Recently, we had well-known evangelist Ray Comfort here for an e-interview.  We tried to stick to honest questions rather than attempting to create some kind of theological traps, but we’re still going to comment on his ideas.  As I noted in the first part of this discussion, Comfort is obviously quite busy, so I don’t expect him to be able to respond here personally, but as usual, anyone who feels that they can shed some light on my questions about these issues is more than welcome to comment.

The next question concerned the Biblical “kind” and how such a concept would be defined in biological terms.  Comfort’s answer:

The word “kind” is the biblical word for “species.” God created dogs to reproduced dogs, cats to reproduce cats. Every animal was created to bring forth after its own kind. The Book of Genesis repeats this many times in the first chapter to make it clear, for those of us who are a little slow. We see evidence of this, both in the fossil record, and in living creation. The meaning of the word “species” has changed over the years. At one point it was synonymous with “kinds.” However, nowadays it is used differently in different circles.

Those who are familiar with Comfort’s work will be unsurprised at the ignorance of basic scientific and biological concepts here, but on the off chance that Mr. Comfort himself is reading this, let’s see if I can explain this in simple language.

Regardless of what the Book of Genesis states, organisms do not remain biologically identical from generation to generation.  Even a very small amount of “genetic drift” is all we need for natural selection to begin working.  The Genesis definition of “kind” is interesting, but it’s not useful as a scientific criteria, is it?  Within relatively few generations, organisms can undergo very significant changes from the original species.  I mean, we would expect a useful definition of “species” to be able to tell us when speciation has effectively occurred, right?

That’s what we would be looking for, here.  Because we pro-science folks claim that speciation does occur (we can even cause it in a lab, right in front of our eyes, no less), to debate that claim we obviously have to agree on a definition of species that would tell us when the organisms would become a different species.  By your biblical definition of “kind,” we could show you organisms bred in different directions for any length of time, becoming vastly different organisms, and they would literally be impossible to ever get to two different species!

The next question is all about this fun biology stuff, too.  I’ll just reprint the whole thing:

“Have you met, chat[tted] with or otherwise communicated with an Old Earth Creationist named Adnan Oktar (pen name of Harun Yahya)? His argument for creation is that despite Millions of years of existence, the fossil record shows that all kind[s] of creatures does not display any form of change at all. A fossil of a fish seems to be the same as a modern fish, a fossil of a bird seems to be the same as a modern bird, etc. He says that this clearly shows that creative genius of his Creator, Allah. What fossil evidence can you point out to him that he is clearly mistaken, that micro-evolution does happen and that an ancient fish is very dissimilar to a modern fish. An ancient bird is very dissimilar to a modern bird, etc.? What physical evidence can you show him to demonstrate that the God of the Bible is the creative force behind all of these micro-evolution? Evidence that is so compelling that nothing in the Koran can dispute to it’s truth?”

Comfort’s answer:

 I have never heard of Mr. Oktar and I am therefore not familiar with his arguments, other than what you have related. Those who believe that a fish fossil is “ancient” reveal their unquestioning faith in dating methods. The fact that a fossil of a bird is different from a modern bird simply means that the Creator made them different. There was no transition from one species to another, so micro-evolution has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution. We can see micro-evolution throughout the entire creation of God–both in the fossil record and living things–from the small finch to the large albatross, from the massive Great Dane to the tiny chihuahua. These are variations within species.

As for the God of the Bible being the Creator. That’s simple. The moral Law , which Moslems embrace (the Law of Moses), leaves all of humanity condemned to death and on the path to Hell. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only God-given means of escape. Islam has no answer to that, our biggest dilemma (see John 8:31-32).

Again, if you are reading this, Mr. Comfort, I apologize.  I really, genuinely don’t wish to make fun of people, but  please try to understand how scientifically ignorant that first paragraph is.  I myself have no more than a layman’s minimal self-education in the most simplistic, dumbed-down scientific concepts, and even I can tell that these statements are so hilariously wrong that I nearly pissed myself laughing.

First off; “unquestioning faith” in dating methods?  Mr. Comfort, take this as friendly advice in how to increase the effectiveness of your ministry.  To people who understand the scientific method and are willing to look at the evidence without biased assumptions, the reliability of scientific dating methods can be proven about as thoroughly as the fact that you’ll lose your house if you refuse to ever pay your mortgage again.  Even if you could show 100 cases of grossly inaccurate dates derived with radiocarbon dating, isochron dating, etc., you would still not be approaching the hundreds of thousands of verified accurate cases.

On a side note, why do evangelists like to take basic conclusions like the general reliability of scientific dating methods and insist that we must have “faith” in them?  They themselves claim that faith is a reliable method of discovering truth!  When pressed, some religious persons have even insisted that faith is simply a religious, spiritual synonym for “reason,” and that they hold things by “faith” only when those claims have stood up to evidence and logic (an entertaining statement in it’s own right).  Whatever the definition used, how on earth do they disparage our conclusions for supposedly being faith-based, while simultaneously claiming that their own claims are very reliable exactly because of faith?!?!

Secondly, about there being no transitions from one species to another – this is, again, a clear indication of gross scientific ignorance.  This is really just horrifyingly inaccurate.  There are, or course, multiple instances of observed speciation; there is even an entire classification system for organizing speciation events, for Pete’s sake.  The claim that so-called “micro-evolutionary changes” only occur within species is not only falsified by direct observation, this artificial distinction betrays an ignorance of the scientific method as well.  Ziztur and I have blogged about this before, but briefly, science doesn’t test histories (because then science couldn’t operate on any phenomena outside of our direct observation), it tests mechanism and predictions.  The mechanisms that operate in so-called “micro-evolution” are the exact same mechanisms of “macro-evolution,” yet creationists must claim that while evolutionary predictions can be directly tested and verified on a small scale, they will be grossly inaccurate on a large scale!  Since there is no meaningful distinction here, any tests of predictions of the mechanisms will serve to either support or falsify evolution as a whole.  If there is a meaningful distinction to be made between “micro-” and “macro-evolution,” then creationists who wish to falsify evolution theory have to first describe what separates the two mechanisms, and then show that while the predictions of “micro-evolution” are accurate, they will somehow be inaccurate on a large, “macro” scale.  Obviously, they have not even tried to do this.

You have to wonder just how deeply ignorant a person must be of basic, fundamental biology to arrive at such grossly inaccurate conclusions, but we get verification of Comfort’s scientific ignorance – “. . .from the small finch to the large albatross, from the massive Great Dane to the tiny chihuahua. These are variations within species.”  Yes, ladies and gentlemen, ‘birds’ are a species.  It was at exactly this point that I came dangerously close to peeing in my pants.

No, Mr. Comfort, Aves are actually a “Class,” several levels higher in taxonomy than “Species.”  Actually, there are some 10,000 different species in the Aves Class.  Seriously?  You don’t know that a Finch and an Albatross are different species?!?!  Wow.  Wow, wow, wow.  My brain and bladder hurt.  I give up for today.  More later.  We’re such gluttons for punishment.

After several days off for the holidays, we’re back to discuss some of Ray Comfort’s ideas that we saw in his e-interview that he was kind enough to provide for us.

The first question observed that many Christians don’t recognize Ray Comfort’s name, and asked if he was possibly more famous among atheists.  His reply:

Not every Christian watches TV or reads books. However, it seems that most atheists (thanks the Richard Dawkins and others) are pretty familiar with the brainless idiot known as “banana-man.”

It’s not just Comfort, though; if you name Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, William Lane Craig, etc., I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find a higher proportion of atheists recognizing these names than Christians.  I can’t cite hard data here, so this is just speculation rather than observation, but bear with me.

Two possible perspectives on this possibility.  From my perspective as an atheist, it seems to be the case that self-described “atheists” as a group are self-selecting for people who seek out other perspectives and willingly challenge even widely-held opinions.  In a culture like America, so saturated with religious and spiritual belief, people who reject religious and spiritual claims are clearly far less likely to simply “go with the flow” and accept the perspective of their culture.  This is not to say that all atheists are shining beacons of rationality, incapable of error – far from it (there are certain conspiracy theorist nutjobs I could mention, and there’s always Ayn Rand . . .).  Even these individuals, though, are still more likely, as a rule, to actively familiarize themselves with differing perspectives.

Of course, the common theist has a simple response; we atheists (or any other culturally non-conformist label) are clearly quite convinced that we’re wrong on some level, and we are “seeking answers” not because we want to be certain that we’re not mistaken, but because we actually believe that we are mistaken.  When Ziztur and I visit different churches, on occasion we will politely inform church-goers who ask about us that we’re atheists.  Far and away, the most common response we hear is that we’ve found ourselves in the pew because we are being “called” or “led” to search for God.  To this, all I can say is that in my own limited experience, such church services or apologetic books are no more convincing to we atheists than the “new atheist” books are to your average theist.  After many churches and many books, our atheism is, if anything, is less dispute than it ever was.

The next question was, seemingly, an extremely simple theological question; it asked Comfort to define “the Gospel.”

In a nutshell–that Christ died for our sins and rose again on the third day. The word “gospel” means good news, and the gospel doesn’t make sense until we see why we need it, in the same way the good news of a cure makes no sense until we understand that we have a disease. The terminal disease is sin. If it’s allowed to take its course, it will not only kill us, it will justly take us to a terrible place of punishment called “Hell”–because each of us has violated God’s Law (the Ten Commandments). He sees lust as adultery and hatred as murder. He is morally perfect, and that leaves us all in big trouble. The good news is that God is rich in mercy, became a human being, and took our punishment upon Himself. That means, because Jesus paid our fine and rose again from the dead, God can legally let us walk out of the courtroom. He can forgive us and let us live. Our case can be dismissed upon repentance and trust in the Savior. The good news is that any of us can have everlasting life. Read the Gospel of John for details.

Interestingly, this “Gospel story” is possibly the single largest barrier to my ever becoming a Christian (and that’s saying something, considering all the other reasons I could name).  To put it simply, if I tell you that this season’s particular strain of the flu could be very nasty, and that you should get vaccinated ASAP, I can explain why.  If you ask, in all innocence, “So this flu thing . . . is that bad?  Why?”  I can explain that the flu could give you headaches, muscle aches, a cough, and just generally make you feel like crap, and that a few people who are particularly susceptible can even die from it if they catch it from you.  Now, here’s the important part – if you ask, “Why does the flu do that?” I could answer that it’s simply a result of how the flu virus reproduces with the living cells in your body.  I could say that the flu doesn’t have a mind, and that if it did, it would be wrong for the flu virus to hurt and kill people like it does.  Thus, it’s easy to understand why you should get vaccinated (in theory, anyway . . .).

I should mention, first of all, that not all Christians believe in a literal hell, to their immense credit.  With or without this traditionalist theology, though, the Gospel story raises more questions than it answers.  Why does God feel the need to punish us with eternal torture simply for disbelieving in him?  Why is there such a harsh penalty for having lustful thoughts, especially when every single human being has lustful thoughts, without exception?  Even without a literal hell, are “anger” and “lustful thoughts” still sins?  Who should rationally be held responsible for lustful thoughts or anger being universal amongst human beings, us or the being(s) who created us?

Additionally, how does the death of Jesus Christ absolve us of our crimes?  I’ve noticed that whenever Comfort discusses our “criminal actions” as sinners, he almost always uses the analogy of a legal fine being paid for us so that our case can be thrown out of court.  I would have thought that it’s obvious why this analogy isn’t convincing to non-believers:  If a crime of any significant severity is committed, the court doesn’t just administer a simple fine – the offender goes to prison.  If hell is an appropriate punishment for sin, then the analogy of a legal fine is grossly inaccurate (in fact, there really is no good comparison at all, because in America we don’t even punish our very worst criminals by torturing them to death, which is still far more humane than the traditional concept of hell).  Perhaps the closest we can come is the death sentence, or in societies that don’t even permit the death sentence on ethical grounds, perhaps life imprisonment without any possibility of parole.  Why doesn’t Comfort use these punishments as an illustration of the punishment we deserve for our sin?  Why does he use the very lightest punishment that our system has for any crime, a mere fine?  It’s possible for a person to pay a fine for someone else, simply because there’s no good way to make sure that the guilty person pays it themselves.  A prison sentence, to say nothing of a death sentence, on the other hand, obviously must always be paid by the person who committed the crime. 

So, there’s one of the single, largest questions I have about Christianity.  It seems to me that the very first principle of anything resembling justice is that you punish the person who actually committed the immoral act, and do not punish someone else in their place.  Imagine a society built around the principle that a person who commits a wrongful act cannot atone for their own wrongdoing, and the only way for justice to be served is for an innocent person to be punished ( and that the more innocent the punished person is, the more righteous and just the punishment will be).  If this society does every single other thing with their courts, prison system, and police force correctly, they are still doing nothing correctly.  They could get justice right in every single other way, and would still basically have a completely unjust society.  This Christian, Gospel idea of wrongdoers being incapable of atoning for their immoral actions and instead being redeemed by the punishment of a completely innocent person is not simply incorrect justice, it is not merely mistaken justice, it is the polar goddamned opposite of justice.

More about Ray Comfort coming soon.  Obviously, I would love for Ray to hang out here and reply to our perspective, but I totally understand that he’s very, very busy, so I won’t see his absence as proof that he can’t answer our questions.  Of course, our standard modus operandi is to welcome any dissenting opinion, so I look forward to anyone who can shed some light on this seeming contradiction.  That last question, in particular, about Gospel justice has vexed me all my life.

The other day I got the opportunity to send Ray Comfort (who blogs here and writes just about everywhere) some questions. Here they are!

Dear Mr. Comfort,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to e-interview you on my blog. I know you do lots of interviews, so I tried to ask you some questions in this interview that are a little bit out-of-the-box. Of course, you’re not obligated to answer any of them. Some of them are questions that were suggested by my commenters.

A very odd thing happens when I try to talk to Christians about this famous Christian named Ray Comfort – none of them seem to know who you are! Do you think you’re more well-known to atheists or to Christians, and why?

Not every Christian watches TV or reads books. However, it seems that most atheists (thanks the Richard Dawkins and others) are pretty familiar with the brainless idiot known as “banana-man.”

(Asked by my friend Pastor Keith): What is the gospel?

In a nutshell–that Christ died for our sins and rose again on the third day. The word “gospel” means good news, and the gospel doesn’t make sense until we see why we need it, in the same way the good news of a cure makes no sense until we understand that we have a disease. The terminal disease is sin. If it’s allowed to take its course, it will not only kill us, it will justly take us to a terrible place of punishment called “Hell”–because each of us has violated God’s Law (the Ten Commandments). He sees lust as adultery and hatred as murder. He is morally perfect, and that leaves us all in big trouble. The good news is that God is rich in mercy, became a human being, and took our punishment upon Himself. That means, because Jesus paid our fine and rose again from the dead, God can legally let us walk out of the courtroom. He can forgive us and let us live. Our case can be dismissed upon repentance and trust in the Savior. The good news is that any of us can have everlasting life. Read the Gospel of John for details.

(Asked by reader Gord) Can you define “kind”? What is the closest equivalent to “kind” in taxonomy? Species? Genus? Something else?

The word “kind” is the biblical word for “species.” God created dogs to reproduced dogs, cats to reproduce cats. Every animal was created to bring forth after its own kind. The Book of Genesis repeats this many times in the first chapter to make it clear, for those of us who are a little slow. We see evidence of this, both in the fossil record, and in living creation. The meaning of the word “species” has changed over the years. At one point it was synonymous with “kinds.” However, nowadays it is used differently in different circles.

(Also asked by Gord, long question): Have you met, chat[tted] with or otherwise communicated with an Old Earth Creationist named Adnan Oktar (pen name of Harun Yahya)? His argument for creation is that despite Millions of years of existence, the fossil record shows that all kind[s] of creatures does not display any form of change at all. A fossil of a fish seems to be the same as a modern fish, a fossil of a bird seems to be the same as a modern bird, etc. He says that this clearly shows that creative genius of his Creator, Allah. What fossil evidence can you point out to him that he is clearly mistaken, that micro-evolution does happen and that an ancient fish is very dissimilar to a modern fish. An ancient bird is very dissimilar to a modern bird, etc.? What physical evidence can you show him to demonstrate that the God of the Bible is the creative force behind all of these micro-evolution? Evidence that is so compelling that nothing in the Koran can dispute to it’s truth?

I have never heard of Mr. Oktar and I am therefore not familiar with his arguments, other than what you have related. Those who believe that a fish fossil is “ancient” reveal their unquestioning faith in dating methods. The fact that a fossil of a bird is different from a modern bird simply means that the Creator made them different. There was no transition from one species to another, so micro-evolution has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution. We can see micro-evolution throughout the entire creation of God–both in the fossil record and living things–from the small finch to the large albatross, from the massive Great Dane to the tiny chihuahua. These are variations within species.

As for the God of the Bible being the Creator. That’s simple. The moral Law , which Moslems embrace (the Law of Moses), leaves all of humanity condemned to death and on the path to Hell. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only God-given means of escape. Islam has no answer to that, our biggest dilemma (see John 8:31-32).

(Asked by EdW) You have talked to a huge number of people about their beliefs over the years, atheists and Christians alike. According to your understanding of Christianity, broadly speaking how many would go to Heaven if the world ended tomorrow?

God only knows. The only way anyone can have assurance of everlasting life is to repent, trust Jesus alone for their salvation (without good works–see Ephesians 2:8-9) and show the genuine nature of your repentance by living a life free from hypocrisy (something the Bible calls “holiness”). You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that there aren’t too many who do that. The modern church is full of pretenders, and they will be sorted out from the genuine, on the Day of Judgment.

Can you comment on the claim that part of your introduction to the 150th anniversary edition of Origin of Species was plagiarized?

No.

You’re voting in a local election, and you have a choice of voting for two candidates: one candidate advocates all of the policies you advocate for, and seems rather intelligent, qualified and is an atheist. The other candidate stands against all of the policies you stand for, does not seem qualified, seems a little dim and is a Christian. Who do you vote for and why? (For me, if the situation were reversed and I had the choice of voting for an unqualified atheist or a qualified Christian, I would not hesitate to vote for the Christian)

I would never vote for anyone who advocated the murder of children in the womb. If an atheist was pro-life, of course I would vote for him. However, I will qualify that answer. A person who is surrounded by creation and yet denies the axiom that there is a Creator, isn’t smart in the truest sense of the word. So an atheist disqualifies himself from the race, by the very nature of his life-philosophy. Any person who is a Christian, however dumb he may be in your eyes, is very wise because he has obeyed the gospel and has everlasting life. The day will come when you will see that to be true.

Have you ever been really stumped by a question someone asked you on the blog or on the street? If so, what question stumped you?

There are many questions I can’t answer. One is why God allows suffering (it’s not that suffering exists–the Bible explains it in that we live in a “fallen” creation). But why does God allow it? This is a mystery but it is not a dilemma to me. The day will come when we (those that love God) will have complete understanding. In the meanwhile, I trust Him with all of my heart, mind, soul and strength (almost every other question has a rational answer. I published something called The Evidence Bible that contains 100 of the most commonly asked question of the Christian faith).

What do you think of all of the atheist billboards that are going up across the USA?

I love them. They make people think about God.

Do you think that atheists and theists should try to coexist? Why or why not? How?

Yes, I think we should co-exist. There is a problem though. I regularly pray for atheists, buy them meals, send them money/vouches to restaurants, give them gifts, and yet they return hatred for my love. If you think I am exaggerating, Google my name and get ready for your ears to tingle. So the problem isn’t with Christians–we love atheists. It’s with the angry, militant, God-hating, God-blaspheming, God-denying atheist, who sees it as his mission in life to rid our country of any semblance of God. These folk meet regularly to talk about God and how He doesn’t exist. They write books about Him. They hang around Christian blogs like bugs around a campfire. They put up billboards about God, and they see us as the enemy. So if a sword exists, it comes from your side, not ours.

Obviously, I have read your entire book (You Can Lead an Atheist To Evidence, but You Can’t Make Him Think), given that on my blog I responded to something on almost every page. What books by modern biologists or atheists have you read? Have you read any to the same depth?

Evolution For Dummies (I’m sure some would say that that is an appropriate book for me). The Wild World of the Future talks about future evolution speculation, as opposed to the usual evolution speculation of past. The last book I read was the modern biologist’s bible–On the Origin of Species. I read it from cover to cover and found it a difficult read because most of it is pretty boring. I have heard atheists say the same thing. However, thanks to our generous giveaway of a total of 205,000 copies, others can read for themselves what Darwin actually believed, and make up their own minds. Thanks for letting me give my side of the argument. Best wishes.

Ray Comfort, the person who wrote You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But you Can’t Make Him Think and who recently published a 150^th anniversary edition of Origin of Species with a special 50 page introduction, has agreed to do an email interview with me on this blog.

You might remember that we analyzed all (and I mean all) of Ray Comfort’s You Can Lead… and so getting to correspond with Comfort after all of that blog fodder is an interesting prospect. Obviously, Comfort and I disagree on a great many things, but we can certainly still have a civil conversation with each other.

Comfort actually answers a lot of questions in interviews that are challenging to his viewpoint, but I’d like to ask some out of the box questions – something he might not hear everyday. Here are some I am thinking of asking:

A very odd thing happens when I try to talk to Christians about this apologist named Ray Comfort – none of them seem to know who you are! Do you think you’re more well-known to atheists or to Christians, and why?

If you take a gander at statistics, you’ll see that the rate of crime has fallen since 1990. There are lots of different theories floating around as to why this is. What’s your take?

You’re voting in a local election, and you have a choice of voting for two candidates: one candidate advocates all of the policies you advocate for, and seems rather intelligent, qualified and is an atheist. The other candidate stands against all of the policies you stand for, does not seem qualified, seems a little dim and is a Christian. Who do you vote for and why?

Have you ever been really stumped by a question someone asked you on the blog or on the street? If so, what question stumped you?

What do you think of all of the atheist billboards that are going up across the USA?

Do you think that atheists and theists should try to coexist? Why or why not? How?

Obviously, I have read your entire book (You Can Lead an Atheist To Evidence, but You Can’t Make Him Think), given that on my blog I responded to something on almost every page. What books by modern biologists or atheists have you read? Have you read any to the same depth?

Do you guys have anything you’re just dying to ask him?

This is it. It’s official. This is the last bit of Ray’s book, so this will be the last “Ray a day”/”Ray on Occasional Days”.  I must say, Ray really goes out with a bang. Read on. This was originally printed on Ray’s blog, so I’ll quote the whole thing:

Hello. My name is “Unreasonable.” I am a very proud demon. I love to hate, and I live for lust. I am extremely prejudiced. Come too close, and I will hiss out my venom. I don’t fear God or man, and I live in the House of Atheist.

If you want to enter my house, know that I control who and what gets in, and I’m in complete control of what comes out. Try knocking to see if I will open the door. Before you even try, let me tell you that I despise truth and will not let it enter . . . unless I think it’s in my best interests.

Take the subject of bats. The Bible says that bats are “birds,” probably because they have wings and fly. That’s ridiculous. Bats are not birds. Now if science had said that having wings and flying makes them a form of bird, then that makes sense. In fact, it makes perfect sense.

How about Cain and his wife? Where did she come from? They say he married a sister. I won’t even come to the door on that. It’s moronic. However, if science said that we trace our human ancestry back to one individual, then that truth is welcome, because it makes sense.

I can look directly at this vast, intricate creation and say that it’s not proof that there is a Creator. I need give no explanation. Such talk flies in the face of reason and common logic, but I don’t care.

There is a reason I don’t like truth. It’s because it carries light, and I don’t like light . . . unless I can control it. There is a room inside my house that I like to keep dark. Very dark. It is what I call an “adult” fantasy room. You know what I mean. That room keeps the residents here, and it keeps me in control.

I like to call evil good, and good evil. I do this because I hate absolutes, because absolutes speak of truth.

Each time I am unreasonable, I fortify my house.

I love living in the House of Atheist with my other demon friends. That’s because we are very welcome here. When the resident is seized by my master and taken to his permanent place, I will just move on and find another house. There are plenty out there.

Actually, I know that everything the Bible says is true. The Word of God makes me tremble. In the face of what I have said, that makes no sense. I know that . . . I’m just being Unreasonable.

Part of me just wants to let this sit here. Essentially, I think it speaks for itself. Alas, the last nail of the coffin must be hammered in. I really wanted you guys to read that without breaking it up. Now we can go through it bit by bit.

Hello. My name is “Unreasonable.” I am a very proud demon. I love to hate, and I live for lust. I am extremely prejudiced. Come too close, and I will hiss out my venom. I don’t fear God or man, and I live in the House of Atheist.

Ohai! Unreasonable means something like ‘inconsistent with reason, logic, or common sense”. Sure, I would not disagree that atheists reject common sense, but I have no idea what hate and lust have to do with atheism or unreasonableness. Unless Ray is just trying to throw in as many negative-sounding words as he can to describe the target of his bigotry.

If you want to enter my house, know that I control who and what gets in, and I’m in complete control of what comes out. Try knocking to see if I will open the door. Before you even try, let me tell you that I despise truth and will not let it enter . . . unless I think it’s in my best interests.

So this demon “Unreasonable” has this house called the “House of Atheist” where I guess the atheists go. Got it.

This is coming from a guy who continually goes on about how much he cares about atheists. If I said this about my mother, would you think I cared for her? It is so interesting how people like Ray can claim to care about someone while at the same time denigrating them. This type of writing is patently irresponsible – by creating a strawman of “atheists” as evil, vile people, publishing it in a book that millions can purchase and read, Ray is doing nothing more than perpetuating hatred for an entire group of people who, to my knowledge, are just as moral and ethical (often more moral and ethical) than theists. Imagine, for a moment, that these words were written about gays, or woman, or blacks, or Catholics.  Imagine if, “House of Atheist” was instead, “cathedral”. The bigotry is oozing out Rays ears.

Take the subject of bats. The Bible says that bats are “birds,” probably because they have wings and fly. That’s ridiculous. Bats are not birds. Now if science had said that having wings and flying makes them a form of bird, then that makes sense. In fact, it makes perfect sense.

It is easy to take lame examples of Bible contradictions that non-theists don’t care about, show how silly they are, and then proclaim that therefore non-theists are absurd. I don’t care that the Bible labels bats as birds. The Bible labels bats as birds because the Bible is not a science book. It also says you can breed animals in front of spotted sticks to create spotted animals. This is demonstrably false. If the Bible is divine, it should not contain demonstrably false information. Of course, once you have magic on your side, you can beg your way out of any question. Maybe back before there was a lot of sin, you could breed animals next to spotted sticks to produce spotted animals! Maybe back then, the laws of physics operated differently!

The point that people make when they point out inconsistencies in the Bible is this: if the Bible is supposed to be completely, absolutely perfect, then it should contain no errors. If it contains errors, then it is not perfect. This would not be a problem if people did not claim the Bible was inerrant in the first place. Pointing out consistencies is a way of showing someone how absurd it is to say that a book is inerrant.

It’s fascinating when apologists try to do the same thing to, say, Origin of Species, as if pointing out an error in the book will falsify evolution. We don’t think Origin is perfect, so pointing out an error will likely lead us to say, “Yup. And?” It just doesn’t have the same power, because no claims of inerrancy were made.

How about Cain and his wife? Where did she come from? They say he married a sister. I won’t even come to the door on that. It’s moronic. However, if science said that we trace our human ancestry back to one individual, then that truth is welcome, because it makes sense.

Cain and his wife is a very legitimate criticism of the morality of the Bible and the story of creation. So are criticisms of Abraham Solomon having 700 wives and 300 concubines while being praised by the Christian god repeatedly. As an outsider, I ask myself why we might want to teach our children these stories, along with other stories in the Bible which promote sexism, racism, genocide, etc.

‘Science’ does not say things. Scientists makes observations, use reason and logic to develop mechanism for how those observations came to be, experiment, and come to conclusions. Scientists do not posit that our ancestry can be traced back to one individual. Biblical creationism does, however, so I find it quite interesting that Ray uses this as an example. If our observations, rational thinking and experimentation led us to conclude that we did arise from a single individual, then of course I would accept that. Our observations/rational thinking/experimentation do not come to this conclusion, and so nor do I.

This is what being open-minded means – allowing your conclusions to be amenable to evidence. When I am in a disagreement over someone about some objective trust, I like to ask them what evidence they would need in order for them to change their mind. If they respond by telling me nothing can change their mind, then our conversation is over. Their mind is closed.

I can look directly at this vast, intricate creation and say that it’s not proof that there is a Creator. I need give no explanation. Such talk flies in the face of reason and common logic, but I don’t care.

Saying that creation proves there is a creator is begging the question, or using circular logic, which flies in the face of reason and common logic. Circular reasoning is one of the first logical fallacies people tend to learn about. If you assume your conclusion in your premise, you can prove anything. For example: I can look at this vast whorl of a universe designed by processes not guided by an intelligent force and say it is proof that the universe was not created. This is an absurd argument because it presupposes in the premise what I am attempting to conclude. As far as explanations go, plenty of those have been given. Plenty of explanations have been given to Ray himself, so I do not understand how he can miss them.

There is a reason I don’t like truth. It’s because it carries light, and I don’t like light . . . unless I can control it. There is a room inside my house that I like to keep dark. Very dark. It is what I call an “adult” fantasy room. You know what I mean. That room keeps the residents here, and it keeps me in control.

Here are some more examples of Ray’s bigotry toward atheists – claiming we hate ‘light’ (an obvious metaphor for ‘good stuff’) and love ‘dark’ (blatantly a metaphor for sexual depravity).

I like to call evil good, and good evil. I do this because I hate absolutes, because absolutes speak of truth.

What does “I like to call evil good, and good evil” have to do with absolutes? I can’t speak for all atheists, but I am no moral relativist Most Comfortian Christians are moral relativists, even as they decry moral relativism.

Moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Christians do this all the time to explain why they do not follow the Bible with regard to behaviors like stoning disobedient children or not eating shellfish. There was a reason for the law then, or for that culture, or for those individual people, but not now.  Or, it is perfectly just for god to order individuals to hack off 200 foreskins, but it’s not okay for me to hack off 200 foreskins. This is the definition of moral relativism!

It is interesting that Christians cling to this idea of moral absolutism, because moral absolutism in their mind implies a moral lawgiver, which implies their god. Yet they are moral relativists, and so is their holy book.

Each time I am unreasonable, I fortify my house.

So whenever the demon Unreasonable is unreasonable, he makes the House of Atheist stronger.  Ray sounds like the demon of bigotry, again.

I love living in the House of Atheist with my other demon friends. That’s because we are very welcome here. When the resident is seized by my master and taken to his permanent place, I will just move on and find another house. There are plenty out there.

The “resident” I guess is an atheist? Is the “master” in this metaphor a god, or Satan?

Actually, I know that everything the Bible says is true. The Word of God makes me tremble. In the face of what I have said, that makes no sense. I know that . . . I’m just being Unreasonable.

If everything in the Bible is true, then your god is a jackass.

Thanks Ray. It was a good ride. I really wish you would stop reinforcing the fact that atheists are the most hated minority in the US, though. It’s irresponsible and disgusting.

This is it. It’s official. This is the last bit of Ray’s book, so this will be the last “Ray a day”/”Ray on Occasional Days”.  I must say, Ray really goes out with a bang. Read on. This was originally printed on Ray’s blog, so I’ll quote the whole thing:

Hello. My name is “Unreasonable.” I am a very proud demon. I love to hate, and I live for lust. I am extremely prejudiced. Come too close, and I will hiss out my venom. I don’t fear God or man, and I live in the House of Atheist.

If you want to enter my house, know that I control who and what gets in, and I’m in complete control of what comes out. Try knocking to see if I will open the door. Before you even try, let me tell you that I despise truth and will not let it enter . . . unless I think it’s in my best interests.

Take the subject of bats. The Bible says that bats are “birds,” probably because they have wings and fly. That’s ridiculous. Bats are not birds. Now if science had said that having wings and flying makes them a form of bird, then that makes sense. In fact, it makes perfect sense.

How about Cain and his wife? Where did she come from? They say he married a sister. I won’t even come to the door on that. It’s moronic. However, if science said that we trace our human ancestry back to one individual, then that truth is welcome, because it makes sense.

I can look directly at this vast, intricate creation and say that it’s not proof that there is a Creator. I need give no explanation. Such talk flies in the face of reason and common logic, but I don’t care.

There is a reason I don’t like truth. It’s because it carries light, and I don’t like light . . . unless I can control it. There is a room inside my house that I like to keep dark. Very dark. It is what I call an “adult” fantasy room. You know what I mean. That room keeps the residents here, and it keeps me in control.

I like to call evil good, and good evil. I do this because I hate absolutes, because absolutes speak of truth.

Each time I am unreasonable, I fortify my house.

I love living in the House of Atheist with my other demon friends. That’s because we are very welcome here. When the resident is seized by my master and taken to his permanent place, I will just move on and find another house. There are plenty out there.

Actually, I know that everything the Bible says is true. The Word of God makes me tremble. In the face of what I have said, that makes no sense. I know that . . . I’m just being Unreasonable.

Part of me just wants to let this sit here. Essentially, I think it speaks for itself. Alas, the last nail of the coffin must be hammered in. I really wanted you guys to read that without breaking it up. Now we can go through it bit by bit.

Hello. My name is “Unreasonable.” I am a very proud demon. I love to hate, and I live for lust. I am extremely prejudiced. Come too close, and I will hiss out my venom. I don’t fear God or man, and I live in the House of Atheist.

Ohai! Unreasonable means something like ‘inconsistent with reason, logic, or common sense”. Sure, I would not disagree that atheists reject common sense, but I have no idea what hate and lust have to do with atheism or unreasonableness. Unless Ray is just trying to throw in as many negative-sounding words as he can to describe the target of his bigotry.

If you want to enter my house, know that I control who and what gets in, and I’m in complete control of what comes out. Try knocking to see if I will open the door. Before you even try, let me tell you that I despise truth and will not let it enter . . . unless I think it’s in my best interests.

So this demon “Unreasonable” has this house called the “House of Atheist” where I guess the atheists go. Got it.

This is coming from a guy who continually goes on about how much he cares about atheists. If I said this about my mother, would you think I cared for her? It is so interesting how people like Ray can claim to care about someone while at the same time denigrating them. This type of writing is patently irresponsible – by creating a strawman of “atheists” as evil, vile people, publishing it in a book that millions can purchase and read, Ray is doing nothing more than perpetuating hatred for an entire group of people who, to my knowledge, are just as moral and ethical (often more moral and ethical) than theists. Imagine, for a moment, that these words were written about gays, or woman, or blacks, or Catholics.  Imagine if, “House of Atheist” was instead, “cathedral”. The bigotry is oozing out Rays ears.

Take the subject of bats. The Bible says that bats are “birds,” probably because they have wings and fly. That’s ridiculous. Bats are not birds. Now if science had said that having wings and flying makes them a form of bird, then that makes sense. In fact, it makes perfect sense.

It is easy to take lame examples of Bible contradictions that non-theists don’t care about, show how silly they are, and then proclaim that therefore non-theists are absurd. I don’t care that the Bible labels bats as birds. The Bible labels bats as birds because the Bible is not a science book. It also says you can breed animals in front of spotted sticks to create spotted animals. This is demonstrably false. If the Bible is divine, it should not contain demonstrably false information. Of course, once you have magic on your side, you can beg your way out of any question. Maybe back before there was a lot of sin, you could breed animals next to spotted sticks to produce spotted animals! Maybe back then, the laws of physics operated differently!

The point that people make when they point out inconsistencies in the Bible is this: if the Bible is supposed to be completely, absolutely perfect, then it should contain no errors. If it contains errors, then it is not perfect. This would not be a problem if people did not claim the Bible was inerrant in the first place. Pointing out consistencies is a way of showing someone how absurd it is to say that a book is inerrant.

It’s fascinating when apologists try to do the same thing to, say, Origin of Species, as if pointing out an error in the book will falsify evolution. We don’t think Origin is perfect, so pointing out an error will likely lead us to say, “Yup. And?” It just doesn’t have the same power, because no claims of inerrancy were made.

How about Cain and his wife? Where did she come from? They say he married a sister. I won’t even come to the door on that. It’s moronic. However, if science said that we trace our human ancestry back to one individual, then that truth is welcome, because it makes sense.

Cain and his wife is a very legitimate criticism of the morality of the Bible and the story of creation. So are criticisms of Abraham Solomon having 700 wives and 300 concubines while being praised by the Christian god repeatedly. As an outsider, I ask myself why we might want to teach our children these stories, along with other stories in the Bible which promote sexism, racism, genocide, etc.

‘Science’ does not say things. Scientists makes observations, use reason and logic to develop mechanism for how those observations came to be, experiment, and come to conclusions. Scientists do not posit that our ancestry can be traced back to one individual. Biblical creationism does, however, so I find it quite interesting that Ray uses this as an example. If our observations, rational thinking and experimentation led us to conclude that we did arise from a single individual, then of course I would accept that. Our observations/rational thinking/experimentation do not come to this conclusion, and so nor do I.

This is what being open-minded means – allowing your conclusions to be amenable to evidence. When I am in a disagreement over someone about some objective trust, I like to ask them what evidence they would need in order for them to change their mind. If they respond by telling me nothing can change their mind, then our conversation is over. Their mind is closed.

I can look directly at this vast, intricate creation and say that it’s not proof that there is a Creator. I need give no explanation. Such talk flies in the face of reason and common logic, but I don’t care.

Saying that creation proves there is a creator is begging the question, or using circular logic, which flies in the face of reason and common logic. Circular reasoning is one of the first logical fallacies people tend to learn about. If you assume your conclusion in your premise, you can prove anything. For example: I can look at this vast whorl of a universe designed by processes not guided by an intelligent force and say it is proof that the universe was not created. This is an absurd argument because it presupposes in the premise what I am attempting to conclude. As far as explanations go, plenty of those have been given. Plenty of explanations have been given to Ray himself, so I do not understand how he can miss them.

There is a reason I don’t like truth. It’s because it carries light, and I don’t like light . . . unless I can control it. There is a room inside my house that I like to keep dark. Very dark. It is what I call an “adult” fantasy room. You know what I mean. That room keeps the residents here, and it keeps me in control.

Here are some more examples of Ray’s bigotry toward atheists – claiming we hate ‘light’ (an obvious metaphor for ‘good stuff’) and love ‘dark’ (blatantly a metaphor for sexual depravity).

I like to call evil good, and good evil. I do this because I hate absolutes, because absolutes speak of truth.

What does “I like to call evil good, and good evil” have to do with absolutes? I can’t speak for all atheists, but I am no moral relativist Most Comfortian Christians are moral relativists, even as they decry moral relativism.

Moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Christians do this all the time to explain why they do not follow the Bible with regard to behaviors like stoning disobedient children or not eating shellfish. There was a reason for the law then, or for that culture, or for those individual people, but not now.  Or, it is perfectly just for god to order individuals to hack off 200 foreskins, but it’s not okay for me to hack off 200 foreskins. This is the definition of moral relativism!

It is interesting that Christians cling to this idea of moral absolutism, because moral absolutism in their mind implies a moral lawgiver, which implies their god. Yet they are moral relativists, and so is their holy book.

Each time I am unreasonable, I fortify my house.

So whenever the demon Unreasonable is unreasonable, he makes the House of Atheist stronger.  Ray sounds like the demon of bigotry, again.

I love living in the House of Atheist with my other demon friends. That’s because we are very welcome here. When the resident is seized by my master and taken to his permanent place, I will just move on and find another house. There are plenty out there.

The “resident” I guess is an atheist? Is the “master” in this metaphor a god, or Satan?

Actually, I know that everything the Bible says is true. The Word of God makes me tremble. In the face of what I have said, that makes no sense. I know that . . . I’m just being Unreasonable.

If everything in the Bible is true, then your god is a jackass.

Thanks Ray. It was a good ride. I really wish you would stop reinforcing the fact that atheists are the most hated minority in the US, though. It’s irresponsible and disgusting.