Ray Comfort: New Standard of Stupid

THIS is the latest in what has become a totally unanticipated series of articles that began with this post: WorldNetDaily, Ray Comfort, and Brain Death. Since then we’ve been writing about what seems to be a domino effect of stupid. See: Kirk Cameron: World’s Dumbest Human? and Flat Earth, Uranus, & WorldNetDaily.

As they say, the saga continues. We present to you, dear reader, some excerpts from Berkeley atheists fear new book, which appears at the website of WorldNetDaily (WND), the most deranged “news” organ we’ve yet encountered. The bold font was added by us:

Best-selling author Ray Comfort, host of “The Way of the Master” television show with actor Kirk Cameron, says he has a love-hate relationship with atheists. Many apparently hate him, but he loves them.

When someone like Ray Comfort says he loves you, check your wallet. You might also check to make sure your gun is loaded and nearby. That kind of “love” can lead to witch burnings. Let’s read on:

Comfort challenged an atheist group at the University of California at Berkeley to a debate this past summer, but the student group – which describes itself as a forum for open-minded discussion free from intolerance – declined after considering the offer for more than a week, the author says.

We have no particular sympathy for what Berkeley has symbolized for the past generation, but it’s not difficult to understand the students’ decision to decline the “opportunity” to debate with Comfort. It would be far more challenging to debate with a dish of slime mold. We continue:

Comfort, author of the newly released book “Nothing Created Everything,” believes the atheists are afraid he will say exactly what they believe – that nothing created everything.

That’s exactly the problem. Comfort would chant his moronic mantra the whole time he was supposed to be speaking, and the event would a waste of everyone’s time because he has nothing else to say. Of course the students rejected Comfort’s offer. Berkeley may be a hotbed of crazy people, but they’re not crazy enough to bother with Comfort. Here’s more:

Comfort posed the debate challenge in July to a Berkeley campus group called Students for A Nonreligious Ethos, or SANE. He told the group that if they could find him a professor to give him 20 minutes on why God doesn’t exist, he would give him $200 for his trouble. Comfort then would give the group 20 minutes and then open the floor for questions.

Wow — two hundred dollars for 20 minutes! Comfort thinks he’s made an offer no one would refuse. Yet no Berkeley professor would agree to appear and speak for 20 minutes. How baffling! Comfort can’t figure it out.

But the question that immediately occurs to the rational mind is this: Why would anyone want to spend 20 minutes or even 20 seconds of his lifespan talking to Ray Comfort? As for the princely sum Comfort offered — the way the government is running things these days, two hundred bucks is little more than a tip for the boy who parks your car.

Moving along:

“I want to show the atheists who are in SANE that they were not thinking clearly when the turned down the debate,” Comfort said. “Berkeley is supposed to have the reputation of being a radical campus. But these guys are are acting like a bunch of cringing chickens, and I think I know why.” Comfort said the group realized he would say “an atheist is someone who believes that ‘nothing created everything’ and that is a scientific impossibility.”

Yes, everyone’s afraid to debate Comfort’s brilliantly original argument. They fear him! Actually they do — in the same way they’d also be afraid to show up on the same platform to debate about hygiene with an opponent who had leprosy, syphilis, swine flu, body lice, and toenail fungus.

The WND article babbles on about other “terrified” groups and individuals (e.g. Richard Dawkins) who won’t debate with Comfort, and it repeats much of what we’ve discussed in earlier posts about Comfort’s upcoming distribution of free copies of Darwin’s Origin of Species. They’re free because they’re defaced with Comfort’s own introduction that allegedly refutes Darwin’s theory.

One last excerpt:

Comfort asserts, in his new book, anyone “who tries to actually justify that nothing created everything has to be insane.”

“This is a scientific impossibility,” he writes, “There’s no way to say it kindly, but such thoughts show that the atheist doesn’t think, and prove the Bible right when it says that the fool has said in his heart that there is no God.”

We don’t promote atheism at this blog, so our only message here is that with a prominent spokesman like Ray Comfort on the side of religion, the opposition doesn’t need to do a thing. They win by default. So if Comfort’s co-religionists have any concern for their side of this debate, they’d better snag Comfort with a big butterfly net and then keep him deep in the closet. The man’s an embarrassment, not only to his school of thought, but to our whole species.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

17 responses to “Ray Comfort: New Standard of Stupid

  1. “This is a scientific impossibility,”

    Comfort fails to understand that scientists don’t know how things came into existence, nor do we make any claims as such. He also confuses this aspect of theoretical physics with the biological concept of evolution. Why? Because, as Curmie pointed out, he is stupid.

  2. Comfort posed the debate challenge in July to a Berkeley campus group called Students for A Nonreligious Ethos, or SANE. He told the group that if they could find him a professor to give him 20 minutes on why God doesn’t exist, he would give him $200 for his trouble.

    Just a cotton-pickin’ minute…. he wants a a full blooded professor to argue “why God does NOT exist”?

    IOW, this clown is demanding the professor “prove the negative” when in reality the burden of proof should be on those making the positive assertion.

    That’s what Ayn Rand referred to as “an epistemological injustice.”

    No wonder they turned down his “offer” to debate — he wants to rig the game so he can’t lose.

  3. Longie points out:

    Just a cotton-pickin’ minute…. he wants a a full blooded professor to argue “why God does NOT exist”?

    You took the time to think about what Comfort was saying. I really didn’t bother digging that deep.

  4. I’d rather set fire to my campus than have Ray Comfort speak on it. The place would be a laughing stock. How the hell can somebody be that monumentally clueless?

  5. I sympathize with anyone debating with Ray Comfort, it’s a very difficult job. It’s easier to dump a trailer of sewage than to clean it up again.
    Ray debates by unloading his tons of [BS] on the platform, then he challenges you to clean it up in the same time it took him to dump it there.

  6. Here’s a way to deprive any creationist the opportunity of spinning it that you are “afraid” to debate him. Tell him that you’ll be more than glad to debate him, right after he debates another well-known creationist, preferably a Discoveroid, of your choice, with questions supplied by you. Make sure that the questions concern specific “what happened when” claims on which they are likely to disagree with each other or refuse to comment. The probability that both will agree to such a debate – one that real scientists do all the time if not so formally – is essentially zero.

    To all but the most hopeless rubes (which we can write off regardless), the creationists will be the ones seen as afraid to debate.

  7. Frank J says: “Tell him that you’ll be more than glad to debate him, right after he debates another well-known creationist, preferably a Discoveroid, of your choice, with questions supplied by you.”

    You know that won’t happen. They never publicly disagree with each other. I say: Ignore ’em all, except when they try to make their views mandatory.

  8. Debating Comfort under his rules is the intellectual equivalent of shooting craps with “Big Jule from Chicago” — from “Guys ‘n’ Dolls”….

    The crap game is now being held in a sewer. The gamblers are hot, tired and running low on cash, but Big Jule and his revolver are insisting that the game continue until he can win back his heavy losses. To facilitate this, he insists on playing Nathan (who never actually gambles, rather taking his percentage off the top) with his “lucky dice”: blank dice that have had the spots removed, allowing Big Jule to call them anyway he wants.

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

    When Nathan Detroit objects that Big Jule’s dice “ain’t got no spots,” Big Jule assures him: “Oh, I had them removed for luck. But I remember where the spots formerly were.”

    Anyone foolish enough to debate Comfort under his rigged rules is foolish enough to debate “why there isn’t an invisible pink Unicorn sitting on my shoulder” …. and foolish enough to shoot craps with Big Jule using his spotless dice.

  9. Comfort could be, for all I know (or care), quite intelligent. His failing is not intellectual; it is moral. His failing is an inability to really understand the world from a point of view different from his own.

    I can certainly see how, from a Christian perspective, atheism turns out to mean “nothing created everything.” But this is not how atheists understand themselves. To ask atheists to accept that description of their beliefs is no different from asking Christians to accept that they believe a fairy-tale.

    He is not able to understand how a reasonable and decent person could arrive at a perspective different from his own. And that means that he is, in some fundamental way, deficient in compassion. In that respect, Comfort is, unfortunately, quite normal.

  10. Curmudgeon: “You know that won’t happen. They never publicly disagree with each other. ”

    That’s the whole point. To make them the ones chickening out of a debate. There’s an extremely remote chance that it will backfire – Gish and Ross debated each other in ’92 – but it’s worth the minimal risk. Especially if one of them is an IDer.

  11. Frank J says: “That’s the whole point. To make them the ones chickening out of a debate.”

    Go ahead. Try to set up a debate on a simple topic, for example: “Resolved, the world is no older than 10,000 years.” Invite YECs and OECs. No one will accept. So forget about it. It’s not worth even thinking about.

    Unfortunately, there are always science people who will debate creationists. But creationists won’t debate each other. They have far more discipline than we do.

  12. The only right and just thing is to get a banana to debate him … he might have a chance then.

  13. Nothing “creates” things all the time.

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

  14. He thinks it’s self evident that whatever he says is, well, self evident. Whatareyagonnado!

  15. Curmudgeon: “But creationists won’t debate each other. They have far more discipline than we do.”

    Most people are simply unaware that creationists almost always refuse to debate each other. Instead, even those who are not beyond hope see only “evolutionists” as refusing (afraid) to debate. And when “evolutionists” do agree to debate, they often underestimate how a science-pseudoscience war of sound bites is “naturally” stacked in favor of pseudoscience. It’s almost a perfect “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation.

    It may be “discipline” that prevents some “true believer” YECs and OECs from challenging each other, but there’s also plenty of fear, especially among the “don’t ask, don’t tell” crowd. They are only comfortable attacking “Darwinism.” When I read the Kansas Kangaroo Court transcripts I could almost “see” the creationists squirming when asked simple questions about their “theory.” We need more of that. The worst that could happen is no change in public opinion and more entertainment for us.

  16. Kevin Gorman

    I’m the person who had the pleasure of personally-declining him, and happened to stumble upon the WND stuff (and this blog) only today.

    Things he didn’t mention:
    a) He took weeks to reply to us after the first time we contacted him, and didn’t reply at all after the second.

    b) When he did finally reply, even though his email was only five lines, it was signed ‘dictated.’

    c) Although I did tell him we’d rather not host a debate with him, I did tell him that there was no possible way Berkeley would attempt to censor him (since all of his previous posts indicated he believed they would.) I went as far as to offer to distribute a box or two of the books for him to people who would actually read them in demonstration of this point, though I never received a reply.

  17. Kevin Gorman says: “I’m the person who had the pleasure of personally-declining him …”

    Wow! You walked away from $200. Verily, the temptation must have been all but overwhelming.