Interview: Ray Comfort Answers Your Questions

[ydoaPs]

I thought that he spends a lot of time with debates. Why would he refuse to debate someone here? Doesn't make much sense.

[Mr Skeptic]

I would be a little unfair, he'd get mobbed. We'd have to have a way to at least eliminate redundant questions and prioritize which questions hare asked with extra emphasis.

[ydoaPs]

I would be a little unfair, he'd get mobbed. We'd have to have a way to at least eliminate redundant questions and prioritize which questions hare asked with extra emphasis.

 

Or have an elected representative in a one-on-one debate.

[ecoli]

number 10 *almost* made up for number 5. But not really.

 

Suggesting common ancestry is confirming the consequent, but concluding a common creator (with no evidence) isn't? Give me a break.

[forufes]

GREAT thread..thanks to all..i'll link some of my friends to it definitely worth a read..

 

 

So maybe some of us just don't need it?

 

yeah..but what about the rest?

 

we take religion's good points for granted, which are out weighting its bad points, and wail over the bad points which we imagine will go away if we remove religion, which are not the CAUSE of religion, but are simply a misuse of it..

radicals will blow up buildings, for religion or otherwise, wars will be waged, for religions or otherwise, old men will use their position to abuse young women, in churches of religion or anywhere else..

 

but for example, what can substitute the moral code of a belief in god, for those many who hold none but it?

 

the downsides of religion as a school of thought, are they because of the core teachings of the school or the wrong carrying-outs of them?

 

i was surprised by #10 as well, it seemed too ...one sided..

[randomc]

Thanks Cap'n and ydoaPs and whoever else put this together.

 

 

 

There are only two perspectives in the issue of human origins. Either we believe (as does Richard Dawkins and many others) that nothing created everything, which is a scientific impossibility, or we believe that something created everything. In The Ancestor's Tale the professor said, “… the fact that life evolved out of literally nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing--is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice” (italics added). Atheists are offended by the thought and try and redefine the definition of “nothing” to save face. But it can’t be redefined. Nothing means nothing. It is nothing, and it can produce nothing. There is nothing more to say on the subject, and for the committed atheist, the alternative is unthinkable, in the truest sense of the word.

 

The way i see it, there isn't really any perspective on the origin of the universe that is well enough supported that it may be safely assumed. Human origins are a different matter; the weight of evidence for some mechanism of evolution is sufficient to place it beyond reasonable doubt, i think.

 

Not that it really matters - Rev Comfort seems to believe that the atheist position is dependent on a particular set of beliefs and assumptions, and i suppose that while this might be true of some atheists, these are no more representative of atheism than evangelicals or creationists are of christianity. Atheism does not require science in order to be an intellectually coherent stance, it requires merely an awareness of standards of proof and argument. TBH, my feeling is that those atheists who cling limpet-like to science do so to its detriment - they are parasites who should simply learn to live without faith or at least stop polluting science with it. Sorry if i'm ranting.

 

Anyway, the obvious false dilemma in Rev Comforts answer here seems to be a reflection of the narrowness of the scope of the public debate. He might consider that there are plenty of atheists and scientists who see Dawkins as an arrogant attention seeking prat; and Darwin as a much honoured figure in the annals of the history of science, but ultimately, getting down to the actual business and practise of science, just some guy. He was a scientist not a prophet, and it doesn't matter one iota how right or wrong he himself personally got things.

 

 

Any scientist who denies that we live in a “creation” or that nature has been “made” or “built” isn’t a scientist, in the truest sense of the word. The redefining of these words to fit one’s philosophy shows the desperate measures needed to believe atheism. To leave God out of science (“knowledge”) is to leave the ‘wet” out of water.

 

I don't know; i get the impression this guy has a very limited understanding of how atheists in general think and how people arrive at atheism. The assumption he seems to make is that people believe in God by default and that atheism is a departure from this 'natural' state. All i can say is that it certainly wasn't like that for me - I'm a second generation atheist and i grew up in a culture that is largely indifferent to religion. Maybe i've had it the easy way.

 

 

 

RE q.10

 

I suspect his thinking here is that his faith doesn't belong to the dogmatic assertion of religion, but rather to the proven authority of absolute truth. He's implied that view elsewhere anway.

[Pip Threlfall]

Regarding Mr Comfort’s opinions on question 2 – in his reply he says, “There are only two perspectives in the issue of human origins. Either we believe (as does Richard Dawkins and many others) that nothing created everything, which is a scientific impossibility, or we believe that something created everything……….”

 

As a Bible believing Christian there is a third perspective in the issue of human origin and that is that no-thing created everything.

 

The Bible speaks of ‘The Holy Spirit’, which I would understand as wholly spirit, that is nothing but spirit, (no additives). Now although we cannot define spirit we can say what it is not. It has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no position in space and time, simply put, it is a no-thing. However it is not nothing because it is the creator of things.

[asdf]

i'm actually most surprised by his answer to number 8. i'd think that a person who is true to the bible would only allow for a geocentric model of the universe, where the earth is fixed and not moving. logically speaking, there is nothing wrong with this view, but the only reason that galileo said that the earth moves is because the solar system basically looks prettier that way, or most efficiently allows for scientific growth. it would be much easier to calculate planetary movements if u put the sun in the middle, and it also allowed science to explore other ways of explaining the universe, like the concept of gravitational force for example.

 

i think that maybe it would help ray if he learned that one key difference between him and the people he disagrees with is that they use different definitions for certain common words. for example if someone who has a good understanding of science were to tell him that he/she "believes" in evolution, chances are that he/she uses that word to mean "thinks is the most efficient" or "is most comfortable with" or "thinks is most likely or probable", but not "thinks is the absolutely only view that should be". so they don't "believe" in evolution in the same sense that ray "believes" in god. this is probably why he seems to get so frustrated when people tell him that they're atheists. and by looking at it this way, u can also see why many people get frustrated at people like ray who keep "believing" in creation. they simply use different axioms.

the same thing can be said for the word, "truth". science isn't the search for "truth" in the sense that ray uses it. it is merely a tool that people use in order to most efficiently explain and explore the universe. so u're not supposed to "believe" in science. u're not supposed to "believe" in anything that u learn in school. that's the point of liberal arts education. most people in our society learn "beliefs" and "truths" on sundays. this is why i don't feel forced to use the iambic pentameter to write this comment. it's why very few people would go around saying that cubism is the only way that anything should be painted. this applies to history as well, but it seems from looking at ray's comments that he already understands that the history books can only provide perspectives and not absolute truths. they're all philosophies (which is why the highest academic degree that u can get for these things is a Doctor of Philosophy, or PhD). the people that ray disagrees with usually don't think that everthing is black and white. they don't go to school in order to gain "knowledge". they go in order to gain "tools for understanding", or philosophies. if they want "knowledge" in ray's terms, they go to churches, temples, mosques, etc. of course it gets confusing because many people use the word "knowledge" in the sense that ray uses "understanding"...

 

so basically, ray's argument for evolution not being science seems to be because it's not the "truth", but it's really not supposed to be. it would probably help him most to just look at it the same way he looks at a heliocentric solar system, as simply a model that many people think is an efficient way to look at the world and allows science to grow, even though it goes against biblical "truth". and it already has allowed for other scientific concepts to take shape, like heredity and genetics for example.

 

so to conclude, everything that ray "believes" in is absolutely correct. everything that anybody at all believes in is absolutely correct for that matter. but none of the liberal arts, including science, is used to teach us what's absolutely correct. if ray wants to use this to his advantage, i guess he could now go about with the assumption that his definitions of these words are the only definitions that should be allowed. but i'd suggest that he try to find it in himself to try to accept the fact that most people would look at what he preaches and would call it a "religion", which i'm guessing he hasn't figured out yet, based on what he says in number 10. he can argue that it's the only one that should be and whatnot, but i don't care to join the fight, for or against. when u learn to try to "understand" things rather than just "know" them, u wouldn't have to tell people that they're wrong in order to prove your point. and "understanding" can be more fun if u give it a try, cause u're basically never done, but u get better and better at it... "knowledge" is basically only useful for competition, like jeopardy and evangelism. (which of course there's nothing wrong with. i love jeopardy.)

[Just the Facts]

With all due respect...

 

Many Kudos to the people responsible for this interview.

The questions were good and some of the answers were rather surprising coming from Mr. Comfort.

 

But in the end we do have this…

 

“Behold the Banana, the atheist worst nightmare” - Ray Comfort

 

Using apples and bananas to prove intelligent design is really sad.

 

Of coarse we all know Ray Comfort is a Delusional Lunatic.

But then.. So is Machio Kaku.

 

Religion or Pseudoscience… not much difference.. Is there.

 

 

[imatfaal]

mIchio kaku is such a lunatic that Harvard, Berkeley, Princetown/ioas, and CUNY have all been connected with him through employing/educating him. kaku enjoys going into fictional areas to get people involved and generate debate.

[Just the Facts]

<br />mIchio kaku is such a lunatic that Harvard, Berkeley, Princetown/ioas, and CUNY have all been connected with him through employing/educating him.  kaku enjoys going into fictional areas to get people involved and generate debate.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

 

 

Respectfully.

I can appreciate Mr. Kaku’s attempts to gain more interest in the sciences.

I respect the institutions that give him a platform to present his ideas.

I have viewed many of his offerings and know what he has put out for consideration.

I happen to believe that the great majority of his ideas are pure fantasy… at best.

He creates places that are not real. He lets his imagination create all sorts of absurd

concepts with no connection with reality. He calls himself a “Theoretical Physicists“.

I prefer to call him an opportunist that takes full advantage of his notoriety to gain a status and income he doesn’t truly deserve. I can’t agree with any of the bazaar nonsense he has put out and convinced some people that it is real. It is real silly. Science can do without such distractions from real science research.

He is a waste of time.

 

BUT.. he does have a nice hair doo and accent. far what that's worth.

[imatfaal]

I think CUNY think of him as a theoretical physicist as well - they employ him as a tenured professor

[Just the Facts]

I think CUNY think of him as a theoretical physicist as well - they employ him as a tenured professor

 

 

I know.. What a shame.

 

Kaku is like Peter Pan trying to convince us that Never Never Land is a real place.

Some people treat him like he's Superman, and can leap tall buildings with a Tall Tale.

 

College is too expensive.

 

I wouldn’t waste a dime of my money learning that kind of silliness.

 

[A Tripolation]

I wouldn’t waste a dime of my money learning that kind of silliness.

 

 

Trust me. Everyone here already knows that.

[Just the Facts]

Trust me. Everyone here already knows that.

 

 

Trust me... from what I have seen here. Nobody knows anything worth knowing.

Ray Comfort with his silly banana theories makes these fellows look like Autistic Three year olds, Trying to explain science.

TOO FUNNY!!

[hamburg113]

Hi,

 

 

 

Thanks very much for this comment. It help me to think about my ideals.

 

 

 

Tks again and pls keep posting.

 

 

[Moontanman]

Whoever had the idea for this interview was a genius. And the person who got Ray to agree to it must be a god.

 

 

Ray comfort is an attention whore, he lives to spread his MBE and make money from it and while he wasn't paid for this i am sure it will indeed induce others to look him up on the net and eventually he will make more money off it. His MBE is so extensive it has become almost a religion all by it's self, he did of course win the Golden Crocoduck, in 2009 i think it was, for violating the 9th commandment in the name of his religion.

 

Fair point -- everyone should thank ydoaPs for taking the initiative and emailing Mr. Comfort! Although I think he might disagree on the god part.

 

I've been praying to ydoaPs for some time now, he always gives me what I ask for....

Edited August 16, 2011 by Moontanman

[Realitycheck]

"Religion is a very murky and grimy bathwater, and if you don't look carefully, you can easily miss the baby."

 

How do you interpret this statement?

[Moontanman]

"Religion is a very murky and grimy bathwater, and if you don't look carefully, you can easily miss the baby."

 

How do you interpret this statement?

 

 

There is no doubt that many people get comfort from their religion but creationism is a lie fostered by people who are manipulating people into giving them huge sums of money, creationism depends on making everyone believe the bathwater is murky and pretending to look for the baby while their hands are in the pockets of the person who is doing the looking. It's just another way of muddying the water so you can't tell how deep it really is, but hey dive in, the water is fine..... I've spent quite a bit of time listening to Rays MBE, he is full of it and himself and makes his living from lying to people about religion, not to mention trying to make them believe that creationism is the one and only real religion and that any one who isn't a creationist has to be an atheist. I have zero respect for him and those like him... and there are a lot of them and show casing any of them just increases their power and fills their pockets, they need to be opposed at every turn by pointing out the facts of their deceit...

Edited August 17, 2011 by Moontanman

[Realitycheck]

But in this little interview, he advocates no religion.

[Moontanman]

But in this little interview, he advocates no religion.

 

 

Is that a fact?

 

However, I maintain that there are no undisputed species to species transitional forms. No kind of animal has ever evolved into another kind of animal. There are transitions within kinds, but, as the Bible clearly says over and over, every animal brings forth after its own kind. The missing link is still missing. The theory of evolution is just a belief. Yet millions embrace it as gospel truth because they unquestioningly believe what they have been told by others, who, like Darwin have a fertile imagination. Charles Darwin brought forth after his own kind. Again, there was no “shift,” just an increase in my writing on the subject.

 

There are only two perspectives in the issue of human origins. Either we believe (as does Richard Dawkins and many others) that nothing created everything, which is a scientific impossibility, or we believe that something created everything. In The Ancestor's Tale the professor said, “… the fact that life evolved out of literally nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing--is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice” (italics added). Atheists are offended by the thought and try and redefine the definition of “nothing” to save face. But it can’t be redefined. Nothing means nothing. It is nothing, and it can produce nothing. There is nothing more to say on the subject, and for the committed atheist, the alternative is unthinkable, in the truest sense of the word.

 

My goal has never been hidden. It is simply to present the case for Christianity--which is either true or it isn’t. My confidence is that it can be proven to be true but putting John 14:21 into practice. I don’t want to censor people from learning about the theory of evolution. However, when someone comes to know God, the issue of atheism is closed, and with that comes a trust in the authenticity of His Word--the Bible. It super-naturally follows, and so by default evolution is proven to be just another of the many myths as to the origin of mankind.

 

However, those who believe in God and evolution have to throw out Holy Scripture, because the Bible tells us that God created male and female in every kind of animal, and then He gave them the ability to reproduce after their own kind (see Genesis 1). We are told in Scripture that there is one kind of flesh and man, and one kind of flesh of beasts. So the god of evolution and the God of the Bible are incompatible. Evolution didn’t “create” anything. It doesn’t have any genesis, and its explanation as to why there are male and female within every animal is ridiculously nebulous.

 

Those who choose to believe in any other god are guilty of violation of the First and Second of the Ten Commandments--something called “idolatry”--making a god in our own imagination, and that was the professor’s problem.

 

Another possible conclusion is that humans and animals share retroviruses because they were created by the same Creator, who used similar designs in humans and animals. We share many similarities with most of the creatures on our planet, both seen with the microscope and*with the human eye. Similarities simply confirm that God made animals and human beings with the same blueprint--with legs, a mouth, a tongue, eyes, ears, a heart, blood, liver, kidneys, lungs, teeth, and a brain, just to name a few.

 

It told me precisely what had happened to me. This ancient “bronze-age” Book proved itself to be the supernatural Word of the Creator. I have been reading it daily for more than 38 years, and haven’t found even one mistake. There are plenty of seeming contradictions, but with a little study, they are easily answered. So, unlike an atheist, I have a foundation for what I believe. I have a clear agenda. I have the unspeakable comfort of a Book filled with immutable promises of God. That Book gives me absolute assurance that what I experienced more than 38 years ago was the power of God in the life of a guilty sinner. Millions, if not billions, have had the same experience, from all walks of life, and from all ethnicities. So my theology isn’t an independent or narrow exclusive sectarian belief. It is mainstream belief in the universality of God’s “Whosever will may come…”

 

There is no question (nor has there ever been a question as to the divinity of Jesus) for those who believe Scripture. For example: “In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made . . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” (John 1:1-3, 14). Or “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached to the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory” ( 1 Timothy 3:16). Notice the words “without controversy.” These are only two verses of many that speak of Jesus being the Creator, manifest in human form.

 

They think Intelligent Design hinders the progress of science. However, evolution is not science. There is nothing scientific about it. The two should only be in the same sentence when one is referring to science fiction.

 

So I agree with Albert Einstein, when he said "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind," and I’m confident that he was referring to an intellectual belief in God’s existence when he used the word “religion,” rather than a reference to the established traditional church. Any scientist who denies that we live in a “creation” or that nature has been “made” or “built” isn’t a scientist, in the truest sense of the word. The redefining of these words to fit one’s philosophy shows the desperate measures needed to believe atheism. To leave God out of science (“knowledge”) is to leave the ‘wet” out of water. It is nonsensical, or to quote Einstein, “lame.”

 

I think that a world without religion would be a much better world. Imagine no 911. Imagine no terror-threats from Islam. No suicide bombs. Imagine no pedophile priests or money-hungry televangelists. (exactly what he is) Imagine no Roman Catholic Crusades against innocent people or torturous Inquisitions against those who denied their religion. Imagine no religious nuts carrying signs at soldiers funerals saying that it’s good that they died or that “God hates fags.” Imagine no religious hypocrisy, and no trail of human blood down through history through the mass of religious wars. No witch burnings, no hindrances to science . . . imagine.

 

You're just baiting me right?

[oliverhankin]

I think his responses are thoughtful, considered and at times surprising particularly the last one.

 

All credit to him for taking the time out to do this for us.

 

A interesting interview all in all Cap'n.

 

as always , you can't look in to the future,evolution has taught us to look into the past.

I have an idea for a new telescope. A transmitting telescope.

hi, about what?

 

[Itoero]

Banana Ray is a fun dude!