Ray Comfort Claims Science Does Prove God

[@aubreyleonae4108]

I got to meet Ray. I paid a lot of money to listen to him, Kirk, Todd, Ken Ham, and Paul Washer in Atlanta. I'm thankful for that as they started my deconversion with all the crap they spewed. All I did was very thoughtfully consider EVERYTHING they said and continue reading my bible. Don't even get me started on Todd. We corresponded briefly as I struggled with issues that were all my fault, turns out.😡

[@scarlett8960]

Wow. What a line-up! I bet that was interesting

[@aubreyleonae4108]

@@scarlett8960 Oh MY, was it ever.

[@Nocturnalux]

Paul Washer…less known in atheist circles but a complete loon. Washer and John Piper genuinely scare me.

[@paulthompson9668]

@@aubreyleonae4108 You need to get on your hands and knees and pray for the Holy Spirit to fill you up. I did.

[@alexanderingraham8255]

How do you know it was your god filling you? You believe in demons and other supernatural forces. And there are numerous ways to corrupt you and send you to hell that don’t resemble The Exorcist lol

[@cityonthelakes]

Ray Comfort wouldn't know science if it bit him on the keester.

[@RustyWalker]

DNA "makes itself" all the time. Clearly, Ray meant to say that the origin of the first DNA molecule wasn't DNA, but nobody says it was.

[@goldenalt3166]

They never admit that none of these complex lifeforms they are looking at were made by God Himself.

[@donaldnumbskull9745]

My current favourite answer (I cycle through them) to 'creation needs a creator' is that the belief that life, the universe and everything were created, is entirely subjective. Ray looks around and thinks "This is very complicated, it must have been made". I look around and think, "This is very messy, if someone made it they've got some explaining to do".😉

[@aubreyleonae4108]

I'm hearing... "Johnny, did you make this mess?" 😂

[@1eviledy]

I like the universe needs a universer, everything needs an everythinger.

[@scarlett8960]

@@1eviledy sandstone needs a sandstoner

[@Griexxt]

To think that it was made by an intelligent being who just happens to exist without any explanation, and ”outside of time and space” whatever that entails no less, is question begging of the highest order.

[@IAMJ1B]

First try to say what is your first thing if say no god!U will get a nobel prize and more😂

[@soyevquirsefron990]

We think buildings have builders because we’ve experienced that. We also experience that living things reproduce other living things. The idea of a living thing being “created” is just as ridiculous as the idea of a mini-house growing from a bigger house. However confident we are that buildings have builders, we are equally certain that living things don’t have creators.

[@sergehychko3659]

Honestly, I wouldn't take advice from a grifter like Ray on something as trivial as a "good" parking spot. It's kind of Scarlett to not attribute malice to Ray's schtick but the only thing worse than a scientifically illiterate conman is a dishonest scientifically illiterate conman who believes it's all ok as long as you're "lying for Jesus".

[@scarlett8960]

I tend to think of Ray as just dense and stupid. I really don't think he listens when people talk. But who knows?

[@aubreyleonae4108]

@@scarlett8960 he and Kirk are the most sincerely nice and stupid people I've ever met.

[@Templetonq]

@@scarlett8960 He certainly has a knack for manipulating and deceptively editing conversations.

[@JosephKano]

​@@aubreyleonae4108 I think Kirk has fallen to the nasty pasty side the last few years, since the book tour stunts that seem aimed at just being nasty at Public Libraries.

[@1eviledy]

Science has it roots in Mathematics and the scientific method that predate Christianity.

[@lidbass]

Even more, modern science began (or at least became more important) with the Renaissance, which was a movement to revive and then go beyond the ideas of classicism. And many religionists (like Ray) opposed it with force.

[@theoutspokenhumanist]

I find it strange that Banana Boy still has an audience. The man is one of the worst, i.e. ineffective, apologists out there and yet his gullible believers think he is smart and shrewd. You're right, it is sad.

[@scarlett8960]

it is strange. I've been on his blog over at Living Waters and the love his fans give him is incomprehensible to me

[@theoutspokenhumanist]

@@scarlett8960 Proof, if it were needed, that religion poisons the mind. 😁

[@marcdc6809]

in the 50's they had a much better banana than today, then they had 'Gros Michel', today we have 'Cavendish'... to me that kills his 'perfect banana' ... a just graceful god would have assured that you and I could also have enjoyed the better banana, but god doesn't care, and that Gros Michel was also the result of 1000's of years of picking the sweetest fruit with the smallest seeds, done by our ancestors, who had to make do with a starchy, rather bitter fruit with seeds in it... so it's a stretch that god gave us the perfect banana, he gave that banana to the people of the first half of the 20th century, and it's gone...

[@theoutspokenhumanist]

@@marcdc6809 It's not just a stretch, it is proven entirely wrong by evolution and the fact that the banana varieties we have today were selected for by human action. The banana he held in his hand and proclaimed a wonder of God's work, was the deliberate work of men. As for the perfect banana, that is, of course, subjective and a matter of personal preference. We would have to prove that God existed before we could decide on whether he cares or not. Perhaps he likes the Cavendish 😂

[@marcdc6809]

@@theoutspokenhumanist well, if god made me after his own image, he'd know which banana to pick, that alone basically makes him disappear in a puff of logic. what would be the point in making up a deity that doesn't give you the best always if you can make up any deity you want anyway...

[@williamwatson4354]

People like Ray look at a poorly constructed log cabin and say, "see there was a builder." Then they look at the taj mahal, and say, "Oh that structure has always existed.

[@IAMJ1B]

Yes fool there is a creator for that cabin fool 😂

[@IAMJ1B]

Y×s fool there is a creator for the cabin 😂And there should be something always existed

[@marcdc6809]

you got me thinking there... the Taj Mahal was built under the colonial rule of Moghols, muslims that had taken over the governing of most of India... so a kind of testimony to the facts that there's been colonialism before the English joined in... and the Taj Mahal was built by Hindu workers under supervision of muslim architects...

[@tussk.]

_Science relies on faith, and it is faulty at its core because of that_ _Religion relies on faith, and that's what makes it unassailably true_ That's RCs entire schtick in a nutshell.

[@RustyWalker]

The _other_ problem with the buildings analogy is that we don't know of a single building built by a god. They're all made by people.

[@fredriksundberg4624]

😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅

[@IAMJ1B]

Still u caught with a creator 😂

[@RustyWalker]

@@IAMJ1B Which is always a human. The issue here that Creationists can't grasp is the only actual confirmed design by an agent that we have ever observed is by something physical, temporal, and spatial. We have no confirmed examples of design by an agent that is immaterial, eternal, and that exists beyond the space-time of the instantiation of our local universe. We don't even have any reason to infer that the design that a God would produce would resemble the design we produce, or other animals that can design, or the machines that we've programmed to design for us. The idea of anything existing beyond the space-time of the instantiation of our local universe, that is immaterial, and that is atemporal may well be a contradiction. It certainly sounds like one.

[@IAMJ1B]

@@RustyWalker Ok I am gonna abondon god.What should i fill there?

[@RustyWalker]

@@IAMJ1B My rebuttal didn't suggest anybody should abandon their belief in God. It demonstrated that this particular argument doesn't work. The reason a lot of us take part in counterapologetics is to prevent bad arguments spreading and to promote critical thinking. An additional benefit is to fight back against the politicisation of faith. We've all seen where that can lead, and it ain't pretty.

[@whoviating]

My response to the "building needs builder" notion: Virtual particles. Casimir Effect. Quantum tunneling. The cosmos is filled with causeless effects and much of our modern technology depends on them.

[@thefuturist8864]

I’ll have to trust you as far as virtual particles are concerned, but there’s a far simpler answer: just because we designate something using language it doesn’t follow that we have accurately captured what it is. Imagine if I pointed to a body of water and said ‘there is a drinker, because water is a drink and a drink needs a drinker’. I have designated the property of being a drink, and it’s not something inherent in the water, so it follows that there doesn’t need to be a drinker at all.

[@whoviating]

@@thefuturist8864 Keeping mind that we agree that Ray's argument is nonsense, in fairness he would say you have flipped the analogy because it's not that "drink needs a drinker" but rather that "water needs a water-maker." It's where the stuff came from, not how it could be used. Never mind, not important. What I like about the virtual particles argument is that there is a repeatedly-demonstrated scientific theory (quantum mechanics) that predicts their causeless existence and experiments (the Casimir Effect) that verify it.

[@goldenalt3166]

​@@whoviatingThe problem I have is not with the idea of "ultimate" causality but their idea that it cares who has sex and when. It's like agreeing that the building needs a builder and they show us a crayon drawing and say "that's him".

[@whoviating]

@@goldenalt3166 Fair enough and true enough, but personally I prefer to refuse to recognize the initial false argument.

[@billirwin3558]

Many scientists held religious beliefs and many did not. And many of those that did not believe pretended they were believers to avoid persecution. We should never forget that religious persecution because there are many religious groups that want to bring that type of persecution back. Including some fundamentalist Christian groups.

[@goldenalt3166]

I don't think it ever left.

[@Fredthefat]

I think you have nailed Comfort perfectly. And blibby blabby is my new favourite phrase.

[@IAMJ1B]

Never fool

[@flowingafterglow629]

Remember, Einstein said, "I do not believe in a personal god and have stated it clearly" but he was an theist, and maybe even a Christian, because he said, "God does not throw dice". But Hitler was an atheist, even though he said, "In doing this, I am carrying out the work of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ." I put not significance on their claims of who is and isn't a theist.

[@walkergarya]

Hitler said a lot of things, many of them contradictory. The changed his lies to suit the audience and what he wanted. I do not think he was atheist and although he was raised Catholic, I do not think he was christian when he gained power, but he was a total asshole, I hope we can agree on that. This urge for the maintenance of the unmixed breed, which is a phenomenon that prevails throughout the whole of the natural world, results not only in the sharply defined outward distinction between one species and another but also in the internal similarity of characteristic qualities which are peculiar to each breed or species. The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed.[6] Mein Kampf, vol. 1, chapter XI.

[@flowingafterglow629]

@@walkergarya "I do not think he was atheist and although he was raised Catholic, I do not think he was christian when he gained power," He was as much a Christian as 95% of the Catholics sitting in the pews on Sunday. All this hair splitting over every single word about what he "really believed" is nonsense, and completely ignores the obvious.

[@walkergarya]

@@flowingafterglow629 You say he was an Atheist and then assert he was Catholic. You should get your story straight.

[@flowingafterglow629]

@@walkergarya No, I was just parroting the apologists who claim he was atheist and then turn around and claim Einstein was theist (or even Christian). It's all nonsense.

[@IAMJ1B]

​@@walkergaryaHe is 100 atheist 😂He had killed even pastors and priests. jews don't accept christianity but christianity include jews His second motive after jews was christianity. Go and study History little fruity pebbles.What a shame for athiest.Mommy this guy rolled over my mouth ngee 😭

[@rodneytgap5340]

I question certain things about Ray. Like his hair. Is his hair really that color at his age? Why would he dye it (vanity), and why would he lie by doing so? These are not the types of things a person wandering the streets pointing to people as 'sinners' should be doing if he doesn't want his sugar-glass house ransacked by rabid woodchucks.

[@IAMJ1B]

There are many peoples who don't age as their age

[@rodneytgap5340]

@@IAMJ1B Many people don't change hair color across dozens of photos and videos through several decades. That you can find videos where he is a lot less wrinkly and a lot more grey at the temple says something.

[@aubreyleonae4108]

I concur with you. As an older person myself, i see that a lot in myself and others. We wish to think we have figured out the basics in life and want to rest in that. I consider that when talking with family. I understand how much is invested in their beliefs. Though I wish the blindness of the cult thinking to be lifted for them, I do not want to be involved in that process. I just want to enjoy the time I do have with them to be about our love for family. This is why I am hopeful about the future. I am proud of all of you young people. In youth we can be willing to cast off obsolete ideas in favor of reason. Many choose to conform to the past out of fear and what have you, yet the bold will create the future. You are bold, all of you. Go, and create a better future for us all. You must earn it. Never give up and you will.

[@TheBarelyBearableAtheist]

I like to point out that creationists--especially young earth creationists--are merely documenting for us that the "Creator" is an imaginary god. Imaginary gods get their powers from believers who imagine them, and therefore they cannot do anything that believers are unwilling or unable to imagine. If Ray is unwilling or unable to imagine a Creator smart enough to design a chemical/biological system capable of generating DNA without intelligent intervention, then the imaginary Creator will not be smart enough to design such a system. Plus, if a Creator god actually existed, Ray would be unable to know for sure that this god did not use his superior intelligence to design a system capable of generating DNA by itself. The only way Ray can know, with certainty, that his supposed god did not do so is if his god is the product of his own imagination.

[@aubreyleonae4108]

😎 perfect summation!

[@IAMJ1B]

If u replace god what will u fill there.If u can fill u will get a nobel prize. Or just one word stop "Fool". U can be only agnostic or believer in the final conclusion 😂❤

[@FeliciaByNature]

Ray comfort makes me uncomfortable in the "man this guy is creepy, I better keep kids away from him" kind of way.

[@fredriksundberg4624]

And he's living with his "businesspartner" Kirk Cameron?

[@ziploc2000]

Ray loves using the creation word. The universe needs a universer, the cosmos needs a cosmoser, nature needs a naturer, The Earth needs an Earther. Nope, doesn't work. Loads of early scientists were religious (not always the same religion of flavor of religion), or at least didn't overtly buck the social norms of the day, some even pursued their scientific investigations and field work in the hopes of proving various biblical themes and stories... But they never found evidence for god, no matter how many gaps they closed in our knowledge.

[@IAMJ1B]

If u replace god what will u fill there.If u can fill u will get a nobel prize. Or just one word stop "Fool". U can be only agnostic or believer in the final conclusion 😂

[@eklektikTubb]

It is hard to tell whether your opponent doesnt even listen to you, or just doesnt understand you, or merely doesnt believe you because he is too skeptical to accept your claims and didnt find your arguments convincing. Or whether he does believe you, but dishonestly pretends that he doesnt. I have the same problem with my opponents and probably we all do.

[@RobertSmith-gx3mi]

Ray comfort also claimed the genetic modification of the banana done by human beings proves a god created the banana, a fruit That , thanks to being created by a god fit perfectly in the hand of his most favorite creation. Ray Comfort has the mind of a child So Proud of the gold star the pastor teaching vacation bible school science class gave him.

[@ludwigvanbeethoven5005]

It's also worth mentioning that even among scientists who do believe in the possibility of a higher mind or Supreme Creator, the scientific view of God tends to be more deistic than theistic. Ray Comfort believes in a specific God and the total inerrancy of a specific book (notably the Bible). Deists believe that God may well have created the Universe and life here on earth, but that was the extent of his own personal involvement. Ray on the other hand believes in a personal God who communicates directly with all mankind, even going so far as to leave us a book of instructions that must be followed without question. The point is that even if science did eventually prove God's existence, it still doesn't tell us anything about whether or not the Bible is actually true.

[@IAMJ1B]

First read the bible completely then U will get it

[@ludwigvanbeethoven5005]

​@@IAMJ1B How do you know that even if I did read the entire Bible from start to finish, I would reach the same conclusion that you did? Let's not forget that scripture is notoriously ambiguous, which basically means it can be interpreted in any number of ways. Not everybody who reads the Bible agrees with the fundamentalist literalist translation. That's why there are so many different denominations of Christianity because they all disagree over interpretation. In any event there are a number of stories in the Bible that make absolutely no sense when interpreted literally (such as Noah's Ark and the Exodus from Egypt). The point is if there are certain parts of the Bible that quite evidently use metaphorical language to illustrate or uncover a deeper spiritual meaning, how can we say with any degree of certainty which parts of the Bible are literally true and which parts are purely allegorical or even mythological? In any event most Christians don't want the Bible to be literally true, for the simple reason it transforms scripture into an unparalleled horror story, and most especially with regards to the verses concerning hell fire, damnation and eternal punishment.🤔

[@IAMJ1B]

@@ludwigvanbeethoven5005 So hell is your problem.

[@ludwigvanbeethoven5005]

​@@IAMJ1B Don't the vast majority of Christians also have a problem with hell? Some denominations, such as the Seventh Day Adventists, don't even believe in hell at all. They believe that sinners are simply annihilated post-mortem (as in fact do the Jehovah's Witnesses). Jews don't believe in hell fire and damnation either, but rather they believe in Gehinnom instead, which is a temporary and physically painless place (or state) that all sinners must go through post-mortem, where tarnished souls are purified, cleansed and rehabilitated. Gehinnom is sometimes referred to as "God's washing machine."

[@Templetonq]

Of course, Ray doesn't understand people. His psychology is based on the silly idea of Sin, rather that information processing and impulse control.

[@IAMJ1B]

Silly idea of sin 😢man u must repent and u will get it

[@Templetonq]

@@IAMJ1B I love how you assume that if I don't agree with you, then I don't understand. All the data we have from psychologists supports the latter. Humans are just not in rebellion against their supposed creator.

[@IAMJ1B]

@@Templetonq U R*😭

[@Templetonq]

@@IAMJ1B Grow up!

[@IAMJ1B]

@@Templetonq From a kid

[@Zero-ei8jn]

2:08 The ancient Greeks contributed much towards philosophy. Therefore, Zeus, Hera & and a plethora of other gods must be actually living up on Mount Olympus.

[@Mr.ScaryBoi]

Once Ray shows me to building enganging in naked adult fun time, and make a baby building. Then I might listen to the idea of a magic sky wizard saying abra-ca-pocus and a universe comming into being.

[@fredriksundberg4624]

Ray Comfort is actually being the bottom of the barrel apologetics.

[@goldenalt3166]

You have heard of Kent Hovind, right?

[@greatcaesarsghostwriter3018]

I think the unspoken assertion is: Newton and Einstein are recognized Very Smart Persons. These Very Smart Persons believed in God. (Just don't get too specific.) Therefore, if you don't believe in God, you are a Big Dummy.

[@pythondrink]

Einstein's god doesn't seem much of a god

[@greatcaesarsghostwriter3018]

@@pythondrink close enough for an apologetic argument

[@scarlett8960]

that checks out!

[@timothymulholland7905]

Ray has a nice house in Malibu and rakes in millions. He is the raker! Do bananas have bananers?

[@mirandahotspring4019]

Ray used his banana "proof of god" for years until some spoilsport explained to him the bananas we know today are the result of extensive artificial selection by man, and the original banana is virtually inedible due to the large hard seeds in them.

[@fredriksundberg4624]

Watch The Atheist Experience with Matt Dillahunty and Ray Comfort.

[@archapmangcmg]

The way you tell the grassy field from the watch you find there is down to how we know the watch had a maker but don't see the grass as having one. We know grass happens without anyone doing anything. We know watchmakers are real. In Ray's crap, he can't tell whether anything is designed at all. He asserts it's ALL designed. Including bugs that eat children's eyes. But "God is great!" he says, like fanatic Muslims do.

[@michaelbell3181]

Listening to Ray makes me mad because he is happily so ignorant. Ignorance should cause pain, Js

[@frankflegg8968]

Great video. Thank you.

[@thefuturist8864]

There’s a precedent as far as criticism of the claim that ‘creation needs a creator’ is concerned. Rene Descartes believed that he proved that minds are necessary entities; because there are thoughts, there must be thinkers to think those thoughts. However, he was wrong. He mistook linguistic convention for philosophical necessity. We find it difficult to speak of thoughts without speaking of a thinker, but it doesn’t follow from this that a thinker must exist. In the same way, linguistic and causal convention tells us that it is difficult to think of creations without a creator, but it doesn’t follow from this that any such creator must exist. Also, the claim is based on a linguistic trick: we name entities ‘creations’ and then claim that they must have been created, but we did not discover that they were creations, and they are only ‘created’ if we can *independently* establish the existence of a creator, which (as Kant showed) we cannot do. Imagine pointing to water and saying ‘there must be a drinker, because water is a drink, and there cannot be a drink without a drinker’.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

I see space all around me but I can't see a creator of space. Why is Yahweh hiding from me?

[@IAMJ1B]

Actually u r hiding

[@adamstrange7884]

Ray has more ringers in his videos than hell has sinners!

[@gregcampwriter]

Comfort is either dim or a talented troll. In any case, his schtick is tedious.

[@ryantennyson7562]

Forget about DJT, I find Ray Comfort a bit weird and creepy.

[@lidbass]

Given his beliefs, which were very much of the time, I find it very convincing that Newton would be an atheist were he to be born today. By which I mean, that while a genius, he was very much influenced by important thoughts of his day. And he was also very much a nerd, and according to Matt Powell, all atheists are nerds.

[@CookiesRiot]

2:29 Newton's obsession with numerology, specifically the magic power of the number 7 because of its significance to Yahweh, still damages learning of physics and color theory to this day: We still teach that the rainbow, a continuous spectrum of all visible wavelengths of light, is divisible in 7 discrete colors arbitrarily picked by Isaac Newton, even though mathematically continuous things are definitionally antithetical to clean-cut divisions. Newton's color wheel and arbitrary color name selections later converged with artistic paint mixing into the RYB color theory... This is an outdated method of getting colors from only 3 primary pigments that is completely incapable of getting bright shades of green. And we teach that in schools which use CMY pigments to print the color wheel with greens that the yellow and blue paints can't replicate. All this because a scientist - who might otherwise have a better understanding 200 years ahead of its time - wanted to fit the data into his preconceived notion that God created the world so that 7 was a special magic number.

[@flowingafterglow629]

Yes, Newton is responsible for the invention of "indigo" as a color....because he needed a 7th

[@JamesRichardWiley]

Ray loves to quote from his Bible, always careful to avoid the ugly parts like genocide or vicarious redemption or support for human slavery or when Yahweh says he was sorry he made mankind or when Jesus believed the end of the world was imminent. Ray doesn't have any good arguments of his own just the written thoughts of cult members living in the Bronze Age that contradict their own writing.

[@JosephKano]

Doh missed this one...im just being loyal and going back to this Scarlett. I really dislike Ray. He is very very gross.

[@goldenalt3166]

6:03 Evidence of a perfect builder, Ray? Because i see lots of things that could have been done better.

[@Matthew-xb1zn]

youtube stuffing

[@somersetcace1]

Uh huh...`Several famous scientists were theists, therefore science proves God!` It's difficult to believe, but Ray might just be the most disingenuous apologist out there. Err, well, top 3 anyway! Hard to get worse than Craig and Hovind.

[@wkmac2]

Does Ray use a banana to make his point?

[@flowingafterglow629]

So Ray is (deliberately) conflating "coming into existing" with "forming." For example, a building doesn't actually come into "existence" when it is built. It is built and formed, but the things it is made from already exist. In fact, there are no examples of anything "coming into existence" in that respect. Everything that exist forms from previously existing stuff. But he can't let you talk about that. He can't same "nothing complicated forms on its own," because it obviously not true. Snowflakes are highly ordered and some into existence all on their own without help from anyone. And the crap about "DNA can't form on its own"? For sure it can. The DNA in my body completely formed on its own, unless he is claiming godly intervention for the formation of every molecule? My body is full of DNA that formed "on its own."

[@whoviating]

I was thinking about that earlier and it occurred to me that for Ray's analogy to be valid, he must be saying that God did not create the universe _ex nihilo_ but rather from preexisting materials.

[@flowingafterglow629]

@@whoviating To be fair, Dan McLellan will tell you that the correct interpretation of Genesis 1 is "In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void...." This is not novel, either, because I learned it back in college 40 years ago.

[@whoviating]

@@flowingafterglow629 So is it his interpretation that there was something preexisting that God used to create "the heavens and the earth?" Or that God ::poof:: created the materials then used them to create the rest? Or what? And how does it differ from other interpretations? (Not just the particular words or spacing, but in meaning.) Or is he just saying that Ray's analogy is bunk?

[@flowingafterglow629]

@@whoviating As I said, it's not just Dan McLellan's interpretation, this is what I learned for the interpretation 40 years ago, and McLellan has been pushing it recently. But what it means is that, yes, the earth and materials already existed and that God basically organized everything out of the formless void. This differs from the standard ex nihilo creation version that is generally presented. Contrast, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was a formless void..." with "In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth, the earth a formless mass...." I've never seen McLellan address any of Ray Comfort's idiocy.

[@skiptrailer7048]

is His the correct thing?

[@onepunch9203]

I want to like Ray. He seems like a nice guy. I like his accent. However, Ray is unwilling to learn. He has repeatedly been debunked in conversations with atheists. Why should I be swayed by his unsubstantiated claims about his god? 🤦‍♂️ Why does he persist? I think (regrettably) that Ray is a grifter.

[@cygnustsp]

A customer of mine once gave me a fake $1000000 bill that was produced by living waters. He was a super nice guy and didn't try to preach to me, he just thought his religious paper that looked like big money was cute. He only said something like "this is worth more than it says it's worth" like some cryptic salvation message but he didn't mention Jesus. Kinda weird but I have a Jehovah's Witness background and he wasn't nearly as creepy and pushy as they are.

[@marcdc6809]

his banana kind of underpins his own lack of understanding of evolution... the banana he was holding and praising is a dead end, our ancesters have picked systematically the fruits with the smallest seeds, to a point where they got a strain that lost its ability to reproduce through seeds and can only be reproduced through shoots... also, there was a much better banana in the 50's, the 'Gros Michel', it tasted better, sweeter, was bigger... and now it's replaced by another type, the 'Cavendish'... which basically proves, we give the meaning to what we consider 'an ok banana', if god wanted people to enjoy a good banana, adam and eve and you and I would all have eaten the 'Gros Michel', or even a better banana, but not the 'meh' Cavendish... this kind of proves that god is the kind of dude that throws you lemons and laugs it you for making that weird face...

[@jonparker5728]

Banana!

[@IAMJ1B]

What is science? Science is the information made by collection of studies in physical world about Physics or things in physics! U mean science doesn't prove god because scientists are weak.Anyway I know this post man can't even stand with ray face to face. U still may not be a believer but u can't go back as atheist. Thats 100%sure

[@mrshankerbillletmein491]

Atheism explains nothing demonstrates nothing while demanding demonsration from theists.

[@utube1818]

Because you’re the ones claiming there’s a god, so up to you to prove it.

[@mrshankerbillletmein491]

@@utube1818 The theist at least has the appearance of design. The atheist has only denial with no explanation for life the universe.or conciousnes. its up to you to explain a naturalistic cause.

[@utube1818]

@@mrshankerbillletmein491 No, it is not, because we are not pushing any particular agenda onto anyone else. And if you lot just did your thing behind closed doors, I wouldn’t have a problem with Theists. The issues is your not happy until everyone worships your deity, from ‘Jesus loves you, all you need to do is open your heart’ to putting the ten commandments in every school class room to holy wars in the name of religion. P.S The naturalistic cause has a pretty good explanation, it’s been around for quite a few years now.

[@Azho64]

😀