The Atheist Delusion (Video 2016) Poster

(2016 Video)

User Reviews

Review this title
107 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
Intellectually dishonest and fails to achieve its bold claim.
sonofbelushi24 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Ray and his contemporaries have a problem and it's not that they don't like atheists, it's that they simply cannot accept what Atheism is. Atheism is, quite simply, the rejection of the claim that a God or Gods exist, nothing more than that. Ray, however, thinks that Atheism is also a "belief" in evolution, that it has its own belief system, its own dogma, its own values and morality (or lack of, in his opinion) and therefore, as he intentionally presents Atheism as something it's not and never has been, the idea that he can "disprove" it with one question is both absurd and deliberately misleading. How exactly does one disprove the rejection of a claim? One cannot. If, however, one presents the view Ray's trying to disprove, dishonestly, endowing it with characteristics and values it does not have, one can set about trying to discredit and may apparently (subjectively) succeed but the conclusion as a result of this process is only going to be dishonest, and that's exactly what this film is.

The "question" that supposedly disproves Atheism is an oft-used and tired one, that being "if a book had a designer then so must the Earth, right?" and it's deeply flawed because we can all witness the design process that goes into making a book if we wish to but the same cannot be said for our planet. Unfortunately, for Ray, we have observed how other planets are formed and there is no evidence to suggest that they were designed by a supernatural being.

Eventually the film falls back into the fairly standard "How can we believe evolutionists who say there was a bang and the universe came into being, out of nothing?" argument (which is also inaccurate) when that's exactly what he expects us to accept the Christian God did. There's nothing new here, there's no evidence, no testable or peer-reviewed evidence, just a rehash of old arguments from ignorance, flawed from the outset by Ray's intentional misrepresentation of Atheism. Whether you're religious or not, this is an offensively stupid film that never actually comes close to achieving its intended purpose.

There's not really much point offering a critique on the style or editing of the film as it's your standard Ray Comfort fare and that's the problem with the whole idea - there's nothing new here, nothing that hasn't already been said and nothing that would convince a non-believer to think twice which, in a nutshell, defeats the object. If Ray really believes that insulting the intellect of people will make them stand up and shout "I believe!" he's very much mistaken.

It's not a complete waste of time, however; if you've been having doubts about Atheism this film serves as a reminder that there are no good scientific arguments to support the idea of a supernatural creator and if the best argument for it is "books are designed, so the Universe must be too" then you can feel confident that your apparent "delusion" is in fact entirely justifiable scepticism, and there's nothing wrong with that at all.

"The Atheist Delusion" is an exercise in preaching to the converted and so, ultimately, is at best a failure and at worst, intellectually dishonest and factually inaccurate drivel. Sorry Ray, try harder.
98 out of 121 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The usual Ray Comfort nonsense and ignorance.
michaeljb24 October 2016
People already familiar with Comfort's previous efforts will know the drill here, and it's more of the same. On a positive point, this film does have better production values than the others.

As has already been noted, this is just the same old Ray. Same old arguments (some presented differently so as to appear new), and the same old intellectual dishonesty and stone cold ignorance that we've come to expect from this particular antipodean reality-dodger, who doesn't understand what modern bananas are, and thinks calling him a "bibliophile" is a serious insult.

If you are an honest Christian, looking for a serious argument against atheism, please do look elsewhere. I'd like to think that most run-of- the-mill Christians are more honest than Ray Comfort could ever hope to be. If you swallowed Ray's promises of this being some kind of death blow to atheism, then I am afraid (but not surprised) that you have been lied to (again). I would be very surprised if any well educated Christians would fall for this kindergarten level nonsense.

To any well read atheists who are considering watching this; please ensure your head is well protected from the inevitable pounding it will receive from banging it against a desk, or perhaps wear boxing gloves to protect your hands and face from too much face-palming.

This film proves only one thing; that Comfort is a very good salesman and film editor.
86 out of 106 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Typical Ray Comfort nonsense!
pmfb24 October 2016
I wonder if he knows the meaning of tautology: repeating the same concept or assertion using different phrasing or terminology, so that the proposition as stated is logically irrefutable, while obscuring the lack of evidence or valid reasoning supporting the stated conclusion.

His assertion that "complexity requires a designer" is a basic fallacious argument. The fact that DNA is the "code book" of life does not imply intent or design. Each step in evolution is an imperceptible change; countless minuscule changes over billions of years add up to the vast range of living things that we know today. Simply saying "God did it" is childish ignorance.

Mr Comfort is an articulate speaker and no doubt impresses the young people be interviews, while putting them under pressure to respond without the time to reflect. I suspect there were others who were not so beguiled. He's in the privileged position of being able to select the clips to include in his film. That's called cherry picking.

He should try reading books other than his favourite collection of myths and legends.

A complete waste of time.
65 out of 83 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Ray Comfort Still Doesn't Understand Evolutionary Theory
camw3024 October 2016
It is so sad that Ray Comfort is taken seriously by so many people. Watch the making of this video one YouTube. Mr. Comfort uses less than honest means to talk to serious scientists and then asks unanswerable questions which shows his lack of understanding of evolutionary theory. He relies on his target audience to be as unschooled regarding science as he is in order to get his point across. That and some artful editing make some of the scientists seem to say the opposite of what they truly said and meant.

Comfort promotes a fundamentalist Christian view of evolution that is absurd. If the science of evolution was what he states it to be, no one would accept the theory. It is hard to believe that Comfort really believes what he says as he has been corrected regarding his misunderstanding of how biology works on more than one occasion. Is Comfort really ignorant of biology or is he wilfully ignorant of the science in order to proselytize his version of a deity? Or is he making this video to fleece a gullible target audience whom he realizes have little to no understanding of biology, telling them what they want to hear rather than teaching them the facts regarding evolutionary theory?

To those who have actually taken the time and expended the effort to obtain a formal education in the biological science this movie is a slap in the face. Comfort is insulting the integrity and intelligence of tens of thousand of biologists worldwide. You would think that someone who denigrates an area of science would actually take the time to learn what that science actually claims.
47 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Was hoping for more
Luis Alvarado24 October 2016
Was actually hoping for more out of this. There was a lot of misleading information, a lot of he said, she said, basically smoke and mirrors and no facts at all.

Was really hoping to see something big where I could get and based information from, not until the end is when I realized I could never use this as base for something (or to even have an interesting argument and discussion about).

If you are trying to learn about the Bible, how Atheist think, how religious people think and simple trying to get some facts and information related to the topics, this movie is recommended. This way you will also see how awful it was and why I felt really bad without any hope for it whatsoever.
38 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
More "God In The Gaps" Hogwash
spanier8831 July 2016
Should be called "God In The Gaps: The Movie." It's that same old, tired argument we've been seeing for over 100 years, "We don't know the answer, so God must have done it." There's no "gotcha" moment, there's no irrefutable logic, and there is certainly not "one scientific question" that "destroys atheism" as the movie's tag line would suggest. It's just more of the same stuff we've seen from Roy Comfort: badly edited interviews, pointless questions, and conclusions based on one single book.

If your goal is either laugh at the stupidity of it all, or to whip yourself up into a logical frenzy, by all means see this movie, otherwise avoid it at all costs.
181 out of 248 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Ray Comfort recycles previous movies with slightly better production values.
conticreative24 October 2016
Ray Comfort is one of those people that at first look you want to like. He has even demonstrated some sense of humor at times, for instance, in the hilarious incident with the Banana where he too the Banana as being the perfect design by God only to have people point out to him that Bananas were essentially a domesticated fruit created my men and science. Some would have ranted and raved, Ray took it pretty well, at least publicly.

Whenever Ray makes a new movie he reminds me of a card dealer. His message is almost always the same and he mainly reshuffles the same deck of cards over and over: atheists are nasty people, if science cannot explain even a very in aspect of even a well-understood theory, then God is at work behind the scenes, he spends more time attacking atheism than he does making a case for his own beliefs.

This movie is no different.

Some time ago, Ray interviewed a number of prominent scientists and a few regular people. He then proceeded to edit those interviews so that he could turn the interviews into a puppet show where he was the puppet master.

That's when any respect I might have had for Ray Comfort disappeared, and since then I cannot trust a single thing he says.

I have studied filmmaking and video editing and I know very well how easy it is to edit an interview just so and have the subject say the exact opposite of what they meant. I don;t know if that trick was used here, I would need the raw footage to be sure, but since that was done by him in another movie, I have to assume he did it here too.

That's simply not acceptable. We can disagree, even vehemently, but when you cheat you lose any respect you might have deserved and Ray Comfort cheated. Did he cheat in this movie? I think so but I cannot know for sure yet. But he cheated in the past and he wasn't the least bit sorry when he was caught red-handed.

Certainly, this is a movie that deserves a negative score, but I have decided to give it 2 stars because the production values are a bit better than the norm.

It is very sad that people like Ray Comfort find it necessary to lie to make their god relevant. No one really cares what Ray Comfort or his cohorts believe. It's a free country, but in their case, the propaganda's final object is to take their beliefs and turn them into school curriculum and secular laws. That we cannot have.
65 out of 85 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Ignorance is alive and well in 2016
Jeff Ryan24 October 2016
It's so sad in the year 2016 to see this kind of garbage and ignorance being passed off as "knowledge".

The only thing this movie "proves" is how the self delusions of religious types are still alive and well and continue to be spread by those who want to profit from the naive and gullible.

Ray Comfort continues to show his lack of understanding of basic science and evolution.

This movie "proves" nothing. Just more of the same twisted logic that seems to play so well to religious types.

Sadly this probably won't be the last of this type of non-sense we hear from Mr.Comfort since profiting from the naive and gullible is a very profitable business model.
41 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
God of the Gap Fallacy
jkdkurnava24 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
The movie claims there is "one scientific answer" however this is not the case. This movie is just one large "God of the Gaps" aka "Appeal to Ignorance" fallacy

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

The movie lacks reason and evidence for its claim and "assumes " a god for a solution with no evidence

According to the premises and logic of the film - there is as just as much reason to believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists as god or a giant Pink Unicorn. if any "Atheist for such cheap illogical rhetoric... they were never really atheists
38 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Ray Comfort attempts to prove atheists are deluded using irreducible complexity and attacking modern science.
carroll-9571024 October 2016
This movie is painful to watch. After viewing it I was left with the question, "Is Ray Comfort a stupid, uneducated man or is this his shtick?" So I checked his bio. A HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE is trying to teach us about science !!!Trying to correct some of the worlds most educated, intelligent men. The experts he lines up and interviews appear to be equally unaware. He attempts to debunk evolution using some of the most ridiculous logic I've heard. The bit where he questions the young adults on the probability of a book writing itself must be aimed at elementary school kids. Rays confusion on DNA is the hallmark of an uneducated person, and is just embarrassing. The fake atheists he questions had me laughing at one point. This movie is just a big collection of fools.
53 out of 69 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Standard Ray Comfort movie. At least this one has nice stock footage.
NoWireHangers29 July 2016
"The Atheist Delusion" is your standard Ray Comfort street interviews. This time his argument is one we've heard before, about creation needing a creator. Because a book couldn't make itself, DNA couldn't make itself, therefore, God, and specifically, the god of the Bible, did it. Atheists, we are told (and this we've also heard before) know that there is a god but deny it because they like fornication and pornography.

"The Atheist Delusion" is a full hour of the same old creationist arguments, street interviews and eventually Comfort's old "Are you a good person?" routine. It offers nothing we haven't seen or heard dozens of times before. On the plus side, it does have lots of beautiful stock footage of animals and nature.
142 out of 197 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This movie is a ridiculous piece of propaganda
Michael Wegener25 October 2016
This movie follows a really simple approach: Confuse people with some "philosophical" questions they don't expect and capitalize on their missing knowledge or interest.

These interviewed people, mostly college students, didn't really put much thought into these issues in the past; they weren't prepared for the questions they were asked. Therefore they didn't know the perfect response and had to surrender to the interviewer at some point. These people are totally useless to prove a point, since we have a prepared interviewer questioning unprepared college students.

The only two people with important and informed opinions in this movie, are Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss.

Lawrence Krauss gave good Answers to the few questions he was asked but then was cut off to (wrongfully) explain why he (Krauss) is wrong. He was only asked the questions from the first 10 minutes of the movie though, and not all of the questions the students were asked.

Richard Dawkins wasn't even interviewed, they just showed some archive footage where he was laughed at by the audience because of a statement. This was nothing but mockery.

It's funny that they asked Krauss - a theoretical physicist and cosmologist - mainly about evolution and Dawkins - an evolutionary biologist - was mocked for his statements about the Big Bang. It's like asking a catholic priest about Scientology.

The movie was basically over after 15 minutes, because after the interview with Krauss, they just continued the interviews with the students for 45 minutes.

--------------

The interviewer was comparing DNA with a book all the time with the argument that the book wouldn't write itself. DNA didn't write itself though, it developed over time. When we randomly generate a book, there will be some existing words in it. When we now proceed to regenerate all contents that don't make sense, we'll end up with a book that makes sense after a (long) while. That's how natural selection works: if your genetic mutations help you to survive, you'll reproduce, passing the good genes to the next generation; if not, you'll not survive. It's as simple as that.

Also it seems strange to the interviewer that something arose from nothing, so something arose from God makes more sense to him. The question where God arose from is not even asked though - I guess it makes total sense that God always existed.

He furthermore was impressed by the world and how the conditions seem to be perfect for life to happen; I would honestly be more impressed if we were alive in conditions that don't allow life to happen. Of course we have those good conditions, otherwise life wouldn't have developed.

--------------

This movie has absolutely no value. All you get from it, is uninformed opinions. The 5 minutes the movie takes to talk to someone who is an expert on that matter, don't really save the remaining 55 minutes.
27 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A wealth of nonsense
philu4824 October 2016
I will not "spoil" the film for any serious viewer by detailing any of the specific content. It is a feeble attempt to disprove the bulk of scientific evidence concerning the evolution of the universe through our expanding understanding of physics, chemistry and biology. In place of increasing one's knowledge of scientific principles, the film promotes faith in the supernatural. To achieve this goal, it entirely and transparently misrepresents the most basic science by removing from context quotes by some of the world's most respected scientists. I'm sure the "faithful" will applaud it's support for their delusional and paranoid beliefs, but it is in essence total nonsense.
36 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Comforts repeating hes old crappy arguments, nothing new
adex902024 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Using the straw man argument comfort is clutching at straws trying to prove hes narrow minded world view, that any person with the slightest intelligence would see through- don't waste you time. Going around an campus sticking a microphone is the face of a random student and asking stupid juvenile leading questions is not scientific procedure, and obviously editing out answers not supporting hes world view is dishonest. Comfort is regurgitating the same old arguments, only with better graphics. The money wasted on the film could have been spent much more wisely. What gets me comfort hides behind his religiosity to avoid paying tax
35 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The "Chicken or the Egg" dilemma disproves evolution!
lewis-2646224 October 2016
For those that don't know what the Dunning-Kruger effect is, it is the cognitive bias where unskilled individuals rate their ability higher than it objectively is because their lack of skill keeps them from making an accurate assessment of those skills. Directly parallel, ignorant people are more likely to think they have a mastery of a subject with which they have absolutely not the faintest clue about. This is Comfort in nutshell; he's so ignorant of biology he isn't capable of recognizing his own ignorance.

Comfort once told us that whales have gills. He once told everyone that Yahweh intelligently designed bananas because they fit the hand so nicely and have a "tab" to open. He once thought that "bibliophile" was a type of deviant because it sounds like pedophile. Needless to say we aren't dealing with the most knowledgeable person here--to put it nicely. Now, in his latest video, he loudly proclaims his incorrigible ignorance as virtue.

His whole shtick is false analogy and question begging.

That's it. That's his whole performance.

So how did Comfort accomplish this feat of spectacular buffoonery?

He erroneously equates natural entities to artifacts. Do manufactured artifacts grow? Are they living? Do they reproduce? No. The analogy of living things to artifacts is both inapt and inept.

Because Comfort assumes that which he seeks to prove he is engaging in begging the question—a type of circular reasoning.

Because a book has an author, you, dear reader, were made by God! Such is Comfort's "reasoning."

Of course, this reasoning works equally well for Poseidon. We can arbitrarily classify the ocean as an artifact. Therefore it requires a maker. Therefore Poseidon. Such is Comfort's "reasoning. "

As for details, Comfort goes on a whole ignorant spiel about "how did an organism see without having yet evolved eyes?" And, "how did the blood circulate without blood vessels?" These are just slight variations of his facepalm inducing question: "how did evolution know to evolve the first man after the first woman evolved?"

Populations evolve incrementally. Evolution builds upon the past. Individuals don't pop out of the air magically. That is the position of creationists. Literally, a reasonably bright third grader can tell you this and, equally, tell that someone like Comfort misunderstands evolution at a basic level.

After that, the video goes into moralizing. Because we feel guilt, therefore there must be a conscience maker i.e. God. Atheists don't believe in God because they don't want to be morally accountable. I suppose Comfort doesn't believe in Allah because he enjoys eating pork. Such is Comfort's "reasoning."

Oh, and did you know that because the Chicken had to come before the Egg, therefore evolution is false? Yes; such is Comfort's "reasoning."

The video is mildly entertaining in an intellectual train wreck type of way and the stock footage of nature is good. Other than that it is the same old pig just with some new lipstick.
35 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
If you want to hear sensible arguments for atheism...
scottgreen-2816425 October 2016
If you want to hear sensible arguments for atheism, you will be disappointed.

This is one of the main problems with believers. You believe people who have no credible knowledge on the subjects they speak to.

Ray Comfort has claimed to have exorcised a demon named Hermit, who had possessed a Kermit the Frog doll.

If you really want to know why many atheists are atheists, ask the atheist. Most will tell you that the read the bible and then proceed to show you your lack of knowledge of what is in the book that you never read.
25 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Manipulative Wordplay And Mind Games - Avoid At All Costs
sendstufftojosh25 October 2016
Ugh, I don't even know what to say.

The filmmaker's stance is simply not logical and doesn't hold up to even the slightest intellectual reasoning or scientific process. Fitting, I guess, since his belief system is basically the opposite of scientific.

Smarmy, shifty wordplay and mind games on behalf of the extremely manipulative interviewer utterly invalidate any answers given by the unwitting interviewees, which is a shame, because so many of them seem to be quite rational, intelligent people.

To any non-theist, skeptic, critical thinker, or otherwise logical person, this movie is an utter joke. I was hoping there might be something to ponder, to contemplate, to question. But no. There was only the usual intelligent design propaganda and flawed reasoning over and over again.

Not worth watching.
20 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The same as all the other ones
mortlach-joris25 October 2016
I think it is fantastic how Comfort is able to keep making the exact same movie over and over and over and over again. Nothing new is presented here, the same tired (and deeply flawed) argument, the same specious logic, the same frankly fraudulent editing. It has all been done before, beat for beat.

With regards to the editing: listen carefully during the street interview, how he shows the answers from the respondents, but his questions are done by voice-over. I would bet real money that the respondent are answering totally different questions than Ray would like us to think.
24 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
False Dichotomy
ninksink-1858325 October 2016
One star is too much of a positive for this documentary. I won't go into all the failing issues in this production. Suffice to say that it's the same arguments flushed through a tautological toilet.

Now for the sake of argument. Let's assume atheism is false (which is impossible as it is a *lack* of belief), but for the Christlings, let us say atheism is false. Let us agree that evolution is a failure.

Guess what Christlings. Even if you could prove that atheism and evolution and all science (including the science that allows you to read this review in your PC/device that is connected to the worldwide internet) is false, that does not bring YOU, the Christling any closer to proving the existence of your unique version of your deity.

It is incumbent upon the one who asserts the positive existence of their deity to provide *what* they believe and *why* they believe it using a *method* that investigates and examines *evidence* so that any person who does or does not share their belief can use the exact same method and evidence to arrive at the same conclusion. Meaning, a person who is a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Wiccan, whatever can use that same exact method and evidence to arrive, without presupposition, to the conclusion that the Christian version of the Hebrew deity is the *only* correct one.

Now let us say that the Christling somehow does this. Fine. But now the Christling has a far bigger problem on their hands. For if they prove this God of theirs is true then that means their bible is true. Guess what Christlings, that means your deity is a MONSTER of unmitigated proportions and unequaled in evil.

1) Your deity lied to Adam that he would die *in the day* of eating the fruit. And that lie is horrid in that your god *knew* before the creation of Lucifer that Adam would fall and that Adam would not die *in the day* but would die eventually after living nearly a thousand years of *SUFFERING* (as dictated by your god in Genesis 3). 2) Your deity, the only entity capable of exacting The Curse for The Fall of Adam and Eve, exacted that curse upon 108 BILLION innocent of The Fall humans all because of the first and only disobedient act of Adam and Eve. 3) Your deity exacted The Curse upon uncountable trillions of other innocent of The Fall lifeforms as well. 4) Your deity by commanding proxy or direct act killed 2.8 Million humans per your bible. This does not include the millions/billions drowned in The Flood. 5) Lucifer/Satan never lied in the bible. Not one single time did that happen. The supposed lies of Satan/Lucifer are *claimed* but never shown in example.

And you Christlings had better hope we don't find life on other planets. Because if we do then with that life we will discover there is *DEATH* and *suffering* on that planet as well. Thus condemning your god even further in that the entire innocent of The Fall Universe received The Curse because two people ate a god*****d (literally) piece of fruit.

Thus, Christlings, your deity is a MONSTER who is NOT WORTHY of worship.

However, Christlings, evolution helps explain the life and suffering and struggle on this planet with sublime beauty and meaning.

P.S. Evolution != Abiogenesis, so please stop equating evolution to the beginnings of life, The Theory of Evolution is about change in life over uncountable generations over billions of years.
24 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
You've seen this movie...
Scott Cook25 October 2016
I've seen this movie before. Every time one of those popular late night talk shows puts a "man-on-the-street" with a microphone and some interesting questions aimed at making average citizens look completely ignorant, That's this movie. Start with an inaccurate, unscientific premise, a few straw men and, sprinkle in a few well-vetted religious studies students and, you've seen this movie. Same tired arguments. Same non-factual "facts". Same intelligent design claptrap repackaged and filmed with more expensive cameras. The only people who could possibly be persuaded by the questions posed in this piece, are those that didn't really have any particular beliefs to begin with or, have been fed the "correct answers" and were told they would be in a movie. Quite a shame and, a missed opportunity as the production value was pretty decent.
19 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
mind games and mental gymnastics, but still no evidence
prizm44 September 2016
I used to be a born-again bible thumper and a fan of Ray Comfort. One of my desires before I left the faith was to find some form of irrefutable proof of God that atheists couldn't deny. Because I was sick of wishy-washy 'evidence'. I'm still looking.

Ray Comfort tends to dazzle with philosophical mind games and arguments that don't honestly represent the opposite side's position. This tends to be the trend of 'evidence' these days from Christians (like Sye Ten Bruggencate's schtick): philosophical mind games, yet ultimately zero genuine evidence of their god.

Here's some of the points brought up in the video:

  • Tornado in a Junkjard: Ray says, "Here's a book with words and illustrations, the book couldn't form itself and come from nothing, so something had to design it. Therefore, look at DNA, earth and living beings, something had to create it."


This is the old 'tornado goes through a junkyard and creates a 747 jet' argument. It's a misrepresentation of evolution. We came from simpler lifeforms, likely going back to a single- celled organism - an organism that had some form of life that could mutate and eventually reproduce. DNA mutated and evolved, and natural selection took place.

A book and a jet are inanimate, so it's a poor analogy. There's no potential for a book to mutate. They are also their finished forms, humans did not start in a completed form. Life began with an extremely simple lifeform. No one knows where that lifeform came from, but that doesn't mean it's the Christian-God-who-sent-Jesus-to-die-for-your-sins-and-all-other-gods- are-false.

  • Chicken or Egg: Ray then goes on to say things like, "what came first in humans, blood or blood vessels?" Or, "What came first, the chicken or the egg?".


From an evolution perspective, we (and the chicken/egg) came from simpler lifeforms that over time became more complex. We didn't get amazing eyes in one birth, the process occurred over millions of years, from a lifeform with 'eyes' that could barely distinguish anything, to what we have today. It's natural selection: the mutation of better eyesight provided better survival, so the animals that survived passed on the gene to their offspring. Oh, and as for the chicken/egg scenario, technically the egg came first, since mutation occurs during reproduction.

  • Perfect earth: Ray says, "The earth is in perfect position with just the right amount of distance from the sun for life" etc. This argument is perfect for evolution: if the conditions of earth weren't as they are, then we would not have evolved to be what we are. We're here *because* of those conditions. Natural selection caused us to evolve to eat meat, fruit, etc, in order to survive. If there were some weird other source of food, then we likely would've evolved to eat that instead. We are the result of our unique conditions. Life finds a way (thanks Dr Malcolm from Jurassic Park).


  • Hell: Ray says "There has to be a hell because as humans we know that evil needs to be punished. Since we're created 'in the image of God', God therefore agrees that evil needs to be punished."


Is that an excuse for eternal torment? Billy tells a few lies, looks at some porn, stole gum when he was 6, yet he deserves eternal torment in flames? Not even human justice is that cruel. And if all evil people need to be punished, what about those murderers who accept Christ on their death bed? They go to heaven and "enter into the joy of the Lord" with no punishment. Our justice system would still punish the person, even though they admitted they were wrong. The reasoning provided by Ray is certainly not proof that there's a hell.

  • Accept Christ: The last portion of the film is trying to convince people that they need to accept Christ, and that he provided a way for them to get to heaven. So we went from the possibility of there being some kind of creator, to the only creator being the God of the one true bible who sent himself to sacrifice himself unto himself, to fix a problem that he created.


That's a bit like seeing a light in the sky, and then assuming it's an alien from the Andromeda galaxy coming in a spacecraft to give you a certain kind of probe at 3:00am.

One of the big claims in the bible is that Jesus is the Messiah - the guy that's meant to usher in world peace and ultimately destroy evil. The concept of the messiah is from Judaism, and Christianity came along and claimed that Jesus is this messiah person. The problem is, if you research who the messiah is and what he needs to do, Jesus didn't meet the criteria. That's why most Jews don't believe in Jesus. They know their scriptures better than christians.

Overall, the movie is only an hour long and is worth a watch if you want to keep up with the arguments that pop christians are making these days. Oh, and Ray Comfort is looking more and more like a Jesus picture these days... I guess he'd take that as a compliment! None of this review is meant to be a personal attack on Ray, my intention is only to bring the arguments into question.
102 out of 157 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Former priest here
flucies25 October 2016
Yup, former priest, studied the Scriptures for 9 years in school and for years afterward. At this point in my life, I'm at a Dawkins "6" when it comes to faith. My issues with the movie are:

1. Evolution is called a theory, but it's a theory like gravity - an inescapable truth. I'm amazed at the feeble tricks that the movie uses to call a fact into question.

2. Citations from the Bible??? Please. I got to a point about 3/4 through the movie when he kept quoting the Bible to prove the Bible. I couldn't take it so I clicked stop.

This may be a shining achievement for those of "unquestioning" faith, but for anyone who does any questioning or thinking at all, it's a terrible waste of one hundred and two minutes.
23 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Baaaah humbug
dadamoore26 October 2016
Why anyone in their right mind would want to waste time watching this tawdry piece of propaganda is beyond me. If the makers are hoping to present some worthwhile evidence to 'non fantasists' for the existence of imaginary beings they need to go back to the (real) drawing board. Have the folk not heard of Russell's Teapot'? My guess is that this has no intention of presenting a cogent well founded argument but is just about keeping the other sheep in the pen. Also, why the use of 'old footage' for the likes of Dawkins and de Grasse? Worried they might answer back if they were actually interviewed maybe? In conclusion I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone.
15 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Not even worth watching ironically
brhaco25 October 2016
A stunning collection of straw men, less-than-half truths, and deliberate lies and distortion- all based on a profound ignorance of science in general, and biology in particular. What this work demonstrates is the utter failure of our education system, since one assumes at least some of those involved at least got through high school. Then again, perhaps not. One thing they demonstrably know nothing about is the science of Evolutionary Biology. If one wishes to criticize a subject, it is important to at least be able to accurately characterize the opposition's position. At this they fail utterly.

But more to the point, their Theology-which one assumes should at least be somewhat cogent-is equally laughable.

At any rate, don't waste your time on this one-it isn't even worth watching for the fun of denigration. Just depressing.
21 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Ray Comfort's found another way of keeping his paycheck.
calladus-177-83611225 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
At first, I couldn't figure out if Ray Comfort was just lying, or if he was just not that intelligent.

Here is a man who has had evolution explained to him in simple terms by world-class scientists, and he still says really stupid things about evolution.

The question was answered for me on May 5th, 2007, When Ray Comfort claimed on national television that he could prove God's existence without the use of the bible in a debate that he and Kirk Cameron participated in with Brian Sapient and Kelly O'Connor of the Rational Response Squad.

Within minutes of starting his talk, Comfort used the bible - not science - to assert without evidence that God exists.

Ray Comfort likes to ask people, "If you tell a lie, what does that make you?"

It makes you a liar, Mr. Comfort.

And why should he not lie? He's making a comfortable living as a religious salesman. If he admits that he was wrong, his income will suffer.

At heart, Comfort is intelligent enough to know exactly what he is doing. He is capitalizing on a lie.

The lie in this film is that since DNA is complex, it has a lot of information. He claims that information can't come from nothing, someone had to create it.

And in making that claim, engineers around the world - engineers like me - are laughing at him because we use software that no one ever wrote in systems like your very own personal cell phone. That's right, under the right conditions we can "evolve" software.

Better yet, we can even evolve hardware! Evolvable Hardware uses re-configurable hardware devices (like FPGA's) that can be evolved to fit their purpose by reacting to their environment. No human created that information either.

Ray Comfort might say that the software in your cell phone can't come from nowhere, right? That SOMEone has to write it!

Well, sure, some of it. But writing software is difficult, and sometimes it is just easier to let it write itself.

No God required.
21 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed