Ray Comfort’s New Hair-Brained Ideas

32 CommentsE-vangie VIDEO!, Good News

A devious overt plan…

26,000 copies of On the Origin of Species were given out at universities in Australia and New Zealand on March 9th, without a hitch. This was to pre-empt meetings by Richard Dawkins (the world’s pre-eminent atheist) that were to be held in five major cities. Watch a clip from national TV in New Zealand by clicking here.

Here are the preliminary reports from the down under give away:

AUSTRALIA: “AWESOME!!!!! People were gathering around to get their copy. One of the groups at Melbourne Uni. got through about 2,500 books in just over 1 hour. . . What a great day it was. One guy tried to grab a whole box and make off with it, he wasn’t very successful.”

NEW ZEALAND : “It took from 11am until almost 2pm to hand out their 4000! They had a little resistance–some crazy atheists who were yelling “Jesus hates evolution” behind them–until some of the students who were getting books and engaging in conversations with the team yelled back at the atheists to shut up, as they couldn’t hear what our guys were saying. The atheists then went away. What a wonderful day we have all had speaking up for the LORD!!!”

Then Ray Comfort made a jacket for Richard Dawkins! A real jacket! Will the pope of atheism take it? Watch the video below:

Comments (32)

  2. BathTub

    Reply

    You do realize that Ray has put out Press Releases about his target to put about a 1,000,000 copies? I mentioned it here on this very blog.
    And the NZ give-away was old news before your last post.

    Remember when I said I wish him all the best and continued success because it seems your only definition of success is ‘giving away free books’.

    Since the effect of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and thousands and thousand of man hours on the scheme was ‘Nothing’, I fully endorse the idea of upping it to millions. In fact in my previous message (on this blog) I said put it up to 10 million. I would love to see Ray waste that much money.

    I am being 100% truthful here.

    I do enjoy watching you guys puff yourselves up pretending how hated you are.

    • Steve Sanchez

      Reply

      BathTub: Great! Pray for us!

      I did the interview about 2 weeks ago with the intention of posting it on April 1, not knowing that the give away was this week. Anyway, the majority of my readers didn’t know about this.

  3. Nohm

    Reply

    “Frustrated” is not the right word for me.

    If there’s a word for “eye-rollingly jaded”, that would be far more appropriate.

    Also,

    1. Dawkins is not the “pope of atheism”. People like myself disagree with him about his argumentation style. I was an atheist long before I knew who Dawkins was, and that was through his video interview with Ted Haggard.

    2. No, I doubt that Dawkins will accept the jacket. I have no question that it’s a well-made jacket, but that particular look is a bit out of fashion today.

  4. BathTub

    Reply

    I doubt Dawkins even knows about the Jacket, Ray doesn’t seem to bother contacting Dawkins directly. Remember it’s not about Dawkins, it’s about publicity.

    Something about the quote above doesn’t make any sense. Who is more likely to say “Jesus hates evolution”, an Atheist or Creationist? Now given how some other Creationists didn’t understand Rays plan last time, I would be inclined to think exactly the same thing here.

  5. Nohm

    Reply

    Btw, I agree with BathTub with regards to giving out even more and more books.

    But I doubt that BT or I will pray for you, since we don’t… pray.

    When people research the claims in Ray’s 50 page section of the book, they’ll find that they were reading disinformation and spin, which will cause them to more seriously consider the other Living Waters arguments.

    Therefore, passing out the books in large numbers is actually a win for the non-believers.

    Quick question while I’m here: Steve, do you now understand that the “Mount Rushmore” argument is the exact same as the watchmaker argument, which is the exact same as the “A building has a builder” argument?

  7. Nohm

    Reply

    Of course! That’s why I used it.

    Wait… what?

    You said, “Forget about the watchmaker argument, how about Mount Rushmore”, right?

    That certainly seems like you were presenting them as two different arguments with the “forget about” part… right?

  8. Nohm

    Reply

    Oh for the love of…

    I just finished watching your interview with Ray. You know, the one where AGAIN YOU GUYS TELL US WHAT WE THINK.

    And AGAIN you’re horribly wrong, like with the “nothing created everthing” garbage. Or that we hate what you stand for like a criminal hates a badge.

    My goodness. It’s all so dumb.

    Is there any point where your conscience tells you that speaking for other people that you don’t understand is probably a bad thing to do?

    Seriously, Steve. How are people like you and Ray able to justify doing this? When did we ever call you a liar? It was you who called me a liar!

    I… just have no idea how you’re able to rationalize such actions. I really don’t.

  9. Steve Sanchez

    Reply

    For all those just tuning in, this is a discussion with a few atheists that started here:
    https://stonethepreacher.com/2010/02/02/im-a-herald-not-a-negotiator.html

    And here:
    https://stonethepreacher.com/2010/02/10/the-wrath-of-god.html

    Nohm said: Wait… what?

    You said, “Forget about the watchmaker argument, how about Mount Rushmore”, right?

    That certainly seems like you were presenting them as two different arguments with the “forget about” part… right?

    Me: I think that they are perfectly plausible arguments. I can’t understand why you don’t. No one could look at Mt. Rushmore and reasonably deduce that natural causes, the wind, the rain, would form those faces. They’d have to be designed. Same with the watch maker argument.

    Nohm: I just finished watching your interview with Ray. You know, the one where AGAIN YOU GUYS TELL US WHAT WE THINK.

    Me: You may not think this way, but there are a few atheists who may/do.

    Nohm: And AGAIN you’re horribly wrong, like with the “nothing created everthing” garbage. Or that we hate what you stand for like a criminal hates a badge.

    Me: The bottom line of all this is that ultimately you have to believe that “nothing created everything.” Okay you don’t. Some do, though. Would you agree? And even if you didn’t agree, we would still believe that you ultimately believe that everything had to come from nothing. Without God, nothing is possible. With God, all things are.

    The Bible says that the unbeliever hates us/Christ because their deeds are evil. We’re referencing Scripture.

    Nohm: Is there any point where your conscience tells you that speaking for other people that you don’t understand is probably a bad thing to do?

    Me: Again, you may not agree with our points/perspective of how we understand most atheists….

    Your reference to me calling you a liar is again, another reference to Scripture that an unbeliever suppresses the truth.

  10. ExPatMatt

    Reply

    Way to miss every single point that Nohm was making there, Steve!

    English isn’t your second language, is it?

  11. Reynold

    Reply

    Steve
    I think that they are perfectly plausible arguments.

    Steve, care then to explain what you said earlier then, as pointed out to you by Nohm when he quoted you as saying:

    “Forget about the watchmaker argument, how about Mount Rushmore”, right?

    If they’re both equally valid, then why forget about the first one?

    Steve
    I can’t understand why you don’t. No one could look at Mt. Rushmore and reasonably deduce that natural causes, the wind, the rain, would form those faces. They’d have to be designed. Same with the watch maker argument.
     
    Do you know why we reject those arguments? It’s because unlike living organisms, none of those things; the watch, Mt. Rushmore, etc can reproduce.

    What that means is that they can’t pass on their genetic traits to their offspring. There is no chance for mutations of any sort to be made in the reproductive process, and therefore no way for any genetic changes to accumulate and be selected on by the environment.

    Those objects that you list Steve, are static, non-reproducing objects. Physically, only intervention from the outside can change them. Not so with living organisms.

    For a small scale example, look at dog breeding.

  12. Reynold

    Reply

    Steve
    Your reference to me calling you a liar is again, another reference to Scripture that an unbeliever suppresses the truth.
     
    So what?

    That part of scripture is wrong. Just like it was wrong when it said that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds, or when Christ said that some of those who stood there when he gave one sermon will not die until he comes again in his kingdom. (Matthew 16:24-28)

    Think, Steve. What are the chances of any religion’s holy book ever saying anything NICE about any non-believer?

    Why do you call Dawkins the “pope” of atheism? You do realize that there were atheists long before Dawkins came along?

    Not all atheists agree with everything that Dawkins says? (ex. his idiotic idea to call non-believers “brights”)

    No atheist actually takes orders from the man, or regards everything he says as “infallible”, right?

    Let me guess: You’re trying to make atheists look like just another cult of personality or something right?

    Tough. It’s a lie if that’s what you’re doing.

  13. BathTub

    Reply

    It’s all just part of their need to portray others as bad as them. They so often seem to miss the hilarity in that they use religion in a derogatory term. “Oh you worship Newton!”, “Astronomy is just a religious belief”, “Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica” is your holy book, etc. It’s just childish and to everyone else it just appears like its a rush to the bottom for the religious people.

    *dig*dig*dig*

    “See Mr Rationalist! You are just as bad as we are!”
    “Wooo praise Jesus, you really showed him!”

    Just be carefull you don’t pop your shoulder socket patting yourselves on the back.

  14. Steve Sanchez

    Reply

    Nohm: In regard to your question of when any of the atheists called me (and other Christians liars):

    #1: BathTub says:
    February 4, 2010 at 7:26 pm

    That’s an easy question, many of us enjoy discussions! It’s hardly as if this is the only blog I discuss things on. I’m on many blogs and forums. Hometheater, RiffTrax, Magicians, Science etc.

    But like many people I also can’t let lies about myself (and frequently others) stand with out a response.

    #2: Reynold says: (IMPLIED)
    February 7, 2010 at 10:13 pm

    Steve: If you don’t think that Nohm’s lying by “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness” then what do you think he’s doing?

    What IS “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness” then, if it isn’t lying of one form or another?

    This must be the two-faced way that christians can agree with their holy book when it comes to slandering non-believers, yet still pretend to be respectful and polite when called on it.

    #3: ExPatMatt says: (IMPLIED)
    February 12, 2010 at 7:27 am

    Steve,

    “Nohm: Okay, final answer: You know that God exists, and you are lying when you say that you don’t think God exists.

    Phew! Glad to get that off my chest”

    So were you lying when you said previously that Nohm wasn’t lying?

    Reynold: I understand that you think the Bible is wrong.

    To many, obviously not you, Dawkins is a bigwig, Pope, etc., of atheism.

    And regarding the Watchmaker argument, Mt Rushmore, etc. It doesn’t matter to me whether it’s a living or non-living example. The point is: evolutionary theory to me, is ridiculous. All this beauty, this design, is not random; we cannot be evolved from a single organism, or many singles-celled organisms. It’s ridiculous to me, a fairy tale.

    Sorry, but my answer is based on Genesis. In the beginning…God!

    That’s the best I can do.

  15. Nohm

    Reply

    “To many, obviously not you, Dawkins is a bigwig, Pope, etc., of atheism.”

    This is not a true statement. I’m not saying you’re lying, just that you’re wrong.

    “I think that they are perfectly plausible arguments. I can’t understand why you don’t.”

    I don’t see how you could say that. We listed multiple issues that we had with the argument. Now, you can certainly disagree with us, but please point out where you disagree with us, and why. Deal with the actual argument. Let’s reason it out.

    I’m just saying that when I don’t understand something that someone wrote or said, I ask questions.

    “And regarding the Watchmaker argument, Mt Rushmore, etc. It doesn’t matter to me whether it’s a living or non-living example.”

    Ok, then use a living example, and see how well that works out.

    Seriously, try it.

    “The point is: evolutionary theory to me, is ridiculous. ”

    I’ll say it again; this is because you believe in a ridiculous view of evolution. If I thought that evolution was what you think it is, I’d also view it as ridiculous.

    If I thought that the theory of gravity is that invisible orange trolls push us to the ground, I would find it ridiculous. But, is that a problem with my understanding of the theory of gravity, or the theory itself?

    “All this beauty, this design, is not random”

    By this statement, I take it that you still have never tried to learn what “determinism” or “emergence” is. Hint: they have nothing to do with “randomness”.

    “we cannot be evolved from a single organism, or many singles-celled organisms.”

    Why not? Please put forth the math that shows that it could not have happened.

    (Yes, I’m aware that you won’t touch this, as you’ve never investigated the math).

    “It’s ridiculous to me, a fairy tale.”

    Again, if you believe in a fairy tale description of the theory of evolution, then I can see how it would appear ridiculous.

    “In the beginning…God!”

    And that has nothing to do with, nor does it interfere with, evolution.

    I’ll also note that of all the comments we’ve written, you found three items, two of which are “implied” (and I would argue that the first one is implied also, as I think BT was talking about fundamentalist/anti-evolutionist blogs in general).

    Want to know the guaranteed way not to be called a liar? Don’t try to read other people’s minds, because you’re not good at it (neither am I, for that matter, but I don’t bother trying).

    My point was more that it seemed silly for you to complain to Ray about atheists calling you a liar on your blog, when you explicitly called me a liar… not for anything I wrote, but simply because I supposedly “suppress the truth” (and I still don’t think you know what you mean when you use those words).

    So… it just comes off as a bit hypocritical to me.

    Lastly, I always thought this question by ExPatMatt was a good one, but you never responded to it:

    “So were you lying when you said previously that Nohm wasn’t lying?”

    So Steve, were you? But, more importantly, why were you (if you were)?

    • Steve Sanchez

      Reply

      Suppression of the truth is lying. The Bible calls it that. I agree.

      Are you purposefully suppressing the truth? I don’t know; I’m no mind reader.

  16. Nohm

    Reply

    Steve, I’d like you to find a handful of atheists who call Dawkins their pope. If “many” people think this, then finding a handful should be easy, right?

    (Hint: since no one calls him that, except for fundamentalists, you won’t be successful)

  17. BathTub

    Reply

    Steve can you name 1 person who considers Dawkins their pope? Who actually thinks that, rather than just you using it as a childish shorthand for Dawkins is a respected Biologists/Published Author. I could say with equal validity that Ray Comfort is your Pope if I wanted to be just as childish.

  18. Nohm

    Reply

    Yet you said before that I’m aware that I know that God exists and…

    Feh, forget it.

    “Pope: Hyperbole.”

    So, why not just say that the first time I asked, instead of claiming that to many Dawkins is the pope of atheism.

    I’m curious where you, Steve, draw the line between “hyperbole” and “flat-out lying”.

    No, I’m not calling you a liar, but maybe it’s implied. 😉 Hyperbole again, no doubt.

  19. Nohm

    Reply

    Steve,

    What kind of sense does it make that I would lie to you, or anyone, about my non-belief?

    Why would I do such a thing?

    • Steve Sanchez

      Reply

      Actually, you have no reason to lie. You truly believe in your unbelief. I can accept that. The question then is: Why does the Bible say that those who don’t believe “suppress the truth”?

  21. Nohm

    Reply

    Hi Steve,

    You wrote: “Why does the Bible say that those who don’t believe “suppress the truth”?”

    I have an answer, but it’ll have to wait until I have the time to fully explain it (I’m slammed at work all today).

  22. ExPatMatt

    Reply

    Steve,

    I’d like you to retract that accusation that I called you a liar (IMPLIED). I merely asked you a question;

    “So were you lying when you said previously that Nohm wasn’t lying?

    [original formatting]

    You never did answer me, did you?

    Besides, why would you have a problem with atheists calling you a liar anyway? Have you ever told a lie, no matter how insignificant? If so, what does that make you?

    I think you know the answer (unless you’re a ‘good’ person, of course!) 🙂

    Cheers,

  23. ExPatMatt

    Reply

    And for the record, I don’t think you (Steve) lie any more or less than most folk. But I do think that – in the name of your evangelistic efforts – you play pretty loose and fast with the truth sometimes.

    Details, for example, seem to be fairly irrelevant for you. And representing other people’s opinions accurately seems to be a lot more difficult than it really should be.

    Hyperbole, irony, humour all seem to be used as excuses to cover up when you are simply wrong about something.

    The thing is, you’re clearly a smart(ish) guy, so your apparently lack of motivation to correct these things can come off as deliberate dishonesty. It’s not a difficult trend to avoid, if you want to.

    Cheers,

  25. ExPatMatt

    Reply

    Wrong thread Steve, wrong thread.

    And no, you weren’t telling the truth, you were suggesting that evolutionary theory proposes that humans are descended from elephants which is simply not true.

    First you said you were serious. Then you claimed it was a poor attempt at humour. Now you’re back to being completely serious again. Do you often have trouble with reality like this?

    Regards,

    [any response to the comments from this thread?]

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *