Talk:You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, but You Can't Make Him Think

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon books.svg

This Books related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Information icon.svg Cover Story Nominee
This article has been nominated, among others, for random inclusion on the Main Page.
Please discuss its nomination on this talk page.
If it is accepted, its front-page abstract can be found here and its editnotice here.


Shouldn't it be capped like the book title is? ħumanUser talk:Human 19:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Cover story (sticky)[edit]

  • It is in depth, and really good, I mean, yeah...
  • If not gold, then silver?

Is it awesome stupid or stupid stupid?[edit]

Reading the article so far (especially the bit about "Creation must have a creator"), I feel very tempted to put this book on my to-buy list. It sounds like something I might get a few laughs out of it. But then I worry: Is it so not-funny stupid that I'd just throw it into a corner? --Sid 18:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

We got ours for free, some generous fool gave Ray some cash to give books to atheists. Go to his blog, maybe the money hasn't run out yet. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Ray's book is horrible. He's also a dishonest nut. He purposely baits atheists on his blog to send him spiteful emails or comments, then publishes them in his books as proof that atheists are mean spirited people who want to silence good Christians. --Irrational Atheist 19:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
If you really want to read it, I'll happily send you my copy once the article is done. I can't recommend buying it, because it's fucking awful and because giving whirled nut daily and Comfort money is the last thing in the world you'd want to do. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for my library to get it on the shelves. The last time I checked its status, they had the copy but hadn't circulated it yet. I don't want to check it out or reserve it; I'll just read it there and make notes of the funny parts. --Irrational Atheist 21:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I just went to his blog to ask for one. Seems you just have to e-mail him and confirm you're an atheist. I think we should all do it - unles we think he's collecting email addresses for some nefarious reason.--Bobbing up 22:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
What about shipping and handling charges? And regarding the address they are shipping to, what are they going to do with it? ThiehLooking for potion recipes 02:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
It's free. That's how we got ours. Who cares what they do with the info? Send me more free wacky shit? I got some dvd and stuff from another site a while back, before they realized they were getting atheist-bombed, and no one has turned up to burn a cross in my hair. And in this case, Comfort is explicitly offering to send his tragic tomes to atheists. By the way, as I read, in small bytes, this book, it's obviously not written for atheists, but for true believers - to chuckle with them about how stoopid atheists are. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
This is what makes me suspect Comfort is a cynical manipulator. It's very hard to believe anyone could possibly be so grossly stupid, but very easy to believe that a person would exploit religion for cash. He makes this big pretence of trying to convert atheists, but if he thinks insulting them and making ridiculous pronouncements about science is going to convert anyone, he's sorely mistaken. On the other hand, the guy and his family make over a million dollars a year just from donations presumably all from his flock. He's very clearly preaching to the choir. I wonder if this has been a gradual thing, starting with good intentions but gradually shifting in focus to doing whatever it takes to sustain what has become a business for him. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 03:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree. That book I was sent could never, ever, in a thousand years "convert" an atheist. However, it will count as a "paid and sold copy". I think the whole "we gave $1500 so you can send your book to atheists" thing on his blog was actually a lie. I also wonder, did he start off "honest" and slowly become a slimebag, or is he a slimebag who found a place to bag slime for $$$? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Sadly, I seem to have lost my opportunity to be converted from by atheist ways: "Dear Mr (Name) Thank you for your request, however we have reached out (sic) quota for the free books." Ah well. Nothing lost I suppose.--Bobbing up 20:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sub chapter sections[edit]

Can we provide "page" mentions for each of these? Like This section is on pages 14-16 or something? Jeeves, do you want me to do it since you did the hard work of actually reading and reporting on this tripe? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"most helpful reviewer"[edit]

There's no question about Poe--the dude's picture is a fake almost-naked Cheney. HAS to be Poe. Researcher (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Final chapters[edit]

Did anyone get around to finishing these? The article looks a bit shit with those headings and no content. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 11:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I can sympathise with the people who started writing the article, I don't think I have ever finished reading one of his blog post before going "fuck this" and opening up something more interesting, like this video of grass growing. - π 05:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I only had Ray Comfort's people send me a few copies of the piece of shit so they wouldn't end up in the hands of someone more credulous. Actually read it? Na. Nutty Rouxnever mind 05:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


This is high up on the first page of Google.— Unsigned, by: Proxima Centauri / talk / contribs

Yeah, but the search text is so long it'll likely just be lost in a sea of text for most people--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Those who know the title of that book will make the correct search and find our article. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

With this slightly different search it's lower down, I don't understand the difference. I'm not Jesus (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


I've given this copper, if there weren't empty sections I'd consider bronze. Is it MID importance or HIGH importance? Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I've raised the priority to high because this article's third from the top in Google. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

any body want to send me their copy?[edit]

I have some time on my hands, and I'm interested in filling the incomplete bits. The commentary on it is excellent so far joyaBAD KITTY! 08:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Cut footnote[edit]

Cut this:

Some of Ray Comfort's anti-atheist material may have outsold some work by Richard Dawkins, the website cited is hard to interpret. If that happened that just shows there are a great many silly fundamentalists around. [1]

The link doesn't quite seem to say what the (not very useful) footnote text does. The link looks useful for something, so I thought I'd leave it here rather than cutting it entirely. The whole article needs cleaning up, I didn't get very far down - David Gerard (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

His god is sinless?[edit]

"Ray is shocked by this comment. He does not provide any more to the comment, but he says "how dare" any person "point the finger" at Jesus Christ, the Son of God."

Yeah, so says the guy whose god divorced his former wife, and then says "It's sinful to divorce": This poor woman *sniggers*

P.S. Yes, I know the article itself refutes that assertion, but I thought I'd add one more, not-very-well-known thing. Resident Ishtar worshiper (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Another problem[edit]

The title assumes all atheists are of the male persuasion (and probably born so). Anna Livia (talk) 09:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it's using generic "he" rather than specifically assuming the subjects are all male, which is certainly a sexist and outdated practice, but not really one specific to this book (it's indicative of the larger cultural problem of not using gender-inclusive language). —Bilorv (needs a slap) 17:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)