WOTM dishonest tactics exposed again (from ABC debate)

Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
WOTM dishonest tactics exposed again (from ABC debate)

Direct link: http://one.revver.com/watch/433265/flv/affiliate/78047

We respond rational to irrational claims from Way of the Master

Are they irrational claims, or simply lies? Lying for Jesus... a good quality to have if making money off of Jesus is what you do for a living. This response is long awaited and we finally had the time to dedicate a few hours to it. We're doing so in hopes of drawing attention to http://www.wotmwatchdog.org a sister site, that will soon have the expose of all exposes on WOTM. Video includes some fair use footage.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Dave_G
Dave_G's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2007-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Still talking about the

Still talking about the debate? come on lets take on ken ham ray comfort is getting old(literally lol).But seroiusly its good that the RRS finnally got the media atention it deserves but  it was like 6 months ago.......


ThaiBoxerShorts
ThaiBoxerShorts's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-03-04
User is offlineOffline
The video has been posted at

The video has been posted at wotmwatchdog.org, along with some additional written commentary by me.  Visit us!  Link to us!  Leave comments with us!  Support your friendly neighborhood WOTM Watchdogs!


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Dave_G wrote: Still talking

Dave_G wrote:
Still talking about the debate? come on lets take on ken ham ray comfort is getting old(literally lol).But seroiusly its good that the RRS finnally got the media atention it deserves but it was like 6 months ago.......

 

Quite a few people asked us to answer this properly, we just never  had the time.  I agree it's old news, however new juicy Way of the Retard news is coming everday. And a huge story is about to come, I wanted to help get traffic up for them.

 Speak of the devil... kick ass commentary from Thaiboxershorts.  I'll be reposting here and the video descriptions on youtube and revver.

COMMENTARY FROM WAY OF THE MASTER WATCHDOG

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 technical flaws 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?

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Here's something that scares

Here's something that scares me: I don't think theyre lying. I think they really and sincerly believe all the stuff they said.


ChosenByPasta
ChosenByPasta's picture
Posts: 141
Joined: 2006-08-08
User is offlineOffline
Haha. Sapient, I'm shocked

Haha.
Sapient, I'm shocked that you are so blown away by their dishonesty. That's who they are. They are fanatics, possessed by an ideology.

I understand that you were trying to score some media attention, but I've always liked what Dawkins has to say about formal debates on religion/creationism. He always quotes the one man who turned down a public formal debate from a creationist and said "ha, well that would look good on television wouldn't it?!"

They don't mind losing the argument or being humiliated. They just want to preach their sermon. So of course they didn't play by the rules!

It only gives the illusion that there is another side of the argument, and that is exactly what nightline did. They screwed you.

As far as the people that watched it on the internet, A+!

"Every true faith is infallible -- It performs what the believing person hopes to find in it. But it does not offer the least support for the establishing of an objective truth. Here the ways of men divide. If you want to achieve peace of mind and happiness, have faith. If you want to be a disciple of truth, then search." - Nietzsche


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Haha. Sapient, I'm

Quote:

Haha.

Sapient, I'm shocked that you are so blown away by their dishonesty. That's who they are. They are fanatics, possessed by an ideology. I understand that you were trying to score some media attention, but I've always liked what Dawkins has to say about formal debates on religion/creationism. He always quotes the one man who turned down a public formal debate from a creationist and said "ha, well that would look good on television wouldn't it?!" They don't mind losing the argument or being humiliated. They just want to preach their sermon. So of course they didn't play by the rules! It only gives the illusion that there is another side of the argument, and that is exactly what nightline did. They screwed you. As far as the people that watched it on the internet, A+!
 While I agree that debates over the existence of God do create the illusion that a debate actually exists, I don't believe that this is a conscious strategy employed by theists, including Kirk and Ray. I suspect it's more of an unfortunate byproduct. Also, as Brian has pointed out, the real unfortunate thing about this debate was the moderator's failure to call Kirk and Ray on their breaking the rules and ABC's lame sugarcoating of the results so as to not piss off the theistic majority. If the debate would have been handled correctly, it would have been slightly different than most atheist/theist (creationist/evolutionist) debates since formal debates dealing with this subject don't tend to end up on such huge networks.  If the moderator would have stopped Ray the moment he began breaking the rules (and all subsequent times he broke the rules) and if ABC would have honestly reported that the RRS won, not only because they had stronger arguments, but because Kirk and Ray broke the ground rules for the debate, then the debate would have had its desired effect---i.e. A major news source would have announced the WOTM arguments inadequate. Brian and Kelly would have had no way of knowing that the debate would be handled the way it was. It was still an awesome debate if you have enough sense to realize who the actual winners were; but it could have had more punch, if ABC wouldn't have pulled our punches for us.

 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


Physboy
agnostic deistTheist
Physboy's picture
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-08-04
User is offlineOffline
I agree to some degree with

I agree to some degree with ChosenByPasta, they definitely used the debate as subterfuge for their ulterior motives and totally lied and manipulated communications to cover it up.  From the current evidence, it is clear that they did not give a damn how the debate would turn out, since they were going to cut and edit the content for their mind washed masses to see their Sunday morning mind f*ck proselytizing act.  However, I do not agree that RRS has suffered any great loss from the exposure.  This is more fuel for the fire.  Of course, that is what they want too and I think RRS may want to keep that in mind before continuing anymore discussion with the loony tune characters so that they are not obtaining any significant strategic exposure over you guys.

Regarding Cpt_pineapple's statement, I understand and agree that they are probably soooooo deluded, and have been lying for soooo long about this, that they can no longer distinguish when they are lying and when they are telling the truth.  It is a sad, sad situation to see a human mind literally melting down like this, but, make no mistake, they were definitely lying.  Whether they were consciously aware of it or not, they were 100% lying, using subterfuge and obfuscating their communications with the public and with RRS.  It is almost as if they are out and out sociopaths and at the very least 100% hypocritical. Surprised (I am not really shocked by that though) Wink

Challenge your perspectives with the truth.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
ChosenByPasta wrote: I

ChosenByPasta wrote:

I understand that you were trying to score some media attention, but I've always liked what Dawkins has to say about formal debates on religion/creationism. He always quotes the one man who turned down a public formal debate from a creationist and said "ha, well that would look good on television wouldn't it?!"
It only gives the illusion that there is another side of the argument, and that is exactly what nightline did. They screwed you.

You know Dawkins just broke that rule and it cost him unfair debate setups as well? He was on the defensive the whole time because he's too polite. He should have me moderate his debates, and I'll even suggest it. I can play Dawkins' Rottweiler as well.

Seriously that debate, I don't remember the details, but it was bad, really bad. By bad I mean, extremely unfair and biased... uber biased.

Maybe at somepoint we all find reasons to break some of our basic rules. Oh no, call the right wing... we're flip floppers. We change, that's the problem with science and rational people, they change. The bible never changes, and you can confirm this no matter which version you have...

Deuel Enterprises, Inc.--> Public Domain--> The Lockman Foundation--> American Bible Society--> Public Domain--> --> Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers.--> American Bible Society--> American Bible Society--> Holman Bible Publishers, Nashville Tennessee. All rights reserved.--> Public Domain--> American Bible Society--> The Lockman Foundation--> Thomas Nelson, Inc.--> International Bible Society--> International Bible Society--> International Bible Society--> Thomas Nelson, Inc.--> Christian Literature International--> Tyndale Charitable Trust. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers.--> Eugene H. Peterson--> International Bible Society--> SOON Educational Publications--> Terrence P. Noble,-->
  21st Century King James Version Text
American Standard Version Text
Amplified Bible Text
Contemporary English Version Text
Audio (NT)
Darby Translation Text
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition. Text (with Apocrypha)
English Standard Version Text
Audio
Global / Standard Contemporary English Version Text (with Apocrypha)
Good News Translation Text (with Apocrypha)
Holman Christian Standard Bible Text
King James Version Text
Audio (OT)
King James Version - ABS Text (with Apocrypha)
New American Standard Bible Text
Audio
New Century Version Text
New International Reader's Version Text
New International Version Text
Audio
New International Version - UK Text
New King James Version Text
New Life Version Text
New Living Translation Text
The Message Text
Today's New International Version Text
Audio
Worldwide English (New Testament) Text (NT)
Wycliffe New Testament Text (NT)
Young's Literal Translation Text

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx wrote: Ray

Archeopteryx wrote:
Ray broke the ground rules for the debate, then the debate would have had its desired effect---i.e. A major news source would have announced the WOTM arguments inadequate.
 I wasn't looking for anything but the full truth, nothing more. If he had avoided the issue of "who won" altogether, that would have been better for him. 
Quote:
Brian and Kelly would have had no way of knowing that the debate would be handled the way it was.
 We had a hunch things could go there, and were ok with the ramifications.  Overall I think it helped in more ways then one.  
Quote:
It was still an awesome debate if you have enough sense to realize who the actual winners were; but it could have had more punch, if ABC wouldn't have pulled our punches for us.
 As Ray pointed out the point of the debate is to convince the people.   This debate gave us a chance to show our B game and beat the living shit out of the beliefs of 2 prominent Christian terrorists.   And the several hundred thousand people that watched the full thing online within 24 hours got the jist of it.   

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


CBX
Theist
CBX's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Brian,

Brian,

 

With all due respect, I think your misunderstanding what the fuss was all about. Ray wasn't disagreeing with the fact that he said he could prove God's existence without mentioning faith or the Bible. He was refuting the claim by the media that this would be a "bibleless" debate, something he never claimed.

 He did what he said he would do. He put forth the evidence for the existence of God without using faith or mentioning the Bible, then he moved into the usage of the Bible in order to awaken the conscience of his listeners through the Ten Commandments. At this point he was through with the basic argument for God's existence.

The media misrepresented what he meant by saying he could prove God without mentioning faith or the Bible. The media gave the idea that there would be absolutely no mention of the Bible whatsoever, that was never claimed by WOTM.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
CBX wrote: Brian,   With

CBX wrote:

Brian,

 

With all due respect, I think your misunderstanding what the fuss was all about. Ray wasn't disagreeing with the fact that he said he could prove God's existence without mentioning faith or the Bible. He was refuting the claim by the media that this would be a "bibleless" debate, something he never claimed.

He did what he said he would do. He put forth the evidence for the existence of God without using faith or mentioning the Bible, then he moved into the usage of the Bible in order to awaken the conscience of his listeners through the Ten Commandments. At this point he was through with the basic argument for God's existence.

The media misrepresented what he meant by saying he could prove God without mentioning faith or the Bible. The media gave the idea that there would be absolutely no mention of the Bible whatsoever, that was never claimed by WOTM.

How can you misrepresent someone when you use the words that came out of their mouth on more than one occasion? Once, maybe. Over and over - they meant to say it.

ABC simply published what Kirk and Ray sent to them.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Physboy
agnostic deistTheist
Physboy's picture
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-08-04
User is offlineOffline
CBX wrote: Brian,   With

CBX wrote:

Brian,

 

With all due respect, I think your misunderstanding what the fuss was all about. Ray wasn't disagreeing with the fact that he said he could prove God's existence without mentioning faith or the Bible. He was refuting the claim by the media that this would be a "bibleless" debate, something he never claimed.

 He did what he said he would do. He put forth the evidence for the existence of God without using faith or mentioning the Bible, then he moved into the usage of the Bible in order to awaken the conscience of his listeners through the Ten Commandments. At this point he was through with the basic argument for God's existence.

The media misrepresented what he meant by saying he could prove God without mentioning faith or the Bible. The media gave the idea that there would be absolutely no mention of the Bible whatsoever, that was never claimed by WOTM.

 

You are kidding right?  It was clear that the debate was about WOTM proving the existence of God w/o invoking faith or the Bible.  So, your now admitting that the context of the Ten Commandments referrence was a completely irrelevant red herring that he through in there.  When he was through with his proof for the existence of God, then he was supposed to sit down and allow Brian and Kelly to respond.  The moderator was not dealing with the moderation aspect of the debate at all.

Challenge your perspectives with the truth.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
CBX wrote: Brian,   With

CBX wrote:

Brian,

 

With all due respect, I think your misunderstanding what the fuss was all about. Ray wasn't disagreeing with the fact that he said he could prove God's existence without mentioning faith or the Bible. He was refuting the claim by the media that this would be a "bibleless" debate, something he never claimed.

Really?

Feel free to post the media articles that changed Rays words from "without the bible to "bibleless."

I don't remember hearing that term once, until Kirk Cameron pulled it out of his covering up ass.

Not to mention, that it was supposed to be a bible less debate, however I knew small infractions would occur.  However... too many infractions went down.

 

 

Quote:
He did what he said he would do. He put forth the evidence for the existence of God without using faith or mentioning the Bible, then he moved into the usage of the Bible in order to awaken the conscience of his listeners through the Ten Commandments. At this point he was through with the basic argument for God's existence.

Ok, who is this?  Todd?  Kirk?  Ray?

Dogma is rotting your brain.  Did you even watch the video? 

 

Quote:
The media misrepresented what he meant by saying he could prove God without mentioning faith or the Bible. The media gave the idea that there would be absolutely no mention of the Bible whatsoever, that was never claimed by WOTM.

Actually it's essentially what was claimed by WOTM, and the media never really hawked on it.  The media that presented the debate as "without faith or the bible" were the people USING WOTM PRESS RELEASE!!! THE QUOTE CAME FROM THEM!

 REMOVE HEAD FROM ASS... with all due respect. 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


CBX
Theist
CBX's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
First of all, to assume

First of all, to assume that you can use the Bible to prove that God exist is absolutely absurd.

Example: "Hey, God exist because the Bible says so!"

What Ray was doing was using the commandments to prove that the conscience testifies to the existence of God. If the conscience is an inherent reality which witnesses against our sins, then therefore is not a product of society, but rather it was placed there by someone. Therefore, if this be the case, then who put it there? We answer this with God.

So you see, he didn't use the Bible to prove God's existence, he used the decalogue to prove the conscience's existence which in turn testifies of the existence of a moral Creator.

 So, you're whole accusation falls apart... you guys must really hate WOTM.


stevedave83
stevedave83's picture
Posts: 55
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Conscience doesn't prove

Conscience doesn't prove anything.  Conscience, like morality, is relative.  Most people agree that murder, theft, etc. is wrong.  However, there are other "sins" of the xian faith that I don't care about.  If a catholic fornicated (by "fornicate", I mean sex for any reason other than procreation) with his wife, would he feel like he needed some type of cosmic forgiveness?  Probably.  What if a protestant did the same thing?  Depending on his denomination, maybe or maybe not.  Would I?  Hell no.  Nor did I feel guilty when I fornicated with my wife before we were married.  Nor do I feel guilty when I drink alcohol.  Nor do I feel guilty when I use you god's name is vain.

The ten commandments to do  prove the existence of a conscience and they SURE as hell don't prove the existence of your god.

How would you even define conscience?  It sounds like you think the conscience is something that makes you feel bad when you break one of the commandments.  I don't feel bad whenever I don't "remember the sabbath and keep it holy".  I would feel bad if I cheated on my wife, but that's because I love my wife, not because god said I'm not supposed to do that.

And about coveting... 

You can't rationally argue out something that was not rationally argued in.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: First of all, to

Quote:
First of all, to assume that you can use the Bible to prove that God exist is absolutely absurd.

True.

Quote:
What Ray was doing was using the commandments to prove that the conscience testifies to the existence of God.

What Ray was doing was using the commandments (BIBLE!) to prove that the conscience testifies (IS EVIDENCE) to the existence of God.

You've just refuted your own argument.

Brilliant.

Or, are you agreeing that there is no proof in science, and that Ray was attempting to build a convincing case with evidence?

That would seem be the smarter way to go, but are you really going to say that a book (not the only ancient book to mention a conscience, you know!) written 2000 years ago is compelling evidence when stacked against volumes and volumes of peer-reviewed science that has explained the conscience as an evolutionary development?

I'm not sure which tactic would be more stupid. You tell me.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


CBX
Theist
CBX's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
"Conscience doesn't prove

"Conscience doesn't prove anything."

If it is inherent and not learned then it does.

 "Most people agree that murder, theft, etc. is wrong."

Yes, but who says it is wrong? Where did the determination come from that establishes these things as wrong? Why is it that no matter where in the world you go (e.g. civilized and uncivilized people groups) there is some standard of morality?

 "Nor did I feel guilty when I fornicated with my wife before we were married.  Nor do I feel guilty when I drink alcohol.  Nor do I feel guilty when I use you god's name is vain."

We're not talking about guilt, we're talking about what is right and what is wrong. What if a man rapes a little girl and then chops her up into pieces and says, "I didn't feel guilty about it so it must be okay"? Does this mean it's okay? Since conscience is relative and and all?  

 "The ten commandments to do  prove the existence of a conscience and they SURE as hell don't prove the existence of your god."

If this was a mistype, don't change it because your right about the first part (conscience), though your wrong about the second part (God).  

"How would you even define conscience? "

The Bible says it is God's Law written on your heart that testifies against you when you do wrong (lying, stealing, looking w/ lust, etc.), it could also be defined as the inborn ability to discern between right and wrong.  


CBX
Theist
CBX's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
"What Ray was doing was

"What Ray was doing was using the commandments (BIBLE!) to prove that the conscience testifies (IS EVIDENCE) to the existence of God."

No, Ray used the commandments to prove that the conscience exists, which begs the question... Who put it there?

 "Or, are you agreeing that there is no proof in science, and that Ray was attempting to build a convincing case with evidence?"

There is scientific statements and evidence in the Bible that proves that the Bible is super natural in origin. However, Ray wasn't using this argument and neither am I.  

" ...are you really going to say that a book (not the only ancient book to mention a conscience, you know!) written 2000 years ago is compelling evidence when stacked against volumes and volumes of peer-reviewed science that has explained the conscience as an evolutionary development?"

1) What other ancient books mention the conscience as God given and testifying against us? Please share.

2) Modern Science is a fallible practice, performed by fallible men, using fallible means of experimentation and discovery. In otherwords, science textbooks are written by men (like the Bible right?).  


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
CBX wrote: "Conscience

CBX wrote:

"Conscience doesn't prove anything."

If it is inherent and not learned then it does.

 "Most people agree that murder, theft, etc. is wrong."

Yes, but who says it is wrong? Where did the determination come from that establishes these things as wrong? Why is it that no matter where in the world you go (e.g. civilized and uncivilized people groups) there is some standard of morality?

 "Nor did I feel guilty when I fornicated with my wife before we were married.  Nor do I feel guilty when I drink alcohol.  Nor do I feel guilty when I use you god's name is vain."

We're not talking about guilt, we're talking about what is right and what is wrong. What if a man rapes a little girl and then chops her up into pieces and says, "I didn't feel guilty about it so it must be okay"? Does this mean it's okay? Since conscience is relative and and all?  

 "The ten commandments to do  prove the existence of a conscience and they SURE as hell don't prove the existence of your god."

If this was a mistype, don't change it because your right about the first part (conscience), though your wrong about the second part (God).  

"How would you even define conscience? "

The Bible says it is God's Law written on your heart that testifies against you when you do wrong (lying, stealing, looking w/ lust, etc.), it could also be defined as the inborn ability to discern between right and wrong.  

 OK, I don't have the time or inclination to go point by point right now, but I'm going to repeat your premise in my own words:

1. If morality is somewhat uniform across the human species, it could be inherent.

2. If it's inherent, it must have a transcendent source.

This is bifurcation, and actually harms the Christian argument. If basic morality comes from a Christian source, pre-Jewish/Christian peoples should be in radical opposition to basic morality (not killing outside of war or self-defense, not stealing). But the fact is there are much more morally acute religions that predate Christianity. If this proves anything, it proves that Christianity is but one manifestation of an inherent moral inclination. Occam's razor takes care of the supernatural reasoning, only leaving the actually substantiated biological/social reasons.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
CBX wrote: "What Ray was

CBX wrote:

"What Ray was doing was using the commandments (BIBLE!) to prove that the conscience testifies (IS EVIDENCE) to the existence of God."

No, Ray used the commandments to prove that the conscience exists, which begs the question... Who put it there?

 "Or, are you agreeing that there is no proof in science, and that Ray was attempting to build a convincing case with evidence?"

There is scientific statements and evidence in the Bible that proves that the Bible is super natural in origin. However, Ray wasn't using this argument and neither am I.  

" ...are you really going to say that a book (not the only ancient book to mention a conscience, you know!) written 2000 years ago is compelling evidence when stacked against volumes and volumes of peer-reviewed science that has explained the conscience as an evolutionary development?"

1) What other ancient books mention the conscience as God given and testifying against us? Please share.

2) Modern Science is a fallible practice, performed by fallible men, using fallible means of experimentation and discovery. In otherwords, science textbooks are written by men (like the Bible right?).  

Ray said he could prove the existence of "god,"  scientifically, and without using the bible. In later e-mails, he silently altered his statement by removing the non-biblical condition. Even Ray knew he would be relying on the bible for his argument.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Ray used the

Quote:
Ray used the commandments to prove that the conscience exists

For my next trick, I will use a grocery store to prove that people get hungry.

Quote:
which begs the question... Who put it there?

No, it begs the question, how did it get there? Asking who put it there is creating a false dichotomy, and presupposing the conclusion. Both are logical fallacies, and invalidate the argument.

Quote:
There is scientific statements and evidence in the Bible that proves that the Bible is super natural in origin.

Bollocks

Quote:
However, Ray wasn't using this argument and neither am I.

So, we're going with the theory that he used the commandments to prove god, which leaves us with him being a liar.

Quote:
1) What other ancient books mention the conscience as God given and testifying against us? Please share.

Don't misquote me. I said there are other ancient books that mention a conscience. I didn't say anything about them saying god put it in humans. It's not even remotely relevant.

If the bible can't be used to prove god, then it doesn't matter if it was first ancient text to formulate the theory that god gave men conscience. You've already said it's not a valid proof. Which do you want? To have your cake or eat it?

Quote:
2) Modern Science is a fallible practice, performed by fallible men, using fallible means of experimentation and discovery. In otherwords, science textbooks are written by men (like the Bible right?).

You don't know what you're talking about. The results of science are fallible. Not science itself. The scientific method works.

The bible was written by men who were not using science.

Science books are written by men who were using science.

No, the bible is not like science textbooks.

Anyway, why are you still on about whether or not the bible can be used as a proof? You said that it can't.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


ThaiBoxerShorts
ThaiBoxerShorts's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-03-04
User is offlineOffline
CBX wrote:

CBX wrote:
No, Ray used the commandments to prove that the conscience exists, which begs the question... Who put it there?

Misuse of the phrase "begs the question" = One of Todd Friel's many annoying habits. You've been listening to way too much WOTM Radio. Just don't start calling everybody "dude." Nevertheless...

I don't need the Ten Commandments (Which Ten Commandments? Exodus 20, Exodus 34, or Deuteronomy 5? All three versions are different, and I can say with complete honesty and confidence that I've never cooked a goat in its mother's milk) to prove the existence of a conscience; it's self-evident to all non-psychopaths (Ooops, looks like God forgot to give them a conscience -- Maybe it's not as inherent as you assume). That doesn't prove -- or even suggest -- the existence of God, only that we're biologically hardwired to cooperate with each other and look out for each other, as such behavior increases our chances for survival and successful reproduction. Truly self-sufficient human beings are, after all, neglegibly rare.

I seem to recall there was a famous scientist who came up with a theory that predicts and explains such things. I think his name starts with "D" and ends with "arwin."


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
CBX wrote: "What Ray was

CBX wrote:

"What Ray was doing was using the commandments (BIBLE!) to prove that the conscience testifies (IS EVIDENCE) to the existence of God."

No, Ray used the commandments to prove that the conscience exists, which begs the question... Who put it there?

Setting aside for a moment that Ray never proved anything about this "conscience" and how it works scientifically (unsubstantiated claims don't count), if anyone put "it" there, it would've been put there by your mom and dad.  Stop trivializing your mothers efforts, imaginary man in the sky has nothing to do with it.

"Everyone has the laws of god written on their hearts." - Ray Comfort scientifically proving god exists.

 If I need to explain to you that this is not how science works, Ray proved nothing falisifiably ever about gods existence, and you're repeating arguments I debunked in the video... I'll assume you are past the point where you are able to get it.

 "The hardest thing to do in life is to see things as they are, not as you want them to be." - Jake

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


CBX
Theist
CBX's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
"No, it begs the question,

"No, it begs the question, how did it get there?"

Okay, how did it get there?

 "Bollocks"

That sounds like an old hungarian dish... what is it?

"Don't misquote me. I said there are other ancient books that mention a conscience.  "

Apologies, however, I am still curious as to what ancient books mention a conscience (especially along the same lines as the Bible).  

"If the bible can't be used to prove god, then it doesn't matter if it was first ancient text to formulate the theory that god gave men conscience. You've already said it's not a valid proof. Which do you want? To have your cake or eat it?"

What I meant, was that you cannot simply say that God exists because the Bible says so. You must first ask the question "Is the Bible reliable?" If it turns out to be so, then you can further examine the claims of God in Scripture.  

"You don't know what you're talking about. The results of science are fallible. Not science itself. The scientific method works."

Here's the problem with this claim: now you have to prove it. When I say that science is not totally reliable because it is done by men, then I have a valid point. If you can get away with saying that the Bible is unreliable because men wrote it, why is it wrong for me to make the same claim about evolotionary sciences? 


CBX
Theist
CBX's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
"Misuse of the phrase "begs

"Misuse of the phrase "begs the question" = One of Todd Friel's many annoying habits. You've been listening to way too much WOTM Radio. Just don't start calling everybody "dude." Nevertheless..."

 C'mon, Dude, that's not fair enough...

"I seem to recall there was a famous scientist who came up with a theory that predicts and explains such things. I think his name starts with "D" and ends with "arwin.""

I have to correct your understanding on this, Darwin was NOT a scientist, he first studied medicine and then gained a degree in theology. He went to an island where there were special beatles and finches and became convinced of naturilistic evolution, based on a philosophy he developed outside of the field of science.  Aftewords, he accumulated "evidences" to support his presupposition.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Okay, how did it get

Quote:
Okay, how did it get there?

The Evolution of Morality (Life and Mind: Philosophical Issues in Biology and Psychology)

Hardwired Behavior: What Neuroscience Reveals about Morality

Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved (The University Center for Human Values Series)

As you can see, there's quite a bit of information available. I'm not going to explain a whole book's worth of scholarship in a paragraph. Do your own homework.

Quote:
Apologies, however, I am still curious as to what ancient books mention a conscience (especially along the same lines as the Bible).

Old Testament Parallels (Fully Expanded and Revised)

The Palaeolithic Societies of Europe (Cambridge World Archaeology)

You learned how to use a library in grade school, right? There are answers out there. Maybe you should do some reading.

Quote:
What I meant, was that you cannot simply say that God exists because the Bible says so. You must first ask the question "Is the Bible reliable?" If it turns out to be so, then you can further examine the claims of God in Scripture.

And the fact that the bible mentions conscience makes it reliable? The Illiad mentions Troy. Does that make it reliable?

The bible claims that there is a god, and that miracles happen, and that the sun stopped in the sky so that an army could finish killing another army. In order to demonstrate that the bible is reliable, you must demonstrate, at the very least, that magic is real, or that god exists, or that the sun stopped once.

It doesn't work the other way around. Just because the bible mentions some stuff that is real, it doesn't even remotely imply that everything the bible mentions is real. Or, did I skip that day in logic class? Would you like to give me a formal proof?

Quote:
When I say that science is not totally reliable because it is done by men, then I have a valid point.

No, you have proven that you don't even know what science is.

Quote:
If you can get away with saying that the Bible is unreliable because men wrote it, why is it wrong for me to make the same claim about evolotionary sciences?

I never said that the bible is unreliable because men wrote it. It is unreliable because it is logically inconsistent and factually inaccurate. It is unreliable because there are no existing originals. It is unreliable because there are language and translation problems for which there are no certain answers. It is unreliable because it is not based on science, logic, or accurate history.

It is wrong for you to make the claim about evolutionary science because you are trying to use unreliable and uncertain to mean the same thing. Evolutionary science is not completely certain of its theories. No science ever is. Outside of deduction, nothing is ever certain. Science functions precisely because there is uncertainty. The claims of all science are highly reliable because of the methods used to come to the claims.

Now, are you going to read any of the books I recommended, or would you like to continue demonstrating your ignorance?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


CBX
Theist
CBX's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
"The bible claims that

"The bible claims that there is a god, and that miracles happen, and that the sun stopped in the sky so that an army could finish killing another army. In order to demonstrate that the bible is reliable, you must demonstrate, at the very least, that magic is real, or that god exists, or that the sun stopped once."

Why don't you apply that same logic to the theory of evolution? You absolutely cannot simulate or reproduce the claims of evolution concerning past events that happened some odd billions of years ago, yet you believe right? Just because I can't physically prove the sun stood still or that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead doesn't mean it didn't happen. For anyone to claim that because these events cannot be reproduced they must therefore be untrue is poor reasoning. I, like you, accept certain claims of my belief on faith because there are other parts that are experiential and proven (like conversion, answered prayer, etc.). 

"I never said that the bible is unreliable because men wrote it. It is unreliable because it is logically inconsistent and factually inaccurate. It is unreliable because there are no existing originals. It is unreliable because there are language and translation problems for which there are no certain answers. It is unreliable because it is not based on science, logic, or accurate history."

I don't know what logical inconsistencies or factual inaccuracies  you're speaking of. However, just because there are no existing originals doesn't mean it's unreliable; you have no existing transitional fossils or bone structures, yet you believe evolution. There are scientific facts in the Bible, as well as accurate historical accounts; maybe you should think about utilizing a library as well.

I will take a look at the links you sent me.  


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Why don't you apply

Quote:
Why don't you apply that same logic to the theory of evolution? You absolutely cannot simulate or reproduce the claims of evolution concerning past events that happened some odd billions of years ago, yet you believe right?

Now you're demonstrating ignorance about how we know evolution occurs.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/reading_the_common_descent_endogenous_retrovirals_and_mitochondrial_dna_a_very_short_page

http://www.rationalresponders.com/proteomics_and_its_applications_for_evolutionary_mechanisms

These two links will give you a primer. If you want some book recommendations...

The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design

The Selfish Gene: 30th Anniversary Edition--with a new Introduction by the Author

 A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution  

The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution

 

Bottom line: The evidence, both direct observation and fossil record, is so overwhelmingly compelling that we can say that evolution exists as certainly as gravity exists.

You know, of course, that gravity is just a theory, right? We can't explain everything about why or how it works. Are you ready to claim that gravity doesn't exist because we can't explain it completely?

Quote:
For anyone to claim that because these events cannot be reproduced they must therefore be untrue is poor reasoning.

In science, we have this thing called falsifiability.

But it's more than that. These events defy the laws of logic and science. In order to demonstrate that they are possible, you must give compelling evidence that the laws of science are completely wrong.

Considering the fact that you don't seem to grasp what science even is, I doubt you have this evidence. If you do, you have my solemn oath that I will lick your shoes at your Nobel Prize award ceremony.

Quote:
I, like you, accept certain claims of my belief on faith because there are other parts that are experiential and proven (like conversion, answered prayer, etc.).

Horseshit

http://www.rationalresponders.com/doesnt_everyone_take_things_on_faith

 

Quote:
I don't know what logical inconsistencies or factual inaccuracies you're speaking of.

 A Reference Guide  

Biblical Errancy: A Reference Guide

Quote:
However, just because there are no existing originals doesn't mean it's unreliable;

Did I say "just because"? Stop misquoting me.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_silence_that_screams_no_contemporary_historical_accounts_for_jesus

The 'Gospels' are 'Midrash'

The Gospels are Anonymous Works - and None are Eyewitness Accounts

Quote:
you have no existing transitional fossils or bone structures, yet you believe evolution.

If you had any idea of what the theory of evolution actually says, you'd realize that every fossil is a transitional fossil.

Anyway, as it turns out, we do have transitional fossils the way you mean it.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Quote:
There are scientific facts in the Bible, as well as accurate historical accounts; maybe you should think about utilizing a library as well.

I've read the bible, thanks.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism