Pineapples disprove Big Bang

[Foxaèr]

I'm sure it feels fulfilling.

I cannot speak for him, but it certainly is for me.

[Tonus]

Minimalist, I am constantly surprised at how you fit the mold of the "mad atheist" stereotype.

Not mad, angry. If he was mad, he'd sound more like a theist.

[Faith No More]

It appears so. I had no idea until you mentioned it. I was only aware of The Onion. If a mod wishes to move this to the humor section, that would probably be better.

Don't blame yourself. After he made such a giant ass of himself with the banana argument, it's hard to discern what would be too ridiculous of an argument for this guy to champion.

---

Minimalist, I am constantly surprised at how you fit the mold of the "mad atheist" stereotype. Go ahead and pick on irrational creationists like Ray Comfort. I'm sure it feels fulfilling.

There would be less anger to have if morons like Comfort didn't peddle their stupidity to the gullible.

And yes, it is fulfilling. Thanks for noticing.

[Pandas United]

There would be less anger to have if morons like Comfort didn't peddle their stupidity to the gullible.

Are you kidding me? And Dawkins' The God Delusion is different how exactly? That was some of the most preposterous reasoning i've ever read in a book. And no, I read it when I was an agnostic, so I had no biases going in.

I'll be the first to admit Ray Comfort's work is pretty horrible. But don't act like the side of the atheist doesn't have the same proponents of irrationality that's being fed to the sheep. Learn to ignore the "morons" and look for actual substantive dialogue. It would make clear for clearer heads and better conversations.

[Cato]

Are you kidding me? And Dawkins' The God Delusion is different how exactly? That was some of the most preposterous reasoning i've ever read in a book. And no, I read it when I was an agnostic, so I had no biases going in.

I'll be the first to admit Ray Comfort's work is pretty horrible. But don't act like the side of the atheist doesn't have the same proponents of irrationality that's being fed to the sheep. Learn to ignore the "morons" and look for actual substantive dialogue. It would make clear for clearer heads and better conversations.

An example of Dawkin's irrationality or preposterous reasoning is required to substantiate your argument.

[Pandas United]

Are you kidding me? And Dawkins' The God Delusion is different how exactly? That was some of the most preposterous reasoning i've ever read in a book. And no, I read it when I was an agnostic, so I had no biases going in.

I'll be the first to admit Ray Comfort's work is pretty horrible. But don't act like the side of the atheist doesn't have the same proponents of irrationality that's being fed to the sheep. Learn to ignore the "morons" and look for actual substantive dialogue. It would make clear for clearer heads and better conversations.

An example of Dawkin's irrationality or preposterous reasoning is required to substantiate your argument.

The chief argument in his book boils down to the atrociously bad argument: "who created the creator." How disappointing for me as I came to the apex of his book thinking he was going to have some knock-dead argument against God. Nope. Just a classic misunderstanding of what the nature of God entails and the metaphysics behind how necessary beings function.

You can take a glance through this paper if you feel inclined to-
http://christthetao.homestead.com/articl...lusion.pdf

And if you want further reading on how bad that book really is, i'll point you to:
-Alister McGrath's The Dawkins Delusion
-Alvin Plantinga's The Dawkins Confusion
-David Berlinski's The Devil's Delusion
-John Lennox's God's Undertaker

[Cato]

The chief argument in his book boils down to the atrociously bad argument: "who created the creator." How disappointing for me as I came to the apex of his book thinking he was going to have some knock-dead argument against God. Nope. Just a classic misunderstanding of what the nature of God entails and the metaphysics behind how necessary beings function.

Got it. Your problem with Dawkins, and presumably others, is based on your fealty to the cosmological argument.

[Faith No More]

Are you kidding me? And Dawkins' The God Delusion is different how exactly?

I wouldn't know. I haven't read it. I do know, however, that Dawkins isn't trying to get atheism taught in schools.

That was some of the most preposterous reasoning i've ever read in a book. And no, I read it when I was an agnostic, so I had no biases going in.

His reasoning may be flawed, but I can guarantee, even without reading it, that it doesn't fly in the face of 100 years of scientific evidence.

I'll be the first to admit Ray Comfort's work is pretty horrible. But don't act like the side of the atheist doesn't have the same proponents of irrationality that's being fed to the sheep. Learn to ignore the "morons" and look for actual substantive dialogue. It would make clear for clearer heads and better conversations.

Please show me where an atheist in the public eye makes an argument that fails on the level that Ray Comfort does. I truly would like to see that.

[Mister Agenda]

The thing I don't get about Ray is why only the atheists make fun of him. If everyone agreed he's ignorant, he wouldn't be interesting; it's the number of Christians who think he's making great points that make him a phenomenon worthy of ridicule.

[Faith No More]

The thing I don't get about Ray is why only the atheists make fun of him.

My dad pokes fun at YEC's and he's a Christian.