A comment on “Crazy Bible” by Ray Comfort

People criticise Christians for saying atheism is a religion, set of dogmas or a belief. Atheism is indeed a belief. Saying it isn’t is mere denial of the obvious reality. If I do not know whether a cat in a box is alive or dead, it is not a question of it being both, it is a question of which of these alternatives you believe. One will prove to be correct, but up to that point, both believe. The one who says the cat is dead is not able to say he has fact on his side in view of the absence of evidence of life. The cat is in the box.

If God means, as He tells us He does, to save a people based on their choice in faith and love, then forcing them into faith by parading himself means that the criteria would not work and we would be forced back onto works salvation. In such a case we would need to be good, and there obviously is a problem with being good. I can’t do it and neither can you. That’s why the whole world from Creation onwards contains a structure whereby we may in good conscience believe that the Creator came into Creation to take the punishment so that we could be forgiven based on belief, and so does the Bible. The Bible contains things which invite you to either dismiss it in scorn or to try to see things through the eyes of God. We are told truth in a way that the proud will find it only too easy to reject, while at the same time they readily absorb the lies of the world, from abiogenesis through to the idea that Satan is not controlling politics. The faithful on the other hand find it easy to believe God’s word, and are ultra skeptical about the lies of the world.

So both are belief systems. One is a belief system whose proponents know or ought to know is a belief system, the other is a belief system many of whose proponents think is honest science.

9 thoughts on “A comment on “Crazy Bible” by Ray Comfort

  1. Scienctific answer. Open the box. If the cat is breathing, has a heart beat and shows no signs of rigor mortis then is safe to pronounce it living. If the same three criteria are in reverse then the cat is dead.
    Anybody as old as me and remembers the (very old) quiz game with Michael Miles where shouts of ‘open the box’ from the audience where the highlight of the programme ?
    I thank God for atheists.
    Sorry ….I’ve not pulled any punches I have merely been facetious.

  2. Life and dealth decided by yah murder and suicide decided by man confuses man of the power of yah choice given by yah inabled by yah does the rose give credit to the gardener the dirt the sun the rain or to itself for its life or does credit belong the ordain timing and design of all factors everybody sing along hes got the wolrd in hand thank yah we wouldnt have the time live if we had to do the things necessary to line up the simple task of breathing

  3. That closing statement is definitely illogical and therefore – wrong. Atheism does not claim to be derived from science, it does not need science to be an ideology. You cannot conflate the two. Science is a method, it’s a way of doing things.

    1. Atheism does indeed claim to derive from science if the attitudes and statements of most atheists who speak with me and other theists I know is anything to go by.

      1. Maybe but they can’t be a representative group. Atheist who post messages online are a self-selecting group. Most atheists don’t spend their spare time debating into the night, they just get on with their lives. You can’t, in all fairness, use commenters as a measure.

Your thoughts welcome, by all mean reply also to other community members!