The Bible & The Biz: "The ATHEIST DELUSION" (Film Review)

After Ray Comfort made his film, "The Atheist Delusion" he let fellow filmmaker, Scott Burdick have an advanced look and asked him to review it. You will find his review of the film and his opinions of Ray Comfort copied below in their entirety directly from the Comments Section for Burdick's video, "Lawrence Krauss VS Ray Comfort."

"My thoughts on Ray Comfort’s film 'The Atheist Delusion' "

[ by Scott Burdick ] "Ray sent me a preview link to his film, 'The Atheist Delusion' and asked my opinion. After watching the link to your film, my first thought is that you certainly chose some low-hanging atheist fruit to debate (preach to) in most of the film. The people you selected seemed to know little of the very basics of biology. It would be like me making a film called “The Christian Delusion” and only interviewing students who had hardly read the Bible and knew very little of the history of the church and how the Gospels were compiled in the first place. I imagine if I convinced such people that Christianity was a hoax, you’d cry foul (as you should). Why is it any different when you do this? Of course, Lawrence Krauss was the lone exception, and yet you chose to edit down your discussion with him from approximately 6 minutes to around 2 minutes 15 seconds. Almost everything you cut out were his more detailed elaborations on your questions so it looked like he was simply making claims and failing to back them up. I'm wondering why you would do that? You gave more time to almost every one of the other clueless “atheists” you interviewed on the street who lacked any familiarity with the subject, and even then you mostly preached to them so I'm left to wonder how much of what they said you also edited out. So the one time you had a truly intelligent person who could elucidate the actual facts and arguments on the other side, you consciously limited him to a sound bite and edited out much of his argument. This is the opposite of what I did when I interviewed you. I asked you tough questions, just as you did of Lawrence, but I left in your full reply so your view point came through clearly. I imagine that this is why you thanked me afterward. After watching your film, your intellectual dishonesty was quite clear to me. After I posted my one-hour YouTube film with the full, unedited version of you and Lawrence, as well as parts of the sit-down interviews I did with each of you, I received a nice email from you thanking me for the fairness of my questions and allowing you to have your full say without editing your replies. Your cameraman and editor, Scotty, also emailed and said he felt it was quite fair and balanced. In contrast, you did not extend the same courtesy to atheists with your film. Instead, you chose to mischaracterize the arguments by finding people on the street who could not identify a false analogy and knew little about basic biology and the subject matter in general. You very deliberately used this deceptive tactic to make it seem like they were representative of non-believers generally. While beautifully filmed and edited, what you chose to do in you film was dishonest, plain and simple. It is one thing to have a point of view, but another to deliberately distort the opposing viewpoint and hide facts to convince your audience that your argument is correct. If you really believe what you're saying, then you shouldn't be afraid of letting the other side put their best argument forward and actually debate it on the merits. Instead, you choose to argue against a straw-man. I enjoy a true intellectual discussion, which is why I wanted to interview you and then film you and Lawrence, but it's clear you do not—or at least you don't actually want your audience to see one. My guess is that no one would have ever seen the full discussion between you and Lawrence had I not filmed it as well as your crew, and certainly not if I didn't have a good release form covering everything I filmed that day that allowed me to release it on my YouTube channel as well. I'm now sorry I provided you with my footage for your film (and I noticed you used only my footage of your discussion with Lawrence, rather than your own). I felt comfortable doing this knowing your agreement with Lawrence to use all or nothing of your interview with him, and you neglected to inform me, either then or later, of your decision to cut out 2/3rds of what he said. You said you wanted my opinion, so here it is. On the whole, I found the film quite slanted and not a very serious exploration of the subject. To be completely honest, I was left wondering if you actually believed what you preached when you purposely avoided having anyone actually explain the mechanisms of evolution, but chose rather to mischaracterize it so you could pretend to knock it down. I'm sure you must have heard the real argument many time, and it wouldn't have been hard to have someone in the film lay out the basics, so the fact that you didn't do this makes me suspect you are afraid to allow your audience to hear the other side's thoughts at all. Oh well, live and learn. It’s your film, so it’s your decision of how to present it, but since you asked me my opinion of 'The Atheist Delusion,' there it is." Scott Burdick"

Lawrence Krauss talks with Ray Comfort

MY First Comments (in response to Scott Burdick)

Dear Scott;

I'm a Christian (38 years) and a supporter of Ray Comfort, but I found your review of Ray's "The Atheist Delusion" as pretty accurate. However, there is a large difference between standing on a street corner and having only a few minutes to ask questions of someone who can walk away from you at any moment and the time to sit down and probe into the 'deep-ness' of things. If you had only 5 minutes of Krauss's time and he might get up and leave at any moment, how different would your video be?

Please don't feel ill used. I don't think Ray was trying to "manipulate" or purposely "deceive" you. In fact, to give you (a person who is not another Christian) an advanced copy of "The Atheist Delusion" and asking you to give your opinion publically demonstrates he actually values you and your opinion very much (even though he fully realized you might give the negative opinions that you did give).

It's the things he says when he has the time to say them properly and more thoroughly that demonstrate what he's really all about. For me, "The Atheist Delusion" isn't Ray at his best until you get right to the end when he tells people that they have "worth and value and purpose". This is what he truly believes and also the reason he makes his films and stands on street corners when he could be at home in his Lazy-Boy.

As Christians, we believe we are assured of Heaven. We gain or lose nothing by how many people we may convince or convert. The only reason we tell people about Jesus is because we love them and want them to know there is a better way to live (right now AND later in Heaven). We believe this because we've lived BOTH ways: without God in our lives and then with Him.

MY Second Comments (in response to Scott Burdick)

To begin with, when I review a film I NEVER do so until I've watched it completely. TWICE. Just like tasting food, the first bite just prepares your taste buds, but the second bite allows you to really focus on what you're tasting.

The next thing is that you have to determine the "theme" of the film and the "point" in making it.

Ray made a previous film called "Evolution vs God" and In the title we find his purpose in making that film. It's more of a "debate" film, so he actually interviews several of the "experts" and "teachers", not merely 'some low-hanging atheist fruit' [as you refer to several of his subjects].

The point of the "Atheist Delusion" is NOT for a debate. The point (or theme) to this new film can also be found in it's title. You hit upon it intuitively but then went right past it. You're correct in saying the young people Ray interviewed knew very little about evolution, science, biology etc. That's probably exactly why Ray chose them. Each one claimed to be "devout", firm Atheists but it wasn't based on their knowledge of Evolution. That IS the point. They are clinging hard to their beliefs (Atheism and Evolution) without knowing why. They can barely answer the most basic questions about these beliefs yet they cling firmly to them. Ray is not there to DEBATE the points of Evolution and the merits of Atheism but to expose a "delusion". To show these people they have a "blind faith" in something they know almost nothing about.

Now that you know the point behind the creation of the film "Atheist Delusion" why don't you go back and watch it again and then compare it to Ray's other film "Evolution vs God", which IS meant more for debating purposes and where he DOES interview the "experts.

Sincerely, Laura-Lee

Laura-Lee Was Here (Personal Blog)

LINK Laura-Lee's YouTube Channel

Adding some extra comments to my review of ."The Atheist Delusion"

Ray Comfort is definitely very knowledgeable about science, evolution, Atheism, biology and the Bible yet he wears this knowledge with humility. The film also includes a great deal of humor but it is filmed in a most vivid and colorful High Definition. It is most definitely meant to highlight the beauty of nature and the fact that God has given so many good things in this life to enjoy.

When this film was over I had a fresh sense of the HUGEness of our God, the goodness and righteousness of His character, the fact that he desires each of us to have a purpose and views us with value and through his love and mercy.

It seems to me extremely tragic that the "delusion" of Atheism keeps us away from all these things. As Ray often says, "soften your heart and think about these things because today is the day of your salvation."

"The Atheist Delusion" can now be viewed free at YouTube and I give it 7 out of 10 little, Christian 'fishies' :