Ray Comfort is a liar.

davidildo
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
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.

 

 


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
You are clearly displaying a

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.


lucretis
Theist
lucretis's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2007-08-11
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote: You are

AiiA wrote:

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. 

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
davidildo wrote: I used to

davidildo wrote:

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?

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.   


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
lucretis wrote: I've

lucretis wrote:

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.

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.

 

 

- Brian Sapient


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


robakerson
robakerson's picture
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-08-07
User is offlineOffline
I'm going to libel here,

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)

Quote:

You are being cheap and nasty. You and your admirer have taken the enthymematic form of his argument and indulged in an orgy of hate and self-aggrandisement.

Are you beginning to see your folly? If you are now beginning to see your folly are you sufficiently charitable to admit that you were wrong in all your pretentious and presumptuous display?

Who wrote that? The self-referential todangst? You? Me? No, friggin

Lawrence

friggin

Kohlberg

in his 1971 paper Stages of Moral Development.

I have read it. You and todangst have written a load of rubbish and neither of your understand Kohlberg or Christian doctrine.

All worldviews and "grand theories" start with some assumption converning human nature even Secular-Humanism.

You haven't even touched Comfort's argument and you've completely botched up Kohlberg vis-a-vis Christian ethics.

Please, spare me the posoturing. You aren't even ready for informal logic. Your reading comprehension needs improvement. This is the first time in an argument where my interlocutor has presented a lengthy quote which actually contradicts the point that motivated the quotation. You quoted me a passage from Kohlberg which actually states that New Covenant Christian ethics i.e. the Golden Rule, is Post-Conventional, in an amateur attempt to convince me that Christian ethics is Pre-Conventional.

Not so. When he's witnessing it doesn't matter what he thinks about people, what's crucial is what they think of themselves. I'm not denying
that the WOTM witnessing method doesn't have a rhetorical flourish. It does, as do most methods of persuasion. That does not render it logically
flawed. Outside of an academic context naked logic will rarely persuade.

I have and I've done so again in this post. The problem is that you and your loving admirer todangst are unaccustomed to having all your idiotic propaganda scrutinised so closely.

You are upset that I'm
not accepting this travesty that you are attempting to foist upon me? You've both plumbed the depths of intellectual dishonesty and ethical bankruptcy.

Do you ever put your false pride on hold long enough to consider the possibility that you are wrong?

I've provide copious evidence and argumentation. I even cited you a recent comprehensive literature review that is indexed by PubMed that not only refutes the fallacious claim that religion is detrimental to mental health but that on the contray shows that on average that religiosity promotes mental health.

Your reading comprehension is impaired as is todangst's. todangst wanted to lecture me about Kohlberg and his alleged categorisation of Christian ethics as Pre-Conventional even though Kohlberg explicitly identifies New Testament ethics as Post-Conventional. You topped the idiocy by actually quoting that part of Kohlberg's paper where he identifies the Golden Rule as an example of Post-Conventional moral reasoning.

Where does this leave you and todangst? I'd suggest, up shit creek without a paddle.

You don't understand the logic, the rhetoric or the underlying theology and there is no self-refutation.

I'll cover this topic in the philosophy of mind if you and todangst acknowledge your errors. I've thoroughly rebutted all of your half-assed attempts at logic, philosophy and (embarassingly for a psychologist) psychology. You guys suck at debating and your're not particularly knowledgeable. I'll cover the issue of personal continuity and diachronic/synchronic identity if you acknowledge that your asses have been handed to you on a platter (complete with trimings).

Whatever you say Mr Super-Atheist. Name the topic, bring in all your rancourous God-hating peers and I'll take you to school. But I'll only do so if you and your mutually appreciative friend todangst concede your errors in this argument. Both of you misunderstood Kohlberg, Christian ethics in relation to Kohlberg and Comfort's argument. You are both also wrong about religiosity and mental health. Admit your earrors.

It's not as simple as that. The issue of personal identity and continuity is a difficult one in philosophy of mind. I'll addres this and give you and todangst an education on the topic only if you concede your errors.



(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)

Quote:
It is, but because you are such an embittered venomous toad with a hatred for Christianity and Christians you will robotically choose the least charitable interpretation of an opponents argument to gain a cheap self-satified victory. This betrays your intellectual impotence.

Only if you are "completely fucking" intellectually impotent and hence unwilling to (charitably) unfold an enthymematic argument that has been presented in an informal rhetorical context.

You and todangst aren't even willing to make an enthymematic syllogism explicit let alone strengthen your opponent's argument. todangst is an embitted middle-aged propagandist and intellectual charlatan. You look like his protege. Good luck with the nascent jaundiced worldview. Hope it worls out for you.


(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.)

Quote:
Ha, ha, ha. More of your reading comprehension troubles.

I'm bored with your half-assed attempts to outsmart me. Concede you gross errors and I'll consider further debate.

I'll rub it in because you are a pompous and pretentious git that has no compunctions about making personal attacks.


(Wow. Hypocritical much?)

Quote:
Earlier in this thread you presumed to lecture me about Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development. Furthermore you asserted that you understand Christian doctrine. You demonstrated that you know neither. Your ignorance about Christianity is understandable since you are a rancorous ideologue that spews anti-Christian propaganda. You're ignorance of Kohlberg is however a cardinal sin.

Regarding mental health and religiosity you can't substantiate any of your rancourous claims yet you expect to be taken seriously as a psychologist. The majority of the extant reserach in experimental psychology, that is published in peer-review journals and is indexed by PubMed shows that theists are mentally healthier than atheists.

(a bunch of articles tangent to the main argument)

Can you cite me any meta-analyses or literature reviews that support your claim that Christians are self-hating, deluded, schizoid, paranoid, lacking in self-esteem more so than the rest of the population? I know of none. If you are a real psychologist you'll also know that there are no such studies.


Is that a direct quote of a claim made?

Quote:
Your fetish for pathologising Christians is just that a fetish. Your're a propagandist.


For the love of English, that's the second time you mispelled "you're".

Quote:

There is no room for evasion here. I'm calling you out. You misrepresented Kohlberg and you made a series of entirely unsubstantiated assertions regarding the mental health of Christians.

What will be your response? To delete this thread?

I'm confident that I can debate you on any topic pertaining to religion -- including the psychology of religion -- and I will wipe the floor with you. You are an intellectual fraud.

Praise be to God.




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.)

Quote:
"You are a liar" is not a universal ethical principle.
Again, if Comfort wanted to appeal to universal ethical principles, the question, "are you a liar?" would be superfluous.
Again, the main issue here is the argument which Comfort advanced which we have proven to be self-refuting. It is deductively self-refuting. That means: there's no way around it.
If Comfort wasn't advancing an argument, then he wouldn't use the basic format, "If A, then B" (as he obviously has, "If you have lied, then you are a liar"Eye-wink.
We have debunked his argument 3 or 4 times and the only response you have is basically, "Well that's not what Comfort is arguing".
Then why the hell is that what Comfort is saying? You have absolutely no evidence to provide that Comfort is making any other claim than the one he is saying, video after video.

If man were a free moral agent, then why do you consistenly insist that Comfort notions on a universally morally degraded man?
If his "statement"(which he hasnt made) on human nature was deviod of making any claims on human action, then why does he use human action as evidence to support his "claim"(which he hasnt made).

Quote:
The doctrine of Perspicuity of Scripture requires that Christian doctrine be accessible to all regardless of intelligence and level of education. Consistent with this model Christian ethics can also be understood as divine command ethics i.e. pre-conventional morality.

To be free to all means to be able to be understood by all, which means you can't exclude children. Ergo, it can't be post-conventional. Unless you're saying that it's only pre-conventional to children, but it's post-conventional otherwise(?).

If Comfort wanted to preach original sin, he would say
"You are a liar." Game over. No reason to make it a self-refuting claim.

Again, you're wrong. It has nothing to do with Christian doctrine. It is about a continuously quotable claim that Comfort repeatedly asserts. Any corollaries are subject to the truth of the orginial claim, which we have shown to be self-refuting.

Please quit using words incorrectly, superfluously, and out of context.

Then Comfort shouldn't make a claim against his own teaching.
He's made the claim.
We refuted it.
You're talking about something else.

Read up on Thomas Hobbes' on the state of nature.
In his description of the state of nature, he spends a lot of time motivating a debased human nature simply based on actions people make in society. In other words, he takes evidence and derives a conclusion instead of supporting a conclusion by selecting evidence.

(this ^^ was in response to something about how NO worldview can hold that actions "alter" human nature.)

Then why use human action as evidence to support that claim?
This is clearly not the claim he is making with his basal
"Have you ever told a lie?" argument.

Quote:
There is no evidence that Christianity is psychologoically damaging.

Except for the bible and teachings of charlatans such as Comfort.

Unlike Todangst, I haven't engaged in speculation on Comfort's psychology, and you've conveniently ignored me. You've also ignored the meat of Todangst's argument, the parts that don't rely as much on speculation.
Are you selecting for easy to defend positions?

Despite your queer misconceptions about it, interpretive charity doesn't mean entertaining any given argument, despite logical contradiction. It means looking at the best possible invocation of a given argument. There is no interpretive charity for deductively unsound arguments.

Again, I refer you to Hobbes.
If human nature is inherently debased, whether or not human action plays a part in this human nature(it makes no sense if it doesnt), Hobbes draws some great conclusions for you to live by. Hah.

If humans live by conscience, then we are not necessarily debased. We can choose, as free moral agents. What's the point of calling us essentially debased if it makes no statement on the actions of man?And if it makes no statement on the actions of man, then why use man's actions as evidence that man is corrupt?

If a statement on human nature makes no claims on human action, then why make the claim?
If human action has nothing to do with human nature, then how can Comfort use human action as evidence for his conception of human nature?
Again, it's unclear, given the argument, that Comfort wants to argue any universal principles or statements of human ethics, given the progression of the argument he uses.
If he's arguing for something other than what he's saying, then why not just say what he's arguing for?
Are you simply advocating that Comfort is hiding the motives behind his questioning or simply confused at how to make an argumentative point, as you so clearly are?



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.


Scribe
Theist
Scribe's picture
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-08-12
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: lucretis

Sapient wrote:
lucretis wrote:
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.
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.   
Neither. He, I, and two other members of this site are actually team members. We are part of the Christian Intellectual Association.Pleased to meet you. I do hope you don't mind our presence here. Anyways, it seems Luc is doing well enough on this part of the forum. You can meet the rest of us on seperate forums in the near future.Good day Smiling

"If I have a little money I buy books and if any is left I buy food and clothes.'


croath
Theist
Posts: 100
Joined: 2007-05-05
User is offlineOffline
robakerson wrote:

robakerson wrote:
I'm going to libel here, exactly as our opponent has so lucratively pointed out that todangst and I are capable of doing.

 

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?


robakerson wrote:
For the love of English, that's the second time you mispelled "you're".

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.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: lucretis

Sapient wrote:
lucretis wrote:

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.

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.

 

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...

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
croath wrote: There is

croath wrote:

There is nothing contradictory with holding that a single action categorises you.

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. 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
lucretis wrote: Quote: The

lucretis wrote:

Quote:
The probelm in this thread is not theist vs atheist, it is sanitity vs schizophrenic non sequitur.

I'll rub it in because you are a pompous and pretentious git that has no compunctions about making personal attacks. 

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.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote: You are

AiiA wrote:

You are clearly displaying a Level 1 (Pre-Conventional) temper tantrum.

Smiling 

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. 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: AiiA

todangst wrote:
AiiA wrote:

You are clearly displaying a Level 1 (Pre-Conventional) temper tantrum.

Smiling

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.

 

Todangst if this is your professional advice, I think it's best to respect our communities time by showing lucretis to the door. 

 

- Brian Sapient


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


croath
Theist
Posts: 100
Joined: 2007-05-05
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: croath

todangst wrote:
croath wrote:

There is nothing contradictory with holding that a single action categorises you.

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.

*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?

Quote:
The only way to salvage the situation is to insist that this only works in the case of negative categories, i.e. 'lying'

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?

Quote:

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.

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.


robakerson
robakerson's picture
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Quote:robakerson

Quote:
robakerson wrote:
I'm going to libel here, exactly as our opponent has so lucratively pointed out that todangst and I are capable of doing.

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?

robakerson wrote:
For the love of English, that's the second time you mispelled "you're".

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).



From www.m-w.com:

Main Entry: 2libel
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -beled or -belled; -bel·ing or li·bel·ling "> /-b(&ampEye-winkli[ng]/
intransitive verb : to make libelous statements
transitive verb : to make or publish a libel against
- li·bel·er "> /-b(&ampEye-winkl&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.


Ctrl Y
Theist
Posts: 73
Joined: 2007-05-19
User is offlineOffline
robakerson wrote:I think

robakerson wrote:
I think the OP was thinking something more like this:

http://www.youtube.com/v/U0n0TK_dx-Y

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.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: todangst

Sapient wrote:
todangst wrote:
AiiA wrote:

You are clearly displaying a Level 1 (Pre-Conventional) temper tantrum.

Smiling

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.

 

Todangst if this is your professional advice, I think it's best to respect our communities time by showing lucretis to the door.

 

 

I'll do that. 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
croath wrote:

croath wrote:
todangst wrote:
croath wrote:

There is nothing contradictory with holding that a single action categorises you.

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.

*Sigh*, right back at you. As Lucretis has made amply clear, your error lies in your inability to give charity to an argument,

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.

 

Quote:

recognising the hidden assumptions in it. That premise is *not* the only one in the argument,

But it is the problematic premise! Again, if you use the conclusion 'this only applies to sinful acts' then the argument begs the question.

Quote:
The only way to salvage the situation is to insist that this only works in the case of negative categories, i.e. 'lying'

 

Quote:

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.

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? 

Quote:

Comfort is trying to show people how, *given* Christianity, they are sinful.

Again, to use that conclusion as a premise begs the question.

 

Quote:

Lucretis has done a great job of showing your errors.

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.....

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


are_you_sure_pr...
are_you_sure_prove_it's picture
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-08-15
User is offlineOffline
what the...............

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.


davidildo
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
You know, the more I think

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. 

 


davidildo
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: OK, what

Quote:

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.

 

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?


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
davidildo wrote: You know,

davidildo wrote:

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.

 

 

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.

 

- Brian Sapient


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


davidildo
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
I think that the two

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.


Fung Tzu
Fung Tzu's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2007-07-07
User is offlineOffline
I'm surprised that nobody

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.


Slim
Theist
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Sapient says: "I however

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.


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Slim wrote: Sapient says:

Slim wrote:
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. 


Slim
Theist
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Oh, should I pay you?  I've

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.


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Slim wrote: Oh, should I

Slim wrote:
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.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Slim wrote: Let me see if

Slim wrote:
Let me see if I have any money left over to support one more hate group, and I'll get back with you.

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. 


Slim
Theist
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-08-19
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: If you want to

BGH wrote:

If you want to see something that TRULY promotes hate, read the bible.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find one Christian who has been taught, from the Bible, to hate anyone.Rather, it teaches that we should love one another.  It even says to pray for our enemies.I can see how you could say the Koran promotes hate, which it does, but the Bible?


Raki
Superfan
Raki's picture
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-08-05
User is offlineOffline
Slim wrote: BGH wrote: If

Slim wrote:
BGH wrote:

If you want to see something that TRULY promotes hate, read the bible.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find one Christian who has been taught, from the Bible, to hate anyone.Rather, it teaches that we should love one another.  It even says to pray for our enemies.I can see how you could say the Koran promotes hate, which it does, but the Bible?
Have you actually read the Bible? Seriously...

Nero(in response to a Youth pastor) wrote:

You are afraid and should be thus.  We look to eradicate your god from everything but history books.  We bring rationality and clear thought to those who choose lives of ignorance.  We are the blazing, incandescent brand that will leave an "A" so livid, so scarlet on your mind that you will not go an hour without reflecting on reality.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Slim wrote: BGH wrote: If

Slim wrote:
BGH wrote:

If you want to see something that TRULY promotes hate, read the bible.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find one Christian who has been taught, from the Bible, to hate anyone.

 

Dare I say, Fred Phelps is the truest thing to a real Christian that we have in our country.

- Brian Sapient


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


Slim
Theist
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Raki wrote:

Raki wrote:
Have you actually read the Bible? Seriously...
Sure I've read it.  Many times.  And taught an Adult Sunday School class from it.  Never once read anything that told me I should hate anyone.


Slim
Theist
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Dare I say,

Sapient wrote:
Dare I say, Fred Phelps is the truest thing to a real Christian that we have in our country.
C'mon Brian.  Surely you're kidding.  This guy needs to be in a padded room.  He's nuts.  I'm sure you don't really consider him the standard to compare all Christians by.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Slim wrote: Raki wrote:

Slim wrote:
Raki wrote:
Have you actually read the Bible? Seriously...
Sure I've read it. Many times. And taught an Adult Sunday School class from it. Never once read anything that told me I should hate anyone.

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

  1. Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned "with unquenchable fire." 3:10, 12
  2. Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17
  3. Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30
  4. Jesus says that most people will go to hell. 7:13-14
  5. Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 7:19
  6. "The children of the kingdom [the Jews] shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 8:12
  7. Jesus tells a man who had just lost his father: "Let the dead bury the dead." 8:21
  8. Jesus sends some devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the waters below. 8:32
  9. Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks (see Gen.19:24). 10:14-15
  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
  11. Jesus says that we should fear God who is willing and "able to destroy both soul and body in hell." 10:28
  12. 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." 10:34-36
  13. Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24
  14. Jesus will send his angels to gather up "all that offend" and they "shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." 13:41-42, 50
  15. Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) So, does Jesus think that children who curse their parents should be killed? It sure sounds like it. 15:4-7
  16. Jesus advises his followers to mutilate themselves by cutting off their hands and plucking out their eyes. He says it's better to be "maimed" than to suffer "everlasting fire." 18:8-9
  17. "And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors." 18:34
  18. In the parable of the marriage feast, the king sends his servants to gather everyone they can find, both bad and good, to come to the wedding feast. One guest didn't have on his wedding garment, so the king tied him up and "cast him into the outer darkness" where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 22:12-13
  19. Jesus had no problem with the idea of drowning everyone on earth in the flood. It'll be just like that when he returns. 24:37
  20. God will come when people least expect him and then he'll "cut them asunder." And "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 24:50-51
  21. The servant who kept and returned his master's talent was cast into the "outer darkness" where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth." 25:30
  22. Jesus tells us what he has planned for those that he dislikes. They will be cast into an "everlasting fire." 25:41
  23. Jesus says the damned will be tormented forever. 25:46
  24. :

  25. :

  26. : -->

    Mark

  27. Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so they will go to hell. 4:11-12
  28. Jesus sends devils into 2000 pigs, causing them to jump off a cliff and be drowned in the sea. When the people hear about it, they beg Jesus to leave. 5:12-13
  29. Any city that doesn't "receive" the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. 6:11
  30. Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law. (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) 7:9-10
  31. If you're ashamed of Jesus, he'll be ashamed of you. (And you'll go straight to hell.) 8:38
  32. Jesus tells us to cut off our hands and feet, and pluck out our eyes to avoid going to hell. 9:43-49
  33. Jesus says that those that believe and are baptized will be saved, while those who don't will be damned. 16:16
  34. :

  35. :

  36. :

  37. :

  38. :

  39. : -->

    Luke

  40. God strikes Zacharias dumb for doubting the angel Gabriel's words. 1:20
  41. Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 3:9
  42. John the Baptist says that Christ will burn the damned "with fire unquenchable." 3:17
  43. Jesus heals a naked man who was possessed by many devils by sending the devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the sea. This messy, cruel, and expensive (for the owners of the pigs) treatment did not favorably impress the local residents, and Jesus was asked to leave. 8:27-37
  44. Jesus says that entire cities will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. 10:10-15
  45. Jesus says that we should fear God since he has the power to kill us and then torture us forever in hell. 12:5
  46. Jesus says that God is like a slave-owner who beats his slaves "with many stripes." 12:46-47
  47. According to Jesus, only a few will be saved; the vast majority will suffer eternally in hell where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 13:23-30
  48. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man goes to hell, because as Abraham explains, he had a good life on earth and so now he will be tormented. Whereas Lazarus, who was miserable on earth, is now in heaven. This seems fair to Jesus. 16:19-31
  49. Jesus believed the story of Noah's ark. He thought it really happened and had no problem with the idea of God drowning everything and everybody. 17:26-27
  50. Jesus also believes the story about Noah's flood and Sodom's destruction. He says, "even thus shall it be in the day the son of man is revealed ... Remember Lot's wife." This tells us about Jesus' knowledge of science and history, and his sense of justice. 17:29-32
  51. In the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn't sow. The parable ends with the words: "bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me." 19:22-27
  52. :

  53. :

  54. :

  55. :

  56. :

  57. :

  58. :

  59. :

  60. :

  61. :

  62. :

  63. : -->

    John

  64. As an example to parents everywhere and to save the world (from himself), God had his own son tortured and killed. 3:16
  65. People are damned or saved depending only on what they believe. 3:18, 36
  66. The "wrath of God" is on all unbelievers. 3:36
  67. 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
  68. Those who do not believe in Jesus will be cast into a fire to be burned. 15:6
  69. Jesus says we must eat his flesh and drink his blood if we want to have eternal life. This idea was just too gross for "many of his disciples" and "walked no more with him." 6:53-66
  70. :

  71. :

  72. :

  73. :

  74. :

  75. :

  76. :

  77. :

  78. :

  79. : -->

    Acts

  80. 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
  81. Peter and God scare Ananias and his wife to death for not forking over all of the money that they made when selling their land. 5:1-10
  82. Peter has a dream in which God show him "wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls." The voice (God's?) says, "Rise, Peter: kill and eat." 10:10-13
  83. Peter describes the vision that he had in the last chapter (10:10-13). All kinds of beasts, creeping things, and fowls drop down from the sky in a big sheet, and a voice (God's, Satan's?) tells him to "Arise, Peter; slay and eat." 11:5-6
  84. The "angel of the Lord" killed Herod by having him "eaten of worms" because "he gave not God the glory." 12:23
  85. David was "a man after [God's] own heart." 13:22
  86. The author of Acts talks about the "sure mercies of David." But David was anything but merciful. For an example of his behavior see 2 Sam.12:31 and 1 Chr.20:3, where he saws, hacks, and burns to death the inhabitants of several cities. 13:34
  87. Paul and the Holy Ghost conspire together to make Elymas (the sorcerer) blind. 13:8-11
  88. :

  89. :

  90. :

  91. :

  92. :

  93. :

  94. :

  95. : -->

    Romans

  96. Homosexuals (those "without natural affection&quotEye-wink and their supporters (those "that have pleasure in them&quotEye-wink are "worthy of death." 1:31-32
  97. The guilty are "justified" and "saved from wrath" by the blood of an innocent victim. 5:9
  98. God punishes everyone for someone else's sin; then he saves them by killing an innocent victim. 5:12
  99. :

  100. :

  101. :

  102. :

  103. :

  104. : -->

    1 Corinthians

  105. If you defile the temple of God, God will destroy you.   3:17
  106. Paul claims that God killed 23,000 in a plague for "committing whoredom with the daughters of Moab 10:8
  107. If you tempt Christ (How could you tempt Christ?), you'll will die from snake bites. 10:9
  108. If you murmur, you'll be destroyed by the destroyer (God). 10:10
  109. :

  110. :

  111. :

  112. :

  113. :

  114. : --> 2 Corinthians--> Galatians-->

    Ephesians

  115. We are predestined by God to go to either heaven or hell. None of our thoughts, words, or actions can affect the final outcome. 1:4-5, 11
  116. God had his son murdered to keep himself from hurting others for things they didn't do. 1:7
  117. The bloody death of Jesus smelled good to God. 5:2
  118. Those who refuse to obey will face the wrath of God. 5:6
  119. :

  120. :

  121. :

  122. : --> Philippians-->

    Colossians

  123. God bought us with someone else's blood. 1:14
  124. God makes peace through blood. 1:19-20
  125. :

  126. :

  127. :

  128. : -->

    1 Thessalonians

  129. God is planning a messy, mass murder in "the wrath to come" and only Jesus can save you from it. 1:10
  130. :

  131. :

  132. : -->

    2 Thessalonians

  133. Jesus will take "vengeance on them that know not God" by burning them forever "in flaming fire." 1:7-9
  134. Jesus will "consume" the wicked "with the spirit of his mouth." 2:8
  135. God will cause us to believe lies so that he can damn our souls to hell. 2:11-12
  136. :

  137. :

  138. :

  139. : --> 1 Timothy--> 2 Timothy--> Titus--> Philemon-->

    Hebrews

  140. God will not forgive us unless we shed the blood of some innocent creature. 9:13-14, 22
  141. Those who disobeyed the Old Testament law were killed without mercy. It will be much worse for those who displease Jesus. 10:28-29
  142. God ordered animals to be "stoned, or thrust through with a dart" if they "so much as ... touch the mountain." 12:20
  143. :

  144. : -->

    James

  145. If you are merciless to others, God will be merciless to you. (Two wrongs make a right.) 2:13
  146. James says Abraham was justified by works (for being willing to kill his son for God); Paul (Rom.4:2-3) says he was justified by faith (for believing that God would order him to do such an evil act). 2:21
  147. :

  148. :

  149. :

  150. : -->

    1 Peter

  151. We are all, according to Peter, predestined to be saved or damned. We have no say in the matter. It was all determined by "the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ."1:2
  152. "The precious blood of Christ ... was foreordained before the foundation of the world."
    God planned to kill Jesus from the get-go. 1:19-20
  153. God drowned drowned everyone on earth except for Noah and his family. 3:20
  154. :

  155. :

  156. :

  157. :

  158. : -->

    2 Peter

  159. God drowned everyone else on earth except for Noah and his family. 2:5, 3:6
  160. God will set the entire earth on fire so that he can burn non-believers to death. 3:7
  161. When Jesus returns, he'll burn up the whole earth and everything on it. 3:10
  162. :

  163. : -->

    1 John

  164. Jesus' blood washes away human sin. 1:7
  165. :

  166. :

  167. :

  168. :

  169. :

  170. :

  171. :

  172. : --> 2 John--> 3 John-->

    Jude

  173. "The Lord destroyed them that believed not. 5
  174. :

  175. :

  176. :

  177. : -->

    Revelation

  178. Jesus "washed us ... with his own blood." 1:5
  179. Everyone on earth will wail because of Jesus. 1:7
  180. Jesus has "the keys of hell and death." 1:18
  181. Repent -- or else Jesus will fight you with the sword that sticks out of his mouth. (Like the limbless knight in Monty Python's "Holy Grail.&quotEye-wink 2:16
  182. "I [Jesus] will kill her children with death." 2:23
  183. "Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." God created predators, pathogens, and predators for his very own pleasure. One of his favorite species is guinea worms. 4:11
  184. God gives someone on a white horse a bow and sends him out to conquer people. 6:2
  185. God gave power to someone on a red horse "to take from the earth ... that they should kill one another." 6:4
  186. God tells Death and Hell to kill one quarter of the earth's population with the sword, starvation, and "with the beasts of the earth." 6:8
  187. The martyrs just can't wait until everyone else is slaughtered. God gives them a white robe and tells them to wait until he's done with his killing spree. 6:10-11
  188. God tells his murderous angels to "hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of your God on their foreheads." This verse is one that Christians like to use to show God's loving concern for the environment. But the previous verse (7:2) makes it clear that it was their God-given job to "hurt the earth and the sea" just as soon as they finished their forehead marking job. 7:3
  189. 144,000 Jews will be going to heaven; everyone else is going to hell. 7:4
  190. Those that survive the great tribulation will get to wash their clothes in the blood of the lamb. 7:14
  191. God sends his angels to destroy a third part of all the trees, grass, sea creature, mountains, sun, moon, starts, and water.   8:7-13
  192. "Many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter." 8:11
  193. The angels are instructed not to "hurt the grass [how could they? He already had all the grass killed in 8:7] ... but only those men which have not the seal of God on their foreheads." God tells his angels not to kill them, but rather torment them with scorpions for five months. Those tormented will want to die, but God won't let them. 9:4-6
  194. God makes some horse-like locusts with human heads, women's hair, lion's teeth, and scorpion's tails. They sting people and hurt them for five months. 9:7-10
  195. Four angels, with an army of 200 million, killed a third of the earth's population. 9:15-19
  196. Anyone that messes with God's two olive trees and two candlesticks (God's witnesses) will be burned to death by fire that comes out of their mouths. 11:3-5
  197. God's witnesses have special powers. They can shut up heaven so that it cannot rain, turn rivers into blood, and smite the earth with plagues "as often as they will." 11:6
  198. After God's witnesses "have finished their testimony," they are  killed in a war with a beast from a bottomless pit. 11:7
  199. Their dead bodies lie unburied for three and a half days. People will "rejoice over them and make merry, and shall send gifts to one another." After another three and half days God brings his witnesses back to life and they ascend into heaven. 11:8-12
  200. When the witnesses ascend into heaven, an earthquake kills 7000 men. This was the second woe. "The third woe cometh quickly." 11:13-14
  201. "The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world"
    God planned to kill Jesus before he created the world. 13:8
  202. Those who receive the mark of the beast will "drink of the wine of the wrath of God ... and shall be tormented with fire and brimstone ... and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever." 14:10-11
  203. "The great winepress of the wrath of God ... was trodden ... and the blood cam out of the winepress, even unto the horses bridles." 14:19-20
  204. Seven angels with seven plagues are filled with the wrath of God. 15:1, 15:7
  205. The seven vials of wrath: 1) sores, 2) sea turned to blood, 3) rivers turned to blood, 4) people scorched with fire, 5) people gnaw their tongues in pain, 6) Euphrates dries up, 7) thunder, lightning, earthquake, and hail. 16:1-21
  206. God gave the saints and prophets blood to drink. 16:6
  207. "They shall eat her flesh and burn her with fire." (Are they going to eat her first and then burn her?) 17:16-17
  208. To punish her God will send plagues and famine, and "she will be utterly burned with fire." 18:8
  209. God will send plagues, death, and famine on Babylon, and the kings "who have committed fornication with her" will be sad to see her burn. 18:8-9
  210. Jesus makes war. 19:11
  211. With eyes aflame, many crowns on his head, clothes dripping with blood, a sword sticking out of his mouth, and a secret name, Jesus leads the faithful into holy war. 19:12-15
  212. "Come ... unto the supper of the great God." An angel calls all the fowls to feast upon the flesh of dead horses and human bodies, "both free and bond, both small and great." 19:17-18
  213. The beast and the false prophet are cast alive into a lake of fire. The rest were killed with the sword of Jesus. "And all the fowls were filled with their flesh." 19:20-21
  214. God will send fire from heaven to devour people. And the devil will be tormented "day and night for ever and ever." 20:9-10
  215. Whoever isn't found listed in the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire. 20:15
  216. All liars, as well as those who are fearful or unbelieving, will be cast into "the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." 21:8

 


Slim
Theist
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-08-19
User is offlineOffline
BGH, You've given me a long

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.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Slim wrote: I still don't

Slim wrote:
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&quotEye-wink and their supporters (those "that have pleasure in them&quotEye-wink 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.

 

 

 


Slim
Theist
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-08-19
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: The bible with

BGH wrote:

The bible with it's vilification of homosexuality promotes the hatred of gays. From Romans:

Homosexuals (those "without natural affection&quotEye-wink and their supporters (those "that have pleasure in them&quotEye-wink are "worthy of death." 1:31-3

 

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.

 

Quote:
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

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.

 

 

Quote:
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

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.

Quote:
Look there are many places for one to look in the bible to see hatred and murder justified by god and jesus himself.

Yes, God has caused death to come to many people. Why? Because of sin and disobedience to His commands.

 

Quote:
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.

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.

 

Quote:
So before you come here calling this a hate group,

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.

Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:
This book and religion you think so highly of is not one of love, but rather hate and judgment.

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!

 

 


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Slim wrote: The Bible

Slim wrote:

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.

...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?

Slim wrote:

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.

But the verse I cited did not say christians would be hated by their families, it TOLD christians to hate THEIR family.

Slim wrote:

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.

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.

slim wrote:
Yes, God has caused death to come to many people. Why? Because of sin and disobedience to His commands.

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.

 

Slim wrote:
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.

 

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

 

Slim wrote:
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.

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.

Slim wrote:
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.

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.

Slim wrote:
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.

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.

 

Slim wrote:
Have a good evening!

You too!


Amset
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-06-27
User is offlineOffline
I don't want you guys to

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.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Slim wrote:

Slim wrote:

God hates sin,
 Why would an omnipotent, omniscient 'being' 'hate' anything? 
Quote:
and God will punish sin.
 

And why punish (actually, torture) your own creation, for which you are perfectly responsible for?

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Slim
Theist
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Sorry to get this thread

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? Money mouth

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.

 


Apokalipse
Apokalipse's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2006-08-27
User is offlineOffline
lucretis wrote:

lucretis wrote:
davidildo wrote:

I am amazed at the lack of coherent logic in Ray's arguements.

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.

Why?

lucretis wrote:
Quote:
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".

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.

You're comparing physical objects/devices, to arbitrary labels/concepts. They are not comparable.

lucretis wrote:
Quote:
(To be fair, WordNet does define it as someone who has lied, but not MW, AH, or others.)

So you admit that you are wrong.

No, he is admitting that one dictionary uses a different definition which agrees with Ray. You just made a huge non-sequitar assumption.

lucretis wrote:
Quote:
That seems to me to be a deliberate and ongoing distortion of a fact that is repeated by Ray rather consistantly.

Seems to be and actually is are two different things.

Which happen to overlap all too often.

 

lucretis wrote:
You have made an assumption
hypocrite (see above).

His assumptions happens to agree with much more of the evidence, however.

lucretis wrote:
cherry-picked a dictionary definition
Cherry-picked? when only one of the many dictionary definitions he read disagreed with the others?

lucretis wrote:
that suits your defamatory agenda and proceeded hence.
What agenda?

lucretis wrote:
Quote:
Therefore, Ray is a liar because he continually lies, (about the definition of liar) not because he has "lied".
Sorry but there is no "therefore" here. You are assuming what you need to prove.
He doesn't need to assume. He has evidence.

lucretis wrote:
Quote:
To illustrate the idiocy of his arguement, 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 alchoholic. And I don't even want to consider what the process of being born makes me!
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.
There's no such thing as perfect morality. Not even Christian morality is perfect.

Besides, this point is meaningless. It doesn't contradict what he said.

lucretis wrote:
Quote:
The logic just doesn't hold up.

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.

And that's where Christianity fails again. There is no such thing as perfect morality. The Christian worldview (let's pretend there is only one Christian worldview) is no exception.

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)

lucretis wrote:
Quote:
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 commiting blasphemy in the process.

By what epistemic route did you arrive at the confident conclusion that Ray Comfort is lying?

have you heard him talk?

lucretis wrote:
The other options which you are ignoring are that (a) you don't understand the logic he is employing
What logic?

lucretis wrote:
and (b) he sincerely believes what he is saying.
Weren't you listening to Ray? anybody who has lied is a liar, apparently. Including himself.

lucretis wrote:
Either situation exonerates Comfort from any guilt. I'm interested to know how you ruled out (1) and (2).
See above.

*edit*

lucretis wrote:
MattShizzle wrote:
Yeah, he's pretty much an asshat. He also assumes the BuyBull is true.

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.

You sure used a lot of words to say absolutely nothing yourself.

MattShizzle wrote:
He also assumes the BuyBull is true.
Does he not assume the bible is true, lucretis?

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.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Slim wrote: Enjoyed

Slim wrote:

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.

 

I hate to see you go, but I understand. It sure can be addicting posting here. 


Amset
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-06-27
User is offlineOffline
Well, I'm slightly offended

Well, I'm slightly offended that no one seems to have read my post... what did I do wrong? Sticking out tongue

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?


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Amset wrote: Well, I'm

Amset wrote:

Well, I'm slightly offended that no one seems to have read my post... what did I do wrong? Sticking out tongue

Welcome Amset

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Amset
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-06-27
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote: Amset

AiiA wrote:
Amset wrote:

Well, I'm slightly offended that no one seems to have read my post... what did I do wrong? Sticking out tongue

Welcome Amset

 

 

Thanks. 


bzeurunkl
Theist
bzeurunkl's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I think also his

Quote:
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. 

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!

Eye-wink


bzeurunkl
Theist
bzeurunkl's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Kinda hard to engage here

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! Eye-wink

 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.


bzeurunkl
Theist
bzeurunkl's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Despite this, I

Quote:
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.

 

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.

 

 


Kylsport
Kylsport's picture
Posts: 5
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Sapient/Comfort Debate

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.