episode 702 transcript - Matt, Russell, and Ray Comfort

A place for discussion and feedback regarding the Non-Prophets podcast and/or the Atheist Experience TV show.

episode 702 transcript - Matt, Russell, and Ray Comfort

Postby MAtheist » Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:33 am

This is a transcript for episode 702, which first aired on Sunday, March 27th, 2011.

A video can be seen here, on blip.tv.

This is an interview between Matt Dillahunty, Russell Glasser, and Ray Comfort.

There are two places where I could not understand what was said, no matter how many times I listened to them, these are denoted with a string of question marks, and a section delimited with question marks, sorry. I believe everything else is now accurate. Also, I did not add the ahs, ums, etc., I felt they hurt the readability and were not necessary.

Please feel free to copy and use this as you like.

Last edited by MAtheist on Tue Apr 12, 2011 5:27 am, edited 3 times in total.
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 2:07 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Postby MAtheist » Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:34 am

Matt: Our guest today who I'm gonna' go ahead and introduce real quick is Ray Comfort who runs Living Waters Ministries, produces a television series in conjunction with Kirk Cameron called "The Way of the Master", he's the author of many books and he has a blog that is frequented by atheists and I suppose some Christians alike, maybe, and he's a popular street evangelist, Ray, welcome to the show.

Ray: Thanks for having me on Matt, it's great to be here.

Matt: How are you?

Ray: I'm really really good, I'm very excited and I'm privileged to be on this program, thank you so much.

Matt: Sure, I appreciate you calling in ... or us actually calling you, whatever ... however we managed to get you on here, there was some confusion as to whether we'd even be able to call out but toll free number are allowed so ...

Russell: Yeah, thanks for coming on, it's great to have you ...

Matt: Thanks for having a toll free number.

Ray: Nice to meet you too, Russell.

Matt: So, you had asked for us to pull some questions, and we did, and of course we had some of our own, but I wanted to get kind of started here ... obviously we have different perspectives about reality, you have within your world view or maybe coloring your entire world view is this idea that a god exists particularly the god as represented in the Bible, and I do not. Now, considering that we have a different view about this, what is the best method to resolve that, to come to some agreement about what is truth?

Ray: Well, I don't know if you could put your finger on what is truth, I can, as a Christian I can say I found absolute truth, Jesus said I am the truth, and I don't know if any atheist can point to some atheist that said that, or point to anything that you can say that this is absolute reality. For you the whole thing could be an illusion.

Russell: Oh really? I could do that right now, but you wouldn't believe me.

Ray: Okay, give me a try.

Russell: Okay, I am the way, everything I say is true.

Ray: Yeah, Okay, now resurrect yourself from the dead and I'll believe you.

Matt: Well, how do you know that that happened?

Ray: Well, the thing is, for a Christian, we're not going by a belief we're going by the power of God, before I was a Christian I believed in Jesus, I believed that he was an historical figure, but on the night of my conversion I came to know him whom the Bible says to know is life eternal, so ?just? is far more real than ?I know my wife?, my walk with Christ, it's my very life itself, so when Jesus said I am the life he means he is the very source of life, he's the substance of life who became a human being for the specific purpose of destroying death for humanity.

Matt: Sure, so ... but from an external point of view we're still dealing with a claim, you are making an appeal to some experience that you've had which testifies to the reality of it for you, and what I'm asking is absent that experience how could anybody else possibly know ... could they be justified?

Ray: Well, that's a good question, it's like if you didn't believe in electricity because you can't see it, hear it, touch it, taste or smell it.

Matt: Believe in what, sorry?

Ray: If you didn't believe in electricity.

Matt: Oh.

Ray: Because it's an invisible force, and I said to you hey, take this fork, stick it up this live socket, and you'll more than believe, you'll experience its power, and that's what happens when someone truly becomes a Christian, they move out of the realm of intellect and into the realm of personal experience, they don't just believe, they know experientially by the power of God, and that's the power that God puts behind the gospel.

Russell: Now, wait a minute, I want to back up a minute because you said that it would move out of the realm of intellect, but that makes it not a good analogy to electricity like you said, right, because the realm of intellect is exactly how we know all the details of how electricity works.

Ray: Yeah, but you don't experience it, there's a difference between an intellectual acknowledgement, electricity is real, and actually feeling it's power through your body.

Matt: Right, so you're still appealing to the primary, I guess, ... the primary proof, for lack of a better word, is direct experience and I'm just asking are you then conceding that absent that direct experience people wouldn't be justified in believing.

Ray: No, no, not when it comes to the existence of God, all you need is eyes that can see and a brain that works, you look at creation and say there's a creator, but what atheists do, or should I say the new atheists or contemporary atheists, they say there's no creation, that denotes a creator ...

Matt: Right ... because...

Ray: and that denotes a moral responsibility so we just call it nature ...

Matt: Sure ...

Ray: and nature created itself which is unreasonable, makes no sense, something can not create itself.

Matt: Yes, that statement is nonsensical, nature created itself, there's a number of errors in grammar there, you can't just call something creation in order to say I'm gonna' call this creation, therefore it had to have a creator, obviously if it's a creation it had to have a creator ...

Ray: right

Matt: but it's not necessarily creation, you haven't demonstrated that, you've just simply asserted that it's a creation and the thing that you're objecting to about saying that nature created itself, that's more of a grammatical problem, because the idea isn't that nature created itself as some kind of thoughtful act, it's that existence doesn't necessarily require the creator that you claim it does.

Ray: Well, you tell me what was in the beginning without saying "I don't know."

Matt: Why can't I say "I don't know?"

Ray: Because that's ignorance, and you can't have that as an atheist.

Matt: Yes you can, because atheists aren't asserting absolute certainty or knowledge or any of that stuff.

Ray: Well, Christians do because they know that there's a creation and there's a creator.

Matt: Asserting knowledge is different from demonstrating that this knowledge is true.

Ray: Well, see, I don't need to demonstrate to a reasonable person that a painting had a painter.

Matt: Right, do you know why?

Ray: Tell me why.

Matt: Because, we recognize that a painting had a painter not because it's complex, not because it's ordered, we recognize this from experience, all evidence points to this thing having ... being designed, OK, we recognize design by contrasting it with what is naturally occurring, and that's why you can hold up a painting and a tree side by side and you would say "Oh, the painting is obviously the creation of an intelligent mind," because we have no examples of painting coming into existence on their own, we have no examples of paintings being able to reproduce, all evidence ... we have millions of examples of paintings created by thinking minds, so all of the evidence points to this, the contrast though is that trees do naturally reproduce as do people and living things, we have a good understanding of how planets form out of accretion disks from suns, those things are naturally occurring, that contrast between naturally occurring and created is something that ... is how we determine whether or not something was designed, and what you're doing is kind of like, you're familiar obviously with Paley's watchmaker analogy where you find a watch and it's intricate workings supposedly lead one to deduce that it was designed, but in reality what you have is a watch lying on a field of watches in a universe of watches, because you believe that everything is designed, so there is no point of contrast for you.

Ray: What you believe, if I'm getting it rightly, is that you believe everything has a semblance of design, from the atom through the universe it seems to be designed as order, there's not chaos.

Matt: No, I wouldn't say it seems to be designed, because I was specifically saying that design is contrasted against naturally occurring, order itself is not necessarily a product of design, sand dunes in the desert look very orderly, but they're not designed, they don't give ... not everything gives the impression of design, and those things which do give the impression of design aren't necessarily designed.

Russell: People have, for a very long time, described things as appearing to be designed because the way people learn in general is to make analogies to things that they already know, so when we say how the eye works we tend to describe it in terms of things that we know how they already work, like a camera, but that doesn't mean that the eye is a literal camera.

Ray: Right.

Russell: Do you agree with that?

Ray: Oh, of course, but here's my contention, is that everywhere you look in this universe we see design or order ...

Russell: No, we don't.

Ray: Well, you don't but I do ...

Matt: Yeah, and that's why ...

Matt,Russell, and Ray ( talking at same time )

Matt: Let him finish.

Ray: So, our most intelligent person on the face of this earth cannot create a grain of sand from nothing, we can't create a leaf, a flower, a bird, let alone an eye or a brain, so to say that all this nature, as you want to call it, came to be without a creative designer is to be disingenuous, because it cannot make itself, it's crazy to think that.

Matt: First of all, there's a huge fallacy there of saying that the smartest person can't make a grain of sand, I can't even begin to identify how much is actually wrong with that statement, but you're characterizing this as a creation from nothing, still, and this all coming to being on its own, if we look at the universe, the limited understanding that we have so far, which is growing constantly, the best method that we have for understanding reality has been the scientific method, by and large, it's the single most reliable consistent self correcting method for discerning truth, now if there's some other way of finding out the truth about reality of course we'd all be interested in knowing it, but when you say that the smartest person on the earth can't create a grain of sand, therefore it must have been created by some other ...

Ray: I didn't ... actually didn't say that, Matt.

Matt: Well, you said, it would be absurd to think that this came into its own ...

Ray: No, let me tell you what I said so you can back up a little.

Matt: Sure.

Ray: The smartest person, most intelligent person, on the face of this earth cannot create a grain of sand from nothing.

Matt: Alright ...

Ray: We can recreate what God's already given us, we can change it.

Matt: We can modify what exists ...

Ray: We can modify what's already there.

Matt: But, you are still just asserting that we are modifying things that God gave us, and I'm saying apart from your appeal to some special way of knowing this direct revelation from God or direct experience with God how else could we justify that, because that could never ... surely you would agree that your personal experience could not possibly be justification for somebody else.

Ray: Yeah, but lets go back to what we're talkin' about, do you agree or don't you agree with me when I say the most intelligent person on the face of this earth cannot create a grain of sand, a leaf, a flower, or a bird, or a frog from nothing, we don't know where to start.

Matt: I agree.

Russell: I'll go with that.

Matt: And I also say that fifty thousand years ago the most intelligent person on the face of the earth probably couldn't have created a cell phone from the actual pieces.

Ray: Yeah.

Matt: I don't know how that's relevant.

Ray: The other thing too, you mentioned the scientific method, could you define that for me?
Last edited by MAtheist on Sat Nov 02, 2013 4:20 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 2:07 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Postby MAtheist » Mon Mar 28, 2011 6:40 pm

Matt: Well, there's a number of different definitions, but the guiding principle is that you begin with an observation, you develop a hypothesis, and then there is a process of testing and falsification, peer reviewed research where others attempt to replicate your results and falsify them to demonstrate, you know ... we're constantly trying to prove that this is wrong, and then you get to the point where an hypothesis has graduated and becomes a theory and it becomes the best current explanation possible. I noticed there's been a lot of times when you've talked about the origin of the earth, or evolution, and any number of things where people who understand the subjects much better than I do, probably better than any of us in this room do, have corrected you on things and yet the arguments keep ... your arguments remain the same and I'm curious as to why that is, I mean if for example in your book "You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think" you answered a question from an e-mail that was how old do you think the earth is, you essentially said you had no idea how old the earth is but science doesn't either, or science has continually changed because, you know, years ago they though it was a hundred million years and now their up to four and a half billion years.

Ray: Right.

Matt: Well, science hasn't made any steps towards the absurd notion that it's six to ten thousand years old, and at each stage the date was the best available, we are building on knowledge, as we're standing on the shoulders of giants seeing further all the time, and so the idea that science hasn't any idea, or any good idea, about how old the earth is just demonstrably wrong.

Ray: Could it change over the next hundred years?

Matt: Will the date become more precise over the next hundred years?

Ray: Yes.

Matt: Quite possibly, if we get additional information.

Ray: So, that means at the present day our modern dating could be wrong, more than likely.

Matt: Yes, however ...

Ray: So, therefore science doesn't know how old the earth is ...

Matt: Well, you're still referring to know as an assertion of absolute certainty, and science doesn't do that and no rational person should outside of a handful of things that we can be absolutely certain about, you know, our own existence and direct experience things, you're saying that science doesn't know just because it hasn't come up with a firm date that the earth is four point two ...

Ray: That's right, it could change by a billion years in the next hundred years, easily.

Matt: Yeah, but it's not gonna go down to six to ten thousand years, I mean, that's incredibly unlikely.

Ray: Well, I didn't say that.

Matt: I understand, but what you're presenting is that as long as you can't be absolutely certain about something every answer is just as good as any other, that if science isn't absolutely certain to the minute or second about how old the earth is that an answer of four to six thousand years, six to ten thousand years is equally viable as one that's four and a half billion years and that's just simply not true.

Ray: No, I didn't say that, and I didn't say if science can't ...

Matt: I know you didn't say it, that's the implication ...

Ray: To the second or the minute, I'm saying you guys change by the billions.

Russell: When you talk about error bars ... changing things ... it doesn't change by the billions, what are you talking about?

Ray: Well, you just check out the last hundred years of history of how old science thought the earth is and you'll find it just jumps all over the place, you know, from hundreds of thousands to millions to billions ...

Matt: Sure.

Ray: So, I don't like that, I like something being a little more precise and when it's more precise, I'll say okay.

Russell: But, Ray ...

Matt: I'm sorry, hang on, I'm sorry that you don't like that, but that's what happens when you learn more, when you learn something new you change according with the evidence, the preponderance of evidence is such that it changes minds.

Ray: Well, Matt, Matt, what would you think if I just kept changing all the time to a point where I was unreasonable, where I'd change terminologies?

Matt: Well, I'm not quite sure what you mean by change terminologies...

Ray: Well, this is one question I have with atheists saying there's no such thing as creation when everyone knows there's a creation.

Matt: No we don't.

Russell: No we don't.

Matt: And the fact that you keep asserting everyone knows it when I'm sitting here as someone who does not know it makes you demonstrably wrong.
Ray: ( speaking at same time ) Okay, between the two of you you know there's a creation out there.

Ray: I know there's a creation, its always been called a creation.

Russell: Ray, Ray, I'd like to ask you a question about your grain of sand analogy.

Ray: Yeah?

Russell: Have you ever personally seen any intelligent being whatsoever create a grain of sand?

Ray: I don't have to, I can see there's creation out there to show me there's a creator.

Russell: Okay, so on the one hand you're asking atheists to account for every detail, every bit of information, to the precise second, to the precise millimeter of whatever it is they're measuring, but on the other hand what you want us to accept in return is that the thing you say, because you are willing to come on here and say "I know what it is, I have absolute knowledge, I have certainty" that we should believe you when here you are saying I've never observed that sort of thing either, but it just happens.

Ray: Russell, what I'm saying is that apply the scientific method to that which is around you, observe what's been made and you'll come up there's a maker.

Russell: How can I assign the scientific method when there's no observations, there's no tests, there's no kind of measurement that you can even propose that would tell the difference between a universe with a god and one without one?

Ray: Yes, there is.

Matt: What's the test?

Russell: Okay.

Ray: Common sense.

Russell: Is that really what you think the scientific method is?

Ray: That's what all you need to have is common sense, and say look at this beautiful creation with its flowers, and birds, and seasons ...

Russell: So, when you say that your belief in God is consistent with science ... do you say that?

Ray: Of course, science just means knowledge.

Russell: But what you mean by that is just think about it, and apply common sense, and go with the first thing that you believe, and that's right, is that where you're going?

Ray: No, not at all, now let me repeat it, if you look around you'll see flowers, birds, seasons, fruits, all these beautiful things in creation that surround us, that tell us, or tell a reasonable mind, that an intelligent designer made it because we with our intelligence can't create even one grain of sand from nothing.

Matt: So, anybody who doesn't see this design has an unreasonable mind?

Ray: Yeah, exactly right.

Matt: Okay ...

Ray: Or, they're not saying.

Matt: As a possibly insane and unreasonable person, do you go to the doctor?

Ray: All the time.

Matt: Do you realize how much medical science has changed in the last hundred years or so?

Ray: Absolutely, and it's still changing, and hospitals are still very dangerous places.

Matt: And yet you still rely on that as the best possible information about medical health, right?

Ray: Yes.

Matt: So, why is it that you will take that scientific assessment when it comes to something like health, but you don't take it with regard to biology, and other things?

Ray: Because I don't need to, my health isn't dependent on what I believe about the theory of evolution.

Matt: Actually, it kinda is, because the theory of evolution is how we use ... how we develop vaccines and other medicines that kill things that evolve, living things, viruses, bacteria, etcetera.

Ray: Okay ...

Matt: So the theory of evolution ...

Ray: I took a flu shot, you got me.

Matt: Okay, but my question though was how is it that you can justify accepting medicine as the best explanation for our understanding of health, and taking it, and yet refuse to do the same when the same science, based on the exact same principles, done by some of the same people, come up with answers that disagree with your preconception about ...

Ray: No, no, I don't have a preconception about the earth, it's just that we're talking about ... when you talk about science your talking about the age of the earth ...

Matt: I'm not talking about the age of the earth, I'm talking about evolution, the age of the earth, all of it, all of these thing are science based solutions, and you're accepting ... you're cherry-picking what science you want to accept ...

Ray: No, no, I actually don't ... I don't think the theory of evolution is even slightly scientific, I think it's bogus, I think it's a fairy tale for grown-ups, I used to believe it but I no longer believe it because I don't like having to use blind faith when it comes to something like that.

Matt: How absurd.

Russell: But, you do agree ... you would agree with the statement, wouldn't you, that although it's a fairy tale for grown-ups it's something that the vast majority of practicing credentialed phd'd biologists would say is true. I mean, I'm not saying for you to say evolution is true, you just agree that that puts you at odds with the vast majority of the scientific community, am I right?

Ray: It doesn't worry me, I'll stay with Newton and a few other folks like that, that believed that God created the universe.

Matt: Sure, sure ...

Russell: So you're bothered by the fact that it changes ...

Matt: Centuries and centuries ago when they didn't have the newer information ... you're willing to stay in the dark ages is what you're saying.

Ray: No, I'm not, I just don't want to have to accept something by faith, and you believe the theory of evolution, I don't believe it ...

Matt: But you don't have to ... I don't accept anything on faith, I don't take the theory of evolution on faith, it's completely supported by evidence right down to DNA, I mean, you take Francis Collins, the director of the NIH and an evangelical Christian although you may disagree, has said that even if there were no transitional fossils, which in fact there are, and if there were no other evidence, the DNA evidence alone is enough to confirm common ancestry, but the fact that people use the genetic aspect of evolution in the lab to not only develop vaccines and medications but also speciation has been observed in the lab as well, I don't know how anybody can possibly say that that this is something that needs to be accepted on faith.

Ray: Okay, let me just take you back a minute, you said transitional fossils, there are plenty.

Matt: Sure.

Ray: Sure there are plenty, I would like to know are there any species to species transitional fossils?

Matt: Everything is in constant state of transition ...

Ray: No, no, no, no, no, I mean ... I don't mean that, don't spread it out that far, just give me a specific ...

Matt: It's ... You have a fundamental misunderstanding about evolution.

Ray: Straighten me out.

Matt: That ... I think what you're looking for is a cat to dog .

Ray: No.

Matt: What are you looking for?

Russell: How 'bout a crocoduck?

Ray: I'm looking for something that shows a change, evolution from one kind to another.

Matt: What's a kind? Because, kind has no scientific definition.

Ray: Well, if I say species, you'll say what species because ...

Russell, Matt: No.

Matt: I'll happily give you eoraptor, aerosaurus, allosaurus, archaeopteryx, tiktaalik, homo erectus, me sitting here right now, we are all transitional forms, you have to think about things on the evolutionary time scale.

Ray: Yeah.

Russell: Ray, you do understand what a species is, right, I mean, what the scientific definition of it is?

Ray: No, because there are about sixteen or seventeen different biological definitions for the word species.

Russell: Do you know what the main one is? Because, I mean, a lot of people ... we mentioned we had solicited questions, and by far the most frequent question was to have you explain your current understanding of evolution, because ... a lot of very smart people have, in the past, tried to explain this sort of stuff to you, and it just seems to flow right off

Ray laughs

Russell: Well, I hate to put it that way, but there is like a primary definition of a species as it's used by biologists.

Ray: Give that to me, will you Matt, and then we'll just see if we agree or not, but it's like you cannot pin it down, the word species, its got so many definitions.

Russell: A species .. Okay, two populations make up separate species if they can't interbreed with each other.

Ray: Okay.

Russell: Okay, under that definition lots of transitional species, I mean lots of changes from one species to another have occurred under laboratory conditions, I can provide you a reference if you want it.

Ray: You're talking about bacteria.

Russell: Not just bacteria, ... I'm talking about flies ... various ...

Ray: What sort of flies? Be more specific.

Russell: In order for things to occur under laboratory conditions obviously they have to have a short enough life span that they can change in an observably time frame.

Ray: When you say change, do they change to another ...

Russell: Species.

Ray: Species, so another species that's fly or another species that's bacteria?

Russell: In other words, they isolate two populations ...

Matt: Another species that's fly, the change is always going to be gradual.

Russell: Right, they put the two species back together and they can't interbreed with each other, that happens.

Ray: Okay, so you have two flies that can't interbreed, or you have two lots of bacteria that can't interbreed ...

Russell: Right.

Matt: Correct.

Ray: and that's your proof of Darwinian evolution ...

Russell: It isn't ...

Matt: No, no, no ...

Russell: It's an example.

Ray: that man had an ancestor in apes.

Matt: It's not the proof ...

Ray: And not only that ...

Matt: It is, Ray, it is not the proof, it is one piece of evidence.

Ray: I've got to tell you this is probably the strongest evidence, because it's the one you guys keep coming back to, bacteria can't interact with bacteria ...

Matt: We've mentioned it exactly once.

Ray: I've got to finish my thought, you've got to let me finish my thought.

Matt: I just don't like you misrepresenting it, you say you guys keep coming back to it, you brought up the word bacteria, and Russell provided one example ... go ahead.

Russell: I think by you guys he meant atheists in general, right?

Matt: Okay.

Ray: Yeah, yeah, and that's the best you've got, and it's ...

Matt: No.

Ray: When I say you I mean that's what I keep hearing from atheists, every time I say be specific, but you've got to receive that by faith, you didn't observe it, you've got to receive what some other person has told you ...

Matt: No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Ray: or some book.

Mat- no, no, no, first of all, maybe we have different definitions of faith, because if Russell tells me that he observed something, I don't necessarily believe it absolutely just because Russell told me.

Ray: Do you trust him?

Matt: I generally do trust him, yes.

Ray: That's faith.

Matt: That's not faith, because, ... not at least in the way that I look at faith, I'm trusting Russell based on a measure of reasonable ... I don't trust him completely, I trust him to the degree that is earned based on the actual evidence. If I know Russell to be a generally truthful person, I will believe him to a certain extent, I mean if he tells me that he was abducted by aliens I don't care how much I like the guy ...

Russell: Actually ...

Matt: and how trustworthy he is, I'm going to need more evidence than merely his word, but if he says he got a new pet dog, I know that dog people have pets, and pet dogs, not all claims are created equal and you assess a claim based on its merits, but let me see if I can find another way to kind of expose this evolution issue with you. We know, to the extent that we can know anything, that, for example, Spanish and Italian are both derivatives of Latin, correct?

Ray: I suppose so, I trust you.

Matt: Well, Okay, that'll be your undoing.

Ray laughs

Matt: We are able to trace back the origins of these languages, we categorize them, we understand that these came out of Latin, and you can see a difference even amongst different English languages, but Spanish and Italian are different, and they both derived from Latin, there is no mother ... a Latin speaking mother who gave birth to a Spanish speaking child, some people continued to speak Latin, some people moved off and their Latin changed and became Spanish over time, some people moved off and their Latin became Italian over time, and at no point was there this ... the crocoduck of language, the Latin Spanaduck, or whatever.

Russell: Spanital.

Matt: People gave birth to kids that spoke the language within their region, and over a great deal of time, and a seperation regionally, they became different distinct languages, that is directly analogous to what happens with species under evolution.

Ray: Okay.

Matt: Okay, ... the ... I wasn't expecting an Okay.
Last edited by MAtheist on Sat Nov 02, 2013 4:48 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 2:07 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Postby MAtheist » Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:25 am

Ray: No, I've got it ???, it's what you guys believe, and you just hang with that ?? your so ??, I don't believe it.

Matt: I know you don't ...

Russell: Do you also not believe that Spanish and Italian have a common root?

Matt: You already told us why you don't believe it.

Ray: Well, why don't I believe it?

Matt: You said that you don't believe it because you don't like to take things on faith, and I said that this isn't something we're taking on faith, this is something that there is massive amounts of evidence for, have you bothered to ...

Ray: Evidence that you believe.

Matt: Yes, of course it's ...

Ray: Well, I don't believe that evidence.

Matt: Why don't you believe that evidence?

Ray: Because of this, I know God, I've known God since 1972, 25th of April one thirty in the morning, his word tells me that he created man in his own image with a moral responsibility, that's what separates man from the animals, we have a moral understanding, and he made man with the ability to recreate after his own kind and he made them male and female. Evolution, the theory of evolution, doesn't give me any of that information, you don't know where we came from, I've never had any evolutionist explain to me why male and female are in everything but slugs and worms ...

Russell: Actually you have, I've got records of where they explained it...

Ray: Let me finish, I haven't had evolutionists explain to me why we have an 1.4 million different kinds on this earth, except for slugs and worms, why there's male and female, we keep coming back to this population thing, I ask ... were we all once fish and evolutionists say yeah we were and they explain to me that fish came up in groups to develop lungs or evolve lungs while on the land they developed the lungs under the water, and I just can't believe that, I don't have that sort of faith.

Matt: I understand, and what you've just said is something that I brought up earlier that you denied, you don't believe the evidence, you don't accept the evidence, because you have a presupposition that it's wrong.

Ray: There's no evidence.

Matt: Now there's no evidence?

Ray: There's just changes in bacteria and flies that can't interbreed with each other.

Matt: No, we're talking about transitional fossils, and dinosaurs, and all kinds of things, but you said that you didn't have a presupposition, and now you're saying you don't believe the evidence, and now you're saying there is no evidence, because you already believe what the Bible says about origins.

Ray: Yeah, absolutely.

Matt: Okay, that's called a presupposition, and if ... are you infallible?

Ray: God is.

Matt: Okay, but are you?

Ray: Of course not.

Matt: Could you be wrong about God?

Ray: I could be wrong about God, but God's not wrong.

Matt: Okay, if you could be wrong about God, and you are necessarily contingent on your own personal experience, how do you know you're right?

Ray: Because for 22 years I was wrong, I had to admit my wrong, and say God is right, he is justified, I can trust him, and then I came to know him.

Russell: But, Ray, how do you know that?

Matt: For almost 28 years, I was wrong, I believed something sincerely and then I realized that what I believed was not in accordance with the evidence and with reason, and despite sincere honest appeals to God to reveal himself to me, to demonstrate, to help me through, to do what it was that he willed, no answers came and so I don't have whatever experience it is that you have, but when you look at the evidence that's presented to you, and first say you don't believe it, and then say there is no evidence, and then state that it's because you already accept this other thing, that's a presupposition, and that's what I was trying to get at a while ago.

Ray: Matt, did you know the Lord?

Matt: Did I think I knew the Lord?

Ray: No, did you know the Lord?

Matt: Well, clearly I didn't, and I don't think anybody else does either.

Ray: No, you can't say that, you just gotta say you didn't ...

Matt: No, I can say I do not think anyone else does either.

Ray: That's right, but you don't know what everybody else knows.

Matt: I have not asserted absolute certainty or knowledge on any point in discussion, and yet you keep coming back to it. Did I think that I was a true Christian? That I knew the lord? Absolutely. Do I think that I actually did? Of course not, if I thought that I would still believe.

Ray: So, lets just touch on this for a minute, so you didn't know the Lord?

Matt: No.

Ray: So, you were never a Christian.

Matt: I agree, under your definition.

Ray: No, under the Biblical definition, not mine.

Matt: Okay, under the definition of Christianity that you use which you claim is consistent with the Bible, whatever, however you want to do it, under that understanding where somebody actually truly knew God, of course I wasn't a Christian.

Ray: That's right.

Matt: Because, there's no way that I could possibly have known a god and had it be actually true, something actually occurred, and then not believe it later.

Russell: Right, but see Ray, because I'm a poor benighted atheist myself, when you say that I know the Lord, and I have had a relationship with the Lord for X many years, I don't believe you, and ... so under that definition, you're not a Christian either.

Ray: That's right.

Russell: So, we're two guys, we're three guys on TV with competing disagreeing opinions, and it's the outside viewer that we're wondering about, and the question is how are they, the undecided, going to figure out which one of us to believe?

Ray: That's a really good question ...

Russell: I mean, you really keep saying over and over again, I know the lord.

Ray: That's a really good question, all they have to do is obey the gospel, they've just got to take a minute to look at maybe the beatitudes where Jesus said it you look at a woman with lust you commit adultery with her in your heart, examine yourself under the light of those commandments and say if there's a judgement day, what's going to happen to me, and then come to the cross and have your sins forgiven and you'll come to know God the moment you repent and trust in the savior and you'll say well God is knowable, and suddenly the eyes of your understanding will be enlightened and everything will look different, you'll realize you were once like a blind man who couldn't see.

Matt: Except that I agreed with all that when I was a believer and was convinced that it had happened to me.

Ray: That's when you didn't know the Lord.

Matt: I've already conceded that point, Ray, I'm saying that I was convinced ...

Russell: Same as you.

Matt: exactly as you, had the same opinion ...

Ray: No, no, no, you didn't know the lord, you weren't exactly like me.

Matt: I was convinced and ...

Ray: And you were deceived, all those years, 28 years, you were deceived.

Matt: Sure, now how is it that you have this idea that this is all somebody has to do to be a true Christian, and know God, and yet despite being raised in a good Christian home, despite going to church, despite sincerely seeking God, despite sincerely giving my life to Christ, rededicating on occasion, and seeking out to become a minister in all sincerity, was I just ... why did I not get this?

Ray: Probably because of this, you never had a genuine knowledge of sin, you never looked at the spiritual light of the commandments and saw that God sees your full life, and is so holy he sees lust as adultery, hatred as murder, nothing is hid from his eyes.

Matt: I absolutely understood that.

Ray: Okay, did you truly repent?

Matt: Yes, on several occasions, as a matter of fact I first walked ...

Ray: No, you just need it once.

Matt: Well, I know, but here's the thing, when you go down the aisle at five years old at a revival, and then in you teen years when your actually ... after you've been in church for a number of years, and you've come to understand things better, you know the lord better, you realize that maybe when I was five I couldn't have understood this enough to actually do it.

Ray: Exactly right, Matt.

Matt: So you do it again, and again, and again.
Last edited by MAtheist on Sat Nov 02, 2013 5:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 2:07 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Postby MAtheist » Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:17 pm

Ray: You were the product of modern evangelism which I abhor, the use of music and alter calls and personal manipulation of your heroes.

Matt: Sure.

Ray: I hate that, and it produces false conversions and a lot of people that end up as the Bible says that the latter end becomes worse that the first.

Matt: Sure, how do we tell between a false conversion and a true conversion.

Russell: Actually, Matt and I have been to a lot of churches together here in Texas, and we've seen a lot of people who currently believe that they are true Christians ...

Ray: Yeah.

Russell: who think that they have been saved, but for a lot of them you would say that they're actually deceived right now, that they're not saved, am I right?

Ray: Yeah, the bible says that there are false conversions, tears among the wheat ...

Russell: How do we know you're not one of them?

Ray: Well, you don't know, and that's why you've got to check me out according to the scripture. Am I speaking the truth or am I lying? There's plenty of false prophets and fake pastors out there, and people in the pews that aren't genuinely converted, there's a lot of hypocrisy, and I find that's what offends people like Richard Dawkins, and like yourself, you hate hypocrisy, you hate religious hypocrisy and so do I. I don't want to see people saying things they don't believe, and doing things they know they should ... or shouldn't do.

Matt: So, can you tell whether or not somebody's a true Christian?

Ray: No, of course not ...

Matt: Okay, I agree.

Ray: Let me finish the sentence.

Matt: Sure.

Ray: But Jesus said by their fruits you shall know them, now if someone is loving and kind you can conclude ... you know, you can say Hitler wasn't a Christian, though he thought he was, OK, well a lot of atheists say Hitler was a Christian 'cause he said I'm a Christian, no, no, if you slaughter other people, if you kill them in mass, you can know someone's not a Christian because a Christian will love his enemies and do good to others that despitefully use them, so you look for fruit in their life, and people that are hateful aren't Christians, and people that steal and lie and commit adultery aren't bringing forth fruit.

Matt: So, no Christian can do a bad thing?

Ray: Well, no Christian should deliberately ... play the hypocrite ...

Matt: Should, you said can't ... you said if you look around and you see them doing these things you know they're not a true Christian.

Ray: Well, no, they're not fruits that should be evident in a true Christian.

Russell: Well, I mean, what I'd like to know is have you ever told a lie?

Ray: I've told lots of lies in my life, I've sinned many many times, that's why I need a savior.

Russell: Okay, so by our fruits we should know that you're not a true Christian ... isn't that right?

Matt: No ... that's not a valid question.

Russell: Okay.

Matt: Because he could have lied many times before actually coming to know Jesus and then he never lied again.

Ray: That's right.

Matt: Have you lied since then?

Ray: Not knowingly.

Matt: And so you ... Okay.

Russell: Have you looked at a woman with lust in your heart?

Ray: Yeah, but not deliberately, you know, obviously me eyes have wandered onto a billboard poster, I don't want to be a hypocrite and I say God please forgive me, and that happens all the time, a Christian doesn't dive into sin, he falls into sin, a hypocrite dives in.

Matt: Sure, so ...

Russell: It seems like by your fruits you can't know them, I mean, you know Hitler is just a more extreme case of that, wouldn't you say?

Ray: Yeah, absolutely, and if you read the scriptures it says don't go round judging people as Christians, on the day of judgement you'll find the genuine from the false.

Matt: Sure, so, you know, if you can't know then maybe I'm the only true Christian.

Ray: Well, make sure you're right with God yourself, that's what the Bible says, every man will give an account of himself to God.

Matt: I am well versed in what the Bible actually has to say, and you know I'm sure that we would come to agreement on a number of points of theology from different aspects, you know, for example Pat Robertson every January or so goes out and gives his predictions that he supposedly got from God and to me he looks like a TV psychic and he's continually wrong ...

Ray: Yeah, I know ... it's just crazy.

Matt: and despite that, you were on his show, I mean ...

Ray: I even go on atheist shows, so you can't pick on me for that.

Russell: That's a good point.

Matt: Yeah, but I mean if you're on a show with another Christian talking, or someone who claims to be a Christian, there seems to be a little bit more of a possible kind of endorsement thing there, but ... let me ask you this, because ... you're a huge fan of using the ten commandments ...

Ray: Yes, sir.

Matt: It's part of your atheist test, which, you know, we've addressed a number of times, but what about the rest of the old testament, what about, for example, sanctioning slavery or God telling the Israelites to go around slaughtering people, why is is that we ... I mean, I realize they weren't Christians, they were Jews, but, you know, why isn't their fruit something that we can look at?

Ray: Well, I don't agree with slavery, but you've got to realize when we say the word slavery we look through the eyes of American cruel slavery where people were kidnapped ...

Matt: No, sir ... no, sir.

Ray: Well I do.

Matt: Okay.

Ray: When you say to me slavery its got an immediate connotation of people being taken from Africa, put in chains, put in ships and dragged to America and sold as slaves, like human cargo, well I don't see that in the Bible ...

Matt: Really?

Ray: I see what's called bond servants.

Matt: No, no.

Russell: Wait ...

Matt: Hang on, I've had this argument over and over again with people claiming the Bible doesn't sanction that kind of slavery ... the Bible ...

Ray: I hadn't finished ...

Matt: the Bible is very ...

Ray: I hadn't finished ...

Matt- Oh, I'm sorry, go ahead.

Ray: There is where Israel took enemies into slavery, and they did buy and sell them and that aspect, and I don't agree with that.

Matt: But it's in the Bible, and it's ...

Ray: Well, there's a lot of things in the Bible I don't agree with.

Matt: Oh, okay, well in this case it's something that's in the Bible that's supposedly sanctioned by God, where ...

Ray: I like the way you said supposedly.

Matt: Well, of course, everything in the Bible's supposedly, why would that surprise you?

Ray laughs

Matt: But, the Bible's very clear that you can own another person as property, pass them on, you can beat your slaves, as long as they don't die within a day or two.

Ray: Right.

Matt: So, I'm not looking at this through the lens of American slavery, I'm looking at what the Bible actually has to say about the subject, and it seems to me that if there was a god who inspired the Bible that it would be very easy and perhaps maybe one of the ten commandments should have been thou shalt not own another human being as property.

Ray: Well, you know what we do when people get in debt over here, we throw them into jail for like twenty years and let them rot in jail, okay, what they did in scriptural times among Israel if someone got in debt they could become a slave or bond servant and work off that debt ...

Matt: Right, that's ...

Ray: and then be released after seven years.

Matt: that's a Jew, enslaving another Jew.

Ray: That's right, and that's ...

Matt: A Jew enslaving someone who's not a Jew ... that wasn't a servility thing, and they weren't required to let them go in seven years.

Ray: That's true.

Matt: And also they could trick the Jews into having to be slaves forever by giving them a wife and kids, so this is not some nicer form of slavery, I mean I'm glad that you are opposed to slavery and that you are not a fan of everything that's in the Bible, but there's no reason to pretend like this is even remotely nicer than it is, because it's one of the most vile disgusting aspects of the entire book, a book that's called the good book that we give to kids, and I find that kind of repugnant.

Ray: The Bible is full of very violent acts, there's women having their babied ripped out of wombs, there's people with their heads cut off, it doesn't hide the atrocities of man, it reveals them and says God is going to judge the world on righteousness.

Russell: Well, in some cases God is commanding them.

Ray: Yeah, but, so you believe this really happened?

Matt: No, but what I'm ...

Ray: Then what are you getting upset about?

Matt: I'm upset because there are people who believe it really happened ...

Ray: Then be tolerant.

Matt: and because people are calling it the good book, and a moral code, and handing it to children, and then picking and choosing and saying these first ten commandments are the divine law but the six hundred and three that come after it we can ignore.

Ray: Six hundred and thirteen.

Matt: Yeah, the six hundred and three that come after the ten.

Ray: Oh, I see what you're saying.

Matt: I did the math ahead of time.

Russell: Good job.

Ray: That's good work Matt (laughs) yeah well, listen just be tolerant of other peoples beliefs, I mean we live in America and this is a freedom of religion nation, we're not like some of these middle east countries, so don't let it upset you, let people read what they want, and believe what they want.

Matt: Well, the thing is this isn't just a matter of being upset, I'm happy ... I mean you're entitled to believe whatever you want, and I'l support your right to believe whatever you want, the problem comes though when people act ... you know, you don't live in a vacuum, and you take actions that affect other people, and there is a contingent within the population that identifies as Christian, who knows whether or not they truly are, that are out to marginalize the rights of others and they think they are of the opinion that this is and should be a Christian nation and the Constitution be damned.

Ray: Do you think I believe that, Matt?

Matt: Well, no, I don't necessarily know that you believe that, but I'm pretty sure that you vote along those lines, if I had to guess, that you're going to vote for somebody ... you would be more likely to vote for somebody who would for example outlaw abortion than somebody who would want it to continue with abortion being legal, wouldn't you?

Ray: Absolutely.

Matt: Right.

Ray: That's my criteria, I don't care about the fiscal policies of anyone if they believe in the murdering of children in the womb I'll not vote for them.

Matt: Sure, so you are part of the problem that is infringing on peoples rights.

Ray: Why would I be a problem because I want to live ... kids to live in the world?

Matt: Because you don't get to dictate reproductive rights, or any other rights for anybody else.

Russell: I want to give you an example.

Ray: But that's... you take it back, if you vote for people that are pro-abortion you're doing exactly the same thing.

Matt: I'm voting for people that are for reproductive rights, I'm for freedom, I'm for what this country was founded about, I am not trying to rip peoples freedoms away based on my own personal views of what's right and wrong.

Ray: Yes, you are.

Matt: No, I'm not.

Ray: You're doing what you are accusing me of doing, you are dictating what a woman can do and can't do with her womb.

Matt: No, I'm not dictating, I'm saying that she has the option, you are limiting an option, how is that ... this is like whether or not blacks and whites can marry, I'm saying they should be free to marry if they want to it doesn't affect anybody else and you're on the position of ...

Ray: You have the right, this is America, and that's cool, and you've got to give me the right to vote the way I want to vote.

Matt: I give you the right, I fully give you the right, I've never denied that, what I'm saying is that by doing so you are part of the problem that we're objecting to.

Ray: Oh, so it's you that's objecting to the problem we're making by saying don't kill the children in the womb, Okay.

Matt: Yeah.

Russell: Let me give you an example of how faulty beliefs could have some consequences, did you know that the world is going to end on May twenty-first?

Ray: No, but it keeps changing, it's like the theory of evolution.

Matt: Yeah.

Russell: Right, so some people really really believe that, and just yesterday we were talking about a story in which a woman slit her kid's throat because she had the sincere belief that the tribulation was about to come, now you and I, I think, agree that it's kind of ridiculous to try to pin this date down, but I think we would also agree that there are dangerous side effects of believing in something irrational.
Last edited by MAtheist on Sat Nov 02, 2013 5:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 2:07 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Postby MAtheist » Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:26 am

Ray: There's a lot of nut cases out there, and sadly ...

Russell: Yeah.

Ray: and a lot of nut cases gravitate to the warmth and friendliness they find at a local church.

Russell: Yeah, I mean, that is a shame.

Ray: Yeah, and the media jump on something like that because it makes good news.

Matt: Yeah, it's ridiculous when I first heard this announcement I was like, well this is the umpteenth, you know, world is ending in the past ten years or so, and I didn't care about it at all but evidently these people have some money behind them and put up billboards and managed to get some press, and then it's, of course, you know, had this dramatic result, I don't remotely blame you, and I don't blame all Christians, all anybody in any particular category ...

Russell: Certainly not.

Matt- for everything else that goes on, and when I talked a moment ago about you being part of the problem I was specifically referring to the issue of rights and legislating in order to infringe upon peoples rights.

Ray: Right.

Matt: Now I understand that we have a very different view, I probably could have gone with something easier, I picked abortion because it was obvious, I mean, I couldn't have imagined for a second that you would have any other view, other than being opposed to abortion.

Ray: Absolutely.

Matt: Although, I really, having searched the Bible, can't find any biblical support for that, most Christians tend to site Jeremiah 1:5, but if you read that carefully it has nothing at all to do with the individual in the womb being an actual person, in Jewish law ... doesn't consider it that way, so it's kind of a ...

Ray: Well, I don't go to Jeremiah I go to where it says when a woman is with child, it always uses that phrase.

Matt: Yeah.

Ray: So that's what my criteria is.

Matt: So you're relying on the English from the 1611 ...

Ray: Oh, no, not at all, if I wasn't a Christian I don't think I'd want to kill a child in a womb, no matter what.

Matt: Well, I'm just saying your biblical appeal is that they use the phrase with child and that's a particular, you know, not only English definition but it represents the thinking of the time, this goes back to kind of wanting to make appeals to dark ages ideas just because they're consistent with what you already believe.

Ray: I only believe back about a few thousand years where it comes to the scriptures, you go billions of years, so if anyones got bigger faith, you have.

Matt: No, because we have evidence ...

Ray laughs

Matt: for the fact that it's four and a half billion years old.

Ray: I'm sorry, I shouldn't have gone back to that issue, it's dead.

Matt: I mean ...

Russell: Well, it was kind of a theme at first.

Matt: No, no, it's ... you go back to whatever issue you want it's absolutely fine.

Ray: You know what I'd like to go to ...

Matt: Sure.

Ray: Is the fact that atheists are always trying to get me to say how old I think the earth is, I really don't care and I'll give a silly little analogy as to why I don't care how old the earth is and it might make more sense, this is my world view, I see you and I, Matt and Russell and everybody else, on this great big plane that's going to crash, we've all been given a parachute and told to put in on, and I say Matt please put on your parachute, and you say how old do you think this plane is?

Matt: No ...

Russell: You know, actually, Ray ...

Ray: Let me finish the analogy ...

Russell: Okay, go ahead.

Ray: Matt please, I don't care how old the plane is, put the parachute on then we'll talk, and you say I don't believe in parachutes, I don't believe we have to jump ...

Matt: That's not what I say, this is why that analogy is so horrible.

Ray: Well, I said it was pathetic when I started.

Matt: What I say is how do you know the plane's going down, what makes you think that ...

Ray: Well, you're going to die, aren't you?

Russell: Well actually, Ray ...

Matt: I'm asking, how do you know the plane's going down?

Ray: 'cause you're gonna die, that's what I'm saying, you're gonna have to jump.

Russell: Yeah, but a few minutes ago I checked the altimeter and the attitude indicator and the rest of the scientific instruments on the plane and they all showed me that the plane is actually holding steady and not crashing at all.

Ray: Okay, I shouldn't have said the plane's going down.

Russell: The only person who's coming to me and telling me that the plane is going to crash is you, and by the way ...

Ray: Let's forget the plane crashing, I 'm sorry I mentioned it was going to crash, so you're going to have to jump, you're going to pass through the door of death, it's going to happen, could be tonight, could be tomorrow, could be next week, I'm saying put on a parachute, put on the Lord Jesus Christ, the age of the plane doesn't matter, I want to see you guys saved, I'd hate you to go to hell, my heart breaks at the though of guys like you ending up being justly damned because of your sins, it breaks my heart that that would happen to any human being.

Matt: I agree that I'm going to die, you're asserting something additional about death ...

Ray: Yes.

Matt: That you can't demonstrate ...

Ray: Yes, I can.

Matt: and what you're doing is akin to coming to me and telling me my house is on fire, as you used in the firefighter episode of "Way of the Master," which by the way I don't know if you've seen the minute by minute deconstruction I did of that one and the atheism one, but I'll point you to them if you'd like ...

Ray: Thank you.

Matt: but you're coming to me and saying your house is on fire, and I look around and I don't smell any smoke, I don't see any fire, I go around and I look at the house and I say I don't see this, well, there's a standard by which we determine whether or not you're just a crazy guy knocking on my door to tell me my house is burning down.

Ray: What's the standard?

Matt: The standard is I go around and look and I don't see any fire, and I ask somebody else "have you seen any indications of fire?" and no, they haven't as well because reality is confirmed by mutual agreement sometimes as a way of gathering more evidence towards the truth.

Ray: You know there's a smoke detector you've got built in, it's called a conscience, and if you take the batteries out and don't let your conscience speak to you, you'll think everything is fine, if you think there's nothing wrong with lust or greed or hatred or selfishness or ingratitude to God, then you'll think your sweet, but if you've got a tender conscience then you can see you're in trouble.

Russell: I'm glad that scientific advances have given us smoke detectors, and it's interesting that none of these smoke detectors have indicated any sign of a soul so far.

Matt: Yeah.

Matt: Let me ask this...

Ray laughs: Hang on a minute, I interviewed a biologist at UCLA about two months ago, an evolutionary biologist, and he changed his mind about the existence of a soul when I told him one thing.

Matt: Okay.

Ray: Would you like to hear what the one thing is?

Russell: I would love to hear that.

Matt: Sure.

Ray: Okay, he actually did a big turn about, and we've got it on camera, God bless the guy for it, I just said did you know the word soul and the word life are synonymous in the bible?

Matt: Okay.

Ray: He said, what? I said yes, it is ... they are interchangeable, when the bible speaks of the soul it's speaking of the life, he said well if that's ... everybody's got a life then everybody's got a soul.

Matt: Sure.

Russell: Okay.

Ray: And so that's, when you realize ...

Matt: You've got two atheists who will agree to your little semantic trick.

Ray: It's not a semantic trick.

Matt: It's different, saying that two words mean the same thing in the bible is not the same thing as that we have some immaterial presence that continues on after we're dead.

Ray: Do you have a soul ...

Russell: Is the soul supernatural?

Matt: It's entirely dishonest of you to even do that.

Ray: Do you have a life, Matt?

Matt: I have a life.

Ray: And it's what motivates your body, it's what looks out of your eyes, and speaks through your mouth, and makes your brain work, it's your life.

Matt: No.

Ray: That's your soul.

Matt: Those things are all part of my life, you can call it a soul all you want, but if you then say that this soul continues on after I'm dead, you've now made a claim.

Ray: I didn't say that.

Matt: Do you not think so?

Ray: Yeah, God said it, it's eternal.

Matt: Sure, you say that God said it, I'm not aware that any god has ever said anything, but you say this, let me ... we are almost out of time, and there's one thing I want to hit, just to see if maybe we can agree on this.

Ray: Bananas?

Matt: No, not bananas, there are bananas on the set, but it wasn't my doing.

Russell: We didn't put them there.

Matt: Let me get to this, in the book "You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think," in the conclusion you start with your parachute thing, but then you say now think of the four major religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity, and you begin to go through and assess them to determine which one someone should choose, you're familiar ...

Ray: Yes, yes, I wrote that.

Matt: Okay, I won't hammer on the fact that you only picked four options, because that's all we need really right now anyway, but you assess all four of them with the preconception that Christianity is true, you fault Buddhism for not solving a problem that's intrinsic within Christianity, you fault Hinduism for something, not solving a problem, you say the Bible says this and Hinduism doesn't do anything about this, and Buddhism doesn't do anything about this, isn't that incredibly dishonest because a Buddhist could look at Christianity and say is doesn't solve the problems that are intrinsic within Buddhism, and a Hindu could look at Christianity and say is doesn't solve the problems that are intrinsic within Hinduism.

Ray: Do you think it's unfair to lay this on me, while I've got one minute to answer, how long have we've got?

Matt: Well, I though it was a really easy answer, I thought that you were just gonna agree that, yeah ...

Ray: No, it's not dishonest, if you look at it and understand the ten commandments make all the difference.

Matt: Sure.

Ray: And that's what shows all religions are works righteousness religions, you cannot earn everlasting life, it can only come as a free gift of God.

Matt: I really wish that we could demonstrate exactly why this is dishonest, but I think you just did, by making an appeal back to the Bible, you've got this presupposition, which is what I pointed out at the beginning, and you're judging it based on that presupposition.

Ray: Well, we all do that.

Matt: Well, no we actually all don't and that's ...

Russell: Ray, give a plug for something, a website, a book ... we loved having you on.

Matt: We literally ... we have to put the credits on, we'd be happy to have you again, but plug whatever you need for ...

Ray: Yeah, "The Atheist Experience," it's a great program, good hosts, good to talk to you guys.

Matt: Alright, thanks a lot, Ray, I appreciate it.

Russell: Thank you, Ray.

Ray: God bless you, bye bye.

Matt: I'm not so sure God will bless us, but there's the crew, Frank, Shelly, Steve, John, Don and David, thanks everybody for tuning in to this special episode and tolerating all the rigamarole, maybe we'll have Ray back on, who knows, maybe we'll get Ray together in person someday, maybe we'll have somebody actually admit that they have a preconception at the beginning, to save time pointing it out, but I don' know, I had fun, and I hope everybody else did, too.
Last edited by MAtheist on Sat Nov 02, 2013 5:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 2:07 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Postby PolarAtheist » Thu Mar 31, 2011 7:13 pm

Hey, thanks for all your effort. That was wonderful. =D
"God only answers my prayers for warmer weather 3 months out of the year."
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 11:26 pm
Location: Alaska

Return to Non-Prophets / Atheist Experience Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest