Ray Comfort is totally Clueless

I seem to spend a lot of my blogging on Ray Comfort's moronic bloggings, but well, they are hilarious, in a morbid way. I mean, I've got mixed feelings about making fun of the mentally handicapped. On the one hand, it seems cruel to poke fun at people who don't know any better, and who obviously are in serious need of psychotherapy or medication. On the other hand, Ray makes a lot more money than I do, has command of lots of followers, and has national exposure on his TV shows, so I don't feel bad at all making fun of a person whose career seems to revolve around exposing his personal insanity to the world. After all, nobody thought it was cruel to poke fun at Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush when they were displaying their lack of intelligence to the world. Ray is no different.

In his latest Blog, titles, appropriately "Circular Reasoning, Etc.", Ray re-affirms that he has no clue, and that he still doesn't know the meanings to several words and phrases that we atheists have frequently used in discussion.

Ray Comfort wrote:

"Reading comments between Christians and atheists is sometimes frustrating."

Yes, It's frustrating for Ray to have a battle of wits, while unarmed.

Ray continues:

"Most of the Christians are very polite and try to address the issues"

On this point I tend to disagree. SOME are polite. Others give into ranting and arrogantly castigating us rational objectors. But I digress.

Ray continues:

"and the atheists are generally arrogant and word-twisting,"

You cannot twist words when your word meanings come straight from the English Dictionary. If anything, Ray and his people are ones to twist words, especially last week, he claimed that he objected to being called religious, "because it has so many negative connotations", despite the fact that several online dictionaries failed to have anything negative in their definitions of the word,and no thesaurus had any negative synonyms of it, either.

I pointed out that far too often, it is "people of faith" (is that a less offensive euphamism than "religious"?) and "extremists" of various types who mince their words and try to redefine well-established English words to suit their agendas, and I believe I succeeded in proving my point with several examples of words that Ray and others have their own special meanings for that are not really found in dictionaries.

Ray continues:

"while resorting to ridicule and personal attacks. They keep saying the same old things, such as, “Prove to me that God exists without using the Bible. If you use the Bible that’s 'circular reasoning.'” That is nothing short of ridiculous. It’s like saying, “Prove to me that the President lives in the White House, but don’t look into the White House.”

Actually, it's not like that at all, but it is possible to prove that the president lives in the White House without actually going there and looking into the building itself. I would check the phone books, have him followed by a camera crew, and verify how long he spends there with other methods. I never need to be on the property to find proof.

Ray has confirmed for us all that he still does not understand what circular reasoning is, nor do I think we can ever get him to have any revelations about why circular reasoning is inherently irrational, and illogical.

Let me illustrate from his history. Remember when he debated the Rational Response Squad?
(1) he claimed that he could "scientifically" prove that God exists, without referring to scriptures.
(2) he claimed that God exists outside of the physical universe, and that the realm of the supernatural is beyond the ability of science to detect.
(3) his first attempt to "scientifically prove" God's existence was to start quoting the 10 commandments, and other parts of the Bible.

First of all, do you see the blatant contradictions here? First he said that God can be proven scientifically. Then, he claimed that God is beyond Science's ability to detect -- which completely negates the possibility of using science to prove his existence! Then he claimed that he could prove God's existence without using the scriptures, and his first point was to quote the 10 commandments, which is a second blatant contradiction.

Now he is saying that it is impossible to prove God's existence WITHOUT referring to scriptures, so he's contradicting him 3 times. Doesn't he understand what a contradiction actually is, and why contradictory statements like his are irrational and illogical? As I said, since we've been beating his brow, it looks like he hasn't learned anything.

It looks like Ray Comfort does not understand:
(1) what a contradiction actually is,
(2) What the word "religious" means,
(3) What circular reasoning is, and
(4) What a straw-man argument is.

He really should resort to an English dictionary whenever he has trouble with English words and phrases that he still obviously do not understand. The problem is that his fans and followers don't know any better, either, always back him up mindlessly and support everything he says, but are reluctant to correct him when he's wrong. It's the same syndrome as George W. Bush -- he's surrounded by people who never criticize him when he says something completely stupid, and because of that, he never really knows how much of an ass of himself he is making.