A “Challenge” from Ray Comfort

His page took forever to load. I wonder if he’s getting tons of responses. I’ll bite.

I won’t discuss this with Banana Man, but perhaps a brief answer here:

Consider the hypothesis of luminiferous aether from the 19th century. Through numerous experiments attempting to measure it giving null results (most famously, that of Michelson and Morley, which was either a part of everyone’s high school education or should have been) and a changing conceptual framework making the hypothesis unnecessary, a scientific consensus was reached that the concept did not exist in reality. Thus we have established the precedent that a proposed explanation for reality which can not be demonstrated to exist and which is not theoretically necessary for any scientific theory ought to be supposed not to exist pending the time when/if evidence in its favor is discovered. (For another example, consider why no one today who is possessed of all facts on the matter seriously believes that G. Washington said his “I cannot tell a lie” bit.) By these criteria, not believing that gods exist is the reasonable thing to do.

But most importantly, note this is not a reason to believe that gods do not exist but rather a reason not to believe that gods do exist. I sense a bit of petitio principii (or perhaps just perpetual ignorance) in Ray’s formulation of the question.

I’m guessing that he screens replies. I’ll post my response both here and there.

My response:

I used to be a Christian Apologist. For years I defended the faith, the Bible as the Word of God, and Jesus The Christ, King of Kings, Lord of Lords. As much as I was defending against the attacks of Satan and other enemies of the Cross, I was also defending against my doubts. Every apologetics book I devoured or new Bible I studied, was all part of strengthening the armor of God so that I could go forth to do battle. I surrounded my self with fellow believers, God’s Word, Christian Music, Christian books and T-Shirts. I truly prayed without ceasing, my every thought directed at God. I prayed daily that his will would become my will, that I would be nothing but humble before him and that I would spread his love and compassion to everyone I met.

I knew that Christianity had to be about more than feelings, but all I ever received back were warm fuzzies.

So here it is: Why, if God exists, can’t he speak to me directly, like the friend he’s supposed to be? Every single piece of “evidence” that I ever presented in defense of the Gospel was either a major stretch, just plain coincidence, or a flat out lie. The more desperate I was to prove God’s existence, the more it dawned on me that I was really trying to justify this mother of all irrational beliefs to myself.

Since being born again as an Agnostic Atheist I have experienced peace and joy that I never knew were possible. I no longer have to think that I am a member of a club, the one true club, the club with the only answer to life’s questions. I can truly love people for who they are and not because God tells me to. I can truly love them without judging them. No more hate the sin, but love the sinner crap for me. I didn’t come to this decision because I’m angry at God or Christianity. I had wonderful experiences as a Christian and have made and kept wonderful friends. I came to this decision because I realized that for all my protestations against the nonbelievers, I was actually amongst them. I did it to be honest to my friends, family, and to myself.

Sorry, that’s as brief as I could make it.

Best regards,
Mike aka MonolithTMA

No Proof.

“You can’t prove a negative”

That isn’t true, actually: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-12-05.html#feature

Justin, that is very true. I was very vocal in defending my faith for many years and here I stand today as an Atheist.

Mike, they printed your response and basically said “false conversion” and that you didn’t try hard enough. This is so head-bangingly frustrating. I remember when I gave up on Christianity, and how liberating it was to be able to, as you state, love people for who they are and not because I was supposed to, and to actually take people at their word and not tell them what they ‘really’ mean or ‘really’ think or ‘really’ feel.

smesqualor, thanks for pointing out the responses. Ray’s response was to be expected, but I’m pretty sure Charles was being sarcastic if you read his initial response to the challenge. You are correct, it is frustrating, but I still wanted to answer his challenge.

Hi Brett,

I’m pretty sure most know that Ray Comfort doesn’t speak for all Christians. Even when I was a Christian he certainly didn’t speak for me.

I think the best policy when it comes to Ray Comfort(and others like them) is to ignore them. Responding is just a waste of time, because the Christians who are likely to listen are most likely not spending time on his blog. Of course you miss out on the feeling of superiority, but developing a sense of superiority isn’t healthy even though it feels good.

I don’t feel like playing with the nutbag. First he’d have to define “God”, which reading over the replies, he hasn’t really replied to any of them. He’s just unloaded a bunch of garbage. GIGO. I’d poke holes in it and before it was over, he’d get ticked and boot me off his blog- probably with his banana. The parting thing… He doesn’t realize it’s just a form of literature filled with astrotheology, and didn’t literally happen, but even if I do show this, he’s just going to get ticked. He wouldn’t give me more than 4 or 5 posts before he booted me.

If I did get lucky and got past that, I’d have to ask why he puts so much stock in that book and how he knew for sure that it was not inspired by man and written by man. Then, because I know what his answer would be, I’d have to ask him how he knows this for sure, besides just faith alone. What evidence does he have for it. Either way, he’d end up booting me, because he has nothing.

As briefly as you can, give me your best reasons why you think that God doesn’t exist

Who?

(can’t get much briefer than that)

NOOOO!

Impossible to prove a negative?

Hemant! I’m ashamed at you!

Yes, indeed, it is impossible to prove anything. Any deductive argument requires absolute knowledge of the accuracy of the premises to be infallible. And any inductive argument is inherently fallible.

But to the degree that you can prove a positive, it is equally easy to prove a negative. It is just as easy, for example, to create a syllogism based on accepted truths that results in a logical proof of a negative. And there is no reason why an inductive argument can’t be just as convincing in proving a negative as it is in proving a positive.

All geese are white? Impossible to know unless you’ve seen every one. There is no God? Well, if you can show that every stated claim of evidence for God is false, thus refuting all known evidence for God, you’ve got a convincing argument that there is no evidence for God’s existence.

It’s just as easy to prove that “Hemant’s hair is not green” as it is to prove “Hemant’s hair is black.”

http://www.bloomu.edu/departments/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

It’s hard to believe, considering how often you hear people saying the opposite. But it’s true! There is no reason why a negative is harder to prove than an affirmative.

As briefly as you can, give me your best reasons why you think that God doesn’t exist,

I can make it as brief as two words: Ray Comfort.

If Ray’s perfect conception of God exists… that is God as Ray sees it, and describes it, then by definition, Ray is the best defender “Ray’s God”‘s got.

If Ray’s God existed, surely he could get a better spokesdroid than the Banana man. He’s so full of fail that he makes Inspector Clouseau look like Nelson Mandela.

Both Comfort’s questions have been answered many times over. I won’t reinvent the wheel, but Christopher Hitchens answers these quite well in God is not Great. I’d tell him to read that.

Jen said,

March 9, 2008 at 11:55 pm

I was going to respond, but then I thought about it: it would be far more productive to simply stab myself repeatedly in the thigh with a letter opener.

😆 Pretty much. I get this picture of him being very much like my Fundamgelical relatives in his mentality. There is no winning with them, not matter how knowledgable you are about it all. The only evidence that matters is if it’s in the Bible. Scientists are wrong, because it’s not in the Bible and there is no Philo or Aquinias either in Church history, because they aren’t in the Bible. 🙄 That type of ignorant warped mentality, you just can’t win. Using their own book against them goes only so far and then you get the Inquisition when they realize they aren’t winning.

The letter opener to the thigh repeatedly is much easier and shows a great understanding of the insaness one is up against with Comfort’s sick ignorant warped mentality.

It looks as if he would benefit from an introductory course in philosophy. He’s trying to put the burden of proof on us, but this isn’t where it falls.

I can’t believe nobody has stated the obvious yet:

Kirk Cameron’s acting career.

J.J., Drew,

Thanks for posting those comments. We shouldn’t get into the habit of repeating the usual atheist sound bites without thinking.

Maybe a more useful response to Ray’s question (instead of saying “can’t prove the negative!”) is to show that he is trying to set the atheist up to use his negative proof fallacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

We atheists would like to say the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, but having a negative claim does not relieve you of the burden in all cases. Imagine a maverick scientist who claimed Einstein’s equations were false. It’s a negative claim, but the scientific community would certainly expect the burden to be on his shoulders to prove it. I guess from a theist’s perspective the existence of God seems so obvious to them the the claim of his non-existence is like that wacky scientist who says E=mc^3.

Proof there is no God:

Ray cannot see the beauty in Klimt.

I’ve never felt truly sad for Ray-ray until this moment. When I see those Klimts, especially in person, it’s as though I hear a choir of angels, and the top of my head has been opened up and molten gold has been poured inside. If anything approaches the divine majesty of God in this life, it’s that feeling. To hear Ray Comfort spit at them tells me all I need to know about Ray and his tiny, insignificant, small-minded ghost of a god. That’s a god made only of Ray’s discomforts, fears and a severe lack of reverence. There is no beauty in Ray’s god… it’s an ugly troll of a thing.

To hear him complaining about the work of Gustav Klimt as if he were a Nazi complaining about degenerate art, is to realize that this man has closed off something vitally human inside him.

Here’s a question for Ray: How does he know which deity he is worshipping? That is how does he know it is not Jealous, el Shaddai who was demonized in Psalm 106:37, Adonai/Adonis, El Elyon, El Chay, El Naqamah, El Ma’al, El (which is the day star/Saturn, El Qanna, Dani, Amen/Ammon, etc. for which they are all different deities in Hebrew. How does he know that Christ is not another form of Krishna, Osiris/Horus, Mithra etc. Secondly, can he prove his deity is not one of the others? The Bible alone won’t get it either.

Now two questions for you all: Should I post that inquiry on his blog? 😈 And do you think I can show verses from at least Krishna (and other available religious texts) showing that he could be mistaken in his theory? Mind you, he will probably come up with the lame fall back that it is the devil’s work trying to fool us. Thus, he will have to prove it is the devil’s work if he attempts that route. Written Biblical text alone won’t get it though, for that would be a cop out… IMO of course.

He could end up ignoring my comment too or it could strike up a very interesting debate, in which we all could get a very good laugh out of in the end. 😆

I wish the game would be afoot Mriana, but the way Ray and the others have dismissed other sincere answers I doubt he will really answer.

Mriana, you asked,

Now two questions for you all: Should I post that inquiry on his blog?

I think we should all treat him as the troll that he is. Ignore him. He is an attention addict, a parasite on the mind of anyone who thinks a thought about him. Starve him to death. His worst fear is to become an “unperson” as in Orwell’s “1984.” He will never respond sincerely to a truly challenging question or to a truly questioning challenge. If he responds at all, he will twist and spin it until there’s no trace of your original idea but he can hear himself crowing triumphantly like a rooster. You have wasted your time and talent and given the troll another snack. So have I by making these nine statements that mention him. ‘Nuff said.

Who is this PJ person answering for the Banana man?

Mriana,

The guy can’t even see the beauty in a Gustav Klimt painting, and condemns them by comparing them to the scribbling on the inside of a men’s room stall. In other words, not only does he not enjoy them, they are filthy and only filthy-minded people can find them enjoyable. In typical Ray fashion, he doesn’t consider the experience or possibility that women might enjoy Klimt’s paintings… no they are just smut for the male perverts. (We’ll ignore the zillions of non-nudes)

He’s not going to respond to your thoughts and ideas. He’s done taking input from the outside world for this lifetime. It’s all solipsism from here on out.

Ray’s blog is a prime example of How Evangelicalism Corrupts Truth and Love.

I’ve been watching this very closely and I see what they are doing. They are going after what seems like easy targets. My post shows a degree of education and extremely difficult questions not addressed in apologestic, because I made those answers unavailable to them when I stipulated they could not use them without substancial evidence. Secondly, I showed that I had some theological training in that I knew which deity was which and which ones were demonized based on which scripture.

Because they have the warped idea of Truth and Love, along with only training in apologics and no actual theological training, they are going to avoid me like the plague in favour of those who appear to be easy targets and possibly fall for apolgetics. I’m not a target that falls within their frame work and they are categorizing me in with the ones who are being hostile.

I told one of my liberal Christian friends about this and she felt my question was a reasonable question given Ray’s attitude, but she also said that it does show a level of education that they obviously don’t have. She also thinks I’m playing my cards right by not informing Ray and his cronies my position and that I do have a degree of education that out weighs theirs.

However, my question is not an easy target like some others, esp since I said they could not use apolgetics, so they aren’t going to go for it. They are simply going to dodge it and say I’m hostile. Now that is corruption at it’s finest. I find it rather sad that they are afraid to debate me on the subject. It shows their degree of ignorance.

😆 I know it does. Remember, Ray doesn’t have any REAL theological study under his belt. He is an uneducated off the street preacher. IF he had an education, he would not be so bizarre. Then again, along with his lack of education, there maybe some degree of mental illness too. No, not his belief in and of itself, but rather is could be a symptom of a mental illness. Either that, or he has deluded himself into cult-like thinking, which is just as bizarre and attracts people with emotional issues.

The reason I italized How Evangelical Teachings Corrupt Truth and Love is because it is part of a book title by Valerie Tarico (a doctor of Psychology). The full title is The Dark Side: How Evangelical Teachings Corrupt Love and Truth. (Sorry, I reversed two words, as usual)

You can also read books by Tom Harpur, John Shelby Spong, Robert Price, and alike that address some of the apologists statements or if you are so brave, you can read an apologist’s book, but I am not as up on them as I am those who are very liberal. C. S. Lewis and Billy Graham are apologist though.

Spong addresses the idea of original sin, as well as other things, and how damaging that is to a person in some of his books, one being Why Christianity Must Change or Die. He addresses some of the other fallicies of Evangelicalism in Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism and Sins of Scripture. Price addresses his thoughts concerning all of this when he response to the author of Purpose Driven Life with his book Reason Driven Life. I would also recommend a book on the psychology of religion, but they are very expensive, but IF you can find one at your local library check it out because they also address cults, cult-like behaviour, and the “norm” of religious ideology.

As for the multitude of deities in the OT, Victor Matthews has a book called Old Testament Parallels, which discusses not only the gods, but also how Hebrew stories relate to the Egyptian stories. (He teaches a similar class using his book here at the local university in the religious studies dept.) Harpur discusses the Horus/Osiris myth in his book The Pagan Christ and Karen Armstrong discusses mythology in her book The Short History of Myth. And if you are so willing to venture into the realm of mythology further and how it all relates there are Acharya’s books too.

As for the differences in theological training, that comes with knowing a variety of ministers and observation. My relatives go to church that pull people off the street and make them ministers all because those people say things that move them and they have this superstitious belief that that person has the message of God. That is a far cry different from Mike Clawson and Bishop Spong’s training. Both went to different seminary schools, but even so they have a knowledge far beyond those pulled off the streets. Again, the knowledge of what those who do have some sort of training is also based on experience too, because what one learns in religion classes is a far cry than just reading the book and being trained in apologetics. Apologetics is easily taught in a few weekend seminars or retreat. It is not necessarily a class in a seminary or university study of religion, although one can take a course on C. S. Lewis or alike if they wish.

The ones who go to seminary and alike are ordain in a far different manner too. They aren’t just pulled off the streets and told, “OK you move us, therefore you have the “word of God” and are now a minister.” There is the Rite of Succession (the idea of laying on of hands by other ministers that supposedly dates back to the original apostles who were “ordain” by Jesus) among those churches as well as an indepth study of religion, with the focus being on Christianity.

Ray Comfort has none of that under his belt and he is destinctly different from any of those I mentioned, including Mike C. Ray has a destinct air of cultish brainwashing and if it doesn’t fit into what he was taught, he can’t reply to it in any manner (doesn’t fit his programming). I asked the same question of Mike C. once and actually got an answer from him that was reasonably rational, logical, and educated. Observe and you can see a destinct difference between Ray (and his cronies) and Mike. Ray et al are “programmed” and Mike is not (although some here may beg to differ, but observation of the two says otherwise). It is the difference between cult-like behaviour and non-cult-like behaviour, which is addressed in books concerning the psychology of religion.

😆 You’re welcome. Mine keeps getting longer and longer too.

I just recently got Dan Barker’s book Losing Faith and In Faith, so I’ve not had a chance to read it yet. Currently I’m trying to find time to finish Earl Doherty’s The Jesus Puzzle. I just finished Acharya’s (D. M. Murdock) book Who Was Jesus and wrote a review for her, which I need to place on my site soon.

I haven’t read the other three books you suggested (except for Misquoting Jesus they’re not on my book list yet). My problem is trying to find time to read all these other books, but then I also get VERY sick of religion sometimes too. I was there for a while, with two religion courses (one World Religions, required, and the other Buddhism) and the topic in my literature class having to do with early American lit. I’ll be glad to be done with this degree. All I need it one more English class (major requirement) and I’m done. I sometimes regret taking religion as a minor, but my curiousity of other religions got the best of me. They’re all alike though- as far as story senerios and thinking goes (some more illogical and/or cruel than others). We’re not really missing much.