Ray, have you ever told a lie?

Click here to download WOTMWatchdog's blitz promo video, then post it on your YouTube account in response to this one! Help support your friendly neighborhood Watchdogs! Click here for the now-famous Monkey song! Yes, it's ours, and the WOTM crew knows it, despite their continued feigned ignorance!

Yes, the RRS vs. WOTM debate on ABC's NightLine is old news. It happened back in May. I remember joining the fray on ABC's message boards, teaming up with another atheist, a perfect stranger, who called himself Former Follier. Ah, the memories. Little did I know that one day, WOTM Watchdog would bring us together once again to battle the juggernaut directly.

But now we hear a side of the story that has never been told. Our good friend Brian Sapient of the Rational Response Squad has agreed to share some inside information regarding the lead-up to the debate... And it doesn't reflect well on Mr. Comfort and Mr. Cameron.

For those who watched the debate, do you remember the promos? I do. Mr. Comfort and Mr. Cameron stated repeatedly that they would prove the existence of God, "scientifically, absolutely, without mentioning faith or the Bible." In fact, they are directly quoted saying exactly that on the ABC News web page promoting the debate. It's a claim Mr. Comfort makes often. For another example, listen to his "What Hollywood Believes" sermon. Conveniently, this sermon was broadcast the Way of the Master Radio program on October 10th, while the radio team took a day off. Thus, it's available on their audio archives page.

Ignoring, for now, the gaping technical flaw in Mr. Comfort's argument... Well, okay. We won't ignore the gaping technical flaw of Ray's argument. I just can't resist. Nothing can be proven scientifically and absolutely; science doesn't deal in absolutes. Nor does it deal in "proof." If it's proof you want, look into mathematics or formal logic. You'll find no such concepts in science, which only concerns itself with evidence. This is why nothing ever gets beyond the status of "theory" in science. If Mr. Comfort doesn't understand that, then he doesn't understand what the academic discipline we call "science" fundamentally is, and really shouldn't be throwing the word "scientifically" around. It just makes him look foolish. Anyway, back to the matter at hand. In the debate itself, "without mentioning faith or even the Bible" mysteriously became simply "without mentioning faith." When I first watched it, I didn't catch it. I had no idea that they tried to weasel their way out of their self-imposed terms until I saw Mr. Sapient's recently-released video. Rather convenient for Ray and Kirk, really, considering that they almost immediately invoked the Ten Commandments... Which, it turns out, are in the Bible.

Yes, there's really no way around it. The Rational Response Squad crew won this debate hands-down, and any honest, competent moderator would have granted them a decisive victory. Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron clearly failed to stick to the terms of the debate. They even failed to stick to their own stated position. It's not that they're poor debaters, it's that they're liars. Sleazy, slimy, manipulative, and very, very slick liars indeed.

Remember, Ray: Your own God says that all liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire. Does he make exceptions for people who lie for Him?

If you've been living under a rock for the past six months, click here to view some of the highlights of the debate, courtesy of the Rational Response Squad.

Brace Yourself, Europe!

Dear European Union Citizen,

The "13 Countries in 13 Days" tour from the WOTM team is well underway. They have had a few minor setbacks to the tune of stolen production equipment, minor illnesses and the like but are still "pressing on toward the mark."

I'm curious as I write this if it will dawn on them as their itinerary leads them briefly through new stops, that the countries they are visiting are some of the most non-religious nations in the world. It's no coincidence that these nations (many of which I've had the opportunity of visiting while in the military) are among the most beautiful, peaceful and advanced in the world: the per capita homicide rate, infant mortality rate and poverty level are much lower than that of our own country and their life expectancies, quality of life and even literacy rates are higher than our own.

The Christian reader is undoubtedly wondering how I draw these parallels. Here's how:

While Christians place their importance on what's to come, non-theists place their importance on what is.

That is the distilled premise for this entry; atheists live much more fulfilling lives because they have accepted and even embraced their own mortality. Materialism provides a sense of assurity and peace that no religion can posit!

While the WOTM crew is in Western Europe spreading their American brand of Christianity as the truth (the same tactics used by missionaries the world over... we're right, you're wrong) in order to make their heavenly crowns all the more lustrous and ornate, we will be here waiting patiently to offer the side of reason.

We apologize for the intrusion of Ray, Kirk and Todd into your nation but must sadly inform you that they are a fair representation of the national majority. Don't be discouraged, all hope is not lost for America... yet.

Enduringly Yours,

The WOTM Watchdog Team

Todd Friel: Still A Liar

I am nothing if not fair and in fairness, I must retract a statment that I made in an earlier post; due to recent communication with Todd, a copy of the Evidence Bible is now on its way to my door via the United States Postal Service. I couldn't be more thrilled!

However, Todd is still a liar. He willfully misrepresents atheists as "God-haters" and, following Todd's logic, telling one lie makes you an untrustworthy liar. If Todd will lie about his supposed opponents, the atheists, what is keeping him from lying to his listening audience about salvation, redemption... even the very existence of God? Nothing, that's what.

Name That Logical Fallacy

For those of you who are still in the dark about this snake oil salesman, this will serve as a good introduction. Please watch this brief video and post your thoughts in the comment section. It will be interesting to see what everyone's views are.

What's In A Name?

Christians hate leprechauns! Did that get your attention? Most likely it did. While most would not find this to be an offensive claim against the fervently pious, how is the claim that atheists hate God, Jesus, Christians and the bible any different? The common Christian reply would be, "Well, leprechauns are fictional characters and God is real!" to which I could easily reply with, "Just like unicorns, satyrs, behemoths, talking serpents, burning bushes and immaculate conceptions are real?"; but we won't go down that path.

Instead, I'd like to focus on defining a few key terms, explaining how adding value judgments and connotations to a simple word can make it much more divisive than if used by its denotation. To do this, I will draw from Todd Friel as an example.

Todd loves nothing more than... God. Second to his love of God is his love of deceit. He habitually deceives his listeners into believing that atheists abhor God, that we absolutely cannot stomach the thought of God because if we were to do anything but hate him, the light of His truth would shine down on our iniquities. Can you tell I used to be a fervent believer? I'm going to show you how it is impossible for atheists to hate God.

Referring back to my leprechaun illustration, it is easy to see that Christians don't truly hate leprechauns. They don't hate them because they don't believe in them or, to put it into the form of a positive statement, they believe them to be non-existent. Here comes a blustering Christian, "I know leprechauns don't exist!". Do you really? Todd likes to probe atheists by questioning their stock of knowledge; do we know everything? No way! No one knows everything. Therefore, it is disingenuous of anyone to say that something absolutely, positively, unequivocally does not exist simply because they have not seen, experienced or interacted with it. For that reason, the vast majority of atheists (myself included) do not say there is no God like Todd would like people to believe. Atheists have a lack of belief in God... much in the same way our Christian in the example does not believe in leprechauns... or psychics, UFOs, holistic medicine, trepanation, etc.

Ask yourself this question: "What is theism?"

If you are being honest with yourself (why wouldn't you be?), you would say that theism is "the belief in god (being a higher power). What is a "theist"? A person who believes in a higher or divine being. What is an "atheist"? An individual who does not believe in a supreme being. Do you see the path of logic? The atheist simply does not believe.

Contrary to Todd's frequent and dishonest claim that atheists "shake their puny little fists at God in rebellion and hatred", we simply don't believe there is a god to shake our fist at. Would you, Mr. or Mrs. Christian, curse a centaur? No.

One major difference that may be the root of the atheist's perceived anger must be addressed: all of the fictional characters I have mentioned in this entry don't have throngs of people devoted to converting the world so they can escape the torture of eternal damnation. God does.

Dissecting The Dynamo

I've recently found myself pondering what makes Way of the Master such a force to be reckoned with in the evangelical Christian world. Whether non-theists want to admit it or not, WOTM is quite a dynamic and successful ministry; I have the financial reports to prove it (another entry for another day). However, just because they are good at what they do, it doesn't mean that what they do is good. Ray Comfort's Living Waters Publications (the umbrella organization of WOTM), has quite a heavy revenue (and expenditure) report and it is interesting to speculate why it has risen to such status in such a short matter or time. I think I may have the answer.

From my perspective there are three major roles at WOTM and one sidekick position:

Kirk Cameron -- The Notoriety

Everyone, but everyone knows who Kirk is and knows his claim to fame (and can probably even sing the show's theme song); Growing Pains was one of the highest-rated sitcoms in recent decades so where goes his name, so goes at least marginal success.

With his name recognition, Kirk could sell a ketchup popsicle to a man in a white suit in July. Having said that, the popularity and growth of the ministry is mostly due to that factor alone considering the fact that his participation in WOTM enterprises are negligible to the tune of one brief, weekly radio appearance, short promotional loops played during station breaks and the WOTM television production.

Ray Comfort -- The Message

This author and itinerant preacher from New Zealand is the puppet master of the entire operation. Cameron even admits that the foundation for the ministry is based on Comfort's theology in one of his recorded endorsements for Ray's breakout book and ministry namesake The Way of the Master in saying, "I had already been a Christian for 14 years but when I read (the book) it absolutely revolutionized the way I looked at evangelizing... ." Obviously it didn't take much for Ray to coerce Kirk to come on board; he has quite a way with words.

Todd Friel -- The Voice/Comedy

Our illustrious show host is the very notable and recognizable voice of WOTM Radio. Aside from his "Todd-isms" (another post for another day) and his usually self-deprecating humor, he is the main source of the hate-speech that is propagated from this organization. His false sense of humility and sincerity are all but transparent.

The message Todd spreads is strangely exactly in line with that of Ray Comfort (and the shows golden boy, Kirk) which leads me to believe that Todd is simply Ray's mouthpiece. After all, how are we to take Todd at his word or even to take him seriously when we understand that he was at one time a professional comedian? I hope for his sake that his affiliation with the business is nothing more than an elaborate hoax. My better judgments tells me it's not.

Our sidekick role, as mentioned earlier in this post, is filled by none other than show Program Director, Tony Verkinnes. His often dull and monotonous reactions to Todd's amped up charges allow me to fittingly designate him the title of Todd's comedic straight man. After all, Todd's very hyper and aggressive form of evangelism and apologetics must be counteracted with soothing commentary; rich chocolate chip cookies always go down better with a glass of cold milk.

As a business, WOTM has a great recipe. It's just a pity that the main ingredient is...

Willful Misrepresentation

This entry might also have been titled "Lying."

Todd uses the ten commandments to show the "lost" that they have sinned against a holy and righteous god, will stand in judgment before him after they die and must repent and receive the forgiveness offered through Jesus Christ's shed blood on the cross of Calvary (let me know if I've misrepresented this; I think I've expressed it fairly accurately).

If Todd uses the commandments to show the unsaved their transgressions, why does he knowingly and repeatedly continue to break the ninth commandment by lying to his listening audience?

When Todd is asked of all the historical atrocities committed in the name of god by the pious, he indefinitely shifts the focus away from the reformation or the crusades and towards the Holocaust and other such contemporary examples of cruelty. He claims that the reformation and crusades weren't fought by True Christians™, but by heretics and hypocrites. Of course, if a freethinker were to use that sort of caveat against Friel, he would of course decry it as a foul.

Much to the chagrin of the WOTM staff, atheists do not feel it necessary to defend Adolph Hitler as an atheist because, in fact, he was not; Hitler was a Catholic mystic. Just take a quick glance at the photo embedded in this entry and you will notice that it is Nazi Germany-era military regalia. Now, for those of my non German-speaking readers, the script emblazoned across the top of this belt buckle reads "God With Us."

Todd Friel knows this historical fact and continues to disregard it for the spiritual benefit of his listeners. Shouldn't someone call him up and remind him what his god says about lying?

The (Opposing) View

For those of you who may be interested in reading more about views that differ from my own but don't have the time or the desire to wade through the mire that is Way of the Master, I have posted a new link in the left margin of this blog. It is relatively well-written and will give you a taste of what is being taught by WOTM. The writer's doctrinal views are incredibly similar to those of Friel, Comfort and Cameron all the way down to his concept of "grace through the law".

To better understand the mind of a fundamental, evangelical Christian literalist, visit Anathema Unbound (Jason Seipp) at "The 'ology' of Theology" and tell him Former Follier sends his greetings.

Absolute Proof God Exists -- Part Two

Second Non-Biblical Proof of God -- "Conscience"

Before we begin, let's define the word "conscience" and take a brief look at its root words:

Conscience: The inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action (from the roots con meaning "together" or "with" and scientia meaning "knowledge").

Supposing that humans are born with an innate sense of right and wrong, we must further assume that , at birth, we have enough information from which to come to "knowledgeable" conclusions. When my daughter was an infant, it became abundantly clear that she was a blank slate and was only ingrained with the most primitive of functions: the ability to drink, breathe, expel waste, sleep and explore her newly-formed vocal chords when she perceived duress or desire. Those are the basics that all human infants are born with; the basic will to survive.

All of my daughter's "knowledge" since her birth has come from her surroundings: interaction with her parents, brother, grandparents, sight, taste, sound, touch, etc. How, then, can fundamentalist evangelicals like Todd Friel claim the knowledge from which you make moral or ethical assessments to be an inborn trait? Nothing happens in a vacuum... certainly not the psychological growth and development of a child! Every factor imposed on a human (man, woman or child) will have some sort of affect on their perceptions and interaction with the world around them.

The human ability to discern between perceived "good" and "bad" decisions start at childbirth and grow through adolescence and into adulthood. When parents raise their children, the majority feel it their obligation to instruct them in a way in which they will grow to be productive, with the ability to make social contributions. It eludes me how theists can extrapolate divine providence from something that is so clearly socially driven.

More than half a century before the gospels of Christ were written, the ethic of reciprocity was first being alliterated. Today, we know this code of ethical conduct as "The Golden Rule", the foundation of humanistic (the only viable) ethical principles.

Absolute Proof God Exists -- Part One

We freethinkers should be embarrassed. Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort and Todd Friel have deftly and equisitely proven the existence of God. The best part? Biblical proofs are optional. How do they do it? They point out two proofs: one external and one internal.

First Non-Biblical Proof of God -- "Creation"

That's right! When you look out your window at the beauty that surrounds us, you are to see design. The WOTM staff claim that our universe is the epitome of form and function. Take, for instance, the placement of our planet in relation to the sun; if we were revolving any closer to the sun than we currently are, our atmosphere would be too warm to sustain life. If we were any further from the sun, our atmosphere would be too cold!

Looking at things from a creationist's point of view, this screams of intelligent design. "God set the earth in orbit around the sun in the precise spot for life to flourish!" With a bit of effort, it is possible to look at things from a naturalistic point of view. Rather than life being supported on this earth because of its placement, perhaps the placement of the earth enabled life to emerge. Notice the distinction? This is hardly proof of God's existence. Furthermore, the creation account (or accounts depending on which brand of creationism your brand of Christianity supports) can be found only in holy texts and are completely unsupported by modern science.

If theists are such firm believers in creation "science", why don't they rely solely on the fruits of those labors? That would mean no more chemistry-based products (sorry, Todd, hand sanitizer is out of the question). I challenge theists to show me one practical application of "creation science" in our modern world. If you want to understand how much evolutionary science contributes to your life, go open your medicine cabinet.

I would like to point out that the most powerful tool for evangelical Christians is the ability to obfuscate an argument with semantics. When one of the WOTM staff members try the old watch/watchmaker or painting/painter routine, keep in mind that they have carefully selected the words they wish to use to effect the outcome they desire. For instance: Todd might say, "Take a look at that building! It couldn't have just appeared because a building needs a... builder. Right! The same thing is true with creation (notice the switch?); you can't have creation without a creator!" Most of the people he proselytizes never catch the switch.

But consider this, if the wording is changed to something that is more neutral (something which is unattainable when dealing with any evangelical group) the ball falls squarely into the court of the naturalistic freethinker. "When you look around at nature (I've been on "nature walks" but never on a "creation walk"), you have to admit that natural selection takes place." Not too difficult, eh? If theists are taken aback by the abrupt way in which the table was shifted, they can begin by fumbling through their rationalizations for all of the "design" flaws that abound in nature.

Holy Crescent Hospital?

On Thursday's edition of WOTM radio, Todd made a well-timed, off-the-cuff quip about a hospital that was referenced in a recent news report saying, "Would that have been Holy Crescent Hospital?" Station engineer and comedic straight-man, Tony Verkinnes, replied with a well-timed, "No... that would be... Holy Cross Hospital." This from a duo that claims the worldwide variance of religion to be compelling evidence for the validity of the Christian faith and the bible from which it is founded.

I recently brought up this very point on a call to the show; I asked how Christians can suppose that everyone holds to the same beliefs as them when the social, geographic and demographic factors of religion are taken into consideration. How can Todd confidently tell a Muslim, Krishna or Hindu that he is absolutely right in his beliefs and they are unequivocally wrong? Doesn't he realize that his introduction to Christianity came in much the same way introduced to the English language?

Knowing that there are more than 30,000 Christ-centered religions worldwide and that we are living in the U.S. ("one nation under God"), doesn't it follow that the vast majority of our health care institutions are affiliated in some way with protestantism or Catholicism (depending on the ebb and flow of the social tide, Catholics may or may not be considered Christians)? I would no more expect to find a Muslim-run hospital in my area than I would a hospital with the marquis written in Sanskrit.

If Todd were visiting Dubai City or Kolkata, would he really expect to find a hospital chapel with a crucifix or a statuette of the virgin Mary? The answer is obvious, religions are vast and wide-ranging but they all share one common factor: The adherents of these faiths have created their own culturally and socially relevant god(s) to worship. Todd is no different.

Passion Of The Friel

Todd Friel loves The Passion of The Christ. He does. In going through the WOTM radio show archives, I have come across many airings where he exalts the movie and Mel Gibson for making it. To Todd it is an accurate and sobering account of the sacrifice that his Lord and Savior made in becoming the atonement for his sins. Believe it or not, I have no problem at all with his admiration for the movie; it was a well-produced bit of drama (though a bit gory for my taste).

My only request is that Todd be honest with us, his listeners, as many look up to him as a shining example or Christian morality. How then does it reflect on him and his God to be blatantly hypocritical? Why do I say this? Because Mr. Friel does not endorse and even decries the viewership of R-Rated films. As a matter of fact, Todd owns a bit of hardware (the name escapes me) for his home entertainment system that removes all foul language from whatever programming he may currently be viewing. Does this same device censor or distort visual representations of violence? If it did, Todd and his family would be left with a ten or fifteen minute snippet that would contain the opening credits, Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane (until the guard's ear is sliced off, at least) and some of the more mundane bits of dialogue between Jesus and his disciples, among others. The majority of the movie is spent graphically portraying the scourging, beating and crucifixion of Jesus as is described just as vividly in the (contradictory) Gospel accounts in the bible. So much so, in fact, that it is enough to engender a feeling of nausea in the most jaded of moviegoers.

How then can Mr. Friel blame the state of our nation's moral decline on violent media when he openly endorses perhaps one of the most gruesome feature films of all time? If left in the wrong hands, this gore fest could further pervert a mind already demented by grotesque fantasy and could be the breaking point that might affect another school shooting or federal building bombing.

I find it troubling that Mr. Friel dissuades the viewership of secular media for mature audiences but freely advocates The Passion as wholesome family fare. The story depicted in the movie comes from an equally horrifying book which, if rated,might find itself on the top rack in most retail outlets. Doesn't this attest to the fact that theists really do employ situational ethics? "Don't watch Apocalypse Now because it's R-Rated; instead, bless your soul and glorify God as you watch His Son's blood being wrung out like a sopping wet dishtowel." Just another testament to my reasoning for not following a god that lusts for his own son's sacrificial blood and for not joining the ranks of a congregation that joyously worships such a monster.

Why link the show?

Many of you may be curious (some have even asked) why I have a feed link to the WOTM radio show archives in the left margin of this site. The answer is simple: I don't fear their content. As a matter of fact, I encourage everyone to tune into their broadcasts at least once; if nothing else, it's good for a laugh. By supplying my readers (both theists and freethinkers alike) with all of the resources I have at my disposal, I feel like you will be better equipped to make a wise and informed decision.

Liars shall have their part in the lake of fire...

If the theology that Todd, Ray and Kirk follow is literally true, then they have willfully lied to all of the atheistic listeners to their show. Does that put them in danger of burning forever in hell? Of course, they will all claim that all of their sins, past, present and future, are covered in the blood of Jesus who is the propitiation for the iniquities of all True Believers™. Regardless of their claims, it seems counterproductive to lie to the very people they are trying to save from condemnation.

On the June 14th airing of WOTM Radio, Ray and Todd promised a copy of The Evidence Bible and/or God Doesn't Believe In Atheists to an etheist they had been speaking to named Jack (Chicago, IL) at the 37 min. 45 sec. mark. They went further by making an open-ended promise to supply any atheist that called into the show with a complimentary copy of The Evidence Bible. I have since called the show but have yet to receive my Bible. As a matter of fact, I have sent emails to both Todd and Ray separately inquiring as to the status of my shipment but stranegly enough haven't received a reply. Todd used to respond to my messages but it seems he's lost interest in me in recent months. The same cannot be said for me; I continue to find him interesting, untrustworthy and dangerous.