Ray Comfort is a liar.
Offline I am amazed at the lack of coherent logic in Ray's arguments. Lets start with the basics, "If you have lied, then you are a liar". According to the dictionary, a liar is, "A person who tells lies" -Random House. "Tells lies", not "have lied". (To be fair, WordNet does define it as someone who has lied, but not MW, AH, or others.) That seems to me to be a deliberate and ongoing distortion of a fact that is repeated by Ray rather consistently. Therefore, Ray is a liar because he continually lies, (about the definition of liar) not because he has "lied".
To illustrate the idiocy of his argument, one only has to take it to the obvious conclusion. Did you ever wet your pants? (even when you were a baby?) Then you are a pants wetter. Ever get drunk? If so, you must be an alcoholic. And I don't even want to consider what the process of being born makes me! The logic just doesn't hold up. And the funny part, since he is lying to get people to believe in G-d, then he is lying in G-d's name, and is therefore committing blasphemy in the process.
[edited in by Sapient: This post is now being featured on the homepage. It represents the views of the average person that visits our site, and was one of the first few posts created by "davidildo" on our website. Hopefully this thread can become a repository for all exposes on the moronic argumentation presented by Ray Comfort. Kudos David for a witty expose on the dishonesty that is Ray Comfort]
Yeah, he's pretty much an asshat. He also assumes the BuyBull is true.
Science works whether you believe in it or not.
I think also his "courtroom-example" is pretty bad. I can't understand, why people don't see the difference. He says: "You are in court. You are guilty. The judge sets the fine to 50'000 bucks. You don't have the money. You are going to Jail. Someone comes in, says: "Hey, thats my friend, I'll pay the fine, so he doesn't have to go to jail" and so the judge can let you go. That would than be Jesus-boy with his Salvation-trick.
Actually, the story should go like this: The judge makes up laws wich no one can life after. Then, he says, you are guilty and sets your fine to 50'000 bucks. After that, the judge gives his own son a phonecall, that he should come to the courtroom and pay your fine, so he could let you go.
Well, I actually have to admitt that this Ray-man doesn't bother me alot. Only already-Christians fall for his arguments anyway..
Actually it would be more like there are thousands of different sets of laws, all of which conflict and there is no way to know which set (if any) are true....
Science works whether you believe in it or not.
I'm surprised that nobody has turned this around on him: "So, Ray, you're a liar?" "Yes!" "Then why on earth should I listen to you?"
Well, I think there must have been many situations like this. Or, for example, they must have met people wich actually dont belive in heaven or hell at all. They just dont show this videos, because that's not what they want to show.
Oh crap, I better convert right now because you just proved to me that God exists(allbeit a mean one) because only a cruel incompetent being would allow such an arbitrary privacy invader like the IRS to exist with law and codes that are just as muddy and stupid as the ones in the bible.
Contact all the 08 Presidental candidates and remind them of their Constitutional duty to uphold "no religious test" www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/news_activism/8955
Yes, there is a circular logic to the fact that the Xian bible makes arbitrary rules that conflict with human nature, then doles out massive punishment for the slightest infraction, and then offer forgiveness by requiring something that is out of someones hands to offer.
The whole idea of "belief" runs contrary to logic and precludes choice. Someone cannot choose to beleive in something, as I have pointed out to many Jehov-h Witnesses. Pascal's Wager is based the faulty assumption that one can choose to believe.
I used to answer the door and talk to some Witnesses that would stop by, and one day I asked if she could choose to not believe, she said she could. I then asked her, "for the sake of an experiment, stop believeing". She argued and told me that it was hard work, blasphemey, etc.... I think it proved my point rather well. One cannot turn on and off faith, so I moved to colors. Since belief is a choice, believe that the color blue is really the color green. She told me that was ridiculous because her eyes and common sense told her otherwise. Exactly my point, eh?
If she became an athiest, I would of then asked her to prove it by blaspheming G-d, that would of been funny.
Actually what I was talking about was how do you know the BuyBull is the "correct" one - why not the Quaran, Vedas, Baghavad Gita (sp), Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc...?
Science works whether you believe in it or not.
Wny does the right margin on every single post in this thread get cut off?
I notice it with some other threads too.
The entire post should be there, you may just need to scroll over to see all of it. Sometimes this happens when someone posts a link to a site without using the link function and it stretches the page.
I have problems with this at home because my monitor is smaller than the one I have at work so that may be part of the problem too.
Ji jce
there is no scroll bar at the bottom of the page. I had to click select all then copy to another page in my doc to read all of your thread.
Get this as I just clicked on reply at the right margin the alert box only covers one or two letters but I now have a scroll bar at the bottom.
Also I have tried many times to make the page larger. I even move it around to the left so I can move (spread) the right margin as far as it will go.
Never thought of posting without using the link function, thanks
Comfort would be a really good Con-Man.
Two suggestions:
Try using Firefox. This site works best in Firefox.
Or, if you are using Firefox or don't want to/can't switch browsers, try changing the 'theme' under your account settings.
Other than that, I am not sure what else to tell you to try.
Programmers have things like "Hello world".
3D Artists have things like the teapot.
Animators have things like flour sacks.
And rational people have Way Of the Master.
In other words, all of them are basic simple things that people should probably do/work on before they get to move onto anything tricky.
-----------------------
I'll get back to you when I think of something worthwhile to say.
Like any good con-man, the first job is to identify a good mark. Good con-men don't go after people that won't fall for their tricks. They only go after the weak and sickly sect of society.
Comfort knows this all to well.
He attacks unsuspecting people on the street with confusing circular logic that only the most clever of communicators can see through without lengthy thought. To compound the difficulty, he sticks a microphone in their faces and intimidates them with the camera. He is calm and cool because he is reciting the same tripe he is well rehearsed in. He is not nervous becuase he know that if someone stuffs him he can just not show anyone the footage (as someone pointed out previously).
He's a carnie, a spinster with shallow tricks that he uses on people that already want to believe him.
Exactly! The real odd part is that it is a commandment to not bear false witness, yet when they edit the questions and answers, that is exactly what they are doing. They are giving a false impression based on their editing choice. Again, more despicable than what the athiests are doing.
Have you ever told the truth?
Then you are honest.
Have you ever given to charity?
Then you are charitable.
Have you ever listened to and believed Ray Comfort?
Then you are gullible.
http://kergillian.250free.com/FSM/occamsRazor.gif
I'm amazed at the lack interpretive charity in your response to Ray Comfort. You are being defamatory and your understanding of Comfort's modus operandi is completely wrong.
Content aside that is incorrect and you concede this in your next statement. A thing A can take on propety P as a result of a temporary or transient experience. For example, a new car becomes and remains a used-car as a consequence of use. A person that has had sex loses their virginity. In these cases P becomes part of As identity. You are plainly wrong in your generaliastion.
So you admit that you are wrong. You have contradicted yourself but you push on with your defamation regardless. How do you know that Ray Comfort doesn't sincerely believe what he is saying? In which case he wouldn't be lying.
Seems to be and actually is are two different things. You have made an assumption, cherry-picked a dictionary definition that suits your defamatory agenda and proceeded hence.
Sorry but there is no "therefore" here. You are assuming what you need to prove. If you are going to call someone a liar you must demonstrate that they are intentionally uttering falsehoods. You've yet to rule out that Ray Comfort is actually being sincere.
Ray Comfort is witnessing. His intention is to demonstrate the fallen and corrupt nature of man. He need only demonstrate the absence of moral perfection in man to achieve his purpose. If you have lied, stolen, coveted, killed etc. at any point in your life then ipso facto you are morally imperfect according to the standard of Christian ethics. Fundamental to Christian doctrine is the notion that everyone is flawed and debased even Christians. Yes, this is contrary to the Humanist position but that is besides the point. The matter at hand is the WOTM witnessing technique.
The method is entirely consistent with the Christian worldview and it is internally coherent. A morally perfect human would have no history of sin. The point of Comfort's approach is to demonstrate that there are no such people.
By what epistemic route did you arrive at the confident conclusion that Ray Comfort is lying? The other options which you are ignoring are that (a) you don't understand the logic he is employing; and (b) he sincerely believes what he is saying. Either situation exonerates Comfort from any guilt. I'm interested to know how you ruled out (1) and (2).
Fusing rationality with sexiness using the arc welder of charisma -What I do.
Therefore, proposition P can't be true - A conclusion I once deduced that made me pwn.
You're so smart. - Me talking
Devastating critique.
That is an intellectually bankrupt remark. You do acknowledge that don't you? The only more vacuous response that I can think of at this time is an empty post.
Fusing rationality with sexiness using the arc welder of charisma -What I do.
Therefore, proposition P can't be true - A conclusion I once deduced that made me pwn.
You're so smart. - Me talking
Gwendolan,
It's not an example it's an analogy. The function of an analogy is to illustrate a point in terms of a domain of experience with which a listener may be more familiar. No analogy is perfect and they all break down at some point.
Your response is demonstrative of bad faith on your part. You are being as least charitable in your interpretation as you can possibly be.
Also, WOTM is a witnessing ministry i.e. they lay the seeds for Christian conversion of non-Christians. You don't witness to Christians. The people that you see in the WOTM video clips on YouTube are either non-Christians or "lapsed" Christians.
I agree that their method is not suitable for all people. If the person they are attempting to witness to has a well reasoned non-Christian worldview -- these exist but they are rare (I've yet to find one on these forums) -- or they have some non-epistemic reason for their beliefs (eg. a person that has cooked up an intellectual allibi ex post facto for a behaviour that they seek to engage in regardless) then their approach will fail.
Fusing rationality with sexiness using the arc welder of charisma -What I do.
Therefore, proposition P can't be true - A conclusion I once deduced that made me pwn.
You're so smart. - Me talking
That's a rhetorically lame response. The obvious response to that is, "You don't have to believe me. Here's a copy of the Bible. I've marked the relevant sections. Please take it and read them."
Fusing rationality with sexiness using the arc welder of charisma -What I do.
Therefore, proposition P can't be true - A conclusion I once deduced that made me pwn.
You're so smart. - Me talking
Presumptuous, unevidenced and wrong. You can see all of their "When things go wrong" clips on YouTube. There are clips when people do just what you say and more. In one clip in Jerusalem Ray Comfort gets spat upon. In another clip shot in New Zealand a transvestite attempts to choke a member of the WOTM Ministry.
On a forum that is ostensibly dedicated to rational discourse does evidence and argumentation count for anything? Should I too just engage in this orgy of baseless rancour?Fusing rationality with sexiness using the arc welder of charisma -What I do.
Therefore, proposition P can't be true - A conclusion I once deduced that made me pwn.
You're so smart. - Me talking
Comfort's argument is the argument of a child, which is precisely why it appeals to his audience.
His argument is based on the fallacy that our descriptive terms like 'honesty', 'truthfulness', etc. are all or nothing dichotomies. One event of dishonesty makes a person, dishonest, etc.
We can thus reduce his argument to absurdity when we consider that his rule must hold for the opposing descriptor as well: If one dishonest act makes you dishonest, then, using the same all or nothing mindset, one honest act must make you honest. You are therefore both completley honest and completely dishonest at the same time. A contradiction.
And this follows from his premises. He cannot assume, from his premises, as he uses them, that he can rule out the contradictory descriptor:
have you ever lied? Then you are a liar.
Based on this alone, he cannot rule out the following:
Have you ever told the truth, then you are honest.
The real motive behind this is a psychological one: it's based on the purity concept - anything impure is somehow ruined, destroyed...
But does anyone actually live like this? Do we stop trusting a person, forever, if they lie to us once? Do we call mom a liar, because of what she told us about Santa Claus?
*******************************************
The solution to the 'contradiction' is apparent to all intelligent humans across the globe: one act does not make a person completely honest or completely dishonest.
The best proof of all, however, is a rhetorical one: Ray Comfort doesn't believe his argument. Ask him to borrow his car. When he says no, ask him if he lets his wife borrow his car. When he says yes, ask him what's the difference?
* I'm betting some assclown might say "well, if you take it, my wife can't use it..." but provided that you would use it just as she would, and not take it when antoher needed it, then, would he let you borrow it?
Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates
: Operation Spread Eagle, Kent Hovind, Creation Science, Evangelism Ministries, Eric Hovind, Jo Hovind, Liar, Evolution, Copyright, Fraud, Youtube, Fair Use La
Incorrect. The actual point he is making is that you are morally bankrupt, unable to be good or moral on your own, and therefore compelled to concede your worthlessness and seek salvation in his imaginary god.
It's a scare tactic, combined with a brutal assault on a person's sense of self efficacy. It's not 'witnessing' so much as it is psychological terror tactics*: frightening ignorant people into thinking they are both worthless and incapable of doing anything about it.
Man can be impefect without being corrupt, without being worthless. Christians like comfort are unable to recognize this, because they are simplistic, concrete, dichotomous thinkers, unable to see where even they contradict their own claims in their daily lives. No christian actually thinks that they, or their loved ones, christian or not christian, are worthless.... they steal from secular morality with every breath... their 'witnessing' is therefore of a psychological nature, it speaks more to problems in their ego strength than it does to any reality that they actually believe in...
* This is NOT hyperbole: Comfort himself concedes that the only effective way to win converts is to frighten them. Call me on this, and I'll give you the video where he conceds precisely this...Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates
: Operation Spread Eagle, Kent Hovind, Creation Science, Evangelism Ministries, Eric Hovind, Jo Hovind, Liar, Evolution, Copyright, Fraud, Youtube, Fair Use La
I think the OP was thinking something more like this:
http://www.youtube.com/v/U0n0TK_dx-Y
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.
You've managed to inpugn the entire site and all the members here based on what you think are problems in this single thread. Seems to me that you have an agenda.
Why not model the behavior you supposedly do not see, rather than engage in precisely the same sort of baseless rancour by continually lashing out at people?
Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates
: Operation Spread Eagle, Kent Hovind, Creation Science, Evangelism Ministries, Eric Hovind, Jo Hovind, Liar, Evolution, Copyright, Fraud, Youtube, Fair Use La