The first time I ever heard him (or even of him) was when he was on the RRS show. I actually thought he was a parody like the Landover Baptist. Was pretty shocked to hear he was actually serious.

I'd like to use this, and perhaps one other thread to discuss Comfort's bad arguments, and how to best show their flaws.

Guys, listen...

Remember Ray's video with the "atheists' nightmare", the banana?

I was thinking of doing a counter-video on that one. Something like the "theists nightmare", the pineapple, or something like that.

I've got all the necessary equipment, and I'll be aided by my friend, who's going to do the filming, editing and processing.

Three questions for you:

- has something like that been made?

- if I do the video, will you help me make it public, after I googlevideo or youtube it?

- will you help me find a proper fruit/vegetable and the necessary arguments as to why it is the "theists' nightmare"? (oh, and please, do not come up with hot chilli peppers and make me demonstrate by eating it )

Personally I don't think that many theists will be convinced by his stupid arguments, but who knows. I think such a "video response" would do the trick. Sometimes it's better to fight people with their own weapons.

I read on another message board that the banana of today is cultivated from its orginal form which was shaped more like a pear and had a much tougher peel. I can't remember the link to that but there was even a picture of what the original fruit looks like. This is another way to show tht Comfort is wrong, the banana of today is man-made!

I see it now. From a Future Chick Tract: "You evolutionist can't stop at saying we're just advanced apes, now we're just advanced bananas. You're the cause of all of society's ills!"

A. It doesn't prove anything. Biochemical genotype similarity presupposes that because of the similarity we have a common ancestor. It could just as easily point to a singular Designer. Most architects work looks similar, painters paintings resemble each other, etc.

Unfounded assertion with a false dichotomy. Evolutionary genetic conservation has 400 highly conserved genes in three billion years. There is no evidence for a designer, but there is for evolution, so "assuming" that it could be the work of a designer is ridiculous.

B. How do you know how long the banana has been around? I believe once again that your statement is presumptive and speculative at best.

Ever studied amino acid tracking or biomolecular clocks? Ever seen a DNA line microarray?

C. Which evolved first, the plant or the herbivore, the herbivore or the carnivore, the bee or the flower. C'mon man, you have more faith in your "science" than any theist does in God. You guys need to quit making excuses. The only difference between scientific theory and creation theory is creation has a rulebook, science doesn't. Science is a cop out, an easy excuse to live with whatever sin it is you are trying to justify. The truth is, you can no more provide SOLID evidence for the origin of life than a creationist can. You CHOOSE to believe that God is non-existant. Too bad that doesn't make Him disappear, wether or not you belive in him, you will face him. I think someone said it best when they said, "No one dies an atheist"

I don't even need to answer that. You can look it up for yourself in a speciative branching tree which comes first. You clearly do not understand endoymbiosis, genotype divergence or anything else for that matter. Really, your nonsense is embarrasing. Creationist's "rulebook" is 2000 yers out of date. No-one dies an atheist?? Sagan? Russell? My grandfather? When I die I shall be as I was in the time of the unborn (a quote by Mark Twain, a man whose intellect greatly exceeds your own) there is no maker for me to face. I CHOOSE not to believe because there is no rational, emprical evidence to suggest I should.

Science is a cop out? You are typing on a computer. You probably have a TV. Have you ever swallowed a pill, been to a hospital. Come on, that is a pathetic statement. We owe everything we have in this world to the hard work of science. You pick and choose which parts to accept just because some of it contradicts the Bible, which was written 2000 years ago. Evolution is just as much fact as electromagnetism or neurology or electronics and classical physics. 

So I guess your going to not take any mediaction, or go to the hospital? Don't want to use any of the cop out. 

You guys are quite hilarious.  I love it when I get you all fired up. What I love is when you take my statements out of context and then argue with what you want me to have said.

I said Science was a cop out in the context of evolutionary theory and the origin of life. You can accuse me of being an idiot if you want, but I aced molecular biology, physics, etc. in college and probably outscored most of you dweebs on the SAT and ACT yet you continue to act like I don't know what I'm saying. I'm not some little fundamentalist Christian who was raised to believe one way and one way alone, I chose Christ as a freshman in college.

I'm also not trying to tell you (deludedgod) that I disagree with your science, I simply ask if you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the age of a banana (within 1000 years) for that matter, your "evidence" as you call it, only indicates what could be. If your fine with your beliefs, then so am I.  I tried to convince you of the truth and I'll sleep well tonight.

Mr. Rage, I never said you were a hedonist. I am glad you got a haircut though. My point is that I truly believe that the majority of atheists have a sin they hold onto and the only way they can justify their lifestyle is by convincing yourself that God doesn't exist. For every argument I hear for evolution, I can find a rebuttal from creationism. Just like politics, no matter who you like you can hear something bad about your guy.  Does that mean that you shouldn't vote for him? No, by all means you should vote for the politician that has convinced you he is the best man for the job. Only time will tell whether or not your vote was actually for a good man. That's kind of a stretch b/c in politics good is relative.  Who knows whether or not Gore or Kerry would have been better than Bush (they would almost have to be in a coma not to be) , but with God it is a little more serious. I realize that sounds like Pascal's wager (which I don't intend, b/c I think its dumb), but if your wrong, and you cannot know for absolute sure that you're not (that would imply absolute knowledge of the universe), you will have hell to pay. I know I can't convince you guys to agree with my beliefs, and that's okay. If you have a life altering experience that cannot be attributed to anything but God like I did, let me know, I'd be happy to introduce you to the Christianity that God intended.......not man.

I'm out,

Dio

No.  I don't believe in god because the idea is utterly ludicrous.

Yeah, but there's some sin you're holding on to. Is it watching R rated movies? Listening to that devil rock music? Do you enjoy a beer now and then?

Busted.

P.S.  I cuss sometimes, too. 

LOL! That was funny, Ophios.

And I love it when a theist accuses others of taking things on faith as an insult.  

Oh really?

Your words show otherwise. Where is creations rule book? I've never seen one. Never even heard of one. I can show you a number of rule books for science. But the most important scientific rule is the rule of science, conveniently found within it's own definition.

"Those branches of study relating to the phenomena of the physical universe and its laws, a connected body of demonstrated truths with observed facts systematically classified under general laws; the study of relative, modified Principles which can be proven through physical measurements and through physical senses."

I believe this comes from the Oxford dictionary. I could be misinformed, but the definition is correct regardless. With all of this, your claim of science being a cop out is irrational in any context.

So you claim. I say you're a braggart with nothing to show for it. Including the knowledge that would have come with being an expert in such fields, if you did in fact even take them.

You believe falsly. I have always been an atheist. It has nothing to do with "sin". It has to do with logic and reason. It has to do with not believing in santa, which is another belief I never subscribed to.

No. You can find something(always something), but it's never a rebuttal. Creationism has failed to rebut. ID was their latest attempt. We now wait and see what the next attempt will be. In the mean time we'll inform those who somehow missed the facts years ago about what the facts are.

As much as it seems politicians are trying to drag science into politics, in the end they will fail. Science cannot be subjective, it is not science when it is.

I know I'm not wrong. And no, it doesn't imply absolute knowledge of the universe. It implies a logical basis in reality with the ability to recognize fiction as fiction. So no problem.

The day your god shows up, bring him by and introduce him to me. I'd love to meet him/her/it/whatever. Until then, don't ask me to believe in your invisible friend that not even you can see.

OK then, I'll argue with what you said exactly.

OK, so it is a cop-out because (stop me where I go wrong): 1) it doesn't explain everything; 2) it doesn't support sky-daddies; 3) it's the only provable aspect that can be verified by anyone with enough will and resources to do it (and no, I never said that verifying a scientific theory/fact should be cost-free and easy for everyone).

I notice the "probably" within your sentence.

Good for you, rummy.

Sure. Recreate all experiments that have led to this conclusion. If you can't find what they are, go talk to someone who has performed at least one of them (and no, I didn't recreate any of them). It will cost you... quite a lot, but hey ! Progress demands sacrifice.

I would be fine with your beliefs as well, under normal, ideal circumstances. But than again, these aren't normal circumstances.

Rigor O'Mortis' list of sins:

- atheist (actually a bit counter-theist)

- lied (mostly been in the "Why didn't you tell me ...?" / "Because you didn't ask." situation)

- used foul language

- made certain people look like idiots

- insulted (it happens from time to time, and I do normally apologize, but it's still a sin)

- didn't give all my money to the poor, so that they can become rich (and the roles would go the other way around, but I guess Jesus didn't think this one over too well)

- had sex before marriage (and I'm still not married)

- coveted his neighbour's woman (not sure how this one works, though, because I never coveted a married woman, that, of course, I knew was married, and technically, since a woman's not married, it couldn't be "another man's"... and if I had no way of knowing whether or not a woman was married, I'm not exactly sure that my thought of "That chick is hot!" was actually a sin done with my free will that doesn't contradict God's omniscience)

...and the list kind of stops here. I don't remember killing anyone, I don't remember having stolen anyone's assets, I haven't blasphemed (yet).

So... what would be the great sin that I wish to live with ... ?

I do not dispute that some atheists have become like that because they realized, at a certain point in their life, that for their "sins" they will never enter heaven, so they shouldn't waste time on something pointless, but your generalization is at least a hasty one.

Why don't you write a book on it then? I'm doing that, but it goes the other way around.

OK, I then have to choose between Buddha and Odin. They're my favourite gods. They accept their nature and they aren't so vengeful with humans for "sins" that are so measly that no normal, intelligent human being would ever get mad at. I'd likely vote for Odin, though. Valhalla sounds cooler than nirvana. Being up there with all the blade'n'axe-swinging guys, listening to traditional nordic music, drinking and participating in orgies and mock plundering of mock villages, just to keep our spirits high. Besides, Freya looks quite hot, too.

That's what your analogy sounds like. You put it forward, not me.

Let me rephrase what you just said: I think it's dumb to ask someone for nutties, so... do you have any nutties?

If you didn't want to use Pascal's wager, what on Earth made you use it?

Well, perhaps if your belief had some truth basis in it, then I'd be willing to believe it.

Jesus once put it this way: "If you have faith at least the size of a grain of mustard, then you will say to the mountain "Move" and it will move." But I haven't seen mountains moving lately.

Hmm... life-altering experience... (browsing)... (still browsing)... Oh yes, would the death of my grandfather count? He was a doctor and a tailor (he had such a passion for both jobs, that he chose to follow both, and successfully). At the age of 65, he had a cardiovasculary accident, and remained paralyzed on his right side. Though he was one of the most devout Christians that I've ever seen, I really loved my grandfather, and I respected him, and so did the whole community (a proof that everybody knew him, and about 90% of the community showed up at his funeral to pay respects, which cost us probably about the same ammount of money that we used to build our whole house). In July 2000, he had a second strike which was fatal.

I apologize, but if I am to attribute THIS life-altering experience to God, I see absolutely no reason why I should love him.

OK, next one. When I was in high school, some years ago, I was invited to one of my classmates' birthday party. There I met her the person who was to become one of my best friends and that would alter the whole perspective on life I had since then, offering me a possibility to do what I really want with my life (it was him that I chose to do law school because). This person, by the way, is also an atheist, like me.

Why I would attribute this to God, I have absolutely no idea. Perhaps you should clue me in.

We know you're out. We can see that.

I said Science was a cop out in the context of evolutionary theory and the origin of life. You can accuse me of being an idiot if you want, but I aced molecular biology, physics, etc. in college and probably outscored most of you dweebs on the SAT and ACT yet you continue to act like I don't know what I'm saying.

You "probably" scored higher than us on the SATS. Congratulations, Mr. Unfounded Assertions of the Year Award Winner

You 'aced" molecular bio and physics. You are obviously lying. IN the thread Questions for Creationists, Yellow #5 asked you how to explain Endogenous Retroviral Gene Insertion in light of your creationist beliefs.

You responded "Hmmmmm, that's pretty deep, I won't pretend to know what you are talking about".

So you "aced" molecular bio, yet you don't understand the RNA-DNA-Protein relationship versus transcription functions and insertions? That is part of the core central tenets of molecular bio, something every biochemistry student learns almost immediately. If you don't understand ERVs, you don't understand molecular bio, and you definitely did not "ace" it. 

whoa, ronnie james dio?  

 but seriously though, your post is not very good.  i know i sound like a broken record already, but i don't think that atheism is a reaction to faith in and of itself.  of course there is an element of faith to science.  i'm not talking about "faith" in the same generic way that people use the word "soul" nowadays, i'm talking about being able to rely on certain things or processes that you can't necessarily empirically observe real-time, but for which evidence are present that sufficiently convince you of whatever the object of your faith is, be it science, god, or whatever.  

for instance, the rock cycle is not observable in real time.  it occurs at a much slower rate in relation to how fast a human life cycle occurs.  but we can go back and study rocks, study the earth, and discover a wealth of evidence in favor of plate tectonics and such.  the geologist must have faith in the plate tectonic theory in order to build on it and do research beyond it; in other words, he's able to imagine the process occuring right now without actually being able to see it.  and that's fine.  it's not an issue of faith in and of itself, it's the object of faith that's always the issue.   

Cut the bullshit.  We know this is a lie.  You are inflating your ego to make yourself sound smart; your not.  You went to college, and yet your still a creationist?  Your professors didn't do their job.  Either that, or they did their job, but you let your dogma get in the way of authentic free inquiry.