Richard Dawkins, who recently was challenged by Ray Comfort to debate him for $10,000, responded thusly to a journalist via e-mail. The e-mail exchange appears on RichardDawkins.net.
Richard said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4
-- no it's not a Monty Python sketch, he really means it).
"$10,000 is less than the typical fee that I am ordinarily offered for lecturing to a serious audience (I often don't accept it, especially in the case of a student audience, because I am a dedicated teacher). It is not, therefore, a worthwhile inducement for me to travel all the way across the Atlantic to debate with an ignorant fool. You can tell him that if he donates $100,000 to the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (it's a charitable donation, tax deductible) I'll do it. A further condition is that it will be filmed by Josh Timonen for my website, RichardDawkins.net, and distributed by Josh as a DVD, if he thinks it is funny enough. To this end, it would be nice if Mr Comfort would reprise the ever popular Banana Sketch.
"Richard Dawkins"
To this, the reporter thanked Richard, reminded him that he was just a reporter in the middle, and delivered Comfort's counter of $20,000.
Richard Responded to this e-mail as follows:
"$20,000 is closer to the fees that I am customarily offered. However, I am not in this for the money. My interest is in getting the Banana Man to PART with $100,000 of his money so that that money will NOT be available for buying animatronic dinosaurs with saddles, or other similar nonsense. The fact that he would be making a substantial donation to a charity dedicated to Reason and Science adds to the humour of the situation. Talking of humour, by the way, did you look at the great Banana video? It beats the Peanut Butter video for laughs, but only by a short head:
http://www.unscrewingtheinscrutable.com/node/1258
"Richard Dawkins"
Comments
Examiner Moderators, please delete the comment by "Mudley" below, as it is clearly offensive to the Lord Jesus Christ, and should not be tolerated here.
Has Ray really had the Examiner Moderators remove a comment from another Examiner's page?
Hey Ray, Jesus was, if real, a homosexual and liked to take it in the ass. There is a reason he "loved" one of his disciples more than the others.
At least he can spell atheist.
Hey Ray, if it really is you...
Jesus may be your lord, but he is not mine and he is certainly not everybody's. I can feel your doubt from here. If you did not have any doubt that Jesus is lord then you would not get so offended when I say that Jesus was a butt pirate (gay). If you were absolutely certain in your beliefs then you would be certain that I, along with anybody else who denounces Jesus as the false idol that he is, will pay for my sins. There would be no need to censor my comments. It is because you are filled with so much doubt that you lash out at atheists such as Dawkins and myself. You know in the back of your head that you have absolutely no evidence that this man actually existed and that makes you doubt your beliefs. How could it not? Your banana can't give you comfort forever.
I hope that one day you can realize the error in your logic. Maybe when that day finally comes you will fell comfortable coming to us, the friendly atheists, for support. We aren't bad people. We all share a bound much more powerful and useful than religion: knowledge and reasoning.
I hope that you find your way some day. It's a terrible thing to be lost forever, to be uncertain forever, to have doubts. Let go of those doubts. Accept science, knowledge and reasoning.
Offensive to the 'Lord Jesus Christ'? Gimme a break! How can a fictional cosmic Jewish zombie be 'offended'?
On the other hand... if he actually DOES exist... why would he need a professional LFJ™ (Liar For Jesus) to defend him? Isn't he the creator and the master of the universe? Can't he take care of himself? In fact... according to you... he IS going to take care of people like Mudley... and me... by casting us into a lake of fire, to be tortured and tormented for all eternity... just because they are not stupid and gullible enough to 'believe' in invisible, magical, all-powerful. supernatural sky-fairies.
Imagine that. The ULTIMATE sin... NOT being sufficiently stupid and gullible.
Examiner Moderators... you have blown it... BADLY... by kowtowing to the bullying of this purveyor, promoter, protector and defender of gullibility, self-deception, self-delusion, irrationality, intellectual dishonesty, willful ignorance, scientific ignorance, lies, hypocrisy, and toxic, drooling stupidity.
Trina, is Ray Comfort really meddling in your pages?
How do you like his logic tho'? he says the comment is offensive to The Lord Jesus Christ. Not Ray. Not other Christians, no, it is Jesus Himself up in heaven who has been reading your discussions, and he is upset and offended.
There are two possibilities:
a. That was not Ray that posted the comment (given that there is no moderation of names, mails or IP addresses here) and there never was a comment from Mudley. It's just someone pretending to be Ray and messing with us.
b. That was Ray, and he's an idiot.
hey, trina. can you shoot me an e-mail? i want to chat with you about my new memoir, "losing my religion." thanks. www.williamlobdell.com
Evolution, The spaghetti monster, star trek, mutant ninjas, etc. - will Dawkins explain his theory for each of these make believe worlds.
Ray Comfort is one of those people you just want to smack because you know that no amount of logical, reasonable argumentation will ever be enough to make him stop spreading his insanity. At least a pop in the mouth would shut him up temporarily.
Well... Jake, the 'Evangelical Examiner' has a blog entry on this subject. As expected, it is replete with misrepresentation, misunderstandings and... well... lies.
www.examiner.com/x-2359-Evangelical-Examiner#comments
I replied to Jake in the comments section for this blog entry... but Jake has deleted. That's funny... it seems that he deletes 90%+ of my comments... even when I DO NOT insult him directly. It seems that he cannot tolerate comments that show him to be wrong... or reveal that he is a complete nincompoop.
So... here is my reply to Jake, which he has deleted...
Tsk tsk... you really ought to consult more honest an reliable sources for your information. As a Christian, you should be well aware that 'Christian' sources are not to be trusted... particularly those like WorldNetDaily... Answers in Genesis... Ray comfort... and... well... you.
Dawkins’ usual speaking fee is around $20,000... although when he is addressing students, in an educational setting, he usually does it for free, or just expenses.
Dawkins does not 'debate' creationists for the simple reason that it is essentially the very same thing as sitting down and debating somebody over the existence of invisible pink unicorns. Why would a scientist want to do such a thing, when the only result would be to lend prestige to the idea that invisible pink unicorns was a topic worthy of scientific attention, discussion and consideration? Same with 'creationism'. Look... we're talking about the moron that came up with the 'banana video'...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4
... debunked here...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLqQttJinjo
Dawkins was quite specific in saying that he was willing to make an exception to his policy on this occasion... for $100,000... NOT because he wants or needs the money, but because...
"... I am not in this for the money. My interest is in getting the Banana Man to PART with $100,000 of his money so that that money will NOT be available for buying animatronic dinosaurs with saddles, or other similar nonsense. The fact that he would be making a substantial donation to a charity dedicated to Reason and Science adds to the humour of the situation. Talking of humour, by the way, did you look at the great Banana video? It beats the Peanut Butter video for laughs, but only by a short head:... "
www.unscrewingtheinscrutable.com/node/1258
That's a shame, DuckPhup. I think my comment on that blog was more of a direct insult to Jake than yours, but mine stayed up there. It must be something personal.
Stewart,
I'd have to go with (b) as we already know it's at least half true.
Jake has stated that he will delete "lengthy" posts (obviously those that contain considerable amounts of facts to disprove his lies), and those that contain URLs (though he, of course is "privileged" to post fundiecrazy URLs). Perhaps that helps. Just break up the facts into shorter posts so the crazies aren't scared by all the big words.
He initially deleted one of mine, then I guess as punishment deleted the rest.
How does the disconnect in their heads work? "If I delete the posts pointing out the dishonesty I become honest again!"
Oh not you too! A post down the memory hole!
That's quite unfortunate.
Duck,
Jake is really into carrying personal grudges. He has deleted near everything I posted on this articles after I pointed out that he doesn't touch comments by his supporters when they're guilty of the same things which he uses as a pretext to delete the comments of those who disagree with him (long posts, URLs, etc.).
Apparently I hit a nerve somewhere, because he also went back and deleted his own comments setting out the rules which he didn't want to stick to later. *shrugs* I guess integrity isn't on his list of virtues.
Jake has a blog entry titled "The Occult and its danger to your kids?", dated Feb. 23rd.
www.examiner.com/x-2359-Evangelical-Examiner~y2009m2d23-The-Occult--Is-it-a-danger-to-your-kids
Jakes second paragraph starts out like this: "The Occult is dangerous and real! It can be misused by anyone who is involved in it. I can tear kids away from their families. I can drive wedges between parents and their kids causing the breakup of families, and in some extreme cases can even be a reason for death."
I replied with a couple of verses from Matthew, completely unadorned with further annotation or comment...
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
So... Jake deleted the comment. I find this very strange. I was only trying to be helpful. There was Jake... trying to make the point that delusional beliefs can be destructive to families... and I simply supported his contention with scripture, straight from 'the mouth of Jesus'...
... and Jake deleted it.
That's really odd, don't you think? Why do you suppose Jake would do that? I didn't add any snarky, insulting commentary, or anything like that. I figured... hey... this is JESUS talkin' here... Jesus doesn't need any help from me! He can speak for himself. This is the absolute, inviolable, cosmic, holy, divine, gospel TRUTH we're talkin' about here.
You don't think that he found Jesus' words to be offensive... do you?
Of course... I guess the possibility exists... strange and unbelievable as it might seem... that Jake noticed that Jesus' absolute, inviolable, cosmic, holy, divine, gospel-true utterances completely disemboweled his cynical and duplicitous attempts to foster the misconception that the christ-cult does NOT represent a danger to families.
No. That's silly. He wouldn't even THINK of doing such a thing. After all... he's a Christian... and that would be hypocritical.
*sigh* Jake has gone through and deleted my message again. not off topic or anything either.
Why was Trina's article taking Jake to task for his false statements deleted? Why are Jake's lies still there?
@ BathTub
Same here. If he doesn't want to be corrected on his errors, he should take a little more time trying to get his facts straight.
Dawkins stated, in the article Jake referred to, that it wasn't about making money and that it was about ridicule and emptying Comfort's coffers.
I wonder if Jake will bother to buy into Comfort's marketing stunts in future? It seems it's all too hard for him to deal with.
Trina, why did your article go? Is it an Examiner thing?
How does one contact Examiner, anyway? I've tried, and get delivery failure notices. Examiner need to rein in Jake's deletion of truthful posts debunking his falsehoods, and even more serious, they need to call him on his almost certainly libelous falsehood-laden screed against Dawkins and warn him the truth is not optional.
Wow, this is hilarious! Just goes to show how big of chickens atheists really are. Dawkins isn't refusing Comfort because of the money amount, he's refusing Comfort because he knows Ray will completely destroy him and prove that atheism is completely unfounded. And they say we're the ones who need to be open-minded...
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!