Posted by Hemant Mehta in Ray Comfort thinks he looks like Albert Einstein.
I just threw up a little in my mouth…
Ray adds:
There’s only one thing in which I believe I trump the man. In 1982 I found something in the Scriptures that is infinitely more important and has far greater repercussions than the Theory of Relativity.
Sure you did, Ray. Sure you did…
At least he gets one thing right:
Intellectually, I’m not worthy to wash his socks.
[tags]atheist, atheism, fundamentalist, Christian[/tags]
Can he be sued for this?
Intellectually he isn’t worthy to wipe Albert’s butt.
He isn’t even as important as the shit in Albert’s butt. Wow, Hemant, you don’t have to write any new material on Comfort–he does his own comedy act.
Something tells me history will not remember Ray Comfort.
I’m not worried, or even worked up. In the history of the world, the popular history, and not even the strictly academic or scientific history, the world will ultimately uphold Einstein. In a hundred years his name will still be known, his visage still recognized. Comfort’s? Not likely.
No kings,
Robert
Let the record show Desert Son is a slower, less pithy typist than Ron in Houston.
No kings,
Robert
Honestly, I’m finding myself more aggravated than amused by that man these days.
Seeing as Einstein didn’t wear socks, it just makes Rays quote even more laughable.
Einstein: “When I was young, I found out that the big toe always ends up making a hole in the sock…So I stopped wearing socks.”
Where’s my morphing software? Comfort also bears an uncanny resemblance to Stalin, Mario and Yoda.
This is a guy desperately trying to prevent his deepest terror, that he will slip into oblivion before he actually dies. Seven and a half minutes after he stops talking people begin to forget about him, so he keeps doing anything that attracts attention, no matter how pathetically asinine.
Has anyone listened to his “discovery”? I can’t stomach the thought of listening to the man’s voice, but I’m idly curious as to what it is he thinks he’s “discovered” that’s more important than E=m (c squared.)
BTW, did anyone else notice that he got the formula wrong? He has it as E equals m times c times 2, not E equals m times c squared. I wonder if he even knows what it means.
Who is Ray Comfort?
Dammit, E=mc^2 is not “The Theory of Relativity”…
Ah- so that explains his ’70s porn moustache. I thought he was trying to look like a lame ass Tom Selleck instead of an old man with bad hair.
Well, based on Richard Wade’s analysis, I guess he did succeed in attracting attention. I’d rather just ignore him and let him slip into oblivion before he dies.
Too bad Einstein was cremated. We could have hooked a generator up to his grave and powered an entire city with his spinning.
The animation is kind of mesmerizing. But it would probably be just as enthralling with Big Bird and Snuffleupagus.
Ray Comfort’s unbridled arrogance is an endless source of entertainment. What’s sad and frustrating, though, is that there are real people out there who take him seriously. The man is actually wielding influence over people’s minds (which is probably the source of his arrogance). It just shows what those of us who value education and science are up against. In a world where even a contemptible buffoon like Ray Comfort can convince thousands (if not millions) of people that what he’s saying is true and insightful, science is at an extreme disadvantage.
Greta Christina said,
It isn’t necesairly wrong, b/c if text formatting such as superscript is not available, most will type the exponent as normal text. After all, in the age of mechanical typewriters, superscript was ordinary text shifted upwards.
I bet that this formula is the only thing that most people will associate with Einstein, usually without knowing what does it mean. They do’nt usually know anything other, including time dilatation, length contraction, increase of mass, space-time distorition etc. Heck, they don’t know that actually there are 2 theories – Special and General.
Does anyone have any credible data on the scope of Comfort’s influence? I’ve never heard mention of him outside this blog. Could it be that not nearly as many people take him seriously as he would like us to believe? Anybody who would try to steal fame from Einstein has a galactic-sized ego, so his own estimate of his sway over the masses is probably just as inflated.
I’m pretty well immersed in Christian circles (even in conservative evangelical circles) and yet I’ve never heard of him apart from when atheists mention him. There in only a very, very small subset of the Christian world, mostly on the fundamentalist end of the evangelical spectrum, where people would have any clue who he is. I honestly think you guys pay more attention to him than most Christians do. I’d be careful about overestimating his influence.
I went to Christian schools from 6th grade through high school. My freshman geology teacher had us watch a Ray Comfort video in class in order to “prepare” us for the future, when we would be bombarded with the propaganda of satanic scientists trying to deny God via evolution.
In one animation, I remember it showing the books of the bible in order from Genesis to Revelation, stacked one on top of the other, Genesis at the bottom. Then he showed what would happen if you removed Genesis…. and like a cheesy reenactment of a drunken game of Jenga, all the rest of the books came crashing down dramatically into a pile of rubble.
I would have been murdered if I had attended a school like that. There I’d be, this snarky kid saying, “Oh so if we toss Revelations off the top nothing happens, and then the next one is on the top so that could go with no problem,…”
Ray will always be Ray “banana man” Comfort to me. That is his legacy. The banana you-tube video… possibly superimposed with an image of a wild uncultivated banana that doesn’t look anything like the banana that he falsely claimed that God designed for us. Although his videos do reinforce the naive religious beliefs of the uneducated, they also cause pause for many others with the ability to question absurd logic.
I listened to Ray Comforts “secret” and it was interesting. He basically says that modern evangelicalism is broken in that it preaches a false message that “coming to Christ” will improve your life. He observes that about 80% of people who pledge their life to Christ end-up backsliding. His thesis is that these people are coming to Christ for the wrong reason (so their life will improve). Their life doesn’t end up imporoving, so they loose faith. Ray thinks that these people are being set up for a fall. Ray’s secret is that to keep people from back-sliding, they must be taught to fear God and fear the judgment. It is only through fear of eternal damnation and torturing that people will want to save their skins and keep motivated to be with Christ. That is his message. Get back to old-time hell-fire preaching. He thinks the whole modern version of “feel good” Christianity is a crock. For him, it is all about Hell avoidance. People must be taught to believe in Hell and that they are all sinners.
Either way Christianity remains one of the most self-centered religions created by man. If it’s not about your comfort in this life its about your comfort in the next (no pun intended, although Ray seems to think it is all about Comfort). They seem to require an ulterior motive for their relationship with God, because for some reason touching the divine is never good enough for them.
In that case, Jesus preaches a false message too:
Observes or estimates? Sounds like he means 80% of Christians aren’t the kind of Christians he thinks they should be.
…uh, because the Bible really is nothing but a concise, clear, consistent two thousand pages of warnings of hellfire, I guess.
This is really a guy preying on people’s fears of the unknown. He knows that the average Christian doesn’t spend a day out of the month reading their own scriptures.
I listened to Ray’s discovery and its just another rehash of Pascal’s wager. You should come to Christ to prevent future torture. I just don’t see the comfort there. I am not going to develop some weird sort of Stockholm syndrome and embrace the one who threatens me with torture. Even if you buy the BS about God having no choice because his ‘perfection’ cannot tolerate the presence of my imperfection, then this just makes him a bloody dangerous and pathological bully.
This is one of the most powerful arguments against Christianity, and any religion with a god at its center: “touching the divine” is not good enough. Why do we think God is not there? Because despite the feel-good message, and short-term fuzzy feelings, the experience of God is less compelling than many human experiences of nature or culture. Are we wrong to suggest that the experience of God ought to be the most deep and satisfying?
Without the familiar and comforting words of the Bible, and threats of Hell and damnation, without the whole Bible story, and the story of Jesus, and end-times prophecy, and the anti-science battles, and the abortion controversy, and just plain old fear to keep Christians distracted they would (it is hoped) tire of the emptiness of their experience and go looking for something real.
I don’t know, Mike. I sometimes cruise the fundie blogs (solely to annoy myself), and they do tend to mention him quite a bit – he’s doing a great job, etc.
Curiously, I’ve just picked up Ray Comfort’s book “God Doesn’t Believe in Atheists” for $1 at a charity booksale to benefit scientific research.
If it wasn’t for charity I’d say I was overcharged, though there is some amusement value to the book.
I don’t expect the book to influence my thinking – I try to keep an open mind but not so open that my intelligence dribbles out.
Here’s a sample from the forward by Kent Hovind that rates pretty high on my “arrgh!” meter:
“…in the 140 years since Darwin made the evolutionary theory popular, not one shred of real scientific evidence has been found to show how this complex universe could have come into its present form without an intelligent Designer.”
How on earth do we make the leap from a theory that deals with the development of life on Earth to the origin of the universe? If this is any indication of the sorts of “arguments” I’m going to find in the rest of the book I may want to keep a couple of aspirins handy.
Perhaps someone could point me in the direction of some brilliant theological texts as an antidote. I remember enjoying “The Rule of St. Benedict” because it seemed so sensible (aside from the faith part.)
Einstein? He looks like Bruno Kirby.
Or how about Sonny Bono?