Ray Comfort (last blogged here) has discovered a conspiracy against him; as he explains on WorldNetDaily:
“If you look at the reviews on Amazon.com,” he said, “you could come away thinking that this is worst book ever written. It has masses of one ‘stars’ with scathing reviews, saying things like ‘Comfort is a charlatan’ and ‘Dreadful piece of drivel.'”
…On the Reddit.com website he found the answer: a conspiracy among atheists to drag his book down through their responses on the Amazon website.
A participant identified as “The Milkman” wrote, “Let’s all vote one star on this piece of s—.”
…”Atheists spammed my blog, spammed our website and sent abusive e-mails about our new billboard, so I suspected some sort of atheist conspiracy on Amazon, and fortunately I found it,” Comfort said.
However, it’s not all bad news:
“The atheist who wrote the foreword backslid,” Comfort said. “I sent him a copy, and a week later he wrote to me and said that he was no longer an atheist.”
The former atheist is not named, but he is a certain Darrin Rasberry of Iowa State University’s Department of Mathematics. Rasberry recently complained that anti-religious “diatribes” had replaced “the art of philosophical study”. He made a number of postings to a blog called Debunking Christianity – his sceptical swansong was a mathematical refutation of Alvin Plantinga’s Ontological Argument (don’t ask me if it’s valid or not).
So why the hostility to the book? Comfort explains that people like to pretend that God does not exist so that they can indulge in ” sinful delicacies” – specifically, “pornography, fornication, lying, theft”. He also has another challenging question for those who subscribe to evolutionary biology over a literal reading of Genesis:
“…Every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn’t keep going. Evolution has no explanation for the female for every species in creation,”
Why penises are self-evident but vaginas baffling to science is not, alas, explained – perhaps this sheds some light on Comfort’s banana fixation…
Meanwhile, Richard Dawkins has responded to Comfort’s debate challenge:
$10,000 is less than the typical fee that I am ordinarily offered for lecturing to a serious audience (I often don’t accept it, especially in the case of a student audience, because I am a dedicated teacher). It is not, therefore, a worthwhile inducement for me to travel all the way across the Atlantic to debate with an ignorant fool. You can tell him that if he donates $100,000 to the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (it’s a charitable donation, tax deductible) I’ll do it. A further condition is that it will be filmed by Josh Timonen for my website, RichardDawkins.net, and distributed by Josh as a DVD, if he thinks it is funny enough. To this end, it would be nice if Mr Comfort would reprise the ever popular Banana Sketch.
Richard Dawkins
Comfort believes that Dawkins has made these conditions because he is afraid and wishes to avoid the confrontation.
Comfort has also spoken further about his famous argumentum ex mus?:
For years I have held a Coke can in one hand and a banana in the other, and compared the two. Both have a tab at the top. The banana has a wrapper with perforations, is biodegradable, etc. It was a parody – the point being, if someone designed the Coke can then obviously Someone designed the banana. In the mid 1990’s I published the parody in booklet form called ‘The Atheist Test’ and sold over a million copies. When we put it into our TV program, atheists removed the Coke can, and sent the clip all over the Internet, saying ‘Ray Comfort believes that the banana is proof of God’s existence.’ I guess atheists don’t appreciate parody.”
So, a banana is evidence for intelligent design and thus it really is “the atheist’s nightmare”; but insofar as the argument fails, that’s just because atheists can’t recognise parody. I must confess I can’t quite grasp this subtle point.
Giving one-star reviews to books they haven’t read, removing the very important contextualising coke-can from the banana sketch – clearly atheists are now running scared, and will stop at nothing in their quest for porn…
Filed under: Uncategorized | 2 Comments »
