Ray Comfort is a liar.
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.
- Login to post comments
You are clearly displaying a Level 1 (Pre-Conventional) temper tantrum.
There, there little one. Drink your warm milk and ask mommy for another bedtime story, that's a good boy.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Now, now. I didn't realise that sore losing was something that could be experienced vicariously. It was more a gloat than a temper tantrum. Recognising it for what it was wouldn't have allowed you to use your lame "canned" joke. In any event you should apply your moral/etiquette standard even-handedly. Not that I'm offended, but I had a fair few insults thrown my way. In the interests of fairness I should be given the liberty to respond in a proportionate manner.
Your forums have been anaemic for the last few weeks. My pretty face and eloquence have been like a much needed blood transfusion. I've given Brian something to feature. You should be thanking me rather than attempting to use me as a foil for your hackneyed humour.
You should be helping todangst lick his wounds. No doubt his next post will be wounded and even more bitter than usual.
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
To use Jehovah's Witnesses to prove that God is not real is like trying to use an illusionist to prove God is real. Witnesses have such a twisted understanding of what the Bible teaches. Even if you don't believe, it'd be like someone coming up to you and saying Harry Potter wasn't actually a wizard, he was just mentally disabled and only thought all that was happening around him. You ask them where that logic came from and they can't tell you.
The feature here is the original post, you are like a pimple on this website.
So which obnoxious, arrogant, pompous apologist are you? Paul Manata? Matt Slick? JP Holding? Gene Cook? They're all so similar... always wrong but thinks they're always right.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
I'm going to libel here, exactly as our opponent has so lucratively pointed out that todangst and I are capable of doing.
I'm just going to make one long block quote of everything our opponent has said that is superfulous to the main argument, and respond with a block quote of everything he/she ignored in my last post. Here goes:
(this is just from the last two posts our opponent made. Yes it is all out of context. To get the full sense of how much intellectual drivel is present, take two pills of valium (to dull the pain) and read the thread from the beginning)
(note: if this is part of our error, why does our opponent plead for us to realise it without showing us? That's not how common "philosophers" work. Generally they work towards completely destroying arguments without worrying about the people making them)
(why does our opponent assume our worldviews? this has nothing to do with anything. Also assumed: todangst and I have similar worldviews, which neither of us know and todangst's age.)
(Wow. Hypocritical much?)
Is that a direct quote of a claim made?
For the love of English, that's the second time you mispelled "you're".
These are just the parts of my opponent's argument that seem to have nothing to do with the main topic or the arguments todangst and I have advanced. Now, here are the parts of my last post my opponent ignored:
(note, I found this to be hard, because my opponent took a lot of one-line quotes out of my text, not in order. So I might be wrong in parts.)
I admit, I made some libel in my posts here. However, it was full of statements regarding the argument, directly. And these libel statements were rare (as there's no use in re-iterating claims that don't need much motivation). I don't feel I strayed too far until this exact post. But that's mostly just because I'm tired of our opponent ignoring important statements and making philosophically empty claims.
Also, I'm happy to take the label, "Mr Super-Atheist".
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.
"If I have a little money I buy books and if any is left I buy food and clothes.'
You like to 'verb' words do you? Libel is a noun. What do you mean by 'lucratively'? Are you attempting to find a clever substitute for the word 'profitably'? At the moment it seems that you're saying that Lucretis pointing our your capacity for "libelling" has been very profitable for him. What is that supposed to mean?
A better response: people make spelling errors when writing on forum posts. It happens because you write quickly and don't always have time to read over it a couple of times, or submit it to others to review. Ignore it, and move on. Points scoring in this way is a distraction, a sleight of hand. (Yes, I realise I took you to task just above, but that was to soften you up for this rebuke).
Your response is confusing. Is that one big quote that sits at the end of your post just a repeat of what's earlier, or have you inserted text in there too? It's impossible to easily tell what's new and what isn't.
Personally, I think you guys are beat.
The reductio ad absurdum fails - and this is in addition to the points that Lucretis made, because he attacked you from another angle that averted the need for responding to it.
There is nothing contradictory with holding that a single action categorises you. Someone commits murderer, and misses all other opportunities to murder from then on. Does each "not-murder" case redeem him from the label? No, we consider it completely coherent to say that this person is a murderer, despite the countless opportunities where this person did not murder. We don't say that this person is both a murderer and not a murderer. Same goes with rape, or other such heinous crimes. For every time a rapist resists attacking a woman, does that make him not a rapist? Is he both a rapist and not a rapist? No. We call him a rapist. One single act categorises, *without* causing a contradiction. You guys are mistaken on multiple levels in attacking Comfort.
Edit: It is not just the act of telling the truth that makes one honest. It is the act of never lying. So telling a lie and then telling a truth does not make one both a truthteller and a liar.
As irrational as they are, I don't think they approach this person's level of schizophrenic detachment from reality... he's unable to even read a post accurately. Anyone who'd confuse Comfort's divine command ethics for the moral system found in a person like Gandhi has missed his medications for several days in a row...
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Sigh. The point is that this premise, on it's own, leads to contraditory conclusions.
One lie makes you a liar.
One honest act makes you a non liar.
The only way to salvage the situation is to insist that this only works in the case of negative categories, i.e. 'lying'
But this would lead to Comfort using his own conclusion as a premise.
This error has been laid out multiple times now. My condolences to those who still can't grasp it.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
You can't "rub it in" because you have a schizophrenic attachment to reality... you'd never be able to find where to 'rub', nor could you ever figure out what you'd be 'rubbing in'....
You're lost. You're not even able to read a post correctly.
Here, I'll show you again:
Todangst: The point here is that given Comfort's premises, his argument can be used against him. It's obvious that Comfort would reject the conclusion, but it would be based on his presumption that man is debased as per original sin. It couldn't flow from his argument, alone, as presented, because his argument is based on the premise that one action can categorize a person into a tight dichotomy.
Mental patient:No it isn't. Humans are categorised as corrupted on the basis of Original Sin NOT because they once sinned here during their life.
You need mental help. This is not an insult. It's advice. You can't read a post accurately enough to argue a point, you're not able to follow it.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
A bit of advice to the posters in this thread: walk away. You can't argue with someone who can't even read your argument.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Todangst if this is your professional advice, I think it's best to respect our communities time by showing lucretis to the door.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
*Sigh*, right back at you. As Lucretis has made amply clear, your error lies in your inability to give charity to an argument, recognising the hidden assumptions in it. That premise is *not* the only one in the argument, but is given on its own for rhetorical purposes. It should be taken in conjunction with those hidden premises. In this case, it would include the fact that the definition of words like 'liar', 'murderer', 'rapist' show one act as categorising. Is it that hard for you to see that?
This is not the only way to salvage it. You can also choose to take into account the nature of certain words that *do* categorise based on one act, without causing a contradiction. Eg, murderer. Are you going to claim that "murderer" is a contradictory appellation?
Comfort is trying to show people how, *given* Christianity, they are sinful. His method isn't to convince people who already reject Christianity in its entirety, but rather those who are at least a little open to the idea of Christianity being true. He is showing how, on Christianity, they have sinned and indeed have a sinful nature.
Lucretis has done a great job of showing your errors. In addition to the points he's made, I'm amazed that you would attribute to Comfort the contradiction of saying, simply, that "one act categorises". One act of murder makes you a murderer, and a lifetime of not-murdering doesn't change that. You ignored that in my last post. Are you that cruel to Comfort that you think he must defend even the simplest of things? Lucretis was right when he said you give no interpretive charity.
From www.m-w.com:
Main Entry: 2libel
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -beled or -belled; -bel·ing or li·bel·ling "> /-b(&li[ng]/
intransitive verb : to make libelous statements
transitive verb : to make or publish a libel against
- li·bel·er "> /-b(&l&r/ noun
- li·bel·ist "> /-b&-list/ noun
As for "lucrative":
Etymology: Middle English lucratif, from Middle French, from Latin lucrativus, from lucratus, past participle of lucrari to gain, from lucrum
: producing wealth : PROFITABLE
If you can't appreciate that I threw that in there, you obviously don't understand irony. The whole point of my post was to show exactly how the argument has been going the entire time. No real new material has been entered since the first or second post he made. The argument went in the same circle several times.
As for the mistakes made by our opponent:
"your're" is not only the only spelling error, it's the least of his worries. Some of us have just realized the futility of arguing with morons.
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.
I think the pineapple argument is flawed. It's based on the fallacy that if p implies q, then q will be false whenever p is. That's not to say that the banana argument is good, of course.
I'll do that.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
No My argument deals specifically with the claim "one act, catgorizes'. No one denies that Comfort only holds to this vis-a-vis non good acts. The point is that his argument "one act, categorize", works against him, unless you add in that this only applies to immoral acts.
But to do that simply begs the question.
I've only made that point 100 times now.
But it is the problematic premise! Again, if you use the conclusion 'this only applies to sinful acts' then the argument begs the question.
Sigh. But this has nothing to do with acts that are not all or nothing categories, and this is the actual point under discussion! So your response here merely dodges the actual problem. And I think you even suspect that... in thinking over a response you were forced to look elsewhere, anywhere else other than the problematic premise itself.
Comfort is saying one lie makes you a liar
But by the same argument, one honest statement makes you honest.
To say "ah, but this only applies to immoral acts' simply begs the question... he might as well simply assert "you're damned, no matter what, and forget the argument, because the argument, as it stands, cannot demonstrate the point without merely begging the question.
See how you're running from the actual point, and how you must run from it, otherwise, you're sunk?
Again, to use that conclusion as a premise begs the question.
You've done a great job of revealing that you're nearly as confused as he is... your response dodges the actual point, over and over.
You're also quite confused as to just why Luc is so off the mark. First, he's not even able to grasp what a reduction to absurdity is, he's not able to work out that the very point of such a refutation is to show that one's premises leads to contradictory conclusions. He reacts to this by saying "You don't understand Comfort's theology (i.e. this contradicts Comfort's conclusions)!
He's really that lost.
If you still have any doubt, just read this 'exchange':
Todangst: The point here is that given Comfort's premises, his argument can be used against him. It's obvious that Comfort would reject the conclusion, but it would be based on his presumption that man is debased as per original sin. It couldn't flow from his argument, alone, as presented, because his argument is based on the premise that one action can categorize a person into a tight dichotomy.
Mental patient:No it isn't. Humans are categorised as corrupted on the basis of Original Sin NOT because they once sinned here during their life.
The guy is not even able to follow what is said to him.
Apparently this thread is for people who simply refuse to read the post they think they are responding to.....
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
OK, what the........ You say Ray Comfort is a liar....but your post doesn’t make any sense. You state this, “According to the dictionary, a liar is, "A person who tells lies" -Random House. "Tells lies", not "have lied".”Ok, if you tell lies, that means that you have lied. We are not living in a world that doesn’t turn. If you tell lies, the lies would be in the past. Hence Ray Comfort’s use of the past tense phrase “have lied”. Does anyone else find this post completely pointless?Davidildo- you are a genius.
You know, the more I think about it, the more I realize that I have been arguing with a strawman that Ray designed. Very tricky of Ray, and of course it is very dishonest. The actual commandment is, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour." That really isn't just lying per se, but rather telling an untruth as it pertains to someone else. It seems to me that the bible has delineated between telling a white lie, and telling a malicious one.
Ray interviews people, and during the editing process, Ray has clipped the valid and good responses, and has left in athiests looking stupid. Through the editing process, Ray has born false witness against athiests. During Rays video, he minimizes the opponents arguement, summarizing it to make it appear silly. That is bearing false witness.
The mere process of arguing with poeple and using arguements that are false, is bearing false witness. Since he passes himself off as an expert in the area and he has not taken the time to learn the facts, then he is bearing false witness.
Seriously, do you really believe what you just wrote? Are you a liar? Are you a thief because you took something that didn't belong to you when you were two years old?
Of course Rays defense in this case would be that he is not above sin. He doesn't claim to be perfect, Jesus was. However... if you listen to him talk about "hypocrites" he likes to think he has a good handle on who is a hypocrite and who isn't. The fact of the matter is that Ray is the false Christian that he and his team speak of. Kirk mentioned in the Nightline discussion that if we cant sniff out hypocrites, it doesn't matter because God surely can. It's a good thing for Ray and Kirk that their God doesn't exist, or they'd be fucked. I however feel bad for all the suckers that ever send Ray and Kirk a penny, when they die... they can't return for a refund.
We could make a million cases for Ray and Kirk bearing false witness, even the premise of our debate was broken when it was set up dishonestly just to get preaching time, as they now admit to. I like your original argument more.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
I think that the two arguements counter different aspects of what he said, and rather go hand in hand. The first is just a simple refutation of the logic of his point, while the second is a response to the interpretation of the philosophical nature of his point.
I like the first one because it points out the inherient flaws in his arguements. I like the second point because it shows that good ol' Mr. Comfort is willing to even bear false witness against the Bible to further his own adgenda.
It is as you said, no matter how you approach Ray's arguements, they crumble under any application of logic, whether you argue from a religious perspective or an athiestic.
It is similar to arguing against the athiests worst nightmare. You can either point out that it is a hybrid that man has introduced which gives it easy to eat shape, or point out that there are many foods that are difficult to eat, and his logic would dictate that we did not eat them. Either way, his shallow points are quickly dismissed.
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?"
Someone probably has. WoTM just wouldn't put it on their show.
Sapient says: "I however feel bad for all the suckers that ever send Ray and Kirk a penny, when they die... they can't return for a refund."I find this comical, coming from a guy who has a list of suckers on his website who have sent him money to help him continue to bash Christians.
I find it comical that you are allowed to post this ridiculous comment for free.
Oh, should I pay you? I've just written out checks for my monthly contributions to the KKK, the Black Panthers, and to Al Qaeda. Let me see if I have any money left over to support one more hate group, and I'll get back with you.
Oh no - no payment is necessary for you to come here and spew your arrogant, uneducated, useless thoughts. lol
You see, no one here is forced to contribute in order to support the site. I noticed that you are new here. Why don't you take a few minutes and introduce yourself in the General Introductions and Humor forum? All opinions are welcome here, but derogatory, unhelpful statements will not be tolerated well. This is not a hate group - everyone here is an individual with very different ideas and thoughts. I, for one, do not hate religion. I think it is a bit useless to society, but I do not hate it.
You call it a 'hate group' because belief in fairy tales and mythology are challenged? That is a bit odd, sounds like you might be a bit defensive.
There is no hatred of people here, only challenges to belief systems. You seem uncomfortable with that so you get a bit defensive. If you want to see something that TRULY promotes hate, read the bible.
Dare I say, Fred Phelps is the truest thing to a real Christian that we have in our country.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
From the Skeptics Annotated Bible, cruel and violent parts of the New Testament.
Cruelty and Violence in the New Testament
Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell.--Luke 12:5
One of the things that is overlooked by many Christians is that there is a wrathful Jesus in the New Testament. Jesus comes out and condemns whole towns to fates worse than Sodom and Gomorrah for not liking his preaching. You can find Jesus in some very foul moods. -- Sam Harris, Beliefnet inverview
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
Romans
1 Corinthians
Ephesians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
God planned to kill Jesus from the get-go. 1:19-20
2 Peter
1 John
Jude
Revelation
God planned to kill Jesus before he created the world. 13:8
BGH,You've given me a long list of things in the Bible that you don't like, or that you find offensive.Earlier you said that the Bible promotes hate. Maybe I misunderstood, but I took this to mean that you think that Christians, those who are followers of Jesus and who believe the Bible is the Word of God, are taught to hate certain people.God hates sin, and God will punish sin. The Bible makes that clear. But I still don't see anywhere in that long list of verses where I am commanded to hate anyone.
The bible with it's vilification of homosexuality promotes the hatred of gays. From Romans:
Homosexuals (those "without natural affection" and their supporters (those "that have pleasure in them" are "worthy of death." 1:31-32
Jesus promotes hatred of your own family in Matthew 10:
Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." 10:21
Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34-3
Jesus promotes hatred of cripples by claiming their disability is a result of sin in John.
Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin. He tells a crippled man, after healing him, to "sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." 5:14
Look there are many places for one to look in the bible to see hatred and murder justified by god and jesus himself. There are also many passages that talk of things that need to be done to non-believers, another group being justified for hate in the text. So before you come here calling this a hate group, realize that by despising us so much you are actually being a good 'christian' and hating one of the groups you are supposed according to your holy book.
This book and religion you think so highly of is not one of love, but rather hate and judgment.
The Bible calls homosexuality what it is: a sin. The Bible makes it clear that all sin leads to death. The Bible makes it clear that all who sin are worthy of death. Nowhere does it tell me that I should hate someone who is a homosexual.
This is true. A person who has put his or her trust in Jesus will be hated by some family members. I'm sure you could find several examples of this right here on this board. There are probably members here who hate their own family because they are Christians.
As far as "one of the few prophecies in the Bible that has actually come true", you should do a Google search of Bible prophecies. You may be surprised.
I think you are reading something into this that isn't there. Nevertheless, if Jesus says someone who is in a certain situation or condition is there as a punishment for sin, then He should know. Yes, God punishes sin. Always has, always will. But I can read these verses over and over, and I still can't seem to come up with the idea that it is promoting hatred of crippled people. I don't see the Bible telling me to hate crippled people, or anyone else.
Yes, God has caused death to come to many people. Why? Because of sin and disobedience to His commands.
It tells me that I should hate a non-believer, and that there are "things" that I need to do to them??? Show me where.
I apologize for that. But I've read a lot of the posts on this forum, and it seems to me that a lot of people here DO hate Christians.
I don't despise you or hate you. I despise some of your actions, and the way you bash Christians, but I promise you, I don't hate you.
I still disagree. It is about love. The only place the words "hate" and "judgment" apply are: God hates sin, and yes, God will judge our sins. We are all accountable to Him.
Have a good evening!
...and you don't think this actually promotes hatred of homosexuals? You may not hate them but there are many good, god fearing christians who use verses such as this to justify their hatred of the gay and lesbian community. If christians were members of a true religion of love wouldn't more compassion and understanding be used when dealing with these 'sinners'? Whether you think homosexuality is a choice or genetic, care and compassion should be the default posistion when coming from a religion of love, correct?
But the verse I cited did not say christians would be hated by their families, it TOLD christians to hate THEIR family.
I don't think I am reading something into it. If you are taught by the bible that sin is evil and people who sin are punished, then it seems it would be very easy for christians to justify hatred of cripples when Jesus says they are being punished for sin.
And this is what leads me to question the omnibenevolence of the god of the bible. It seems 'all loving' would include not just second and third chances, but an infinite amount of chances to make things right.
Jude
"The Lord destroyed them that believed not. 5
2 Thessalonians
Jesus will take "vengeance on them that know not God" by burning them forever "in flaming fire." 1:7-9
Acts
Peter claims that Dt.18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all non-Christians) must be killed. 3:23
Thanks for the apology.
I do not think many here 'hate' christians, rather they hate the things that the christian faith seems to justify. They hate the belief in magic. They hate the dogma. I sincerely do not think they hate the people, just the beliefs.
And I don't hate you, I may despise some of your actions, or the way christians treat non-believers, but I do not hate you. See, that is where I think you are misunderstanding, because we are speaking out against your religion it is interpreted as hatred towards your group when in all reality it is the beliefs that are being challenged. There is not a general hatred towards you, just the belief system.
I have read the bible and I honestly feel it is about hate, most of what is contained in the bible, if it were in any other book, would be criticized as vile, violent, vulgar and repugnant. Only under the guise of being a 'good book' can it get away with the things printed therein. If it were not the Holy Bible, christians would have been burning it along with Catcher In The Rye and Tom Sawyer and calling it pornography.
You too!
Back to the original topic:
I don't want you guys to jump all over me, but, as I understand it, "liar" can mean a person who has lied. If you can trust wikipedia, it does include that in its definition on the page for "lie." I think it is reasonable to call someone who has once murdered a murderer, even if a second goes by in which they don't kill someone. While of course, you have said that SOME categories do not apply permanently, such as pantswetting, while I say lying might apply to the murder category.
Btw, I am an atheist, and there's a good chance you folks are right about this, but I'm trying to be rational.
And why punish (actually, torture) your own creation, for which you are perfectly responsible for?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Sorry to get this thread off-topic. I'll try to be brief, then I'll be outta here.
BGH:
I've enjoyed discussing this with you. Sorry for the smart-aleck comments I made in the beginning. I guess I was attempting to be funny (thought I'd jump on here, make a few wise-cracks, then leave). Unwise, I know, but it's not the first dumb thing I've ever done, and I doubt it will be the last.
Anyway, I think our disagreements boil down to one main thing: Our interpretation of the Bible; which parts are history, which parts are teaching us about the character of God, and which parts are telling us how God wants us to live.
I think we also see differently those Christians who hate and mistreat others. You see their actions as being justified (to them) by what they read in the Bible.....I see their actions as a result of them misinterpreting the Bible. I can do anything "in the name of Jesus", but it doesn't mean Jesus approves or condones it. Sorry, but Fred Phelps is viewed as a wacko by every Christian I know.
I'm going to get out of here, not because I don't enjoy talking to you, but because I can see this taking up way too much of my time. I got "hooked" on some different forums before (some Christian, some others) and I was spending hours each day in front of the computer, ignoring my responsibilities. I don't want that to happen again.
Since this thread is about Ray Comfort, let me say that if it wasn't for a newsletter I received from him about the debate with Brian and Kelly, I never would have heard of you guys. He's made a whole bunch of people aware of your organization. So maybe you could send him a small donation?
Enjoyed talking with you. Hope I can consider you my friend.
I'll be praying for you. (Yeah, I know, you'll be thinking for me.)
See ya.
His assumptions happens to agree with much more of the evidence, however.
Besides, this point is meaningless. It doesn't contradict what he said.
But again, this does not contradict his point. His point is that just because somebody might have done some act once, (for example, wet their pants as a baby), doesn't mean they are defined by that act (a pants wetter)
*edit*
he does? yes. Okay.
The fact that MatShizzle happens to have said something true which requires more than a pulse to understand, and given the implications behind it (which are deliberately made obvious by Matt), proves your statement wrong.
I hate to see you go, but I understand. It sure can be addicting posting here.
Well, I'm slightly offended that no one seems to have read my post... what did I do wrong?
So anyway, I think I'll change my opinion here. I think you are definately wrong. You are cherry-picking your definition. In Princeton's Wordnet, it includes "has lied". In the Collins' English Dictionary, which I have in front of me, it includes has lied. I'll go check the Oxford English Dictionary I have... you're right, it says "a person who tells lies."
So I have 2 there, so far... you had named three, I think, so let me find more... no I can't, so you do have more dictionary backing, but I don't think the number of dictionaries you use really proves the correctness of the definition. I don't actually understand how "a person who tells lies" can't also mean "who has told lies"... I think it's quite likely that the dictionary people just didn't bother to put past-tense in there, because it seemed obvious. So how many times do you think you have to lie before it becomes continual? That doesn't make sense, and it doesn't stem from the definition of "liar." Are you going to make up some rules about it? "Lie once per week and you can still be honest, but twice, nope, now you're a liar!" That makes pretty much no sense. A liar just has to lie once, then they're a liar (a person who has lied). "Continually" lying doesn't make sense. You're either lying or you're not, and you can't always be lying. So are you saying Ray Comfort is only a liar when he's actually saying lies? I don't think so, he's a liar if he's ever lied.
I could check, but I don't think any definition of honest includes "having once not told an untruth." That wouldn't make sense, because it would be impossible not to be honest in that case. I don't think one has to make up any rules about "one action categorizes" to get that definition of liar, so the definition of honest doesn't have to apply to that rule. If you wanted to use the "one act categorizes" rule, you could justifiably say it only applies to actions, not defaults i.e. just not doing anything, and the other side, the default, does not categorize one. By that rule, yes, a pantswetter is someone who has wet pants, but a non-pantswetter has to have not wet their pants, not just let a moment pass in which they fail to wet their pants. Also, an "alcoholic" is not defined as a person who has been drunk, and I don't think it has anything directly to do with being drunk. It's the addiction part, not how often they've been drunk. I don't think that really applies, even if you get rid of the drunk part, because I can't think of a verb for alcoholic. Alcoholitizing, or what? I guess one could fairly say, one who alcoholititizes (or has alcoholitized) is an alcoholic. There might be a word for it, I don't know it.
Despite this, I don't think it's fair to say everyone who has lied is dishonest (by this I mean consistently lies) or requiring redemption.
But I don't think this even matters toward Ray Comfort's argument. The Bible doesn't care whether someone's a "liar" it only cares whether they "have lied," in the Ten Commandments. When it says You shall not lie, once you lie, you've broken it, whether or not you're a liar. So if I am wrong about my definition, all it proves is that Ray uses the wrong word, not even that he's a liar. He might genuinely believe that the particular dictionary he read was right, for some reason (how ridiculous), or he might even have not read the dictionary. I think a lie is a "deliberate untruth," so using words incorrectly accidentally is not a lie.
Anyone gonna notice this, lol?
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Thanks.
Actually, not far off the mark. Let me take a swing at this. (Hey, if barry Bonds can do it...)
You are in court and you are clearly guilty. What you don't know is that the judge is required to throw the book at you, but really wants to find a way to avoid it. He knows that there is a "class action" lawsuit pending where the defense has one hell of a good defense, and he knows they are gonna win - in fact, he's the judge in that case, and would really like to get your case moved into that class action.
He makes a bunch of laws that he KNOWS you cannot possibly uphold because it is his intent to get you "lumped together" in that other class action which he knows the defense will win.
Having made the set of laws that you cannot possibly uphold, you find yourself charged with crimes for which there just happens to be a class action lawsuit in defense. You are sent to that court, where, along with all the others who were similarly charged, you are ALL declared "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (or irrationality, if you prefer), and are dismissed and released.
Hey, it works for me!
Kinda hard to engage here because you don't really say anything. Your M.O. Seems to be to take a point and simply contradict it without really offering any reason why. Anyone can do that. The folks on the Monty Python crew damn near made a comedic living at it.
F'rinstance: I'd bet you couldn't properly ascertain an "arbitrary label" if one bit you on the ass. But you won't let such triffling over details like THAT stop you!
What on earth is the "physical object" in the first that is being compared to what "arbitrary label" in the latter? Dude A says "That dude is lying." Dude B says, "No he's not." You show up and claim Dude A is defining some kind of "physical object" and Dude B is flinging "arbitrary labels."
What?
Then you move on to non-sequiturs (not sequitar). Again,something you are not quite sure of it's meaning... To begin with, ALL assumptions are, by their very definition, non-sequiturs. Taking exception with an assumption being a non-sequitur is kinda silly. That's what an assumption is. But, in any case, there's no non-sequitur here because no logical construct has been attempted.
If two people disagree over the definition of a word, then all we have is a disagreement; not a logical fallicy. If person A had said, "If you have lied, you are a liar, and therefore also a tax cheat..." THEN you might have some ground for an accusation. THAT would be a non-sequitur.
But when one person says "Yes it is", and another person says "No, it isn't", then we are in a place where logic has not yet entered, and as a consequence, a non-sequitur is not yet possible.
Then you move onto the typical liberal pap. "He's lying..."
Lying absolutely requires that the person supposedly lying KNOWS that what he is saying is not true, and yet claims it anyway. SHort of that, all you have is "mistaken." And "Mistaken" and "Lying" are two completely different animals.
If you would like to claim that Ray is mistaken, then you are on much more solid ground. In fact, I would agree with you in many respects. Ray is mistaken about several things in his presentation - most notably the notion that the existence of God can be proven.
The existence of God CANNOT be proven. Period.
(Nother can his non-existence be proven either, by the way, for the same reasons.)
Now for the "pant wetting" excercise. THis is a downright silly example, but lets go with it anyway.
The problem here is that there is no command from God anywhere "Thou shalt not wet thy pants." (I see a Monty Python-esque sketch coming already!
The real issue is that the command is mistaken. It doesn't say, "thous shalt not wet thy pants", but rather, "thou shalt not wet thy pants, EVER!" The "ever" bit is clearly implied; and implied in such a way as cannot be mistaken. For instance, a command such as "thou shalt have not other gods before me" doesn't mean "except on alternate third Thursdays." Trying to make it seem that way is an argument from absurdity. "Thou shalt not" means "thou shalt not ever..." There's no other way to interpret such commands.
Look at it this way: how likely are you to succeed in court arguing that the speed limit sign that says clearly, and simply, in black and white, "55 MPH" really means "55mph" only on Thursdays, and the day you were stopped just happened to be a Tuesday?
OK, so Johhny Cochran might have attempted it. But you? I don't think so.
Then you stand up in court and exclaim that the judge is "making a huge non-sequitar."
Good luck with that irrational line of reasoning....
I'm done. I had it in mind to write more, but I'm tired of this already - sooner than anticipated.
The charge isn't - and never has been that you are "dishonest."
The charge is that you have done something you were told not to do.
That's at the root of this whole thread.
On the one hand are those arguing that "because you EVER did something, you are therefore Thus-n-such...", whereas no one is, or has ever condemned you for being "thus-n-such".
The charge against you is not that "you are thus-n-such." The charge is that you have done something you were told not to do.
This artificial distinction is at the root of this whole thread.
Sapient, I am glad you are versed in your Physics. In the debate you brought up the Third Law of Thermodynamics, which states by no finite series of processes is the absolute zero attainable. However, you failed to mention the second Law of Thermodynamics, also known as the Law of Entropy, what states everything is bound for decay or disorder. Now I find this in conflict with Darwin's Theory of Evolution in the Origin of Species, which basically states out of disorder came order. However, this has never been observed in the field, it is easier to identify and measure entropy.
Biology and Physics are too sciences that have benefited mankind. Not to hold one at a higher pinnacle than the other, but I think biology is an imperfect science, which one could catergorize level of fine arts. Physics and math are perfect and were thought up by Newton and Liebnitz, to prove the existence of God. Don't get me wrong, the concepts of physics had been around in ancient civilizations: Greek, Chinese, and Inca, to name a few, but these men of the 17th century showed without a doubt that the universe must have been designed.
Peace and rationality be with you. Do not let anger or humour get the best of you.