Atheist Central -- Ray Comfort’s Blog

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools..." (Romans 1:20-22).
"You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart"
(Matthew 5:27-28).
Cuss words (mild or abbrev.), blasphemy, URL’s, incivility,
or failure to give the name ‘God’ or ‘Jesus’ capitals, will be deleted.”
Cartoons by Richard Gunther.

Saturday, April 19, 2008

Wonderful Atheists

We were in Santa Monica, Southern California, looking for colorful interviews for the Third Season of our television program, especially for the opening four episodes. One program was called “Joe Average.” It opened with a man named Joe getting out of bed, making some toast and honey, drinking a glass of milk, then going outside in the early morning sunlight and checking his garden and the day’s weather. The script says, “Joe is a typical man. He doesn’t think much about the creation that surrounds him, let alone the Creator. Even though God gave him life itself, if you asked Joe if God had ever done anything for him, he probably couldn’t think of one thing. It’s just another average day for Joe Average. Not quite. There is nothing 'average' about Joe or what he has done that morning. He’s actually a miracle machine that no man-made mechanism could ever begin to even imitate.” Then the program talks of the marvel of his body, and where his milk, toast, and honey came from. It’s a wonderful and unique episode.

I stopped a couple on rollerblades and asked if they would like to be on television, talking about what they believe happens after someone dies. They looked at each other and said, “We’re atheists!” It told them how much I love atheists, and they gave their consent to be on the program.

First question: “Has God ever done anything for you?” Their answer was a predictable “Nothing.” I said, “He gave you life.” Again, a predictable “Our parents gave us life.” I said, “That's right. And their parents gave them life, right back to Adam.” He agreed, then said, “No!!!!,” He laughed, and added “You got me!” That set a relaxed tone for the interview.

I said, “I have a task for you. Make me some milk, from nothing.” He looked a bit puzzled and said, “We would need a cow.” “Okay then, make me a cow, from nothing.” He said he couldn’t do it. His wife agreed. So I asked where the first cow came from. “Evolution.” How did evolution create the cow? A predictable “The big bang.” Where did the materials come from for the big bang to happen? He didn’t know.

When I asked them both to make me some honey, from nothing, they went back to the bee, and ended up with the same dilemma. They had no idea what happened “in the beginning.”

I asked them to surmise that there was a God in the beginning, and a Heaven and a Hell. Were they good enough to go to Heaven? A predictable, of course they were . . . that is, until they saw the perfect righteousness of God's Law--they were guilty of lying, stealing, blasphemy and adultery of the heart (lust). If there was a Hell, they both admitted that they were going there when they died. Did that concern them? It did. I then explained that 2,000 years ago, a legal transaction took place between God and man.

When Jesus of Nazareth suffered and died on the cross, He was paying the fine for the moral Law that each of us has transgressed. Because of His suffering death and resurrection, God can now legally dismiss our case. We can leave the courtroom. He can commute our death sentence and let us live.

I explained the necessity of repentance and faith, and how (if the husband cared about his wife and five kids) he needed to get right with God. He looked at me with wide-eyes and said, “I have never had anyone explain that to me before . . .” It was a wonderful interview with a couple of very nice people. It was also just what we needed for the program. It wasn’t the first time atheists turned out to be a God-send.

121 comments:

Travis said...

One minor quibble ray. Domesticated cattle are not the product of evolution but the product of selective breeding for thousands of generation. The ancestor of the modern dairy cow would be the aurochs. I do admit that the aurochs was "created" by the process of evolution.

Terry Burton said...

Greetings! in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, & the Almighty God.

I like the Way you 'MILKED' that story Ray. :) I know, bad joke.

Figured, I get that in before the "A"s beat me to it. Its nice when you talk with some people that are "open" to the gospel.

Have a Nice Weekend everybody!

I Still have FREE bibles ( paper back ) to give away. New King James Version. I'm shipping 8 of them to living waters, care of Tony. GOD BLESS!

Carolpaints said...

The Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. What a great experience.

Recently, I dreamt I was witnessing to someone, and gave them the good person test from start to finish. Guess that was good practice.

Matthew Wooller said...

One.Last.Time...

Evolution has NOTHING to do with 'the big bang'.

You have been told this, over and over. You are either bone headed stupid - or you willfully lie. There is no other explanation.

Which is it?

stranger>strange.land said...

Thanks for the article, Ray, very encouraging. You're right, the works of God are before our very eyes, and our ingratitude for His goodness shows our sinfulnessremind us to . Also the conversation with the rollerbladers serves to remind us to keep "on track" with the message the Lord has entrusted us with.

Paul Brown said...

No, Ray, no. Again with the people who, instead of acting like people, decide to act like puppets in the Ray Comfort Theatre Show.

"First question: “Has God ever done anything for you?” Their answer was a predictable “Nothing.” I said, “He gave you life.” Again, a predictable “Our parents gave us life.” I said, “That's right. And their parents gave them life, right back to Adam.” He agreed, then said, “No!!!!,” He laughed, and added “You got me!” That set a relaxed tone for the interview."

If he agreed that Adam existed then he wasn't an atheist. Simple as that - you can't be an atheist and still believe in the origin myth of the the Judeo-Christian religion by definition. Either this guy was extremely confused about what he was or you are misrepresenting this encounter just like all the others.

I remember that I called you on this the last time and you rather smugly replied that you had the whole thing on tape, yet you don't seem willing to show this footage to anyone.

If you have the stones to face up to a real atheist, instead of one in your imagination, then why no try interviewing myself, Clos, dale or weemaryanne for your next show? I personnally could wipe the floor with those feeble questions and I imagine that they could too.

Mark W Laine said...

Good post Ray...
The Kingdom of Gods glorious Intellient Design will reign forever and ever. Hopefully that nice ah-theist couple and their five children will be there.

After watching Expelled last night I know a couple of ah-theists who most probably will not be there.

I found it very interesting that Richard Dawkins is already preparing his legal defense before God. WHY WERE YOU SO HARD TO FIND?, says Richard. I sent you Ben Stein replys God, and I am sure a plethora of other evangelists, ministers, pastors, Christian men and woman testifying to the truth. When this evidence is presented to Mr. Dawkins he will hang his head in shame. And then good-bye to everlasting torment.

Sorry Richard pleading ignorance of the LAW on your court day simply raises the ire of a Holy and Just Judge, GOD.

Joseph A. said...

I can't wait to see the third season. Is it announced when it will be showing on television yet?

Mark W Laine said...

Good post Ray...
The Kingdom of Gods glorious Intellient Design will reign forever and ever. Hopefully that nice ah-theist couple and their five children will be there.

After watching Expelled last night I know a couple of ah-theists who most probably will not be there.

I found it very interesting that Richard Dawkins is already preparing his legal defense before God. WHY WERE YOU SO HARD TO FIND?, says Richard. I sent you Ben Stein replys God, and I am sure a plethora of other evangelists, ministers, pastors, Christian men and woman testifying to the truth. When this evidence is presented to Mr. Dawkins he will hang his head in shame. And then good-bye to everlasting torment.

Sorry Richard pleading ignorance of the LAW on your court day simply raises the ire of a Holy and Just Judge, GOD.

Deb Burton said...

God works in the way that He will, which probably isn't structured or predictable enough for those who've never taken the time to really get to know Him through a personal relationship. But for those who have finally had their eyes opened to the Truth, the way God works makes perfect sense. It has nothing to do with all of a sudden becoming stupid and gullible, and everything to do with finally understanding with a clarity never before experienced.

God's Truth is real and life-giving. It becomes as obvious as the nose on one's face when it is presented with the sense and reality inherent with it. That's how it was presented to that roller-blading couple, and the husband was able to see at least a smidgen of the Truth for the first time.

Thanks for your ministry Ray. Keep presenting the Truth, it's more than capable of standing on its own. I'll keep praying for the softening of people's hearts so it has a chance to seep in.

dale said...

So trite and simplistic, Ray, so wonderfully absurd.
I can always count on you.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

Nobody had ever put it to them that way before? Where they from Mars?

weemaryanne said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Tomby Stone said...

Of course you don't have to answer the question of where this God came from the make all of this wonderful honey, milk and male anatomy because ... he's GOD isn't he ?? You've allowed yourself a nice little departure point from a difficult problem by using your 'supernatural' being.

Allow me to do the same ...

The honey came from bees which were created through evolution which began on a planet in a universe created by Steve Buscemi. Steve Buscemi is the ultimate perfect and immortal creator of everything, he just likes to keep quiet about it so it doesn't affect his movie career.

Now there's as much (or more accurately, as little) evidence for my claim as for yours and we're both insisting we're right, what do we do about this ?? Do we agree to reevaluate our old ideas in light of new evidence and continue our unified quest of exploring the very nature of space and time in order to gain new insight into these problems or do we have a holy war ?? Because I gotta tell ya Ray, I think the Buscemites would come out on top.

Rebecca said...

Brilliant, Ray! Just brilliant! :) I pray I can be so bold!

Charles said...

I wouldn't call them atheists. I'd call them Not Much of Anything or just the Ignorant. They're non-believers in the same way that folks who call themselves Christans but have no real interest or engagement with Christ are also really non-believers. They're simply not interested in or really engaged with the issue.

There's not much difference between the guy who doesn't go to church on Sunday because he's never gone and he doesn't care, and the guy who does go to church on Sunday because that's what he was raised to do and it makes him feel good. They're both equally Not Much of Anything. Neither Christians nor atheists.

It's a useful distinction.

Not that I expect Ray to understand the difference. But he's not really winning over atheists in these stories. He's not changing the minds of people who have really thought about the existence of God or lack thereof. All respect to you, Ray, but I think that your best if not only chances for converts are with the ignorant. You know, those folks who say, "Wow, you mean I'm going to Hell? I never heard about that before. Who was this Jesus that you're talking about?" Just like in the Jack Chick comics.

I see no evidence that your arguments work with anyone who's given any real thought to the matter and thus realized that there's nothing to them.

Good luck, though.

camport said...

love that last line!

:)

dale said...

Q-Who made God, Ray?
A-God is eternal

Q- Who made the matter that exists dale?
A- Matter is eternal

From now on, every time that someone says, "God did it," in answer to a question, I have programmed myself to automatically transpose that statement to, "I don't know."

Good nuff.

Rufus said...

Ray:

It's nice that you found a couple of folks who know as much about evolution, and cosmology, as you do. How about giving Victor Stenger an hour of your TV time, without editing, to discuss cosmology? Or giving any evolutionist, say Donald Prothero, an hour, without editing?

JSK said...

I then explained that 2,000 years ago, a legal transaction took place between God and man. When Jesus of Nazareth suffered and died on the cross, He was paying the fine for the moral Law that each of us has transgressed. Because of His suffering death and resurrection, God can now legally dismiss our
case.


There's something almost charming about the way Ray offers his take on the atonement: as if it were such an obvious exercise in common sense, it would be impossible to imagine how anybody could have a problem with it. After all, aren't we all familiar with "legal transactions"? Isn't it obvious that crimes have to be punished? And haven't we all seen murderers set free when innocent people paid a fine to the judge, and applauded the justice and wisdom of such a "transaction"?

Thomas said...

"I said, “I have a task for you. Make me some milk, from nothing.” He looked a bit puzzled and said, “We would need a cow.” “Okay then, make me a cow, from nothing.” He said he couldn’t do it. His wife agreed. So I asked where the first cow came from. “Evolution.” How did evolution create the cow? A predictable “The big bang.” Where did the materials come from for the big bang to happen? He didn’t know."

"The big bang" has about as much to do with evolution as your birth a number of decades ago has to do with you typing this blog entry.

I love how you creationists paint the theory of evolution as "big bang then immediately entire, complex animals start sprouting out of some primordial ooze because of some absolutely random chaos". I'm awaiting the typical (dare I say... predictable?) "a monkey then gave birth to a completely formed human being that could speak perfectly". Who are you trying to fool? You know that we know that that is not how it works, so do you really plan on converting us with your grotesquely perverted and warped version of the theory of evolution and a few bible quotes?

If you were really telling the truth about how that conversation went with the atheists in your little story above, then they both need to be slapped up side the head for their stupidity. But this seems an awful lot like some silly wish fulfillment fantasy. Much like those jack chick tracts with a glowing and bright religious student saying "Missing link? LOL!"
and the evil atheist scumbag professor getting all flustered and screaming "NOOOOOOOO!!! NOT THE LIGHT OF GOOOOOOOOOOOOOD!! YEAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!" as his eyes melt from his head.

Susan said...

Ray said,

"I explained the necessity of repentance and faith, and how (if the husband cared about his wife and five kids) he needed to get right with God. He looked at me with wide-eyes and said, “I have never had anyone explain that to me before . . .”


Isn't it thrilling when the lightbulb of Truth comes on in the mind of people who have not heard the true Gospel before!

AllFiredUp said...

I've talked with an atheist who was nice like that, that's awesome, Ray!

Will said...

Praise God! Sounds like it was a great conversation.

Verdict said...

No comments on this yet? Wow...

Anybody else love the "we think life started on the backs of crystals" line in EXPELLED? I think for me the sequence was:

*Sit with mouth agape for 20 seconds
*Laugh hysterically
*Shake head in disbelief

By the way atheists, I find it quite hard to believe that Richard Dawkins could possibly have been "tricked" into saying what he did. Sorry!

(Yeah I know this comment is kinda irrelevant to the topic... but at least I didn't mention "QWOT MYNING!")

Lance Christian Johnson said...

Verdict, nobody's saying that Dawkins was tricked into saying anything. What happened was that the filmmakers deliberately misrepresented themselves when they asked him to take part in their movie - not the same thing.

Terry Burton said...

Greetings! and Salutations in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Ok! Ok !!! MATT ! I understand your conviction. I really do, I heard it in school at college.

I've seen your INFORMATION on 'Big Bang', and believe me I've heard it too many times on "Evolution".

I understand its (2) different, and separate theories.

In fact, it is 'guess work' on top of the 'guess work'. My question to you, and I have never received a good reply on it... is :

What caused "BIG BANG" in the first place ?

The only thing I have heard is "we think" this happened, or possibly that. No hard evidence. More quesswork!

Where did all that MATTER come from at the center of the universe before BIG BANG ?

Well,,, "we don't exactly know, but"
we think it gathered together over billions of years and for some unknown reason it 'ignited'.

If you press them on it, then they 'fall back' on the "we think we descended from aliens" . This just puts it off for Billions of years more. An advanced civilization 'seeded' us from the Alpha Centauri system! or colonized this planet. "We think" it was the Planet of the Apes.

===========================

I need hard evidence to tear me away from my God, the God of my fathers and my ancestors. The God who has saved my life too many times in battle. The God that answered so many prayers, and most important, the God who sent His Son to die in my place. SO I would not need to go to hell for my sins. The sacrificial lamb!

I'm not being sarcastic, but most Christians will not buy into that without hard evidence.

Then there is the 'classic' OOZE got 'ignited' by Lightning! It generated LIFE as we know it.

"We have never" been able to duplicate it, but "we think" it might have happened this way ....

I don't know about the other people here, but I am not putting my eternal soul into a "gamble" situation. The odds are astronomical ! Besides, even if I converted to Atheist, what will I gain ? I will lose my SOUL.

My life will center around money, fame, greed, personal accomplishment, and loose sex.
I will not be concerned with my fellow mankind.

I can look forward to a cold dark grave, with no soul to rapture ? Wait around for the OOZE to seep in, and pray for a BIG BANG ?

Seriously, have you thought it thru ? Our lives are less than a drop in the ocean compared to eternity. We would have no hope for another life, and I have no essence of being, soul, or spirit?

"Might as well perish and decrease the surplus population ..."

Ebineezer Scrooge,
"Christmas Carol"

God Bless! I'm open for a phone call prayer, I've left it before for the Atheists. FREE paper back Bible for anyone who promises NOT to burn it! 3058314548
atheist-theory.blogspot.com

Terry Burton said...

@ Verdict, your absolutely right.

It just "floors me" when he said that. It sure looked genuine. He was not tricked. A 'conscious' reply.

I noticed they 'Jump' from one so called "possibility" to another. When you engage them in conversation, its "hop" "skip" & "jump to another conclusion"

Terry Burton said...

@ Susan, Praise God! An answer to your prayers. Thanks for sharing!

Your Bro, in Christ, Terry

weemaryanne said...
This post has been removed by the author.
AllFiredUp said...

Paul Brown

"If he agreed that Adam existed then he wasn't an atheist. Simple as that - you can't be an atheist and still believe in the origin myth of the the Judeo-Christian religion by definition."

No true scotsman fallicy.

Take a dose of your own medicine.

AllFiredUp said...

Charles said "I wouldn't call them atheists. I'd call them Not Much of Anything or just the Ignorant. They're non-believers in the same way that folks who call themselves Christans but have no real interest or engagement with Christ are also really non-believers. They're simply not interested in or really engaged with the issue."

No true scotsman fallacy here.

Just directing the same rhetoric back to the atheists like to do use against Christians.

AllFiredUp said...

Thomas said "and the evil atheist scumbag professor getting all flustered and screaming "NOOOOOOOO!!! NOT THE LIGHT OF GOOOOOOOOOOOOOD!! YEAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!" as his eyes melt from his head."

You've been watching too much Raiders of the Lost Ark.

:)

weemaryanne said...
This post has been removed by the author.
weemaryanne said...
This post has been removed by the author.
DanDobber said...

Matter is eternal? Indeed natural means will never destroy matter, but by Natural LAWS, matter could not have always existed. Apparently someone on this forum got their information from an "unbiased/non-atheist" source, (sarcasm).

wdjd4jh said...

matthew wooler said

"One.Last.Time...

Evolution has NOTHING to do with 'the big bang'.

You have been told this, over and over. You are either bone headed stupid - or you willfully lie. There is no other explanation.

Which is it?"

I am going to go to the same tactics others here have used!
Google "evolution and big bang" first link I got was! Cosmic Evolution The Big Bang to Humankind" I have been told that it is a stupid way to learn something to "google it". But then have since read three posts at least in which an athiest has said to google something and read about it.

Sorry matthew...but I was brain washed in school years ago...they told me it started with the Big Bang! I have to believe them...they are way smarter than I am!

Respectfully wdjd4jh

Lauren said...

Ok, I've heard a lot of athiests saying the big bang didn't happen. Please inform me on your belief on how the universe started.. from scratch. (meaning from nothing, otherwise you must admit something was always there.)

I'm honestly asking here, if it wasn't a big bang... how did the universe begin?

spirax said...

Lauren said:

'Ok, I've heard a lot of athiests saying the big bang didn't happen. Please inform me on your belief on how the universe started.. from scratch. (meaning from nothing, otherwise you must admit something was always there.I'm honestly asking here, if it wasn't a big bang... how did the universe begin?'

First of all, Lauren, atheism has no dogma or doctrine attached to it. It's just no belief in God or gods.

However, many atheists accept Big Bang theory as the current scientific explanation. I haven't come across an atheist who has a problem with it, so I don't where you got the idea that most do. Perhaps you're confusing it with the assertion that Big Band and Evolution are not related? That is true. They are not. Big Bang is how the universe came to be. Evolution is about how life on Earth developed. Two different theories. Two different branches of science.

I'm not a scientist. I have just a basic understanding of science gleaned from my school years. But here's my best.

Big Bang theory is based on the observable evidence that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate. That is, everything in the universe is getting further away from each other. By 'reversing' it scientists have worked out that at one time all the matter and energy in the universe was gathered into a single point (a singularity). Note: singularity, not nothing.

There are other evidences supporting Big Bang theory but they're too technical for me. Perhaps someone else here does? If not, you could look it up. It's not hard.

How this singularity came to exist, or what happened before the Big Bang is unknown.

Atheists don't claim to know what happened before then. We just say, 'we don't know'. We don't accept the God hypothosis because there is no evidence.

stranger>strange.land said...

Note to self: when deleting a sentence from your comment, delete the ENTIRE sentence.

My apologies to all for my garbled comment yesterday at 6:15a.m. I left in the words "remind us to" from a sentence I edited out. Funny thing though, weemaryanne, in a comment on a previous post, asked me if we Americans speak a "different language." I guess Some of us do, Maryanne. Some of us do.

spirax said...

AllFiredUp said...

'No true scotsman fallicy.

Take a dose of your own medicine.'

Sorry, the 'no true Scotsman fallacy' doesn't work here. It only works if the concept is blurred. For example, Christianity. So many different demnominations and sects all claiming to be Christians. But many of them claim that the others aren't 'true' Christians. We've seen it here where Catholics are denied Christian status. Yet every Catholic I know,(and I have quite a few relatives who are Catholic), considers themself a Christian. And even when the the other group is accepted as Christian, they disagree over doctrine so you get the situation where one will accuse the other of not acting like a 'true' Christian when they others think that they are.

No wonder atheists throw up their hands and say 'no true Scotsman'.

Atheism, however, is very clear. No belief in God or gods. Atheism can vary in degree of non-belief ie. strong and weak atheism. Sometimes it includes a non-belief in the supernatural per se. But an atheist ALWAYS professes no belief in God or gods. So, therefore, for an atheist to believe that Adam existed is totally against what atheism is and therefore he/she is not an atheist.

Another example. Someone who claims not to believe in the Greek Gods but then says they believe in Athena. See the contradiction?

spirax said...

wdjd4jh

'I am going to go to the same tactics others here have used!
Google "evolution and big bang" first link I got was! Cosmic Evolution The Big Bang to Humankind" I have been told that it is a stupid way to learn something to "google it". But then have since read three posts at least in which an athiest has said to google something and read about it.'

May I suggest that you google them separately. After all they are separate theories.

What you are getting is 'cosmic' evolution when you want biological evolution, sometimes called Darwinism.

The term 'evolution' is broad. It just means a 'gradual development' and can be applied to many things. By googling evolution and big bang together, you are getting 'evolution' as it applies to the universe. It has nothing to do with biological evolution.

You need to be specific about what information you want. Google is a good way to find information, but it still depends on you intiating the correct search.

dale said...

Someone asked,
"What caused "BIG BANG" in the first place ?"

We don't know and neither do you.

Rufus said...

Lauren:

I'm not going to try to go into modern cosmology here, but I would suggest Has Science Found God and God: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor Stenger. I'm sure you won't like the answers, but you'll have them.

Michelle said...

"weemaryanne said...
(gags on her brunch and observes to nobody in particular:)

The mental image of one ignoramus convincing two more ignoramuses that their shared ignorance and wishful thinking is actually wisdom -- is not good for the digestion."


(shaking my head, wandering what is wrong with you or who pooped in your post toasties today...)

So now you're qualified to "judge" 2 people that Ray talked with? You're so disrespectful and all of your posts make me queasy...definitely not good for digestion.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

Allfiredup, the "no true Scotsman fallacy" doesn't really work in the instances that Paul and Charles brought up. An atheist who believes in Adam and Eve is as much of an atheist as somebody who believes that Muhammad was the last prophet is a Christian. Sometimes there really are some examples that just don't count!

In all honesty, I really don't believe Ray's story. As somebody else pointed out, it sounds like a Chick Tract. I mean, they honestly have never heard the points that he's brought up before? As I asked before, were they living on Mars?

As an atheist myself, I've heard and considered the arguments that people like Ray make. All they do is give me more questions and therefore convince me of nothing.

I do have to say though that I really respect Ray for allowing all of the rebuttals from nonbelievers on his blog. I completely disagree with most of what he has to say, but he comes off as a person who genuinely encourages debate.

Terry Burton said...

@ Lance, Matthew, Paul, Travis, WEE, Dale, Tomby, Charles, Rufus, jsk, and any other Atheists I left out!

Its a GREAT Sunday Morning! Are you going to church? Give it a try and socialize with your neighborhood community.

May God Bless you in a Special Way!

MAN with a Badge said...

@ Christians

Do you really need to debate with these atheists on this blog ?

The FACTS speak for themselves. I have had the misfortune of arresting these degenerates, booking these degenerates, and testifying against these degenerates.

There's no need to debate them. They have heard the gospel and rejected it.

Just look at this comment from Paul.

"If you have the stones to face up to a real atheist, instead of one in your imagination, then why not try interviewing myself, Clos, dale or weemaryanne for your next show? I personnally could wipe the floor with those feeble questions and I imagine that they could too."

The arrogance, and self righteouness is pathetic. Talk is cheap. I've invited each one of them to a Party in Key West. Nobody showed. All TALK and NO SHOW! I say let them be, a waste of flesh.

Maybe we will get lucky, and they will move to China. One less headache in America.


God Bless !

"He has prepared a feast in the presence of my enemies"

Pvblivs said...

Allfiredup:

     Interesting take on "no true scotsman." However, I must regard your claim as invalid. The word atheist has always been used to describe someone who does not believe in any deity. They were arguing, although you may be disagreeing, that someone who believes in the biblical story of Adam as fact (since the story includes a deity) believes in a deity and does not meet the existing definition. The "no true Scotsman" fallacy relies on an altered definition. Ray's claims of "not a true christian" for anyone who later changes his mind fit that, because the definition generally accepted for christian only requires belief at the time, not that nothing can change the belief.

Irukandji said...

@ Lauren:

Ok, I've heard a lot of athiests saying the big bang didn't happen.

We're not saying the Big Bang didn't happen; we're just saying the Big Bang has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. If you don't know the difference between the two, then congratulations, you're scientifically illiterate!

Personally, I don't have much to say about the Big Bang one way or another - I'm vaguely aware that there are some competing schools of thought out there, but I'll let the astrophysicists sort it out. Science is an ongoing process, not a handy bundle of absolute facts, and we haven't yet uncovered every last truth of the universe. But people who throw up their hands at the as-of-yet-unknown and say "God must have done it" are really saying "This is complicated, and I'm too lazy to try to figure it out."

John Doyle said...

Ok, I've heard a lot of athiests saying the big bang didn't happen. Please inform me on your belief on how the universe started.. from scratch. (meaning from nothing, (otherwise you must admit something was always there.)

I'm honestly asking here, if it wasn't a big bang... how did the universe begin?


People, whether they believe in God or otherwise, are entitled to hold an opinion on any subject. Most people have heard of the big bang, but not many are that interested in pursuing the research. Personal opinions count for little when it comes to looking for the truth. It is too easy to form a false opinion when you do not have all the evidence. The courts of law do not accept opinion unless it is provided by an expert witness and even so, the opinion would have to be based on the available evidence.

The fact remains that, though the big bang model is generally accepted to match the observable data, there are a number of areas which need to be addressed, and is a topic which will require a good deal more study before any conclusions may be reached. We must keep our minds open to any possibilities. There is no dogmatic position among cosmological scientists on this issue. That said most scientists would probably admit that the big bang theory is most coherent with what we know about the universe.

A religious person at this juncture would step in with an answer, and they are perfectly entitled to hold their opinion on the matter. Even this answer however leaves a lot of questions left unanswered about the nature of the Universe, so we will go on searching with an open mind for answers to these fascinating questions.

You ask for definite answers, but we do not have them. Any answer - including the case for divine intervention - would be a presumption at this point in time. We do have several hypothetical models.

The question of how the universe came to be is a question that has dogged the greatest minds throughout history. I wonder if a satisfactory answer will ever be found,

Given that the theory of evolution (despite overwhelming evidence in its favour) still remains a contentious issue, it is difficult to see how any cosmological model will not suffer the same fate.

Like finding cures for cancer, we do not have all the answers yet, but we are not going to stop looking.

I do suspect that, given your opening statement about what a lot of atheists believe, that you have already formulated an answer to the question. You are perfectly within your rights to do so.

On the subject, I would imagine that there are a lot more Christians who do not believe in the big bang than atheists. After all, an atheist has no vested interest in disputing the fact that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. I can not contest your statement however. If you know a lot of atheists who do not believe it then I am sure, whoever they may be, that they have their reasons for holding such opinions. I doubt that many of these atheists could be considered cosmological scientists.

Steven J. said...

Lauren asked,
"Ok, I've heard a lot of athiests saying the big bang didn't happen. ... I'm honestly asking here, if it wasn't a big bang... how did the universe begin?"

Well, I suspect that not all those "atheists saying the Big Bang didn't happen" are really atheists, or are really saying that the Big Bang didn't happen. They're pointing out that the case for biological evolution doesn't depend on how the universe began, or even on whether it had a beginning. Evolution would work the same in a miraculously created universe, or in a "steady-state" universe that was eternally old, or in a cyclic universe of some sort: evolution happens once you have life and a place for it to live, regardless of how either the life or the place to live came into being.

Unlike creationism, evolutionary theory was never intended to be an all-in-one explanation of the origin of everything and a guide to life and politics; it concerns itself with the emergence of biological complexity and diversity only.

If there was no big bang -- no early very hot, very dense state of the universe that gradually expanded and cooled -- then the only real alternative anyone has come up with (other than an omphalist "made in six days, to look fourteen billion years old" form of creationism) would be the old Hoyle "steady-state" idea: the constant expansion of the universe generates negative energy, which is balanced by the formation of positive energy in the form of hydrogen (so on net, energy is still conserved), and the universe has always existed and always looked, on a large scale, pretty much as it does now. Stars and planets and even galaxies come and go, but the universe endures forever.

There have, of course, been other "eternal universe" ideas: cyclic big bangs followed by "big crunches" that set the stage for another big bang, or a meta-universe that constantly bubbles off "baby universes" (of which ours is only one of a perhaps infinite number), but both of these involve our universe starting with a "big bang."

Or there might be something else altogether, so odd and counter-intuitive that no one has yet thought of it. The point, again, is that biological evolution doesn't depend on having an answer to the question of how, or whether, the universe originated.

Sergio said...

Lauren said...

Ok, I've heard a lot of athiests saying the big bang didn't happen.
I'm honestly asking here, if it wasn't a big bang... how did the universe begin?
-----------------------

Okay, you got me. Here's my belief.

In the beginning there were only two: Tawa, the Sun God, and Spider Woman, the Earth Goddess. All the mysteries and power in the Above belonged to Tawa, while Spider Woman controlled the magic of the Below. In the Underworld, abode of the Gods, they dwelt and they were All. There was neither man nor woman, bird nor beast, no living thing until these Two willed it to be.

Happy now?

Thomas said...

"Ok, I've heard a lot of athiests saying the big bang didn't happen."

What atheist has said this?

brent h. said...

hey

brent h. said...

Hey everyone, what a great movie to go see. Expelled was so much more informative and hilarious than I thought it would be. I don't remember how many times I heard atheists saying that ID was silly or ridiculous, but c'mon, to think that a "scientist" came up with the idea that life began on the "backs" of crystals???
I was glad to see that Dawkins really does believe in ID, he does deny it at first but then throws out the idea that some "inteligent lifeforms" must have seeded this planet. I was really impressed by their imaginations as well. I am sure the atheists on this blog will deny and coverup, but I am curious. Who else holds to the idea that aliens put us here???

Btw Ray, I love reading your blog!
praying for all unbelievers!!!

Brent H.

brent h. said...

hey

Rufus said...

Mr. Multiple Personalties:

I went to my local park this morning and read Montaigne. Do they have a nice chapel there at the mental hospital?

Rando said...

Terry Burton AKA Wild About the Gospel, AKA Man with a Badge:

STICK WITH ONE FREAKING USERNAME, SOCKPUPPET!

I told you I was done dealing with you, but it is incredibly annoying having to scroll by your 400 aliases. I'm sure you are even annoying those here that actually agree with you.

John Doyle said...

Ok, I'll bite.

Who else holds to the idea that aliens put us here???

We do not know yet how abiogenesis occurred. Mr. Dawkins was asked how else life could have started on this planet and he suggested that we were left here by visiting aliens. A few microbes stuck to an alien astronaut's boot would do. Once life is on the planet, evolution is free to start.

Were we the dirt on an astronaut's boot? Maybe, but it is highly unlikely. Mr Dawkins would argue that it is a more likely hypothesis than ID.

The "dirt on the boot" theory only moves the abiogenesis to a different time and place, so chances are that it actually happened here.

What is so incredibly unbelievable about the first organic chemicals forming on crystals? For all we know, it may be true or just part of the mechanism that lead to the first living organisms.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

Brent,

Dawkins doesn't believe that. The movie made you think that he did, and that's why he and other atheists are crying foul.

Check out his website to find out what his comments were in the proper context.

Evolved Rationalist said...

Ray, did you fail remedial science class back in school?

*snicker*

weemaryanne said...
This post has been removed by the author.
weemaryanne said...
This post has been removed by the author.
weemaryanne said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Lauren said...

Steven said...

If there was no big bang -- no early very hot, very dense state of the universe that gradually expanded and cooled -- then the only real alternative anyone has come up with (other than an omphalist "made in six days, to look fourteen billion years old" form of creationism) would be the old Hoyle "steady-state" idea: the constant expansion of the universe generates negative energy, which is balanced by the formation of positive energy in the form of hydrogen (so on net, energy is still conserved), and the universe has always existed and always looked, on a large scale, pretty much as it does now. Stars and planets and even galaxies come and go, but the universe endures forever.

I'm not picking on your statement here Steven, but this is why I believe in God. So many people who don't believe in God are so quick to put us Christians down for "not thinking" or being led blindly by the bible when in fact it was evolution that drew me to God in the first place.

spirax said...

Brent asks: 'Who else holds to the idea that aliens put us here???'

Obviously anyone who believes in God. Wouldn't God fit the description of an extra-terrestrial? And how are aliens any less probable?

re. Expelled. As with all propaganda, only those who lack the capacity for critical thinking will take it at face value. For those of you who like to have both sides of the story before leaping to conclusions, a visit to Richard Dawkins website or PZ Myers blog (pharngula)will give you their perspective of it.

captain howdy said...

dirty harry said--

Do you really need to debate with these atheists on this blog ?

The FACTS speak for themselves. I have had the misfortune of arresting these degenerates, booking these degenerates, and testifying against these degenerates.


You mean it's illegal to be an atheist on your planet, harry (I mean terry)?

[Maybe I shouldn't have posted that. Now I'm going to have you cyber-stalking me next, like you do with dale!]

Terry Burton said...

"What caused "BIG BANG" in the first place ?"
We don't know and neither do you "

@ dale,

the Only problem is, YOUR the ones that are building your Entire ideology & cult on it !!! the drifting sand.

Your trusting that BIG BANG actually happened. Then you build up the "we think" theories. "We think" it happened at the center of the universe. "We think" that LIFE started in a pool of OOZE, and lightning struck it.

"We think" we evolved over billions and billions of years. "Geeze"!

Have you ever heard the phrase "Assumption is the mother of all MESS ups!". Never "assume" anything, it will get you into more HOT water than anything!

Matthew 7:26-27

"26 - And every one that hears these sayings of mine, and does them not, shall be likened to a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

27 - And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it."
evidence-bible.blogspot.com

Michelle said...

@weemaryanne.....

You never answered my question: So now you're qualified to "judge" 2 people that Ray talked with?

As far as "making a woman out of me" that job is completely out of your hands, you are not All Knowing, you are not merciful, etc., etc. You should be concerned about your own womanhood, purpose in life and eternal destiny. Are you hitting the mark?

Michelle

Rex Mundane said...

brent h said...

Expelled was so much more informative and hilarious than I thought it would be.

I, against my better judgement, went to see it on sunday, at what I imagine was the time with the largest "after-church" crowd. (This was a conscious effort, I had read that over Fri-Sat this movie was selling maybe 10 seats per showing nationwide, and wanted to get a feel for the actual crowd)
In a theater that was at about 90% capacity, I'd say I only heard audible laughter maybe twice. The first time was when Ben was scratching his back with that collapsable whatever thing he had at about 40 minutes in or so, a laugh I believe was driven from a kind of desperation to find anything funny about this "comedy-documentary", and the second was during the Dawkins bit you mention below, which I'm coming to. "Hilarious" is not, in short, not just how I wouldn't describe the movie, but how the audience for which it was Intended wouldn't have described it either.

As far as Informative, I cannot help but notice how many questions the film asks rhetorically, presuming the scientific data has no answer, and yet I was able to answer at the time. A representative example, Ben asks "But where did the genetic information come from?" not of a biologist or even one of the "Expelled" teachers, but of an audience that is inclined to believe the question has no answer. So when I just shout "Mutations!" at the screen in the silence... well I like to think I did my part to burst these people's bubble that day. Another example...

I don't remember how many times I heard atheists saying that ID was silly or ridiculous, but c'mon, to think that a "scientist" came up with the idea that life began on the "backs" of crystals???

Ah yes I remember this scene...
BS:"Yes but how did life begin?"
MR:"I just told you, it could have been crystals that-"
BS:"Yes but how did it begin?"
MR:"I just TOLD you, it could have been crystals that-"
BS:"Yes but how did it begin?"

Firstly, Michael Ruse is a historian and philosopher, not an evolutionary biologist, nor an expert on abiogenesis. He is, I expect, an avid reador on the subject though, and if, in his lack of specific expertise, he failed to answer the question sufficiently then an intellectually honest person would have posed the question of someone more qualified in the theory to explain it. The filmmakers are not intellectually honest, and so they carefully avoid doing as much, since its so much funnier to put in that clip from whatever with the swami saying "Ooooh my Crystal Ball!" This was a direct laugh line that, like so many of the others, completely failed to elicit a chuckle from, I stress this again, The Film's Intended Audience.

I was glad to see that Dawkins really does believe in ID, he does deny it at first but then throws out the idea that some "inteligent lifeforms" must have seeded this planet.

This interpretation of that scene actually explains alot about how the Cretinists actually read it, come to think of it. Dawkins, firstly, does not say that ID is even likely, but that if it were the case that the "intelligence" ultimately behind it would more likely be aliens who themselves evolved than Zeus or Wotan or something.

What he was basically trying to do, in fact, was to provide an "out" for the cretinists trying to argue that I.D. is not a "religious" position with an example of how it might not be, and true to form the movie, which had previously been arguing that very point, mocks Dawkins for conceding it.

Informative? Hilarious.

I am sure the atheists on this blog will deny and coverup, but I am curious. Who else holds to the idea that aliens put us here???

Very few people support the Panspermia theory, in large part for the reasons Dawkins actually details, that it doesn't provide a starting point to the origin of life, only puts that point somewhere else.

praying for all unbelievers!!!


Please, I'd rather you didn't. We both know it won't actually accomplish anything, on account of us all being so very in love with our sin (whatsoever that is meant to mean) that we're beyond any help, and I'd rather you didn't waste your precious time.

Rex Mundane said...

Also, if I may make a point here about comment moderation, Ray? Why do you allow what I'm sure are accidental double-postings, and yet deny comments for incorrect capitalization? If I don't capitalize the G in God or something I get blocked, but not, I am left to imagine, if I comment spam the phrase "Mashed Potato Spaceship!" or something.

Also, having to wait more than 24 hours for all comments to go through at once rather than as they come in makes it impossible to hold a sane discussion. I'm sure you're not actually opposed to sane discussion, but isn't there a better way?

I wouldn't know how to set this up but surely there's some way to automatically allow comments as they come in unless they set off a series of flags, such as linking to a site, mis-capitalizing words, vulgarity, etc. Even if it failed on occasion you could still delete comments after the fact (such as how you removed the comment you made last week when you accused someone of being pro-pedophilia) to minimize what little damage there'd be left to do. I have to imagine that'd be a better way.

Also, still waiting for an explanation of how I committed blasphemy that time, I'm still confused about it.

Ray Comfort said...

"Rex Mundane said...
Also, if I may make a point here about comment moderation, Ray? Why do you allow what I'm sure are accidental double-postings, and yet deny comments for incorrect capitalization? If I don't capitalize the G in God or something I get blocked, but not, I am left to imagine, if I comment spam the phrase "Mashed Potato Spaceship!" or something.

Also, having to wait more than 24 hours for all comments to go through at once rather than as they come in makes it impossible to hold a sane discussion. I'm sure you're not actually opposed to sane discussion, but isn't there a better way?

I wouldn't know how to set this up but surely there's some way to automatically allow comments as they come in unless they set off a series of flags, such as linking to a site, mis-capitalizing words, vulgarity, etc. Even if it failed on occasion you could still delete comments after the fact (such as how you removed the comment you made last week when you accused someone of being pro-pedophilia) to minimize what little damage there'd be left to do. I have to imagine that'd be a better way.

Also, still waiting for an explanation of how I committed blasphemy that time, I'm still confused about it."

Rex...I try to let the comments through as soon as possible. I've been traveling this weekend and that holds things up. Sorry about double postings. There are sometimes hundreds of comments each day and I don't read them all--just skim through looking for dirty talk, blasphemy, and "Christians" who say unloving things. Regarding your blasphemy. If I remember rightly, you were really upset and said "My Lord." No doubt trivial to you. Not to me. :)

Mark W Laine said...

To all ah-theists,

It seems the lines of battle have been drawn up. There really is no sense in continuing the discussion except for the purpose of angering each other.

There is nothing ah-theists can say that will change my Christian mind and what I really feel needs to be done is for the church to begin funding and directing its own science division with some serious bucks to prove our side of the argument. In faith we already believe what we read in our bibles and then with our Christian interests in mind we perform our science to catalog our rationale as to give a higher degree of truth to back up what we already know is true.

Christians simply see that by having ah-theist science twisting and applying the old earth faith we are simply seeing children become extremely confused.

I would prefer children are not taught about dinosaurs and old earth as it has absolutely no bearing on their trajectory in life. Then I don't have to be continually re-educating my children to biblical truths.

I also believe that children of ah-theists should not be taught ID which is something contrary to what their parents would desire.

We shield our children from other issues like sex why not also shield children from either old earth or ID until they can take it as an elective in college.

Stick to the basics in K through 12READIN', WRITIN', and 'RITHMATIC.

This ought to scare the something out of the ah-theists. NO FORUM!!!

JOSHUA S BLACK said...

Quoting from another "atheist":

"[Brent H. said]'praying for all unbelievers!!!'


Please, I'd rather you didn't. We both know it won't actually accomplish anything, on account of us all being so very in love with our sin (whatsoever that is meant to mean) that we're beyond any help, and I'd rather you didn't waste your precious time."

Why do you care if Brent (and other Christians) "waste [their] precious time" praying for you? It doesn't affect you, so you say, so why bother to complain about it? Could it be that you are afraid that there actually is a God who hears such prayers and that the demons you so readily obey are freaking out because they are about to lose you if all these Christians do more than simply argue with you?

Furthermore, no Christian has ever insinuated that you "atheists" are beyond hope. The reason Ray even bothers to allow you to post on his blog--this is his blog, mind you, not a free speech open forum, as some of you apparently like to assume--is that he does have hope for your salvation. It is my prayer that you all come to know Christ, including Mr. Dawkins.

And, I must say, I don't care what Mr. Dawkins says, I find it very hard to believe that he would have answered any differently if I had asked him the same questions as Mr. Stein.

Oh, and Michael Ruse: why isn't any "atheist" here calling him "scientifically illiterate"? Hmm? That was the most idiotic answer I could ever have heard from anyone! And yet he gets a pass...must be because a belief in evolution is required for respect in the atheistic community. Sounds like a cult to me.

Michelle said...

@ Mark...you said:

"It seems the lines of battle have been drawn up. There really is no sense in continuing the discussion except for the purpose of angering each other.

There is nothing ah-theists can say that will change my Christian mind......."


I agree, thanks for putting that out there. :)

Clostridium said...

"I said, “I have a task for you. Make me some milk, from nothing.” He looked a bit puzzled and said, “We would need a cow.” “Okay then, make me a cow, from nothing.” He said he couldn’t do it. His wife agreed. So I asked where the first cow came from. “Evolution.” How did evolution create the cow? A predictable “The big bang.” Where did the materials come from for the big bang to happen? He didn’t know."

Ray, make me a God from nothing. Where did God come from? How do you know He exists?

Also, anyone who responds "the big bang" when you ask "how did evolution create the cow" shouldn't be taken seriously in the first place. Nice strawman argument. Do you go out of your way to find the stupidest people to interview? Why don't you put a link to the atheist debates you've had...you have been, as Borat would say "crushed".

Clostridium said...

@Paul Brown

"If you have the stones to face up to a real atheist, instead of one in your imagination, then why no try interviewing myself, Clos, dale or weemaryanne for your next show? I personnally could wipe the floor with those feeble questions and I imagine that they could too."

Ray knows better than that. Ray likes his arguments made of the flimbsiest straw he can find.

Rex Mundane said...

Mark W Laine said...
I would prefer children are not taught about dinosaurs and old earth as it has absolutely no bearing on their trajectory in life. Then I don't have to be continually re-educating my children to biblical truths.

You want your children insulated from having their world view challenged and being able to develop it themselves. How compassionate of you to want to stunt your children's development like that.

...also, have I missed something? What is the H-Hyphen supposed to mean when thrown into the word atheist?

joshua s black said...
Why do you care if Brent (and other Christians) "waste [their] precious time" praying for you? It doesn't affect you, so you say, so why bother to complain about it?

Well aside from it simply being disrespectful ("I'll hope you consciously conform to my worldview... for you.") wouldn't it actually be pointless? I mean the thing is that I have to "truly" convert myself to be able to witness the truth of God, yes? Well presuming that, what would you actually be praying for? God, omnipotent as He is, wouldn't be able to sway my opinion if I'm still incapable of witnessing His truth would he? You couldn't be asking Him to spontaneously change my heart on the matter, since that, if I understand correctly, would be a "False" conversion, to say nothing of subverting free will. You certainly aren't asking Him to forgive me despite my not being a "True" Christian, since he definately wouldn't (and I wouldn't want to presume upon Him that He would) and any interceding on his behalf would be fruitless, wouldn't it?

I think I'm reiterating your worldview as best I can here, and if I'm wrong then I do apologize, but honestly, what are you actually praying for? What could God actually do to convince me He exists, presuming, for sake of argument, that he does?

Could it be that you are afraid that there actually is a God who hears such prayers and that the demons you so readily obey are freaking out because they are about to lose you if all these Christians do more than simply argue with you?

...yes, you're terrifying the demons that I worship. Atheists all believe in the evil, magical hobgoblins of the etherial netherworld.

Oh, and Michael Ruse: why isn't any "atheist" here calling him "scientifically illiterate"?

Because, given irukandji's criteria, Ruse actually can differentiate between the Big Bang theory and Evolutionary Theory.

While not a scientist per se, he is very well read in general fields of science, yet not an expert in the field for which the film presented him as a singularly qualified advocate.

Bob said...

"Since the creation of the world God's invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.
Romans 1:20

To any agnostics out there please get a Bible and read the rest of that passage, verses 21 - 25.

MAN with a Badge said...

@ Clos,

Come on, tell the audience here how old you are. I read your comments and they appear to be from a 'immature' kid that runs around rattling off "programming" you have received at school.

Come clean, otherwise you need to do your home work for school tomorrow. Your ideas are 'half hatched'.

Take down that Bible from your Dad's desk and read it. Don't get any smudges on it. Ok ?

Rufus said...

Ray:

"Christians" who say unloving things.

You don't let those comments through? Like the one by "Fergul Menhaden"? Or most of those by our resident psychopath Terry Burton/Wild About the Gospel/Man with a Badge? Thanks, as always, for the laughs.

Rufus said...

Mark W. Laine:

I would love to see "the church to begin funding and directing its own science division with some serious bucks to prove our side of the argument" as you put it. ID proponents keep saying they'll have actual science to verify their claims, but it's kinda like the old Soviet Five Year Plans. And how would you go about teaching ID anyway? And you're right, that does scare me. Ignorance always does.

dashworth said...

clostridium said:

How do you know He exists?

1. There had to be a beginning, a first cause.

2. Ex nihilo, nihilo fit- out of nothing, nothing comes.

3. For some odd reason, we are the only creatures with a moral consciousness and creativity (striving to be original). Is this by accident?

4. The existence of absolute, non-physical laws- like the laws of thermodynamics and the laws of logic.

5. Law of causality, nothing can be its own cause. However, God is uncaused, He has always been.

6. Ontologically, I am able to think of an omniscient, omniprescent and omnipotent being in my mind.

7. Immanuel Kant once remarked that for ethics to be meaningful and absolute, there must be a God. Kant's moral argument. I guess he was an idiot, too.

8. And finally the night and day transformation in my life. Only a transcendent and personal being can do that.

Clostridium said...

@ Mark W. Laine

"There is nothing ah-theists can say that will change my Christian mind and what I really feel needs to be done is for the church to begin funding and directing its own science division with some serious bucks to prove our side of the argument. In faith we already believe what we read in our bibles and then with our Christian interests in mind we perform our science to catalog our rationale as to give a higher degree of truth to back up what we already know is true.

Christians simply see that by having ah-theist science twisting and applying the old earth faith we are simply seeing children become extremely confused.

I would prefer children are not taught about dinosaurs and old earth as it has absolutely no bearing on their trajectory in life. Then I don't have to be continually re-educating my children to biblical truths.

I also believe that children of ah-theists should not be taught ID which is something contrary to what their parents would desire.

We shield our children from other issues like sex why not also shield children from either old earth or ID until they can take it as an elective in college.

Stick to the basics in K through 12READIN', WRITIN', and 'RITHMATIC.

This ought to scare the something out of the ah-theists. NO FORUM!!!"

What nonsense. Christian vs. atheist science????? What are you talking about? You already have crappy "Christian science".....AIG, ICR and the Disco Institute. What have they discovered? Nothing. What science has been produced? None. Sorry that your old book doesn't describe reality. Your version of science would not be science since you are starting with the conclusion and can never have any data contradict your prejudices. It is sad that you feel the need to "reeducate" your kids. You are only crippling them.

JOSHUA S BLACK said...

Funny: Ray takes a self-proclaimed atheist at his word, and the atheists here have a cow. But these same people insist on taking those who claim to be Christians at their word and then shoving their sins in our faces. Double standard? You'd better believe it!

Seems to me that, if tasting your own medicine is so deplorable, you shouldn't be dispensing it to begin with.

spirax said...

Laura said:
"I'm not picking on your statement here Steven, but this is why I believe in God. So many people who don't believe in God are so quick to put us Christians down for "not thinking" or being led blindly by the bible when in fact it was evolution that drew me to God in the first place."

Laura, you're still not getting it. Steven was explaining Big Bang theory and alternatives. Yet your answer is that Evolution is what drew you to God.

Evolution has nothing to do with Big Bang theory or any other ideas that might be out there about the origin of the universe. Evolution is about how life developed. If you are conflating Evolution with the Big Bang then you don't understand Evolution.

If you want to be percieved as a 'thinking' Christian you should at least have a basic understanding of the alternative point of view.

Rex Mundane said...

dashworth said...

1. There had to be a beginning, a first cause.

...why did there have to be a beginning? How could the universe not just be eternal? Saying there had to be a first cause begs the question "well what caused the first cause then" and there's really no answer there. Even saying God caused the first cause goes further back into His desires causing His deed, His perception causing His desire, etc., so arguing from first cause, requiring a first cause, recesses into a hole that even God cannot fill logically. Unless, and this is interesting, you argue that God is not bound by logic and causality... but that tends to undermine the "God's Justice" argument methinks...

2. Ex nihilo, nihilo fit- out of nothing, nothing comes.

...unless God causes it to be otherwise, you meant to say.

3. For some odd reason, we are the only creatures with a moral consciousness and creativity (striving to be original). Is this by accident?

Are we? Animals have been capable of showing kindness to one another, is this not at least somewhat "moral" behavior? Or are you defining Morality as inerently Human, because if you are your statement is meaningless.

4. The existence of absolute, non-physical laws- like the laws of thermodynamics and the laws of logic.

Um, Thermodynamics actually is a physical law... and Logic? The fact that a Red ball is not a not-Red ball proves the existence of God? You ever actually take a class on Logic?

5. Law of causality, nothing can be its own cause. However, God is uncaused, He has always been.

In accepting that, at least God can be "uncaused," why can you not accept the possibility that other things are "uncaused?"

6. Ontologically, I am able to think of an omniscient, omniprescent and omnipotent being in my mind.

...Okay, imagine a Unicorn. Now, does the Unicorn exist simply because you imagined it? didn't think so.

7. Immanuel Kant once remarked that for ethics to be meaningful and absolute, there must be a God. Kant's moral argument. I guess he was an idiot, too.

He wasn't, but you might be, since thats not at all what Kant said. In "Religion within the Boundaries of Pure Reason" he says that belief in Religion and Miracles are not necessary for the development of morals. He argues, I think in "Critique" that God is what makes behaving morally enjoyable though, since in his view people are inherently immoral (a view I disagree with, but don't think him an idiot for holding) and that happiness incentive, which runs counter to how we should otherwise be thinking, is what gives some people cause to moral behavior. He does not think it a necessity for moral behavior.

Also he didn't believe that Christ was actually the son of God, nor that His death absolved humanity of its sins, so you know what? You actually do think he's an idiot.

8. And finally the night and day transformation in my life. Only a transcendent and personal being can do that.

People have talked the same way about drugs. I'm not advocating their use, just saying there's other ways, maybe.

Michelle said...

@ man with a badge

Your comments to Clos really cracked me up...to funny!

@ Clos,
Will you be answering the questions posed to you?

brent h. said...

lance christian said, "Brent,

Dawkins doesn't believe that. The movie made you think that he did, and that's why he and other atheists are crying foul."

Lance, your right, I am just stupid. I really didn't hear him say more than once that he thinks we probably could have been put here by "other intelligent life forms". Infact, I bet the producers probably manipulated his words around to make everyone "think" that is what he said. Or, maybe I just made it up.

What does everyone else "THINK" he said????

I am curious.

Oh, and Rex, please don't speak for me, you don't know my mind. I love you like I love everyone else on this blog, and because of that I don't want you to end up in hell. I know that God is a miracle worker and He can bring even the most degenerate sinners to their knees at the cross. So, I will still pray for you and your family, not to make you mad but because I care.

Brent H.

Michelle said...

@ Joshua...

Great point you made to the ah-theists. That medicine does taste pretty bitter once one has to take it themselves.

Keep on Keeping on!

JSK said...

Dashworth offers some arguments for God's existence, including:

Ex nihilo, nihilo fit- out of nothing, nothing comes.

...And if nothing can be made from nothing, but (obviously) all sorts of things exist now, it follows that there must be something which has always existed. But why must that something be a conscious, purposeful being?

I don't think our brains are evolved or designed to wrap themselves around "super-ultimate" questions in the first place. (What is the nature of nature? what is the cause of causality? when did time start?) But if I have to make some stab-in-the-dark guess, I don't see why I should begin with an intelligent cause. After all, the only intelligent beings I know are multi-cellular organisms with highly complex central nervous systems, and pretty clearly they didn't always exist.

For some odd reason, we are the only creatures with a moral consciousness and creativity (striving to be original). Is this by accident?

We have more brainpower than any other creature, and we are social animals. That's at least the start of an answer. Why is it a better one to say "God designed us this way?"

The existence of absolute, non-physical laws- like the laws of thermodynamics and the laws of logic.

It doesn't make sense to me to say that any being, even an "omnipotent" one, could "make" the laws of logic, so I don't understand how this works as an argument for theism.

Immanuel Kant once remarked that for ethics to be meaningful and absolute, there must be a God. Kant's moral argument. I guess he was an idiot, too.

There's an awful lot of space between the poles "idiot" and "infallible." Kant argued, basically, that unless there was proportional reward and punishment for good and evil deeds, morality lost its meaning. Do you accept this premise? Do you consider it self-evident? It certainly isn't self-evident to me.

And finally the night and day transformation in my life. Only a transcendent and personal being can do that.

I'm sure you realize that this isn't evidence to anybody who doesn't know you.

Rex Mundane said...

brent h said...
Lance, your right, I am just stupid.

Glad thats settled. Moving on to new business-

I really didn't hear him say more than once that he thinks we probably could have been put here by "other intelligent life forms".

...well no, maybe that is what you "heard," but that isn't what he said. I've been trying to find a transcript for verification, but what he was saying was that, if he were to accept the "design" of life, that it would have to be from an alien origin that itself would have had to evolve, and he thinks that's very unlikely.

Infact, I bet the producers probably manipulated his words around to make everyone "think" that is what he said. Or, maybe I just made it up.

No, you didn't just make that up, its basically what they did. Documentation on how they lied to the people they interviewed abounds, and I'd link directly to it if Ray would let me.

Oh, and Rex... I will still pray for you and your family, not to make you mad but because I care.

Who said it made me mad? I would just rather you spend the time doing something productive.

Lauren said...

Spirax said
Evolution has nothing to do with Big Bang theory or any other ideas that might be out there about the origin of the universe. Evolution is about how life developed. If you are conflating Evolution with the Big Bang then you don't understand Evolution.

If you want to be percieved as a 'thinking' Christian you should at least have a basic understanding of the alternative point of view.

Yep.. so I KEEP getting told but no-one is giving me an answer to HOW evolutionists believe the uinverse began. And more often than not, I get the answer that the universe may have been eternal.

And then I get screamed at for pointing out that God happens to call Himself ETERNAL.

Can no-one else see the irony in this?

Clostridium said...

@Dashworth

I said, "How do you know He exists?"

Dashworth replied, "1. There had to be a beginning, a first cause."

Then what is the "first cause" of God? You will undoubtedly claim something like "God always existed"...but how do you know that?


"2. Ex nihilo, nihilo fit- out of nothing, nothing comes."

What did God come out of? We know that something can come from nothing. Einstein showed that matter (something), can come from nothing (energy). You are creating God ex nihilo. If God could always exist, yet not be created ex nihilo, why couldn't the universe/multiverse?

"3. For some odd reason, we are the only creatures with a moral consciousness and creativity (striving to be original). Is this by accident?"

Other animals have similar moral attributes. You need to study nature a little, or have pets. We are simply the most sophistocated. Also, it is not "by accident", but much of it seems to be a contingency of history rather than a purposeful design.

"4. The existence of absolute, non-physical laws- like the laws of thermodynamics and the laws of logic."

This is merely an observation, not evidence one way or the other for a God.

"5. Law of causality, nothing can be its own cause. However, God is uncaused, He has always been."

Evidence?

"6. Ontologically, I am able to think of an omniscient, omniprescent and omnipotent being in my mind."

So dragons and unicorns must exist????? I am able to think of them. Zingdobblers must also exist, and aliens on Mars....I can think of them, afterall.

"7. Immanuel Kant once remarked that for ethics to be meaningful and absolute, there must be a God. Kant's moral argument. I guess he was an idiot, too."

Argument from authority. Also, what does the word "meaningful" mean in this context?

"8. And finally the night and day transformation in my life. Only a transcendent and personal being can do that."

Personal experiences can not constitute evidence for the existence of a supernatural deity given what we know of human psychology. The question is why has God bestowed this "experience" on you and not millions of others? Even if everyone was convinced that a supernatural being had changed their lives this would not constitute evidence. This is wishful thinking.

Clostridium said...

@Man with a badge

"@ Clos,

Come on, tell the audience here how old you are. I read your comments and they appear to be from a 'immature' kid that runs around rattling off "programming" you have received at school.

Come clean, otherwise you need to do your home work for school tomorrow. Your ideas are 'half hatched'.

Take down that Bible from your Dad's desk and read it. Don't get any smudges on it. Ok ?"

You come across as having "small man syndrome". Is that why you need to have a picture of Dirty Harry? The appearance of being tough? Reading the Bible is what convinced me that God is imaginary. Also, I am no child. You seem to spew alot of rhetoric, yet I have seen nothing from you other than trash-talk. My expertise is in biology. We could discuss evolution if you'd like. Ray refuses to discuss it with me. He knows he would look silly. You will too.

weemaryanne said...
This post has been removed by the author.
weemaryanne said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Lance Christian Johnson said...

Brent,

Dawkins was trying to answer the question as to how the Earth could be intelligently designed WITHOUT a supernatural creator/God.

That isn't the same thing as saying he believes that. I've read his book. I've read his posts about his appearance in the movie. He doesn't believe that we were designed by aliens.

Michelle said...

@ Wee...

You said

Okay, I just gotta ask:

Who appointed Michelle the Grand Inquisitor Who Ensures that Nonbelievers Answer Any and All Stupid Questions Put to Them on Pain of Eternal Torture?

I'm glad Michelle enjoys her work, I just want to know who her employer is.


When you pose questions, don't you like to be answered? If not, then why bother typing them?

Show some courtesy and answer those who ask you things. If you ask someone to explain themselves and they refrain, then you know not to waste your time on them in the future.

Rando said...

Lauren:

Yep.. so I KEEP getting told but no-one is giving me an answer to HOW evolutionists believe the uinverse began. And more often than not, I get the answer that the universe may have been eternal.

Some evolutionists actually believe God created the universe. They are called theistic evolutionists. Once again, evolution != atheism.

Rufus said...

Rando:

But that just means that people like Francis Collins and John Polkinghorne and Kenneth Miller aren't true converts. After all, they weren't interviewed for Expelled. That would just confuse things.

dashworth said...

rex mundane said:

How could the universe not just be eternal?

Because the rate of the expansion of the universe and the rate of entropy would not allow it. If the universe was eternal, we would all be frozen by now.

JOSHUA S BLACK said...

Dashworth said...
"rex mundane said:

'How could the universe not just be eternal?'

Because the rate of the expansion of the universe and the rate of entropy would not allow it. If the universe was eternal, we would all be frozen by now."

Only if the universe is as old as these evolutionists believe.

Rando said...

Rufus:

Rando:

But that just means that people like Francis Collins and John Polkinghorne and Kenneth Miller aren't true converts. After all, they weren't interviewed for Expelled. That would just confuse things.


Of course not. It would have thrown a wrench into the whole evolution logically leads to Naziism thesis. Good thing that movie will be out of the theaters in two or three weeks, after its opening weekend flop at the box office.

Bob said...

TO WEE, your comment was what I expected, you see the Bible says in 1 Corinthians 2:14, "But the natural man does not recieve the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. so the Bible explains why you responded that way. The good news is that the Bible also says that you dont have to remain in spiritual darkness,in Proverbs 8:17 God tells us that; "I love those who love Me,And those who seek Me diligently will find Me."
He already left you some evidence for His existence(CREATION and your CONSCIENCE).Also the Bible tells us that God is "not wishing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."2Peter 3:9b. I Pray that God would open your heart to the Truth of the Gospel.

michael said...

ray, i just want to say, well, I was gonna say that you're da man, but God's da man, so you're God's man! I liked that post.

spirax said...

Lauren said:

'Yep.. so I KEEP getting told but no-one is giving me an answer to HOW evolutionists believe the uinverse began. And more often than not, I get the answer that the universe may have been eternal.

And then I get screamed at for pointing out that God happens to call Himself ETERNAL.

Can no-one else see the irony in this?'

Evolutionists aren't concerned with how the universe began. That is a different question and a different science.

But presumably, because they are people of science, they accept the current scientific explanation of how the universe began - Big Bang Theory. However, it still has nothing to do with Evolution.

The difference between the possibility of the universe being eternal and God being eternal is that we know for certain that the universe exists. There is no evidence that God exists.

Lauren said...

What did God come out of? We know that something can come from nothing. Einstein showed that matter (something), can come from nothing (energy). You are creating God ex nihilo. If God could always exist, yet not be created ex nihilo, why couldn't the universe/multiverse?

I don't believe the universe is eternal, as it shows evidence of expanding.. which suggests to me a starting point.

spirax said...

Joshua S Black says:

'Because the rate of the expansion of the universe and the rate of entropy would not allow it. If the universe was eternal, we would all be frozen by now."

Only if the universe is as old as these evolutionists believe.''

Evolutionists aren't concerned with the age of the universe. They are only concerned with the age of the Earth as it relates to the development of life.

Cosmologists (different science)are concerned with the age of the universe.

spirax said...

Lauren said:

'I don't believe the universe is eternal, as it shows evidence of expanding.. which suggests to me a starting point.'

Big Bang theory posits a starting point. But it starts from a singularity, that is, all matter and energy compressed into one point. It is possible that Big Bang has happened before - the singularity explodes, a universe is created from that explosion and then it compresses back into a singularity again. And then the process is repeated over and over again - exploding, compressing, exploding, compressing and so on. In this scenario, the universe (or at least the matter that makes up the universe)could be eternal.

In any case, we know the universe exists. We know the matter and energy that the universe is made up of exists. No evidence that God exists.

JSK said...

Lauren doubts that the universe is eternal, because "the rate of the expansion of the universe and the rate of entropy would not allow it. If the universe was eternal, we would all be frozen by now."

That's certainly a reasonable objection. One possible answer might be that the laws of entropy, like all natural laws, apply only to the post-singularity universe, not to whatever configuration of whatever existed "before" it. It has been suggested that our plot of space, which we call THE universe, is only one of countless such plots which bubble up "all the time," and that each of these universes has its own space and its own set of natural laws, and can't be reached from any of the others.

I'm summarizing here from my limited understanding of Alan Guth's book Inflation. Guth himself stresses that there is no way to test such a hypothesis at present, and maybe there never will be.

dashworth said...

jsk said:

One possible answer might be that the laws of entropy, like all natural laws, apply only to the post-singularity universe, not to whatever configuration of whatever existed "before" it.

Where has this been observed? Is this not a belief rather than empirical evidence?

dashworth said...

spirex said:

Big Bang theory posits a starting point. But it starts from a singularity, that is, all matter and energy compressed into one point. It is possible that Big Bang has happened before - the singularity explodes, a universe is created from that explosion and then it compresses back into a singularity again. And then the process is repeated over and over again - exploding, compressing, exploding, compressing and so on. In this scenario, the universe (or at least the matter that makes up the universe)could be eternal.


Has this been observed before? Or is this a belief?

dashworth said...

clostridium said:

Einstein showed that matter (something), can come from nothing (energy).

But energy isn't "nothing." It takes work and effort to make energy. Energy had to have a beginning, too.

spirax said...

Dashwood asks:

'Has this been observed before? Or is this a belief?"

Since I used the words 'possible', 'could' and 'scenario', I thought it was clear that it was speculation.

dashworth said...

rex mundane said:

...Okay, imagine a Unicorn. Now, does the Unicorn exist simply because you imagined it? didn't think so.

Nice try, but there aren't millions of people believing in unicorns. Secondly, there is no scripture of unicorns. Thirdly, there is no systematic theology of unicorns. Therefore, unicorns do not exist.

dashworth said...

rex mundane said:

Um, Thermodynamics actually is a physical law... and Logic? The fact that a Red ball is not a not-Red ball proves the existence of God? You ever actually take a class on Logic?,

By "physical" I meant that laws of thermodynamics and logic have no physical manifestation before us, no bodily appearance, yet we believe they exist. There are actually people who try to disprove the existence of numbers and laws of nature because they are absolute statements, standards and coefficients and therefore get too close to a description of God, angels & such.

dashworth said...

clostridium said:

So dragons and unicorns must exist????? I am able to think of them. Zingdobblers must also exist, and aliens on Mars....I can think of them, afterall.

Clos, there aren't millions of people believing in dragons, unicorns, zingdobblers, etc. There is no scriptural evidence for the existence of these. There is no systematic theology of dragons, unicorns, zingdobblers, etc. Therefore, I have no problem saying they do not exist, and saying that God exists.

dashworth said...

spirax said:

Dashwood asks:

'Has this been observed before? Or is this a belief?"

Since I used the words 'possible', 'could' and 'scenario', I thought it was clear that it was speculation.



2 questions:

1. Why do you call me dashwood? I didn't make some ad hominem funny out of your name.

2. Who is living by faith now?

weemaryanne said...
This post has been removed by the author.