The Atheist Delusion (2016)

atheistdelusionOne of the many aspects that I love about Ray Comfort’s mercifully short documentary about challenging the views of atheists is that Comfort just eventually gives up. Mid-way through his hour long masturbatory self-promotion fest that doubles as an ego shining for Comfort, he just outright gives up trying to convince his interview subjects and spends about five minutes badgering them in to submission. He relentlessly bugs them in to admitting begrudgingly that they believe in a God, and that they are simply in denial. Ray Comfort is beyond the capacity of accepting that atheists exist, and spends at least a good stretch of the final half of the film insisting: “Come on, you know God exists. Admit it. Admit it. You know it in your heart. You just like to sin, that’s it. Admit it. Do it. Do it!”

At one point he even goads someone with the declaration “You love your porn,” as a reason for their unwillingness to admit to a God’s existence. Hey I love my porn, but if you’re going to give me a compelling argument for another viewpoint that doesn’t rely on the bible, or ancient theological debate traps and pitfalls, I’ll be willing to listen. Then when he can’t guilt his subjects in to submission he turns his God in to a boogeyman insisting God saw them when they were having erotic thoughts, and thinking sinful things. And you better believe or he’s gonna get you!  Ray Comfort doesn’t offer any kind of new or outstanding argument. “The Atheist Delusion” is more “How to argue like a stereotypical Evangelical Christian.” Ray Comfort’s “The Atheist Delusion” isn’t so much a documentary as it is a glorified segment of the Jay Leno skit “Jaywalking.”

Rather than research various scientists and discussing ideas and issues with atheists and skeptics, he merely walks in to various environments and tries his best to badger various people that claim they are indeed atheist. And of course he confronts people that are either unprepared for his interview, or simply don’t believe and aren’t experts in the science of evolution and biology. So with crafty editing, Ray Comfort helps his subjects fall in to the clichés of what an atheist is. They’re elderly and senile, young and “going through a phase,” or someone who maybe had such a tough life they denounced their obvious belief in a deity out of childish spite. Those kinds of fallacies and leaps to conclusions are just lazy if classic fallbacks for someone like Comfort who simply can’t think outside the box and is unwilling to consider new ways to challenge the atheist viewpoint.

Along with the aforementioned there’s also the watchmaker argument, the chicken or the egg argument, and yes, even the “God is in the Gaps” argument. But hey, at least we get some insight from Tim Allen. Th-that’s rock solid proof of a God right there.

24 thoughts on “The Atheist Delusion (2016)

  1. This review is like listening to a grave digger tell you about space flight. True Christianity is something that only a deep, personal experience can show the proof you seek. If you want to see God and seek him, you will. But most people just don’t want to admit they are and will be accountable for their own sin.

    • “True Christianity is something that only a deep, personal experience can show the proof you seek.”

      This is called the No True Scotsman fallacy. Thank you, come again.

      • Lol yep that’s a theory, but it’s not mine. Also a theory is not fact. You people have problems with that. Oh you have your rules about fallacy this and that but it’s not going to change the fact that God has called those who believe in Him to share his truth and good news. Even if you deny it. I pray you see one day friend. And tell you this only that you will believe. I don’t get a trophy for what God has already done…, Hey if I’m right in my belief of Jesus as my savior then you lose more than just an argument. God bless

        • If a “deep personal experience” is what we all need to believe in your god, then why is Comfort, or you even trying to convince anyone? We are all just waiting for the grace of your God to intervene in our lives anyway, so let him intervene. And butt out. And you’ve only conveyed HALF of what the bible says about God calling those who HE chose to believe. You forgot that the other half of unbeliever, God sends FALSE visions to. God makes believer, and unbelievers. None of it is your choice or our fault. God did it. So go on and stop judging us for what your God admitted 2000 years ago. Well actually, what Paul says he received in his brain after a fevered vision 2000 years ago. In fact, not ONE of the Gospel authors ever met Jesus in the flesh. Not one.

        • In the end there, you used pascal’s wager in an argument.

          That’s yet another cliche creationists and religious use as a means of arguing against atheists and people that don’t believe. Please use something more original, I beg you.

        • Correct, a theory is not a fact. A theory (at least scientific ones) are the result of tested hypotheses based on measured facts. As new facts are discovered or better means of measuring are developed, theories are updated. If competing evidence provides a more effective alternative, then the theory is replaced. You seem to confuse the concept of theory with the concept of baseless opinion (like religion ).

          • Why do people insist that to prove the existence of God must be based in tested hypothesis based on measured theories” and then ask us to believe in an evolutionary “theory” that can neither be measured nor tested. What evidence can be produced to prove the universe came from nothing and evolved out of random chance plus matter. The entire universe is held together and fine-tuned by laws of mathematics, physics, gravity, formulas, etc;;. And why did life evolved on other planets like Mars? Is there only one environment in which life must exist? Is there some rules and if so who made the rules? Even music and colors have order and harmony in their multitude of manifestations and that there is an internal instinct/desire to create and to imagine. Then you have all the diversity of animals and plants and landscapes. All the different shapes and colors and something inside us says that a sunset is beautiful and a mountain is majestic. Next, there is something within us that says we ought to be good and do good things. We see someone in need and we have that moment we when say to our self, “we ought to help” and then domes the moment when we decide to help or not to help. If survival of the fittest is the evolutionary rule then why must there be laws and governments to prevent those who would do evil for personal gain? How can science test the motives of the human heart for either good or evil? Do good and evil actually exist AND who gets to decide what is good and what is evil? Why do so many people cry out for justice? Why do we have so many movies where evil reeks havoc to the point where we feel hopeless until a supernatural hero show up and we cry, “We are saved!” Then lastly somewhere somehow humans have a concept of truth; that it exist and that by definition is absolute. Even if you say there is no absolute truth and just truth “claims” then you have made a statement of absolute truth. So many people over time have searched for truth, meaning and purpose for their existence. Why? If we are all just a product of random. chance and matter why do we have such a desire? How did love come into existence or hope or the idea of a soul? Can you produce evidence/facts e that would answer my questions? I think it would be fair to say that we both exercise an amount of faith in what we believe.

        • The rules of logic provide an objective means for evaluating an argument. The concept of a fallacy is simply the failure to support one’s conclusion based on the premises presented, thus failing to effectively communicate the value of your idea. Both your use of the “no true Scotsman fallacy” and the flawed “Pascal’s wager” result in your wasting text in saying nothing of meaning. Look them up and learn why they are ineffective, at minimum so you can provide better witness.

        • Hey if I’m right in my belief of Jesus as my savior then you lose more than just an argument.

          Ah, Pascal’s Wager.
          Any chance we could get an apologetic argument not already 400 years out-of-date?
          Just as a change, I mean?

        • Ah, Jeremy, but what if you’ve got the wrong god and the wrong eternal torment? Do you really want to spend eternity reading old magazines in Niflheim because the Æsir and Vanir didn’t think you were Valhalla material and the fire giants didn’t want you either? :-D

    • I have the same problem with true psychics – in that there’s no difference between a true one and a fake one…

    • “only a deep, personal experience can show the proof you seek” There is a fundamental flaw in your assumptions; atheists do not seek proof that your god exists. Do you seek proof that the Hindu gods exist? As you might for a Hindu, the atheist rightly demands that YOU provide proof to support your fantastic claims. Unfortunately your case is not helped by the fact that there is absolutely no difference between your deep personal experience and a delusion and if it walks like a duck…

    • Why does God only care about the Israelites in the Old Testament and completely ignore the other 99% of people?

  2. Comfort uses creator theory, so who is gods creator?
    Creator theory which are used in this “Documentary” is like: If something/someone has existence, than it must have a creator. So who is gods creator? Who is gods creators creator? Who is gods creators creators creator?
    If you answer it’s supernatural or god is creator of all, than that’s not valid, because with this theory, if you have existence (To religious people god is existence), than who has created that existence.
    And no with this you cannot see this theory doesn’t touch god, because you cannot touch him or anything like that.

    Anything you will try to answer to collapse this creator theory, than you are collapsing Comfort’s creator theory too. Because they are the same.

  3. This movie proves nothing. One cannot prove the existence of God by using the bible. This is more a sermon to make one feel guilty about not believing in God. I believe, BTW. Just not the “God” in the bible. My god is all loving and will accept everyone.

  4. Scientific facts. That’s a good one. When I was 12 the scientists just KNEW Mt. St. Helen, and other volcanoes were “extinct.” Then BOOM. Blew that theory out of the water.
    Science is constantly being written, re-written, and proven to be missing a key element.
    Science and the Judeo-Christian Bible work well together. In it you can find out that you should burn anything with red mold (written 2500+ years ago)- which we now know to be a dangerous bacteria that can kill you.
    There is also information about everything being made of “unseen things.” Also, “all nations are made from one blood.” Additionally “God sits above the circle of the earth.”

    How does the Bible begin? With the epitome of scientific experimental process. Time “In the beginning”; force “God”; action “Created”; space “the heavens”; matter “and the earth.”
    Everything one needs for the beginning of an ordered creation which we call life.

    If you seek God you will find God. If you reject God you may be rejecting the greatest gift which has ever been offered to you.

    No need to be angry, stirred up, or offended by my post. Just offering my small take on what life looks like from where I stand and what I have witnessed. May you each have a journey which leads you to truth, and let’s please learn to be kind to one another.

Comments are closed.