Ray Comfort Stumps the Atheists

Night was dark

It’s rare these days that we have an opportunity to write about Ray Comfort, best known for his starring role in Ray Comfort’s “Banana video”.

We came upon an amazing press release issued by the Christian Newswire, which describes itself as “the nation’s leading distributor of religious press releases.” This one is titled Atheism Destroyed with One Scientific Question. You know we had to take a look. It says:

Filmmaker Ray Comfort, whose movies have been seen by millions, claims to destroy atheism with one scientific question, which he reveals in a new movie called “The Atheist Delusion.”

This is big news! Let’s read on:

Comfort, cohost of the award-winning television program “The Way of the Master,” said regarding atheists’ assertions that there is no God, “Having to point out the existence of the Creator is like having to point out the sun at noon on a clear day.”

No one denies the existence of the sun. There must be more to Comfort’s movie than that. The press release quotes Comfort again:

[A] popular skeptic adage is ‘Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence,’ and thanks to modern science we have that extraordinary evidence. Outspoken atheists such as Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins say that they would believe in God if there was scientific evidence. This movie calls their bluff.

Amazing! Let’s read on:

Comfort explained that he made the movie after taking a camera to Southern California universities and asking atheists a scientific question that he’d never asked atheists before. “To my astonishment, those who were open to reason changed their minds about the existence of God in minutes,” Comfort claims.

The press release doesn’t reveal Comfort’s question, so we looked around and found what seems to be a 13-minute excerpt from the movie here on YouTube. He asks several students for “observable evidence of evolution.” When they start to talk about evidence from millions of years ago, Comfort interrupts them and says we can’t observe what happened back then. Some of the students appear to get flustered. The whole movie appears to be several of those edited interviews. But we didn’t see anyone who seemed to change his opinion about God.

Our last excerpt is from the end of the press release:

Follow a number of atheists as they go where the evidence leads and display an honesty that is rarely seen on film.” Comfort said, “The movie reveals what every atheist prays he will never find.”

Here’s the official trailer on YouTube. It’s rather chaotic and painful to watch, but it’s only 90 seconds long. Have fun.

Addendum: Ken Ham has a post about Comfort’s movie: The Atheist Delusion Challenges Atheists. He reveals the question Comfort asked:

In the video, this dynamic evangelist shows atheists a colorful book and starts with a simple question—do you think the pages and ink could ever fall together to produce the words and pictures on this book? From that starting point Ray shows the foolishness of the religion of atheism and helps the young people he speaks with to come to the realization that their atheism is not based on an intellectual position but a heart issue. It’s a powerful film!

Copyright © 2016. 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

20 responses to “Ray Comfort Stumps the Atheists

  1. When they start to talk about evidence from millions of years ago, Comfort interrupts them and says we can’t observe what happened back then.

    Good golly, he’s right! I can’t even observe what happened six thousand years ago. Luckily Ray “Bananas” Comfort can, so he knows that, er . . .

  2. The whole movie appears to be several of those edited interviews.

    That sums up every Ray Comfort movie. He takes heavily edited street interviews and makes sure to never show anyone who comes up with a good answer. Ray isn’t known for his intellectually honesty.

  3. michaelfugate

    I am sure there is much more observable evidence for evolution than for Ray’s god – which, by the way, is outside the universe. Now that pretty much defines unobservable…

  4. Thankfully it was only 90 seconds; don’t have a clue as to what the banana man is trying to show. There were a lot of things that were not observed yesterday, but with a bit of evidence gathering, logic and reasoning skills, we can pretty much confirm that many things that were not observed actually did happen🙂

  5. It is true, unfortunately, that many people think that the evidence for evolution is mostly the fossil record. Indeed, many people think that evolution is only something that happened long ago.
    (Alas, many people think that evidence for heliocentrism is that one can see the motion of the Earth from interplanetary rockets. I wonder what most people would offer as evidence for atoms. How many people think that Columbus proved that the Earth is round?)

  6. michaelfugate

    The idea that direct observation is more reliable than other forms of observation ….

  7. Ken Ham has a post about Comfort’s movie: The Atheist Delusion Challenges Atheists. He reveals the question Comfort asked:

    In the video, this dynamic evangelist shows atheists a colorful book and starts with a simple question — do you think the pages and ink could ever fall together to produce the words and pictures on this book? From that starting point Ray shows the foolishness of the religion of atheism and helps the young people he speaks with to come to the realization that their atheism is not based on an intellectual position but a heart issue. It’s a powerful film!

  8. michaelfugate

    I think the answer to Ray is a simple “Hume”. [mic drop]

  9. In the video, this dynamic evangelist shows atheists a colorful book and starts with a simple question — do you think the pages and ink could ever fall together to produce the words and pictures on this book?

    He’d be better off sticking to bananas. That has to be one of the weakest pro-creationiam arguments I’ve come across. I imagine his interviewees’ “embarrassment” was much like that of David Silverman’s when Bill O’Liarly started talking about the inexplicable miracle of the tides: stark disbelief that someone could be so stupid.

  10. What puzzles me is why he thinks the coloring book version of the pocket watch mime would disComfort any atheist.

  11. Doctor Stochastic

    As my signature line sometimes claims: “Synchrony manifests diachrony.”

  12. Sure I do. Better still, give me 100 chimpanzees banging away at typewriters and they’ll reproduce your book in no time.

  13. We can’t observe what happened hundreds of years ago, either, but that doesn’t mean the Declaration of Independence is a fake.

  14. We can’t observe the electrons’ motions in the progress of a message across the net.
    We can’t observe the center of the exoplanet Draugr, but we know that there is a center.
    We can’t observe all of the zeros of an arbitrary polynomial of degree googol.
    We don’t know what it would look like to observe a non-natural event.
    We can observe evolution taking place.

  15. Anyone interested what the Banana Man is up to this time but doesn’t want to waste time and money on baked air can consult this link:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2016/07/movie-review-ray-comforts-the-atheist-delusion/

    The short version is a late Tony Miles review of a chess book:

    utter crap.

  16. [A] popular skeptic adage is ‘Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence,’ and thanks to modern science we have that extraordinary evidence.

    What scientific evidence? A question about a colorful book? Really?

    The problem with “scientific evidence” proving creation is that the same evidence would have to paradoxically disprove the science which produced it. For example, for Comfort’s creation myth to be true, then:

    The science of physics cannot be true, including such fundamental (observable) facts such as rates of radioactive decay and the speed of light.

    Almost all we know from the science of geology cannot be true.

    Everything we know from the science of paleontology cannot be true.

    Much of what is known from the study of archeology cannot be true.

    The descendant relationships between organisms revealed through the study of DNA, including the determination of the molecular clock, cannot be true.

    (I’m sure I’ve missed a few)

    Finally, for Comfort’s belief to be true, which is based on the creation myth of a relatively small group of ancient people living in the near east, the creation myths of the rest of the world’s peoples must be false. (Many of those various peoples, BTW, left artifacts and other evidence of their existence from well before 4004 BC.) Since Comfort’s own belief negates the validity of any science that could be used to counter those other creation myths, how can he objectively argue that any one of them is not true.

    I would love to be one of those people Comfort interviewed.

  17. jimroberts

    @Ed “I would love to be one of those people Comfort interviewed.”

    You might enjoy it at the time, but then there are two possibilities: 1) Comfort’s film has no reference to you or your answer, or 2) Comfort or his associates edit together bits of what you said so that you say whatever Comfort wants you to have said.

  18. James Bolton Theuer

    That’s very true, Jim Roberts. There’s a reason why quote mining is frequently employed by those whose ontologies are contradicted by evidence.

  19. michaelfugate

    3) Whatever you say – no matter the quality of the argument – will have no affect on Comfort; he will continue believing evolution is wrong.

  20. 4) And the audience that Comfort is addressing – the better your argument, the more strongly they will believe evolution is wrong.