anchor that holds people into irrational beliefs, which is why many nonbelievers find it irritating to try to have a rational conversation with those who refuse to engage in a rational conversation. So the word "faith" is no 'offensive' but rather irritating.

We all do not have faith. This perspective is one put forward by a lot of people in our world, when something like faith is questioned and denounced. It expresses a general misunderstanding of the concept of faith. We do not blindly trust our loved ones though, nor do we get into a car and simply drive without any thought. Trust is contingent on evidence and experience. We tend to trust people who we know, people who have not wronged us in any significant way. Our love for a person may occasionally drive us to trust someone we would not normally trust, but as I stated before, misguided reasoning is not the same thing as faith. If you reason that your loved one deserves your trust, and you accept the risk of having it violated, you have still used reason and not acted on the blind thoughtlessness of faith.

As for the driving example, we do typically factor in some evidence and logic before we head out on the road. If it is particularly bad weather or if your tires are flat, most sane people will not just ignore such things and try to drive anyway. It is not operating on faith to go about one's day without taking every little possible worry into account either. It is possible that you could die in a car wreck, but experience tells us that we have survived many trips in the past, and unless there is some good reason for us to fear for our safety, it is perfectly rational to take the risk involved with driving. Faith is not a part of it, but reason certainly is. Indeed when we do drink milk, we check to see if it is not expired and safe to drink. We trust that whoever put the deadline on the carton is accurate, based on their calculations have often been tested and well understood. If the milk was not ready or the date was off, there are systems of correction (such as health inspection) before it reaches the grocery store.

We can know if Napoleon existed, because we have actual empirical proof that he did. We have letters and journals written by his own hand; portraits of him; hundreds of independent, contemporary, unbiased eye-witness accounts; artifacts made for him or by him; he left a legacy behind; he altered nations and policies; and much more. Also, if we did use Ray's logic, then we cannot ''know'' if Jesus Christ existed, although it is certain Ray would disagree because the Holy Bible is infallible and never lies - but his only justification for such a belief is blind faith.

Trust is not the same as faith. Faith is belief without evidence. We can drink coffee from a cup, but we often check to see if it is clean. Many times we know it is clean because we just washed it or washed it recently and thus know it is clean.

We do not have faith in the weather man, historians or scientists. Each of them have qualifications and they have evidence they base their claims on. They may often be wrong, such as the weather man who bases his claims on the instruments he has but weather is always in a constant state to change. Historians do deep research into several fields, and they base their works only on the data collected. Scientists are often the most trustworthy, because they test their work and they have other qualified people peer review their work and try to disprove it. When they cannot disprove it, it is accepted as true.

It is also illogical to suggest that one can have faith in the non-existence of anything. Do we take it on faith that leprechauns or fairies don't exist, or is it the belief in those creatures that is based on faith?}}

===Trump Card===
Here Ray addresses the question "Who Made God?" Ray dances around this question by saying anyone can find the answer by being ''reasonable.'' Ray claims that God has no beginning and no end, and God is not subjected to time since he created time. Of course, Ray quotes Scripture to support his claims (such as 2 Peter 3:18 and Hebrews 6:19). Ray says that God can "flip through time as you can I can flip through the pages of a history book." Ray believes prophecies is enough evidence to support this claim.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=First noting 2 Peter is considered by the vast majority of critical scholars as a forgery. Also, simply being "reasonable" is not enough or an excuse to accept the existence of the concept the universe was created by "invisible pink fairies" who are not bound by time. To be reasonable is to test and evaluate such beliefs and see if there is any truth to them, and Ray has not provided any.

Is God bound by time? Did God create time?
*P1) God is defined as the arbiter of all things, including time;
*P2) A decision requires transition from indifferences to will (requires time)
*P3) Since time cannot exist prior to its existence, God cannot choose to create time;
*P4) If God cannot choose to create time, he is not arbiter of all things;
*P5) Therefore, a personal entity cannot be the ultimate arbiter of all things;
*P6) Therefore, God as defined is internally inconsistent
*C) Therefore, there is no God.
The act of creating the universe is meaningful only in time. Is God in time or outside of it? Time isn't absolute. It’s elastic and is stretched by accelerating motions or fields of intense gravity, such as those around a black hole. A God contained in time would no longer be powerful because he would be subjected to the laws of time. A God outside time would be omnipotent, but unable to help us, since our actions happen in time. If God transcended time, then he would already know the future. If he knew everything in advance, why would he bother to become involved in the struggle of humankind against evil? God must be immutable and unable to create or else he is inside time and is not immutable. So how can an immutable entity create something? If there is an act of creation, is the creator involved or not? If he isn't then why call him the creator? If he is involved, then because creation inevitably occurs in stages, the something or someone involved in these stages is not immutable. Creation remains a process, and any process, whether temporal or not, is not compatible with immutability.

God is also defined as being omniscient, however if he is then Ray Comfort and other Christians who hold similar beliefs must admit there is no free will. For instance, imagine a person was walking down a road and approaching a left or right turn only. God, being omniscient, knows that the person will turn left. And then the person turns right, and God is surprised and thus God is not all-knowing. However, if the person did turn left, how is that different from not having free will. If god knows every action and decision we will make throughout our lives before we are even born, then he knows where we will spend eternity after death. And he would have know all this eons before he ever thought to create earth and humans.}}

===Atheist Test===
Finally, Ray tries to persuade readers that atheists do not exist. He provides a false definition of [[agnosticism]] and claims that atheists make an "absolute claim" that God does not exist. According to Ray, one must possess all the knowledge of the universe in order to make such a claim.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, Ray contradicts himself when he makes the absolute claim that God does exist. Atheists do not have to have absolute knowledge to not believe in green horses galloping on the surface of the sun, because there is no evidence to support such a idea. An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in a god (not "believe" there is no god), that is atheists do not buy what religion is selling. If theists like Ray Comfort claim to "know" God exists, they should be able to provide empirical data and evidence for their god, and to date not a single one has. It doesn’t matter how convinced you are; belief does not equal knowledge. The difference is that knowledge can always be tested for accuracy where mere beliefs often can not be. No matter how positively you think you know it, if you can’t show it, then you don’t know it, and you shouldn’t say that you do. Nor would you if you really cared about the truth. Knowledge is demonstrable, measurable. But faith is often a matter of pretending to know what you know you really don't know, and that no one even can know, and which you merely believe -often for no good reason at all.

Later in this book (pg. 71) Ray confidently asserts, “It doesn’t matter how many thousands of years pass, elephants don’t have giraffes, nor do monkeys have men.” How does Comfort envision himself escaping the snarky retort that, because he isn’t omniscient and didn’t witness the birth of every animal that ever lived, he cannot deny evolution? God doesn’t believe in creationists!}}

Ray ends this chapter with a tale of Mussolini. It is said that Mussolini stood on a pedestal, shouted "God, if you are there, strike me dead!" when God did not, he concluded that he did not exist. Ray says his prayer was answered later.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This was not an answered prayer, it is simply the result of time and fatal force.}}

==Chapter 2: Banana in hand==
In this chapter, Ray provides arguments for "Creation." Among them are the coca-cola can, the [[banana argument]], an apple, and other examples. His argument is basically that these could not have formed naturally and creation requires a creator.

Using the coca-cola can, he provides a straw man argument of the [[Big Bang]] theory.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The Big Bang does not claim anything came from nothing, nor does it comment or have anything to do with [[abiogenesis]] or [[evolution]]. The only one who does claim everything came from nothing is Ray Comfort, who believes his God created everything ex-nihlio by using incantations (i.e. MAGIC). So in an ironic sense, whenever Ray ridicules people who believe everything came from nothing, he is addressing himself while falsely disguising every other position as the same as his.}}

In a section, he says his arguments are scientific because science provides evidence that a creation must have a creator.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=No, science is about testing and observing. Ray provides no empirical data that there is a creator, and even if we allow Ray to make such a claim he provides no evidence that this creator is his narrow version of the Christian God, multiple gods, or any infinite deities that can theoretically exist. When Ray was on [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Atheist_Experience_debates_Ray_Comfort The Atheist Experience], he admitted his idea of testing was "common sense." Common sense is not testing, nor is it reliable. By Ray's logic, does lightning have a lightning maker? We see patterns and design in snowflakes and crystals, but we know they come about through purely natural forces without the help of the supernatural. What Ray has failed to do is provide proof or any data whatsoever that life is not the result of natural forces like a snow flakes.}}

He adds that atheism is a dying movement, providing quotes from articles but provides no reference.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, the actually polls show that church attendance is declining across the globe and atheism in America has recently doubled in the past decade. Atheism is not dying, it is rapidly growing. In fact, polls show more people leaving Christianity not only in America but around the world. In fact, last year 180,000 Catholics in Germany left the church.[http://www.christianmessenger.in/%E2%80%98180000-catholics-quit-church-last-year-in-germany%E2%80%99/]}}

==Chapter 3: Seeing is Believing==
In this chapter, Ray claims the evidence of God is self-evident.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, seeing is believing but not knowing. Believe as hard as you want to. But convincing yourself however firmly still can’t change the reality of things. Seeing is believing. But seeing isn’t knowing. Believing isn’t knowing. Subjective convictions are meaningless in science, and eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence.

For example, if I go into my front yard and I see a large sauropod walking down the middle of my street, I will of course be quite convinced of what I see. I may be even more satisfied when I follow the thing and find that I can touch it, maybe even ride it if I want to. When I gather sense enough to run back for my camcorder, I may not be able to find the beast again, because I don't know which way it went. But that doesn’t matter because I saw it, I heard it, felt it, smelt it and I remember all that clearly with a sober and rational mind. But somehow I'm the only one who ever noticed it, and of course no one believes me. Some other guy says he saw a dinosaur too, but his description was completely different, such that we can’t both be talking about the same thing. So it doesn't matter how convinced I am that it really happened. It might not have. When days go by and there are still no tracks, no excrement, no destruction, no sign of the beast at all, no other witnesses whose testimony lends credence to mine, and no explanation for how a 20-meter long dinosaur could just disappear in the suburbs of a major metropolis, much less how it could have appeared there in the first place, -then it becomes much easier to explain how there could be only two witnesses who can’t agree on what they think they saw, than it is to explain all the impossibilities against that dinosaur ever really being there. Positive claims require positive evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that’s what I’d need –since what I propose isn’t just extraordinary; its impossible. But since there's not one fact I can show that anyone can measure or otherwise confirm, then my perspective is still subjective -and thus uncertain. Eventually, even I, the eyewitness, would have to admit that, although I did see it, I still don’t know if it was ever really there –regardless whether I still believe that it was.

It doesn’t matter how convinced you are; belief does not equal knowledge. The difference is that knowledge can always be tested for accuracy where mere beliefs often can not be. No matter how positively you think you know it, if you can’t show it, then you don’t know it, and you shouldn’t say that you do. Nor would you if you really cared about the truth. Knowledge is demonstrable, measurable. But faith is often a matter of pretending to know what you know you really don't know, and that no one even can know, and which you merely believe -often for no good reason at all.}}

===Back to Da Vinci===
Ray provides a whole section repeating his argument a "painting had a painter." He then says that since man has not been able to create something as complex and magnificent as the human eye, it must have been specially created.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=What Ray refuses to acknowledge or admit is that nature through natural selection can and has created numerous types of eyes. There is more types of eyes than the human eye, much that are simpler and some more complex. All the steps to making an eye are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations (a blink of an eye in geological times).

Just because man cannot create something does not mean by default anything Ray or anyone can imagine exists or is responsible for the creation of anything. Ray's line of thinking also begs the question. How does Ray know that the eye, if it was created, was crafted by magical invisible pixies or Aton rather than the God of the Bible?}}

Ray further argues that atheism is a position that claims everything came from nothing, and challenges any scientist on the planet to create something from nothing.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is a deliberate lie invented by Christians to make atheism look foolish. Atheists and atheism does not make any claims about origins. Ray continues to use this straw man of the Big Bang theory, which he interprets everything came from nothing. However, this is not at all what physicists claim. 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>

What is ironic is that Ray is the one who claims everything came from nothing by supernatural/magic methods, and yet provides zero evidence to support this belief.}}

===Albert Knew===
Does not believing in something mean it does not exist? Ray says of course not. He argues a blind man may not believe in color, color still exists in the same way God exists.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, a blind person can be aware of color, but Ray does not believe that Allah exists although he is sure that Allah does not exist. What atheists argue is that it is unreasonable to hold such beliefs if they cannot be shown to be true or proven. Ray Comfort and other theists continue to make the positive claim that god exists, and so the burden of proof is on them to provide positive evidence, however what they are proposing is extraordinary and thus require extraordinary evidence. Thus far, Ray has used various logical fallacies; wishful thinking; and appeals to emotion and arguments from ignorance.}}

Can we believe in things we have never seen? Ray says no and uses the human brain as an example. Since you have never seen your brain before, do you conclude it does not exist?
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Unfortunately for Ray, we can see our brains. We can see them through operations, x-ray, or even cutting into a corpse. Ray is also wrong in his conclusion. We can believe in things we have never seen. Ray is living proof of this. Ray has never seen a supernatural being create a grain of sand from nothing, a man walk on water, or angels and demons. Ray believes in angels and Satan, but he has never seen one nor can he describe what Satan looks like. He can speculate all he wants on what he may look like, but he cannot provide proof to how he knows it but more importantly Ray cannot prove that Satan exists in the first place.}}

Ray also quote mines [[Albert Einstein]] and [[Stephen Hawking]] deliberately to make it seem as they believed in god; however, neither of these men held such beliefs.

Ray ends this chapter by repeating the [[Fine-tuned universe | fine tuning argument]], that is our earth is just in the right state of being for life to evolve.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This argument is flawed, weakened by the fact that it is a tautology, and proven false by quantum mechanics, the M-theory, the multiverse, and the Copernican Principle. Theists like to use the anthropic principle as proof that life can only be the result of divine creation, but there are several flaws in this argument. One such problem is the only form of life we are familiar with is here on earth which are carbon-based, there may be simpler forms of life elsewhere in the universe that are not carbon-based. Not to mention, theists like to portray earth as having all the right requirements down to such a precision to allow life. But what the anthropic principle fails is that it implies the universe is fine-tuned for life, however if the universe was fine-tuned for us, surely a bit more of it would be habitable. The numbers are so absurd that it defies comprehension. It is equivalent to a person after exploring 1.6 BILLION rocks like our Moon and finding one single virus particle on only one of the moons and collectively they are fine-tuned for life. Or having six MILLION Olympic-sized swimming pools that can collectively hold no more than a single molecule of water, yet claiming they are fine-tuned for water storage. Or claiming that a hard-drive the size of the earth that can only store one bit (1/0), or a hard-drive the size of Jupiter hold cannot even hold a single tweet on twitter is fine tuned for storing data. Or claiming that 2 MILLION 50 ton cranes that cant collectively hold more than a single proton are fine tuned for lifting. Or claiming that a plane at full speed travels less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the diameter of a proton over 10 billion years is fine-tuned for speed. If you think these examples are ridiculous, then you would agree that so too is the argument that the universe is fine-tuned for life. It does not take a genius to realize how absurd and flawed this argument truly is.

The Copernican Principle is the opposite of the Anthropic Principle and states that humans do not occupy a privileged place in the universe. Successive astronomical discoveries seem to support this principle. In the Middle Ages it was assumed that God created man in his image, and such, man and the earth were at the center of the universe. Copernicus and Galileo abolished the illusion that the earth was the center of the solar system and put the sun in its rightful heliocentric place. It was then found that the sun was not at the center of our galaxy, and Hubble showed that our own galaxy, the Milky Way, was not at the center of the universe. Finally, the multiverse concept suggests our universe may be just one of many constantly sprouting new universes, further diminishing the Anthropic Principle conclusion that the universe is here just for us. The Anthropic Principle emphasizes the rarity of life and consciousness while the Copernican Principle forces us to realize it was not all done just so we could exist.}}

==Chapter 4: Strawberries and garlic==
Ray begins this chapter by asking a series of questions, such as "Where does your hair grow from?" and "If you ever decide to get false teeth, will you have them made, or will you wait for 'chance' to make a pair for you?" in a attempt to drag the reader into wonder by thinking such instances can only be done by a creator.

Ray then uses arguments of [[irreducible complexity]] proposed by [[Michael Behe]]. Such examples include the blood clotting mechanism and argues such a system could not have evolved by small steps through natural selection.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, this has been debated and settled for many years that indeed the blood clotting system can evolve, both in the lab, nature, and in court. In the court case [[Dover vs kitzmiller | Dover v. Kitzmiller]], Michael Behe testified after years of research, no one has found a way how the irreducible system could have evolved. However, he was presented with many volumes of books, science articles, and peer reviewed tests that explain and demonstrate the evolution of the systems he claimed were "irreducible." However, Michael Behe, without examining any of them, said they were not good enough. This caught the attention of the judge as willful ignorance and deliberate deception.

Blood clotting is not irreducibly complex. Some animals -- dolphins, for example -- get along fine without the Hagemann factor (Robinson et al. 1969), a component of the human blood clotting system which Behe includes in its "irreducible" complexity (Behe 1996, 84). Doolittle and Feng (1987) predicted that "lower" vertebrates would lack the "contact pathway" of blood clotting. Work on the genomes of the puffer fish and zebrafish have confirmed this (Yong and Doolittle 2003). How did the blood clotting system evolve? The blood clotting systems appears to be put together by using whatever long polymeric bridges are handy. There are many examples of complicated systems made from components that have useful but completely different roles in different components. There is also evidence that the genes for blood clotting (indeed, the whole genome) duplicated twice in the course of its evolution (Davidson et al. 2003). The duplication of parts and co-opting of parts with different functions gets around the "challenge" of irreducible complexity evolving gradually. }}

Ray goes on to list several organs that seem irreducibly complex, such as the brain and the ear, and concludes that only a creator could design such features.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is an [[argument from incredulity]]. The brain is not irreducible. Brains come in many different sizes. The sea slug (Aplysia), for example, has only about 20,000 neurons in its entire nervous system. Coelenterates have an even simpler nervous system consisting of a nerve net and nothing even close to a brain. There are innumerable intermediate forms of brains between humans and brainless animals; gradual evolution of the brain presents no challenge. When Ray moves on to the eye, he quote mines [[Charles Darwin]] in his book ''The Origin of Species'' that even Darwin admitted that the eye could not have evolved. Ray commonly uses this quote-mine, even though he knows he is being deliberately dishonest. Darwin never meant at all that the eye could never evolve, he predicted that several small simple steps can create a complex system, which we have proven to be the case with the eye, ear, and brain. Darwin's predictions turned out to be true.}}

Ray ends this chapter by stating that even atheists stand in awe at such wonders of nature (Niagara Falls, the Grand Canyon, etc) and questions "How much more should we be humbled by the maker of these things?"
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Here, Ray is making up stories. For someone who constantly claims to not believe things on faith or settle for things that can be "absolutely" known, he makes a lot of generalizations that he has no way of knowing or verifying. Not all atheists are the same and many have different views of nature. Some may find wonders in nature, but they do not irrational equate such beauty to unprovable entities like leprechauns or sky pixies. Atheists and rationalists understand that nature contains beauty because we are a species who are biologically built to recognize and detect patterns. However, there is a difference between natural design and artificial design. We see design in paintings, but we know through observation and experience that paintings are artificially designed. We also see design, patterns and order in sand dunes, snowflakes, clouds, crystals, and such but we understand that these are naturally occurring and do not require any supernatural interference, which is what Ray is arguing for. Thus far, Ray has not provided any proof for such a belief or provided any model or method to distinguish how we know this universe is artificially designed.}}

==Chapter 5: Stronger than Sex Drive==
In this chapter, Ray plays on people's fear of death and appeals to emotion. Since we all die, we have an inner feeling to avoid death. Unable to find an answer for how or why this is, Ray concludes this feeling is given to us by God. Ray promises that faith in God will present us everlasting life if we repent.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is an [[argument from incredulity]]. There is an explanation for the need to avoid death. Every species has a tendency towards survival, which is an evolutionary trait. Creatures who are more prone to avoid death survive more than those creatures that don't. As for why humans want to seek life after death, the fear of death has a lot of explanatory power.}}

Ray uses an analogy similar to one he presented at the [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rational_Response_Squad_debate_with_Way_of_the_Master Nightline debate Rational Response Squad] of a television and signals. He says radio waves are invisible flowing through the air and our minds are transmitters. He says if we just push the power button, we will receive signals and see a picture. The same, according to Ray, will happen if we accept God and Jesus Christ: we will have evidence of his existence and know his laws. He claims that people just "won't" find god, and chooses not to try.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=If such a thing was provable as he says, then why does Ray's beliefs rest on faith? However, many people already have tried it and have not gotten the same results Ray has. He contradicted himself to, because he claimed that this is "provable" but then why has man made thousands of religions throughout history?

Some people learn that Ray's premises are fallacious, and many others find other deities. The human brain is capable of producing many religious experiences that ''seem'' real. A number of investigations have shown that deep temporal lobe stimulation in the area around the amygdala and hippocampus of the limbic system produces feelings of intense meaningfulness, of depersonalization, of a connection with God, of cosmic connectedness, of out-of-body experiences, a feeling of not being in this world, déjà vu (a feeling that something has been experienced before), jamais vu (a feeling something is happening for the first time even though it has been experienced before), fear, and hallucinations. Since the amygdala and hippocampus, all part of the limbic system, is closely connected to the frontal lobes (the area of the brain that senses what is real -touch, taste, smell, etc.) simulations of the amygdala and/or hippocampus is often perceived as real.}}

In the last paragraph, Ray says ('''bold emphasis''' added)
<blockquote>
"[Christianity] maintains that the invisible God of creation can supernaturally reveal himself to you. '''Despite the fact that it is illogical''', I have more that an air of confidence because what I am saying '''is provable'''."
</blockquote>
Ray asks skeptics to stop doubting and dares them to believe (despite the hundreds of reasons they can give why it will not work). He claims that people just "won't" find god, and chooses not to try. He says those who refuse to look at "willfully ignorant of the truth."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=If such a thing was provable as he says, then why does Ray's beliefs rest on faith? His proofs, which are not "proofs," are just as valid if you replace God in the equation with Allah, invisible pixies, or the [[Flying Spaghetti Monster]]. He contradicted himself too, because he claimed that this his beliefs are "provable" but he does not provide any proof that the "creator" is his particular version of the creator. Why has man made thousands of religions and deities throughout history? Ray must know that what he is proposing is illogical, he openly admitted it. His only support is personal experience, which does not provide any empirical proof. He tells us to seek and we shall find, but that requires that we must first perceive that god exists before we actually prove god exists to start with. This is similar to a person off to seek Big Foot, the person already believes Big Foot exists without first verifying that such a creature exists. It is also similar to seeking aliens/extraterrestrial life, ghosts, spirits, and such where they all have already assumed these things exist without question or prior evidence that they exist in the first place.}}

==Chapter 6: Atheist Obstacles==
Ray goes on to explain why atheists cannot defend their position.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This only further shows Ray's misunderstanding of atheism. Atheists have no position to defend, they are not the ones making any positive claims about origins or the cosmos. The ones making the positive claims have the burden of proof. Ray Comfort is the one making the positive claim that God exists, but he repeatably fails to provide any positive evidence to support his beliefs.}}

"It is because the atheist is neither omniscient nor omnipresent that he then takes an illogical leap by concluding that there is no god, because it cannot be proven that he doesn't exist. Such reasoning is absurd."

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The problem with this reasoning is that it is based on a fallacy. No one can prove a negative, the one making the positive claim (i.e. God exists) have the burden of proof to provide evidence to support their view. Since fairies and gnomes and many other mythical creatures that can theoretically exist cannot be disproved, by Ray's logic, we should accept they exist as well.}}

Ray goes on to prayer and miracles, claiming since atheists do not pray, they will not see miracles. Ray uses a story of a dying child to prove miracles. If a child dies of some disease while the family attempted prayer to save them and the child dies, the atheist counts that as an unanswered prayer; if a child lives, it's again unanswered, because the child's body simply healed itself. Next Ray claims that the prayers were answered because, according to Ray, even if a child dies, because god "took him to heaven because he wanted the child there."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Basically god answers prayer whether or not anything happens, and whenever a person dies God wills it so. This would mean God has planned all murders, abortions, miscarriages, homicides, wars, genocides, sacrifices, accidents, natural deaths, etc. If God wills a person to die, then prayer would be pointless. Likewise, the results of a person praying to God would get the same results praying to Allah, invisible pixies, or even a milk carton. There are no statistics or evidence that prayer works.}}

Ray talks about his car, and if it should become damaged, Ray argues, "What would be my intellectual capacity if I concluded that it had no manufacturer simply because I couldn't contact them about the dilemma? The fact of their existence has nothing to do with whether or not they return my calls."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The problem with this is that this does not take faith, since anyone can transport their cars to have them repaired. Ray is again confusing (willfully or not) that atheists claim that artifacts have no creator because they do not accept nature had a creator. As pointed out several times, there is no model or method to distinguish if this universe had a special creator. Thus far, Ray has not provided any proof that the universe had a special creator of any sort. In fact, science has shown that matter and energy cannot be created and thus did not require special creation.}}

Ray concludes in this chapter that God answers all prayers.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Well, Ray, you can argue that a milk carton answers all prayers too.}}

Ray then urges all readers, who are people in a failing airplane, to put on their parachute (faith in Jesus) and be saved before its too late.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This however, is an flawed argument known as [[Pascal's Wager]]. Ray Comfort says his parachute (provided by his invisible friend) is safe and harmless, but suddenly another passenger tells you "Don't use his parachute, it has holes in it. Use mine provided by my invisible friend." Then a third passenger announces “My invisible friend slashed all the parachutes on board. He takes care of his chosen people, and as none of you were born into the correct lineage, it’s too bad for you.” Some people refuse parachutes and urge others to do the same, because it would interfere with the master plan of the father of their invisible friend (these are the same people who refuse medical care in favor of prayer and faith healing). The drama goes on with the rest of the passengers, until you demand to actually see proof of a doomed plane and which parachute does work. Some say you must not demand for evidence and just have faith. Regardless, you inspect the plane and the parachutes. The plane is operating just fine in every way and each parachute has holes in them big enough you can fit your head through them. Some of the parachutes terribly constrict people, harming them. The plane reaches its destination safely, but the drama continues through the terminal, security, all the way out beyond the airport. You learn from airports around the world that many people have harmed many others and themselves due to their faith in their parachute provided by their particular invisible friend.}}

==Chapter 7: Worms transformed==
Ray goes on to repeat another of his favorite arguments against evolution. He claims that each male of all species must find a mate, who also must be equally evolved and have a desire to mate, that is they both must have evolved sex organs that fit each other. Like bolt and nuts, according to Ray, they are meant to fit each other.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This argument is absurd since some animals reproduce asexually and Ray continues to fail to realize two things: the female (not the male) is the foundation of the species, and evolution and change takes place in a population not an individual. Also, regarding his bolt and nut analogy, many people know that some people cannot reproduce since their sexual organs are too small or too large.

Ray also ignores the vast scientific depth into the evolution of sex. 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).}}

===A Coincidence===
When Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron ask how is it that leaves fall in a straight line and how our human bodies are like a car - perfectly designed with "little squirters called tear ducts."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is a simple repeat of [[intelligent design]] arguments, which do not stand up to scrutiny. The human body is complex and shares several functions that resemble that of car parts. Both Ray and Kirk asked how can leaves fall to form a straight line, implying how did the row of leaves extend or build up? Likewise, a car can be build from multiple smaller pieces. A car can also be broken down into smaller individual parts. For instance, a battery still functions as a battery. Take off the wheel, but the wheel does not lose its function. A car can still function without a motor or battery, it can function as a cart — a device that has been is use for centuries to carry goods. The motor just makes it easier, and thus more favorable.}}

==Chapter 8: Tombstone face==
In this chapter, Ray tries to persuade the reader to choose [[Christianity]] over all other religions. He uses his old guilt trip tactic "[[are you a good person?]]" in which he sets up a problem for everyone that only his God can fix by using the Ten Commandments.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The Ten Commandments are not evidence of God just as the Five Pillars of Islam are proof of Allah.}}

==Chapter 9: I'll resurrect her for you==
Ray begins this chapter with a series of questions and asks why "pseudo intellectuals [who] know the answer to everything except the issues that really matter...they haven't the faintest idea what they are doing here on earth."

In a section called "The Assumption" Ray calls evolution a fairy tale since there is no evidence to support it.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is a lie and willful ignorance of the massive amounts of evidence that support and confirm evolution.}}

Ray asks his readers to listen carefully to the language scientists use: believe, surmise, suspect, think, assume, perhaps, maybe, possibly, etc.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=What Ray fails to understand is that science does not claim to be infallible or always correct, since everything scientific must be falsifiable. Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron both use this type of language, but often use more absolute terms.}}

Ray then quotes Darwin, "I was a young man with unformed ideas, I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything: and to my astonishment the ideas took like wild fire. People made a religion out of them."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The problem with this is, this was never spoken by Charles Darwin. This is a quote from a woman who goes by the name "Lady Hope" (Believed to be Elizabeth Hope, a British evangelist) who supposedly was with Darwin at his death bed and reported that Darwin recanted. However, she was never near Darwin when he died, making all her claims about Darwin demonstrably false.}}

Moving on, Ray goes on to say those who believe in evolution is because of carbon dating. Ray quotes from an article by ''Time''[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,970345,00.html] to show that carbon dating is faulty and cannot be trusted.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This article is taken out of context and Ray ignores the vast amount of other dating methods scientists use.}}

Once again, Ray goes on to cast doubt upon the readers on evolution. Ray asks "Did the fish first that crawled out of the ocean to be come an animal have lungs or gills?" and how could the giraffes neck evolve?
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Comfort is now using a [[straw man]] against Lamarckian evolution, not Darwin's theory of evolution. Lamarck's concept pre-dated Darwin. Under Lamarckian evolution, physical traits were passed from parent to offspring (i.e. the muscles of your left arm were particularly strong from constant weight lifting, therefore your offspring will have a more muscular left arm).

Fossil evidence and the swim bladders of some modern fish support evolutionary theory regarding the evolution from gills and gill-like features to lungs in the earliest amphibians. Modern amphibians still posses many of these traits, though modified. Ray, in attempting to make this sound as absurd as possible, relies on our inherent inability to properly conceive of large spans of time, portraying one individual creature, at one point in time. This oversimplification of speciation doesn't accurately reflect scientific explanations. }}

Ray himself quotes from several people, appealing to authority, such as Sir Arthur Keith, Malcolm Muggeridge, and other articles from ''Time''.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Quotes from Keith cited by a number of creationists, appears to be completely fraudulent. Firstly, Sir Keith died in 1955 and couldn't have written the forward to the 100th edition of Origin of Species in 1959. He did write an introduction to an edition of Origin of Species but in 1928, over 30 years prior to the centennial. The quote attributed to him does not appear in that edition or in any other known work. As for Muggeridge (an obviously flawed argument from authority) Muggeridge is a non-scientist, fundamentalist Christian who was never involved in scientific research. The quote does nothing to further Ray's stated goal of demonstrating that the theory of evolution is 'unscientific'. What is unscientific is Ray's attempt to discredit evolution. The opinion of any individual, philosopher or scientist, has no bearing on whether a proposition is true or false. }}

Next, Ray talks about how scientists have been fooled by several hoaxes like Java Man, Heidelberg Man, [[Piltdown Man]], etc. Ray goes on to basically say "dogs produce dogs. Cats produce cats. Horses produce foals, and so on and so on."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=100 years ago, the only human fossils yet known were a few Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon, and Homo erectus. Then an English attorney and amateur archaeologist presented bones and associated artifacts of what appeared to be an as-yet unidentified species. British Imperialists were generally accepting of the news, but French and American scientists were skeptical, doubting that the skull and jaw even belonged together. The British museum touted the “Piltdown man” as authentic, but the American Museum of Natural History displayed it only as a “mixture of ape and man fossils”, which is what it eventually turned out to be.

There was no way to adequately examine such things back in 1915. Chemical tests –common today- didn’t yet exist and we didn’t yet have a practical understanding of radiation. And before the first australopiths were discovered, we didn’t know exactly what to expect of the links that were then still missing between humans and the other apes known at that time. But as we began filling in the gaps in human evolution with thousands of legitimate fossils, a pattern emerged which left Piltdown an increasingly obvious anomaly. Consequently it was taken off display and stored away almost continuously for decades. It lost importance in most discussions because, in light of everything else we discovered over the next few decades, it just never fit, and was eventually dismissed from the list of potential human ancestors for that reason.

As the years wore on, criticism arose against everyone who ever promoted the Piltdown collection because there seemed to be so much wrong with it. Finally, in the 1950s, it was taken back out of the box and scrutinized via more modern means. First fluorine dating revealed that it was much too recent, and it was shown to have been chemically-treated to give a false impression of its age and mineral composition. Then it was finally determined that the jaw must have come from an orangutan, and that it had been deliberately reshaped with modern tools in a well-crafted and deliberate forgery.

No one knows who did it either. And more importantly, why? Errors were already known and previously reported, but few ever suspected fraud because, what would be the motive? Nearly everyone who stood accused was a man of high reputation and credentials. Maybe that was the motive. Maybe Piltdown man was just a joke that had gone too far. But no one was laughing, and they weren’t going to let it happen again.

Even before the Piltdown hoax was officially exposed, an American paleontologist earned himself a life-time of embarrassment when he found a tooth from an extinct species of pig in Nebraska, and mislabeled it, Hesperopithecus. The cheek teeth of pigs and peccaries are fairly similar to ape molars, and this one was badly worn such that Henry Fairfield Osborne initially believed it to be human. But the real embarrassment came when he publicized his find in a popular magazine rather than submitting it for peer review first.

Creationists like to say that scientists were as duped by Nebraska man as they were by Piltdown man. But they weren’t. Everyone who saw the fossil agreed that it did look like an ape’s tooth. But with only a couple tentative exceptions, the entire contemporary scientific community either immediately rejected the accuracy of Osborne’s assertions, or they demanded more substantial evidence to back them. He obviously couldn’t provide that evidence despite another five years of searching. Eventually, he came to the sad realization that his fossil probably wasn’t really human after all. His more skeptical associate, W.K. Gregory then published a formal retraction in scientific journals.

Creationists often accuse scientists of contriving the illustration of Nebraska man and of conjuring a whole skeleton and facial construct out of a single tooth that was never even human in the first place. But the fact is that the magazine commissioned their own ‘artist’s impression’, and scientists of the day, including Osborn himself, immediately reacted with harsh criticism. As a result, the article was never reprinted. }}

Ray discusses the Big Bang theory, and how an explosion only produces chaos instead of order, and thus evolution cannot be true.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=What Ray fails to grasp is the the Big Bang deals with cosmology, not biology. Neither rely on each other for the other to be true.}}

On page 73, Ray adds "Mother nature can't do anything to stop the thousands of diseases that plague humanity. While evolution carries on for all of the animals, there will be no new lungs for those humans with emphysema and no new brains for those with brain disorders....The noses of those who live in Southern California will not evolve a smog filtration system, neither will orange pickers who have longer arms survive over the short-armed orange pickers. Men will not have their right hand evolve into a remote control, neither will drivers evolve hands-free cell phones on their chins."

Ray finally ends this chapter by claiming "If evolution is true, then the bible is not the creator's revelation to humanity."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=But this is a deliberate lie, since evolution does not refute or disprove any god(s). The Bible is a work of man, not any deities revelation to humanity.}}

==Chapter 10: Who wrote the letter?==
Comfort begins this chapter with a story of his conversion to Christianity. He is grateful that he has been given eternal life in Heaven and promised to read the Bible ever since to check if it is authentic and reliable.

Ray mentions and compliments the Dead Sea Scrolls, claiming they show Christianity has not changed.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, the Scrolls do little to help Ray Comfort's positions. The scrolls do not mention Jesus and the Gnostic writers had a different view of Christianity. Different Christianities did exist with opposing theologies and world views.}}

To prove the Bible, Ray goes into discussing the scientific foreknowledge found in the Bible. The first one he brings up is Job:26:7 "He hangs the earth on nothing." Ray claims that this passage means that the earth simply floats in space while, according to Ray, science thought that it sat on a large animal, or giant.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is false, since scientists held no such view (even Ray fails to provide a reference to his claim). The problem with this verse is that the earth does not "hang" nor is it above nothing. "Beneath" the earth is open space, cosmic dust, stars, and more. Unfortunately, that is not "nothing."}}

Ray then uses an out of date quote from ''Time'' to claim that science is in agreement with the creation account of Genesis. "Most cosmologists...agree that the genesis account of creation, in imagining an initial void, may be uncannily close to the truth (Time, December 1976)".
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Scientists now agree that the universe could be eternal. The law of conservation of mass and energy states that mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can only change forms from one to another. Based on this, the universe is most likely eternal, and was never "created."}}

Next, Ray claims: "Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power, and motion. Genesis 1:1-2 revealed such truths to the Hebrews in 1450 b.c. " In the beginning [time] god created [power] the heaven [space] and the earth [matter]…And the spirit of god moved [motion] upon the face of the waters…"
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This line of thinking is flawed and misleading. Authors of bible had a concept of time and space, though they may not know how to explain them. But claiming that the bible "revealed" these "truths" to people through scripture is an enormous overstatement.}}

Not stopping there, Ray claims the Bible reveals "the earth is round" from Isaiah 40:22. There are other Bible verses that contradict the concept of a round earth, but rather a flat earth with ends (Matthew 4:8, Isaiah 11:12, Revelation 7:1, Psalms 67:7, Daniel 4:20, Luke 4:5, and much more).
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, the verse Ray uses varies depending on translation. Some say "circle" but the earth is not a circle since a circle indicated a flat disk. If we use "round" it is still problematic, because the earth is closer to a sphere. Plus, there is some suggestion that the Egyptians knew of the earth's spherical size and shape around 2550 B.C.E. (more than a thousand years before Moses). The Greek philosopher Pythagoras, who was born in 532 B.C.E., defended the spherical theory on the basis of observations he had made of the shape of the sun and moon (Uotila 1984). If this information was known by educated Greeks and Egyptians during biblical times, its use by Isaiah is nothing special.}}

Ray repeats the misquote of [[Albert Einstein]] in Chapter 3 to make it seem he believed in God.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Einstein did not believe in a personal god; he may have been a deist.}}

==Chapter 11: Benevolent Jelly==
This chapter mainly consists of Ray Comfort preaching and repeating his usual theological arguments. He reminds people about sin and salvation through the blood of Christ and such.

==Chapter 12: The real thing==
In this chapter, Ray delves into the topic of Christians who perform horrible acts in the name of God (murder, war, genocide, etc.). Ray calls them "hypocrites" "pretenders" and "not real christians."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is a fallacy called [[No True Scotsman]]. There are over 30,000 denominations of [[Christianity]], each claiming to be correct, so there is no way of knowing which is the right kind of [[Christianity]].

There are many examples of Christians, who wholeheartedly believed they were doing the work of the Lord, and committed terrible crimes. Even to this day Christians condemn [[witchcraft]] and [[homosexuality]] in Africa, resulting in torn families and hundreds upon hundreds dead. Some Christian parents refuse to have their children treated with medicine because they think it would interfere with God's plan, their sick child has no say in the matter. This has resulted in the death of hundreds of innocent children and infants.}}

==Chapter 13: Death Sentence for error==
In this chapter Ray talks about bible prophesy, and how, if a prophet wasn't one hundred percent accurate, they would be put to death. This explains why many prophets spoke in very vague language, predicted inevitable outcomes, and often faked their prophecies.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=If "prophets" were put to death because their prophecies were not 100%, then the fate of Jesus being executed surely then points to that Jesus was a failure.}}

Ray goes through all of these different "prophesies" and cites things that have happened in the world, such as murders, earthquakes, etc., and claims these are proof of the bible's prophesies.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Unfortunately, these are not valid proofs. These things have happened throughout the history of mankind, and the world. Murder, earthquakes, and such are all things that constantly happen throughout history. People always engage in war, people get diseases, people kill others, etc.

There are several mundane ways in which a prediction of the future can be fulfilled:

# Retrodiction. The "prophecy" can be written or modified after the events fulfilling it have already occurred.
# Vagueness. The prophecy can be worded in such a way that people can interpret any outcome as a fulfillment. Nostradomus's prophecies are all of this type. Vagueness works particularly well when people are religiously motivated to believe the prophecies.
# Inevitability. The prophecy can predict something that is almost sure to happen, such as the collapse of a city. Since nothing lasts forever, the city is sure to fall someday. If it has not, it can be said that according to prophecy, it will.
# Denial. One can claim that the fulfilling events occurred even if they have not. Or, more commonly, one can forget that the prophecy was ever made.
# Self-fulfillment. A person can act deliberately to satisfy a known prophecy.

There are no prophecies in the Bible that cannot easily fit into one or more of those categories. The Bible also contains many unfulfilled prophecies [http://www.answering-christianity.com/bibles_unfulfilled_prophecies.htm</ref> and "imaginary" prophecies <ref>http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html].

Other prophecies in other religions exist, although Ray does not accept them. There are fulfilled prophecies in Zoroastrainism[http://www.bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/zoroaste.htm], Buddhism[http://bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/buddha.htm], Hinduism[http://bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/hindusa.htm], Native American[http://bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/nativeam.htm], and Mormon[http://bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/mormon.htm]. Why does not Ray accept any of these fulfilled prophecies? Because he knows the evidence supporting them is lacking, the prophecies are vague, and of course he already has a presupposition that they are all false — meaning he does not have to look at a single one of them before declaring them all wrong.}}

==Chapter 14: Bizarre to the insane==
This chapter discusses information that governs our thoughts. Ray warns us what information we accept. This goes into the theory of [[evolution]]. Ray says, "If you believe a drink contains poison, you won't drink it. If you believe it is safe, you will drink it. If you believe evolution is true, and from that premise believe that the bible is false, then you won't repent."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The last part is incorrect because there are theistic evolutionists who claim evolution is compatible with the Christian faith. Evolution does not rule out any deity and Ray knows that, but he continues to portray evolution as atheistic to mislead readers and make Christians fear evolution as damaging to their faith.

Ray concludes information will determine where your soul will remain after death, but Ray has not provided any proof that a soul, in all sense of the word, actually exist and survives after death.}}

===Cozy Cocoon===
Ray tries to explain how a Christian hides from such information that may harm their faith. Ray states that, like a caterpillar that wraps itself in its cocoon, a Christian likewise wraps himself/herself "with the rules and regulations, hiding from the real world in the cocoon of Christianity."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is actually one of the few honest things Ray has ever said. He admitted Christians do not live in the real world, which is accurate since they believe in fantasies like angels, talking snakes, drinking the blood of a ancient god, and prayer to certain deities. Hiding themselves from a world called reality and censoring themselves to observable facts, tested data, and proven theories like evolution.}}

===Light Relief===
Ray repeats an old argument known as [[Pascal's Wager]].

The chapter ends with Ray asking the reader to imagine and pretend Christianity is true and there is a Creator, Heaven, etc. "But if what I'm saying is true, the atheist will get the shock of his life - at his death. He will wake up dead, and will find that he truly has 'passed on'. I ask again, is it possible that you could be wrong? Come on, bend a little. Just between you and me, have you ever been wrong? Are you divinely infallible? Are you different from the rest of us?"
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=It is weird for someone who claims that atheists do not exist keeps referring them as atheists. Of course humans are fallible and make mistakes, but the evidence does not support Ray's position and thus atheists remain unconvinced. Could Ray be right about what happens after death? He could be, but so can every other imaginable scenario. A person could die and go to Valhalla, or Hades, or Avalon. Since any imaginable scenario is possible, this means that there are theoretically an infinite possible scenarios of what happens to a person after death, making Ray's narrow version of Heaven nearly impossible. Possibly, there could be a Heaven, but it is only a place for atheists. Say that the universe was created by a deity, but then comes along a trickster and deceives the world that there is a creator but that creator is the trickster. This means everyone in the world can be fooled, even Christians, and the creator only rewards those who do not fall for the trickster's deception. Since atheists do not worship or acknowledge the trickster as the creator, the true creator will reward them after death for not worshiping the trickster.

Ray has been asked many times "what if you are wrong and Christianity is not true?" of course Ray admits he could be wrong, but he does not "bend a little" because his beliefs are dogmatic. Ray has no interest in "bending a little" instead what he wants is more gullible followers. Professional creationists like Ray Comfort are making money hand over fist with faith-healing scams or bilking little old ladies out of prayer donations, or selling books (and Ray Comfort publishes several books every year and the books often are just repeats of previous books) and videos at their circus-like seminars. All of them feign knowledge they can’t really possess, and some of them claim degrees they’ve never actually earned. Were it not for this con, they’d have to go back to selling used cars, wonder drugs, and multi-level marketing schemes. They will never change their minds no matter what it costs anyone else.}}

==Chapter 15: Going for the spider==
Ray hopes the reader is convinced by his arguments by now. He addresses atheists as intellectually embarrassing. Ray repeats his argument a plane had a plane maker and we are all in the plane but will all have to jump.

He uses an analogy that we are sinners and doomed to an eternity in hell. We are all like people on a plane that will soon fail. We can be saved with a parachute, and in this case faith in Jesus is our parachute. However, those passengers who accept evolution will not put on the parachute and wait for one to "evolve" under their chair.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is a feeble straw man of evolution. Evolution explains the diversity of life, it does not state or imply that man-made artifices will sprout from seat cushions. As already explained in Chapter 6 of this book, Ray's parachute argument is a feeble and flawed rework of [[Pascal's Wager]].}}

===The Main Objections===
Here Ray addresses and generalizes non-Christians. By now, he expects us to be convinced that there is a Creator, now he moves on to talk about Judgment.

Ray says he is not here to convince anybody that the Moral Law exists, because everyone already know it exists because the Bible says so (Romans 2:15).
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This could not be more incorrect. Christianity's moral views are not shared by everyone, nor is it shared by all Christians. Quoting the Bible is not proof that everyone is aware of Christian moral values. Saying the law is written on our hearts is no more credible than the Islamic Primordial Covenant, which states that Allah's law is written on our souls before we even entered our bodies at birth. Ray says he is only focusing on trying to show us the "consequences" of breaking the law. What Ray has failed to show is that consequences will even take place.}}

Ray portrays God as: see's your youth days; see's your thought life; and he is perfect, just, good, holy and utterly righteous. Then Ray begins to move through the Ten Commandments while taking a person down the [[are you a good person?]] routine.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Bear in mind, this is only Ray's beliefs and projections of what God is like. Ray claims the God of the Bible is "just and good" and yet anyone can open the Bible and find God committing atrocious acts: making families eat their children, kill people for working one particular day a week, purposely deceieve people and then kill them for believing the lie, commanding forced abortions, and much much more. How do we respond to these acts? Declare them just? We know killing those known not to be responsible for the sins being punished is quintessentially unjust. Do we concoct an elaborate justification for anything Yahweh did? No, when we indulge any impulse to excuse or defend these acts, we are already going dangerously astray. If we justify these acts, what won't we justify? Do we brush Yahweh's atrocities under the carpet of symbolism, claiming they are not meant to be taken literally? Nothing in the Bible makes clear that Yahweh is acting symbolically, but even if they were the idea of an omni-benevolent baby punisher makes no more senses as a symbol than as a literal being. Do we claim that these particular passages are just merely beyond our understanding? Not only is that unconvincing, when we condemn humans who act this way without hesitation, it represents one of the most deplorably irresponsible attitudes towards morality and justice we encounter.

Non-Christians who cite biblical cruelties are often accused of cherry-picking. In fact, non-Christians can freely acknowledge both kindness and cruelties in the Bible. Particularly the cruelties that should concern any decent person are those who ignore and overlook the immoral content of religious scripture, who are truly cherry-picking. Theists who discard the less palatable parts of Scripture should at least be honest about the standards by which they do this and concede that they are applying their own independent judgment to Scripture. Obviously when we use our own moral sense to separate god and bad in Scripture, when we revise our interpretation of it to reflect the more enlightened view of our time, it is not Scripture guiding our morality. It is '''our morality''' guiding our perception of Scripture. }}

===The Law===
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The hypocrisy of Ray is demonstrated in this chapter. The back of the book said that he would not use the Bible to convince you of God, yet he has quoted the Bible continuously throughout the book, and has used a specific selection of the [[Ten Commandments]] (Exodus 20) as a witnessing tool.}}

===Not Even a Groan===
Ray walks the reader through his interpretation of the [[Ten Commandments]], starting with blasphemy. He wonders why people use Jesus Christ as a curse word rather than Buddha.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Many people use a variety of words as curse words, but perhaps the greatest reason that people use Christ as a curse word is because Jesus Christ has been used as a justification to curse, persecute, suppress, etc. others which gives it more weight as a curse word.}}

===Diamonds or Water?===
Ray asks the audience if he handed him a fistful of diamonds or a bucket of water, which one would they choose. Ray says anybody in their right mind would not choose the diamonds. However, Ray changes the scenario that if he offered the same options to a person in the desert, the person would choose the water or else they would die. Ray says Christianity offers the choice of sparkly diamonds of sin or the water of everlasting life.

The chapter ends with Ray explaining why automobile safety commercials show us dummies wearing seat belts and then crashing. They show us these scenarios to scare us, because of the risk of a car accident is fatal and thus we should wear a seat belt. Ray says that we should put on our seat belt: faith in Christ. Ray admits this is why he uses fear tactics, so we will know we must always wear the seat belt.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The difference between with scenario with faith in Christ is that the seat belt and dummy incident is testable. We can see and test accidents occurring and how to protect ourselves. Unlike Ray's "everlasting life" and God, we cannot test such things. At one point in history, cars were not made with seat belts until much later when the government mandated that cars include seat belts because it was ''rational'' and it kept people safe from physical harm. Ray's irrational pleas of hell and [[appeal to emotion]] have no evidential support, they cannot be tested as seat belts can, and there has been no proof of an afterlife. Fear is not a valid tool or a pathway to truth. Ray has not proven a god, an after life, judgment, or his particular version is the most accurate.}}

==Chapter 16: The Repellent==
Throughout this chapter, Ray [[appeal to emotion|appeals to emotion]], hoping the reader is uneasy and feels guilty for not following God's law and the Ten Commandments. Ray makes no further attempt to provide any proof for his claims, he just plays with people's fears and provides a solution that only his God can help. This ploy is called [[snake oil]].

Ray addresses the readers conscience, questioning if it is functioning correctly and parallel to God's laws and sin. If the readers conscience is not pointing in the right direction, Jesus' sacrifice will guide us once we accept and acknowledge our sin and guilt.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray only uses the Commandments from Exodus 20. What he keeps hidden from the reader is that the only time the Commandments are called the "Ten Commandments" are the ones listed in Exodus 34, and none of the ten mention lying, theft, murder, adultery, etc. at all. As long as Ray's audience remains unaware of knowledge such as this, his words will prey on people's fears that will bend people to his particular religion.

On Ray's website for taking the test if you are a sinner, he asks have you ever told a lie, stolen anything, lusted, blasphemed, etc. Even if you answer "No" to every question, the result is still the same: you are a sinner. So, in reality, this ten commandments ploy is nothing more than a little marketing tactic; like a trick question, in order to make you feel guilty in order to make you feel as if you need their god.}}

==Chapter 17: A Hopeful Presumption==
At this point, Ray continues to make the reader feels uneasy and begins to ask if the reader is ready to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. He assures it's readers to have faith, and in time God will fulfill all his promises.

Once Ray is finished with this approach, he shares a personal story of experiences what it is like to become a Christian. He talks about his home New Zealand and voyage to the United States.

==Chapter 18: Watch and Pray==
Ray shares his experiences in street preaching and his thoughts on the violence in the United States. He explains that he thought the best tool to counter this suffering is prayer.

Unsatisfied with the role of religion in America, Ray shares his thoughts that churches and missionaries should return to preaching of hellfire and brimstone. Ray's idea of addressing the people is that they need to know God is an angry, vengeful God and will destroy us unless we repent. According to Ray, many preachers are immoral (such as cheating on their wives) and not following an example of God's law.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=What Ray does not get into is why preachers do what they do. The common answer is to spread the good news, but there is another driving force: money. Based on how poorly this book is written, and that Ray publishes and distributes many books just about every year reveals something Ray is not admitting to us. Ray lives in a luxurious house in Southern California.}}

==Chapter 19: The Lost Altar==
Ray continues this chapter examining the ills of America. His reasons why these problems exist are predictable: not enough Christians (by Ray's definition) and the good news of salvation is not being widely distributed throughout the country.

Based on this, Ray instructs the reader what they should do to counteract the ills of America. This includes indoctrinating your children into Christianity.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Indoctrination has been strongly argued to be a form of child abuse, stripping the children of their individuality and ability to choose. Children are vulnerable and are used to accepting authority, so indoctrination takes advantage of them before they have developed critical thinking skills. Also, religion tends to separate children (that is Catholic children attend Catholic school, not an Islamic school). It is universally agreed that young children are too young to decide where they stand in politics, so why should we label them based on their parent's views of humanity within the cosmos?

Since Ray believes the lack of evangelical Christians in America is the source of the ills of this country, he has not considered that Christianity may be a source of the problem? And of course he does not want his readers to be aware of this. Throughout American history, Christianity has brought upon this country many ills, even to this day. Such examples include the following: suppression of Native American, women, homosexual, and atheist rights; endorsing slavery; murdering doctors; fanaticism; fundamentals promoting pseudoscience and anti-science; church sex scandals; promoting faith healing and exorcisms over medical treatment; blood libels; using tax money to build creationist parks and Arks; and so on.}}

==Chapter 20: Tampering with the Recipe==
In this chapter, Ray talks about how to make a marriage last. The advice is good, but can simply be reached through common sense really (like don't argue in front of kids).

At the beginning of the chapter, Ray talks about how christian marriages last, while others' don't, and how "nowadays secular and christian divorce statistics run hand in hand."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Wrong. According to a 1999 study done by a christian sociologist, George Barna, atheists have a 21% chance of divorce, while born again christians have a 27% chance. A six percent difference, but still a difference, with atheists in the lead having the lowest divorce rate than any other religious affiliate. It's clear though, that having a particular religion doesn't guarantee a couple to have a good marriage. There are people who have different religions, and their marriages are great. However, religious beliefs can also tear couples apart too.}}

==Chapter 21: If the average girl knew==
Ray starts off with telling the reader about an experiment. Two people were placed in separate rooms (they could still see each other through a window) and each person was told to hit a button as fast as they could once they saw a light come on. The one who wasn't fast enough in reacting to the light, was shocked by the winner, and the winner could choose the amount of shock that the loser got. The scientist did the experiment with sober, and intoxicated individuals, and when intoxicated, people sent a higher voltage of a shock into the person, than when they were sober. Ray concludes that this "proves" that people are born "wicked," and states this is exactly what the Bible predicted. Ray argues all the scientist had to do was open the bible to learn of this "truth."

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Human beings being evil by nature is debatable. This example just seems to be an observation of human behavior, by human beings, which made the claim as to the "deceitfully wicked" nature of man. Not that it "proves" the bible is inspired.}}

Ray next talks about a woman who wrote him about being terrified about potentially having homosexual thoughts. Ray goes into his bullshit about how people have been "hoodwinked into accepting many lies, and one of the greatest is that homosexuals are 'born that way'. If that is true, we are all born homosexuals."

Ray continues to talk about the "sinful nature" of humans, and how when you're a christian you should be even more aware of the fact that you're sinning all the time, it's just that when you're a christian, you feel guilty about it.

Next, Ray lists some things a person can do, in order to fight their feelings of "sexual lust" and of course claims that this is yet another sin.

===Diving or Falling===
Ray talks about how a "pretend christian" will "dive" into sin, while the true christian will "fall" into it. Basically, he's claiming that a true christian will do whatever they can to avoid sinning, yet Ray talks about his feeling guilty about taking "the biggest piece of chocolate cake," and that he can't help it, because of his sinful nature.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is a contradiction because if Ray didn't want to "sin" and have the bigger piece of cake, then he should have had the self control not to. This entire concept doesn't make the slightest bit of sense, because according to Ray his supposed sin is against his will, yet he willfully sins. If he looks at a woman and finds her attractive, or if he feels greedy by taking that bigger slice of cake, it's your own response to the women...you turned your head, you took the cake, and therefore you are responsible for your actions. Blaming it on some mythological concept of sin does not excuse you for being unable to control your behavior. That's simply a cop out.}}

The rest of the chapter is simply Ray using examples from the Bible, about Peter, and his sin, and yet again contradicting himself, because he has used the bible...and for the remainder of the chapter too, for his so called proof.

At the end of the chapter, though he restates his position in his book about atheists only using that as a label as a "weak and transparent shield for sin," and quotes the Bible, Psalm 14:1: "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no god'." Ray says "you no longer have to be a believer in the religion of atheism. You know there is a God. Your faith has been shattered. You don't believe you are an atheist."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Here Ray resorts to blatant and dishonest accusations. Atheism is not a religion in any sense. Atheists do not believe they are atheists, they know they are atheists. Theists are they ones who do not know there is a god, because faith does not produce knowledge. Knowledge is based on facts, which are testable and observable, not on blind dogmatic faith that Ray holds dear.}}

==Appendix: Reasoning for the Faith==
This last part of the book goes over questions that Ray found at a "Hollywood atheist organization" (page 179), whatever that is, and attempts to answer them. Some of these questions Comfort doesn't even answer and goes around the question. For example: on the very first question, it asks how you would define god, and why you're so convinced there is one, and Ray simply states that "god is the creator, the upholder, and the sustainer of the universe. He revealed himself to Moses as the one and only true god" (page 179). He doesn't even really answer the question as to why he's convinced there is a god...unless it's because of what the bible says, though that's not a logical answer to say the least.

*Question 3: "how can something that cannot be described be said to exist?"
Ray responds that since color cannot be described, it does not mean color does not exist. He also mentions plant life beneath the sea and planets not seen or described by man, but they nevertheless exist.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=If they have never been seen by man, how do we know they are plants? Unlike these examples Ray provides, God has not been shown to exist in reality. In fact, many have argued why God cannot exist in reality. Almost every religion tries to set itself apart from the rest and from the common definition of the word “religion” in some way, such as Buddhists claiming to be a philosophy. Rays answer is not satisfactory, but rather shown to be false based on the testimonies of ex-evangelical ministers.[http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Debunking_Christians/Page16.htm] Religions have rituals, sacred texts, creation myths, and worship, and indeed Christianity has all of these.}}

*Question 4: "Since there are countless religions in the world today claiming to be the one true religion, why do you think yours is truer than theirs?"
Ray answers no religion is "truer" than any other. He says religions strive to make peace with their creator, but Christianity does not do so. Instead peace has been given to man by Jesus. Ray concludes that Christianity is not a man made religion, but a personal relationship with Jesus.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, Christianity is indeed a religion.[http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Debunking_Christians/Page16.htm] Buddhism often tries to separate itself as a religion, however it remains a religion.}}

*Question 5: "Can more than one of these religions be right?"
According to Ray, "Jesus discarded all other religions as a means of finding forgiveness of sin." Ray then quotes Bible verses that supports Jesus as being the one true God (John 14:6, 1 Timothy 2:5, and Acts 4:12).
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Basically, this is self-promotion and provides no empirical data to support this claim. Note: 1 Timothy is considered a forgery by the vast majority of critical scholars.}}

*Question 15: "If God of the Bible is "all good," why does he himself say he created evil (Isaiah 45:7)?"
First Ray offers a translation for the word 'evil' in that verse. He says it means "calamity" or "suffering." Ray says God uses good and bad things to bring us to a relationship with him, but he did not bring evil into being. Ray goes on to tell the story of Adam and Eve in the garden, and God gave him a choice to obey or not. Once they were aware of good and evil, it was up to them to choose between the two.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray does not really address the question. Ray has admitted that God created all things, but will not say that God created evil. Does this mean good and evil exist independent of God? If so, then why would we need God to tell us what is good and bad?}}

*Question 16: "Is there a better way than reason to acquire knowledge and truth?"
Ray simply answers no. He then goes on to mention from the Bible "'Come now, and let us reason together,' said the Lord." Ray then mentions Paul reasoned with King Agrippa and Felix.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Comfort fails to mention certain important Christians like Martin Luther who said "Reason should be destroyed by all Christians."}}

*Question 17: "If you answered #16 with "faith," then why are there so many contradictory faiths in the world?"
Ray says that at least every nation acknowledges there is a Creator. However, Ray says they worship the sun, moon and idols. Ray says no one has ever found an atheistic tribe, because they were not that ignorant.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray pulls no punches from insulting other religions and those with no religion. Even if we could not find one atheistic tribe in the world, that does not give religion special credibility.}}

*Question 18: "If you believe, as many do, that all religions worship the same god under different names, how do you explain the existence of religions which have more than one god, or Buddhism, which, in its pure form, there is no god?"
Ray simply responds that those who do not worship the one true god will find any replacement, whether it be multiple gods or small wooden idol.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Again, Ray pulls no punches from insulting other religions, even his fellow Christians. He seems to have missed that some religions do not find a "replacement" because there is nothing to replace.}}

*Question 19: "What would it take to convince you that you are wrong?"
Ray does not provide a suitable answer. Ray's respond is that he already has been convinced, during the 22 years of his unconverted life.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=He does not share what would be the first step to show his beliefs are incorrect, perhaps he does not want them to be incorrect. This just reveals his dogmatic beliefs.}}

*Question 20: "If nothing can convince you that you are wrong, then why should your faith be considered anything but a cult?"
Ray defines a cult as a "system of religious worship and ritual" which reflects every man made religion.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, as Ray already described, he does not believe Christianity is a religion but rather a relationship with Jesus. He also argues he does not have a belief system, but rather a experience system once a Christian has felt the Holy Spirit. See the response to question 3 regarding Christianity not being a religion. Also, the human mind is capable of producing many types of experiences. Ray does not provide any data or criteria to explain what he is experiencing is real or accurate. Also, Comfort is quick to dismiss religious experiences from every other religion, but he will not critically examine his own?}}

*Question 21: "If an atheist lives a decent, moral life, why should a loving, compassionate God care whether we believe in him/her/it"
To Ray, it does not matter how much of a moral life we live we are still born in sin and violate the Ten Commandments, and thus we are damned.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=It is common for religions to set up a standard that no one is safe from unbelief. Basically Ray admits that God is not all-loving or all-merciful, otherwise we would not be punished just for being good or even born. Don't forget, Ray is only using his particular selection of the Commandments, but what about the Ten Commandments in Exodus 34?}}

*Question 22: "How can the same God who, according to the Old Testament, killed everybody on earth except for eight people be considered anything other than evil?"
After examining their lifestyle, Ray claims those people who did deserve to die. They rejected God. When a judge finds a criminal guilty, criminals never see the judge as righteous.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray wonders why people do not take him seriously regarding issues of morality. If Ray thinks that people who reject God deserve death, then about 90 percent of the population of Sweden deserve death, among several billion others around the globe. During the flood, God killed small infants to young to know anything about God, and unborn babies in their mother's womb.}}

*Question 23: "Must we hate ourselves and our families to be good Christians (Luke 14:26)?"
Ray says no, that bible verse is a "hyperbole." Ray says we should love God more than our families and ourselves. To place love in anything else, Ray considers it idolatry.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Here, Ray cherry-picks what is a hyperbole, metaphor, or fable. He does not provide a definition or criteria of what constitutes as a hyperbole or what is literal.}}

*Question 24: "Since the ancient world abounded with tales of resurrected Savior-Gods that were supposed to return from the dead to save humanity, why is the Jesus myth any more reliable than the others?"
Ray says, unlike those other myths that died off, the Jesus myth is true and provable. All one has to do is accept Jesus into their heart and experience the truth.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, these experiences do not change reality. The mind is capable of producing many experiences that seem spiritual, but all this proves is that these experiences are just products of the mind and not the supernatural. Also, when examining the [[historicity of Jesus]], it strongly seems Jesus was a myth.}}

*Question 25: "If the Bible is the inerrant word of God, why does it contain so many factual errors, such as the two contradictory accounts in Genesis?"
Ray says there are no contradictory accounts in genesis. Gen. 1 explains creation while Gen. 2 goes into detail.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=What Ray does not share is that the two stories get several things backwards. Neither does he mention or address Genesis account that plants came before sunlight. As for the other factual errors, Ray claims after reading the Bible everyday for 30 years he has never found an error. Then how about you read Dr. Helm's book "The Bible Against Itself."}}

*Question 26: "Why isn't the Bible written in a straightforward way that leaves no doubt about what it means?"
Ray says it is clear to those who obey God and those who are closed spirituality will not understand it.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This does not really address the question. Many people who no longer believe in God have had such spiritual experiences (and can produce them again), and they can fully read and understand the Bible. Ray does not mention why he does not follow certain demands included in the Bible, such as cutting off your own hand if you sin, which early church fathers did do and encourage their subjects and all Christians to do the same.}}

*Question 28: if anyone has ever been killed in the name of atheism?
Ray responds with the usual absurd argument about the communist regimes, and claims these were a result of atheism.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=As explained to him many times, communism is a form of state worship and not a single person was killed in the name of atheism. And if communism was the cause for all the deaths, then it is actually a problem for Christianity since communism predates Marx and can be found in the book of Acts. That's right, communism found in the perfect Word of God.}}

==External Links==
*[http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2007/12/god-doesnt-believe-in-atheists-proof.html Arizona Atheist Blog: God Doesn't Believe in Atheists Review]
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=CntF1S132L8C&pg=PT8&lpg=PT8&dq=Ray+Comfort+Ron+Barrier&source=bl&ots=Dzr_wp9ihE&sig=QEYjpdgPrRQ7fYgsEyekOn5rPrs&hl=en&ei=OvBdTbz-N4q8sQPR4NXfCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q&f=false Google Books: God Doesn't Believe in Atheists]
*[http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/comfortablieb.htm God Doesn’t Believe in Creationists: A Response to the Books of Ray Comfort]

==See also==
*[[Atheism]]
*[[Ray Comfort]]
*[[Way of the Master]]

[[Category:Apologetic literature]]
[[Category:Books]]

God Doesn't Believe in Atheists (book)

2011-11-08T19:18:37Z

Feredir28: /* Chapter 13: Death Sentence for error */

'''''God Doesn't Believe in Atheists: Proof That the Atheist Doesn't Exist''''' is a book authored by [[Ray Comfort]], published in 1993, with a foreword by mister [[Kent Hovind]].

==Content==
In this book, Ray tries to make an argument that atheists do not exist and provide evidence of the supernatural.

BACK COVER:"''Contrary to popular opinion, the existence of God can be proven absolutely, scientifically, without reference to faith or even the Bible. It is also possible to prove that the Bible is supernatural in origin. This book will do just that.

It will also show the atheist that he doesn't exist, reveal the true motives of the agnostic, and strengthen the faith of the believer.''"

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray says he can prove the existence of God absolutely, scientifically, without reference to faith or even the Bible. Do not hold your breath. Ray always promises this, just like at the [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rational_Response_Squad_debate_with_Way_of_the_Master debate with the Rational response Squad]. Ray and Kirk Cameron failed to prove the existence of God and used the Bible and faith as evidence multiple times when they claimed they would not need to. If they knew this going in, and surely they did, then they knew they had no case and God could not be prove scientifically. It is likely in this book, Ray will use and repeat the same old long-refuted claims and stunts.}}

==Foreword==
In this section, [[Kent Hovind]] praises this book and attacks atheism. According to him, the debate of whether God exists or not continues. If there is a God, we should find out who he is and what he wants. However, if there is no god, we are in trouble since the earth is moving at great speeds into space with no one in charge. The universe operates according to natural law, and our safety is not a concern for the universe.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Hovind's idea and need for a god is to provide comfort and a safety relief, but his wishful thinking does not change reality.}}

Hovind says anyone with eyes that can see and a brain that can work can obviously spot the evidence for a creator. He uses a different version of [[Paley's argument | Paley's watch]], that if you walked through the woods and found a painting on a tree, you would assume someone created that painting. We know a painting had a painter, but the core issue is contrasting between natural design or intelligent design.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=We see design in paintings, but we also see design in snow flakes, clouds, and crystals. The difference is that crystals and such form naturally with no intelligent being to shape or manipulate them. Ray Comfort and Kent Hovind claim to see design in the universe, but they have not provided any proof on intelligent design. They just label everything as intentionally designed by some supernatural agent. However, labeling something does not alter reality and the it's true nature.}}

Hovind claims in his 33 years of examining the creationism vs. evolution debate, he never encountered an atheist who did not use evolution to support his worldview. Hovind claims not a shred of evidence has been found to support evolution, and it requires a leap of faith to accept evolution, as well as to accept that there is no god. He claims that both atheism and evolution are religions.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Some atheists do not accept evolution, but evolution is not required for atheism. Many Christians, Popes, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and more accept evolution. There are mountains of evidence for evolution, Kent Hovind has been criticized as a charlatan and shameless scientific-illiterate liar. Evolution nor atheism requires faith. Evolution has many evidence to support it, and atheism is the lack of faith in any deity. Evolution as religion has been rejected by the courts:
<blockquote>
Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.
</blockquote>
The court cases ''Epperson v. Arkansas'', ''Willoughby v. Stever'', and ''Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist''. Atheism is also not a religion. Atheism has no doctrines, rituals, places of worship, saviors, priests, creation myths, tenets, sacred texts, and such. Although some religions do not worship any deities, such as [[Buddhism]], Raelism, and Satanism, they are indeed religions.}}

Hovind ends his remarks by claiming this book is meant to open the eyes of atheists to make them see the evidence for a loving creator and they all must repent of their sins. And this review will show when and where the evidence presented stands up to scrutiny and if indeed Ray comfort made his case if there is a creator.

==Introduction==
Ray Comfort shares a story that he offered to debate atheists, such as the American Atheists Inc. They turned him down. He then challenged Ron Barrier (a spokesperson of American Atheists) to a debate, who at first turned him down, but then later challenged him due to, according to Ray, pressure from other atheists. Ray concluded that the Bible was right, "with God, nothing is impossible."

==Chapter 1: Who made God?==
According to Ray, there are only three explanations for the misery of the world:
# There isn't a [[god]]
# God doesn't have the power to control his own creations, or won't, "which makes him a tyrant"
# The [[Bible]] tells you the reason for the state of the world.

===Faith is for Wimps===
Here, Ray wonders why using the word faith is "offensive" to nonbelievers. Ray makes the argument that we all have faith of some sort, such as that we believe the milk we drink is safe because of faith, rather than for a reason, such as that it is pasteurized in health-inspected facilities. He claims that we cannot ''know'' if Napoleon existed or who discovered America. For the small things in life, Ray says we "trust" that the coffee cup is clean or trust the taxi driver to keep his hands on the wheel. Ray argues that we have faith in information provided by others, such as weather men, historians, or scientists. Therefore, Ray concludes that atheists have faith in "erroneous information" and think they are "atheistic in [their] beliefs."

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Using the word "faith" has different effects on nonbelievers. Perhaps the main reason why many nonbelievers do not appease to Ray who use that word is because "faith" is because that word implies belief without evidence. When trying to have a rational conversation, when applying faith to know something means their claims are unsupported, baseless, and meaningless, which would mean the whole dialogue does not make any progress. Faith is an anchor that holds people into irrational beliefs, which is why many nonbelievers find it irritating to try to have a rational conversation with those who refuse to engage in a rational conversation. So the word "faith" is no 'offensive' but rather irritating.

We all do not have faith. This perspective is one put forward by a lot of people in our world, when something like faith is questioned and denounced. It expresses a general misunderstanding of the concept of faith. We do not blindly trust our loved ones though, nor do we get into a car and simply drive without any thought. Trust is contingent on evidence and experience. We tend to trust people who we know, people who have not wronged us in any significant way. Our love for a person may occasionally drive us to trust someone we would not normally trust, but as I stated before, misguided reasoning is not the same thing as faith. If you reason that your loved one deserves your trust, and you accept the risk of having it violated, you have still used reason and not acted on the blind thoughtlessness of faith.

As for the driving example, we do typically factor in some evidence and logic before we head out on the road. If it is particularly bad weather or if your tires are flat, most sane people will not just ignore such things and try to drive anyway. It is not operating on faith to go about one's day without taking every little possible worry into account either. It is possible that you could die in a car wreck, but experience tells us that we have survived many trips in the past, and unless there is some good reason for us to fear for our safety, it is perfectly rational to take the risk involved with driving. Faith is not a part of it, but reason certainly is. Indeed when we do drink milk, we check to see if it is not expired and safe to drink. We trust that whoever put the deadline on the carton is accurate, based on their calculations have often been tested and well understood. If the milk was not ready or the date was off, there are systems of correction (such as health inspection) before it reaches the grocery store.

We can know if Napoleon existed, because we have actual empirical proof that he did. We have letters and journals written by his own hand; portraits of him; hundreds of independent, contemporary, unbiased eye-witness accounts; artifacts made for him or by him; he left a legacy behind; he altered nations and policies; and much more. Also, if we did use Ray's logic, then we cannot ''know'' if Jesus Christ existed, although it is certain Ray would disagree because the Holy Bible is infallible and never lies - but his only justification for such a belief is blind faith.

Trust is not the same as faith. Faith is belief without evidence. We can drink coffee from a cup, but we often check to see if it is clean. Many times we know it is clean because we just washed it or washed it recently and thus know it is clean.

We do not have faith in the weather man, historians or scientists. Each of them have qualifications and they have evidence they base their claims on. They may often be wrong, such as the weather man who bases his claims on the instruments he has but weather is always in a constant state to change. Historians do deep research into several fields, and they base their works only on the data collected. Scientists are often the most trustworthy, because they test their work and they have other qualified people peer review their work and try to disprove it. When they cannot disprove it, it is accepted as true.

It is also illogical to suggest that one can have faith in the non-existence of anything. Do we take it on faith that leprechauns or fairies don't exist, or is it the belief in those creatures that is based on faith?}}

===Trump Card===
Here Ray addresses the question "Who Made God?" Ray dances around this question by saying anyone can find the answer by being ''reasonable.'' Ray claims that God has no beginning and no end, and God is not subjected to time since he created time. Of course, Ray quotes Scripture to support his claims (such as 2 Peter 3:18 and Hebrews 6:19). Ray says that God can "flip through time as you can I can flip through the pages of a history book." Ray believes prophecies is enough evidence to support this claim.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=First noting 2 Peter is considered by the vast majority of critical scholars as a forgery. Also, simply being "reasonable" is not enough or an excuse to accept the existence of the concept the universe was created by "invisible pink fairies" who are not bound by time. To be reasonable is to test and evaluate such beliefs and see if there is any truth to them, and Ray has not provided any.

Is God bound by time? Did God create time?
*P1) God is defined as the arbiter of all things, including time;
*P2) A decision requires transition from indifferences to will (requires time)
*P3) Since time cannot exist prior to its existence, God cannot choose to create time;
*P4) If God cannot choose to create time, he is not arbiter of all things;
*P5) Therefore, a personal entity cannot be the ultimate arbiter of all things;
*P6) Therefore, God as defined is internally inconsistent
*C) Therefore, there is no God.
The act of creating the universe is meaningful only in time. Is God in time or outside of it? Time isn't absolute. It’s elastic and is stretched by accelerating motions or fields of intense gravity, such as those around a black hole. A God contained in time would no longer be powerful because he would be subjected to the laws of time. A God outside time would be omnipotent, but unable to help us, since our actions happen in time. If God transcended time, then he would already know the future. If he knew everything in advance, why would he bother to become involved in the struggle of humankind against evil? God must be immutable and unable to create or else he is inside time and is not immutable. So how can an immutable entity create something? If there is an act of creation, is the creator involved or not? If he isn't then why call him the creator? If he is involved, then because creation inevitably occurs in stages, the something or someone involved in these stages is not immutable. Creation remains a process, and any process, whether temporal or not, is not compatible with immutability.

God is also defined as being omniscient, however if he is then Ray Comfort and other Christians who hold similar beliefs must admit there is no free will. For instance, imagine a person was walking down a road and approaching a left or right turn only. God, being omniscient, knows that the person will turn left. And then the person turns right, and God is surprised and thus God is not all-knowing. However, if the person did turn left, how is that different from not having free will. If god knows every action and decision we will make throughout our lives before we are even born, then he knows where we will spend eternity after death. And he would have know all this eons before he ever thought to create earth and humans.}}

===Atheist Test===
Finally, Ray tries to persuade readers that atheists do not exist. He provides a false definition of [[agnosticism]] and claims that atheists make an "absolute claim" that God does not exist. According to Ray, one must possess all the knowledge of the universe in order to make such a claim.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, Ray contradicts himself when he makes the absolute claim that God does exist. Atheists do not have to have absolute knowledge to not believe in green horses galloping on the surface of the sun, because there is no evidence to support such a idea. An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in a god (not "believe" there is no god), that is atheists do not buy what religion is selling. If theists like Ray Comfort claim to "know" God exists, they should be able to provide empirical data and evidence for their god, and to date not a single one has. It doesn’t matter how convinced you are; belief does not equal knowledge. The difference is that knowledge can always be tested for accuracy where mere beliefs often can not be. No matter how positively you think you know it, if you can’t show it, then you don’t know it, and you shouldn’t say that you do. Nor would you if you really cared about the truth. Knowledge is demonstrable, measurable. But faith is often a matter of pretending to know what you know you really don't know, and that no one even can know, and which you merely believe -often for no good reason at all.

Later in this book (pg. 71) Ray confidently asserts, “It doesn’t matter how many thousands of years pass, elephants don’t have giraffes, nor do monkeys have men.” How does Comfort envision himself escaping the snarky retort that, because he isn’t omniscient and didn’t witness the birth of every animal that ever lived, he cannot deny evolution? God doesn’t believe in creationists!}}

Ray ends this chapter with a tale of Mussolini. It is said that Mussolini stood on a pedestal, shouted "God, if you are there, strike me dead!" when God did not, he concluded that he did not exist. Ray says his prayer was answered later.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This was not an answered prayer, it is simply the result of time and fatal force.}}

==Chapter 2: Banana in hand==
In this chapter, Ray provides arguments for "Creation." Among them are the coca-cola can, the [[banana argument]], an apple, and other examples. His argument is basically that these could not have formed naturally and creation requires a creator.

Using the coca-cola can, he provides a straw man argument of the [[Big Bang]] theory.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The Big Bang does not claim anything came from nothing, nor does it comment or have anything to do with [[abiogenesis]] or [[evolution]]. The only one who does claim everything came from nothing is Ray Comfort, who believes his God created everything ex-nihlio by using incantations (i.e. MAGIC). So in an ironic sense, whenever Ray ridicules people who believe everything came from nothing, he is addressing himself while falsely disguising every other position as the same as his.}}

In a section, he says his arguments are scientific because science provides evidence that a creation must have a creator.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=No, science is about testing and observing. Ray provides no empirical data that there is a creator, and even if we allow Ray to make such a claim he provides no evidence that this creator is his narrow version of the Christian God, multiple gods, or any infinite deities that can theoretically exist. When Ray was on [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Atheist_Experience_debates_Ray_Comfort The Atheist Experience], he admitted his idea of testing was "common sense." Common sense is not testing, nor is it reliable. By Ray's logic, does lightning have a lightning maker? We see patterns and design in snowflakes and crystals, but we know they come about through purely natural forces without the help of the supernatural. What Ray has failed to do is provide proof or any data whatsoever that life is not the result of natural forces like a snow flakes.}}

He adds that atheism is a dying movement, providing quotes from articles but provides no reference.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, the actually polls show that church attendance is declining across the globe and atheism in America has recently doubled in the past decade. Atheism is not dying, it is rapidly growing. In fact, polls show more people leaving Christianity not only in America but around the world. In fact, last year 180,000 Catholics in Germany left the church.[http://www.christianmessenger.in/%E2%80%98180000-catholics-quit-church-last-year-in-germany%E2%80%99/]}}

==Chapter 3: Seeing is Believing==
In this chapter, Ray claims the evidence of God is self-evident.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, seeing is believing but not knowing. Believe as hard as you want to. But convincing yourself however firmly still can’t change the reality of things. Seeing is believing. But seeing isn’t knowing. Believing isn’t knowing. Subjective convictions are meaningless in science, and eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence.

For example, if I go into my front yard and I see a large sauropod walking down the middle of my street, I will of course be quite convinced of what I see. I may be even more satisfied when I follow the thing and find that I can touch it, maybe even ride it if I want to. When I gather sense enough to run back for my camcorder, I may not be able to find the beast again, because I don't know which way it went. But that doesn’t matter because I saw it, I heard it, felt it, smelt it and I remember all that clearly with a sober and rational mind. But somehow I'm the only one who ever noticed it, and of course no one believes me. Some other guy says he saw a dinosaur too, but his description was completely different, such that we can’t both be talking about the same thing. So it doesn't matter how convinced I am that it really happened. It might not have. When days go by and there are still no tracks, no excrement, no destruction, no sign of the beast at all, no other witnesses whose testimony lends credence to mine, and no explanation for how a 20-meter long dinosaur could just disappear in the suburbs of a major metropolis, much less how it could have appeared there in the first place, -then it becomes much easier to explain how there could be only two witnesses who can’t agree on what they think they saw, than it is to explain all the impossibilities against that dinosaur ever really being there. Positive claims require positive evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that’s what I’d need –since what I propose isn’t just extraordinary; its impossible. But since there's not one fact I can show that anyone can measure or otherwise confirm, then my perspective is still subjective -and thus uncertain. Eventually, even I, the eyewitness, would have to admit that, although I did see it, I still don’t know if it was ever really there –regardless whether I still believe that it was.

It doesn’t matter how convinced you are; belief does not equal knowledge. The difference is that knowledge can always be tested for accuracy where mere beliefs often can not be. No matter how positively you think you know it, if you can’t show it, then you don’t know it, and you shouldn’t say that you do. Nor would you if you really cared about the truth. Knowledge is demonstrable, measurable. But faith is often a matter of pretending to know what you know you really don't know, and that no one even can know, and which you merely believe -often for no good reason at all.}}

===Back to Da Vinci===
Ray provides a whole section repeating his argument a "painting had a painter." He then says that since man has not been able to create something as complex and magnificent as the human eye, it must have been specially created.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=What Ray refuses to acknowledge or admit is that nature through natural selection can and has created numerous types of eyes. There is more types of eyes than the human eye, much that are simpler and some more complex. All the steps to making an eye are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations (a blink of an eye in geological times).

Just because man cannot create something does not mean by default anything Ray or anyone can imagine exists or is responsible for the creation of anything. Ray's line of thinking also begs the question. How does Ray know that the eye, if it was created, was crafted by magical invisible pixies or Aton rather than the God of the Bible?}}

Ray further argues that atheism is a position that claims everything came from nothing, and challenges any scientist on the planet to create something from nothing.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is a deliberate lie invented by Christians to make atheism look foolish. Atheists and atheism does not make any claims about origins. Ray continues to use this straw man of the Big Bang theory, which he interprets everything came from nothing. However, this is not at all what physicists claim. 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>

What is ironic is that Ray is the one who claims everything came from nothing by supernatural/magic methods, and yet provides zero evidence to support this belief.}}

===Albert Knew===
Does not believing in something mean it does not exist? Ray says of course not. He argues a blind man may not believe in color, color still exists in the same way God exists.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, a blind person can be aware of color, but Ray does not believe that Allah exists although he is sure that Allah does not exist. What atheists argue is that it is unreasonable to hold such beliefs if they cannot be shown to be true or proven. Ray Comfort and other theists continue to make the positive claim that god exists, and so the burden of proof is on them to provide positive evidence, however what they are proposing is extraordinary and thus require extraordinary evidence. Thus far, Ray has used various logical fallacies; wishful thinking; and appeals to emotion and arguments from ignorance.}}

Can we believe in things we have never seen? Ray says no and uses the human brain as an example. Since you have never seen your brain before, do you conclude it does not exist?
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Unfortunately for Ray, we can see our brains. We can see them through operations, x-ray, or even cutting into a corpse. Ray is also wrong in his conclusion. We can believe in things we have never seen. Ray is living proof of this. Ray has never seen a supernatural being create a grain of sand from nothing, a man walk on water, or angels and demons. Ray believes in angels and Satan, but he has never seen one nor can he describe what Satan looks like. He can speculate all he wants on what he may look like, but he cannot provide proof to how he knows it but more importantly Ray cannot prove that Satan exists in the first place.}}

Ray also quote mines [[Albert Einstein]] and [[Stephen Hawking]] deliberately to make it seem as they believed in god; however, neither of these men held such beliefs.

Ray ends this chapter by repeating the [[Fine-tuned universe | fine tuning argument]], that is our earth is just in the right state of being for life to evolve.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This argument is flawed, weakened by the fact that it is a tautology, and proven false by quantum mechanics, the M-theory, the multiverse, and the Copernican Principle. Theists like to use the anthropic principle as proof that life can only be the result of divine creation, but there are several flaws in this argument. One such problem is the only form of life we are familiar with is here on earth which are carbon-based, there may be simpler forms of life elsewhere in the universe that are not carbon-based. Not to mention, theists like to portray earth as having all the right requirements down to such a precision to allow life. But what the anthropic principle fails is that it implies the universe is fine-tuned for life, however if the universe was fine-tuned for us, surely a bit more of it would be habitable. The numbers are so absurd that it defies comprehension. It is equivalent to a person after exploring 1.6 BILLION rocks like our Moon and finding one single virus particle on only one of the moons and collectively they are fine-tuned for life. Or having six MILLION Olympic-sized swimming pools that can collectively hold no more than a single molecule of water, yet claiming they are fine-tuned for water storage. Or claiming that a hard-drive the size of the earth that can only store one bit (1/0), or a hard-drive the size of Jupiter hold cannot even hold a single tweet on twitter is fine tuned for storing data. Or claiming that 2 MILLION 50 ton cranes that cant collectively hold more than a single proton are fine tuned for lifting. Or claiming that a plane at full speed travels less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the diameter of a proton over 10 billion years is fine-tuned for speed. If you think these examples are ridiculous, then you would agree that so too is the argument that the universe is fine-tuned for life. It does not take a genius to realize how absurd and flawed this argument truly is.

The Copernican Principle is the opposite of the Anthropic Principle and states that humans do not occupy a privileged place in the universe. Successive astronomical discoveries seem to support this principle. In the Middle Ages it was assumed that God created man in his image, and such, man and the earth were at the center of the universe. Copernicus and Galileo abolished the illusion that the earth was the center of the solar system and put the sun in its rightful heliocentric place. It was then found that the sun was not at the center of our galaxy, and Hubble showed that our own galaxy, the Milky Way, was not at the center of the universe. Finally, the multiverse concept suggests our universe may be just one of many constantly sprouting new universes, further diminishing the Anthropic Principle conclusion that the universe is here just for us. The Anthropic Principle emphasizes the rarity of life and consciousness while the Copernican Principle forces us to realize it was not all done just so we could exist.}}

==Chapter 4: Strawberries and garlic==
Ray begins this chapter by asking a series of questions, such as "Where does your hair grow from?" and "If you ever decide to get false teeth, will you have them made, or will you wait for 'chance' to make a pair for you?" in a attempt to drag the reader into wonder by thinking such instances can only be done by a creator.

Ray then uses arguments of [[irreducible complexity]] proposed by [[Michael Behe]]. Such examples include the blood clotting mechanism and argues such a system could not have evolved by small steps through natural selection.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, this has been debated and settled for many years that indeed the blood clotting system can evolve, both in the lab, nature, and in court. In the court case [[Dover vs kitzmiller | Dover v. Kitzmiller]], Michael Behe testified after years of research, no one has found a way how the irreducible system could have evolved. However, he was presented with many volumes of books, science articles, and peer reviewed tests that explain and demonstrate the evolution of the systems he claimed were "irreducible." However, Michael Behe, without examining any of them, said they were not good enough. This caught the attention of the judge as willful ignorance and deliberate deception.

Blood clotting is not irreducibly complex. Some animals -- dolphins, for example -- get along fine without the Hagemann factor (Robinson et al. 1969), a component of the human blood clotting system which Behe includes in its "irreducible" complexity (Behe 1996, 84). Doolittle and Feng (1987) predicted that "lower" vertebrates would lack the "contact pathway" of blood clotting. Work on the genomes of the puffer fish and zebrafish have confirmed this (Yong and Doolittle 2003). How did the blood clotting system evolve? The blood clotting systems appears to be put together by using whatever long polymeric bridges are handy. There are many examples of complicated systems made from components that have useful but completely different roles in different components. There is also evidence that the genes for blood clotting (indeed, the whole genome) duplicated twice in the course of its evolution (Davidson et al. 2003). The duplication of parts and co-opting of parts with different functions gets around the "challenge" of irreducible complexity evolving gradually. }}

Ray goes on to list several organs that seem irreducibly complex, such as the brain and the ear, and concludes that only a creator could design such features.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is an [[argument from incredulity]]. The brain is not irreducible. Brains come in many different sizes. The sea slug (Aplysia), for example, has only about 20,000 neurons in its entire nervous system. Coelenterates have an even simpler nervous system consisting of a nerve net and nothing even close to a brain. There are innumerable intermediate forms of brains between humans and brainless animals; gradual evolution of the brain presents no challenge. When Ray moves on to the eye, he quote mines [[Charles Darwin]] in his book ''The Origin of Species'' that even Darwin admitted that the eye could not have evolved. Ray commonly uses this quote-mine, even though he knows he is being deliberately dishonest. Darwin never meant at all that the eye could never evolve, he predicted that several small simple steps can create a complex system, which we have proven to be the case with the eye, ear, and brain. Darwin's predictions turned out to be true.}}

Ray ends this chapter by stating that even atheists stand in awe at such wonders of nature (Niagara Falls, the Grand Canyon, etc) and questions "How much more should we be humbled by the maker of these things?"
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Here, Ray is making up stories. For someone who constantly claims to not believe things on faith or settle for things that can be "absolutely" known, he makes a lot of generalizations that he has no way of knowing or verifying. Not all atheists are the same and many have different views of nature. Some may find wonders in nature, but they do not irrational equate such beauty to unprovable entities like leprechauns or sky pixies. Atheists and rationalists understand that nature contains beauty because we are a species who are biologically built to recognize and detect patterns. However, there is a difference between natural design and artificial design. We see design in paintings, but we know through observation and experience that paintings are artificially designed. We also see design, patterns and order in sand dunes, snowflakes, clouds, crystals, and such but we understand that these are naturally occurring and do not require any supernatural interference, which is what Ray is arguing for. Thus far, Ray has not provided any proof for such a belief or provided any model or method to distinguish how we know this universe is artificially designed.}}

==Chapter 5: Stronger than Sex Drive==
In this chapter, Ray plays on people's fear of death and appeals to emotion. Since we all die, we have an inner feeling to avoid death. Unable to find an answer for how or why this is, Ray concludes this feeling is given to us by God. Ray promises that faith in God will present us everlasting life if we repent.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is an [[argument from incredulity]]. There is an explanation for the need to avoid death. Every species has a tendency towards survival, which is an evolutionary trait. Creatures who are more prone to avoid death survive more than those creatures that don't. As for why humans want to seek life after death, the fear of death has a lot of explanatory power.}}

Ray uses an analogy similar to one he presented at the [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rational_Response_Squad_debate_with_Way_of_the_Master Nightline debate Rational Response Squad] of a television and signals. He says radio waves are invisible flowing through the air and our minds are transmitters. He says if we just push the power button, we will receive signals and see a picture. The same, according to Ray, will happen if we accept God and Jesus Christ: we will have evidence of his existence and know his laws. He claims that people just "won't" find god, and chooses not to try.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=If such a thing was provable as he says, then why does Ray's beliefs rest on faith? However, many people already have tried it and have not gotten the same results Ray has. He contradicted himself to, because he claimed that this is "provable" but then why has man made thousands of religions throughout history?

Some people learn that Ray's premises are fallacious, and many others find other deities. The human brain is capable of producing many religious experiences that ''seem'' real. A number of investigations have shown that deep temporal lobe stimulation in the area around the amygdala and hippocampus of the limbic system produces feelings of intense meaningfulness, of depersonalization, of a connection with God, of cosmic connectedness, of out-of-body experiences, a feeling of not being in this world, déjà vu (a feeling that something has been experienced before), jamais vu (a feeling something is happening for the first time even though it has been experienced before), fear, and hallucinations. Since the amygdala and hippocampus, all part of the limbic system, is closely connected to the frontal lobes (the area of the brain that senses what is real -touch, taste, smell, etc.) simulations of the amygdala and/or hippocampus is often perceived as real.}}

In the last paragraph, Ray says ('''bold emphasis''' added)
<blockquote>
"[Christianity] maintains that the invisible God of creation can supernaturally reveal himself to you. '''Despite the fact that it is illogical''', I have more that an air of confidence because what I am saying '''is provable'''."
</blockquote>
Ray asks skeptics to stop doubting and dares them to believe (despite the hundreds of reasons they can give why it will not work). He claims that people just "won't" find god, and chooses not to try. He says those who refuse to look at "willfully ignorant of the truth."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=If such a thing was provable as he says, then why does Ray's beliefs rest on faith? His proofs, which are not "proofs," are just as valid if you replace God in the equation with Allah, invisible pixies, or the [[Flying Spaghetti Monster]]. He contradicted himself too, because he claimed that this his beliefs are "provable" but he does not provide any proof that the "creator" is his particular version of the creator. Why has man made thousands of religions and deities throughout history? Ray must know that what he is proposing is illogical, he openly admitted it. His only support is personal experience, which does not provide any empirical proof. He tells us to seek and we shall find, but that requires that we must first perceive that god exists before we actually prove god exists to start with. This is similar to a person off to seek Big Foot, the person already believes Big Foot exists without first verifying that such a creature exists. It is also similar to seeking aliens/extraterrestrial life, ghosts, spirits, and such where they all have already assumed these things exist without question or prior evidence that they exist in the first place.}}

==Chapter 6: Atheist Obstacles==
Ray goes on to explain why atheists cannot defend their position.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This only further shows Ray's misunderstanding of atheism. Atheists have no position to defend, they are not the ones making any positive claims about origins or the cosmos. The ones making the positive claims have the burden of proof. Ray Comfort is the one making the positive claim that God exists, but he repeatably fails to provide any positive evidence to support his beliefs.}}

"It is because the atheist is neither omniscient nor omnipresent that he then takes an illogical leap by concluding that there is no god, because it cannot be proven that he doesn't exist. Such reasoning is absurd."

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The problem with this reasoning is that it is based on a fallacy. No one can prove a negative, the one making the positive claim (i.e. God exists) have the burden of proof to provide evidence to support their view. Since fairies and gnomes and many other mythical creatures that can theoretically exist cannot be disproved, by Ray's logic, we should accept they exist as well.}}

Ray goes on to prayer and miracles, claiming since atheists do not pray, they will not see miracles. Ray uses a story of a dying child to prove miracles. If a child dies of some disease while the family attempted prayer to save them and the child dies, the atheist counts that as an unanswered prayer; if a child lives, it's again unanswered, because the child's body simply healed itself. Next Ray claims that the prayers were answered because, according to Ray, even if a child dies, because god "took him to heaven because he wanted the child there."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Basically god answers prayer whether or not anything happens, and whenever a person dies God wills it so. This would mean God has planned all murders, abortions, miscarriages, homicides, wars, genocides, sacrifices, accidents, natural deaths, etc. If God wills a person to die, then prayer would be pointless. Likewise, the results of a person praying to God would get the same results praying to Allah, invisible pixies, or even a milk carton. There are no statistics or evidence that prayer works.}}

Ray talks about his car, and if it should become damaged, Ray argues, "What would be my intellectual capacity if I concluded that it had no manufacturer simply because I couldn't contact them about the dilemma? The fact of their existence has nothing to do with whether or not they return my calls."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The problem with this is that this does not take faith, since anyone can transport their cars to have them repaired. Ray is again confusing (willfully or not) that atheists claim that artifacts have no creator because they do not accept nature had a creator. As pointed out several times, there is no model or method to distinguish if this universe had a special creator. Thus far, Ray has not provided any proof that the universe had a special creator of any sort. In fact, science has shown that matter and energy cannot be created and thus did not require special creation.}}

Ray concludes in this chapter that God answers all prayers.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Well, Ray, you can argue that a milk carton answers all prayers too.}}

Ray then urges all readers, who are people in a failing airplane, to put on their parachute (faith in Jesus) and be saved before its too late.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This however, is an flawed argument known as [[Pascal's Wager]]. Ray Comfort says his parachute (provided by his invisible friend) is safe and harmless, but suddenly another passenger tells you "Don't use his parachute, it has holes in it. Use mine provided by my invisible friend." Then a third passenger announces “My invisible friend slashed all the parachutes on board. He takes care of his chosen people, and as none of you were born into the correct lineage, it’s too bad for you.” Some people refuse parachutes and urge others to do the same, because it would interfere with the master plan of the father of their invisible friend (these are the same people who refuse medical care in favor of prayer and faith healing). The drama goes on with the rest of the passengers, until you demand to actually see proof of a doomed plane and which parachute does work. Some say you must not demand for evidence and just have faith. Regardless, you inspect the plane and the parachutes. The plane is operating just fine in every way and each parachute has holes in them big enough you can fit your head through them. Some of the parachutes terribly constrict people, harming them. The plane reaches its destination safely, but the drama continues through the terminal, security, all the way out beyond the airport. You learn from airports around the world that many people have harmed many others and themselves due to their faith in their parachute provided by their particular invisible friend.}}

==Chapter 7: Worms transformed==
Ray goes on to repeat another of his favorite arguments against evolution. He claims that each male of all species must find a mate, who also must be equally evolved and have a desire to mate, that is they both must have evolved sex organs that fit each other. Like bolt and nuts, according to Ray, they are meant to fit each other.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This argument is absurd since some animals reproduce asexually and Ray continues to fail to realize two things: the female (not the male) is the foundation of the species, and evolution and change takes place in a population not an individual. Also, regarding his bolt and nut analogy, many people know that some people cannot reproduce since their sexual organs are too small or too large.

Ray also ignores the vast scientific depth into the evolution of sex. 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).}}

===A Coincidence===
When Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron ask how is it that leaves fall in a straight line and how our human bodies are like a car - perfectly designed with "little squirters called tear ducts."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is a simple repeat of [[intelligent design]] arguments, which do not stand up to scrutiny. The human body is complex and shares several functions that resemble that of car parts. Both Ray and Kirk asked how can leaves fall to form a straight line, implying how did the row of leaves extend or build up? Likewise, a car can be build from multiple smaller pieces. A car can also be broken down into smaller individual parts. For instance, a battery still functions as a battery. Take off the wheel, but the wheel does not lose its function. A car can still function without a motor or battery, it can function as a cart — a device that has been is use for centuries to carry goods. The motor just makes it easier, and thus more favorable.}}

==Chapter 8: Tombstone face==
In this chapter, Ray tries to persuade the reader to choose [[Christianity]] over all other religions. He uses his old guilt trip tactic "[[are you a good person?]]" in which he sets up a problem for everyone that only his God can fix by using the Ten Commandments.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The Ten Commandments are not evidence of God just as the Five Pillars of Islam are proof of Allah.}}

==Chapter 9: I'll resurrect her for you==
Ray begins this chapter with a series of questions and asks why "pseudo intellectuals [who] know the answer to everything except the issues that really matter...they haven't the faintest idea what they are doing here on earth."

In a section called "The Assumption" Ray calls evolution a fairy tale since there is no evidence to support it.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is a lie and willful ignorance of the massive amounts of evidence that support and confirm evolution.}}

Ray asks his readers to listen carefully to the language scientists use: believe, surmise, suspect, think, assume, perhaps, maybe, possibly, etc.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=What Ray fails to understand is that science does not claim to be infallible or always correct, since everything scientific must be falsifiable. Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron both use this type of language, but often use more absolute terms.}}

Ray then quotes Darwin, "I was a young man with unformed ideas, I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything: and to my astonishment the ideas took like wild fire. People made a religion out of them."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The problem with this is, this was never spoken by Charles Darwin. This is a quote from a woman who goes by the name "Lady Hope" (Believed to be Elizabeth Hope, a British evangelist) who supposedly was with Darwin at his death bed and reported that Darwin recanted. However, she was never near Darwin when he died, making all her claims about Darwin demonstrably false.}}

Moving on, Ray goes on to say those who believe in evolution is because of carbon dating. Ray quotes from an article by ''Time''[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,970345,00.html] to show that carbon dating is faulty and cannot be trusted.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This article is taken out of context and Ray ignores the vast amount of other dating methods scientists use.}}

Once again, Ray goes on to cast doubt upon the readers on evolution. Ray asks "Did the fish first that crawled out of the ocean to be come an animal have lungs or gills?" and how could the giraffes neck evolve?
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Comfort is now using a [[straw man]] against Lamarckian evolution, not Darwin's theory of evolution. Lamarck's concept pre-dated Darwin. Under Lamarckian evolution, physical traits were passed from parent to offspring (i.e. the muscles of your left arm were particularly strong from constant weight lifting, therefore your offspring will have a more muscular left arm).

Fossil evidence and the swim bladders of some modern fish support evolutionary theory regarding the evolution from gills and gill-like features to lungs in the earliest amphibians. Modern amphibians still posses many of these traits, though modified. Ray, in attempting to make this sound as absurd as possible, relies on our inherent inability to properly conceive of large spans of time, portraying one individual creature, at one point in time. This oversimplification of speciation doesn't accurately reflect scientific explanations. }}

Ray himself quotes from several people, appealing to authority, such as Sir Arthur Keith, Malcolm Muggeridge, and other articles from ''Time''.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Quotes from Keith cited by a number of creationists, appears to be completely fraudulent. Firstly, Sir Keith died in 1955 and couldn't have written the forward to the 100th edition of Origin of Species in 1959. He did write an introduction to an edition of Origin of Species but in 1928, over 30 years prior to the centennial. The quote attributed to him does not appear in that edition or in any other known work. As for Muggeridge (an obviously flawed argument from authority) Muggeridge is a non-scientist, fundamentalist Christian who was never involved in scientific research. The quote does nothing to further Ray's stated goal of demonstrating that the theory of evolution is 'unscientific'. What is unscientific is Ray's attempt to discredit evolution. The opinion of any individual, philosopher or scientist, has no bearing on whether a proposition is true or false. }}

Next, Ray talks about how scientists have been fooled by several hoaxes like Java Man, Heidelberg Man, [[Piltdown Man]], etc. Ray goes on to basically say "dogs produce dogs. Cats produce cats. Horses produce foals, and so on and so on."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=100 years ago, the only human fossils yet known were a few Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon, and Homo erectus. Then an English attorney and amateur archaeologist presented bones and associated artifacts of what appeared to be an as-yet unidentified species. British Imperialists were generally accepting of the news, but French and American scientists were skeptical, doubting that the skull and jaw even belonged together. The British museum touted the “Piltdown man” as authentic, but the American Museum of Natural History displayed it only as a “mixture of ape and man fossils”, which is what it eventually turned out to be.

There was no way to adequately examine such things back in 1915. Chemical tests –common today- didn’t yet exist and we didn’t yet have a practical understanding of radiation. And before the first australopiths were discovered, we didn’t know exactly what to expect of the links that were then still missing between humans and the other apes known at that time. But as we began filling in the gaps in human evolution with thousands of legitimate fossils, a pattern emerged which left Piltdown an increasingly obvious anomaly. Consequently it was taken off display and stored away almost continuously for decades. It lost importance in most discussions because, in light of everything else we discovered over the next few decades, it just never fit, and was eventually dismissed from the list of potential human ancestors for that reason.

As the years wore on, criticism arose against everyone who ever promoted the Piltdown collection because there seemed to be so much wrong with it. Finally, in the 1950s, it was taken back out of the box and scrutinized via more modern means. First fluorine dating revealed that it was much too recent, and it was shown to have been chemically-treated to give a false impression of its age and mineral composition. Then it was finally determined that the jaw must have come from an orangutan, and that it had been deliberately reshaped with modern tools in a well-crafted and deliberate forgery.

No one knows who did it either. And more importantly, why? Errors were already known and previously reported, but few ever suspected fraud because, what would be the motive? Nearly everyone who stood accused was a man of high reputation and credentials. Maybe that was the motive. Maybe Piltdown man was just a joke that had gone too far. But no one was laughing, and they weren’t going to let it happen again.

Even before the Piltdown hoax was officially exposed, an American paleontologist earned himself a life-time of embarrassment when he found a tooth from an extinct species of pig in Nebraska, and mislabeled it, Hesperopithecus. The cheek teeth of pigs and peccaries are fairly similar to ape molars, and this one was badly worn such that Henry Fairfield Osborne initially believed it to be human. But the real embarrassment came when he publicized his find in a popular magazine rather than submitting it for peer review first.

Creationists like to say that scientists were as duped by Nebraska man as they were by Piltdown man. But they weren’t. Everyone who saw the fossil agreed that it did look like an ape’s tooth. But with only a couple tentative exceptions, the entire contemporary scientific community either immediately rejected the accuracy of Osborne’s assertions, or they demanded more substantial evidence to back them. He obviously couldn’t provide that evidence despite another five years of searching. Eventually, he came to the sad realization that his fossil probably wasn’t really human after all. His more skeptical associate, W.K. Gregory then published a formal retraction in scientific journals.

Creationists often accuse scientists of contriving the illustration of Nebraska man and of conjuring a whole skeleton and facial construct out of a single tooth that was never even human in the first place. But the fact is that the magazine commissioned their own ‘artist’s impression’, and scientists of the day, including Osborn himself, immediately reacted with harsh criticism. As a result, the article was never reprinted. }}

Ray discusses the Big Bang theory, and how an explosion only produces chaos instead of order, and thus evolution cannot be true.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=What Ray fails to grasp is the the Big Bang deals with cosmology, not biology. Neither rely on each other for the other to be true.}}

On page 73, Ray adds "Mother nature can't do anything to stop the thousands of diseases that plague humanity. While evolution carries on for all of the animals, there will be no new lungs for those humans with emphysema and no new brains for those with brain disorders....The noses of those who live in Southern California will not evolve a smog filtration system, neither will orange pickers who have longer arms survive over the short-armed orange pickers. Men will not have their right hand evolve into a remote control, neither will drivers evolve hands-free cell phones on their chins."

Ray finally ends this chapter by claiming "If evolution is true, then the bible is not the creator's revelation to humanity."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=But this is a deliberate lie, since evolution does not refute or disprove any god(s). The Bible is a work of man, not any deities revelation to humanity.}}

==Chapter 10: Who wrote the letter?==
Comfort begins this chapter with a story of his conversion to Christianity. He is grateful that he has been given eternal life in Heaven and promised to read the Bible ever since to check if it is authentic and reliable.

Ray mentions and compliments the Dead Sea Scrolls, claiming they show Christianity has not changed.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, the Scrolls do little to help Ray Comfort's positions. The scrolls do not mention Jesus and the Gnostic writers had a different view of Christianity. Different Christianities did exist with opposing theologies and world views.}}

To prove the Bible, Ray goes into discussing the scientific foreknowledge found in the Bible. The first one he brings up is Job:26:7 "He hangs the earth on nothing." Ray claims that this passage means that the earth simply floats in space while, according to Ray, science thought that it sat on a large animal, or giant.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is false, since scientists held no such view (even Ray fails to provide a reference to his claim). The problem with this verse is that the earth does not "hang" nor is it above nothing. "Beneath" the earth is open space, cosmic dust, stars, and more. Unfortunately, that is not "nothing."}}

Ray then uses an out of date quote from ''Time'' to claim that science is in agreement with the creation account of Genesis. "Most cosmologists...agree that the genesis account of creation, in imagining an initial void, may be uncannily close to the truth (Time, December 1976)".
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Scientists now agree that the universe could be eternal. The law of conservation of mass and energy states that mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can only change forms from one to another. Based on this, the universe is most likely eternal, and was never "created."}}

Next, Ray claims: "Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power, and motion. Genesis 1:1-2 revealed such truths to the Hebrews in 1450 b.c. " In the beginning [time] god created [power] the heaven [space] and the earth [matter]…And the spirit of god moved [motion] upon the face of the waters…"
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This line of thinking is flawed and misleading. Authors of bible had a concept of time and space, though they may not know how to explain them. But claiming that the bible "revealed" these "truths" to people through scripture is an enormous overstatement.}}

Not stopping there, Ray claims the Bible reveals "the earth is round" from Isaiah 40:22. There are other Bible verses that contradict the concept of a round earth, but rather a flat earth with ends (Matthew 4:8, Isaiah 11:12, Revelation 7:1, Psalms 67:7, Daniel 4:20, Luke 4:5, and much more).
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, the verse Ray uses varies depending on translation. Some say "circle" but the earth is not a circle since a circle indicated a flat disk. If we use "round" it is still problematic, because the earth is closer to a sphere. Plus, there is some suggestion that the Egyptians knew of the earth's spherical size and shape around 2550 B.C.E. (more than a thousand years before Moses). The Greek philosopher Pythagoras, who was born in 532 B.C.E., defended the spherical theory on the basis of observations he had made of the shape of the sun and moon (Uotila 1984). If this information was known by educated Greeks and Egyptians during biblical times, its use by Isaiah is nothing special.}}

Ray repeats the misquote of [[Albert Einstein]] in Chapter 3 to make it seem he believed in God.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Einstein did not believe in a personal god; he may have been a deist.}}

==Chapter 11: Benevolent Jelly==
This chapter mainly consists of Ray Comfort preaching and repeating his usual theological arguments. He reminds people about sin and salvation through the blood of Christ and such.

==Chapter 12: The real thing==
In this chapter, Ray delves into the topic of Christians who perform horrible acts in the name of God (murder, war, genocide, etc.). Ray calls them "hypocrites" "pretenders" and "not real christians."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is a fallacy called [[No True Scotsman]]. There are over 30,000 denominations of [[Christianity]], each claiming to be correct, so there is no way of knowing which is the right kind of [[Christianity]].

There are many examples of Christians, who wholeheartedly believed they were doing the work of the Lord, and committed terrible crimes. Even to this day Christians condemn [[witchcraft]] and [[homosexuality]] in Africa, resulting in torn families and hundreds upon hundreds dead. Some Christian parents refuse to have their children treated with medicine because they think it would interfere with God's plan, their sick child has no say in the matter. This has resulted in the death of hundreds of innocent children and infants.}}

==Chapter 13: Death Sentence for error==
In this chapter Ray talks about bible prophesy, and how, if a prophet wasn't one hundred percent accurate, they would be put to death. This explains why many prophets spoke in very vague language, predicted inevitable outcomes, and often faked their prophecies.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=If "prophets" were put to death because their prophecies were not 100%, then the fate of Jesus being executed surely then points to that Jesus was a failure.}}

Ray goes through all of these different "prophesies" and cites things that have happened in the world, such as murders, earthquakes, etc., and claims these are proof of the bible's prophesies.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Unfortunately, these are not valid proofs. These things have happened throughout the history of mankind, and the world. Murder, earthquakes, and such are all things that constantly happen throughout history. People always engage in war, people get diseases, people kill others, etc.

There are several mundane ways in which a prediction of the future can be fulfilled:

# Retrodiction. The "prophecy" can be written or modified after the events fulfilling it have already occurred.
# Vagueness. The prophecy can be worded in such a way that people can interpret any outcome as a fulfillment. Nostradomus's prophecies are all of this type. Vagueness works particularly well when people are religiously motivated to believe the prophecies.
# Inevitability. The prophecy can predict something that is almost sure to happen, such as the collapse of a city. Since nothing lasts forever, the city is sure to fall someday. If it has not, it can be said that according to prophecy, it will.
# Denial. One can claim that the fulfilling events occurred even if they have not. Or, more commonly, one can forget that the prophecy was ever made.
# Self-fulfillment. A person can act deliberately to satisfy a known prophecy.

There are no prophecies in the Bible that cannot easily fit into one or more of those categories. The Bible also contains many unfulfilled prophecies [http://www.answering-christianity.com/bibles_unfulfilled_prophecies.htm</ref> and "imaginary" prophecies <ref>http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html].

Other prophecies in other religions exist, although Ray does not accept them. There are fulfilled prophecies in Zoroastrainism[http://www.bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/zoroaste.htm], Buddhism[http://bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/buddha.htm], Hinduism[http://bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/hindusa.htm], Native American[http://bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/nativeam.htm], and Mormon[http://bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/mormon.htm]. Why does not Ray accept any of these fulfilled prophecies? Because he knows the evidence supporting them is lacking, the prophecies are vague, and of course he already has a presupposition that they are all false — meaning he does not have to look at a single one of them before declaring them all wrong.}}

==Chapter 14: Bizarre to the insane==
This chapter discusses information that governs our thoughts. Ray warns us what information we accept. This goes into the theory of [[evolution]]. Ray says, "If you believe a drink contains poison, you won't drink it. If you believe it is safe, you will drink it. If you believe evolution is true, and from that premise believe that the bible is false, then you won't repent."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The last part is incorrect because there are theistic evolutionists who claim evolution is compatible with the Christian faith. Evolution does not rule out any deity and Ray knows that, but he continues to portray evolution as atheistic to mislead readers and make Christians fear evolution as damaging to their faith.

Ray concludes information will determine where your soul will remain after death, but Ray has not provided any proof that a soul, in all sense of the word, actually exist and survives after death.}}

===Cozy Cocoon===
Ray tries to explain how a Christian hides from such information that may harm their faith. Ray states that, like a caterpillar that wraps itself in its cocoon, a Christian likewise wraps himself/herself "with the rules and regulations, hiding from the real world in the cocoon of Christianity."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is actually one of the few honest things Ray has ever said. He admitted Christians do not live in the real world, which is accurate since they believe in fantasies like angels, talking snakes, drinking the blood of a ancient god, and prayer to certain deities. Hiding themselves from a world called reality and censoring themselves to observable facts, tested data, and proven theories like evolution.}}

===Light Relief===
Ray repeats an old argument known as [[Pascal's Wager]].

The chapter ends with Ray asking the reader to imagine and pretend Christianity is true and there is a Creator, Heaven, etc. "But if what I'm saying is true, the atheist will get the shock of his life - at his death. He will wake up dead, and will find that he truly has 'passed on'. I ask again, is it possible that you could be wrong? Come on, bend a little. Just between you and me, have you ever been wrong? Are you divinely infallible? Are you different from the rest of us?"
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=It is weird for someone who claims that atheists do not exist keeps referring them as atheists. Of course humans are fallible and make mistakes, but the evidence does not support Ray's position and thus atheists remain unconvinced. Could Ray be right about what happens after death? He could be, but so can every other imaginable scenario. A person could die and go to Valhalla, or Hades, or Avalon. Since any imaginable scenario is possible, this means that there are theoretically an infinite possible scenarios of what happens to a person after death, making Ray's narrow version of Heaven nearly impossible. Possibly, there could be a Heaven, but it is only a place for atheists. Say that the universe was created by a deity, but then comes along a trickster and deceives the world that there is a creator but that creator is the trickster. This means everyone in the world can be fooled, even Christians, and the creator only rewards those who do not fall for the trickster's deception. Since atheists do not worship or acknowledge the trickster as the creator, the true creator will reward them after death for not worshiping the trickster.

Ray has been asked many times "what if you are wrong and Christianity is not true?" of course Ray admits he could be wrong, but he does not "bend a little" because his beliefs are dogmatic. Ray has no interest in "bending a little" instead what he wants is more gullible followers. Professional creationists like Ray Comfort are making money hand over fist with faith-healing scams or bilking little old ladies out of prayer donations, or selling books (and Ray Comfort publishes several books every year and the books often are just repeats of previous books) and videos at their circus-like seminars. All of them feign knowledge they can’t really possess, and some of them claim degrees they’ve never actually earned. Were it not for this con, they’d have to go back to selling used cars, wonder drugs, and multi-level marketing schemes. They will never change their minds no matter what it costs anyone else.}}

==Chapter 15: Going for the spider==
Ray hopes the reader is convinced by his arguments by now. He addresses atheists as intellectually embarrassing. Ray repeats his argument a plane had a plane maker and we are all in the plane but will all have to jump.

He uses an analogy that we are sinners and doomed to an eternity in hell. We are all like people on a plane that will soon fail. We can be saved with a parachute, and in this case faith in Jesus is our parachute. However, those passengers who accept evolution will not put on the parachute and wait for one to "evolve" under their chair.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is a feeble straw man of evolution. Evolution explains the diversity of life, it does not state or imply that man-made artifices will sprout from seat cushions. As already explained in Chapter 6 of this book, Ray's parachute argument is a feeble and flawed rework of [[Pascal's Wager]].}}

===The Main Objections===
Here Ray addresses and generalizes non-Christians. By now, he expects us to be convinced that there is a Creator, now he moves on to talk about Judgment.

Ray says he is not here to convince anybody that the Moral Law exists, because everyone already know it exists because the Bible says so (Romans 2:15).
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This could not be more incorrect. Christianity's moral views are not shared by everyone, nor is it shared by all Christians. Quoting the Bible is not proof that everyone is aware of Christian moral values. Saying the law is written on our hearts is no more credible than the Islamic Primordial Covenant, which states that Allah's law is written on our souls before we even entered our bodies at birth. Ray says he is only focusing on trying to show us the "consequences" of breaking the law. What Ray has failed to show is that consequences will even take place.}}

Ray portrays God as: see's your youth days; see's your thought life; and he is perfect, just, good, holy and utterly righteous. Then ray begins to move through the Ten Commandments while taking a person down the [[are you a good person?]] routine.

===The Law===
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The hypocrisy of Ray is demonstrated in this chapter. The back of the book said that he would not use the Bible to convince you of God, yet he has quoted the Bible continuously throughout the book, and has used a specific selection of the [[Ten Commandments]] (Exodus 20) as a witnessing tool.}}

===Not Even a Groan===
Ray walks the reader through his interpretation of the [[Ten Commandments]], starting with blasphemy. He wonders why people use Jesus Christ as a curse word rather than Buddha.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Many people use a variety of words as curse words, but perhaps the greatest reason that people use Christ as a curse word is because Jesus Christ has been used as a justification to curse, persecute, suppress, etc. others which gives it more weight as a curse word.}}

===Diamonds or Water?===
Ray asks the audience if he handed him a fistful of diamonds or a bucket of water, which one would they choose. Ray says anybody in their right mind would not choose the diamonds. However, Ray changes the scenario that if he offered the same options to a person in the desert, the person would choose the water or else they would die. Ray says Christianity offers the choice of sparkly diamonds of sin or the water of everlasting life.

The chapter ends with Ray explaining why automobile safety commercials show us dummies wearing seat belts and then crashing. They show us these scenarios to scare us, because of the risk of a car accident is fatal and thus we should wear a seat belt. Ray says that we should put on our seat belt: faith in Christ. Ray admits this is why he uses fear tactics, so we will know we must always wear the seat belt.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The difference between with scenario with faith in Christ is that the seat belt and dummy incident is testable. We can see and test accidents occurring and how to protect ourselves. Unlike Ray's "everlasting life" and God, we cannot test such things. At one point in history, cars were not made with seat belts until much later when the government mandated that cars include seat belts because it was ''rational'' and it kept people safe from physical harm. Ray's irrational pleas of hell and [[appeal to emotion]] have no evidential support, they cannot be tested as seat belts can, and there has been no proof of an afterlife. Fear is not a valid tool or a pathway to truth. Ray has not proven a god, an after life, judgment, or his particular version is the most accurate.}}

==Chapter 16: The Repellent==
Throughout this chapter, Ray [[appeal to emotion|appeals to emotion]], hoping the reader is uneasy and feels guilty for not following God's law and the Ten Commandments. Ray makes no further attempt to provide any proof for his claims, he just plays with people's fears and provides a solution that only his God can help. This ploy is called [[snake oil]].

Ray addresses the readers conscience, questioning if it is functioning correctly and parallel to God's laws and sin. If the readers conscience is not pointing in the right direction, Jesus' sacrifice will guide us once we accept and acknowledge our sin and guilt.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray only uses the Commandments from Exodus 20. What he keeps hidden from the reader is that the only time the Commandments are called the "Ten Commandments" are the ones listed in Exodus 34, and none of the ten mention lying, theft, murder, adultery, etc. at all. As long as Ray's audience remains unaware of knowledge such as this, his words will prey on people's fears that will bend people to his particular religion.

On Ray's website for taking the test if you are a sinner, he asks have you ever told a lie, stolen anything, lusted, blasphemed, etc. Even if you answer "No" to every question, the result is still the same: you are a sinner. So, in reality, this ten commandments ploy is nothing more than a little marketing tactic; like a trick question, in order to make you feel guilty in order to make you feel as if you need their god.}}

==Chapter 17: A Hopeful Presumption==
At this point, Ray continues to make the reader feels uneasy and begins to ask if the reader is ready to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. He assures it's readers to have faith, and in time God will fulfill all his promises.

Once Ray is finished with this approach, he shares a personal story of experiences what it is like to become a Christian. He talks about his home New Zealand and voyage to the United States.

==Chapter 18: Watch and Pray==
Ray shares his experiences in street preaching and his thoughts on the violence in the United States. He explains that he thought the best tool to counter this suffering is prayer.

Unsatisfied with the role of religion in America, Ray shares his thoughts that churches and missionaries should return to preaching of hellfire and brimstone. Ray's idea of addressing the people is that they need to know God is an angry, vengeful God and will destroy us unless we repent. According to Ray, many preachers are immoral (such as cheating on their wives) and not following an example of God's law.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=What Ray does not get into is why preachers do what they do. The common answer is to spread the good news, but there is another driving force: money. Based on how poorly this book is written, and that Ray publishes and distributes many books just about every year reveals something Ray is not admitting to us. Ray lives in a luxurious house in Southern California.}}

==Chapter 19: The Lost Altar==
Ray continues this chapter examining the ills of America. His reasons why these problems exist are predictable: not enough Christians (by Ray's definition) and the good news of salvation is not being widely distributed throughout the country.

Based on this, Ray instructs the reader what they should do to counteract the ills of America. This includes indoctrinating your children into Christianity.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Indoctrination has been strongly argued to be a form of child abuse, stripping the children of their individuality and ability to choose. Children are vulnerable and are used to accepting authority, so indoctrination takes advantage of them before they have developed critical thinking skills. Also, religion tends to separate children (that is Catholic children attend Catholic school, not an Islamic school). It is universally agreed that young children are too young to decide where they stand in politics, so why should we label them based on their parent's views of humanity within the cosmos?

Since Ray believes the lack of evangelical Christians in America is the source of the ills of this country, he has not considered that Christianity may be a source of the problem? And of course he does not want his readers to be aware of this. Throughout American history, Christianity has brought upon this country many ills, even to this day. Such examples include the following: suppression of Native American, women, homosexual, and atheist rights; endorsing slavery; murdering doctors; fanaticism; fundamentals promoting pseudoscience and anti-science; church sex scandals; promoting faith healing and exorcisms over medical treatment; blood libels; using tax money to build creationist parks and Arks; and so on.}}

==Chapter 20: Tampering with the Recipe==
In this chapter, Ray talks about how to make a marriage last. The advice is good, but can simply be reached through common sense really (like don't argue in front of kids).

At the beginning of the chapter, Ray talks about how christian marriages last, while others' don't, and how "nowadays secular and christian divorce statistics run hand in hand."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Wrong. According to a 1999 study done by a christian sociologist, George Barna, atheists have a 21% chance of divorce, while born again christians have a 27% chance. A six percent difference, but still a difference, with atheists in the lead having the lowest divorce rate than any other religious affiliate. It's clear though, that having a particular religion doesn't guarantee a couple to have a good marriage. There are people who have different religions, and their marriages are great. However, religious beliefs can also tear couples apart too.}}

==Chapter 21: If the average girl knew==
Ray starts off with telling the reader about an experiment. Two people were placed in separate rooms (they could still see each other through a window) and each person was told to hit a button as fast as they could once they saw a light come on. The one who wasn't fast enough in reacting to the light, was shocked by the winner, and the winner could choose the amount of shock that the loser got. The scientist did the experiment with sober, and intoxicated individuals, and when intoxicated, people sent a higher voltage of a shock into the person, than when they were sober. Ray concludes that this "proves" that people are born "wicked," and states this is exactly what the Bible predicted. Ray argues all the scientist had to do was open the bible to learn of this "truth."

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Human beings being evil by nature is debatable. This example just seems to be an observation of human behavior, by human beings, which made the claim as to the "deceitfully wicked" nature of man. Not that it "proves" the bible is inspired.}}

Ray next talks about a woman who wrote him about being terrified about potentially having homosexual thoughts. Ray goes into his bullshit about how people have been "hoodwinked into accepting many lies, and one of the greatest is that homosexuals are 'born that way'. If that is true, we are all born homosexuals."

Ray continues to talk about the "sinful nature" of humans, and how when you're a christian you should be even more aware of the fact that you're sinning all the time, it's just that when you're a christian, you feel guilty about it.

Next, Ray lists some things a person can do, in order to fight their feelings of "sexual lust" and of course claims that this is yet another sin.

===Diving or Falling===
Ray talks about how a "pretend christian" will "dive" into sin, while the true christian will "fall" into it. Basically, he's claiming that a true christian will do whatever they can to avoid sinning, yet Ray talks about his feeling guilty about taking "the biggest piece of chocolate cake," and that he can't help it, because of his sinful nature.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is a contradiction because if Ray didn't want to "sin" and have the bigger piece of cake, then he should have had the self control not to. This entire concept doesn't make the slightest bit of sense, because according to Ray his supposed sin is against his will, yet he willfully sins. If he looks at a woman and finds her attractive, or if he feels greedy by taking that bigger slice of cake, it's your own response to the women...you turned your head, you took the cake, and therefore you are responsible for your actions. Blaming it on some mythological concept of sin does not excuse you for being unable to control your behavior. That's simply a cop out.}}

The rest of the chapter is simply Ray using examples from the Bible, about Peter, and his sin, and yet again contradicting himself, because he has used the bible...and for the remainder of the chapter too, for his so called proof.

At the end of the chapter, though he restates his position in his book about atheists only using that as a label as a "weak and transparent shield for sin," and quotes the Bible, Psalm 14:1: "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no god'." Ray says "you no longer have to be a believer in the religion of atheism. You know there is a God. Your faith has been shattered. You don't believe you are an atheist."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Here Ray resorts to blatant and dishonest accusations. Atheism is not a religion in any sense. Atheists do not believe they are atheists, they know they are atheists. Theists are they ones who do not know there is a god, because faith does not produce knowledge. Knowledge is based on facts, which are testable and observable, not on blind dogmatic faith that Ray holds dear.}}

==Appendix: Reasoning for the Faith==
This last part of the book goes over questions that Ray found at a "Hollywood atheist organization" (page 179), whatever that is, and attempts to answer them. Some of these questions Comfort doesn't even answer and goes around the question. For example: on the very first question, it asks how you would define god, and why you're so convinced there is one, and Ray simply states that "god is the creator, the upholder, and the sustainer of the universe. He revealed himself to Moses as the one and only true god" (page 179). He doesn't even really answer the question as to why he's convinced there is a god...unless it's because of what the bible says, though that's not a logical answer to say the least.

*Question 3: "how can something that cannot be described be said to exist?"
Ray responds that since color cannot be described, it does not mean color does not exist. He also mentions plant life beneath the sea and planets not seen or described by man, but they nevertheless exist.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=If they have never been seen by man, how do we know they are plants? Unlike these examples Ray provides, God has not been shown to exist in reality. In fact, many have argued why God cannot exist in reality. Almost every religion tries to set itself apart from the rest and from the common definition of the word “religion” in some way, such as Buddhists claiming to be a philosophy. Rays answer is not satisfactory, but rather shown to be false based on the testimonies of ex-evangelical ministers.[http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Debunking_Christians/Page16.htm] Religions have rituals, sacred texts, creation myths, and worship, and indeed Christianity has all of these.}}

*Question 4: "Since there are countless religions in the world today claiming to be the one true religion, why do you think yours is truer than theirs?"
Ray answers no religion is "truer" than any other. He says religions strive to make peace with their creator, but Christianity does not do so. Instead peace has been given to man by Jesus. Ray concludes that Christianity is not a man made religion, but a personal relationship with Jesus.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, Christianity is indeed a religion.[http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Debunking_Christians/Page16.htm] Buddhism often tries to separate itself as a religion, however it remains a religion.}}

*Question 5: "Can more than one of these religions be right?"
According to Ray, "Jesus discarded all other religions as a means of finding forgiveness of sin." Ray then quotes Bible verses that supports Jesus as being the one true God (John 14:6, 1 Timothy 2:5, and Acts 4:12).
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Basically, this is self-promotion and provides no empirical data to support this claim. Note: 1 Timothy is considered a forgery by the vast majority of critical scholars.}}

*Question 15: "If God of the Bible is "all good," why does he himself say he created evil (Isaiah 45:7)?"
First Ray offers a translation for the word 'evil' in that verse. He says it means "calamity" or "suffering." Ray says God uses good and bad things to bring us to a relationship with him, but he did not bring evil into being. Ray goes on to tell the story of Adam and Eve in the garden, and God gave him a choice to obey or not. Once they were aware of good and evil, it was up to them to choose between the two.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray does not really address the question. Ray has admitted that God created all things, but will not say that God created evil. Does this mean good and evil exist independent of God? If so, then why would we need God to tell us what is good and bad?}}

*Question 16: "Is there a better way than reason to acquire knowledge and truth?"
Ray simply answers no. He then goes on to mention from the Bible "'Come now, and let us reason together,' said the Lord." Ray then mentions Paul reasoned with King Agrippa and Felix.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Comfort fails to mention certain important Christians like Martin Luther who said "Reason should be destroyed by all Christians."}}

*Question 17: "If you answered #16 with "faith," then why are there so many contradictory faiths in the world?"
Ray says that at least every nation acknowledges there is a Creator. However, Ray says they worship the sun, moon and idols. Ray says no one has ever found an atheistic tribe, because they were not that ignorant.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray pulls no punches from insulting other religions and those with no religion. Even if we could not find one atheistic tribe in the world, that does not give religion special credibility.}}

*Question 18: "If you believe, as many do, that all religions worship the same god under different names, how do you explain the existence of religions which have more than one god, or Buddhism, which, in its pure form, there is no god?"
Ray simply responds that those who do not worship the one true god will find any replacement, whether it be multiple gods or small wooden idol.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Again, Ray pulls no punches from insulting other religions, even his fellow Christians. He seems to have missed that some religions do not find a "replacement" because there is nothing to replace.}}

*Question 19: "What would it take to convince you that you are wrong?"
Ray does not provide a suitable answer. Ray's respond is that he already has been convinced, during the 22 years of his unconverted life.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=He does not share what would be the first step to show his beliefs are incorrect, perhaps he does not want them to be incorrect. This just reveals his dogmatic beliefs.}}

*Question 20: "If nothing can convince you that you are wrong, then why should your faith be considered anything but a cult?"
Ray defines a cult as a "system of religious worship and ritual" which reflects every man made religion.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, as Ray already described, he does not believe Christianity is a religion but rather a relationship with Jesus. He also argues he does not have a belief system, but rather a experience system once a Christian has felt the Holy Spirit. See the response to question 3 regarding Christianity not being a religion. Also, the human mind is capable of producing many types of experiences. Ray does not provide any data or criteria to explain what he is experiencing is real or accurate. Also, Comfort is quick to dismiss religious experiences from every other religion, but he will not critically examine his own?}}

*Question 21: "If an atheist lives a decent, moral life, why should a loving, compassionate God care whether we believe in him/her/it"
To Ray, it does not matter how much of a moral life we live we are still born in sin and violate the Ten Commandments, and thus we are damned.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=It is common for religions to set up a standard that no one is safe from unbelief. Basically Ray admits that God is not all-loving or all-merciful, otherwise we would not be punished just for being good or even born. Don't forget, Ray is only using his particular selection of the Commandments, but what about the Ten Commandments in Exodus 34?}}

*Question 22: "How can the same God who, according to the Old Testament, killed everybody on earth except for eight people be considered anything other than evil?"
After examining their lifestyle, Ray claims those people who did deserve to die. They rejected God. When a judge finds a criminal guilty, criminals never see the judge as righteous.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray wonders why people do not take him seriously regarding issues of morality. If Ray thinks that people who reject God deserve death, then about 90 percent of the population of Sweden deserve death, among several billion others around the globe. During the flood, God killed small infants to young to know anything about God, and unborn babies in their mother's womb.}}

*Question 23: "Must we hate ourselves and our families to be good Christians (Luke 14:26)?"
Ray says no, that bible verse is a "hyperbole." Ray says we should love God more than our families and ourselves. To place love in anything else, Ray considers it idolatry.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Here, Ray cherry-picks what is a hyperbole, metaphor, or fable. He does not provide a definition or criteria of what constitutes as a hyperbole or what is literal.}}

*Question 24: "Since the ancient world abounded with tales of resurrected Savior-Gods that were supposed to return from the dead to save humanity, why is the Jesus myth any more reliable than the others?"
Ray says, unlike those other myths that died off, the Jesus myth is true and provable. All one has to do is accept Jesus into their heart and experience the truth.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, these experiences do not change reality. The mind is capable of producing many experiences that seem spiritual, but all this proves is that these experiences are just products of the mind and not the supernatural. Also, when examining the [[historicity of Jesus]], it strongly seems Jesus was a myth.}}

*Question 25: "If the Bible is the inerrant word of God, why does it contain so many factual errors, such as the two contradictory accounts in Genesis?"
Ray says there are no contradictory accounts in genesis. Gen. 1 explains creation while Gen. 2 goes into detail.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=What Ray does not share is that the two stories get several things backwards. Neither does he mention or address Genesis account that plants came before sunlight. As for the other factual errors, Ray claims after reading the Bible everyday for 30 years he has never found an error. Then how about you read Dr. Helm's book "The Bible Against Itself."}}

*Question 26: "Why isn't the Bible written in a straightforward way that leaves no doubt about what it means?"
Ray says it is clear to those who obey God and those who are closed spirituality will not understand it.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This does not really address the question. Many people who no longer believe in God have had such spiritual experiences (and can produce them again), and they can fully read and understand the Bible. Ray does not mention why he does not follow certain demands included in the Bible, such as cutting off your own hand if you sin, which early church fathers did do and encourage their subjects and all Christians to do the same.}}

*Question 28: if anyone has ever been killed in the name of atheism?
Ray responds with the usual absurd argument about the communist regimes, and claims these were a result of atheism.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=As explained to him many times, communism is a form of state worship and not a single person was killed in the name of atheism. And if communism was the cause for all the deaths, then it is actually a problem for Christianity since communism predates Marx and can be found in the book of Acts. That's right, communism found in the perfect Word of God.}}

==External Links==
*[http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2007/12/god-doesnt-believe-in-atheists-proof.html Arizona Atheist Blog: God Doesn't Believe in Atheists Review]
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=CntF1S132L8C&pg=PT8&lpg=PT8&dq=Ray+Comfort+Ron+Barrier&source=bl&ots=Dzr_wp9ihE&sig=QEYjpdgPrRQ7fYgsEyekOn5rPrs&hl=en&ei=OvBdTbz-N4q8sQPR4NXfCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q&f=false Google Books: God Doesn't Believe in Atheists]
*[http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/comfortablieb.htm God Doesn’t Believe in Creationists: A Response to the Books of Ray Comfort]

==See also==
*[[Atheism]]
*[[Ray Comfort]]
*[[Way of the Master]]

[[Category:Apologetic literature]]
[[Category:Books]]

God Doesn't Believe in Atheists (book)

2011-11-08T19:08:45Z

Feredir28: /* Chapter 9: I'll resurrect her for you */

'''''God Doesn't Believe in Atheists: Proof That the Atheist Doesn't Exist''''' is a book authored by [[Ray Comfort]], published in 1993, with a foreword by mister [[Kent Hovind]].

==Content==
In this book, Ray tries to make an argument that atheists do not exist and provide evidence of the supernatural.

BACK COVER:"''Contrary to popular opinion, the existence of God can be proven absolutely, scientifically, without reference to faith or even the Bible. It is also possible to prove that the Bible is supernatural in origin. This book will do just that.

It will also show the atheist that he doesn't exist, reveal the true motives of the agnostic, and strengthen the faith of the believer.''"

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray says he can prove the existence of God absolutely, scientifically, without reference to faith or even the Bible. Do not hold your breath. Ray always promises this, just like at the [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rational_Response_Squad_debate_with_Way_of_the_Master debate with the Rational response Squad]. Ray and Kirk Cameron failed to prove the existence of God and used the Bible and faith as evidence multiple times when they claimed they would not need to. If they knew this going in, and surely they did, then they knew they had no case and God could not be prove scientifically. It is likely in this book, Ray will use and repeat the same old long-refuted claims and stunts.}}

==Foreword==
In this section, [[Kent Hovind]] praises this book and attacks atheism. According to him, the debate of whether God exists or not continues. If there is a God, we should find out who he is and what he wants. However, if there is no god, we are in trouble since the earth is moving at great speeds into space with no one in charge. The universe operates according to natural law, and our safety is not a concern for the universe.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Hovind's idea and need for a god is to provide comfort and a safety relief, but his wishful thinking does not change reality.}}

Hovind says anyone with eyes that can see and a brain that can work can obviously spot the evidence for a creator. He uses a different version of [[Paley's argument | Paley's watch]], that if you walked through the woods and found a painting on a tree, you would assume someone created that painting. We know a painting had a painter, but the core issue is contrasting between natural design or intelligent design.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=We see design in paintings, but we also see design in snow flakes, clouds, and crystals. The difference is that crystals and such form naturally with no intelligent being to shape or manipulate them. Ray Comfort and Kent Hovind claim to see design in the universe, but they have not provided any proof on intelligent design. They just label everything as intentionally designed by some supernatural agent. However, labeling something does not alter reality and the it's true nature.}}

Hovind claims in his 33 years of examining the creationism vs. evolution debate, he never encountered an atheist who did not use evolution to support his worldview. Hovind claims not a shred of evidence has been found to support evolution, and it requires a leap of faith to accept evolution, as well as to accept that there is no god. He claims that both atheism and evolution are religions.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Some atheists do not accept evolution, but evolution is not required for atheism. Many Christians, Popes, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and more accept evolution. There are mountains of evidence for evolution, Kent Hovind has been criticized as a charlatan and shameless scientific-illiterate liar. Evolution nor atheism requires faith. Evolution has many evidence to support it, and atheism is the lack of faith in any deity. Evolution as religion has been rejected by the courts:
<blockquote>
Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.
</blockquote>
The court cases ''Epperson v. Arkansas'', ''Willoughby v. Stever'', and ''Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist''. Atheism is also not a religion. Atheism has no doctrines, rituals, places of worship, saviors, priests, creation myths, tenets, sacred texts, and such. Although some religions do not worship any deities, such as [[Buddhism]], Raelism, and Satanism, they are indeed religions.}}

Hovind ends his remarks by claiming this book is meant to open the eyes of atheists to make them see the evidence for a loving creator and they all must repent of their sins. And this review will show when and where the evidence presented stands up to scrutiny and if indeed Ray comfort made his case if there is a creator.

==Introduction==
Ray Comfort shares a story that he offered to debate atheists, such as the American Atheists Inc. They turned him down. He then challenged Ron Barrier (a spokesperson of American Atheists) to a debate, who at first turned him down, but then later challenged him due to, according to Ray, pressure from other atheists. Ray concluded that the Bible was right, "with God, nothing is impossible."

==Chapter 1: Who made God?==
According to Ray, there are only three explanations for the misery of the world:
# There isn't a [[god]]
# God doesn't have the power to control his own creations, or won't, "which makes him a tyrant"
# The [[Bible]] tells you the reason for the state of the world.

===Faith is for Wimps===
Here, Ray wonders why using the word faith is "offensive" to nonbelievers. Ray makes the argument that we all have faith of some sort, such as that we believe the milk we drink is safe because of faith, rather than for a reason, such as that it is pasteurized in health-inspected facilities. He claims that we cannot ''know'' if Napoleon existed or who discovered America. For the small things in life, Ray says we "trust" that the coffee cup is clean or trust the taxi driver to keep his hands on the wheel. Ray argues that we have faith in information provided by others, such as weather men, historians, or scientists. Therefore, Ray concludes that atheists have faith in "erroneous information" and think they are "atheistic in [their] beliefs."

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Using the word "faith" has different effects on nonbelievers. Perhaps the main reason why many nonbelievers do not appease to Ray who use that word is because "faith" is because that word implies belief without evidence. When trying to have a rational conversation, when applying faith to know something means their claims are unsupported, baseless, and meaningless, which would mean the whole dialogue does not make any progress. Faith is an anchor that holds people into irrational beliefs, which is why many nonbelievers find it irritating to try to have a rational conversation with those who refuse to engage in a rational conversation. So the word "faith" is no 'offensive' but rather irritating.

We all do not have faith. This perspective is one put forward by a lot of people in our world, when something like faith is questioned and denounced. It expresses a general misunderstanding of the concept of faith. We do not blindly trust our loved ones though, nor do we get into a car and simply drive without any thought. Trust is contingent on evidence and experience. We tend to trust people who we know, people who have not wronged us in any significant way. Our love for a person may occasionally drive us to trust someone we would not normally trust, but as I stated before, misguided reasoning is not the same thing as faith. If you reason that your loved one deserves your trust, and you accept the risk of having it violated, you have still used reason and not acted on the blind thoughtlessness of faith.

As for the driving example, we do typically factor in some evidence and logic before we head out on the road. If it is particularly bad weather or if your tires are flat, most sane people will not just ignore such things and try to drive anyway. It is not operating on faith to go about one's day without taking every little possible worry into account either. It is possible that you could die in a car wreck, but experience tells us that we have survived many trips in the past, and unless there is some good reason for us to fear for our safety, it is perfectly rational to take the risk involved with driving. Faith is not a part of it, but reason certainly is. Indeed when we do drink milk, we check to see if it is not expired and safe to drink. We trust that whoever put the deadline on the carton is accurate, based on their calculations have often been tested and well understood. If the milk was not ready or the date was off, there are systems of correction (such as health inspection) before it reaches the grocery store.

We can know if Napoleon existed, because we have actual empirical proof that he did. We have letters and journals written by his own hand; portraits of him; hundreds of independent, contemporary, unbiased eye-witness accounts; artifacts made for him or by him; he left a legacy behind; he altered nations and policies; and much more. Also, if we did use Ray's logic, then we cannot ''know'' if Jesus Christ existed, although it is certain Ray would disagree because the Holy Bible is infallible and never lies - but his only justification for such a belief is blind faith.

Trust is not the same as faith. Faith is belief without evidence. We can drink coffee from a cup, but we often check to see if it is clean. Many times we know it is clean because we just washed it or washed it recently and thus know it is clean.

We do not have faith in the weather man, historians or scientists. Each of them have qualifications and they have evidence they base their claims on. They may often be wrong, such as the weather man who bases his claims on the instruments he has but weather is always in a constant state to change. Historians do deep research into several fields, and they base their works only on the data collected. Scientists are often the most trustworthy, because they test their work and they have other qualified people peer review their work and try to disprove it. When they cannot disprove it, it is accepted as true.

It is also illogical to suggest that one can have faith in the non-existence of anything. Do we take it on faith that leprechauns or fairies don't exist, or is it the belief in those creatures that is based on faith?}}

===Trump Card===
Here Ray addresses the question "Who Made God?" Ray dances around this question by saying anyone can find the answer by being ''reasonable.'' Ray claims that God has no beginning and no end, and God is not subjected to time since he created time. Of course, Ray quotes Scripture to support his claims (such as 2 Peter 3:18 and Hebrews 6:19). Ray says that God can "flip through time as you can I can flip through the pages of a history book." Ray believes prophecies is enough evidence to support this claim.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=First noting 2 Peter is considered by the vast majority of critical scholars as a forgery. Also, simply being "reasonable" is not enough or an excuse to accept the existence of the concept the universe was created by "invisible pink fairies" who are not bound by time. To be reasonable is to test and evaluate such beliefs and see if there is any truth to them, and Ray has not provided any.

Is God bound by time? Did God create time?
*P1) God is defined as the arbiter of all things, including time;
*P2) A decision requires transition from indifferences to will (requires time)
*P3) Since time cannot exist prior to its existence, God cannot choose to create time;
*P4) If God cannot choose to create time, he is not arbiter of all things;
*P5) Therefore, a personal entity cannot be the ultimate arbiter of all things;
*P6) Therefore, God as defined is internally inconsistent
*C) Therefore, there is no God.
The act of creating the universe is meaningful only in time. Is God in time or outside of it? Time isn't absolute. It’s elastic and is stretched by accelerating motions or fields of intense gravity, such as those around a black hole. A God contained in time would no longer be powerful because he would be subjected to the laws of time. A God outside time would be omnipotent, but unable to help us, since our actions happen in time. If God transcended time, then he would already know the future. If he knew everything in advance, why would he bother to become involved in the struggle of humankind against evil? God must be immutable and unable to create or else he is inside time and is not immutable. So how can an immutable entity create something? If there is an act of creation, is the creator involved or not? If he isn't then why call him the creator? If he is involved, then because creation inevitably occurs in stages, the something or someone involved in these stages is not immutable. Creation remains a process, and any process, whether temporal or not, is not compatible with immutability.

God is also defined as being omniscient, however if he is then Ray Comfort and other Christians who hold similar beliefs must admit there is no free will. For instance, imagine a person was walking down a road and approaching a left or right turn only. God, being omniscient, knows that the person will turn left. And then the person turns right, and God is surprised and thus God is not all-knowing. However, if the person did turn left, how is that different from not having free will. If god knows every action and decision we will make throughout our lives before we are even born, then he knows where we will spend eternity after death. And he would have know all this eons before he ever thought to create earth and humans.}}

===Atheist Test===
Finally, Ray tries to persuade readers that atheists do not exist. He provides a false definition of [[agnosticism]] and claims that atheists make an "absolute claim" that God does not exist. According to Ray, one must possess all the knowledge of the universe in order to make such a claim.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, Ray contradicts himself when he makes the absolute claim that God does exist. Atheists do not have to have absolute knowledge to not believe in green horses galloping on the surface of the sun, because there is no evidence to support such a idea. An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in a god (not "believe" there is no god), that is atheists do not buy what religion is selling. If theists like Ray Comfort claim to "know" God exists, they should be able to provide empirical data and evidence for their god, and to date not a single one has. It doesn’t matter how convinced you are; belief does not equal knowledge. The difference is that knowledge can always be tested for accuracy where mere beliefs often can not be. No matter how positively you think you know it, if you can’t show it, then you don’t know it, and you shouldn’t say that you do. Nor would you if you really cared about the truth. Knowledge is demonstrable, measurable. But faith is often a matter of pretending to know what you know you really don't know, and that no one even can know, and which you merely believe -often for no good reason at all.

Later in this book (pg. 71) Ray confidently asserts, “It doesn’t matter how many thousands of years pass, elephants don’t have giraffes, nor do monkeys have men.” How does Comfort envision himself escaping the snarky retort that, because he isn’t omniscient and didn’t witness the birth of every animal that ever lived, he cannot deny evolution? God doesn’t believe in creationists!}}

Ray ends this chapter with a tale of Mussolini. It is said that Mussolini stood on a pedestal, shouted "God, if you are there, strike me dead!" when God did not, he concluded that he did not exist. Ray says his prayer was answered later.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This was not an answered prayer, it is simply the result of time and fatal force.}}

==Chapter 2: Banana in hand==
In this chapter, Ray provides arguments for "Creation." Among them are the coca-cola can, the [[banana argument]], an apple, and other examples. His argument is basically that these could not have formed naturally and creation requires a creator.

Using the coca-cola can, he provides a straw man argument of the [[Big Bang]] theory.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The Big Bang does not claim anything came from nothing, nor does it comment or have anything to do with [[abiogenesis]] or [[evolution]]. The only one who does claim everything came from nothing is Ray Comfort, who believes his God created everything ex-nihlio by using incantations (i.e. MAGIC). So in an ironic sense, whenever Ray ridicules people who believe everything came from nothing, he is addressing himself while falsely disguising every other position as the same as his.}}

In a section, he says his arguments are scientific because science provides evidence that a creation must have a creator.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=No, science is about testing and observing. Ray provides no empirical data that there is a creator, and even if we allow Ray to make such a claim he provides no evidence that this creator is his narrow version of the Christian God, multiple gods, or any infinite deities that can theoretically exist. When Ray was on [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Atheist_Experience_debates_Ray_Comfort The Atheist Experience], he admitted his idea of testing was "common sense." Common sense is not testing, nor is it reliable. By Ray's logic, does lightning have a lightning maker? We see patterns and design in snowflakes and crystals, but we know they come about through purely natural forces without the help of the supernatural. What Ray has failed to do is provide proof or any data whatsoever that life is not the result of natural forces like a snow flakes.}}

He adds that atheism is a dying movement, providing quotes from articles but provides no reference.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, the actually polls show that church attendance is declining across the globe and atheism in America has recently doubled in the past decade. Atheism is not dying, it is rapidly growing. In fact, polls show more people leaving Christianity not only in America but around the world. In fact, last year 180,000 Catholics in Germany left the church.[http://www.christianmessenger.in/%E2%80%98180000-catholics-quit-church-last-year-in-germany%E2%80%99/]}}

==Chapter 3: Seeing is Believing==
In this chapter, Ray claims the evidence of God is self-evident.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, seeing is believing but not knowing. Believe as hard as you want to. But convincing yourself however firmly still can’t change the reality of things. Seeing is believing. But seeing isn’t knowing. Believing isn’t knowing. Subjective convictions are meaningless in science, and eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence.

For example, if I go into my front yard and I see a large sauropod walking down the middle of my street, I will of course be quite convinced of what I see. I may be even more satisfied when I follow the thing and find that I can touch it, maybe even ride it if I want to. When I gather sense enough to run back for my camcorder, I may not be able to find the beast again, because I don't know which way it went. But that doesn’t matter because I saw it, I heard it, felt it, smelt it and I remember all that clearly with a sober and rational mind. But somehow I'm the only one who ever noticed it, and of course no one believes me. Some other guy says he saw a dinosaur too, but his description was completely different, such that we can’t both be talking about the same thing. So it doesn't matter how convinced I am that it really happened. It might not have. When days go by and there are still no tracks, no excrement, no destruction, no sign of the beast at all, no other witnesses whose testimony lends credence to mine, and no explanation for how a 20-meter long dinosaur could just disappear in the suburbs of a major metropolis, much less how it could have appeared there in the first place, -then it becomes much easier to explain how there could be only two witnesses who can’t agree on what they think they saw, than it is to explain all the impossibilities against that dinosaur ever really being there. Positive claims require positive evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that’s what I’d need –since what I propose isn’t just extraordinary; its impossible. But since there's not one fact I can show that anyone can measure or otherwise confirm, then my perspective is still subjective -and thus uncertain. Eventually, even I, the eyewitness, would have to admit that, although I did see it, I still don’t know if it was ever really there –regardless whether I still believe that it was.

It doesn’t matter how convinced you are; belief does not equal knowledge. The difference is that knowledge can always be tested for accuracy where mere beliefs often can not be. No matter how positively you think you know it, if you can’t show it, then you don’t know it, and you shouldn’t say that you do. Nor would you if you really cared about the truth. Knowledge is demonstrable, measurable. But faith is often a matter of pretending to know what you know you really don't know, and that no one even can know, and which you merely believe -often for no good reason at all.}}

===Back to Da Vinci===
Ray provides a whole section repeating his argument a "painting had a painter." He then says that since man has not been able to create something as complex and magnificent as the human eye, it must have been specially created.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=What Ray refuses to acknowledge or admit is that nature through natural selection can and has created numerous types of eyes. There is more types of eyes than the human eye, much that are simpler and some more complex. All the steps to making an eye are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations (a blink of an eye in geological times).

Just because man cannot create something does not mean by default anything Ray or anyone can imagine exists or is responsible for the creation of anything. Ray's line of thinking also begs the question. How does Ray know that the eye, if it was created, was crafted by magical invisible pixies or Aton rather than the God of the Bible?}}

Ray further argues that atheism is a position that claims everything came from nothing, and challenges any scientist on the planet to create something from nothing.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is a deliberate lie invented by Christians to make atheism look foolish. Atheists and atheism does not make any claims about origins. Ray continues to use this straw man of the Big Bang theory, which he interprets everything came from nothing. However, this is not at all what physicists claim. 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>

What is ironic is that Ray is the one who claims everything came from nothing by supernatural/magic methods, and yet provides zero evidence to support this belief.}}

===Albert Knew===
Does not believing in something mean it does not exist? Ray says of course not. He argues a blind man may not believe in color, color still exists in the same way God exists.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, a blind person can be aware of color, but Ray does not believe that Allah exists although he is sure that Allah does not exist. What atheists argue is that it is unreasonable to hold such beliefs if they cannot be shown to be true or proven. Ray Comfort and other theists continue to make the positive claim that god exists, and so the burden of proof is on them to provide positive evidence, however what they are proposing is extraordinary and thus require extraordinary evidence. Thus far, Ray has used various logical fallacies; wishful thinking; and appeals to emotion and arguments from ignorance.}}

Can we believe in things we have never seen? Ray says no and uses the human brain as an example. Since you have never seen your brain before, do you conclude it does not exist?
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Unfortunately for Ray, we can see our brains. We can see them through operations, x-ray, or even cutting into a corpse. Ray is also wrong in his conclusion. We can believe in things we have never seen. Ray is living proof of this. Ray has never seen a supernatural being create a grain of sand from nothing, a man walk on water, or angels and demons. Ray believes in angels and Satan, but he has never seen one nor can he describe what Satan looks like. He can speculate all he wants on what he may look like, but he cannot provide proof to how he knows it but more importantly Ray cannot prove that Satan exists in the first place.}}

Ray also quote mines [[Albert Einstein]] and [[Stephen Hawking]] deliberately to make it seem as they believed in god; however, neither of these men held such beliefs.

Ray ends this chapter by repeating the [[Fine-tuned universe | fine tuning argument]], that is our earth is just in the right state of being for life to evolve.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This argument is flawed, weakened by the fact that it is a tautology, and proven false by quantum mechanics, the M-theory, the multiverse, and the Copernican Principle. Theists like to use the anthropic principle as proof that life can only be the result of divine creation, but there are several flaws in this argument. One such problem is the only form of life we are familiar with is here on earth which are carbon-based, there may be simpler forms of life elsewhere in the universe that are not carbon-based. Not to mention, theists like to portray earth as having all the right requirements down to such a precision to allow life. But what the anthropic principle fails is that it implies the universe is fine-tuned for life, however if the universe was fine-tuned for us, surely a bit more of it would be habitable. The numbers are so absurd that it defies comprehension. It is equivalent to a person after exploring 1.6 BILLION rocks like our Moon and finding one single virus particle on only one of the moons and collectively they are fine-tuned for life. Or having six MILLION Olympic-sized swimming pools that can collectively hold no more than a single molecule of water, yet claiming they are fine-tuned for water storage. Or claiming that a hard-drive the size of the earth that can only store one bit (1/0), or a hard-drive the size of Jupiter hold cannot even hold a single tweet on twitter is fine tuned for storing data. Or claiming that 2 MILLION 50 ton cranes that cant collectively hold more than a single proton are fine tuned for lifting. Or claiming that a plane at full speed travels less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the diameter of a proton over 10 billion years is fine-tuned for speed. If you think these examples are ridiculous, then you would agree that so too is the argument that the universe is fine-tuned for life. It does not take a genius to realize how absurd and flawed this argument truly is.

The Copernican Principle is the opposite of the Anthropic Principle and states that humans do not occupy a privileged place in the universe. Successive astronomical discoveries seem to support this principle. In the Middle Ages it was assumed that God created man in his image, and such, man and the earth were at the center of the universe. Copernicus and Galileo abolished the illusion that the earth was the center of the solar system and put the sun in its rightful heliocentric place. It was then found that the sun was not at the center of our galaxy, and Hubble showed that our own galaxy, the Milky Way, was not at the center of the universe. Finally, the multiverse concept suggests our universe may be just one of many constantly sprouting new universes, further diminishing the Anthropic Principle conclusion that the universe is here just for us. The Anthropic Principle emphasizes the rarity of life and consciousness while the Copernican Principle forces us to realize it was not all done just so we could exist.}}

==Chapter 4: Strawberries and garlic==
Ray begins this chapter by asking a series of questions, such as "Where does your hair grow from?" and "If you ever decide to get false teeth, will you have them made, or will you wait for 'chance' to make a pair for you?" in a attempt to drag the reader into wonder by thinking such instances can only be done by a creator.

Ray then uses arguments of [[irreducible complexity]] proposed by [[Michael Behe]]. Such examples include the blood clotting mechanism and argues such a system could not have evolved by small steps through natural selection.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, this has been debated and settled for many years that indeed the blood clotting system can evolve, both in the lab, nature, and in court. In the court case [[Dover vs kitzmiller | Dover v. Kitzmiller]], Michael Behe testified after years of research, no one has found a way how the irreducible system could have evolved. However, he was presented with many volumes of books, science articles, and peer reviewed tests that explain and demonstrate the evolution of the systems he claimed were "irreducible." However, Michael Behe, without examining any of them, said they were not good enough. This caught the attention of the judge as willful ignorance and deliberate deception.

Blood clotting is not irreducibly complex. Some animals -- dolphins, for example -- get along fine without the Hagemann factor (Robinson et al. 1969), a component of the human blood clotting system which Behe includes in its "irreducible" complexity (Behe 1996, 84). Doolittle and Feng (1987) predicted that "lower" vertebrates would lack the "contact pathway" of blood clotting. Work on the genomes of the puffer fish and zebrafish have confirmed this (Yong and Doolittle 2003). How did the blood clotting system evolve? The blood clotting systems appears to be put together by using whatever long polymeric bridges are handy. There are many examples of complicated systems made from components that have useful but completely different roles in different components. There is also evidence that the genes for blood clotting (indeed, the whole genome) duplicated twice in the course of its evolution (Davidson et al. 2003). The duplication of parts and co-opting of parts with different functions gets around the "challenge" of irreducible complexity evolving gradually. }}

Ray goes on to list several organs that seem irreducibly complex, such as the brain and the ear, and concludes that only a creator could design such features.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is an [[argument from incredulity]]. The brain is not irreducible. Brains come in many different sizes. The sea slug (Aplysia), for example, has only about 20,000 neurons in its entire nervous system. Coelenterates have an even simpler nervous system consisting of a nerve net and nothing even close to a brain. There are innumerable intermediate forms of brains between humans and brainless animals; gradual evolution of the brain presents no challenge. When Ray moves on to the eye, he quote mines [[Charles Darwin]] in his book ''The Origin of Species'' that even Darwin admitted that the eye could not have evolved. Ray commonly uses this quote-mine, even though he knows he is being deliberately dishonest. Darwin never meant at all that the eye could never evolve, he predicted that several small simple steps can create a complex system, which we have proven to be the case with the eye, ear, and brain. Darwin's predictions turned out to be true.}}

Ray ends this chapter by stating that even atheists stand in awe at such wonders of nature (Niagara Falls, the Grand Canyon, etc) and questions "How much more should we be humbled by the maker of these things?"
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Here, Ray is making up stories. For someone who constantly claims to not believe things on faith or settle for things that can be "absolutely" known, he makes a lot of generalizations that he has no way of knowing or verifying. Not all atheists are the same and many have different views of nature. Some may find wonders in nature, but they do not irrational equate such beauty to unprovable entities like leprechauns or sky pixies. Atheists and rationalists understand that nature contains beauty because we are a species who are biologically built to recognize and detect patterns. However, there is a difference between natural design and artificial design. We see design in paintings, but we know through observation and experience that paintings are artificially designed. We also see design, patterns and order in sand dunes, snowflakes, clouds, crystals, and such but we understand that these are naturally occurring and do not require any supernatural interference, which is what Ray is arguing for. Thus far, Ray has not provided any proof for such a belief or provided any model or method to distinguish how we know this universe is artificially designed.}}

==Chapter 5: Stronger than Sex Drive==
In this chapter, Ray plays on people's fear of death and appeals to emotion. Since we all die, we have an inner feeling to avoid death. Unable to find an answer for how or why this is, Ray concludes this feeling is given to us by God. Ray promises that faith in God will present us everlasting life if we repent.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is an [[argument from incredulity]]. There is an explanation for the need to avoid death. Every species has a tendency towards survival, which is an evolutionary trait. Creatures who are more prone to avoid death survive more than those creatures that don't. As for why humans want to seek life after death, the fear of death has a lot of explanatory power.}}

Ray uses an analogy similar to one he presented at the [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rational_Response_Squad_debate_with_Way_of_the_Master Nightline debate Rational Response Squad] of a television and signals. He says radio waves are invisible flowing through the air and our minds are transmitters. He says if we just push the power button, we will receive signals and see a picture. The same, according to Ray, will happen if we accept God and Jesus Christ: we will have evidence of his existence and know his laws. He claims that people just "won't" find god, and chooses not to try.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=If such a thing was provable as he says, then why does Ray's beliefs rest on faith? However, many people already have tried it and have not gotten the same results Ray has. He contradicted himself to, because he claimed that this is "provable" but then why has man made thousands of religions throughout history?

Some people learn that Ray's premises are fallacious, and many others find other deities. The human brain is capable of producing many religious experiences that ''seem'' real. A number of investigations have shown that deep temporal lobe stimulation in the area around the amygdala and hippocampus of the limbic system produces feelings of intense meaningfulness, of depersonalization, of a connection with God, of cosmic connectedness, of out-of-body experiences, a feeling of not being in this world, déjà vu (a feeling that something has been experienced before), jamais vu (a feeling something is happening for the first time even though it has been experienced before), fear, and hallucinations. Since the amygdala and hippocampus, all part of the limbic system, is closely connected to the frontal lobes (the area of the brain that senses what is real -touch, taste, smell, etc.) simulations of the amygdala and/or hippocampus is often perceived as real.}}

In the last paragraph, Ray says ('''bold emphasis''' added)
<blockquote>
"[Christianity] maintains that the invisible God of creation can supernaturally reveal himself to you. '''Despite the fact that it is illogical''', I have more that an air of confidence because what I am saying '''is provable'''."
</blockquote>
Ray asks skeptics to stop doubting and dares them to believe (despite the hundreds of reasons they can give why it will not work). He claims that people just "won't" find god, and chooses not to try. He says those who refuse to look at "willfully ignorant of the truth."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=If such a thing was provable as he says, then why does Ray's beliefs rest on faith? His proofs, which are not "proofs," are just as valid if you replace God in the equation with Allah, invisible pixies, or the [[Flying Spaghetti Monster]]. He contradicted himself too, because he claimed that this his beliefs are "provable" but he does not provide any proof that the "creator" is his particular version of the creator. Why has man made thousands of religions and deities throughout history? Ray must know that what he is proposing is illogical, he openly admitted it. His only support is personal experience, which does not provide any empirical proof. He tells us to seek and we shall find, but that requires that we must first perceive that god exists before we actually prove god exists to start with. This is similar to a person off to seek Big Foot, the person already believes Big Foot exists without first verifying that such a creature exists. It is also similar to seeking aliens/extraterrestrial life, ghosts, spirits, and such where they all have already assumed these things exist without question or prior evidence that they exist in the first place.}}

==Chapter 6: Atheist Obstacles==
Ray goes on to explain why atheists cannot defend their position.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This only further shows Ray's misunderstanding of atheism. Atheists have no position to defend, they are not the ones making any positive claims about origins or the cosmos. The ones making the positive claims have the burden of proof. Ray Comfort is the one making the positive claim that God exists, but he repeatably fails to provide any positive evidence to support his beliefs.}}

"It is because the atheist is neither omniscient nor omnipresent that he then takes an illogical leap by concluding that there is no god, because it cannot be proven that he doesn't exist. Such reasoning is absurd."

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The problem with this reasoning is that it is based on a fallacy. No one can prove a negative, the one making the positive claim (i.e. God exists) have the burden of proof to provide evidence to support their view. Since fairies and gnomes and many other mythical creatures that can theoretically exist cannot be disproved, by Ray's logic, we should accept they exist as well.}}

Ray goes on to prayer and miracles, claiming since atheists do not pray, they will not see miracles. Ray uses a story of a dying child to prove miracles. If a child dies of some disease while the family attempted prayer to save them and the child dies, the atheist counts that as an unanswered prayer; if a child lives, it's again unanswered, because the child's body simply healed itself. Next Ray claims that the prayers were answered because, according to Ray, even if a child dies, because god "took him to heaven because he wanted the child there."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Basically god answers prayer whether or not anything happens, and whenever a person dies God wills it so. This would mean God has planned all murders, abortions, miscarriages, homicides, wars, genocides, sacrifices, accidents, natural deaths, etc. If God wills a person to die, then prayer would be pointless. Likewise, the results of a person praying to God would get the same results praying to Allah, invisible pixies, or even a milk carton. There are no statistics or evidence that prayer works.}}

Ray talks about his car, and if it should become damaged, Ray argues, "What would be my intellectual capacity if I concluded that it had no manufacturer simply because I couldn't contact them about the dilemma? The fact of their existence has nothing to do with whether or not they return my calls."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The problem with this is that this does not take faith, since anyone can transport their cars to have them repaired. Ray is again confusing (willfully or not) that atheists claim that artifacts have no creator because they do not accept nature had a creator. As pointed out several times, there is no model or method to distinguish if this universe had a special creator. Thus far, Ray has not provided any proof that the universe had a special creator of any sort. In fact, science has shown that matter and energy cannot be created and thus did not require special creation.}}

Ray concludes in this chapter that God answers all prayers.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Well, Ray, you can argue that a milk carton answers all prayers too.}}

Ray then urges all readers, who are people in a failing airplane, to put on their parachute (faith in Jesus) and be saved before its too late.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This however, is an flawed argument known as [[Pascal's Wager]]. Ray Comfort says his parachute (provided by his invisible friend) is safe and harmless, but suddenly another passenger tells you "Don't use his parachute, it has holes in it. Use mine provided by my invisible friend." Then a third passenger announces “My invisible friend slashed all the parachutes on board. He takes care of his chosen people, and as none of you were born into the correct lineage, it’s too bad for you.” Some people refuse parachutes and urge others to do the same, because it would interfere with the master plan of the father of their invisible friend (these are the same people who refuse medical care in favor of prayer and faith healing). The drama goes on with the rest of the passengers, until you demand to actually see proof of a doomed plane and which parachute does work. Some say you must not demand for evidence and just have faith. Regardless, you inspect the plane and the parachutes. The plane is operating just fine in every way and each parachute has holes in them big enough you can fit your head through them. Some of the parachutes terribly constrict people, harming them. The plane reaches its destination safely, but the drama continues through the terminal, security, all the way out beyond the airport. You learn from airports around the world that many people have harmed many others and themselves due to their faith in their parachute provided by their particular invisible friend.}}

==Chapter 7: Worms transformed==
Ray goes on to repeat another of his favorite arguments against evolution. He claims that each male of all species must find a mate, who also must be equally evolved and have a desire to mate, that is they both must have evolved sex organs that fit each other. Like bolt and nuts, according to Ray, they are meant to fit each other.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This argument is absurd since some animals reproduce asexually and Ray continues to fail to realize two things: the female (not the male) is the foundation of the species, and evolution and change takes place in a population not an individual. Also, regarding his bolt and nut analogy, many people know that some people cannot reproduce since their sexual organs are too small or too large.

Ray also ignores the vast scientific depth into the evolution of sex. 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).}}

===A Coincidence===
When Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron ask how is it that leaves fall in a straight line and how our human bodies are like a car - perfectly designed with "little squirters called tear ducts."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is a simple repeat of [[intelligent design]] arguments, which do not stand up to scrutiny. The human body is complex and shares several functions that resemble that of car parts. Both Ray and Kirk asked how can leaves fall to form a straight line, implying how did the row of leaves extend or build up? Likewise, a car can be build from multiple smaller pieces. A car can also be broken down into smaller individual parts. For instance, a battery still functions as a battery. Take off the wheel, but the wheel does not lose its function. A car can still function without a motor or battery, it can function as a cart — a device that has been is use for centuries to carry goods. The motor just makes it easier, and thus more favorable.}}

==Chapter 8: Tombstone face==
In this chapter, Ray tries to persuade the reader to choose [[Christianity]] over all other religions. He uses his old guilt trip tactic "[[are you a good person?]]" in which he sets up a problem for everyone that only his God can fix by using the Ten Commandments.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The Ten Commandments are not evidence of God just as the Five Pillars of Islam are proof of Allah.}}

==Chapter 9: I'll resurrect her for you==
Ray begins this chapter with a series of questions and asks why "pseudo intellectuals [who] know the answer to everything except the issues that really matter...they haven't the faintest idea what they are doing here on earth."

In a section called "The Assumption" Ray calls evolution a fairy tale since there is no evidence to support it.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is a lie and willful ignorance of the massive amounts of evidence that support and confirm evolution.}}

Ray asks his readers to listen carefully to the language scientists use: believe, surmise, suspect, think, assume, perhaps, maybe, possibly, etc.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=What Ray fails to understand is that science does not claim to be infallible or always correct, since everything scientific must be falsifiable. Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron both use this type of language, but often use more absolute terms.}}

Ray then quotes Darwin, "I was a young man with unformed ideas, I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything: and to my astonishment the ideas took like wild fire. People made a religion out of them."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The problem with this is, this was never spoken by Charles Darwin. This is a quote from a woman who goes by the name "Lady Hope" (Believed to be Elizabeth Hope, a British evangelist) who supposedly was with Darwin at his death bed and reported that Darwin recanted. However, she was never near Darwin when he died, making all her claims about Darwin demonstrably false.}}

Moving on, Ray goes on to say those who believe in evolution is because of carbon dating. Ray quotes from an article by ''Time''[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,970345,00.html] to show that carbon dating is faulty and cannot be trusted.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This article is taken out of context and Ray ignores the vast amount of other dating methods scientists use.}}

Once again, Ray goes on to cast doubt upon the readers on evolution. Ray asks "Did the fish first that crawled out of the ocean to be come an animal have lungs or gills?" and how could the giraffes neck evolve?
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Comfort is now using a [[straw man]] against Lamarckian evolution, not Darwin's theory of evolution. Lamarck's concept pre-dated Darwin. Under Lamarckian evolution, physical traits were passed from parent to offspring (i.e. the muscles of your left arm were particularly strong from constant weight lifting, therefore your offspring will have a more muscular left arm).

Fossil evidence and the swim bladders of some modern fish support evolutionary theory regarding the evolution from gills and gill-like features to lungs in the earliest amphibians. Modern amphibians still posses many of these traits, though modified. Ray, in attempting to make this sound as absurd as possible, relies on our inherent inability to properly conceive of large spans of time, portraying one individual creature, at one point in time. This oversimplification of speciation doesn't accurately reflect scientific explanations. }}

Ray himself quotes from several people, appealing to authority, such as Sir Arthur Keith, Malcolm Muggeridge, and other articles from ''Time''.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Quotes from Keith cited by a number of creationists, appears to be completely fraudulent. Firstly, Sir Keith died in 1955 and couldn't have written the forward to the 100th edition of Origin of Species in 1959. He did write an introduction to an edition of Origin of Species but in 1928, over 30 years prior to the centennial. The quote attributed to him does not appear in that edition or in any other known work. As for Muggeridge (an obviously flawed argument from authority) Muggeridge is a non-scientist, fundamentalist Christian who was never involved in scientific research. The quote does nothing to further Ray's stated goal of demonstrating that the theory of evolution is 'unscientific'. What is unscientific is Ray's attempt to discredit evolution. The opinion of any individual, philosopher or scientist, has no bearing on whether a proposition is true or false. }}

Next, Ray talks about how scientists have been fooled by several hoaxes like Java Man, Heidelberg Man, [[Piltdown Man]], etc. Ray goes on to basically say "dogs produce dogs. Cats produce cats. Horses produce foals, and so on and so on."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=100 years ago, the only human fossils yet known were a few Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon, and Homo erectus. Then an English attorney and amateur archaeologist presented bones and associated artifacts of what appeared to be an as-yet unidentified species. British Imperialists were generally accepting of the news, but French and American scientists were skeptical, doubting that the skull and jaw even belonged together. The British museum touted the “Piltdown man” as authentic, but the American Museum of Natural History displayed it only as a “mixture of ape and man fossils”, which is what it eventually turned out to be.

There was no way to adequately examine such things back in 1915. Chemical tests –common today- didn’t yet exist and we didn’t yet have a practical understanding of radiation. And before the first australopiths were discovered, we didn’t know exactly what to expect of the links that were then still missing between humans and the other apes known at that time. But as we began filling in the gaps in human evolution with thousands of legitimate fossils, a pattern emerged which left Piltdown an increasingly obvious anomaly. Consequently it was taken off display and stored away almost continuously for decades. It lost importance in most discussions because, in light of everything else we discovered over the next few decades, it just never fit, and was eventually dismissed from the list of potential human ancestors for that reason.

As the years wore on, criticism arose against everyone who ever promoted the Piltdown collection because there seemed to be so much wrong with it. Finally, in the 1950s, it was taken back out of the box and scrutinized via more modern means. First fluorine dating revealed that it was much too recent, and it was shown to have been chemically-treated to give a false impression of its age and mineral composition. Then it was finally determined that the jaw must have come from an orangutan, and that it had been deliberately reshaped with modern tools in a well-crafted and deliberate forgery.

No one knows who did it either. And more importantly, why? Errors were already known and previously reported, but few ever suspected fraud because, what would be the motive? Nearly everyone who stood accused was a man of high reputation and credentials. Maybe that was the motive. Maybe Piltdown man was just a joke that had gone too far. But no one was laughing, and they weren’t going to let it happen again.

Even before the Piltdown hoax was officially exposed, an American paleontologist earned himself a life-time of embarrassment when he found a tooth from an extinct species of pig in Nebraska, and mislabeled it, Hesperopithecus. The cheek teeth of pigs and peccaries are fairly similar to ape molars, and this one was badly worn such that Henry Fairfield Osborne initially believed it to be human. But the real embarrassment came when he publicized his find in a popular magazine rather than submitting it for peer review first.

Creationists like to say that scientists were as duped by Nebraska man as they were by Piltdown man. But they weren’t. Everyone who saw the fossil agreed that it did look like an ape’s tooth. But with only a couple tentative exceptions, the entire contemporary scientific community either immediately rejected the accuracy of Osborne’s assertions, or they demanded more substantial evidence to back them. He obviously couldn’t provide that evidence despite another five years of searching. Eventually, he came to the sad realization that his fossil probably wasn’t really human after all. His more skeptical associate, W.K. Gregory then published a formal retraction in scientific journals.

Creationists often accuse scientists of contriving the illustration of Nebraska man and of conjuring a whole skeleton and facial construct out of a single tooth that was never even human in the first place. But the fact is that the magazine commissioned their own ‘artist’s impression’, and scientists of the day, including Osborn himself, immediately reacted with harsh criticism. As a result, the article was never reprinted. }}

Ray discusses the Big Bang theory, and how an explosion only produces chaos instead of order, and thus evolution cannot be true.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=What Ray fails to grasp is the the Big Bang deals with cosmology, not biology. Neither rely on each other for the other to be true.}}

On page 73, Ray adds "Mother nature can't do anything to stop the thousands of diseases that plague humanity. While evolution carries on for all of the animals, there will be no new lungs for those humans with emphysema and no new brains for those with brain disorders....The noses of those who live in Southern California will not evolve a smog filtration system, neither will orange pickers who have longer arms survive over the short-armed orange pickers. Men will not have their right hand evolve into a remote control, neither will drivers evolve hands-free cell phones on their chins."

Ray finally ends this chapter by claiming "If evolution is true, then the bible is not the creator's revelation to humanity."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=But this is a deliberate lie, since evolution does not refute or disprove any god(s). The Bible is a work of man, not any deities revelation to humanity.}}

==Chapter 10: Who wrote the letter?==
Comfort begins this chapter with a story of his conversion to Christianity. He is grateful that he has been given eternal life in Heaven and promised to read the Bible ever since to check if it is authentic and reliable.

Ray mentions and compliments the Dead Sea Scrolls, claiming they show Christianity has not changed.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, the Scrolls do little to help Ray Comfort's positions. The scrolls do not mention Jesus and the Gnostic writers had a different view of Christianity. Different Christianities did exist with opposing theologies and world views.}}

To prove the Bible, Ray goes into discussing the scientific foreknowledge found in the Bible. The first one he brings up is Job:26:7 "He hangs the earth on nothing." Ray claims that this passage means that the earth simply floats in space while, according to Ray, science thought that it sat on a large animal, or giant.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is false, since scientists held no such view (even Ray fails to provide a reference to his claim). The problem with this verse is that the earth does not "hang" nor is it above nothing. "Beneath" the earth is open space, cosmic dust, stars, and more. Unfortunately, that is not "nothing."}}

Ray then uses an out of date quote from ''Time'' to claim that science is in agreement with the creation account of Genesis. "Most cosmologists...agree that the genesis account of creation, in imagining an initial void, may be uncannily close to the truth (Time, December 1976)".
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Scientists now agree that the universe could be eternal. The law of conservation of mass and energy states that mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can only change forms from one to another. Based on this, the universe is most likely eternal, and was never "created."}}

Next, Ray claims: "Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power, and motion. Genesis 1:1-2 revealed such truths to the Hebrews in 1450 b.c. " In the beginning [time] god created [power] the heaven [space] and the earth [matter]…And the spirit of god moved [motion] upon the face of the waters…"
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This line of thinking is flawed and misleading. Authors of bible had a concept of time and space, though they may not know how to explain them. But claiming that the bible "revealed" these "truths" to people through scripture is an enormous overstatement.}}

Not stopping there, Ray claims the Bible reveals "the earth is round" from Isaiah 40:22. There are other Bible verses that contradict the concept of a round earth, but rather a flat earth with ends (Matthew 4:8, Isaiah 11:12, Revelation 7:1, Psalms 67:7, Daniel 4:20, Luke 4:5, and much more).
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, the verse Ray uses varies depending on translation. Some say "circle" but the earth is not a circle since a circle indicated a flat disk. If we use "round" it is still problematic, because the earth is closer to a sphere. Plus, there is some suggestion that the Egyptians knew of the earth's spherical size and shape around 2550 B.C.E. (more than a thousand years before Moses). The Greek philosopher Pythagoras, who was born in 532 B.C.E., defended the spherical theory on the basis of observations he had made of the shape of the sun and moon (Uotila 1984). If this information was known by educated Greeks and Egyptians during biblical times, its use by Isaiah is nothing special.}}

Ray repeats the misquote of [[Albert Einstein]] in Chapter 3 to make it seem he believed in God.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Einstein did not believe in a personal god; he may have been a deist.}}

==Chapter 11: Benevolent Jelly==
This chapter mainly consists of Ray Comfort preaching and repeating his usual theological arguments. He reminds people about sin and salvation through the blood of Christ and such.

==Chapter 12: The real thing==
In this chapter, Ray delves into the topic of Christians who perform horrible acts in the name of God (murder, war, genocide, etc.). Ray calls them "hypocrites" "pretenders" and "not real christians."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is a fallacy called [[No True Scotsman]]. There are over 30,000 denominations of [[Christianity]], each claiming to be correct, so there is no way of knowing which is the right kind of [[Christianity]].

There are many examples of Christians, who wholeheartedly believed they were doing the work of the Lord, and committed terrible crimes. Even to this day Christians condemn [[witchcraft]] and [[homosexuality]] in Africa, resulting in torn families and hundreds upon hundreds dead. Some Christian parents refuse to have their children treated with medicine because they think it would interfere with God's plan, their sick child has no say in the matter. This has resulted in the death of hundreds of innocent children and infants.}}

==Chapter 13: Death Sentence for error==
In this chapter Ray talks about bible prophesy, and how, if a prophet wasn't one hundred percent accurate, they would be put to death. This explains why many prophets spoke in very vague language, predicted inevitable outcomes, and often faked their prophecies.

Ray goes through all of these different "prophesies" and cites things that have happened in the world, such as murders, earthquakes, etc., and claims these are proof of the bible's prophesies.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Unfortunately, these are not valid proofs. These things have happened throughout the history of mankind, and the world. There is not a time in history when wars were not being fought, people getting diseases, people killing others, etc.

There are several mundane ways in which a prediction of the future can be fulfilled:

# Retrodiction. The "prophecy" can be written or modified after the events fulfilling it have already occurred.
# Vagueness. The prophecy can be worded in such a way that people can interpret any outcome as a fulfillment. Nostradomus's prophecies are all of this type. Vagueness works particularly well when people are religiously motivated to believe the prophecies.
# Inevitability. The prophecy can predict something that is almost sure to happen, such as the collapse of a city. Since nothing lasts forever, the city is sure to fall someday. If it has not, it can be said that according to prophecy, it will.
# Denial. One can claim that the fulfilling events occurred even if they have not. Or, more commonly, one can forget that the prophecy was ever made.
# Self-fulfillment. A person can act deliberately to satisfy a known prophecy.

There are no prophecies in the Bible that cannot easily fit into one or more of those categories. The Bible also contains many unfulfilled prophecies [http://www.answering-christianity.com/bibles_unfulfilled_prophecies.htm</ref> and "imaginary" prophecies <ref>http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html].

Other prophecies in other religions exist, although Ray does not accept them. There are fulfilled prophecies in Zoroastrainism[http://www.bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/zoroaste.htm], Buddhism[http://bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/buddha.htm], Hinduism[http://bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/hindusa.htm], Native American[http://bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/nativeam.htm], and Mormon[http://bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/mormon.htm]. Why does not Ray accept any of these fulfilled prophecies? Because he knows the evidence supporting them is lacking, the prophecies are vague, and of course he already has a presupposition that they are all false — meaning he does not have to look at a single one of them before declaring them all wrong.}}

==Chapter 14: Bizarre to the insane==
This chapter discusses information that governs our thoughts. Ray warns us what information we accept. This goes into the theory of [[evolution]]. Ray says, "If you believe a drink contains poison, you won't drink it. If you believe it is safe, you will drink it. If you believe evolution is true, and from that premise believe that the bible is false, then you won't repent."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The last part is incorrect because there are theistic evolutionists who claim evolution is compatible with the Christian faith. Evolution does not rule out any deity and Ray knows that, but he continues to portray evolution as atheistic to mislead readers and make Christians fear evolution as damaging to their faith.

Ray concludes information will determine where your soul will remain after death, but Ray has not provided any proof that a soul, in all sense of the word, actually exist and survives after death.}}

===Cozy Cocoon===
Ray tries to explain how a Christian hides from such information that may harm their faith. Ray states that, like a caterpillar that wraps itself in its cocoon, a Christian likewise wraps himself/herself "with the rules and regulations, hiding from the real world in the cocoon of Christianity."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is actually one of the few honest things Ray has ever said. He admitted Christians do not live in the real world, which is accurate since they believe in fantasies like angels, talking snakes, drinking the blood of a ancient god, and prayer to certain deities. Hiding themselves from a world called reality and censoring themselves to observable facts, tested data, and proven theories like evolution.}}

===Light Relief===
Ray repeats an old argument known as [[Pascal's Wager]].

The chapter ends with Ray asking the reader to imagine and pretend Christianity is true and there is a Creator, Heaven, etc. "But if what I'm saying is true, the atheist will get the shock of his life - at his death. He will wake up dead, and will find that he truly has 'passed on'. I ask again, is it possible that you could be wrong? Come on, bend a little. Just between you and me, have you ever been wrong? Are you divinely infallible? Are you different from the rest of us?"
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=It is weird for someone who claims that atheists do not exist keeps referring them as atheists. Of course humans are fallible and make mistakes, but the evidence does not support Ray's position and thus atheists remain unconvinced. Could Ray be right about what happens after death? He could be, but so can every other imaginable scenario. A person could die and go to Valhalla, or Hades, or Avalon. Since any imaginable scenario is possible, this means that there are theoretically an infinite possible scenarios of what happens to a person after death, making Ray's narrow version of Heaven nearly impossible. Possibly, there could be a Heaven, but it is only a place for atheists. Say that the universe was created by a deity, but then comes along a trickster and deceives the world that there is a creator but that creator is the trickster. This means everyone in the world can be fooled, even Christians, and the creator only rewards those who do not fall for the trickster's deception. Since atheists do not worship or acknowledge the trickster as the creator, the true creator will reward them after death for not worshiping the trickster.

Ray has been asked many times "what if you are wrong and Christianity is not true?" of course Ray admits he could be wrong, but he does not "bend a little" because his beliefs are dogmatic. Ray has no interest in "bending a little" instead what he wants is more gullible followers. Professional creationists like Ray Comfort are making money hand over fist with faith-healing scams or bilking little old ladies out of prayer donations, or selling books (and Ray Comfort publishes several books every year and the books often are just repeats of previous books) and videos at their circus-like seminars. All of them feign knowledge they can’t really possess, and some of them claim degrees they’ve never actually earned. Were it not for this con, they’d have to go back to selling used cars, wonder drugs, and multi-level marketing schemes. They will never change their minds no matter what it costs anyone else.}}

==Chapter 15: Going for the spider==
Ray hopes the reader is convinced by his arguments by now. He addresses atheists as intellectually embarrassing. Ray repeats his argument a plane had a plane maker and we are all in the plane but will all have to jump.

He uses an analogy that we are sinners and doomed to an eternity in hell. We are all like people on a plane that will soon fail. We can be saved with a parachute, and in this case faith in Jesus is our parachute. However, those passengers who accept evolution will not put on the parachute and wait for one to "evolve" under their chair.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is a feeble straw man of evolution. Evolution explains the diversity of life, it does not state or imply that man-made artifices will sprout from seat cushions. As already explained in Chapter 6 of this book, Ray's parachute argument is a feeble and flawed rework of [[Pascal's Wager]].}}

===The Main Objections===
Here Ray addresses and generalizes non-Christians. By now, he expects us to be convinced that there is a Creator, now he moves on to talk about Judgment.

Ray says he is not here to convince anybody that the Moral Law exists, because everyone already know it exists because the Bible says so (Romans 2:15).
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This could not be more incorrect. Christianity's moral views are not shared by everyone, nor is it shared by all Christians. Quoting the Bible is not proof that everyone is aware of Christian moral values. Saying the law is written on our hearts is no more credible than the Islamic Primordial Covenant, which states that Allah's law is written on our souls before we even entered our bodies at birth. Ray says he is only focusing on trying to show us the "consequences" of breaking the law. What Ray has failed to show is that consequences will even take place.}}

Ray portrays God as: see's your youth days; see's your thought life; and he is perfect, just, good, holy and utterly righteous. Then ray begins to move through the Ten Commandments while taking a person down the [[are you a good person?]] routine.

===The Law===
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The hypocrisy of Ray is demonstrated in this chapter. The back of the book said that he would not use the Bible to convince you of God, yet he has quoted the Bible continuously throughout the book, and has used a specific selection of the [[Ten Commandments]] (Exodus 20) as a witnessing tool.}}

===Not Even a Groan===
Ray walks the reader through his interpretation of the [[Ten Commandments]], starting with blasphemy. He wonders why people use Jesus Christ as a curse word rather than Buddha.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Many people use a variety of words as curse words, but perhaps the greatest reason that people use Christ as a curse word is because Jesus Christ has been used as a justification to curse, persecute, suppress, etc. others which gives it more weight as a curse word.}}

===Diamonds or Water?===
Ray asks the audience if he handed him a fistful of diamonds or a bucket of water, which one would they choose. Ray says anybody in their right mind would not choose the diamonds. However, Ray changes the scenario that if he offered the same options to a person in the desert, the person would choose the water or else they would die. Ray says Christianity offers the choice of sparkly diamonds of sin or the water of everlasting life.

The chapter ends with Ray explaining why automobile safety commercials show us dummies wearing seat belts and then crashing. They show us these scenarios to scare us, because of the risk of a car accident is fatal and thus we should wear a seat belt. Ray says that we should put on our seat belt: faith in Christ. Ray admits this is why he uses fear tactics, so we will know we must always wear the seat belt.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The difference between with scenario with faith in Christ is that the seat belt and dummy incident is testable. We can see and test accidents occurring and how to protect ourselves. Unlike Ray's "everlasting life" and God, we cannot test such things. At one point in history, cars were not made with seat belts until much later when the government mandated that cars include seat belts because it was ''rational'' and it kept people safe from physical harm. Ray's irrational pleas of hell and [[appeal to emotion]] have no evidential support, they cannot be tested as seat belts can, and there has been no proof of an afterlife. Fear is not a valid tool or a pathway to truth. Ray has not proven a god, an after life, judgment, or his particular version is the most accurate.}}

==Chapter 16: The Repellent==
Throughout this chapter, Ray [[appeal to emotion|appeals to emotion]], hoping the reader is uneasy and feels guilty for not following God's law and the Ten Commandments. Ray makes no further attempt to provide any proof for his claims, he just plays with people's fears and provides a solution that only his God can help. This ploy is called [[snake oil]].

Ray addresses the readers conscience, questioning if it is functioning correctly and parallel to God's laws and sin. If the readers conscience is not pointing in the right direction, Jesus' sacrifice will guide us once we accept and acknowledge our sin and guilt.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray only uses the Commandments from Exodus 20. What he keeps hidden from the reader is that the only time the Commandments are called the "Ten Commandments" are the ones listed in Exodus 34, and none of the ten mention lying, theft, murder, adultery, etc. at all. As long as Ray's audience remains unaware of knowledge such as this, his words will prey on people's fears that will bend people to his particular religion.

On Ray's website for taking the test if you are a sinner, he asks have you ever told a lie, stolen anything, lusted, blasphemed, etc. Even if you answer "No" to every question, the result is still the same: you are a sinner. So, in reality, this ten commandments ploy is nothing more than a little marketing tactic; like a trick question, in order to make you feel guilty in order to make you feel as if you need their god.}}

==Chapter 17: A Hopeful Presumption==
At this point, Ray continues to make the reader feels uneasy and begins to ask if the reader is ready to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. He assures it's readers to have faith, and in time God will fulfill all his promises.

Once Ray is finished with this approach, he shares a personal story of experiences what it is like to become a Christian. He talks about his home New Zealand and voyage to the United States.

==Chapter 18: Watch and Pray==
Ray shares his experiences in street preaching and his thoughts on the violence in the United States. He explains that he thought the best tool to counter this suffering is prayer.

Unsatisfied with the role of religion in America, Ray shares his thoughts that churches and missionaries should return to preaching of hellfire and brimstone. Ray's idea of addressing the people is that they need to know God is an angry, vengeful God and will destroy us unless we repent. According to Ray, many preachers are immoral (such as cheating on their wives) and not following an example of God's law.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=What Ray does not get into is why preachers do what they do. The common answer is to spread the good news, but there is another driving force: money. Based on how poorly this book is written, and that Ray publishes and distributes many books just about every year reveals something Ray is not admitting to us. Ray lives in a luxurious house in Southern California.}}

==Chapter 19: The Lost Altar==
Ray continues this chapter examining the ills of America. His reasons why these problems exist are predictable: not enough Christians (by Ray's definition) and the good news of salvation is not being widely distributed throughout the country.

Based on this, Ray instructs the reader what they should do to counteract the ills of America. This includes indoctrinating your children into Christianity.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Indoctrination has been strongly argued to be a form of child abuse, stripping the children of their individuality and ability to choose. Children are vulnerable and are used to accepting authority, so indoctrination takes advantage of them before they have developed critical thinking skills. Also, religion tends to separate children (that is Catholic children attend Catholic school, not an Islamic school). It is universally agreed that young children are too young to decide where they stand in politics, so why should we label them based on their parent's views of humanity within the cosmos?

Since Ray believes the lack of evangelical Christians in America is the source of the ills of this country, he has not considered that Christianity may be a source of the problem? And of course he does not want his readers to be aware of this. Throughout American history, Christianity has brought upon this country many ills, even to this day. Such examples include the following: suppression of Native American, women, homosexual, and atheist rights; endorsing slavery; murdering doctors; fanaticism; fundamentals promoting pseudoscience and anti-science; church sex scandals; promoting faith healing and exorcisms over medical treatment; blood libels; using tax money to build creationist parks and Arks; and so on.}}

==Chapter 20: Tampering with the Recipe==
In this chapter, Ray talks about how to make a marriage last. The advice is good, but can simply be reached through common sense really (like don't argue in front of kids).

At the beginning of the chapter, Ray talks about how christian marriages last, while others' don't, and how "nowadays secular and christian divorce statistics run hand in hand."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Wrong. According to a 1999 study done by a christian sociologist, George Barna, atheists have a 21% chance of divorce, while born again christians have a 27% chance. A six percent difference, but still a difference, with atheists in the lead having the lowest divorce rate than any other religious affiliate. It's clear though, that having a particular religion doesn't guarantee a couple to have a good marriage. There are people who have different religions, and their marriages are great. However, religious beliefs can also tear couples apart too.}}

==Chapter 21: If the average girl knew==
Ray starts off with telling the reader about an experiment. Two people were placed in separate rooms (they could still see each other through a window) and each person was told to hit a button as fast as they could once they saw a light come on. The one who wasn't fast enough in reacting to the light, was shocked by the winner, and the winner could choose the amount of shock that the loser got. The scientist did the experiment with sober, and intoxicated individuals, and when intoxicated, people sent a higher voltage of a shock into the person, than when they were sober. Ray concludes that this "proves" that people are born "wicked," and states this is exactly what the Bible predicted. Ray argues all the scientist had to do was open the bible to learn of this "truth."

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Human beings being evil by nature is debatable. This example just seems to be an observation of human behavior, by human beings, which made the claim as to the "deceitfully wicked" nature of man. Not that it "proves" the bible is inspired.}}

Ray next talks about a woman who wrote him about being terrified about potentially having homosexual thoughts. Ray goes into his bullshit about how people have been "hoodwinked into accepting many lies, and one of the greatest is that homosexuals are 'born that way'. If that is true, we are all born homosexuals."

Ray continues to talk about the "sinful nature" of humans, and how when you're a christian you should be even more aware of the fact that you're sinning all the time, it's just that when you're a christian, you feel guilty about it.

Next, Ray lists some things a person can do, in order to fight their feelings of "sexual lust" and of course claims that this is yet another sin.

===Diving or Falling===
Ray talks about how a "pretend christian" will "dive" into sin, while the true christian will "fall" into it. Basically, he's claiming that a true christian will do whatever they can to avoid sinning, yet Ray talks about his feeling guilty about taking "the biggest piece of chocolate cake," and that he can't help it, because of his sinful nature.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is a contradiction because if Ray didn't want to "sin" and have the bigger piece of cake, then he should have had the self control not to. This entire concept doesn't make the slightest bit of sense, because according to Ray his supposed sin is against his will, yet he willfully sins. If he looks at a woman and finds her attractive, or if he feels greedy by taking that bigger slice of cake, it's your own response to the women...you turned your head, you took the cake, and therefore you are responsible for your actions. Blaming it on some mythological concept of sin does not excuse you for being unable to control your behavior. That's simply a cop out.}}

The rest of the chapter is simply Ray using examples from the Bible, about Peter, and his sin, and yet again contradicting himself, because he has used the bible...and for the remainder of the chapter too, for his so called proof.

At the end of the chapter, though he restates his position in his book about atheists only using that as a label as a "weak and transparent shield for sin," and quotes the Bible, Psalm 14:1: "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no god'." Ray says "you no longer have to be a believer in the religion of atheism. You know there is a God. Your faith has been shattered. You don't believe you are an atheist."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Here Ray resorts to blatant and dishonest accusations. Atheism is not a religion in any sense. Atheists do not believe they are atheists, they know they are atheists. Theists are they ones who do not know there is a god, because faith does not produce knowledge. Knowledge is based on facts, which are testable and observable, not on blind dogmatic faith that Ray holds dear.}}

==Appendix: Reasoning for the Faith==
This last part of the book goes over questions that Ray found at a "Hollywood atheist organization" (page 179), whatever that is, and attempts to answer them. Some of these questions Comfort doesn't even answer and goes around the question. For example: on the very first question, it asks how you would define god, and why you're so convinced there is one, and Ray simply states that "god is the creator, the upholder, and the sustainer of the universe. He revealed himself to Moses as the one and only true god" (page 179). He doesn't even really answer the question as to why he's convinced there is a god...unless it's because of what the bible says, though that's not a logical answer to say the least.

*Question 3: "how can something that cannot be described be said to exist?"
Ray responds that since color cannot be described, it does not mean color does not exist. He also mentions plant life beneath the sea and planets not seen or described by man, but they nevertheless exist.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=If they have never been seen by man, how do we know they are plants? Unlike these examples Ray provides, God has not been shown to exist in reality. In fact, many have argued why God cannot exist in reality. Almost every religion tries to set itself apart from the rest and from the common definition of the word “religion” in some way, such as Buddhists claiming to be a philosophy. Rays answer is not satisfactory, but rather shown to be false based on the testimonies of ex-evangelical ministers.[http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Debunking_Christians/Page16.htm] Religions have rituals, sacred texts, creation myths, and worship, and indeed Christianity has all of these.}}

*Question 4: "Since there are countless religions in the world today claiming to be the one true religion, why do you think yours is truer than theirs?"
Ray answers no religion is "truer" than any other. He says religions strive to make peace with their creator, but Christianity does not do so. Instead peace has been given to man by Jesus. Ray concludes that Christianity is not a man made religion, but a personal relationship with Jesus.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, Christianity is indeed a religion.[http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Debunking_Christians/Page16.htm] Buddhism often tries to separate itself as a religion, however it remains a religion.}}

*Question 5: "Can more than one of these religions be right?"
According to Ray, "Jesus discarded all other religions as a means of finding forgiveness of sin." Ray then quotes Bible verses that supports Jesus as being the one true God (John 14:6, 1 Timothy 2:5, and Acts 4:12).
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Basically, this is self-promotion and provides no empirical data to support this claim. Note: 1 Timothy is considered a forgery by the vast majority of critical scholars.}}

*Question 15: "If God of the Bible is "all good," why does he himself say he created evil (Isaiah 45:7)?"
First Ray offers a translation for the word 'evil' in that verse. He says it means "calamity" or "suffering." Ray says God uses good and bad things to bring us to a relationship with him, but he did not bring evil into being. Ray goes on to tell the story of Adam and Eve in the garden, and God gave him a choice to obey or not. Once they were aware of good and evil, it was up to them to choose between the two.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray does not really address the question. Ray has admitted that God created all things, but will not say that God created evil. Does this mean good and evil exist independent of God? If so, then why would we need God to tell us what is good and bad?}}

*Question 16: "Is there a better way than reason to acquire knowledge and truth?"
Ray simply answers no. He then goes on to mention from the Bible "'Come now, and let us reason together,' said the Lord." Ray then mentions Paul reasoned with King Agrippa and Felix.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Comfort fails to mention certain important Christians like Martin Luther who said "Reason should be destroyed by all Christians."}}

*Question 17: "If you answered #16 with "faith," then why are there so many contradictory faiths in the world?"
Ray says that at least every nation acknowledges there is a Creator. However, Ray says they worship the sun, moon and idols. Ray says no one has ever found an atheistic tribe, because they were not that ignorant.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray pulls no punches from insulting other religions and those with no religion. Even if we could not find one atheistic tribe in the world, that does not give religion special credibility.}}

*Question 18: "If you believe, as many do, that all religions worship the same god under different names, how do you explain the existence of religions which have more than one god, or Buddhism, which, in its pure form, there is no god?"
Ray simply responds that those who do not worship the one true god will find any replacement, whether it be multiple gods or small wooden idol.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Again, Ray pulls no punches from insulting other religions, even his fellow Christians. He seems to have missed that some religions do not find a "replacement" because there is nothing to replace.}}

*Question 19: "What would it take to convince you that you are wrong?"
Ray does not provide a suitable answer. Ray's respond is that he already has been convinced, during the 22 years of his unconverted life.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=He does not share what would be the first step to show his beliefs are incorrect, perhaps he does not want them to be incorrect. This just reveals his dogmatic beliefs.}}

*Question 20: "If nothing can convince you that you are wrong, then why should your faith be considered anything but a cult?"
Ray defines a cult as a "system of religious worship and ritual" which reflects every man made religion.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, as Ray already described, he does not believe Christianity is a religion but rather a relationship with Jesus. He also argues he does not have a belief system, but rather a experience system once a Christian has felt the Holy Spirit. See the response to question 3 regarding Christianity not being a religion. Also, the human mind is capable of producing many types of experiences. Ray does not provide any data or criteria to explain what he is experiencing is real or accurate. Also, Comfort is quick to dismiss religious experiences from every other religion, but he will not critically examine his own?}}

*Question 21: "If an atheist lives a decent, moral life, why should a loving, compassionate God care whether we believe in him/her/it"
To Ray, it does not matter how much of a moral life we live we are still born in sin and violate the Ten Commandments, and thus we are damned.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=It is common for religions to set up a standard that no one is safe from unbelief. Basically Ray admits that God is not all-loving or all-merciful, otherwise we would not be punished just for being good or even born. Don't forget, Ray is only using his particular selection of the Commandments, but what about the Ten Commandments in Exodus 34?}}

*Question 22: "How can the same God who, according to the Old Testament, killed everybody on earth except for eight people be considered anything other than evil?"
After examining their lifestyle, Ray claims those people who did deserve to die. They rejected God. When a judge finds a criminal guilty, criminals never see the judge as righteous.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray wonders why people do not take him seriously regarding issues of morality. If Ray thinks that people who reject God deserve death, then about 90 percent of the population of Sweden deserve death, among several billion others around the globe. During the flood, God killed small infants to young to know anything about God, and unborn babies in their mother's womb.}}

*Question 23: "Must we hate ourselves and our families to be good Christians (Luke 14:26)?"
Ray says no, that bible verse is a "hyperbole." Ray says we should love God more than our families and ourselves. To place love in anything else, Ray considers it idolatry.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Here, Ray cherry-picks what is a hyperbole, metaphor, or fable. He does not provide a definition or criteria of what constitutes as a hyperbole or what is literal.}}

*Question 24: "Since the ancient world abounded with tales of resurrected Savior-Gods that were supposed to return from the dead to save humanity, why is the Jesus myth any more reliable than the others?"
Ray says, unlike those other myths that died off, the Jesus myth is true and provable. All one has to do is accept Jesus into their heart and experience the truth.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, these experiences do not change reality. The mind is capable of producing many experiences that seem spiritual, but all this proves is that these experiences are just products of the mind and not the supernatural. Also, when examining the [[historicity of Jesus]], it strongly seems Jesus was a myth.}}

*Question 25: "If the Bible is the inerrant word of God, why does it contain so many factual errors, such as the two contradictory accounts in Genesis?"
Ray says there are no contradictory accounts in genesis. Gen. 1 explains creation while Gen. 2 goes into detail.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=What Ray does not share is that the two stories get several things backwards. Neither does he mention or address Genesis account that plants came before sunlight. As for the other factual errors, Ray claims after reading the Bible everyday for 30 years he has never found an error. Then how about you read Dr. Helm's book "The Bible Against Itself."}}

*Question 26: "Why isn't the Bible written in a straightforward way that leaves no doubt about what it means?"
Ray says it is clear to those who obey God and those who are closed spirituality will not understand it.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This does not really address the question. Many people who no longer believe in God have had such spiritual experiences (and can produce them again), and they can fully read and understand the Bible. Ray does not mention why he does not follow certain demands included in the Bible, such as cutting off your own hand if you sin, which early church fathers did do and encourage their subjects and all Christians to do the same.}}

*Question 28: if anyone has ever been killed in the name of atheism?
Ray responds with the usual absurd argument about the communist regimes, and claims these were a result of atheism.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=As explained to him many times, communism is a form of state worship and not a single person was killed in the name of atheism. And if communism was the cause for all the deaths, then it is actually a problem for Christianity since communism predates Marx and can be found in the book of Acts. That's right, communism found in the perfect Word of God.}}

==External Links==
*[http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2007/12/god-doesnt-believe-in-atheists-proof.html Arizona Atheist Blog: God Doesn't Believe in Atheists Review]
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=CntF1S132L8C&pg=PT8&lpg=PT8&dq=Ray+Comfort+Ron+Barrier&source=bl&ots=Dzr_wp9ihE&sig=QEYjpdgPrRQ7fYgsEyekOn5rPrs&hl=en&ei=OvBdTbz-N4q8sQPR4NXfCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q&f=false Google Books: God Doesn't Believe in Atheists]
*[http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/comfortablieb.htm God Doesn’t Believe in Creationists: A Response to the Books of Ray Comfort]

==See also==
*[[Atheism]]
*[[Ray Comfort]]
*[[Way of the Master]]

[[Category:Apologetic literature]]
[[Category:Books]]

Ray Comfort

2011-11-03T17:17:04Z

Feredir28: /* View towards Atheists */ adding reference

Ray Comfort

2011-11-03T15:00:03Z

Feredir28: /* Beliefs */ adding citation

Atonement

2011-11-01T18:32:47Z

Feredir28:

'''Atonement''' is the belief that [[Jesus Christ]] made amends for the rest of humanity for their sin, and thus opening the door for the rest of humanity to obtain entry to [[Heaven]]. The Atonement is the central element of the Christian faith. The cross is the universal sign of Christianity. Whereas the [[Resurrection]] reveals that [[Jesus Christ]] defeated death, the atonement is the significant part that provides salvation to man.

==Early versions of Atonement==
The arguments for atonement has changed for the centuries. For instance, the earliest theory of atonement was the Ransom Theory (1 Tim. 2:5-6; 1 Pet. 1:18-19; Eph. 2; Rom. 7 (esp. 7:14,23-24) and 8:23; Gal. 4; Mk. 10:45; etc). The Ransom Theory's basic notion was that sinners were being held captive by Satan and the death of Jesus on the cross was the ransom required to free them. Satan, however, was tricked, and he was not able to keep Jesus dead, and thus the [[resurrection]] proved Christ's victory over Satan and his demons.

In the eleventh century, the Satisfaction Theory was developed by Anslem, which stated that God's honor had been besmirched by man's sin and that man now owned a debt to God that he could not pay. Thus God decided to pay it for man through the sacrifice of his son [[Jesus Christ]].

The current dominate held view is the Penal Substitutionary Theory (PST), but others includes the Moral Influence Theory, the Governmental Theory, and the Recapitulation Theory.

==Penal Substitutionary Theory==
The Penal Substitutionary Theory (PST) is the dominate view currently held by evangelical Christians. The PST states that God's holiness demands that sin be punished, and God being a just God, cannot let sin go unpunished. Thus, God sacrificed his only begotten son [[Jesus Christ]] to bear the punishment for man's sin. Jesus took the punishment, and thus God can forgive man without compromising his holiness or justice.

==Counter apologistic to the PST==
===PST is Illogical===
Punishment is the appropriate response for the one who is guilty of breaking a certain law. The important element of retributive justice then is that the guilty party and only the guilty part should be punished, and thus it is logically impossible to punish an innocent person. To punish an innocent person contradicts the very definition of the word "punish" in the judicial sense. Thus, the PST is an oxymoron.

===PST is Immoral===
According to Christianity, God gave us our sense of right and wrong. The Bible teaches that Jesus suffered in the place of sinners, while Jesus was sinless and thus innocent. Therefore, the PST is a contradiction; otherwise, Christians have to admit that its okay for God to do what he tells man not to do.

The Old Testament also makes numerous statements that God greatly dislikes human sacrifice, because it was a practiced by non-Jews to appease their gods (Lev. 18:21; Deut. 18:10). However, God did command Abraham to kill his own son Isaac in Genesis 22, however God at the last moment stops the sacrifice and was satisfied with Abraham's obedience. This very fact, carried to its logical conclusion, would eliminate the necessity of the sacrifice death of Christ. It eliminates the atonement and thus over turns the whole Christian Gospel. If sacrifice is unacceptable to God, then the sacrifice of Jesus was not acceptable.

[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Religious mythology]]

Template:Christianity

2011-11-01T18:06:03Z

Feredir28: Adding belief

{{Navbox|name = Christianity
|titlestyle = background:#C6C6C6;
|title=[[Christianity]]
|groupstyle = background:#E7E7E7;

|group1=Christian beliefs
|list1=''[[God]]'' · ''[[Jesus Christ]]'' · ''[[Moses]]'' · ''[[Resurrection]]'' · ''[[Atonement]]'' · ''[[Creationism]]'' · ''[[Sin]]'' · ''[[Afterlife]]'' · ''[[Christianity|Other beliefs]]''

|group2=Tenets and dogma
|list2=''[[Ten Commandments]]'' · ''[[Christian dogma|Dogma]]'' · ''[[Christian rituals|Rituals]]'' · ''[[Homosexuality]]''

|group3=Holy texts
|list3=''[[Bible]]'' · ''[[Old Testament]]'' · ''[[New Testament]]'' · ''[[Gospel]]s'' · ''[[Apocrypha]]'' · ''[[Ninety-Five Theses]]'' · ''[[Modern biblical translations]]''

|group4=Christian denominations
|list4=''[[Catholicism]]'' · ''[[Anglicanism]]'' · ''[[Lutheranism]]'' · ''[[Baptist]]'' · ''[[Pentecostal]]'' · ''[[Mormonism]]'' · ''[[Jehovah's Witnesses]]'' · ''[[Denominations of Christianity|Other denominations]]''

|group5=History of Christianity
|list5=''[[Overview of early Christianity]]'' · ''[[Overview of middle Christianity]]'' · ''[[Overview of modern Christianity]]''

|group6=Christianity and politics
|list6=''[[Dominionism]]'' · ''[[America as a Christian nation]]'' · ''[[Australia as a Christian nation]]'' · ''[[Separation of church and state]]'' · ''[[Christianity invented secularism]]'' · ''[[Blue laws]]'' · ''[[Notable Christian political parties]]''

|group7=Christianity and science
|list7=''[[Creation science]]'' · ''[[Intelligent design]]'' · ''[[Quantum mysticism]]'' · ''[[Christianity invented science]]''

|group8=Christianity and medicine
|list8=''[[Christian Science]]'' · ''[[Jehovah's Witnesses]]'' · ''[[Abortion]]'' · ''[[Contraception]]'' · ''[[Notable cases of medical negligence due to Christian beliefs]]''

|group9=Christianity and Education
|list9=''[[Teach the controversy]]'' · ''[[Abstinence-only sex education]]'' · ''[[Prayer in school]]'' · ''[[Religious universities]]'' · ''[[Theological studies]]'' · ''[[Comparative religion studies]]''

}}

Ray Comfort

2011-10-28T16:20:26Z

Feredir28: /* Are you a good person? */

{{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==

Together with [[Kirk Cameron]], Ray produces [[The Way of the Master]] series of TV, radio, and internet articles though neither have a theological or formal training.

Links to summaries and refutations of The Way of the Master episodes can be found at the bottom of this page.

==Atheist Central==
Ray Comfort renamed his blog Atheist Central because so many atheists visited the site, possibly because they felt his arguments were unreasonable and humorous.

==Beliefs==
Ray Comfort is an evangelical Christian and a young earth creationist. Ray is a Bible literalist and does not accept evolution and seems vague about the age of the universe.

Ray and Kirk do not even give a consistent message, when trying to convert people they maintain that once someone is born-again God forgives them for all their sins. The following is his words exactly: "once and for all and the moment you trust in him [Jesus Christ] you are completely justified and made right with God, you are made perfect by God's grace. That has nothing to do with living a good life, pleasing God because you can't because you a lying, thieving, adulterer at heart. The only thing you can do is repent and trust in him. The minute you do, in a heartbeat God justifies you. Cleanses you of your sin and you are born again. God gives you a new heart with a new set of desires and you know you are going to escape death and damnation." Some people find this uncomfortable as it suggests that people can commit terrible sins like rape, murder, even genocide (Hitler) and still get to heaven so long as they repent at the last minute. That message, convert and you will be saved persuades people to become followers of Ray Comfort and to start using/buying his material.

Ray maintains part of the time that the Bible says that we are saved by grace alone and not by works. He quotes Titus and Ephesians 2:8-9, which says that not by works of righteousness, but according to God's mercy. Does the Bible say that salvation is by grace alone and not by works? Should we be baptized? Psalm 62:12 says "For you render to each one according to his works."

Once people have become followers of Ray Comfort they get fearful because they cannot stop sinning. Unless people can stop themselves sinning their conversion may be what Comfort calls a false conversion and nobody can avoid sinning. So people stay followers of Ray and Kirk and keep on doing what Ray’s system tells them in the desperate hope that they will be saved in spite of every sin.

It seems Ray (and Kirk) does not know the Bible, or sometimes purposely cherry-picked one side of the discrepancies to make other branches of Christianity appear foolish to give his faith more credibility.

Other branches of Christianity believe that both works and faith is required, some believe God has already predetermined where you end up in the afterlife.

==View towards Atheists==
Ray Comfort makes no attempt to hide his grudge against atheists and atheism, which is evident through his extensive work focused on opposing atheism. According to Ray "An atheist is someone who believes that nothing made everything. He will deny that through gritted teeth, because it is an intellectual embarrassment. But if he says of his Toyota that he has no belief that there was a maker, then he thinks that nothing made it (it just happened), which is a scientific impossibility. So, to remain credible, he falls back on something made everything, but he just doesn’t know what that something was. So he’s not an atheist–he believes in an initial cause." Ray Comfort encourages all Christians to not be intimidated by atheists because "they're not intelligent, the bible says they're fools."

Of course Comfort got the definition of atheism wrong and this whole thing is set up to make atheists seem like idiots. He uses the false objection to atheism "[[so you believe in nothing?]]" This is blatantly false, since an atheist is somebody who does not believe in any gods. Atheism is not a belief system. Even if this first sentence wasn’t meant as a definition, it is factually wrong because Comfort makes the mistake of assuming all atheists share more than just a disbelief in gods. In the academia, the real "intellectual embarrassment" are proponents of creationism, which is Ray Comforts position. Ray's comment about atheists and the origin of the car (or any other man-made objection) is a rework of the [[argument from design]]. Not all atheists share the same beliefs, and he makes it seem so evil to admit "he just doesn’t know what that something was." If not enough evidence is provided, it is intellectually honest to say 'I don't know' and Ray falsely believes that response alone makes his position win by default. On the last point, an atheist only needs to lack a belief in god(s), and his/her position on causes of anything are a separate issue. If atheists are not intelligent, then how is it that Comfort's banana argument got intellectually obliterated to the point Comfort denied he ever made it?

*Note regarding Ray's remark that an atheist believes nothing made everything, which is a popular theist view about atheism, is demonstrably wrong. When physicists say "nothing" it is not what most people think they are talking about. As NASA astronomer Dr. Sten Odenwald puts it, " 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. 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 from the Oxford English Dictionary) are based on the wrong physical insight."

==Favorite arguments==

Ray Comfort has appeared on many [[freethinking]] radio shows. Some arguments come up time and time again (see our articles about these arguments for relevant counter-arguments) in his books, episodes, debates, street preaching, and such. Ray constantly uses a bushful of fallacies, such as [[appeal to emotion]], [[argument from ignorance]], [[false dichotomy]], [[straw man]], [[equivocation]], [[ad hominem]], and many more. Ray is also known to [[lie for Jesus]].

Ray believes there are three "irrefutable" evidences for God.
*1) Creation: Using a coca-cola can as an example, Ray "theorizes" the origin of the can came from billions of years ago, when there was an unexplainable massive explosion in space, and from it came a rock and on the rock was a brown bubbling pool where after millions of years, aluminum came forth and created itself a tab on the top. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky and formed the words on the coca-cola can. Ray says nobody would believe that, because we know the coca-cola can had a maker. He then says we also know that the [[banana argument|banana]] must have a maker. Ray Comfort claims that if you find something that was created, there must be a creator. He claims that a building must have a builder and a painting must have a painter, even though you cannot see, touch, smell, hear, or taste him. This to Comfort is scientific proof of a creator and does not require faith to believe in a creator. According to Ray, all you need is eyes that can see and a brain works. Ray asks himself "can we scientifically prove that a painting had a painter?" He replies if we put a dozen scientists in a room with a painting, they will all answer that it indeed had a painter. Ray includes nothing more. He then says the human body is a very complex machine and the eye is perfect so there must be a designer. He then addresses those who are not convinced by his arguments as people who put themselves on an "intellectual pedestal."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray simply does not understand the word "theory," misleading people. His argument is of course a logical fallacy: anything that exists, simply because it exists, must have been deliberately created by an intelligent being for an intended purpose. By his logic, does lightning have a lightning maker? Is Vulcan just o' hammerin' away in his forge and tossing thunderbolts to Zeus??? Ray's argument also includes an argument from design fallacy. We see design and beauty in snowflakes and crystals, but we also know they form under natural causes without invoking the supernatural. The thing is, we can actually test if a painting had a painter and we could verify who it is and how they did it, but we cannot do so with God. And that is where Ray fails, who claimed that he would be able to prove the existence of God scientifically. Also, Ray builds an absurd straw man of the Big Bang Theory, [[abiogenesis]], and evolution and falsely thinks that disproving them makes creation win by default. He also tries to mock the intellect and present an [[ad hominem]] towards those who don't believe in God by implying that their eyes and brains must not be functional. He insults skeptics as putting themselves on a pedestal, basically Ray's arguments are so feeble that they are simply comical and do not require a lot of thought to see through it, and that is why Ray attacks the intellectual and trying to prevent the audience from thinking to deeply into things.}}

*2) Conscience: According to Ray, God put within each of us conscience when God made us in his image. This separates us from the other animals since we have the ability to know right from wrong. But, according to Ray, our conscience has "lost its life on the outside" and each of us are "self-admitted blaspheming, lying, thieving, adulterers at heart" and could only be restored by the Ten Commandments. He then goes on using his old tactic of "are you a good person?"
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=In this speech, Ray very briefly tells the gospel is the greatest evidence for God anyone could have. This of course is based on ignorance of science (zoology, sociology, evolution). All societal species (including humans) have a sense of compassion and community amongst their kinsmen, friends and fellows which - in many species - leads to acts of devotion, defense, and even self-sacrifice on their behalf.}}

*3) Conversion: According to Ray, if you believe in God and seek him out, you will find him. "That is the ultimate proof."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=What Comfort failed to understand was the same result can be achieved for those who seek out ghosts, aliens, Bigfoot, or any deity "with their whole heart", meaning they have already assumed these things exist without question or prior evidence that they exist in the first place.}}

===The Watchmaker Argument===

He will usually say something along the lines of "If I see a watch, it must have been made by a watchmaker, a loaf of bread by a baker, a building by an engineer, a creation by a creator." He will also say "Creation is 100% Scientific proof there was a creator."

This is the '''[[argument from design]]'''.

:*Ray, ''"When you look at a painting, how do you know there was a painter? The painting exists, get it?" ... "And creation proves there's 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.

Considering a human, for example. We know that humans are the result of a natural process (sexual reproduction). Science has proven to be the most reliable method for explaining reality and its reliability supports the position that, until evidence to the contrary is presented, natural explanations exist for all phenomena. Ray, and others, aver that the natural world must have a supernatural, intelligent creator...a position wholly unsupported by evidence.

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?"
:*Ray, ''"I mean, you can prove god Biblically, scientifically, without even pointing to scriptures, without even mentioning faith. We're going to teach people how to do that so we no longer need to feel intimidated by so-called intellectualism."''
Despite this claim, neither Ray, nor anyone else, has presented a "scientific" proof of the existence of God. This accomplishment, which may be definitionally impossible, would be the most significant scientific accomplishment in human history. It would be front-page news and the subject of considerable media coverage.

===The Banana Argument===

The '''[[banana argument]]''', in which Comfort points out several features of bananas that indicate they were designed for human use, was presented as evidence of a creator in the ''[[Way of the Master]]'' episode entitled "[[The Beauty of a Broken Spirit—Atheism (Way of the Master)|The Beauty of a Broken Spirit—Atheism]]". Although he called it "the atheist's worst nightmare" in the episode, he later conceded the weakness of the argument on the [[Hellbound Alleee]] show. Comfort still uses it, however, and promotes it in his [http://www.livingwaters.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=231 Atheist Test] tract.

A response to "The Atheist's Nightmare", by Nick Gisburne, can be found [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HW06Wz_R74 here.]
===Are you a good person?===
: ''Main article: [[Are you a good person?]]''

This argument uses the [[appeal to emotion]] and cherry-picking a version of the [[Ten Commandments]]. Comfort asks the unbeliever a set of questions. A nutshell version of the argument is as follows:
* Are you a good person? Are you sure?
* Have you ever lied in your life? Yes? Then you're a liar.
* God hates lies. You deserve to go to [[hell]].
* Luckily, you have Jesus. Hope you'll accept him.

Comfort will seize any admission of imperfection to condemn his interlocutor: stealing a piece of candy from a store when one was a child counts as a "yes" answer to "Have you ever stolen anything?" Comfort's god considers this equivalent to robbing a bank.
Of course, by Ray's logic, if you have ever told the truth, that means you are a truthful person, and if you ever do one good thing, you are a good person. By this standard, Hitler could be considered a good person, because it is nearly impossible to live your life without doing at least one thing that could be considered "good" by at least one person, (for example Adolf was a vegetarian and was kind to his dog, "Blondie") not to mention different people consider different things "good". White supremacists clearly thought what he was doing was good.

Determining if a person is "good" or not cannot be done by religious criteria. Ray Comfort's method of using the [[Ten Commandments]] is no more effective than using the 5 Pillars of Islam. To be good is to be moral, and if morality means anything, it is minimizing suffering and doing no harm. Hitler may have been a nice guy to those closest to him, but his overall impact on society heavily makes him pure evil.

===Parachute Analogy===
: ''Main article: [[Parachute Analogy]]''

This is Ray's favorite reversion of the argument known as [[Pascal's Wager]], where he tries to convince the listener to trust in Jesus as they would trust a parachute.

==Gospel Tracks==
Ray Comfort and Way of the Master produce many gospel tracks, all of which produce similar or exactly the same repeated argument presented by Ray Comfort in his books and Way of the master episodes. Ray tries to make the tracts appear appealing and desirable, tricking the public to take them and read them later. for instance, Ray prints gospel tracts on optical illusions, fake million dollar bills, penny presses, and such.

*''Saving Yourself Some Pain'' a gospel tract by Ray Comfort, presented to new Christians as well as non-Christians.
**Interestingly, Ray includes in Part 8 that a Christian should be baptized. This is important, since Ray constantly says all salvation requires is repentance and saved by grace, not be works. But right here, he shows that Christians should be baptized.
*''Scientific Facts of the Bible'' which is basically a shortened version of Ray's book [[Scientific Facts in the Bible (book) |Scientific Facts in the Bible]].

==Debate with the Rational Response Squad==
: ''For more information, see an entire article on RationalWiki that provides a walkthrough and point-by-point rebuttal to WOTM: [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rational_Response_Squad_debate_with_Way_of_the_Master Rational Response Squad debate with Way of the Master]
On May 5, 2007, RRS co-founder Brian Sapient and RRS member Kelly O'Connor participated in a live debate aired on Nightline with [[Ray Comfort]] and [[Kirk Cameron]]. Comfort and Cameron claimed they were able to show the existence of their god without the use of the [[Bible]] and [[faith]] (spoiler: they were wrong).

==Appearance on ''The Atheist Experience''==
: ''For more information, see an entire article on RationalWiki that provides a walkthrough and point-by-point rebuttal to WOTM: [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Atheist_Experience_debates_Ray_Comfort The Atheist Experience debates Ray Comfort]
On 27 March 2011, Ray Comfort was a call-in guest on [[The Atheist Experience]], with hosts [[Matt Dillahunty]] and [[Russell Glasser]].

==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]]: 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''

==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] As of 19th October 2011 this RationalWiki article duplicates quite a bit of material from here, editors at both sites are working to improve the situation.
* ''[http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ Atheist Central]'', Ray Comfort's weblog (former title: ''Comfort Food'').

{{wayofthemaster}}

[[Category:People|Comfort, Ray]]
[[Category:Christian apologists|Comfort, Ray]]

Hypocrisy of celebrating religious holidays

2011-10-24T20:12:05Z

Feredir28: /* Counter-apologetics */

This argument is most frequently used as a means of critisizing [[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 adress Anyones beliefs aside from identifying what they are, and then quite possibly critisizing 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 at discrediting the opponent or making 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.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas#Pre-Christian_background][http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/03/easter-pagan-symbolism][http://www.thercg.org/books/ttooe.html])

Another thing to point out is that 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.

{{Common objections}}

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

Are you a good person?

2011-10-20T18:23:39Z

Feredir28: /* Apologetics */ fix link

In discussing the necessity of accepting [[God]] and/or [[Jesus]], [[apologist]]s will often pose the question, "'''Are you a good person?'''" The idea is to sow the seeds of doubt in the listener's mind by using the [[Ten Commandments]] and play on the fear of eternal damnation to make belief in God more attractive. This is one of many cases where [[Religion provides hope#Religion also provides fear|Religion causes fear]] more clearly than hope.

See also [[Pascal's Wager]].

==Apologetics==

One version of the argument, as used by [[Ray Comfort]] for example, goes something like this:
* '''Apologist:''' Do you think you are a good person?
** '''Unbeliever:''' (Does not matter whether they answer yes or no or anything in-between, or even point out the errors in the question or present their own views on how to identify a good/bad person)
* '''Apologist:''' Well, let's find out if you are a good person. Have you ever told a lie?
** '''Unbeliever:''' Well yes, everybody has at some point...
* '''Ap:''' What are you called if you tell a lie?
** '''Un:''' A liar.
* '''Ap:''' Have you ever stolen anything, regardless of its value?
** '''Un:''' A little thing when I was young.
* '''Ap:''' What do you call a person who steals?
** '''Un:''' A thief.
* '''Ap:''' Jesus said that anybody who looked at a women in lust is guilty of adultery in his heart. Have you ever looked at a woman with lust?
** '''Un:''' Well, yeah.
* '''Ap:''' Have you ever used God's name in vain?
** '''Un:''' Yes.
* '''Ap:''' You've taken the name of the God who gave you life as a cuss word? Have you said things like "OMG" or "God dammit"? That's called blasphemy.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=According to [[Ray Comfort]] saying "oh my goodness" also counts, because no one is good and only God is good. "Oh my gosh" also counts.}}
* '''Ap:''' So, by your own admission, you are a lying, thieving, adulterous, blasphemer, and when [[Jesus]] comes again on judgment day, how do you think he's going to treat you? Would you go to heaven or hell?
* '''Ap:''' Now imagine you are in a court standing before the judge. You plead with the judge to have mercy and you point out that you have done many good things in your life, but since he is a righteous judge and you have violated the law, he must punish you. You are found guilty, but then suddenly a man you do not know walks in, approaches the judge and pays your fine. That is what Jesus Christ did for you. He died on the cross, and paid the fine for your sins.

The Apologist may follow up by using the [[Parachute Analogy|parachute argument]].

The apologist's goal of the "Have you ever told a lie?" question of this argument is to get the person to call themselves a liar. Should the mark not answer "liar" when the apologist asks the mark "What does that make you?", perhaps answering with "human", or "normal", etc., the apologist will counter with "If I told many lies, what would you call me?", and this usually draws out the word "liar" from the mark.

The lying part is supposedly connected to the 9th commandment; thou shalt not bear false witness. It should also be noted that [[Ray Comfort]] has no problem with lying should it suit his purposes. He has 'born false witness' against evolution and atheism on countless occasions knowing that what he was saying to be false.

==Counter-apologetics==
Really, this question should be re-written as "Are you a good Jew?" or something similar, since the [[Ten Commandments]] were given by God to the Jews - the Chosen People. These laws were not instructed for the Canaanites and such, only the Jews. Imagine if the same question was asked in the same manner, but rather than using the Ten Commandments as a criteria, instead use the 5 Pillars of Islam or the Eightfold Path of Buddhism. Of course the first objection would be that a religious bias is set up to examine a person if they follow the provided guidelines to impress said faith ("are you a good Muslim?" or "are you a good Buddhist?") However, none of these are actually attempting to discover if you really are an actual good person in the sense of the word. Rather, they are asking if you are worthy for the reward offered by said religion (in a sort of in-or-out fashion), not are you good in general.

To discover if a person is really good, the best criteria to use should be divorced from religion, and based more on secular humanitarian values. These values understand that humans are humans, which means they are all different and are all capable of experiencing many feelings, emotions, and actions. If good is based on morality, then morality by any definition is the reduction of harm and suffering. We do not harm children for drawing on walls, because they have no capacity to grasps the reasons for not doing this. We do not wish to harm others, but often times a person can find themselves in a bad situation. For instance, we harm people who are threats or robbers attempting to murder us. We have a rational basis for harming the robber in the act of self-denfense, and even Ray Comfort says killing a person in self-defense is justifiable [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Thunderf00t_debates_Ray_Comfort#Second_Debate] (despite Jesus saying turn the other cheek).

A second objection to this fallacious question (which was already pointed about above) is which of the Ten commandments is this criteria based on? If you read the IronChariots article on the [[Ten Commandments]], you will see that there are multiple different versions of the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments used as a criteria in this question were not written on stones, were not called the "Ten Commandments" nor are they the original. Does Ray Comfort go about asking people "Have you followed the 40-60 Judgments?" rather than "Have you kept the Commandments?" Just saying "Commandments" is very vague (although Comfort says he follows the traditional commandments) but the Greek and Hebrew word for "commandment" is word - and God gave 40-60 "words" in Exodus 21 to Exodus 23. Another note, there are 613 laws that God commanded the Jews to keep, does Ray (who says he is Jewish) follow any of those?

It is well known that the Bible is not a great source for determining whether a person is good or not. At one point, genuine Christians believed they were good people who followed their divine duty to kill Native Americans, witches and gays (and they do so to this day). In this sense, religion is used to dehumanize others (even to the point of demonic) thus eroding empathy and diminishing compassion and the guilt felt when abusing them. History clearly testifies about the horrors religion can enable. Even on smaller scales, religion enables parents to beat their children for simply misbehaving. At one point, you were a bad person if you were a male with long hair. You were wicked if you were suspected of practicing magic, but this stance disappeared when education and science revealed that this suspicion was without merit and thus was a false accusation.

There are many instances in the Ten Commandments that causes no identifiable harm, such as no work on the Sabbath. If the Bible declared ''"Smiling on a Tuesday was immoral and it was immoral to break this law"'', we would laugh at such a law because it does not cause harm and thus has no valid ground for declaring it immoral. If this was how morality worked, then any trivia (talking on a Friday, wearing lime-green, hopping on one foot for one yard, blinking one eye at a time) could be made immoral. We do not base morality from revelation from authority, that would render us merely obedient. Moral behavior is doing what is right, not what we are told (unless what we are told is also right). This is why when asking "why is X immoral", appealing to scripture or a divine figure gets us nowhere. There must be valid independent reasons to define what is moral, right or wrong, good or bad.

Science (the tools that help us discern what is true or false) can provide a larger contribution to moral development because it relies on reasoned logic and evidence. Empathy and experience (how our actions affect others) are human sources independent of religion that can help us determine how to be a good person. Religion needs these scientific moral progresses, but science does not need religion.

===Are Christians "good"?===
This section is not to declare that all Christians are not good, since there are plenty of Christians who live good lives. Rather, Christians and theist apologists may argue and declare that they are "good" because they follow the moral compass as their deity. Neurological advances are pulling back the curtain in religious moral thought. In a revealing study by Nicholas Eply (Eply, N. et al 2009, "Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 106), Christian volunteers were asked to report their own views, the views of their deity, and the views of others on a range of controversial issues (such as legal euthanasia) while having their brain activity scanned. Results show that thinking about divine views activated the same brain regions as thinking about their own views, indicating that when believing themselves to be consulting the divine moral compass, theists may instead be doing is doing what the rest of us do: searching their own conscience.

As noted earlier, simply following the demands of a divine being does not reveal a person as good, rather simply obedient. This brings up the problem of the [[divine command theory]], that if a theist's deity declared that genocide was morally right, then the theist must accept it regardless. If they do not, this reveals that the theist already follows their own moral compass despite the demands of an authoritative figure.

The God of the Bible commanded numerous atrocities such as familial cannibalism. Theists often say God is mysterious and beyond our understanding, but even still they believe God is just. If a human did commit familial cannibalism, we would immediately consider it depraved and immoral. This shows that God is not the source of our morality, and claiming God is just is a direct conflict, and invoking divine mystery does nothing to result that conflict. Responding to these atrocities with biblical examples of mercy is not helpful either, it just shows the Bible contains both mercy and atrocity. Hitler forgave people close to him and showed mercy, but that does not cancel out the immoral monster he was. Emphasizing the New Testament over the Old does not help either, given the numerous times when Jesus endorsed certain atrocities (such as Mt. 15:1-6).

Bottom line, using the Ten Commandments, Scripture, or personal views of a certain deity does not help in the slightest in determining whether or not a person is good or not - and as history reveals, it often leads people away from good behavior. The best way for us to determine and achieve goodness is secular humanitarian values and promoting education and understanding. Morality develops over time through experience and education, and yet the Bible's unjust teachings have not changed for centuries. The ancients did not know better, we do. It is not a virtue that religious dogma does not change, it is the utmost failing. Moral systems that cannot develop in responses to our greater understanding cannot edify, they ossify.

==More Counter-Apologetics==
Here are several reasons why this argument ad line of thinking fails;

* Another, substantially different set of rules is explicitly labeled as "the [[Ten Commandments]]" in {{bible|Exodus 34:12-26}}. None of them say anything about lying, thievery, adultery, and such. God does not refer to the rules in Exodus 20 as the "Ten Commandments" nor did he write them down in stone. Apologists dishonestly cherry-pick which version of the Commandments to fit their agenda without providing proper information.
* ''Have you ever told a lie in your life?'' Yes. ''What does that make you?'' Ray Comfort.
* Have you ever told the truth in your life? Yes? Then you're a truth-teller. God loves truth-tellers... Have you ever told a lie? You have? Wow, you really are honest!
* Being imperfect isn't the same as being [[evil]].
* The Commandment "Thou shall not lie" '''is not there. Period.''' Thou shall not lie is completely incorrect. The correct Commandment is that "thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor." That is, you shall not produce false testimony against your neighbor. Bearing false witness actually has to do with property and dealing in the courts, not just simply lying about someone else. Read [[9th commandment|the IronChariots article on the Ninth Commandment]] to see why lying is not forbidden, as well as a list of several examples of liars in the Bible who were rewarded by God or were not being punished at all.
** While Revelations 21:8 condemns liars, it is not a Commandment. It is therefore irrelevant to Ray's above argument.
* Bearing false witness against your neighbor is a misinterpretation of the [[9th commandment]]. Most ancient systems of justice were "guilty until proven innocent". After an accusation was made, one would be asked to prove his or her innocence or be punished for the presumed act. If a person could prove their innocence, their accuser would be guilty of false witness and might be put to death. The act of accusing a person of a crime was a more serious one in the past than it is today with our "innocent until proven guilty" standard; the closest analogy would be filing a false police report, rather than simply lying.
* Do not take God's name in vain is not simply cursing or shouting "Oh my God" or "OMG." There are verses that explain what counts as blasphemy that Ray Comfort does not tell you. Taking the Lord God's name in vain actually has more to do with false promises and oaths, or more specifically false promises and oaths that have not been kept in the name of Yahweh. See the Oxford Bible commentary and the Jewish Study Bible.
* Taking the Lord's name in vain to mean cursing is a mistranslation of the [[3rd commandment]]. The more proper translation (seen in many better translations) is takes the name of God in a false oath, or in a vain oath. It is a prohibition against swearing to God falsely, effectively turning the third commandment into grounds on which a trustworthy contract could be made.
* ''I once stole some candy as a kid.'' "What do you call someone who steals?" ''A thief.'' Actually, in Christian doctrine called Age of Accountability. It is not explicit in the Bible, but it is implicit and explains even though a child is born in sin, they really cannot be held accountable for their sin. Nice try Ray.
* In the book of Genesis, Jacob steals from his brother, lies to his father, and is continually rewarded by god.
* Jesus himself is fine with stealing. In Mark 11:2-4, Matt 21:2-3, and Luke 19:30-31, Jesus instructs two of his disciples to go into a village (perhaps Bethany) and locate a colt tied up near the entrance, and to return with it. If someone stopped them they were to explain that the Lord had need of it. Otherwise, they were simply to steal the colt without paying for it or obtaining permission. Thus, Jesus would be guilty of thievery.
* "Adultery" in the Bible did not depend on the man's marital status, but the woman's. Bloodline was reckoned through the male. "To adulterate" means to introduce a foreign substance into something, thus adultery meant corrupting another man's bloodline by having sex with another man's wife.
* Looking at a woman in lust is a thought crime. Lust isn't a conscious action, and one is to be punished for human nature.
* All humans perform acts in their lifetimes that could be described as bad, good and every shade of gray in between. The truth is, one action does not define an individual's entire character. Furthermore, this act of "spot judgment" is the very thing the [[Bible]] prohibits [[Christian]]s from doing to others in {{bible|Matthew 7:1-5}}, {{bible|Mark 4:24}} and {{bible|Luke 6:37-42}}.
* The argument relies on drawing an equivalence between minor imperfections and grave crimes: shoplifting a piece of candy from a store when one was a child is equivalent to robbing a bank as an adult. Because the crime (sin) is against an infinite God, it demands an infinite punishment, regardless of the severity.
* The words "liar", "thief", etc. apply to those who lie or steal habitually or more than average, or in reference to a specific instance that negatively affected the speaker. To apply the word "liar" to all who have ever lied would not only render the word meaningless, but is a dishonest use of words.
* The biblical God is also guilty of lying (told Abraham that he had to kill Issac, made it appear that Lazarus was dead, etc.), stealing (at least by proxy... See pretty much all of the Book of Joshua), adultery (um... Mary anyone? anyone?) and even murder (everybody really, but of course specifically Canaanites, Amorites, et.al.). Pretty tough for a "Just Judge" to sentence someone to eternal punishment for sins he himself is guilty of... right?
* The argument is a poor one to use on [[atheist]]s since they don't believe that any gods exist and so don't give the opinions and judgments of purported gods any weight at all.
* An honest person would not answer if he or she was a "good person" as it is an subjective opinion. It would be similar to asking, "Are you a handsome person?" or "Are you an intelligent person?"
* "What are you called if you tell a lie?" "Well, since everybody lies at some point, I suppose I would be called a human being."
* "Have you ever looked at a woman with lust?" Think about what this commandment is saying: "God has to punish you because the sex drive ''He'' put in you is working properly", which makes absolutely no logical sense. Another rebuttal could be: "Of course I did. If I didn't, I wouldn't have wanted to marry her. How long would the human race survive if people didn't want have sex with each other?"
* Given the choice between a certain death by plane crash and using a parachute that might save one's life, the rational decision would be to use the parachute. What one believes about the parachute is irrelevant. If someone did not know what a parachute was, then they wouldn't believe it would be useful. Knowledge is always superior to blind faith.
* A country in which a person was tortured for the rest of their life for a single lie or a thought-crime would be considered absolutely barbaric. A God who uses this sort of penal system is just as barbaric, yet the believers twist their logic and their sense of morality to assume that he is perfect and therefore so is his system. They might argue that he must punish us because he is so perfect and he can't stand one sin. But this makes no sense. A grownup is more civilized than a child, and this doesn't give him reason to punish children more severely. If your teacher is a mathematical genius, that's no reason for her to give you stricter marks than if she was just an average teacher.
* Brainwashing works by first lowering a person's self-esteem, and then raising them back up. Which is what is done here: make the unbeliever feel guilty and small, then bring out the good news of how Jesus will forgive him anyway. Some sects can use similar tactics to lure unsuspecting people in: Give them a personality test, the results of which supposedly show how completely messed up the person is, then say "Fortunately, we can help you."
* Often, people who use this mantra are basing this on the idea that God will judge one based on the ten commandments. Yet they never ask: "Have you ever worked on a Sunday?" Most likely, few of them would consider the latter immoral.

==See also==
* [[Ray Comfort]], who often uses this argument has has a problem with the truth himself.
* [[Morality]]
* [[Secular morality]]

==External links==
* [http://www.christiananswers.net/gospel/goodperson.html An essay by Ray Comfort] advancing the argument
* [http://www.areyouagoodperson.org/ Interactive quiz] based on this argument

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Morality]]

Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe

2011-10-18T20:15:29Z

Feredir28: /* External links */

The '''Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe''', or "CTMU" for short, is an alleged proof of the existence of God proposed by Christopher Langan. Many consider it to be an example of [[Argumentum verbosium]] -- an effort to impress the reader with sophisticated sounding wording in order to bypass efforts at critical examination.

This is an excerpt from the description of the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe.

{{Quote|In the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe or CTMU, the set of all sets, and the real universe to which it corresponds, take the name (SCSPL) of the required extension of set theory. SCSPL, which stands for Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language, is just a totally intrinsic, i.e. completely self-contained, language that is comprehensively and coherently (self-distributively) self-descriptive, and can thus be model-theoretically identified as its own universe or referent domain. Theory and object go by the same name because unlike conventional ZF or NBG set theory, SCSPL hologically infuses sets and their elements with the distributed (syntactic, metalogical) component of the theoretical framework containing and governing them, namely SCSPL syntax itself, replacing ordinary set-theoretic objects with SCSPL syntactic operators.}}

==External links==
* [http://www.ctmu.org/ CTMU home page]
* [http://anamericanatheist.org/2011/04/07/my-criticism-of-chris-langans-ctmu-theory/ ''My criticism of Chris Langan’s CTMU theory'' by Tom Beasley]
:* [http://anamericanatheist.org/2011/04/09/chris-langans-defense-to-his-ctmu-theory/ ''Chris Langan’s defense to his CTMU theory'', Chris Langan's response to the above]
* [http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath/2011/02/11/another-crank-comes-to-visit-the-cognitive-theoretic-model-of-the-universe/ ''Another Crank comes to visit: The Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe'' by MarkCC]

[[Category:Argumentation]]
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]

Talk:You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think (book)

2011-10-18T19:25:25Z

Feredir28:

What's a "Poe"? [[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 13:57, 18 October 2011 (CDT)
:Someone who pretends to be someone, while acting very obnoxious, and is mistaken for the real thing. A Poe is someone who is very difficult to distinguish if they are the real thing, which cannot be concluded unless they admit it. I admit, I have encountered atheists on YouTube who act like dumb Christians, and the viewers fall for it. I hope that is a satisfactory answer. [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 14:25, 18 October 2011 (CDT)

Defender's Guide for Life's Toughest Questions (book)

2011-10-18T18:17:28Z

Feredir28: adding category

__NOTOC__

'''''Defender's Guide for Life's Toughest Questions''''' is a book authored by [[Ray Comfort]]. The book was published in 2011.

==Content==
Ray Comfort constructed this book in response to certain objections from non-Christians, [[skeptic]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[secular humanist]]s, and such. Comfort claims that young Christians are leaving their [[faith]] because they are unprepared for the [[science]] of [[evolution]]. Comfort provides his readers with his own brand of illogical apologetic material. The Product Description of this book on Amazon.com reads:
<blockquote>
The Internet has given the average skeptic the ability to cut and paste the cream of anti-Christian atheistic arguments, and become an instant Richard Dawkins clone, who can eloquently stump the average believer with seemingly tough questions. However, even the toughest of questions has an answer. This book will place that answer in your hands and confirm to you that the foundation of the Christian faith is as solid as a rock.<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Defenders-Guide-Lifes-Toughest-Questions/dp/0890516049</ref>
</blockquote>
As this review will show, the "tough questions" Ray Comfort tries to respond to are not the toughest, but Comfort tries his best regardless. Many times, he does not fully address the whole question, present the full argument, or even provide a valid argument for faith. <ref>[[RationalWiki]] gets together quite a few of those tough questions that Christians cannot answer without [[Deceit|lies]] half truths and evasions, see [[:Category:Christianity|Category:Christianity]].</ref>

==Preface==
Comfort begins by sharing a common poster used by atheists that lists several important historical figures as atheists. The list includes [[Albert Einstein]], [[Thomas Jefferson]], [[Benjamin Franklin]], [[Charles Darwin]], [[Abraham Lincoln]], [[Mark Twain]], [[Carl Sagan]], and Ernest Hemingway. Comfort tries to quote each person to show that they were not in fact atheists but instead theists; but he has a history of deliberately and willfully quote-mining. The only person on the list he concludes was an atheist is Ernest Hemingway, but tries to paint him as a depressed alcoholic who committed suicide. Comfort then claims outright that atheists are "unthinking" men, then providing a quote from Sir Isaac Newton addressing atheism. In summary, he says atheists are closed, put their faith in erroneous information and harden themselves from God and Christianity while using the Bible to support this claim.

Comfort only addresses the people in the poster, but does not mention other prominent figures from the past and present who are atheist.

Did the above men believe in God? Here are the quotes Comfort provides for each person:
Thomas Jefferson - "I have thought religion a concern purely between God and our consciences, for which we are accountable to him, and not to the priests." The truth is Jefferson was not an atheist, he was a Deist. He did however, despise religion,
<blockquote>
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites." -Thomas Jefferson<ref>http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/superstition-christianity-quotation</ref>
</blockquote>

Albert Einstein (whom Comfort claims was angry that atheists had lied about his religious position) is quoted as saying "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views." Comfort conveniently leaves out the following quotes from Einstein:
<blockquote>
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." -Albert Einstein </blockquote>
<blockquote>
"Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression. Mistrust of every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude toward the convictions that were alive in any specific social environment - an attitude that has never again left me, even though, later on, it has been tempered by a better insight into the causal connections." -Albert Einstein<ref>http://atheism.about.com/od/einsteingodreligion/tp/Was-Einstein-an-Atheist-.htm</ref>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -Albert Einstein<ref>letter to an atheist (1954) as quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side (1982) edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman</ref>
</blockquote>

Mark Twain (whom Comfort claims despised religion, but was not an atheist), "None of us can be as great as God, but any of us can be as good." It is difficult to pinpoint Twain's views, since he often shows hints of theism and atheism at times.

Benjamin Franklin (whom Comfort claims loved God for giving him life), "It is that particular wise and good God, who is the author and owner of our system, that I propose the object of my praise and adoration." In one of his youthful essays he professes a sort of polytheistic belief as shown by the following extracts: "I conceive, then, that the Infinite has created many beings or gods vastly superior to man...It may be these created gods are immortals; or it may be that after many ages, they are changed, and others supply their places." Franklin was not an Atheist; he did not deny the existence of a God; he believed in a God; but his God was the humane conception of Deism and not the God of Christianity. His biographer, Parton, says: "He escaped the theology of terror, and became forever incapable of worshiping a jealous, revengeful, and vindictive God" (Life of Franklin, Vol. i., p. 71).

Comfort says that [[Charles Darwin]] was disillusioned with Christianity, but was far from being an atheist.
<blockquote>
"When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist." -Charles Darwin <ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=lBYuCMyaS4MC&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=%22When+thus+reflecting+I+feel+compelled+to+look+to+a+First+Cause+having+an+intelligent+mind+in+some+degree+analogous+to+that+of+man;+and+I+deserve+to+be+called+a+Theist.%22&source=bl&ots=syd7WC6kv5&sig=zGY4ASL5QhgF1Y4h1f38zSwR65g&hl=en&ei=0YAITo5CivfSAcLKxcQL&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22When%20thus%20reflecting%20I%20feel%20compelled%20to%20look%20to%20a%20First%20Cause%20having%20an%20intelligent%20mind%20in%20some%20degree%20analogous%20to%20that%20of%20man%3B%20and%20I%20deserve%20to%20be%20called%20a%20Theist.%22&f=false</ref>
</blockquote>
The above quote comes from Darwin in his early life in the 1840's, until 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."

President Abraham Lincoln (whom Comfort claims revered God), "While we are grateful to all the brave men and officers for the past few days, we should, above all, be very grateful to Almighty God, who gave us victory." John T. Stuart, Lincoln's first law partner: "He was an avowed and open infidel, and sometimes bordered on Atheism...He went further against Christian beliefs and doctrines and principles than any man I ever heard." If Infidelity and Atheism were synonymous terms it would be difficult to maintain that Lincoln, during the last years of his life at least, was an Infidel. But Infidelity and Atheism are not synonymous terms. An Atheist is an Infidel, but an Infidel is not necessarily an Atheist. A Presbyterian is a Christian, but all Christians are not Presbyterians. Christians themselves coined the word Infidel, and they have used it to denote a disbeliever in Christianity.

Finally, Carl Sagan (whom Comfort says met his Maker after dying of cancer), "An agnostic is somebody who does not believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I'm agnostic." Ray says he died an agnostic.

==Chapter 1: Humanity: Rights and Suffering==
===First Comment===
The first question from atheists addresses Comfort's continual use of pointing out Charles Darwin's racism while not admitting that racism and slavery are found in the Bible.

Comfort admits that the Bible does condone slavery and encourages it, but Comfort tries to soften the issue by claiming that usage of the word "slave" in the Bible is not the same as we picture slaves in the American south. "Slave" in the Bible, according to Comfort, means "servant", and the Old testament condemns "man-stealing" (Exodus 21:16). Comfort also admits that the Bible was used to justify slavery, as well as many other atrocities (such as Hitler, genocide, etc.), but points out that this does not shake the message of the Bible.

Let's first address Darwin and his alleged racism. While the views of Darwin are irrelevant to the subject of evolution, it is important to know virtually all Englishmen in Darwin's time viewed blacks as culturally and intellectually inferior to Europeans. Some men of that time (such as Louis Agassiz, a staunch creationist) went so far as to say that they were a different species. Charles Darwin was a product of his time and no doubt viewed non-Europeans as inferior in some aspects, but he was far more liberal than most: He vehemently opposed slavery (Darwin 1913, especially chap. 21), and he contributed to missionary work to better the condition of the native Tierra del Fuegans. He treated people of all races with compassion.

Now, does Comfort's view of the Bible and slavery agree with what the Bible actually says? Many translations of the Bible use the word "servant", "bondservant", or "manservant" instead of "slave" to make the Bible seem less immoral than it really is. While many slaves may have worked as household servants, that doesn't mean that they were not slaves who were bought, sold, and treated worse than livestock. According to Leviticus, you can purchase and treat slaves like property:
<blockquote>
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)
</blockquote>

Remember, Jesus never said a word about abolishing slavery. If Jesus is the perfect moral guide as many Christians proclaim he is, how can he miss something as important as slavery? Instead, Jesus says that disobedient slaves will be punished (Luke 12:47-48). Other parts of the Bible also condone slavery and punishment of slaves. Paul had every opportunity to write in one of his Epistles that human slavery -- the owning of one person as a piece of property by another -- is profoundly evil. His letter to Philemon would have been an ideal opportunity to vilify slavery, but he wrote not one word of criticism.

Comfort mentions Exodus 21:26, but the very next verse says "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death." The reality is the verse 21:26 does not say "do not steal another person", instead it is more like "do not steal a slave that does not belong to you." This same chapter goes into detail about how to beat your slaves, and it forgives those who beat and kill their slaves. If you read the beginning, it allows you to buy one slave, but you must set him free on the seventh year. If you have "given" him a wife and she bears children, then you get to keep the wife and kids. If he refuses to leave his family when his seven years are up, then bore a hole though his ear and keep him forever.

===Second Comment===
The second comment is rather an anonymous person saying that they are uncomfortable with their own mortality and the mortality of their family, friends and "species." Comfort jumps into this, saying that some people think they will live for a long time, and take refuge in drugs and alcohol. He goes on to say he plans to live a long and healthy life. At the end, Comfort claims that the universe was not an accident and that our conscience tells us that we have sinned against God's "perfect" law. Comfort also calls [[Hell]] a reality, but not once even attempts to provide any proof of such a place.

This is not as much of an objection as the other comments. The person sees that their days are numbered, but it does not go any deeper than this. Many would argue that a mortal life is what give us purpose and meaning. It drives us to live life to the fullest. What would be the point of living if you would live for an eternity?

===Third Comment===
The third comment is a person telling Comfort to stop using his criminal justice analogy, because it is flawed and that this has been pointed out to Comfort numerous times. Comfort claims that this is the first time someone has told him this, and whoever said this made this claim too rashly and without thinking about it. He says there is nothing wrong with a father paying his son's speeding ticket. According to Comfort, this is what God did when he came to earth as a man and sacrificed himself to save us. <ref>There is a great deal wrong with a father paying his son's speeding ticket, the son is less likely to learn to avoid dangerous speeding. Similarly Christians too often get into a pattern of repeat sinning and repeatedly asking to be forgiven.</ref>

Why not just forgive? God sacrifices himself unto himself to appease himself for the creation he made for the punishment he demanded. Makes perfect sense to Christians but not to infidels!

If this is the first time Comfort has heard criticism of his criminal justice analogy, then it seems he tries to remain closed. However, now he cannot claim ignorance of not hearing it, but what he does not provide in the comment is any type of rebuttal to Ray's analogy.

Is it moral or just to pay for someone else's crimes? Try walking into a court room and convincing a judge to throw ''you'' in prison instead of a deadly terrorist.

===Fourth Comment===
Fourth question: Do you believe the [[Holocaust]] was God's punishment for the Jews? Comfort says he never claimed God used Hitler to commit genocide. Comfort calls himself a Jew and is as guilty as any other Gentile violating God's law. Comfort recalls the history of the Jews' struggle with God. God removed his hand of protection when they sinned, but returned through mercy. Comfort says God brought the Jews their nation in 1948, but they are still surrounded by enemies who wish to eliminate them.

Comfort says that the Nazis believed they were eliminating the "weaker races", which was promoted by Darwin in his book ''Descent of Man.'' Darwin never proposed the elimination of any race or specie, nor did the Nazis get any of their ideas from Darwin. The Nazi Party in general rejected Darwinism and supported Christianity. In 1935, ''Die Bücherei'', the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, published a list of guidelines of works to reject, including:
<blockquote>
Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel). (Die Bücherei 1935, 279)
</blockquote>

Incidentally God, according to atheism did not use the holocaust as a punishment because God does not exist. Christians and Jews have the difficult question, [[problem of evil#Jews and the Old Testament|why God allowed the holocaust]].

===Fifth Comment===
The fifth comment talks about how God has the power to stop all the suffering and evil in the world, but [[Problem of evil#Can't or won't|chooses not to]]. Comfort points to Genesis 3 and Romans 5, saying that we all have sinned and that it is our fault the world acts like this. We ''have not all sinned'', children below the age of about seven are innocent but quite often suffer, sometimes severely.

Comfort half-answers the problem of God stopping rapists and murderers, because God sees blasphemers, fornicators, and such as extremely evil and that they can only be stopped through conversion. Comfort says that the commenter is not sincere about stopping evil because the commenter will not start with himself.

This "rebuttle" still ignores the fact that God does not prevent evil and suffering. If God is omniscient, then he presumably already knew beforehand that such evil would exist before Creation, and if God is omnipotent and has free will, then he can prevent a murder from taking place, but chooses not to.

If conversion is the only way to stop such evil, Comfort does not even start with himself. He is a liar and [[hypocrite]], and yet pretends to be a better person by being converted. As pointed out to Ray in a [[Rational Response Squad debate with Way of the Master|debate with the Rational Response Squad]], if all a murderer has to do in order to get into Heaven is to accept Jesus, that provides every evil person with a "get out of Jail Free Card." Hitler accepted Jesus, as did many Popes, the KKK, rapists, liars, racists, and many others. But according to Ray, they are saved as long as they accept Jesus.

===Sixth Comment===
The person in the sixth comment asks if anyone could address the Bible's low opinion of women. In the questioner's view, the Bible is more damaging to society than porn. Comfort says that this person does not know their Bible, or at the least gets their information from atheist websites. He tells them to read the book of [[Guide to Ruth|Ruth]] and the Book of [[Guide to Esther|Esther]], both books value women who are obedient handmaidens to men. Comfort also suggests that they read the parts in the New Testament about a sinful woman washing Jesus' feet and Jesus saving an adulteress from being stoned to death by an angry crowd. Next, he encourages them to read the Epistles that tell women to love their husbands. He encourages them to read the Bible and goes on to [[Stereotype]] all atheists and claim that in an atheist worldview, women are just sex tools.

Okay, let's read the books of Ruth and Esther. For the record, books containing a title of a female name does not mean it is less sexist. In Ruth 1:14, Ruth loved Naomi as Adam loved Eve (Gigitty-giggitty). In Ruth 3, it shares a story of Ruth being instructed on how to seduce Boaz by hiding in his bedroom, possibly getting him drunk and <s>sleeping with him</s> asking him to marry her, which she does. After all that nice <s>seduction</s> marriage proposal, Ruth tells Boaz that modestly she is his handmaiden. Later on in Ruth 4:10 "Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife" Boaz purchases Ruth to be his wife.

In Esther, King Ahasuerus throws a party and encourages his guests to drink to excess. Then, when they are all drunk, he orders Queen Vashti to show her stuff before him and his guests. She refuses and thus stripped of her royalty as queen. Because of Vashti's disobedience, the king decrees that "all the wives shall give to their husbands honor, both the great and the small" and "that every man should bear rule over his own house." He then demands that all the women in the land come forth to please him and the winner would be queen. The winner is Esther, who later accuses several men and they are quickly hung. She then convinces the king to slaughter all Jew-haters and their families from Egypt to Ethiopia. When all the killing is done, the Jews go off to party (this is the origin of the holiday Purim).

Moving on to the New Testament. The story of Jesus saving an adulterer from being stoned does not appear at all in the original gospel. In fact, it does not appear until several hundred years later, inserted by an unknown author who never met Jesus and thus made up this story. What did Paul have to say about women? "Women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate as the law also says (Genesis 3:16)"

In an atheist worldview? Atheism is not a world view. This has been made clear to Ray, but he refuses to acknowledge this fact just to excuse himself to bash atheism. If atheists viewed women as sex objects, then why do atheists have fewer divorces than Christians?

===Seventh Comment===
This person says they do not receive morals from God, who committed many atrocities (such as killing everything in the [[global flood]] and murdering his own son) and is thankful that God does not exist. Comfort's first response is to accuse the person of not understanding the Bible. Comfort claims that not all animals were killed; sea-life still lived, the animals on the Ark, and Noah and his family lived. He then addresses God's sacrifice of his own son. Comfort says that Christ was actually God, citing John 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3:16. Next, Comfort addresses God's drowning of the Pharaoh's army. Comfort mentions that God warned the Pharaoh ten times, but Comfort does not mention that God ''hardened'' the Pharaoh's heart to say no, so God knew and purposely made Pharaoh say no ten times. Finally, Comfort agrees with the commenter, and that God did indeed send fire and brimstone upon Sodom and Gomorrah because he did not like their behavior.

There is a whole list of atrocities committed by God.<ref>http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Debunking_Christians/Page20.htm</ref> Such as 1 Samuel 6 (God kills 5 farmers just for a petty offense of worshiping him wrong, then he smites 50,000 of the other inhabitants who had no involvement) and 1 Samuel 25 (God murders Nabal just for being morally obligated to his workers), see [[Examples of God personally killing people]]. The commenter is correct that God has performed many horrible things, and it is good thing that we do not receive morals from the Bible. Here is something Ray does not share about the verses he provided. 1 Timothy is considered by the vast vast majority of critical scholars not to have been written by Paul (along with 2 Timothy and Titus). The description of Jesus in John 1:1 conflicts with the worldview of the earlier gospel authors.

As already confirmed by science, the global flood never happened. The Ark is just a fictional myth. It is impossible to fit every animal onto the Ark, let alone build an Ark to sustain itself against a global flood. All models proposed by creationists have no evidence and have been deeply criticized as vague, no predictive value, and conflicts with physics.<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html</ref>

Could the aquatic creatures survive the Flood? No. Even the slightest pollution can cause many freshwater invertebrate species to disappear from streams. Also, aquatic organisms would have more than salinity to worry about, such as the following: Heat, acid, substrate, and pressure.<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH541.html</ref>

===Eighth Comment===
The person asks what is the big deal with using "foul language". Ray's first response is, "if you are an atheist, you can't say anything is morally "wrong". Basically, an atheist's perspective and stance on morality is based on what society deems moral and immoral. This is absurd.

Ray says that the morality Christians stand on is immovable, like the [[Ten Commandments]] written in stone. Comfort says the Commandments talk about murder, envy, pride, fornication, lust, greed, and adultery. Ray Comfort got all of these wrong. The only Commandments in the Old Testament that were written in stone were the ones in Exodus 34, and none of them include or address any of the above. If the Christian morality is immovable, how does Ray explain the thousands of years of Christian cruelty?

Ray says foul language violates God law in Colossians 3:8 "But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth". The same chapter says coveting is evil. By this standard, the economy is evil.
Further on, Colossians 3:18 says "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord".
3:20 commands "Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord". This verse has been often used by abusive parents.

Ray includes a study of volunteers who placed their hands in cold water and repeatably cursed. Ray says with no doubt the swearing included blasphemy, but provides no reference at all.

===Ninth Comment===
A well-known question: Why won't God heal amputees? Ray's response is rather dodgy. He asks how does this person know if this has ever happened since Creation or "somewhere else other than his very limited world?" Is Ray suggesting that God heals amputees on other planets? The question is still unanswered, "Why won't God heal amputees here?"

Ray focuses that the person is limited in knowledge, and to make such a claim requires omniscience. Next, he asks the reader to look at their arm and "see" God's creation. Looking at our arms or legs fails to answer why amputated limbs are never restored.

Ray hammers the point you are not an animal, since you have the ability to reason. Unfortunately for Ray we ''are'' animals. 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.

The real challenge to this question, which Ray does not address in full, is why God won't heal amputees when asked. Jesus promised:
* If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. [Matthew 21:21]
* If you ask anything in my name, I will do it. [John 14:14]
* Ask, and it will be given you. [Matthew 7:7]
* Nothing will be impossible to you. [Matthew 17:20]
* Believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. [Mark 11:24]
The question, therefore, is simple: Are Jesus' statements in the Bible true or false? By looking at amputees, we can see that something is wrong. Jesus is not telling the truth. God never answers prayers to spontaneously restore lost limbs, despite Jesus' statements in the Bible.

===Last Comment===
Finally, near the end of this chapter, Ray quickly addresses evolution. He uses an article from TalkOrigins that addresses the definition of evolution. It points out several definitions that do not completely work, since they leave out some of the details. Ray Comfort latches onto this and says that since there is not a clear definition of evolution, it is open for anyone's views and therefore cannot be falsified. What Ray purposely does not show is the same article does include a definition proposed by a scientist is the universal accepted definition of evolution by the scientific community. Ray does briefly mention it, but Ray says the definition is what the particular science ''believes'' it to be.

==Chapter 2: The Bible: Biblical ad Theological Issues==

==Chapter 3: Science: Scientific Thought and Evolution==
Ray Comfort starts off by informing us that he read [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] book ''On the Origin of Species'', but claims if Darwin was alive today he would be ranked with the top of Disney's imaginative crew, making big bucks writing science fiction in Hollywood. Unfortunately, not only is this just despicable [[ad hominem]] originating from Comfort's world of ignorance and religious fantasy, it is very falsely demeaning to one of the greatest minds of the time. Charles Darwin was not "imagining" evidence or observable reality. In fact, his ideas were sprouting all across the academia. Around Darwin's time, the British empire and sea trade expanded globally, and many scientists went on voyages to observe and document nature. The same observations made by Charles Darwin was also seen by many other scientists, most notably [[Alfred Wallace]]. The father of biogeography, Alfred Wallace was coming up with his own ideas for the obvious fact of speciation, fossils, biological diversity, and such at the same time as Darwin. His ideas, as well as numerous other scientists, were practically parallel to Darwin's views, notably Wallace also discovered [[Natural selection]] but did not use Darwin's term. Darwin is given the credit for being the one to not just document it, but came up with the term [[natural selection]] and fabulously presented its case to the whole academia.

Next, Ray Comfort addresses Darwin's "racism" from the book ''On the Descent of Man''.

Ray says that Darwin believed that bears who swam for long periods of time with their mouth open (digesting insects from the water) would eventually turn into whales. Ray also says that Darwin believed that giraffes neck grew so long because they needed to "swish away flies" (no reference given). Finally, Ray says Darwin "wondered" about the baldness of a vulture, and perhaps it was because their rubbed their heads on rotten meat.

Ray says anyone who reads the ''Origin of Species'' can read Darwin's "own explanation as to why there is no empirical evidence for his model." That is, no immediate varieties. Ray Comfort compares the fossils to the Mormon Golden Plates, and the only difference is that the Mormons say the plates went missing whereas Darwin say that there should be ''millions'' of fossils, but to this day they all remain missing. Ray Comfort does not give a single reference as to when and where Darwin said there should be "millions" of fossils and that not a single fossil has been found.

Ray points out that God is nowhere mentioned in Darwin's books. That is God was never involved in shaping animals as they are. Ray finally says that Tolkien, Arthur C. Clark, and J.K. Rowling do not hold a candle to Charles Darwin, but then goes on to address several "objections and statements" from anonymous supporters of evolution.

===First Person===
The first objection addresses the fact that there are mountains of evidence to support evolution, even though it is not perfect it is better than believing in magic. The anonymous person asks if Ray is afraid to look at the evidence, and welcomes Ray to visit his blog (which is not provided in this book). Ray says a "simple-minded man" once believed Pinocchio was true, and said he had evidence to support it. His evidence: a doll described as that in the story and a photo of a child who looked just like the doll, from that he concluded that the doll came to life. This man (Ray never names him) said that his theory was scientific and anyone who disagreed was being unscientific. Ray links this to atheists - a person who does not believe in God, but accepts life came from non-life and the wild speculation of evolution. Ray says many people are gullible, as evident due to his experience as a magician and tricking people. People believe a whale had legs because of some bump in its side or "some amino-acids means that chickens were once dinosaurs."

Any middle-schooler who passed general science can tell why Ray's Pinocchio argument is fallacious. First of all, Ray does not name who this person was, nor their credentials, backgrounds, etc. Second, simply comparing pictures and drawing up links without any empirical proof is not that different than when Ray looks at the earth and claims that an invisible creator did it.

When Ray says "atheist think..." right there he is already lying. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god(s), it has nothing to do with views of origins. So why do many people believe life can come from non-life? Perhaps it is because of the evidence supporting [[abiogenesis]].

Ray Comfort claims to have looked at the evidence for evolution and is not afraid to look at the "starter information" because the finish does not exist. Ray concludes the argument is over when God reveals himself to you. What Ray should have said is that he is not afraid to look at poor sources and dismiss them out of hand. He dares not go and address professional biologists, neither for his books or his program Way of the Master. If anyone here is gullible, it is those who are fall prey to magic tricks like Ray Comfort: magic man in the sky done all of it. As for why people believe whales have legs, Ray seriously lacks the anatomical education, but we can see today that certain whales are born with legs. These lost traits are called atavisms - another proof for evolution.

===Second Person===
The next anonymous person from the Duke University Medical Center talks about the appendix and that new material has shown that it is useful for storing bacteria. William Parker said it was time to "correct the textbooks" and from this Ray declares that this was an honest move of declaration the theory of evolution is wrong. Ray says for years the appendix was used as evidence for the theory, now it has been shown to serve a critical function and (like a child) Ray suddenly bursts into saying things like: There's no admittance of wrong. They discovered that God made it for a reason...Of course, believers will parrot that there is no need for an apology because science is never "wrong." Ray says that he is not bothered what people believe, so long that it does not conflict with the "truth of Christianity" and "causes them to reject the gospel."

Nowhere in this study does it say that the appendix is not a vestigial, nor that vestigial means useless. It only means it lost its original function, and this study seems to show that it has formed a new function. This is certainly not a declaration that the theory of evolution is wrong, nor would the entire theory rest on one appendix when compared to the vast amounts of evidence from many fields of science.

What Ray is very worried about is not whether something is true or can be clearly demonstrated to be true, it does not matter to Ray. Ray only holds dearly to he presupposition that the Bible is literally true and nothing can conflict with its contents. Ray is not worried about discovering the truth, only as long as it is his truth. Unfortunately for Ray, the evidence overwhelmingly sides with reality: evolution is a fact. Ray will never accept this, because it conflicts with a literal translation of the Bible, which means his faith binds him to live in a world of ignorance.

===Third Person and Reply===
The next piece deals with an atheist responding to a Christian. The Christian instructs people to put a frog in a blender, blend it, pour the remains on a table, and see if life "hops" out since all the ingredients for life are present. Is Ray seriously suggesting that people carry out this cruelty? The atheist responds that it is dead, and the frog took billions of years to appear on earth, and then the atheist speculates (very clearly speculates) that if the remains were brought to an alien planet, perhaps something would happen.

Ray says the atheist "obviously doesn't know what atheistic evolution believes." Ray describes it as in the beginning there were no remain and no "conditions" for life. There was no water, no sunlight, no air, no DNA, NOTHING. Ray says that atheists believe everything came from nothing, but they respond with "who made God?" Ray does not answer, instead he rather calls them "an unthinking mind" and rationalizes itself because they refuse to accept the eternity of God.

Obviously, Ray does not have the slightest clue what evolution is all about. First of all, evolution is not atheistic. There are hundreds of theistic evolutionist scientists, and the theory of evolution as a whole does not rule out God. It only rules out a literal interpretation of two chapters of the Genesis account. This is the only problem Ray has with evolution, and he will label it whatever he can to deceive others.

So according to Ray, there were no life-forming conditions and elements at the beginning of the earth. Unfortunately, science easily refutes this. The conditions for life have remained constant. Cell theory requires that all living organisms are made of cells, and to have cells you need certain elements. These existed for millions of years on earth before life came to be on this planet. Ray simply made up or deliberately lied that there were no elements on earth. As for the "unthinking mind" person here, it heavily seems to be Ray Comfort.

===Fourth Person===
The fourth anonymous person calls out Ray that he is ignorant regarding the evolution of sex. There exist hermaphrodites and asexuals, but Ray is ignorant in the field and not willing to so much as go to Wikipedia. Ray responds by re-asking the question when did sex evolve, and wonders why he is called names when he does not accept the explanation provided. Ray goes to their "source" and reports it is just verbal sleight-of-hand. The quote is taken straight from Wikipedia,
<blockquote>
In most multicellular sexual species, the population consists of two sexes, only one of which is capable of bearing young (with the exception of simultaneous hermaphrodites). In an asexual species, each member of the population is capable of bearing young. This implies that an asexual population has an intrinsic capacity to grow more rapidly each generation. The cost was first described in mathematical terms by John Maynard Smith. He imagined an asexual mutant arising in a sexual population, half of which comprises males that cannot themselves produce offspring. With female-only offspring, the asexual lineage doubles its representation in the population each generation, all else being equal.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction</ref>
</blockquote>

Ray responds with this,
<blockquote>
My Answer:

Wait a minute! Isn't his imaging, he has just pulled a big rabbit out of the hat. He is talking about asexuality and suddenly makes a reference to "males" and "female-only offspring." But there's no explanation as to where he and she came from, or how he and she came, or how long it took for him or her to evolve. Where ''did'' she and he come from, and, just a minor point to the evolutionist, why did he and she appear in the 1.4 million of the earth's species?
</blockquote>

Ray stops there and does not look any further and declares "There you have it. There is actually no explanation at all, just a supposition that 'evolution did it.' Magic. Male and female suddenly appeared."

So here we have Ray only visiting Wikipedia (a VERY poor source to begin with) and only reading half of a chapter, and then stopping. Without going further, he adds in his own two cents, then draws a conclusion based on his own two cents that his opinions were correct. He repeats his old questions, but again seems to have deliberately skipped the whole article and did not bother to do a two-minute research on Google. It is obvious and not surprising: Ray Comfort is willfully ignorant.

As for the evolution of sex, already there are numerous valid explanations for its origin.<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB350.html</ref>

===Fifth Person===
Next, a person calls out Ray for falsely claiming that atheists believe that everything came from nothing while at the same time believe nothing created something. Ray does not comment on his beliefs of how everything came to be, rather he sticks to bashing the "atheist beliefs" and quoting Scripture to call them fools. Next, he quotes [[Richard Dawkins]] from his book ''Ancestors Tales'' where Dawkins admitted that life "evolved literally from nothing -- it is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to its justice." Ray says that he would be mad, but if the atheists want to stay in the "intellectual" arena they must justify it. Ray does not provide a single explanation, but rather that they all speak in the "language of speculation" (words like probably, perhaps, etc) and ends it by quoting Romans 1:21-22.

Ray clearly demonstrates his one-sided-ness. He seems to have no intent or thought of critically examining himself and his own beliefs. Rather, he seems to have a strong mind that if he makes his opposition look bad, then his position wins by default. Unfortunately, that's not how things work.

Ray does indeed believe something can come from nothing via magic - he admits it himself by claiming that God DID speak things into being (an incantation). As for what an atheist believes, as already noted, atheism is simply the lack of belief in god(s) and has no say on origins. Any atheist can have any thought of how the universe came to be, so Ray creates a straw man here and claims victory when he knocks it down.

===Sixth Person===
The person asks what would Ray accept to reconsider his views of evolution? Ray calls evolution the most unscientific, faith-based, fundamentally brainless idea brought forth by man and the pages of the ''Origin of Species'' seem to be written by a man who believed the sun was square, came out at night, and was made of ice. Ray says the only honest thing mentioned was when a friend of Darwin came to him and told him he surrendered his life to a fantasy (no reference provided). While Richard Dawkins mocks Ray Comfort for his [[banana fallacy]], Dawkins believes that bananas are his cousins.

In the end, Ray just puts any word out there to make evolution seem foolish, and there is absolutely no chance whatsoever to convince him that evolution is true and God is not real.

It seems Ray is proud of his ignorance and his lack of ability to comprehend and understand how science works.

===Seventh Person===
The next person (not clearly an atheist, perhaps deist) addresses Ray's letters-to-words analogy and why it fails, while also confessing that the person could not figure out why God did things the way he did. Ray does not attempt to defend his analogy, rather he attacks the person for not believing in Genesis 1 and 2 and not accepting that we live in a fallen world - which Ray says is why the person is not sure why God did things in such a way. Next, Ray changes the argument to argue the anonymous person does not exist is just as absurd as saying God does not exist.

What the person thinks about God and why he did what he did (if he did it at all) is not important. What is more important is if anyone can show that God DID do these certain things. Ray Comfort, nor any creationist, has ever shown or provided a model that points to the Christian god as being the creator of anything.

Finally, Ray's last argument is a straw man. Science already has given us a clear understanding how the universe could have arisen without the need of a God. Based on that, plus the lack of evidence for Ray's God, there is nothing wrong with concluding there is no god.

===Eight Person===
Basically asking why did God create the appendix? Ray says that for a long time that evolutionists accepted vestigial evidences such as the appendix. He describes them as "anatomy left over through the course of evolution" but does not hint that evolution states that vestigial organs are completely useless. Their function may have diminished or disappeared.

===Ninth Person===
Seems to be a carry over from the previous person asking about the human tailbone and third molers. Ray says that it is not a "tail" but the end of your backbone, and without it you could not sit to go to the bathroom. As for the teeth, Ray says that the claim that the third moler causes damage crowding has not been met under scrutiny and they were given by God to enjoy your food.

What evidence does Ray have that God gave us molers to enjoy our food? None.

===Tenth Person===
The next person explains that atheists do not accept the universe was a "creation" and thus could not be "created" as Ray often argues, but rather it is the result of natural processes. Ray ignores this, and points out that the person is "careful" not to say the universe is eternal, because the person knows it is a scientific impossibility because "all that heat would have been used up." Ray says that atheists believed that everything "formed" itself. Ray hypothetically writes an atheist Old Testament to say that the atheist believes "in the beginning there was nothing, and nothing formed itself into everything" but notes that the person said he/she believed the universe was formed by natural laws. So Ray asks what caused nature?

What heat? Ray is implying the second law of thermodynamics, but in reality it does not say that an eternal universe is impossible.

===Eleventh Person===
The person asks if Ray is honestly arguing all the ingredients for life were not present on earth? Ray says absolutely not. But he seems to contradict himself, because when addressing the third person above, he states that there was no air or water. Rather, Ray says here that dirt is dirt - it has no life in it at all.

Ray goes on to quote Scripture to support that God created life and souls, and uses the Bible to preach what happens to your soul after death. Ray also notes that there are several elements in the soil that is also in the human body, therefore when God made the human body from the soil it makes sense that they would share certain elements. And the only evidence Ray provides is just a few Bible verses and speculation based on no evidence. This is why Ray fails to convince people.

===Twelfth Person===
Regarding pleas from www.liveScience.com beneath an article titles the "Top 10 Missing Links." A person stress is not religious or a creationist, but wants to see evidence for human evolution via missing links. Wherever the author asks for evidence, it is always biased. Another person explains there are no missing links in the sense he is talking about. Everything is linked, and there is evidence to support it (while providing book references) and there are no "missing" evidences. The only comment from Ray is "What did this person get? 'There are no missing links. Go read a book and study bacteria, plants and insects.'" Ray then concludes "The dilemma is that there are no undisputed species-to-species transitional forms."

Actually, the response to the doubter was very good. The only thing is that Ray flat-out denies that transitional fossils exist, and he does it through his gritted teeth. 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.

===Thirteenth Person===
Only two sentences: ''I don't believe in evolution. I simply have confidence in science.'' Ray talks about the discovery of the fossil Ardi and the scientists dating the soil. Ray says this is like if his gets buried in a sediment 2.6 million years old, and then later discovered, would that make Ray 2.6 million years old? Ray ends it with this "honest atheist" that basically he trusts the word of the geologist and taking his word for it - basically showing the faith the atheist have in scientists.

While people generally do not take their words for it, and through modern technology we can read, evaluate, and analyze the works of scientists. Some of us can make the same observations or do some tests. However, this is material coming from men in certain fields they have trained for many years, but they are always open to scrutiny. In science, scientists are like vultures to their peers, constantly trying to refute their ideas and data. Not once in 150 years has anyone refuted evolution, but more to the point, scientists are not always right. However, even men like Ray Comfort assume their work is correct without ever verifying it or taking a peek at their work before he goes to a hospital and ask for medicine.

As for Ardi, they did date his remains. Dating the soil around him and compared to the data results from the fossil confirms they belong in the same era. So even if Ray was buried in a sediment several million years old, both his remains and surrounding can be tested, and it can clearly show that he does not belong there.

===Fourteenth Person===
Just an angry rant at Ray and his idiocy regarding science and "homeschool" textbooks. Ray basically defends homeschooled kids and homsechooling for two pages.

===Fifteenth Person===
The next person makes it clear that atheists do not believe everything came from nothing, it is just Ray simply does not care about being honest. When Ray says that God always existed, people can say the same about the universe. When Ray calls them ridiculous, he is basically ridiculing the same logic used by non-Christians. Ray's first response: "And in doing so, you reveal you don't understand the basics of science. The second law of thermodynamics shows that the universe cannot be eternal because it would have crumbled into dust (in time)." Ray does not address his own beliefs and why he does not call himself ridiculous, rather he bashes the person -calling them a fool as it says in the Bible- and that science is repeatable and the [[Big Bang]] is not.

"And in doing so, you reveal you don't understand the basics of science." The ULTIMATE projection. The second law of thermodynamics does not say such a thing, it just says that heat will always move to cold areas. Energy (potential and kinetic) create heat within the universe. If this is only Ray's objection to an eternal universe, he already lost. Ray again reveals here he has no intentions of critically examining and critiquing his own beliefs. This is what separates Ray from honest people - when they are wrong or mistaken, they will admit it. Ray here criticizes people who use the same logic he does, but is blind to see the obvious.

==Chapter 4: Philosophy: Beliefs and Worldviews==

==Chapter 5: Religion: God and Atheism==

==Appendix 1==

==Appendix 2==

==Endnotes==

[[Category:Books]]

Christianity invented science

2011-10-18T18:14:31Z

Feredir28: /* No Science in Antiquity? */ spelling

==Overview==
Many Christians, such as [[Roman Catholic]] Father Stanley Jaki and Christian sociologist Rodney Stark, claim that modern day science formed in Christian-centered Europe, and thus [[Christianity]] was responsible for the development of science.

==Argument==
"As a new generation of historians, sociologists, and philosophers of science has proven, biblical religion was not the enemy of science but rather the intellectual matrix that made it possible in the first place. Without key insights that Christianity found celebrated in the Bible and spread throughout Europe, science would never have happened.... The evidence is incontrovertible: It was the rational theology of both the Catholic Middle Ages and the [[Protestant]] [[Reformation]]--inspired by the explicit and implicit truths revealed in the Jewish Bible--that led to the discoveries of modern science." - Robery Hutchinson, "The Biblical Origins of Modern Science" (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2007. pg. 139)

Rodney Stark, and other conservative Christians defend the above statement, arguing that since Christianity arose in Christian Western culture, that Christianity was therefore was not just the cause of modern science, but that Christianity was ''required'' for the origin of science.

==Counter-Apologetics==
Christianity as is clearly not responsible for the invention of science. when the cause is in place, its effect is seen. The religion dominated the whole of the Western world from the fifth to the fifteenth century, and yet in all those thousand years there was no scientific revolution. Nor did any scientific religion occur in Eastern Christian world, such as the Byzantine Empire, even though the East was was prosperous and largely peaceful for five centuries.

Apologists may dismiss Byzantines as somehow the "wrong kind" of Christians (Lynn White Jr. "What Accelerated Technological Progress in the Western Middle Ages?" in Scientific Change, ed. A. C. Crombie (New York: Basic Books, 1963(pg.272-91)); however, in addition to being a [[No true Scotsman]] fallacy, the point remains that largely Christian civilizations took over a thousand years to develop science.

The ancient Greeks were the first to use science, in fact they invented reason (in the very sense he means, developing the formal sciences of logic, philosophy, mathematics, and rhetoric). Nevertheless, the scientific method was first formally described centuries later by [[Francis Bacon]]. Certainly most of the early scientists of the Renaissance were Christian (i.e., [[Galileo]] and [[Newton]]). However, the church was often openly hostile to scientific inquiry and on guard for potential [[heresy]]. While not always openly hostile to science, the both the Catholic and Protestant churches were quick to attempt to silence anything that appeared to contradict Biblical history, as in the cases of [[Galileo]] and [[Charles Darwin]]). The Vatican Observatory didn't come into existence until 1891, and not for scientific inquiry but to establish a better calendar to determine the time to celebrate religious events.

Finally, another fallacy is the conflation of necessary, sufficient, and contributing causes. A good case can be made that scientific thinking was actually the byproduct of early pagan theology (Persuasively argued in David Sedley, ''Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity'' (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007)). But even if so, no one would conclude from this that paganism was required. Many aspects of pagan religion could contribute to the rise of science, but it does not follow that only paganism can have these attributes. It is not even certain they are all required. It may have provided values that helped science develop, which science could still have developed without, or that other worldviews could have encouraged just as well.

Certain Christians, such as D'Souza in his book ''What is So Great About Christianity'', claims before science came into the picture, the dominantly held belief was [[animism]]: the idea that everything had a spirit. After that developed polytheistic beliefs, then eastern beliefs, until the first religion to be based on reason: Christianity. D'Souza says that Judaism and Islam were religions of law whereas Christianity is a religion of creed. Here, D'Souza claims that Christianity is the only religion built on reason and there are no theologians in the history of any other religion. But as just explained earlier, reason was invented by the ancient Greeks -who were pagans! So, D'souza is essentially arguing that Christianity is based on paganism. And any attentive reader of the Bible knows Christianity was from the beginning based on scripture, inspiration, and revelation, not "reason"(On the original epistemology of Christianity: Richard Carrier, ''Not the Impossible Faith: Why Christianity Didn't Need a Miracle to Succeed'' (Raleigh, NC: Lulu, 2009): pg. 329-68, 385-406). To see what a religion actually based on reason looks like, just look at the formal theologies of the Greco-Roman philosophers. Yes, the pagans invented theology too.(Theology as a rational science in antiquity: Aristotle, ''Metaphysics'' 6.1 1026a); Sextus Empiricus, ''Against the Professors'' 9.12-194 (= Against the Physicists 1.12-194 = Against the Dogmatists 3.12-194); and John Dillon, ''Alcinous: The Handbook of Platonism'' (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993): pg. 57-60, 86-89.)

===No Science in Antiquity?===
Rodney Stark does not stop there. "Greek learning stagnated of its own inner logic. After Plato and Aristotle, ''very little happened beyond some extensions of geometry.''" (Stark, ''Victory of Reason'', pg. 20)

For the record, Rodney Stark is a sociologist, not a historian of any sort, and he makes a very lousy historian. Stark's entire argument rests on the above sentence. However, if he had done any scholarly work (as a scholar is obliged to do) he would quickly learn that his key premise is utter rubbish. The truth is that the Greeks and Romans achieved tremendous and continual advances in science and mathematics after Aristotle. Here are a few examples,

*Aristotle performed numerous dissection and vivisection experiments in animal anatomy and physiology - composing the most scientific range of zoological works then known.
*His successor, Theophrastus, extended this work to botany and plant physiology, and the first person to produce the first known works in pyrology, mineralogy, and other fields.
*His successor, Strato of Lamsacus, extended their experimental method to machines and physics - by which many of Aristotle's physical theories had been altered or abandoned.
*A research institute was built in Alexandria, Egypt in the third century BCE, in which Ctesibius and Philo completed the first known scientific works in experimental pneumatics.
*Eratosthenes invented the science of cartography and was one of the first scientist in history to measure the diameter of the earth (he was off by 15% - not bad), and he analyzed the effect of the moon on the tides.
([[Tides come in, tides go out. You can't explain that.]] Bill O'Reilly needed to know this was explained in the third century BCE and was sadly out of date.)
*Herophilus became the first scientist to dissect human cadavers. Also, he and his pupil Erasistrus originated neurophysiology, establishing with detailed experiments that the mind is a function of the brain and the specific mental functions were controlled in specific areas of the brain, and they distinguished motor from sensory nerves and mapped them throughout the body. Altogether. their study of the human body and its bones, muscles, and organs, was so thorough that we still use much of their anatomical terminology.
*In Sicily, their colleague Archimedes was advancing sciences of mechanics and hydrostatics, and discovering, describing, or explaining the first mathematical laws of physics.
*Aristarchus began measuring the distances of the moon, sun and planets, and proposed the first heliocentric theory.
*In Rhodes, Hipparchus discovered and measured celestial precession, observed the first supernova, established the first detailed scientific star charts, made numerous advances in planetary theory, and developed the first scientific system for predicting lunar and solar eclipses.
*Seleucus of Babylon discovered the effect of the sun on the tides (not just the moon), developed the first mathematical lunisolar tide theory.

During the Roman Empire, science reached its pinnacle of achievement, producing works not exceeded until the Scientific Revolution. Just to name a few,
*Dioscorides in botany, mineralogy, and pharmacology
*Hero in mathematics, pneumatics, and theatrical robotics
*Ptolemy in astronomy, cartography, optics, and harmonics
*Galen in anatomy, physiology, and medicine

Many of the scientific discoveries refuted or replaced many of the Aristotle's ideas. Example, by the Roman period, Aristotle's conclusion that comets were an atmospheric phenomenon lost ground when Hipparchus developed an increasingly correct theory of projectile motion and refuted Aristotle's belief that the heavens never change. Also, Herophilus had refuted the Aristotelian theory that the soul resided in the heart, with precise experiments proving all thought and sensation occurred in the brain - a conclusion reinforced by Galen, who showed that the brain controlled human speech.

==Christianity and Science go hand to hand==
A likely follow up argument is that Christianity and science are harmonious and complementary. This is often done by quoting a selected few verses from the Bible that seem scientific (and thus claiming that Christians knew of the scientific fact before it was discovered) or saying that religion and science are not in conflict with each other (while pointing out a few instances when religion ''promoted'' science advancement).

[[Bill Donohue]], the President of the Catholic League, said "It was the Catholic Church that created the first universities, and it was the Catholic Church that played a central role in the Scientific Revolution."[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2534633/posts]

===Counter Arguments===
The claim that Christianity and science are complimentary towards each other are easily refuted by the slightest knowledge in history, or awareness in today's society.

* Every religion that proposes supernatural causes for actual events.
* The Roman Catholic Church's treatment of Copernicus and Galileo.
* The opposition to Darwin's theory of evolution by fundamentalists among his contemporaries, and on down to modern times to promoting pseudoscience like [[intelligent design]]. This denial of science goes beyond biology, but to also geology, paleontology, and even astronomy that all point to a old earth.
* The denial of global warming based on the belief that God will not flood the earth again.
* Modern opposition to stem cell research by fundamentalists (mostly in the US).
* And the opposition to neuroscientific evidence that points to the fact a soul does not exist.

As for Christianity occasionally promoting science, one must understand that often times various branches adapt to the growing knowledge of science. For example, at one point Christianity did not accept that the sun was the center of our galaxy. When the evidence was overwhelming, dogma had to change. In the same sense, many Christian churches (like the Roman Catholic Church) had to accept the theory of evolution. The claim that Christianity promoted naturalistic thinking at one point, while Christianity also suppressed certain scientific fields, does not point to the conclusion that Christianity and science go hand to hand. All it points to is that religion is very selective when it comes to promoting their dogma.

{{Christianity}}

[[Category:Christianity|*]]
[[Category:Religions]]

Christianity invented science

2011-10-18T18:09:14Z

Feredir28: /* Christianity and Science go hand to hand */

==Overview==
Many Christians, such as [[Roman Catholic]] Father Stanley Jaki and Christian sociologist Rodney Stark, claim that modern day science formed in Christian-centered Europe, and thus [[Christianity]] was responsible for the development of science.

==Argument==
"As a new generation of historians, sociologists, and philosophers of science has proven, biblical religion was not the enemy of science but rather the intellectual matrix that made it possible in the first place. Without key insights that Christianity found celebrated in the Bible and spread throughout Europe, science would never have happened.... The evidence is incontrovertible: It was the rational theology of both the Catholic Middle Ages and the [[Protestant]] [[Reformation]]--inspired by the explicit and implicit truths revealed in the Jewish Bible--that led to the discoveries of modern science." - Robery Hutchinson, "The Biblical Origins of Modern Science" (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2007. pg. 139)

Rodney Stark, and other conservative Christians defend the above statement, arguing that since Christianity arose in Christian Western culture, that Christianity was therefore was not just the cause of modern science, but that Christianity was ''required'' for the origin of science.

==Counter-Apologetics==
Christianity as is clearly not responsible for the invention of science. when the cause is in place, its effect is seen. The religion dominated the whole of the Western world from the fifth to the fifteenth century, and yet in all those thousand years there was no scientific revolution. Nor did any scientific religion occur in Eastern Christian world, such as the Byzantine Empire, even though the East was was prosperous and largely peaceful for five centuries.

Apologists may dismiss Byzantines as somehow the "wrong kind" of Christians (Lynn White Jr. "What Accelerated Technological Progress in the Western Middle Ages?" in Scientific Change, ed. A. C. Crombie (New York: Basic Books, 1963(pg.272-91)); however, in addition to being a [[No true Scotsman]] fallacy, the point remains that largely Christian civilizations took over a thousand years to develop science.

The ancient Greeks were the first to use science, in fact they invented reason (in the very sense he means, developing the formal sciences of logic, philosophy, mathematics, and rhetoric). Nevertheless, the scientific method was first formally described centuries later by [[Francis Bacon]]. Certainly most of the early scientists of the Renaissance were Christian (i.e., [[Galileo]] and [[Newton]]). However, the church was often openly hostile to scientific inquiry and on guard for potential [[heresy]]. While not always openly hostile to science, the both the Catholic and Protestant churches were quick to attempt to silence anything that appeared to contradict Biblical history, as in the cases of [[Galileo]] and [[Charles Darwin]]). The Vatican Observatory didn't come into existence until 1891, and not for scientific inquiry but to establish a better calendar to determine the time to celebrate religious events.

Finally, another fallacy is the conflation of necessary, sufficient, and contributing causes. A good case can be made that scientific thinking was actually the byproduct of early pagan theology (Persuasively argued in David Sedley, ''Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity'' (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007)). But even if so, no one would conclude from this that paganism was required. Many aspects of pagan religion could contribute to the rise of science, but it does not follow that only paganism can have these attributes. It is not even certain they are all required. It may have provided values that helped science develop, which science could still have developed without, or that other worldviews could have encouraged just as well.

Certain Christians, such as D'Souza in his book ''What is So Great About Christianity'', claims before science came into the picture, the dominantly held belief was [[animism]]: the idea that everything had a spirit. After that developed polytheistic beliefs, then eastern beliefs, until the first religion to be based on reason: Christianity. D'Souza says that Judaism and Islam were religions of law whereas Christianity is a religion of creed. Here, D'Souza claims that Christianity is the only religion built on reason and there are no theologians in the history of any other religion. But as just explained earlier, reason was invented by the ancient Greeks -who were pagans! So, D'souza is essentially arguing that Christianity is based on paganism. And any attentive reader of the Bible knows Christianity was from the beginning based on scripture, inspiration, and revelation, not "reason"(On the original epistemology of Christianity: Richard Carrier, ''Not the Impossible Faith: Why Christianity Didn't Need a Miracle to Succeed'' (Raleigh, NC: Lulu, 2009): pg. 329-68, 385-406). To see what a religion actually based on reason looks like, just look at the formal theologies of the Greco-Roman philosophers. Yes, the pagans invented theology too.(Theology as a rational science in antiquity: Aristotle, ''Metaphysics'' 6.1 1026a); Sextus Empiricus, ''Against the Professors'' 9.12-194 (= Against the Physicists 1.12-194 = Against the Dogmatists 3.12-194); and John Dillon, ''Alcinous: The Handbook of Platonism'' (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993): pg. 57-60, 86-89.)

===No Science in Antiquity?===
Rodney Stark does not stop there. "Greek learning stagnated of its own inner logic. After Plato and Aristotle, ''very little happened beyond some extensions of geometry.''" (Stark, ''Victory of Reason'', pg. 20)

For the record, Rodney Stark is a sociologist, not a historian of any sort, and he makes a very lousy historian. Stark's entire argument rests on the above sentence. However, if he had done any scholarly work (as a scholar is obliged to do) he would quickly learn that his key premise is utter rubbish. The truth is that the Greeks and Romans achieved tremendous and continual advances in science and mathematics after Aristotle. Here are a few examples,

*Aristotle performed numerous dissection and vivisection experiments in animal anatomy and physiology - composing the most scientific range of zoological works then known.
*His successor, Theophrastus, extended this work to botany and plant physiology, and the first person to produce the first known works in pyrology, mineralogy, and other fields.
*His successor, Strato of Lamsacus, extended their experimental method to machines and physics - by which many of Aristotle's physical theories had been altered or abandoned.
*A research institute was built in Alexandria, Egypt in the third century BCE, in which Ctesibius and Philo completed the first known scientific works in experimental pneumatics.
*Eratosthenes invented the science of cartography and was one of the first scientist in history to measure the diameter of the earth (he was off by 15% - not bad), and he analyzed the effect of the moon on the tides.
([[Tides come in, tides go out. You can't explain that.]] Bill O'Reilly needed to know this was explained in the third century BCE asnd was sadly out of date.)
*Herophilus became the first scientist to dissect human cadavers. Also, he and his pupil Erasistrus originated neurophysiology, establishing with detailed experiments that the mind is a function of the brain and the specific mental functions were controlled in specific areas of the brain, and they distinguished motor from sensory nerves and mapped them throughout the body. Altogether. their study of the human body and its bones, muscles, and organs, was so thorough that we still use much of their anatomical terminology.
*In Sicily, their colleague Archimedes was advancing sciences of mechanics and hydrostatics, and discovering, describing, or explaining the first mathematical laws of physics.
*Aristarchus began measuring the distances of the moon, sun and planets, and proposed the first heliocentric theory.
*In Rhodes, Hipparchus discovered and measured celestial precession, observed the first supernova, established the first detailed scientific star charts, made numerous advances in planetary theory, and developed the first scientific system for predicting lunar and solar eclipses.
*Seleucus of Babylon discovered the effect of the sun on the tides (not just the moon), developed the first mathematical lunisolar tide theory.

During the Roman Empire, science reached its pinnacle of achievement, producing works not exceeded until the Scientific Revolution. Just to name a few,
*Dioscorides in botany, mineralogy, and pharmacology
*Hero in mathematics, pneumatics, and theatrical robotics
*Ptolemy in astronomy, cartography, optics, and harmonics
*Galen in anatomy, physiology, and medicine

Many of the scientific discoveries refuted or replaced many of the Aristotle's ideas. Example, by the Roman period, Aristotle's conclusion that comets were an atmospheric phenomenon lost ground when Hipparchus developed an increasingly correct theory of projectile motion and refuted Aristotle's belief that the heavens never change. Also, Herophilus had refuted the Aristotelian theory that the soul resided in the heart, with precise experiments proving all thought and sensation occurred in the brain - a conclusion reinforced by Galen, who showed that the brain controlled human speech.

==Christianity and Science go hand to hand==
A likely follow up argument is that Christianity and science are harmonious and complementary. This is often done by quoting a selected few verses from the Bible that seem scientific (and thus claiming that Christians knew of the scientific fact before it was discovered) or saying that religion and science are not in conflict with each other (while pointing out a few instances when religion ''promoted'' science advancement).

[[Bill Donohue]], the President of the Catholic League, said "It was the Catholic Church that created the first universities, and it was the Catholic Church that played a central role in the Scientific Revolution."[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2534633/posts]

===Counter Arguments===
The claim that Christianity and science are complimentary towards each other are easily refuted by the slightest knowledge in history, or awareness in today's society.

* Every religion that proposes supernatural causes for actual events.
* The Roman Catholic Church's treatment of Copernicus and Galileo.
* The opposition to Darwin's theory of evolution by fundamentalists among his contemporaries, and on down to modern times to promoting pseudoscience like [[intelligent design]]. This denial of science goes beyond biology, but to also geology, paleontology, and even astronomy that all point to a old earth.
* The denial of global warming based on the belief that God will not flood the earth again.
* Modern opposition to stem cell research by fundamentalists (mostly in the US).
* And the opposition to neuroscientific evidence that points to the fact a soul does not exist.

As for Christianity occasionally promoting science, one must understand that often times various branches adapt to the growing knowledge of science. For example, at one point Christianity did not accept that the sun was the center of our galaxy. When the evidence was overwhelming, dogma had to change. In the same sense, many Christian churches (like the Roman Catholic Church) had to accept the theory of evolution. The claim that Christianity promoted naturalistic thinking at one point, while Christianity also suppressed certain scientific fields, does not point to the conclusion that Christianity and science go hand to hand. All it points to is that religion is very selective when it comes to promoting their dogma.

{{Christianity}}

[[Category:Christianity|*]]
[[Category:Religions]]

Christianity invented science

2011-10-18T15:05:14Z

Feredir28:

==Overview==
This is a new delusion creeping around the conservative Christian halls. This argument seems to have originated with Catholic Father Stanley Jaki, but nowadays perhaps its greatest representative is Christian sociologist Rodney Stark, and is slowly becoming a shared belief amongst fundamental and conservative Christians. They argue that modern day science formed in Christian-centered Europe, and thus [[Christianity]] was responsible for the development of science.

==Argument==
"As a new generation of historians, sociologists, and philosophers of science has proven, biblical religion was not the enemy of science but rather the intellectual matrix that made it possible in the first place. Without key insights that Christianity found celebrated in the Bible and spread throughout Europe, science would never have happened.... The evidence is incontrovertible: It was the rational theology of both the Catholic Middle Ages and the Protestant Reformation--inspired by the explicit and implicit truths revealed in the Jewish Bible--that led to the discoveries of modern science." - Robery Hutchinson, "The Biblical Origins of Modern Science" (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2007. pg. 139)

Rodney Stark, and other conservative Christians defend the above statement, arguing that since Christianity arose in Christian Western culture, that Christianity was therefore was not just the cause of modern science, but that Christianity was ''required'' for the origin of science.

==Counter-Apologetics==
First of all, the idea Christianity invented science is not only false in every conceivable detail but so egregiously false that anyone with even the slightest academic competence and responsibility should have known it was false. Which means its advocates must be either be embarrassingly incompetent, perversely dishonest, or wildly deluded. A big and obvious objection to this demonstrably false claim is that it violates one of the most basic principles of causality: when the cause is in place, its effect is seen. Christianity fully dominated the whole of the Western world from the fifth to the fifteenth century, and yet in all those thousand years there was no Scientific Revolution. A cause that fails to have its predicted effect despite being continually in action for a thousand years is usually considered refuted, not confirmed. No Scientific Revolution took place in the Eastern half of the Christian world either, which had none of the West's excuses. The East was not overrun by barbarians and remained prosperous and developed for five centuries. Why didn't any Scientific Revolution take place in the Byzantine Empire, despite being just as Christian, and in every respect more successful? Those caught be this question usually solve it by denigrating the Byzantines as somehow the "wrong kind" of Christians (Lynn White Jr. "What Accelerated Technological Progress in the Western Middle Ages?" in Scientific Change, ed. A. C. Crombie (New York: Basic Books, 1963(pg.272-91)) But once you start down that road, the notion that Christianity is the solution for a scientific revolution goes right out the window. The fact remains whether East or West, once Christians dominated the culture, no Scientific Revolution ensued. It took over a thousand more years.

Secondly, any historian will tell you that science did not arise in Medieval Europe as certain Christian fundamentalists claim. Rather, science goes back very far. The ancient Greeks were the first to use science, in fact they invented reason (in the very sense he means, developing the formal sciences of logic, philosophy, mathematics, and rhetoric). Christians who share this belief will be quick to point out that some of the earliest famous scientists were also Christian ([[Galileo]], [[Newton]], etc.) However, whoever makes this claim is committing a fallacy. Any motive in Europe at this time had to be agreeable with Christianity, otherwise dire consequences would be the ending result (often times being physical punishment). This was not the time when you could enjoy the liberty of being a heretic, [[atheist]], pagan or infidel without facing repercussions that could put an end to your career, your freedom, or even your life. Such an atmosphere compelled everyone to find inventive ways to sell any new ideas as perfectly Christian, even biblical, regardless of their actual motives or inspiration. Hence finding in that period Christian or biblical arguments for embracing new ideas does not confirm Christianity or the Bible was the cause of those ideas, rather than just the marketing strategy required to sell them at the time. lets not also forget that whenever scientists made discoveries that contradicted Biblical text, Christians were quick to attempt to silence it or discredit it (such as [[Galileo]], and in certain cases [[Charles Darwin]]). The Church frowned upon alchemy, and thus chemistry - without which the understanding of matter could not have happened. The Vatican Observatory didn't come into existence until 1891, and not for scientific inquiry but to establish a better calendar to determine the time to celebrate religious events.

Finally, another fallacy is the conflation of necessary, sufficient, and contributing causes. A good case can be made that scientific thinking was actually the byproduct of early pagan theology (Persuasively argued in David Sedley, ''Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity'' (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007)). But even if so, no one would conclude from this that paganism was required. Many aspects of pagan religion could contribute to the rise of science, but it does not follow that only paganism can have these attributes. It is not even certain they are all required. It may have provided values that helped science develop, which science could still have developed without, or that other worldviews could have encouraged just as well.

Certain Christians, such as D'Souza in his book ''What is So Great About Christianity'', claims before science came into the picture, the dominate held belief was animism: the idea that everything had a spirit. After that developed polytheistic beliefs, then eastern beliefs, until he first religion to be based on reason: Christianity. D'Souza says that Judaism and Islam were religions of law whereas Christianity is a religion of creed. Here, D'Souza claims that Christianity is the only religion built on reason and there are no theologians in the history of any other religion. But as just explained earlier, reason was invented by the ancient Greeks -who were pagans! So, D'souza is essentially arguing that Christianity is based on paganism. And any attentive reader of the Bible knows Christianity was from the beginning based on scripture, inspiration, and revelation, not "reason"(On the original epistemology of Christianity: Richard Carrier, ''Not the Impossible Faith: Why Christianity Didn't Need a Miracle to Succeed'' (Raleigh, NC: Lulu, 2009): pg. 329-68, 385-406). To see what a religion actually based on reason looks like, just look at the formal theologies of the Greco-Roman philosophers. Yes, the pagans invented theology too.(Theology as a rational science in antiquity: Aristotle, ''Metaphysics'' 6.1 1026a); Sextus Empiricus, ''Against the Professors'' 9.12-194 (= Against the Physicists 1.12-194 = Against the Dogmatists 3.12-194); and John Dillon, ''Alcinous: The Handbook of Platonism'' (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993): pg. 57-60, 86-89.)

===No Science in Antiquity!?===
Rodney Stark does not stop there. "Greek learning stagnated of its own inner logic. After Plato and Aristotle, ''very little happened beyond some extensions of geometry.''" (Stark, ''Victory of Reason'', pg. 20)

For the record, Rodney Stark is a sociologist, not a historian of any sort, and he makes a very lousy historian. Stark's entire argument rests on the above sentence. However, if he had done any scholarly work (as a scholar is obliged to do) he would quickly learn that his key premise is utter rubbish. The truth is that the Greeks and Romans achieved tremendous and continual advances in science and mathematics after Aristotle. Here are a few examples,

*Aristotle performed numerous dissection and vivisection experiments in animal anatomy and physiology - composing the most scientific range of zoological works then known.
*His successor, Theophrastus, extended this work to botany and plant physiology, and the first person to produce the first known works in pyrology, mineralogy, and other fields.
*His successor, Strato of Lamsacus, extended their experimental method to machines and physics - by which many of Aristotle's physical theories had been altered or abandoned.
*A research institute was built in Alexandria, Egypt in the third century BCE, in which Ctesibius and Philo completed the first known scientific works in experimental pneumatics.
*Eratosthenes invented the science of cartography and was one of the first scientist in history to measure the diameter of the earth (he was off by 15% - not bad), and he analyzed the effect of the moon on the tides.
([[Tides come in, tides go out. You can't explain that.]] Quick, someone tell Bill O'Reilly this was explained in the third freakin' century BCE!!! Get up to date old man.)
*Herophilus became the first scientist to dissect human cadavers. Also, he and his pupil Erasistrus originated neurophysiology, establishing with detailed experiments that the mind is a function of the brain and the specific mental functions were controlled in specific areas of the brain, and they distinguished motor from sensory nerves and mapped them throughout the body. Altogether. their study of the human body and its bones, muscles, and organs, was so thorough that we still use much of their anatomical terminology.
*In Sicily, their colleague Archimedes was advancing sciences of mechanics and hydrostatics, and discovering, describing, or explaining the first mathematical laws of physics.
*Aristarchus began measuring the distances of the moon, sun and planets, and proposed the first heliocentric theory.
*In Rhodes, Hipparchus discovered and measured celestial precession, observed the first supernova, established the first detailed scientific star charts, made numerous advances in planetary theory, and developed the first scientific system for predicting lunar and solar eclipses.
*Seleucus of Babylon discovered the effect of the sun on the tides (not just the moon), developed the first mathematical lunisolar tide theory.

During the Roman Empire, science reached its pinnacle of achievement, producing works not exceeded until the Scientific Revolution. Just to name a few,
*Dioscorides in botany, mineralogy, and pharmacology
*Hero in mathematics, pneumatics, and theatrical robotics
*Ptolemy in astronomy, cartography, optics, and harmonics
*Galen in anatomy, physiology, and medicine

Many of the scientific discoveries refuted or replaced many of the Aristotle's ideas. Example, by the Roman period, Aristotle's conclusion that comets were an atmospheric phenomenon lost ground when Hipparchus developed an increasingly correct theory of projectile motion and refuted Aristotle's belief that the heavens never change. Also, Herophilus had refuted the Aristotelian theory that the soul resided in the heart, with precise experiments proving all thought and sensation occurred in the brain - a conclusion reinforced by Galen, who showed that the brain controlled human speech.

==Christianity and Science go hand to hand==
When the delusion that Christianity invented science, it is likely that the follow up argument is that Christianity and science are harmonious and complementary. This is often done by quoting a selected few verses from the Bible that seem scientific (and thus claiming that Christians knew of the scientific fact before it was discovered) or saying that religion and science are not in conflict with each other (while pointing out a few instances when religion ''promoted'' science advancement).

Bill Donohue, the President of the Catholic League, said "It was the Catholic Church that created the first universities, and it was the Catholic Church that played a central role in the Scientific Revolution."[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2534633/posts]

{{Christianity}}

[[Category:Christianity|*]]
[[Category:Religions]]

So you think we came from monkeys

2011-10-17T19:27:21Z

Feredir28: new section

These arguments usually come from the misunderstanding of the [[science]]. They are examples of [[Straw man]] arguments.

===We came from Pond soup===

This refers to the theory of [[Abiogenesis]] which generally is interpreted as a small pond wherein amino acids are formed with electricity, most probably from lightning. This claim isn't as absurd as some of the other ones around, yet is still relatively wrong. There is nothing about soup in abiogenesis, and if queried further, the intellect of the [[theist]] (presumably) will become apparent. Abiogenesis explains a theory of how life came to be, not the universe (for clarification).

===We came from dirt/a rock/clay===

This also refers to the theory of [[Abiogenesis]], a straw man attempt to rewind the clock back enough were all the molecules that make up life to non-living material, which creationists smear with a immature tone as a "rock" or "dirt." The comical part is the same creationists literally interpret the book of Genesis, especially the part were God made man out '''dirt'''. Ignoring the immature element of this straw man, both creationists and scientists agree that the building blocks of life at one point started in nature.

===We came from Nothing===

Typically, this version is in reference to the [[Big bang]]. This notion is known to be used by [[apologist]]s such as [[Ray Comfort]] and [[Kirk Cameron]] in an episode of 'The way of the master', a tv series hosted by the two. When the argument is used, it is usually used flippantly, without real understanding. At the Big bang, there was matter and energy before, as a singularity. Since science does not yet have any answers about what happened "before" the Big bang, the intellectually honest position taken by most [[atheist]]s is that we ''don't know''. For some reason, the Big bang is often misinterpreted as a "something from nothing" proposition. Some physicists, such as [[Victor Stenger]], have some ideas how this may be the case, however, for the moment, it's speculation.

Abiogenesis and [[Evolution]] are also occasionally misunderstood to be "something from nothing" concepts.

===We came from Monkeys/Apes===

This version of the argument refers to evolution; in particular, the evolution of the [[human]] race. A common misconception about evolution is that we evolved from the [[monkeys]] and [[apes]] we see today. This ignorance led to the argument of, "'''If we evolved from monkeys and apes, then why are there still monkeys and apes?'''".

Part of the difficulty of this issue is definitional. "Monkeys" and "Apes" are families in the evolutionary tree. Modern [[homo sapiens]] are in the "Great Ape" family (also known as [[Hominidae]]), alongside several other species, such as gorillas and chimpanzees. With this general classification, the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees was also within an ape family, but that common ancestor species is now gone, having ultimately split into modern humans and chimpanzees. Colloquially, "monkey" is thought to be a specific species, but technically, it isn't.

We didn't evolve from any '''modern''' monkeys or apes. Modern humans, monkeys and apes evolved from different common ancestors that branched off to form a tree of species, in different families, in which we are included. What [[Creationist]]s are incorrect about is that species branch apart, typically due to geological separation, and not merely in a straight line. It's a common misconception that evolution is a '''ladder''', when in fact, it's a '''tree'''.

There are approximately 5,400 known species of mammals on the planet, which all arose and flourished after the reptiles were decimated by the apparent comet or asteroid that impacted the earth some 65 million years ago. The earliest known precursors to mice, opossums, and other marsupials were the largest mammals in the late [[Cretaceous]] and early [[Paleocene]], and the primates arose from that point out into separate directions. Some of these species hit a dead end and others didn't. Some were viable and survived. After humans and chimpanzees broke away from their common anscestor, several species of hominids arose in the [[Homo]] genus, such as [[homo erectus]], [[homo neanderthalensis]] and [[homo sapiens]]. Out of the those 9 species, only one avoided extinction - homo sapiens (humans).

The following questions mirror the understanding/logic of this argument:
* If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
* If I came from cousins, why do cousins still exist?

User talk:Feredir28

2011-10-15T19:51:10Z

Feredir28: /* Clean up */

Parachute Analogy

2011-10-15T19:42:32Z

Feredir28: /* References */

The '''Parachute Analogy''' is a favorite argument presented by [[Ray Comfort]]. It is a reversion of the flaws arguement known as [[Pascal's Wager]].

==Argument==
Ray presents the argument as follows:

:''Imagine you are on a plane, and suddenly it is going down. You fear for your life and want to be saved. Someone hands you the Mona Lisa, you push it away. Someone offers you keys to a Ferrari, you reject it. Someone offers you a million dollars, you reject it too. Suddenly someone offers you a parachute that can save you. This parachute provided to you from Ray Comfort is faith in Jesus Christ that will save you from a terrible fate.''

==Counter Argument==
Ray Comfort says his parachute (provided by his invisible friend) is safe and harmless, but suddenly another passenger tells you "Don't use his parachute, it has holes in it. Use mine provided by my invisible friend." Then a third passenger announces "Only my parachute on this plane works, but my invisible friends demands you pray five times a day for it to work." A fourth passenger announces "My invisible friend slashed all the parachutes on board. He takes care of his chosen people, and as none of you were born into the correct lineage, it’s too bad for you." Some people refuse parachutes and urge others to do the same, because it would interfere with the master plan of the father of their invisible friend (these are the same people who refuse medical care in favor of prayer and faith healing). A fifth person gets up and says "Do not worry if you jump off the plane or die, if you were good in your life you will come back and have a wonderful life" -basically reincarnation. The drama goes on with the rest of the passengers, until you demand to actually see proof of a doomed plane and which parachute does work. Some say you must not demand for evidence and just have faith. Regardless, you inspect the plane and the parachutes. The plane is operating just fine in every way and each parachute has holes in them big enough you can fit your head through them. Some of the parachutes terribly constrict people, harming them. Some parachutes are very old and terribly worn out and could not possibly withstand two seconds the heavy winds. The plane reaches its destination safely, but the drama continues through the terminal, security, all the way out beyond the airport. You learn from airports around the world that many people have harmed many others and themselves due to their faith in their parachute provided by their particular invisible friend.

Regarding the Reincarnation part, Ray and Kirk addressed that belief (and several others) in their episode [[Why Christianity? (Way of the Master)|Why Christianity?]] They said it is basically a person jumping out of the plane and then being sucked back into the plane. They go on to say Reincarnation will not help you with your sin against God and the reality of Hell. They clearly portray their biased views without proof of sin or Hell, plus their analogy is wrong. If you lived a good life and jump out the plane, you will not get sucked back it, you may turn into an eagle and fly away. Even if you did get sucked back into the plane, you just keep repeating the process over and over. If you are good or not depends which class you get to sit in or what plane you fly (or perhaps what you get served to fulfill your pleasures). While there is no evidence of Reincarnation, there is no proof of Heaven or Hell, and both Ray and Kirk constantly fail to show or present is why their beliefs are more valid than that of a Hindu.

Sometimes Ray uses this analogy but does not reveal the whole scenario that the person is on a plane and will have to jump out soon. When the person answers either the car, money or Mona Lisa, Ray suddenly says "I forgot to tell you, you are in a plane and it's going down, so you have to jump." Basically, he switches the scenario of the analogy all of the sudden, forcing them to choose the parachute. Notice Comfort changes the scenario but keeps the gifts the same. It is easy to change the scenario to force a person to pick the gift you ''want'' them to choose. Here is an example: "you are offered the original Mona Lisa, keys to a new Ferrari, a parachute, or ten million dollars. Before you choose, you must get to an important meeting to make ten billion dollars and you need a ride fast." You may pick the keys to the car and drive off. How about this analogy: "same gifts are presented, but you are not on a plane or need to get to a meeting, instead you are in the streets homeless and hungry and you need money to sustain yourself or you will starve." You will probably decide to take the cash. See, it is not hard.

How about if we keep the plane scenario, but we change the gifts. You are in a plane that going down, and someone offers you four gifts, but which one do you choose? You are offered a parachute, a time machine (T.A.R.D.I.S. from Dr. Who), a glider (or if you prefer: a jet pack or hovercraft), or the Iron Man suit (you are practically invincible and Jarvis will help you fly it). All of them will save you from the falling plane. You even have the option to have a skilled pilot who could land the plane safely in a body of water, like the Hudson River. That option works just fine. Or, if you are a Star Trek fan, you can have the pilot radio in for help and have you and all the passengers transported off the plane (but then why would we have planes?). And as long as we are involving Iron Man, you may replace that gift with Batman wings. These are already being tested by the military to be dropped from 30,000 feet (compared to Ray's analogy of 10,000 feet) and can glide up to 120 miles. It is true that the time machine and transporter is not present to us (remember this is just an analogy), but the others gifts are theoretically possible (such as the Iron Man suit or Batman wings) or are already available (like the jet pack or glider). We do have gliders and jet packs that can work. But what about the parachute, we already know it can be efficient in saving us? True, but bear in mind parachutes are not always reliable. Some parachutes do not open, some don't inflate properly, or malfunction. This [http://www.dropzone.com/fatalities/ site] shows the statistics of parachute related fatalities. So basically, even when Ray Comfort "puts on the Lord Jesus Christ" he still runs a risk of being demonstrably wrong. There is no guarantee that a parachute will always work and save you.

==Links==
===See also===
*[[Pascal's Wager]]
*[[Argument from design]]
*[[Ray Comfort]]

===References===
* [[Why Christianity? (Way of the Master)]]
* [[Evolution (Way of the Master)]]

{{Arguments for god}}

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]
[[Category:Teleological arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments from design]]

Parachute Analogy

2011-10-15T19:41:53Z

Feredir28: /* See also */

The '''Parachute Analogy''' is a favorite argument presented by [[Ray Comfort]]. It is a reversion of the flaws arguement known as [[Pascal's Wager]].

==Argument==
Ray presents the argument as follows:

:''Imagine you are on a plane, and suddenly it is going down. You fear for your life and want to be saved. Someone hands you the Mona Lisa, you push it away. Someone offers you keys to a Ferrari, you reject it. Someone offers you a million dollars, you reject it too. Suddenly someone offers you a parachute that can save you. This parachute provided to you from Ray Comfort is faith in Jesus Christ that will save you from a terrible fate.''

==Counter Argument==
Ray Comfort says his parachute (provided by his invisible friend) is safe and harmless, but suddenly another passenger tells you "Don't use his parachute, it has holes in it. Use mine provided by my invisible friend." Then a third passenger announces "Only my parachute on this plane works, but my invisible friends demands you pray five times a day for it to work." A fourth passenger announces "My invisible friend slashed all the parachutes on board. He takes care of his chosen people, and as none of you were born into the correct lineage, it’s too bad for you." Some people refuse parachutes and urge others to do the same, because it would interfere with the master plan of the father of their invisible friend (these are the same people who refuse medical care in favor of prayer and faith healing). A fifth person gets up and says "Do not worry if you jump off the plane or die, if you were good in your life you will come back and have a wonderful life" -basically reincarnation. The drama goes on with the rest of the passengers, until you demand to actually see proof of a doomed plane and which parachute does work. Some say you must not demand for evidence and just have faith. Regardless, you inspect the plane and the parachutes. The plane is operating just fine in every way and each parachute has holes in them big enough you can fit your head through them. Some of the parachutes terribly constrict people, harming them. Some parachutes are very old and terribly worn out and could not possibly withstand two seconds the heavy winds. The plane reaches its destination safely, but the drama continues through the terminal, security, all the way out beyond the airport. You learn from airports around the world that many people have harmed many others and themselves due to their faith in their parachute provided by their particular invisible friend.

Regarding the Reincarnation part, Ray and Kirk addressed that belief (and several others) in their episode [[Why Christianity? (Way of the Master)|Why Christianity?]] They said it is basically a person jumping out of the plane and then being sucked back into the plane. They go on to say Reincarnation will not help you with your sin against God and the reality of Hell. They clearly portray their biased views without proof of sin or Hell, plus their analogy is wrong. If you lived a good life and jump out the plane, you will not get sucked back it, you may turn into an eagle and fly away. Even if you did get sucked back into the plane, you just keep repeating the process over and over. If you are good or not depends which class you get to sit in or what plane you fly (or perhaps what you get served to fulfill your pleasures). While there is no evidence of Reincarnation, there is no proof of Heaven or Hell, and both Ray and Kirk constantly fail to show or present is why their beliefs are more valid than that of a Hindu.

Sometimes Ray uses this analogy but does not reveal the whole scenario that the person is on a plane and will have to jump out soon. When the person answers either the car, money or Mona Lisa, Ray suddenly says "I forgot to tell you, you are in a plane and it's going down, so you have to jump." Basically, he switches the scenario of the analogy all of the sudden, forcing them to choose the parachute. Notice Comfort changes the scenario but keeps the gifts the same. It is easy to change the scenario to force a person to pick the gift you ''want'' them to choose. Here is an example: "you are offered the original Mona Lisa, keys to a new Ferrari, a parachute, or ten million dollars. Before you choose, you must get to an important meeting to make ten billion dollars and you need a ride fast." You may pick the keys to the car and drive off. How about this analogy: "same gifts are presented, but you are not on a plane or need to get to a meeting, instead you are in the streets homeless and hungry and you need money to sustain yourself or you will starve." You will probably decide to take the cash. See, it is not hard.

How about if we keep the plane scenario, but we change the gifts. You are in a plane that going down, and someone offers you four gifts, but which one do you choose? You are offered a parachute, a time machine (T.A.R.D.I.S. from Dr. Who), a glider (or if you prefer: a jet pack or hovercraft), or the Iron Man suit (you are practically invincible and Jarvis will help you fly it). All of them will save you from the falling plane. You even have the option to have a skilled pilot who could land the plane safely in a body of water, like the Hudson River. That option works just fine. Or, if you are a Star Trek fan, you can have the pilot radio in for help and have you and all the passengers transported off the plane (but then why would we have planes?). And as long as we are involving Iron Man, you may replace that gift with Batman wings. These are already being tested by the military to be dropped from 30,000 feet (compared to Ray's analogy of 10,000 feet) and can glide up to 120 miles. It is true that the time machine and transporter is not present to us (remember this is just an analogy), but the others gifts are theoretically possible (such as the Iron Man suit or Batman wings) or are already available (like the jet pack or glider). We do have gliders and jet packs that can work. But what about the parachute, we already know it can be efficient in saving us? True, but bear in mind parachutes are not always reliable. Some parachutes do not open, some don't inflate properly, or malfunction. This [http://www.dropzone.com/fatalities/ site] shows the statistics of parachute related fatalities. So basically, even when Ray Comfort "puts on the Lord Jesus Christ" he still runs a risk of being demonstrably wrong. There is no guarantee that a parachute will always work and save you.

==Links==
===See also===
*[[Pascal's Wager]]
*[[Argument from design]]
*[[Ray Comfort]]

===References===
* [[Evolution (Way of the Master)]]

{{Arguments for god}}

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]
[[Category:Teleological arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments from design]]

Nothing Created Everything (book)

2011-10-15T19:20:23Z

Feredir28: /* The Unanswered Prayer of the Atheist */

'''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 address 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 [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZJ-_OTvsqo], 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 a '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. [http://hopsea.mnhn.fr/pc/flores/flores.html MNHN Link] 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) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html Archeopteryx].}}

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." [http://www.karger.com/gazette/64/fernald/index.htm]
</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." [http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/lgd/index.html]
</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."[http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/09/darwin.dawkins1] 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.'"[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/lgd/index.html]
</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.[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html]
*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.[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21030426]
*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.'[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180253/].}}

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."[http://www.yale.edu/eeb/prum/pdf/Prum_n_Brush_2003.pdf]
</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.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo origin of the Universe by Lawrence Krauss] 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.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/apr/06/evolution.fossils]
</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[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html], 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.[http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/Padian/kpslides.html#birds Kitzmiller v. Dover: Padian demonstrative slides] [http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/biblio/flight.html]

==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. [http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/how-do-stars-form-and-evolve/] 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.[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html]}}

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-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.[http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#2] 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 [http://atheism.about.com/od/gospelcontradictions/p/Resurrection.htm here]. 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.[http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/appendix3.html]}}

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[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism_and_non-creationism#Jain_opposition_to_Creationism]. 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.[http://www.christianaggression.org/tactics_violence.php]

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)[http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Evolution_%28Way_of_the_Master%29#A_real_expert]. 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."[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/species] 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.[http://webh01.ua.ac.be/funmorph/raoul/fylsyst/Flynn2005.pdf]}}

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 [http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2009/06/ever-stood-infront-of-big-fan.html],
<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?)

[[Category:Apologetic literature]]
[[Category:Books]]