"An atheist is someone who believes that nothing made everything. He will deny that through gritted teeth, because it is an intellectual embarrassment. But if he says of his Toyota that he has no belief that there was a maker, then he thinks that nothing made it (it just happened), which is a scientific impossibility. So, to remain credible, he falls back on something made everything, but he just doesn’t know what that something was. So he’s not an atheist--he believes in an initial cause"
What Ray is doing here is setting up the stage to make atheists look like complete fools, by putting words into our mouths. His first sentence is a gross misunderstanding (I assume intentional) of what atheism means. I don't know how many times I've said it before, and I'll continue to say it until everyone understands: atheism is not a belief. Atheism is a rejection of a claim or assertions. The only thing that every atheist actually has in common is the disbelief in the existence of a god, nothing more, nothing less. So by starting off implying that atheists have some organized belief that "nothing made everything" is quite simply wrong. I am not of the opinion that "nothing made everything". I would say that we do not yet know the origins of "everything", so I will not settle by accepting guesses and unsupported assertions.
When he claims that we must say this "through gritted teeth" there is no real reason to respond to this comment, other than to say that the only "intellectual embarressment" in academia comes from Creationists who pose as "scientists" to force their beliefs on others.
Ray then goes on to posit that if something "just happened" it is scientifically impossible. I am curious why he doesn't apply this same (flawed) logic to his god. Additionally, when we look at a Toyota, we can correctly posit the existence of a creator, because every example of the car that we have is known to have been created. There has never once been seen a "wild Toyota", springing up in the middle of the woods. When it comes to life or planets or ever universes, we have no reason to believe there is a creator behind them, since these are naturally occurring manifestations.
Again, he is over generalizing atheism when he says that we fall "back on something made everything". Not every atheist has this belief. Also, he makes it seem so evil to admit "he just doesn’t know what that something was". If you don't have enough evidence to support any claim, then the correct position it to accept not knowing, rather than go with the guess that you like or that supports your other beliefs.
The last statement is perhaps the most objectionable of all: "So he’s not an atheist--he believes in an initial cause". Wrong. This statement tells us nothing about the initial cause that an atheist may (or may not) believe in. This cause (if it even exists) could be completely natural, separate from any divine or supernatural claims. An atheist only needs to not accept a god claim, and his/her position on causes of anything are a separate issue. Overall, I hope you are getting a basic sense for Ray Comfort's sense of logic and religion, and I'm trying to put this information out there for the people who have read Ray's blog and accept these over generalizations. All claims should be taken with a grain of salt, even the (seemingly) simple definitions of terms, as this case clearly demonstrates.
