Ray Comfort’s new film “The Atheist Delusion”

Ray Comfort’s last movie, “Evolution vs God” (you can see the whole 38-minute movie here), was execrable: Comfort ran around asking people whether they ever saw evolution in “real time,” and if they didn’t he said, “Aha, evolution doesn’t work!”. The trick, of course, that these people, who weren’t scientists, had to give some “observable” evidence, and stuff like fossils or the evolution of insecticide resistance were ruled out tout court. He wanted observations of changes “between kinds”, with “kinds” not defined, as it never is. (See my critique here.)

Now the old goddy has a new film, “The Atheist Delusion”, that opens on Friday. Here’s the trailer:

Over at The Friendly Atheist, Hemant conducted an email interview with Comfort about the movie, which isn’t that enlightening because Comfort refuses to say what that “irrefutable evidence” is that makes atheists squirm and question their nonbelief. The only time they even discuss it is this:

FA: Conservative columnist Matt Barber wrote of this film that, “you managed, in about an hour, to make the case, beyond any reasonable doubt, for the Creator God.” How is it possible that you did that when so many Christian apologists before you have failed?

RC: I wouldn’t say that they failed. They perhaps just didn’t frame it using the Socratic Method. But the question I ask in the movie isn’t a magic bullet. I hope this doesn’t sound offensive, but it only works with those who are both humble and open to reason. I’m sure the movie will be thoroughly trashed by most in the atheist community, but I believe those who want to know the truth will hit it head-on.

I’m curious what this magic bullet really is, but I ain’t gonna pay good money to see the movie. Comfort does note that the movie will be free on YouTube at the end of September. I suspect we’ll all just wait for it. However, one commenter at Hemant’s site says this:

. . . as seen in this meme Ray claims he has one “scientific” question that will destroy atheism. That question is about the existence of DNA. Just marketing hype for his Christian followers. They are the true target of his videos and books. He makes his money from them.


One note: Comfort admits that he was “very embarrassed” by the infamous banana video in which Comfort touts the (domesticated) banana as evidence for God’s handiwork. (He called the banana “the atheist’s nightmare!)

h/t: Barry


  1. somer
    Posted July 25, 2016 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

    bit of a banana slip

  2. Posted July 25, 2016 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    I’m guessing that he will glom onto Perry Marshall’s (of Evolution 2.0 fame) challenge that DNA is a real code or language as defined by blah, blah, blah. Have you ever seen a code NOT created by a creator? (DNA is out a priori because it’s the subject in question). If not then DNA must have been created by a creator. Natch God.

    • Torbjörn Larsson
      Posted July 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

      Either one accepts the error of confusing the genetic triplet code with the RNA strings expressing genes, and say yeah:

      – Programmers see it when they study evolutionary programming.

      No Nobel Prize has been awarded for that “discovery”. But it has converted even fundamentalists to be vocal or “new” atheists.

      – Biologists see it when they study genomes.

      Thanks to the Nobel Prize awarded to Crick and Watson (and Wilkins), and its connection to population genetics.

      Or one correct the error, and say yeah:

      – Biochemists see it when they study the protein making machinery.

      There was a Nobel Prize awarded for the discovery of the RNA at the core of the machinery, meaning the triplet code evolved from an RNA World.

      So just nature.

      • somer
        Posted July 25, 2016 at 10:59 pm | Permalink

        But they don’t read into that level of complexity and they present this as waffle because they know everything by just saying the magic words and having *faith*. Only the dishonest scientists have great knowledge that most of the godly can’t understand/dont want to read/see context as weakness and sophistry. Knowledge is duplicity, knowledge is weakness other than the unidimensional *Truth*.

        Its just – *God* did it and it always works because you present just *Some* of the facts, ignoring the complex context or the fact that we now have a good picture of how life arose initially then evolved – cut all that reams of complexity and just say **God** did it!

  3. Posted July 25, 2016 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    Knowing Ray Comfort I’m sure his “irrefutable evidence” is either nothing new, or completely ridiculous.

    • gravelinspector-Aidan
      Posted July 25, 2016 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

      Knowing Ray Comfort

      My commiserations. Wire brush and Dettol? Hákarl with a side order of witchetty grub and roast tarantula?

    • Posted July 25, 2016 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

      Based on the little I know about this Comfort guy, I’d guess the conjunction is probably “and” rather than “or”!

  4. Alexander
    Posted July 25, 2016 at 1:39 pm | Permalink


  5. Scote
    Posted July 25, 2016 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    Ray Comfort’s Atheist Nightmare 2: Revenge of the Banana.

    “Comfort ran around asking people whether they ever saw evolution in “real time,” and if they didn’t he said, “Aha, evolution doesn’t work!”. ”

    Oddly, I was not present at the Birth of Ray Comfort and did not directly observe it, therefore he must have been created ex nihilo as an adult…:-/

    • gravelinspector-Aidan
      Posted July 25, 2016 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

      Oddly, I was not present at the Birth of Ray Comfort and did not directly observe it,

      Were you – or any other credible witness – present at the bonding of the sperm and egg, about 9 months before the birth of Comfort? Because without witnesses, you’ve really got to doubt if is who he purports to be rather than a Spawn of Satan.
      We is living in the End Times, izzn’t we?

      • Scote
        Posted July 25, 2016 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

        I have never witnessed fertilization with my own eyes. Therefore Divine Stork Theory is just as legitimate as Godless Sexual Reproduction Theory.


    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted July 25, 2016 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

      The Discomforting Banana a story of a man, a bad idea and a deceptive piece of fruit. Coming to an IMAX near you.

      • Posted July 25, 2016 at 10:20 pm | Permalink


      • Posted July 26, 2016 at 10:12 am | Permalink

        Do they do schlock horror at IMAX these days? How the mighty have fallen….

        I’m also trying to figure this one out: “A man, a plan, a banana: Jesus Christ!” And it’s every bit as palindromically correct as logically….



  6. gravelinspector-Aidan
    Posted July 25, 2016 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

    I’m curious what this magic bullet really is, but I ain’t gonna pay good money to see the movie.

    Not knowing who runs the “Friendly Atheist website (not even sure that I’ve ever been there – it doesn’ sound the sort of place I’d feel the need to go to, not needing affirmation of my atheism), but since this film sort-of implies that it’s tries to be a documentary rather than a whodunnit or something which depends on spoilers, why doesn’t the “Friendly Atheist” reveal what the actual question is. Or were they banned by an NDA. Which equally would prompt the question of why did they accept an NDA from a notorious shill and theist?

  7. Posted July 25, 2016 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

    Comfort’s “magic bullet” is, unquestionably, something incomprehensible, ergo Jesus.

    But two can play that game.

    No Christian has a comprehensible excuse for why Jesus doesn’t ever call 9-1-1 in cases where even a young child would have the compassion and competence to do so — thus clearly demonstrating Jesus’s complete lack of moral values and / or utter incompetence.

    The difference, of course, is that people actually do understand DNA pretty well and we know that abiogenesis is not merely consistent with physics as we know it but a reasonably-anticipated outcome of the high-quality energy input from our Sun. But the “evidence” for Jesus comes from a fourth-rate faery tale anthology that opens with a story about an enchanted garden with talking animals and an angry wizard.



    • Posted July 25, 2016 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

      And we can make it a more simple question – has any Christian actually witnessed God or Jesus in real time and has a video recording to prove it?

      • Posted July 25, 2016 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

        Ah, but they have — and they have the weeping statues, burnt toast, and pareidolic dog butts to prove it….



        • Posted July 25, 2016 at 5:48 pm | Permalink

          But just creationists expect us to provide a video of chimpanzees slowly growing wings as a proof that evolution occurs (since no other evidence appears to be sufficient), we should be able to ask for more than burned statues of weeping dog butts.

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted July 25, 2016 at 9:58 pm | Permalink

          And the feels. Don’t forget the feels.

      • Torbjörn Larsson
        Posted July 25, 2016 at 5:40 pm | Permalink

        Or, here, have you ever seen a religion NOT created by a human?

      • reasonshark
        Posted July 26, 2016 at 6:57 am | Permalink

        has any Christian actually witnessed God or Jesus in real time and has a video recording to prove it?

        Cue the philosophical handwaving about omnipresence, Ground of Being, consciousness, human souls, take your pick.

        Or to put it more simply: I’m rubber, you’re glue…

        I wouldn’t mind the retreat to philosophy so much if it wasn’t desperate sophistry. Forget patriotism: philosophy is all too often the last refuge of the scoundrel.

  8. jeffery
    Posted July 25, 2016 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

    He’s going to be a lot MORE embarrassed when his “scientific question” is answered by a High Schooler…

    Even though I don’t believe in a “Heaven”, I heard this one the other day and thought it was cute:

    A loving, compassionate and very good-hearted man named Jim, who wasn’t a Christian, dies and immediately finds himself in Heaven. A guide comes forward to show him around.
    Heaven is even more glorious than Jim had been told. Breathtaking vistas, beautiful music, stunning landscapes and colors, and the most loving people he’s ever encountered, all around him.
    After a while he notices something strange: off to one side is a huge wall, so tall that it would be impossible to scale from either side. This seems very odd in Heaven, so Jim asks his guide what’s behind that wall.
    “Oh,” the guide replies, “that’s where all the Christians are. You see, they believe they’re the only ones here, and it wouldn’t be heaven for them if they ever found out otherwise.”

    • RPGNo1
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 11:25 am | Permalink

      Good joke, applause! 😄

  9. Posted July 25, 2016 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

    We know it is a magic bullet, because it can shrink over time, and is called “God of the Gaps”.

  10. Posted July 25, 2016 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

    Here’s Comfort’s own words from his email exchange with Hemant:

    Think now of all those dumb and unscientific Bible stories: Noah’s ark, Jonah and the whale, Joshua and the walls of Jericho, Samson and his strength in his hair, Daniel and the lion’s den, Moses and the Red Sea, Jesus born in a cowshed, His riding on a donkey as a king, and the exalting of an executed person on a cross, etc.

    All these are more than nonsensical stories. They are offensively childish. What person with any sort of intellect would even stoop to believe such stupid and childish stories? They are academically insulting. And there is where God turned the line around. Only the humble would stoop to believe those stories, while the proud are sickened by them, and the humble go to the front of the line. The last become first and the first become last.

    You know what would be even more offensively childish, Ray? What somebody of even very low intellect wouldn’t be too stupid and childish to believe?

    That I, Ben Goren, am YHWH thy Jealous Lord and GOD Almighty. And that I command thee to give as a sacrifice signifying thine devotion to me of one [pinky in mouth] miiiiiiiiiiiiilion dollars. Cash, of course.

    So, either your reasons to trust the Bible are sound and I’ll be getting my suitcase of unmarked bills real soon now…or even you’re smart enough to realize just how stupid and childish it really is to believe in the Bible.

    Which is it, Ray? Are you too proud to believe me and are sickened by my hubris and therefore destined to roast in Hell forever, or are you one of the humble ones who’ll be first in line through the pearly gates?



    • rickflick
      Posted July 25, 2016 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

      Comfort’s play at being rational and then playing the humility card makes him, in my estimation, one of the most despicable human beings on Earth (next only to mass murderers). He essentially makes his living from ignorance. The people who follow him must be woefully uneducated and dreadfully afraid of all that stuff going on in the world of which they have not a clue. But rather that spend his considerable energy and decent intellect in promoting the enlightenment of this substrata of humanity, he exerts all his efforts perpetuating their blindness. He’s playing to their weakness for profit and undoubtedly in support of his ego. And what a twisted ego it is. It amounts to sociopathy as far as I can tell.

    • reasonshark
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 7:11 am | Permalink

      Heck, why stop there? Convince him that he’ll carry on living if he stops breathing. If idiocy=humility, then that’ll guarantee even the humblest believer will need a telescope to see that far down.

      Incidentally, why would believing in ridiculous things equate to being humble? Even as rhetorical gambits go, it somehow combines the minimum of sense with the maximum of smugness.

    • jeffery
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 8:19 am | Permalink

      The mental contortions and gymnastics required to attempt to justify and validate this incredibly flawed belief system never fail to amaze me….

  11. Jonathan Smith
    Posted July 25, 2016 at 2:42 pm | Permalink


    • Torbjörn Larsson
      Posted July 25, 2016 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

      I know my ancestor was there. That should be enough evidence for anyone.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted July 25, 2016 at 10:02 pm | Permalink

        Ancestors (plural) since there are so many variations at any given time. There is no evolving into kinda per se.

  12. Posted July 25, 2016 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

    And while I’m at it, here’s another thought since I’ve read a couple of pre-pub reviews: if this material is so powerful that even ‘hardened atheists’ will be forced to turn to faith then why in the heck not release it today? I mean this minute. What kind of a xtian SOB would hold on to these secrets knowing that millions will die without a savior between now and the film’s release??

    • Posted July 25, 2016 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

      What kind of a xtian SOB would hold on to these secrets knowing that millions will die without a savior between now and the film’s release??

      What kind of a divine SOB is Jesus that he didn’t say that same “secret” in his Sermon on the Mount?

      That’s an inescapable problem for the likes of Comfort. There can’t be any stunning new revelations, else why didn’t Jesus reveal them in his previous penultimate appearance?

      I mean, talk about a tough act to follow…how is any Christian supposed to be taken seriously when he tries to upstage Jesus Hisself?



      • Dave
        Posted July 25, 2016 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

        “Jesus Hisself”

        Ah,is that what the “H.” stands for? Always wondered.

        • Hempenstein
          Posted July 25, 2016 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

          H is for Haploid.

      • Posted July 25, 2016 at 10:34 pm | Permalink


  13. Ken Kukec
    Posted July 25, 2016 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    … stuff like fossils or the evolution of insecticide resistance were ruled out tout court.

    In which case, Comfort’s respondents should have rejoined: “L’affaire Lenski, tant pis.”

  14. keith cook + / -
    Posted July 25, 2016 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

    I think Comfort has been smoking his banana..
    the top ten cm’s down in his head have stopped working.

  15. kieran
    Posted July 25, 2016 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

    I’m going out on a limb and saying he’s been playing around presuppositional apologetics and will then either re-dub his question in after asking something completely different or ignore any decent answer he receives.
    Or he’s just rehashing his good person bit.

  16. jimroberts
    Posted July 25, 2016 at 3:55 pm | Permalink


  17. Posted July 25, 2016 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

    I bet a 1000000 quatloos that it’s the usual bullsh!t about DNA.

    As for Comfort, funny how he hasn’t yet given that $25,000 worth of subway gift cards earmarked for the Reason Rally, to a charitable organization. I’ve written them and they claim that they are still in the planning process. Now, how hard is it to give $25K of cards that were already taken care of in the books to a food pantry? It seems that some atheists are more interested in patting ol’ Ray on the head and not interested at all in following up this story.

  18. Kevin
    Posted July 25, 2016 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

    What a diseased effort to propose persuasion, not even provide reasonable persuasion.

    Ray, consider the extraordinary lengths that gravity goes to persuade people of its existence. Actually it never has, it just works. If you believe it does not work. It does not matter, it still works. You have no choice.

    And so it is with any persuasion: unnecessary. A thing works or it does no;, there is no bother to believe in it.

  19. Posted July 25, 2016 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

    “… but it only works with those who are both humble and open to reason.”

    I think he means gullible.

  20. Scote
    Posted July 25, 2016 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

    “Atheism destroyed with just one scientific question”

    “If we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys!?!”

    Take that atheists! Mic drop

    Of course, close-minded atheists will refuse to admit the devistating effectiveness of this scientific question that proves beyond all doubt that Jesus is our Lord and Savior.


    I can’t say as I expect to be impressed by Comfort’s latest Sunday school”gotcha”.

    • Robert Kivett
      Posted July 25, 2016 at 10:10 pm | Permalink

      if Americans came from British, why are there still British ??

  21. Robert Kivett
    Posted July 25, 2016 at 10:09 pm | Permalink

    as an atheist, i find this hilarious, how can atheists be delusional,when the only thing that makes an atheist, is the disbelief in the existence of god, you want to prove to us what you believe in, you must provide actual empirical evidence, that can be peer reviewed and proven. Ray Comfort is delusional.

    • Alexander
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 4:47 am | Permalink

      Perhaps Comfort believes *he* is God, just like someone in the Middle East possibly did so 2000 years ago.

  22. Posted July 25, 2016 at 10:31 pm | Permalink

    I continue to ask myself if there is a real difference between

    a)belief in the non-existence of a supreme being / creator of the universe, and

    B)simple non-belief, equivalent to acceptance of the null hypothesis, leading to indifference.

    Or is the difference between a and b merely semantic?

    • reasonshark
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 7:42 am | Permalink

      As far as I’m aware, the main difference logically between the two statements is that the second one includes people who haven’t considered it enough to conclude that they disbelieve, or who might consider the matter too negligible to weigh in on, or who are flat-out ignorant of the issue to begin with. The first one basically says: “I know about that belief, and I say it’s wrong”. The second one says: “Well, I can’t put myself in the category of people who believe it, but you might find me in any other category”.

      Its basically the difference between “Y, which is a specific subcategory of Not X” and “Any category in Not X”. But I must stress this is a relatively pedantic logical interpretation.

      Colloquially, though, the first one usually suggests more personal confidence than the second one, and depending on the listener it could suggest certainty (100% skepticism) rather than relative confidence (say, 99% skepticism). And some people treat the two as being rephrasings of skepticism regardless of the logical distinction.

      • Posted July 26, 2016 at 10:09 am | Permalink

        There’s another component to it.

        It’s not epistemologically reasonable to absolutely conclude the nonexistence of a logically consistent entity — Bertrand Russell’s famous teapot, for example.

        However, it is reasonable to absolutely conclude the nonexistence of a logically inconsistent entity…such as a married bachelor or an all-powerful anything.

        It is also reasonable to have practical (if not absolute) certainty about the nonexistence of even the most mundane entity if you’ve thoroughly searched everywhere it could be. There are hippos, yes, but there aren’t any angry ones in the room with you about to eat you — and of that you can be as certain as makes no difference. Similarly, there may or may not be godlike entities elsewhere in existence, but we know with overwhelming certainty that there are no powerful agents with humanity’s best interests in the neighborhood. Even small children with cellphones do more good when they call 9-1-1 than all the gods of all the pantheons of all the religions of all the cultures ever have.

        Note that these very same limits to knowledge would apply to the gods, as well, no matter how smart they’re supposed to be. Even YHWH with all his presupposed omni-everything couldn’t rule out the possibility that he himself was but a subroutine of the Matrix…so what sense does it make to ascribe to him attributes of ultimate anything?




    • reasonshark
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 7:46 am | Permalink

      Also, a complicating factor is whether it’s interpreted absolutely (either you believe or you don’t, in which case both statements are synonyms), or relatively (in which case, the second statement admits of people who strongly disbelieve, moderately disbelieve, kind of disbelieve, only technically disbelieve, etc.)

  23. Posted July 26, 2016 at 1:31 am | Permalink

    Comfort’s definition of humility: knowing with absolute certainty the mind of an omniscient deity.

  24. Posted July 26, 2016 at 6:30 am | Permalink

    Funny thing is, the blurb may actually be correct in saying that this is “His best and most persuasive film yet”, as the previous ones left an awful lot of room for improvement.

  25. Lurker111
    Posted July 26, 2016 at 7:47 am | Permalink

    When I first saw the Banana Video, some years ago now, I LOL’ed all the way through and posted a comment (on another board) to the effect that this was the greatest send-up of religious nuttery I’d ever seen, and kudos to the maker.

    THEN I discovered that the guy was serious.

    OMG. Er, OMFSM!

  26. reasonshark
    Posted July 26, 2016 at 8:34 am | Permalink

    Well, time to start placing bets. Which particular zombie argument will be revealed?

    Hurricane in a Junkyard?

    DNA Code implies a Decoder?

    Irreducible Complexity?


    Darwin Got It Wrong?

    No One was There, v.2.0?

  27. Mike
    Posted July 27, 2016 at 7:22 am | Permalink

    “Banjaxed by the Banana 2” you saw and marvelled at the first one, now be completely astounded by the second one, by the idiot that is Ray Comfort

%d bloggers like this: