If I Don't Believe in God, I Can't Believe in Anything At All

Ray Comfort has taken logic to a strip club, gotten it drunk, given it some ecstasy and wound up with this:

"At least there's evidence to support the existence of Charles Darwin."--Mudley

I'm a skeptic when it comes to the existence of Charles Darwin. I would be grateful if you could give me some evidence that he did exist. Thank you.

(Watch how atheists avoid answering this--there's good reason for their silence. They don't know how to intelligently respond to it, without digging themselves into a deep hole).



ummm . . . why even bother to reply to that? it's just silly. so Ray replies to himself:



(Watch how atheists avoid answering this--there's good reason for their silence. yeah, it's silly. They don't know how to intelligently respond to it, without digging themselves into a deep hole what hole? the hole of objective evidence? is ray attempting to make some sort of cogito ergo sum investigation?).



what ray is getting at here, in case you're missing it, is that not believing jesus was the son of god is like not believing any specific person every existing. well, no, actually ray seems to think that atheists don't believe jesus existed at all. not true, but nice strawman. atheists acknowledge, that given the historical evidence, a man named jesus was in judea around 2,000 years ago. we do not acknowledge that he was the son of god, that he performed miracles or that he was resurrected and ascended bodily into heaven after death. this whole argument of ray's is beside the point, but after dealing with a troll who thinks gays should be put to death, i need a breather.



Mudley replied: "How about I take you to his tomb? If you really wanted to make a stink, you could probably convince someone to open it so that you could examine the corpse."Sorry, there’s no "corpse." After around 120 years of decomposition, all you will have is skeletal remains. which is more than we have on jesus, or god, for that matter.



"You could also compare the DNA of the corpse to the DNA of his descendants, and to the DNA of the hair which was taken from his desk, which you had mentioned in a previous post." That would just prove that it’s the same man whose hair was on the desk. okay, this actually is a good point. we don't have any kind of chain of evidence on the hair, which was supposedly collected after Darwin's death, so no, we really don't know whose hair that is. However, we could compare the hair to Darwin's known descendents and work backwards. That would at least prove whether or not the person whose hair is on the desk is related to Darwin.



I want proof before I will believe as you do. Acknowledging that Darwin existed is not belief. Neither is acknowledging that my chair exists. Also, how do you know that those who claim to be his descendents are actually his offspring, without having faith in genealogical records? wait, you mean like the begats? Jesus was supposedly the last in the line of King David. The only evidence of this is a genealogical list. that's it.

"There are also photographs of him, and books and papers published in his name." We have photographs of a man who people maintain was Charles Darwin. Do you have any eye-witnesses who knew him, and can testify that those pictures are authentic? again, more than we have for Jesus or God. Ray needs to learn to be careful with logic that is pointy on both ends. How do you know who wrote the books and papers? yeah, I know, who were matthew, mark, luke and john. we have no eyewitnesses. and don't even get me started on the torah. A name on a book proves nothing. wow. did ray just prove my atheism for me?"

He is also mentioned in records such as the ship roster of the HMS Beagle."Who wrote the records? How can you have faith in a man you don’t know, who wrote records in a roster 177 years ago? wasn't the bible most recently added to about 2000 years ago? i'm confused. is information from 2000 years ago more reliable than information from 177 year ago? And how can you be sure that they haven’t been altered down through the years? yeah, exactly, ray! It’s healthy to be a skeptic who refuses to have a blind faith in the documents of men, because that’s all you have. oh, i think i know where this is going. documents of men from 177 years ago, bad. documents of god from thousands of years ago, irrefutable. that isn't logic, ray.

Unlike you taking me to the tomb of Charles Darwin, I can’t take you to the tomb of Jesus because He didn’t have one. yeah, he did. mary found him there. or, didn't find him there, but certainly expected to. But 2,000 years after His death and resurrection, I can introduce you to Him. no, you can't. if you could, i'd convert, but you can't. There’s my empirical proof. what an interesting use of "empirical proof". empirical proof is dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. Empirical data is data that is produced by experiment or observation. what you have, ray, is a complete lack of empirical proof. If you fulfill the conditions for the introduction (humility, repentance, and trust), you will stand with your mouth open in unbelief at how He will transform you overnight. and that's called faith. See John 14:21 for further details.

John 14:21- Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him

that's not empirical proof, ray. although i now have an undoubtedly blasphemous image of jesus as a flasher. thanks.