Talk:Ray Comfort/Archive1

Google

This article and the Iron Chariots article on Ray Comfort are both on the first page of Google. Congratulations! Perhaps we need to make the two articles more different from each other as readers will click on both links. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Better solution: war and annexation.--^talk 10:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

We should not wage war against Iron Chariots because they are on the same side as we are and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. Well that ignorant first century babbler was very often wrong but he got a few things right. We shouldn't wage war against fellow atheists. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I used strong language criticising Jesus because today is Blasphemy Day. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Really? Not that I find that I have a problem with Iron Chariots, but if by some miracle it was founded by an asshat and ran by asshats and supported by asshats, then I would have little problem calling it such, atheist or otherwise. This is the entire point behind proper freethought, to avoid unnecessary biases and blindness owing to a desire to conform to a collective, after all. ADK^{...I'll feast your pork chop!} 14:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I also this site was strictly for atheists either. Most of our members are atheists but the site is not. Pimobile (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I have wanted to say this for some time - Should we fix the introduction to this article? Make no mistake, I find it amusing calling Ray a deep-cover atheist and such (in fact, I am all for calling Ray an ape and such - only Ray finds it strikingly offensive, but it is no more offensive then calling him a mammal). However, it is such a sudden switch in attitude and seriousness right afterwards when the entire article drops the humor. What do you think? Feredir28 (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The leather jacket stuff

Unremarkable, unfunny, full of conjecture and poorly written. Make a case for keeping it. ‎Please, Reverend Jim, ‎more Kool-Aid! 12:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

What he said. Ace^ace 12:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Same also. There also doesn't appear to be any Jeffrey Dahmer - Ray Comfort connection, as implied in Proxima's edits. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Silver

I think it merits silver. Proxima Centauri (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I vote Aye! Feredir28 (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Just read the whole thing. This is a really chaotic and randomly organized article. And there are sections that are way too long and unreadable for my taste. It's got more info than most of our articles, but I think it would be great to have it reorganized (what should come first, and how can it be subgrouped), and some of the longer sections either edited down or broken up. It really is hard to read or understand the whole picture, for all each section is very informative. just my two cents. --GodotNo, That's not the same thing. You just don't get it". 21:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Also (and this is comming from me, which is really telling) there are lots of grammar problems. Not big ones, but it needs a work over with a red pen, just to catch the little problems that come up with 15 different editors. (oops, sorry, forgot to sign) --GodotNo, That's not the same thing. You just don't get it". 21:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with WfG, and I see a ratio of uncited to cited points that is much too high for an article of this length and importance. I'm not referring to the volume of footnotes, only to the ratio of uncited to cited. In addition, there are a number of Manual of Style errors and some ugly formatting, like external links in the article text. Blue (is useful) 21:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Also huge blocks of it have nothing to do with Ray Comfort and instead go on about religion in general. Pimobile (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the writing style of some of the better authors here, but I'm giving the writing a once over. I'm not going to look for citations, though - and Blue's right, there are tons of uncited claims. GodotNo, That's not the same thing. You just don't get it". 21:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC) (ec)

During the second half of October a great deal of reorganisation was done, I think it's now silver standard. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

"Do you believe this" template

I'm not sure where to ask this, but why does that template link to itself? or do most do that and I've just never noticed? I was all hoping it would link to some page like "april fools".--GodotNo, That's not the same thing. You just don't get it". 22:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

{{Lie}}, {{Fact}}, {{More}} etc. all link to themselves. Perhaps they shouldn't. Blue (is useful) 22:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed some bits

This might be good to put back in, if they have a better home. Otherwise, they are just generic refutations to Ray's beliefs -- which might be better addressed on a different page. --GodotNo, That's not the same thing. You just don't get it". 14:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• (This one might go well in a section on "criticism")

Does the Bible say that salvation is by grace alone and not by works? Comfort quotes Titus and Ephesians 2:8-9, which says that souls are saved not by works of righteousness, but according to God's mercy. But Psalm 62:12 disagrees: "For you render to each one according to his works." Matthew 16:27 spells it out nicely: "For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works." To some, Ray is a damnable heretic because he dares to suggest that repentance includes ceasing from sin. David J. Stewart apparently believes that a person can carry on sinning and still be saved.The Damnable Heresy of Ray Comfort One website even granted Ray Comfort a Skull and Crossbones because the preachers there are sure Ray's teachings can lead to damnation.[1]

• (This Quote was used to claim that Christians dislike Ray cause he thinks you should stop sinning. That's not what they are about, and no christian the world over would say that you are forgiven your continuing sins. You have to at least attempt to resolve the sin (say, beating your wife) in your life. These may be good criticisms, but we should figure out the context they were made in, and make it clear why they dislike the very very dis likable jerk.)

This has turned other Christian fundamentalists against Ray Comfort and made them call Comfort a dammable heretic. Below is Ray Comfort quoted by two opposing websites:

These are perhaps the most frightening verses in the Bible. Vast multitudes of professing Christians fit into the category spoken of here. They call Jesus 'Lord,' but they practice lawlessness. They profess faith in Jesus, but have no regard for the divine law. They tell 'fibs' or 'white' lies, take things that belong to others, have a roaming eye for the opposite sex, etc. They are liars, thieves, and adulterers at heart, who will be cast from the gates of heaven into the jaws of hell.[2][3]

• (This Para might be worth a "last thoughts" type idea).

Whether or not he really believes his own arguments is irrelevant: false information is false information. If Ray knows that he is deliberately being dishonest, shame on him - especially when he goes around the world accusing the public and total strangers of being filthy liars who deserve eternal torment. If truth cannot help a person like Ray Comfort become an honest decent person, then neither will Jesus Christ (so already most of us can ignore the empty promises tossed around by people like Comfort that Jesus will make us a better person if we accept him). Alternatively perhaps Ray believes every ridiculous argument he uses and we can forget any hopes we may have that his type of Christianity will make us into a sensible person.

Popular appeal

I feel I should draw your attention to yet another problem with our article on Ray Comfort. Basically intellectuals have taken over the article. What Feredir28 wrote had popular appeal. It could get to people like, high school students, college students, university undergraduates or even uneducated people who might otherwise fall for Ray Comfort’s line of arguing. What we’re now getting is material that intellectuals think is an improvement but intellectuals aren’t at risk from Ray Comfort to anything like the same extent as uneducated people. Are there any suggestions? Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not that it's intellectual vs. popular, it's "biography" vs. "argument". you had (some very good) arguments to contradict what he says, but you put them into an article no one could or would read. it was long, it was convoluted. What needs to be done (and I know I've seen lots of stuff you've done on his individual works) is make a link for each section (using what was cut) that is "a refutation". ("to see why his argument is wrong, go here") then put back the argument stuff. I know you think it was "good" and "popular" - but overly long, confusing, and repetitive articles aren't read by highschoolers. they aren't read by anyone. The stuff is valuable, no doubt, Proxima, so make refutations for each thing that comfort messes up, then link it.--GodotNo, That's not the same thing. You just don't get it". 17:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

People do like it, that's why it's on the first page of Google. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Fed and Pro C (I can't spell either of your names)

The stuff I pulled out but didn't paste here - the analysis (there was lots of it), is really good. I don't think it belongs in this article, but you might think about going back and copying it and making a "why his arguments are stupid" article.--GodotNo, That's not the same thing. You just don't get it". 17:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, perhaps we can create something of that sort. Ray's arguments are many, but I focused on the ones he used too frequently that often confused and tricked the lay people, because that is who Ray is targeting. Feredir28 (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Fed, absolutely. I would probably go into the old version, and cut and paste the evo stuff right away, and link. Then you can edit it later to your heart's desire. The religion stuff is a bit more convoluted, cause i think there were some misunderstandings about 1) what claims Ray makes, 2) if those claims are really contradictory, and 3) why critics hate it. Also THIS PAGE needs a "critics" section that includes the stuff from above. But i'd not yet made one. Also, the "pulbication" section here needs 4 or 5 of his most "important" works on this page. I've never read him, so i didn't know out of hte hundred's you'd provided which were the really "go to" ones. --GodotNo, That's not the same thing. You just don't get it". 17:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I seem to be catching up where this whole thing is going. I agree that this page must have been a bio article, so therefore we should have a separate page that refutes his arguments regarding evolution and mischaracterization of his own religion. I would not bother reading Ray's material, I have reviewed about a dozen (I forgot the exact number) but they ALL REPEAT the same arguments - the same ones he uses on lay people on the streets, which is why I thought it was of the utmost importance I made a refutation of them on RW. This is why I am a bit upset that some editors wish to see my "Parachute" refutation part being removed. For now, I will not make a "Criticism of Ray's dumb arguments" article, I will let the editors make one that is satisfactory to them. When that is done, I will contribute when it is made. Feredir28 (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps now is a good time to catch up with your college work, then later you'll have time to pulverise Ray Comfort. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Feredir28 (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

So they don't get lost in too many changes, I can quickly put the stuff I cut into a page for you, so you don't have to look for it when you are done with school. but it's up to you.GodotNo, That's not the same thing. You just don't get it". 18:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Holy crap this article is long. I agree with Godot, this could do with a "Ray Comfort's Greatest Hits" sub-page that can go under the Ray Comfort category. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

WFG (Godot), I thank you for the help, but do not worry about making a separate page for me. I will deal with my own work, and occasionally drop by now and then. What is taken out is up to the crew on RW, but I really support Neb and Proxima C that we should create a separate page that talks about all of Ray's arguments and provides a refutation of some sort. There needs to be a place for people who never heard of Ray Comfort to go to after they come across him or his material passed out by evangelicals. I have not met a street preacher (ages 6 and up) in my town yet that did not use Ray Comfort's Living Waters Publication material. I am sure people are smart enough to see through Ray's BS, but there is a shadow of a doubt that some may not, and for those who want to know more and see why Ray is dishonest, that is where RW should come in. Feredir28 (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've checked again today and our article and the RationalWiki article are still rising so changing the articles has certainly not done harm, we can carry on changing it. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Fun:Ray Comfort

This article is frustratingly serious and jokes don't fit in very well. There are jokes in the Banana fallacy argument and in the Kirk Cameron article so I'm sure RatWikians have plenty of ideas for jokes about Ray. I've started Fun:Ray Comfort and there we can put all the jokes that aren't in this article. God is Lord (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Good article you started, let's see you really want sysop buttons. Proxima Centauri (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

An apology

As a New Zealander I would like to take this opportunity to apologise for Ray Comfort. Not on his behalf......but for this country having spawned and loosed him upon the world. Sorry.--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

As another English-speaking person, let me say you are forgiven. ħuman 01:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

As another NZer, I am sorry also. Ace^Moderator 02:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Words of Comfort/On the Box

Ray has deleted the "Words of Comfort" blog and now posts on the "On the Box" blog onthebox.us the old blog redirects there.

Evolution vs. God, his newest "documentary"

"Prepare to have your faith shaken". And by faith he meant your faith in "evolution", because the documentary clearly shows believing in such a thing is blind faith, because there is no scientific foundation for it, amirite? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ

I haven't had the guts to watch it, but pretty much everyone else wants to see the unedited interviews. Ray is unwisely denying them the whole thing because, you know, it might show that the interviewed people actually had coherent answers. http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1017805

Questions for Ray Comfort's parachute argument.

1 - Was it a passenger jet plane (like a 747) or a light plane? If it was a Jumbo jet then you would not be able to open the door to use the parachute anyway.

2 - How many people and parachutes are on the plane? If there was a child I would give the parachute to him/her because he or she has their whole life ahead of them.

3 - Was the parachute offered by the guy a spare or the only one?

4 - If it was a spare then what kind of asshole would not just give it to you to save your life?

5 - If it was the only one then why would he not use it himself?

6 - Could we not just use the parachute together, with one wearing it and the other holding on for dear life?

7 - Do the pilots have parachutes?

8 - If I was offered a choice between the parachute or a car, why would I take the car when I would die in the plane crash and not be able to use the car anyway? Same goes for the cash and Mona Lisa.

9 - Why would someone carry the Mona Lisa on a plane when it belongs in an art gallery or museum? I would just assume that the Mona Lisa was a fake and not worth anything anyway.

10 - Could you not just grab the cash and then grab the parachute?

11 - How does the guy know for sure the plane is going to crash, requiring a parachute and not just land rough?

12 - How does the guy know for sure that jumping out of the plane will give you a better chance of survival than having confidence in the pilot's ability to land the plane safely?

Answer me that Ray Comfort!--Cmbisme (talk) 04:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Cover story

I want it. What does it need? (I'll try to add more refs and more internal links) Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 20:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The article has a number of typographical errors, misspellings and other idiosyncracies in it that need to be addressed. The overall structure appears to be okay, though, and the article is well on its way to a gold nomination. I'm concerned about the large number of red links, though. Some can probably be explained inline; many of the others, such as links to articles on specific books Ray has written, should be removed. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Also the two "citation needed" statements should be fixed. The "dolphins as fishes" statement looks dubious and should probably be deleted. See [4] for a statement indicating otherwise. Bongolian (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Bong: Done. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 01:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@FCP: OK, looks good to me. Bongolian (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

"Good" person test

Interestingly enough, you get the same "You're a dirty, dirty sinner!" response on his little test even if you answer the questions in a way that makes you appear to be as sinless as Ray's imaginary BFF. It's like the whole exercise is completely lacking in intellectual integrity or something. Weird.... Jwebb13 (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is getting rather long

Would it be worth considering reducing the size of the article? It's number 24 on the long pages list and rising every day. For example, the bibliography section could be put on its own page, and the main article could highlight only those "works" that have their own pages or are otherwise more notable than the rest of the list. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I moved the bibliography back to its own page. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 23:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That said, I like the length of the article -- it covers everything important he's ever done and points out how shitty it is. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 23:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

See the threads above about how this article is getting too long & discursive & about splitting some of it off into a separate article (#Silver down to #Fed and Pro C (I can't spell either of your names)). Five years later (a few days ago) Fuzzy decided to undo that split & merge the other article (Critique of Ray Comfort arguments) back into here. So if you wondering why this is so long & discursive, that's why. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah.. forgive me for not checking the history. It reads much better now. The overwhelming pile of Comfort's publications distracted from what is a great piece. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Weasel: It did have 2:1 support for 4 days. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 01:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't necessarily mind the length of the page, as such, but currently the Table of Contents doesn't fit on my screen. I personally find this rather annoying as I like to have a "quick overview" on what a page covers... I made a few changes to reduce the number of headers, and now it almost fits on my screen, which is "good enough" for now... Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I've culled a few more section titles. Better? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 03:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

More than just comfort: An answer to cancer

Does anyone have this book? Or know someone that has it? Comfort is sort-of right that starting a quote with "therefore" is dubious, although knowing ol' Ray, I wouldn't be surprised if quoting it in full context is probably more wrong than out of context... Carpetsmoker (talk) 06:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't. I asked /r/atheism and /r/skeptic, in case they had any ideas. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 16:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)