Ray Comfort on the stupidity of atheism/atheists

[Keith&Co.]

He also had the movie: "The Fool - the true banana man story".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlCc_TA7gw8

Its an old parody he's been doing for years, before that famous vid.

Um.... IMDB dates The Fool to 2018.
The Way Of The Master episode with the banana as proof of Ghod was 2006...

 

[Learner]

The film contains clips of his banana & coke-can parody from 1994.

 

[abaddon]

The film contains clips of his banana & coke-can parody from 1994.

Define how the word parody is being used by you and Comfort.

Then, after defining the term, use the definition to explain how you or Comfort or anyone may rightly perceive it as a parody.

Thanks.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Maybe he should have given his name to a brand of liquor. Probably could have sold truckloads of the stuff.

Ray clearly has psychological issues ... He could probably benefit from medication of some form of cognitive therapy...

I don't see it. He seems socially competent and happy enough, and that's all it takes to be a mentally healthy person. He has a standard level of intellect and he likes opinions better than learning. He's highly confident about the opinions, which he shares with his favored ingroup. So he's a standard, typical human.

What psychological issues did you see? Don't say "superstitious" because that's typical of humanity and therefore not a psychological issue.

Just because a behavior or a condition is widespread does not change the condition. Humans are certainly superstitious, some more than others, some to the point of pathology, but it's not a desirable condition, however common.

I will agree with you and know plenty of people who fit Comfort's type. It's a potential issue for me, we could all be gathered around our campfires singing to spirits or we could be exploring other star systems. Avatar notwithstanding, I prefer the latter.

 

[Learner]

The film contains clips of his banana & coke-can parody from 1994.

Define how the word parody is being used by you and Comfort.

Then, after defining the term, use the definition to explain how you or Comfort or anyone may rightly perceive it as a parody.

Thanks.

Sure, as I understand it, and what I think Comfort is doing, is imitating in a humorous way... a point of view. Not being so serious - doing a spoof.

A spoof of what many atheist see/ believe Comfort (or other Christians) try to do when trying to explain how God does it, using the banana example.

Dorkins didn't know about Comforts previous vids or context from 1994 onwards and unfortunately has made an error whereby other atheists jumped too hastily on board.

 

[Elixir]

what I think Comfort is doing, is imitating in a humorous way...

Bananaman is a joke all right.
Water is wet, too.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The film contains clips of his banana & coke-can parody from 1994.

Define how the word parody is being used by you and Comfort.

Then, after defining the term, use the definition to explain how you or Comfort or anyone may rightly perceive it as a parody.

Thanks.

Sure, as I understand it, and what I think Comfort is doing, is imitating in a humorous way... a point of view. Not being so serious - doing a spoof.

A spoof of what many atheist see/ believe Comfort (or other Christians) try to do when trying to explain how God does it, using the banana example.

Dorkins didn't know about Comforts previous vids or context from 1994 onwards and unfortunately has made an error whereby other atheists jumped too hastily on board.

He doesn't engage, he mocks and pokes insult. Even in his vids where he talks about his atheist "friends" he hardly treats them like friends. His is thinly veiled contempt. His vids are all about Ray and how everyone else is wrong. I haven't seen all his vids, are there any where he actually defends his atheist friends? Does he anywhere say, "Maybe I''m wrong."?

My take on Ray is that he's not a very smart human being and he wants everyone else to be just like him.

 

[abaddon]

Sure, as I understand it, and what I think Comfort is doing, is imitating in a humorous way... a point of view. Not being so serious - doing a spoof.

A spoof of what many atheist see/ believe Comfort (or other Christians) try to do when trying to explain how God does it, using the banana example.

Dorkins didn't know about Comforts previous vids or context from 1994 onwards and unfortunately has made an error whereby other atheists jumped too hastily on board.

This is why atheists will wonder "is this a Poe?" when a creationist argues his points. Because sometimes it's hard to tell "is the person really THAT stupid or are they pretending to be that stupid?" So if it's true that Comfort chose the banana in a kidding-around spirit, then he deliberately made himself look stupid. And that's pretty stupid.

"Get the atheist" is a very stupid game to play because it backfires, making theists look stupid(er). A joke needs to be clearly noted to be a joke - else persons who treat it seriously are right to do so.

What's the misperception he wanted to parody? I ask because I have not watched the vids you refer to. Is it that a watch or other human-designed object that's used in an Analogy to Design argument, isn't meant to be very exactly similar to god-designed nature? That atheists get into too many details and he doesn't think they're necessary?

 

[Politesse]

I don't know if he's in it for legitimate critique or self-parody, but he's definitely in it for the attention. I doubt that Ray Comfort has honest belief in anything. He's certainly waffled on the specifics of his supposed beliefs quite a lot over the years, for a would-be soul harvester.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Sure, as I understand it, and what I think Comfort is doing, is imitating in a humorous way... a point of view. Not being so serious - doing a spoof.

A spoof of what many atheist see/ believe Comfort (or other Christians) try to do when trying to explain how God does it, using the banana example.

Dorkins didn't know about Comforts previous vids or context from 1994 onwards and unfortunately has made an error whereby other atheists jumped too hastily on board.

This is why atheists will wonder "is this a Poe?" when a creationist argues his points. Because sometimes it's hard to tell "is the person really THAT stupid or are they pretending to be that stupid?" So if it's true that Comfort chose the banana in a kidding-around spirit, then he deliberately made himself look stupid. And that's pretty stupid.

"Get the atheist" is a very stupid game to play because it backfires, making theists look stupid(er). A joke needs to be clearly noted to be a joke - else persons who treat it seriously are right to do so.

What's the misperception he wanted to parody? I ask because I have not watched the vids you refer to. Is it that a watch or other human-designed object that's used in an Analogy to Design argument, isn't meant to be very exactly similar to god-designed nature? That atheists get into too many details and he doesn't think they're necessary?

Saying something is a parody after it has flopped is damage control. Must seem real clever and smart though. Ray Comfort apologetics 101.

 

[Learner]

Sure, as I understand it, and what I think Comfort is doing, is imitating in a humorous way... a point of view. Not being so serious - doing a spoof.

A spoof of what many atheist see/ believe Comfort (or other Christians) try to do when trying to explain how God does it, using the banana example.

Dorkins didn't know about Comforts previous vids or context from 1994 onwards and unfortunately has made an error whereby other atheists jumped too hastily on board.

This is why atheists will wonder "is this a Poe?" when a creationist argues his points. Because sometimes it's hard to tell "is the person really THAT stupid or are they pretending to be that stupid?" So if it's true that Comfort chose the banana in a kidding-around spirit, then he deliberately made himself look stupid. And that's pretty stupid.

"Get the atheist" is a very stupid game to play because it backfires, making theists look stupid(er). A joke needs to be clearly noted to be a joke - else persons who treat it seriously are right to do so.

What's the misperception he wanted to parody? I ask because I have not watched the vids you refer to. Is it that a watch or other human-designed object that's used in an Analogy to Design argument, isn't meant to be very exactly similar to god-designed nature? That atheists get into too many details and he doesn't think they're necessary?

Saying something is a parody after it has flopped is damage control. Must seem real clever and smart though. Ray Comfort apologetics 101.

Only he has been doing that spoof for at least a decade before the vid that got him famous and other Christians have never used the banana skit as a serious argument during all that time, meaning... they got the humour!! You could see the glee in their atheist eyes (Dawkins and the mocking-mob) "Oh what delight" they must have thought. You can see the Christians in stitches when he was demonstrating the banana theory in the film "The fool".

To be fair ... he was sending out invites for trouble, which he sort of says himself in the same movie (the fool).

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Only he has been doing that spoof for at least a decade before the vid that got him famous and other Christians have never used the banana skit as a serious argument during all that time, meaning... they got the humour!! You could see the glee in their atheist eyes (Dawkins and the mocking-mob) "Oh what delight" they must have thought. You can see the Christians in stitches when he was demonstrating the banana theory in the film "fool".

To be fair ... he was sending out invites for trouble, which he sort of says himself in the same movie "fool".

He likes to push buttons, not very constructive, but must give him great emotional satisfaction.

And I've watched religious folk go to stitches when their hero says something clever, you know, gets in a good one-liner. The gospel protagonist is a lot like Ray, don't you think? Jesus is chock full of emotional one-liners and mocking parody just like Ray.

 

[skepticalbip]

I still question who he is really mocking. Overtly, he seems to be mocking the idea of evolution but then it clearly is a mocking imitation of creationist's arguments.

Personally I think it is just self promotion. He has created a clever comedy skit that seems to have supported him for for a few decades now. Is he hoping to get noticed by Hollywood to become New Zealand's version of Paul Hogan?

 

[Half-Life]

Comfort mocks atheism and atheists mock Christianity.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Comfort mocks atheism and atheists mock Christianity.

Wnd Halfie mocks the concept of contributing to a conversation.

Ever find that Jesus quote, bub?
Or the 'study' you referred to?
Or cite ANY of your other BS.

 

[Half-Life]

Comfort mocks atheism and atheists mock Christianity.

Wnd Halfie mocks the concept of contributing to a conversation.

Ever find that Jesus quote, bub?
Or the 'study' you referred to?
Or cite ANY of your other BS.

You are right that Jesus didn't use the word "sin" to refer to homosexuality.

However, my opinion is that since Jesus didn't say homosexuality is OK, then Jesus believes it's not OK.

Your opinion was that since Jesus never said homosexuality is not OK, that means Jesus believes it's OK.

 

[skepticalbip]

... snip ...

However, my opinion is that since Jesus didn't say homosexuality is OK, then Jesus believes it's not OK.

... snip ...
.

There are a hell of a lot of things you do every day that Jesus didn't say is OK. By your reasoning, since he didn't say it is OK then he believes it is not OK. You should cease doing anything that Jesus didn't explicitly approve.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Comfort mocks atheism and atheists mock Christianity.

Wnd Halfie mocks the concept of contributing to a conversation.

Ever find that Jesus quote, bub?
Or the 'study' you referred to?
Or cite ANY of your other BS.

You are right that Jesus didn't use the word "sin" to refer to homosexuality.

Which means you were wrong to say Christains are not bigoted against gays, based on a Jesus quote that doesn't exist.

However, my opinion is that since Jesus didn't say homosexuality is OK, then Jesus believes it's not OK.

Well, that's putting words in Jesus' mouth. Adding to the bible IS a sin, and it says that quite clearly.
So, now you're a bigot AND actively sinning.

Your opinion was that since Jesus never said homosexuality is not OK, that means Jesus believes it's OK.

no, that is not my opinion.
I just challenged your claim that you could prove your invisible skybeast holds your opinion.
And you cannot.

 

[Half-Life]

... snip ...

However, my opinion is that since Jesus didn't say homosexuality is OK, then Jesus believes it's not OK.

... snip ...
.

There are a hell of a lot of things you do every day that Jesus didn't say is OK. By your reasoning, since he didn't say it is OK then he believes it is not OK. You should cease doing anything that Jesus didn't explicitly approve.

Is this that stupid argument that goes, "The Bible never mentions Jesus going to the bathroom. I guess that means he wasn't a human being."

 

[skepticalbip]

Comfort mocks atheism and atheists mock Christianity.

You apparently haven't watched Comfort's description of how the banana was 'created'. It is a damned funny parody of creationist's arguments.

Or do you really believe that god designed the banana with ridges to fit the creases in human's hands, installed a pop tab for easy peeling, made the diameter to fit the human mouth, designed an arc to be easier to get to the mouth, etc.?