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.

 

 


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

bzeurunkl wrote:
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!"


I wrote:
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.

Yeah, I was agreeing with you. Laughing out loud But I also said "having lied does not make you require redemption, in my opinion" (paraphrasing). That's where I disagree with you and the bible.


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Kylsport wrote: Sapient, I

Kylsport wrote:

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.

 

I just have to say i'm sorry you are so ignorant of the Theory of Evolution.


FOC
Theist
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-08-23
User is offlineOffline
Speaking as a Christian

Speaking as a Christian that doesn't understand evolution, nor likes the idea of cold recruiting methods, I personally do not care for Mr. Comfort. His methods are srupulous and insulting. 

Religion is a private matter and people know where to go if they have questions or want to learn. 

 


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
FOC wrote: Speaking as a

FOC wrote:

Speaking as a Christian that doesn't understand evolution, nor likes the idea of cold recruiting methods, I personally do not care for Mr. Comfort. His methods are srupulous and insulting.

Religion is a private matter and people know where to go if they have questions or want to learn.

 

 

Ok FOC stop being repectable damnt!  /sarcasm 


davidildo
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote:  I think I'll

Quote:
 I think I'll change my opinion here. I think you are definately wrong. You are cherry-picking your definition.

 I am not cherry-picking my definition, I am using the definition that is most commonly applied to the word, and I have gone out of my way to provide the dictionary definition that both agrees with my definition, and the ones that are contrary to it. I have applied common sense to the arguement, and not tricks of wording or vauge definitions. I believe that I have shown more honesty and integrity in stating my side of the arguement than Mr. Comfort has shown in the initial discourse, as well as some of the people here who are making arguements that are so morally reprehensible, that I cannot even recognize them coming from a sentient life form.

Refering to all of mankind as "liars" is moral ambivalence of the worse kind. I find it morally reprehensible because the belief of labeling someone a "liar" because of something they may of done thirty or more years ago is repugnant to me.

 You really belive that someone is a liar because they once lied? A child lies, and as an adult they are a liar. If someone comes up to you and says, "be careful about that one, he is a liar". Do you immediately discount the advice because you know that everyone is a liar? Or maybe the opposite is true, you naturally believe that everyone is a liar and lump them all in the same catagory? I really do want to know, is this what you believe?

Quote:
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?

Why should I make up rules when there are dictionaries that can do it for me.

Kennerman dictionary calls a liar, "a person who tells lies, especially as a habit". I guess the same question can be posed to Kennerman. What is a habit? Perhaps we should check the dictionary again, "customary practice or use, an acquired behavior pattern regularly followed until it has become almost involuntary, something which a person does usually or regularly"

And then there is "continual", which is defined as, "of regular or frequent recurrence; often repeated; very frequent, Recurring regularly or frequently, very frequent; repeated many times"

What is it that you believe? Just once, right?

I figure that as a good general guideline, if you are going to define someones character by using a word, you should apply it only after noticing a pattern of the trait that you are describing them as. Someone is kind when they have shown a pattern of kindness, a liar when they have show a pattern of lying. Someone is truthful when they have shown a pattern of truthfullness, someone is a jogger when they have show a pattern of jogging, someone is an idiot when they have show themselves to believe Ray Comfort. Unfortunately when it comes to statements about ones moral character, it is difficult or impossible to speak definitively.

Quote:
If you wanted to use the "one act categorizes" rule, you could justifiably say it only applies to actions, not defaults

So by your logic, I am a bodybuilder, jogger, runner, football player, tennis player, and racer. I am also a writer, dog trainer, conservative, liberal, moderate.

 

Quote:
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,

Nowhere in the bible does it say, "thou shalt not lie", it is "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" That is "against" thy neighbor, and "bearing false witness". It is not "lying to my neighbor." Do you not see the difference there either? Would you rather be lied to, or have someone "bear false witness against you?" Lies are not bad, they are a survival tool.

 Yes, Ray is a liar. He is intentionally dishonest or a fool. At the very least, if we give him the benefit of not knowing the truth, then he is claiming to be an expert without actually being an expert and knowing the material. That is extremely dishonest. That is a lie.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kylsport wrote:

Kylsport wrote:

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.

The second law of Thermodynamics states a closed system will tend to disorder. The Earth is not a closed system, it recieves outside energy from the Sun.

[edit: second law of Thermodynamics, not entorpy >_>]

 

 



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

edit: ah! over-post! here is the essence of what I have said below:

The technical minimum amount of times that someone has to lie before being called a liar is one. If someone brings mention to someone being a "liar" they are implying that they lie habitually, otherwise they wouldn't mention it, but that isn't a part of the definition. Having lied does not make someone a bad person, but it does technically make someone a "lie-er." If someone calls anyone who has ever lied a liar, they are implying that they lie habitually, and that they are dishonest. That is rude, and by saying that anyone who has ever lied is a liar I do not mean that they are dishonest. I mean that they have lied.

 

davidildo wrote:

Quote:
I think I'll change my opinion here. I think you are definately wrong. You are cherry-picking your definition.

I am not cherry-picking my definition, I am using the definition that is most commonly applied to the word, and I have gone out of my way to provide the dictionary definition that both agrees with my definition, and the ones that are contrary to it. I have applied common sense to the arguement, and not tricks of wording or vauge definitions. I believe that I have shown more honesty and integrity in stating my side of the arguement than Mr. Comfort has shown in the initial discourse, as well as some of the people here who are making arguements that are so morally reprehensible, that I cannot even recognize them coming from a sentient life form.

Yes, I agree, Mr. Comfort is quite rude, and not a very nice person. Are you calling my arguments morally reprehensible, and saying I'm not sentient? Read on, I'll eventually explain once again (maybe half a dozen more times?) that having once lied can make someone a liar, but doesn't necessarily mean that they're dishonest, or that they habitually lie. But insulting people that argue against you is pretty mean... I don't think I've intentionally said anything rude to you here, and you said I wasn't sentient? That's pretty rude... Sad but whatever. Anyway there *are* some definitions that are contrary to your prefered definition, you are picking which one to use to prove your point, not because of its merit. And I don't think that "a person who lies" can't also mean "a person who has lied." Once you lie, you are a person who lies, since you have lied. Do you get what I'm saying? I'm not saying a person who lies is dishonest. But once you lie, you are a liar. You just have to lie once, then you are "a person who lies." I think it makes sense.

davildo wrote:
Refering to all of mankind as "liars" is moral ambivalence of the worse kind. I find it morally reprehensible because the belief of labeling someone a "liar" because of something they may of done thirty or more years ago is repugnant to me.

What you said here is the *exact* reason that I said "I do not believe that having once lied makes one dishonest." I don't think being a person who has lied makes a person a bad person, or a dishonest person, or anything. I'm just saying that technically, they are a person who has lied, and by my favourite definition of liar, anyone who has lied is a liar. That doesn't mean that they are a bad person at all. If you have lied, you're "a person who has lied" (i.e. a liar). "Liar" doesn't technically mean anything more than that the person has once lied. But if one brings it up, they are imply that the person makes his/her liar especially habitual, otherwise it wouldn't make any sense to bring something up that everyone is. If someone said one was a "breather" they must mean something more than that you do something that everyone does. Maybe they mean you breath a lot? I dunno.

davildo wrote:
You really belive that someone is a liar because they once lied? A child lies, and as an adult they are a liar. If someone comes up to you and says, "be careful about that one, he is a liar". Do you immediately discount the advice because you know that everyone is a liar? Or maybe the opposite is true, you naturally believe that everyone is a liar and lump them all in the same catagory? I really do want to know, is this what you believe?

*You* are the only one who thinks be a person who has lied (a liar) is a bad thing. I don't think it's bad to have once lied. If you do it often, it is bad. It isn't bad if you've once done it. I made no comment on the badness of being a liar.

I've told you, "liar" is just a term that means a person who has lied. I would assume that if someone brings special attention to someone being a liar, they mean that the person is dishonest, that they make a habit of being a liar. Just because I know that most (if not all) people have lied, I don't think that they are all dishonest.

davildo wrote:
Quote:
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?

Why should I make up rules when there are dictionaries that can do it for me.

Kennerman dictionary calls a liar, "a person who tells lies, especially as a habit". I guess the same question can be posed to Kennerman. What is a habit? Perhaps we should check the dictionary again, "customary practice or use, an acquired behavior pattern regularly followed until it has become almost involuntary, something which a person does usually or regularly"

I didn't read the definition that had, "especially as a habit" in it, but that does make sense. It does make sense to say "continually" instead of "as a habit" as you did. But if that was what you meant.

But the point I was trying to make is that anyone who has once lied is a liar, and can be called such. As this is so, it doesn't make sense to bring attention to this in less they make a habit of being a liar. A person who has lied *any* amount of time can be called a liar, but they should be an especially bad one if someone brings attention to it. *I* was saying that once you have lied, you can be called a liar. *You* were saying there is some minimum in continuality of the lying that needs to be met before someone can be called a liar. I think the minimum is one lie. I thought you were saying the mimimum is some higher level of habit. Understand what I'm saying? I'm not saying "since everyone's a person who's lied (a liar) they're all equally dishonest." That doesn't make sense. I'm saying "the only mimimum amount of lying for someone to be called a liar (technically) is one lie." because the dictionary never gives a higher amount of lies.

And that definition only says "especially" as a habit. Therefore it proves my point. One *can* be a liar without making it a habit. So your definition of habit doesn't matter. It's only "especially," not exclusively. That means, again, a liar can be a person who lied just once, not someone who makes it as a habit.

davildo wrote:
And then there is "continual", which is defined as, "of regular or frequent recurrence; often repeated; very frequent, Recurring regularly or frequently, very frequent; repeated many times"

Ok, good for you, continual can be used to mean "as a habit."

davildo wrote:
What is it that you believe? Just once, right?

Yes, I believe that by the definition of the word, anyone who has lied has lied, and is therefore a person who has lied i.e. a liar. That doesn't mean, again, that they are a bad person. All it means is that they have lied. You are the one who is attaching things about all people who have lied being morally bad, or that liars are morally bad.

davildo wrote:

I figure that as a good general guideline, if you are going to define someones character by using a word, you should apply it only after noticing a pattern of the trait that you are describing them as.

I've already said, in past posts, that being a liar doesn't make someone dishonest. I believe that the word "dishonest" requires that it is a habit, but being a "liar" does not require that it's a habit. Just like a don't think that someone who has once done something means that they often do it. Say I call you "a person who has once done x" or a x-er. Even if you don't make a habit of doing x, you are still "a person who has once done x" or an x-er. Now replace "done x" with lied. I'm not saying a person who has lied makes a habit of lying. I'm saying that having once lied makes them a liar. Get it?

davildo wrote:
Someone is kind when they have shown a pattern of kindness, a liar when they have show a pattern of lying.

Someone is kind when they show a pattern of kindness, that is true. But does a murderer need to show a pattern of murdering people before they are a murderer? No, once they do it once, they are "a person who has murdered." I'm saying that a liar is "a person who has lied". That means that they just have to do it once, then they are a person who has done it once.

davildo wrote:
Someone is truthful when they have shown a pattern of truthfullness, someone is a jogger when they have show a pattern of jogging, someone is an idiot when they have show themselves to believe Ray Comfort. Unfortunately when it comes to statements about ones moral character, it is difficult or impossible to speak definitively.

I'm saying that if you have a noun based on a verb, like "to murder" or "to lie" words like "murder-er" or "lie-er" mean a person who has done those things. The minimum amount of those things that you have to do is just doing them once. A murderer doesn't have to go around killing people once a day to be called one. A jogger doesn't have to habitually jog to be someone who has jogged. But if someone brings special attention to being a person who has done something, when that thing is common, it must mean they do it a lot, or habitually. So if someone calls someone a liar, since lying is quite common, they are implying that they do it habitually, though technically they have only had to have done it once. Since murder isn't common, calling someone a murderer is unusual enough that it doesn't imply that they have done it more than once.

 

davildo wrote:
Quote:
If you wanted to use the "one act categorizes" rule, you could justifiably say it only applies to actions, not defaults

So by your logic, I am a bodybuilder, jogger, runner, football player, tennis player, and racer. I am also a writer, dog trainer, conservative, liberal, moderate.

That is true. If you have ever jogged, ran, played football, etc. you are a person who has done those things, obviously. As I just mentioned, since you bring attention to it, you are implying that you do those things an uncommon amount, otherwise you wouldn't mention it. But you technically *are* an athlete in those ways.

I don't know how "my" logic applies to you being conservative, liberal, moderate etc. You can't "do" conservative-ing can you? And a conservative isn't defined as a person who has done conservative things. The definition, I assume, actually includes the "habitual" part, not just "especially habitually." And anyway, I think the definitions of those final words has more do with what your views are. If you hold both conservate and liberal views, you're moderate. To be conservative, you have to be only/mostly conservative, etc. But whatever.

davildo wrote:

Quote:
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,

Nowhere in the bible does it say, "thou shalt not lie", it is "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" That is "against" thy neighbor, and "bearing false witness". It is not "lying to my neighbor." Do you not see the difference there either? Would you rather be lied to, or have someone "bear false witness against you?" Lies are not bad, they are a survival tool.

The bible doesn't care whether something is a survival tool, in my opinion. But if it doesn't even say "lie" then why did you bring up all those definitions of lie? Anyways, the point I was making wasn't that the bible used the particular word "lie" as you seem to think. Obviously, my point was that once you've lied (or "born false witness against someone" if you prefer) you've broken the commandment. You just do it once, and you've broken it.

davildo wrote:

Yes, Ray is a liar. He is intentionally dishonest or a fool. At the very least, if we give him the benefit of not knowing the truth, then he is claiming to be an expert without actually being an expert and knowing the material. That is extremely dishonest. That is a lie.

I agree that Ray is very rude, and I believe personally that he heavily edits his "interviews" with people on the street, so that makes him quite dishonest. He has intentionally been untruthful at least once, so he is technically a liar, and he has lied enough times that it is worthwhile to note that he's a liar. But unintentionally saying untruthful things is not lying. It's just being stupid. So if he used a word wrong unintentionally, he wasn't lying.

 

I don't see what the point of arguing that he used a word wrong actually was, and I think it may have been a waste of time on all our parts. We could just agree that he is rude and dishonest, and bears false witness against people by editing his show, and whatnot, and just bring up all the facts about how much of a bad person he seem ingly is without quibbling over the definition of a word. But personally, I sort of enjoy quibbling Sticking out tongue. Have a good one Laughing out loud

 

P.S. I'll just say this one more time, in case you skip to the end. A liar, I believe, is "a person who has lied." or "a person who lies" It means nothing more than that. It doesn't make any comment on the morality of the person than the fact that they have lied. BUT if a person brings attention to it by calling someone a liar, they are *implying* that they lie habitually.* Also, I dislike Comfort as much as (maybe not quite as much as) all of you. I'm just being the devil's advocate. Maybe I'd argue on the other side if all of you were trying to prove the opposite point. Maybe not though.

P.P.S. Again: I never said that being a liar was a bad thing, and therefore I didn't say that everyone (who has lied) was a horrible person. GET IT??? Also, sorry if I came off as rude. Laughing out loud Also, if you understand what I'm saying, you could say that, even if you think I'm wrong. I was getting an impression you don't understand me. Also, just in case you say "i get what you're saying but ur saying everyone is evil and you're stupid" I am not saying everyone is bad because they have once lied. I'm just saying have having once lied makes you fall under the definition of liar. Ok... now, for some reason, I don't think that will work. Get me? Peace out.

*yes, I realize I could have just said this, and nothing else, because I was basically just repeating myself the whole time. But I spent so much time typing it, I didn't want to let it go. And yes, oops, I spelled your name wrong, sorry.


davidildo
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: But does a murderer

Quote:
But does a murderer need to show a pattern of murdering people before they are a murderer? No, once they do it once, they are "a person who has murdered." I'm saying that a liar is "a person who has lied". That means that they just have to do it once, then they are a person who has done it once.

 You have it backwards. Murderer is the exception to the rule, not just another example of it. Again, this is the moral issue that I have a problem with. Murdering someone and lying, to quote Pulp Fiction, are not in the same ballpark, they are not in the same league. Hell, they are not even the same sport. We call someone a murderer because of the enormity of the act. We make a statement about someones character when we label them a murderer, and it is a powerful message. Their entire being has been defined by the one horrible act that they have done, which is to take a life. A child molester falls under the same umbrella.

Words like murderer, rapist, liar, thief, or adulterer are all statements about someones character. We describe their being or essence when we use terms like that. With large acts, they can perform them once to be labeled, a single small act does not define a person or their character. This is common knowledge, and it is you that is cherry picking the definition, which is evident by your use of the word,"technically".

Quote:
And that definition only says "especially" as a habit. Therefore it proves my point. One *can* be a liar without making it a habit. So your definition of habit doesn't matter. It's only "especially," not exclusively. That means, again, a liar can be a person who lied just once,

The definition says, "a person who tells lies, especially as a habit".  This does not prove your point, but rather explicitly denies your point. It states a person who tells lies. The word is plural, tells lies. Not have lied. You keep returning to a poorly worded quick definition to make your arguement, when most other definitions, common usage and common sense points otherwise. Words are defined by how they are used, and the word liar is used to mean someone who lies.

Quote:
I don't see what the point of arguing that he used a word wrong actually was, and I think it may have been a waste of time on all our parts. We could just agree that he is rude and dishonest, and bears false witness against people by editing his show

You seem to be the one who is hung up on what a word "technically" means, based on a single definition and  decided to quibble over it while ignore the other parts of my posts which show him to be a liar, dishonest, or at the very least stupid. The entire point of the post is to show how Ray is a liar. Ray is one who lies repeatedly and accuses all of mankind of being a liar for much lower standards then even he displays. 

But I am starting to find you to be quite the fag and will just cut it off here without responding to the rest of you post.


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

davidildo wrote:

 

Quote:
If you wanted to use the "one act categorizes" rule, you could justifiably say it only applies to actions, not defaults

So by your logic, I am a bodybuilder, jogger, runner, football player, tennis player, and racer. I am also a writer, dog trainer, conservative, liberal, moderate.

 

The argument that "one act categorizes' obliterates all meaning from most of the moral terms we use. There's simply no point in using words like 'liar' or 'thief' if every human is functionally a liar and thief from birth. We might as well throw out the words: honest, trust, decent, moral, upright, etc., as well..... There's no longer any sense or use in using any of these terms if we follow Comfort's line of thought.  

And again, Comfort himself must contradict his own argument in order to function in society. He clearly has to, and does, trust some people more than others, because, in his estimation, some people are honest, trustworthy. He doesn't think of his wife as a thief and a liar, and his actions betray this.

Some called this point cheap rhetoric - I guess that's easier than actually bothering to think the point through and actually respond to it. Comfort cannot and does not believe his own argument, and the only way to salvage it is to beg the very question his argument supposedly demonstrates, which renders the argument pointless.

The fact that some theists here still can't grasp this is unsurprising, seeing as some here have even confused Comfort's 'moral' position as representing the very height of moral thought. If you really hold to this position, well, maybe the rule 'one act, categorizes' does hold in this case... you have to be an idiot.

 

 

 

 

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

Books on atheism.


Amset
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-06-27
User is offlineOffline
I was trying to say that

I was trying to say that everyone falls under the definition of "liar" if they have lied, and "thief" if they have stolen, but if someone brings it up they are implying that they are especially bad. By "technically" I was trying to say that you only have to lie once to be a liar, but you shouldn't call someone a liar unless they are an especially bad liar.

I'm sorry for annoying everyone. I was just trying to have a discussion, I didn't mean to act like a fag, or being a fag, or whatever you said. This is the last time I try to talk to people on this forum.

Goodbye.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Amset wrote: I was trying

Amset wrote:

I was trying to say that everyone falls under the definition of "liar" if they have lied,

Then why should I believe you, liar? 

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

Books on atheism.


davidildo
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I'm sorry for

Quote:
I'm sorry for annoying everyone. I was just trying to have a discussion, I didn't mean to act like a fag, or being a fag, or whatever you said. This is the last time I try to talk to people on this forum.

 

That was probably not fair of me. I was refering to the fact that I thought you were being a drudge, tedious to argue with. I chose the word fag, which means a drudge, because it has a connotation to it that is very negative. I picked a usage of it that is arcane to prove a point. Obviously the point is that some words are loaded and as such, should be used very carefully. I was going to use the word ignorant, which means "unaware or uninformed", because everyone is ignorant of something. Although the word fits everyone on the planet, it is a loaded word that conveys a different meaning than the textbook definition.


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

todangst wrote:
Amset wrote:

I was trying to say that everyone falls under the definition of "liar" if they have lied,

Then why should I believe you, liar?

I'm sorry to say it, but you are being really stupid. You obviously haven't read anything I have said. I said it probably 20 times, maybe more. Being a person who lies, which I consider to be "a liar," does not making you dishonest. Get it? It's fairly simple. A "liar" is a "person who lies." If you lie, even just once, you are "a person who lies." Being "a person who lies," or a "liar" does not mean that you habitually lie. Some people are more dishonest than others, even if all people have lied, which makes them "people who lies," otherwise known as "liars." I am not a particularly dishonest person, even though I have lied, which makes me a liar, though one shouldn't mention it, because calling someone a liar implies that they are dishonest, but does not have include it in the definition, therefore it is valid to call anyone who has lied a liar. 

Also, there is nothing to "believe" about what I have said. The rationality of my views has nothing to do with my honesty as a person.

 

davidildo wrote:

Quote:
I'm sorry for annoying everyone. I was just trying to have a discussion, I didn't mean to act like a fag, or being a fag, or whatever you said. This is the last time I try to talk to people on this forum.

 

That was probably not fair of me. I was refering to the fact that I thought you were being a drudge, tedious to argue with. I chose the word fag, which means a drudge, because it has a connotation to it that is very negative. I picked a usage of it that is arcane to prove a point. Obviously the point is that some words are loaded and as such, should be used very carefully. I was going to use the word ignorant, which means "unaware or uninformed", because everyone is ignorant of something. Although the word fits everyone on the planet, it is a loaded word that conveys a different meaning than the textbook definition.

I didn't know that definition of "fag." Thanks for enlightening me.

The way you used "ignorant" is similar to the way I think about "liar." It can fit everyone on the planet, but it has a "loaded (or implied) meaning." That's what I was saying about the word liar. You said everyone was ignorant, but if someone brings attention to it, they are implying that they are especially ignorant. I was saying that everyone is a liar, but if someone brings attention to it, they are implying that they are an especially bad liar. Get it? I am no more saying that everyone is dishonest than you were saying that everyone is stupid. 

 Think about it this way: when can someone be called a liar? When they have never lied? No. Once they have lied? Yes. The dictionary doesn't say that they have to lie habitually. Even if the dictionary said "a person who tells lies" a person would only have to lie twice to fulfill the definition. But the word liar is a loaded one. If someone says it, they are implying that they lie habitually. But the actually definition says nothing about the overall honesty of the person.

But that's beside the point. I was just trying to have a discussion. No one understood what I'm saying, even if they think it's wrong, apparently, so you're either stupid or just stubborn. I might be wrong, but that's no reason to call me a fag. I guess it is true that I'm annoying to talk with, because I go on and on and apparently say things that people don't understand, but still, you could have just said I was annoying. You could just say "I understand what you are saying, but I think you are wrong. Here is why:" rather than calling me stupid and insulting my sexuality.

The point is, I'm getting the feeling that it's absolutely pointless to argue with you people. You never concede me a single point, and when I try to explain my point of view to you you insult me. And you guys say you're not as stubborn or irrational as theists? You're just as bad.


davidildo
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: You could just say

Quote:
You could just say "I understand what you are saying, but I think you are wrong. Here is why: rather than calling me stupid and insulting my sexuality.

 I believe that I did, and I responded to several of your points. You chose to ignore what I wrote, and instead just re-stated your point.  I also did not call you stupid, nor did I insult your sexuality. I used a term that had a little understood meaning and applied it to you. One of the definitions of Fag is drudge. One of the definitions of drudge is, "to do dull, very hard or humble work" Hell, that is almost a compliment. I did that to make a point that words are defined by popular usage.

Quote:
I was just trying to have a discussion. No one understood what I'm saying, even if they think it's wrong, apparently, so you're either stupid or just stubborn. I might be wrong, but that's no reason to call me a fag.

Again, part of having a discussion is responding to points that are thoughtfully written in response to your arguement. I understand that you feel that "technically" lying once makes you a liar. I find that arguement to be wrong. I have pointed out many reasons why it is wrong, and why things like murder are different. You searched dictionaries until you found one that agrees with you. I point to several that disagree with you, as well as supporting the general consensus among people, which you even agree with.

 


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

Amset wrote:

todangst wrote:
Amset wrote:

I was trying to say that everyone falls under the definition of "liar" if they have lied,

Then why should I believe you, liar?

I'm sorry to say it, but you are being really stupid.

Why should I believe you on any of this if you are a liar?

I think you're being violently stupid here, and that's why you're lashing out at me. Your argument is self refuting. You're a liar by your own line of thought, ergo I have no need to trust anything you say.

If however, you really want to say that you're really not a liar at all, and that, as even you seem to realize, that in reality, there are different levels of honesty, then that's fine.

But in that case, you've refuted yourself too. You're actually conceding my argument: that calling everyone a liar makes the term useless, and in fact, we don't consider most pepole to be liars!

So please stop being so fucking stupid, and please stop projecting out your own sense of your stupidity onto me. You're the one as confused as a shit house rat. Please work on figuring out that calling everyone a liar is both moronic and pointless, as it renders the term useless. 

I look forward to more of the same idiocy, please shock me. 

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

Books on atheism.


davidildo
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: as confused as a

Quote:
as confused as a shit house rat

 

That is just funny as all hell. I am going to use that.


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: I look

todangst wrote:

I look forward to more of the same idiocy, please shock me.

 

Shit you still get shocked? Nothing shocks me anymore. 


Amset
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-06-27
User is offlineOffline
About the "fag" thing, I

About the "fag" thing, I meant that I thought it was an insult... I assumed that even if "technically" you meant that drudge thing, I thought you would have understood what most people would take that word to mean. But if you actually meant that drudge thing, alright.

davidildo wrote:
You searched dictionaries until you found one that agrees with you.

The first dictionary I looked in had a definition that agreed with me, but I also think that "your" definitions support my argument as well, because I believe it only takes one lie to be a person who lies. Also, the number of dictionaries that agree with a definition doesn't make it any more valid, or less valid. Just like the number of people believing something doesn't make a belief more or less valid.

I suppose the part about liars lying as a habit is widely agreed apon, even if it's not officially part of all definitions, so whatever.

 

todangst wrote:
Amset wrote:

I was trying to say that everyone falls under the definition of "liar" if they have lied,

Then why should I believe you, liar?

I'm sorry to say it, but you are being really stupid.

Why should I believe you on any of this if you are a liar?

I think you're being violently stupid here, and that's why you're lashing out at me. Your argument is self refuting. You're a liar by your own line of thought, ergo I have no need to trust anything you say.

If however, you really want to say that you're really not a liar at all, and that, as even you seem to realize, that in reality, there are different levels of honesty, then that's fine.

But in that case, you've refuted yourself too. You're actually conceding my argument: that calling everyone a liar makes the term useless, and in fact, we don't consider most pepole to be liars!

So please stop being so fucking stupid, and please stop projecting out your own sense of your stupidity onto me. You're the one as confused as a shit house rat. Please work on figuring out that calling everyone a liar is both moronic and pointless, as it renders the term useless.

I look forward to more of the same idiocy, please shock me.

"Fucking stupid"... "lashing out." Meh.

Anyway, you don't understand. I have said it so many times that you would have to be "fucking stupid" to not have taken in that I'm saying it, even if you disagree. I am say that liars are not uniformly dishonest. Some are more dishonest than others, even though they all fall under the term "liar" technically. Yes, I am a person who lies, so by the defintion of liar, I am one, but that doesn't make me dishonest. If someone calls someone else a liar, though, they are implying that they are an especially bad liar, since being a liar is common. Inversely, being a murderer is not common, so there are not implications about being a bad murderer because it's already bad enough to be one.

Even if everyone is a liar, I am not saying that everyone is equally dishonest. I consider everyone who lies to be a liar. Some people are worse liars than other people, but that doesn't make the people who lie less often less of liars.

Yes, I suppose the term always has the implied meaning, so it might as well be in the definition, but it technically (I don't know why Davidildo doesn't like me using this word) does apply to everyone. If someone says that everyone is a liar, they are implying that everyone is dishonest, though the definition of the word includes nothing about the honesty of the person.

Maybe I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying only dishonest people can be liars, and if people only lie a little they stop being liars? I don't think someone's overall honesty has to do with whether they lie or not.

Also, again, the Bible doesn't care whether people are liars. Just if they have born false witness against people, ever. Ray Comfort might have used the wrong term, but I think he's right about whether they've broken the Ten Commandments.

Since you are getting so upset, whatever, I don't care. You're right, you win. 

But seriously, it doesn't matter. I'm sorry for insulting you, but this doesn't really matter at all. Maybe Comfort made just one more fallacious argument, maybe he didn't, he's still made a lot of arguments that don't make sense. We can all agree on how bad his arguments about the banana, the peanut butter, the painting, and the coke can are. Besides, the entire premise of whether or not they have obeyed the Ten Commandments being evidence that God is real is flawed. Until you can prove that the Ten Commandments mean anything, it doesn't matter whether or not people have obeyed them.


zwan94
zwan94's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2007-08-24
User is offlineOffline
ABx wrote: I'm surprised

ABx wrote:
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?"

 

Yes, good post.  


ObnoxiousBitch
Superfan
ObnoxiousBitch's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2006-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Slim wrote: Since this

Slim wrote:

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

Not to worry... I'm sure he'll be getting a pile of donations from the ever-vigilant, sheeple in thrall to the AFA... check out this week's "action alert":

Comfort's pimps, the AFA wrote:
HAVE YOU PATRONIZED BLASPHEMY LATELY?

Free video from our friends at WayOfTheMaster.com clearly outlines how Hollywood hates Christianity... and Christians pay them to do it!

Did you know that there was a time when the entertainment industry was bound by a code that forbade them from using any blasphemy in a movie? The "Hays Code" stated:

Pointed profanity--this includes the words "God," "Lord," "Jesus," "Christ" (unless used reverently), "H*ll," "S.O.B.," "d*mn," or every other profane or vulgar expression, however used--is forbidden.

Hollywood is no longer restricted by the code. Many of today's movies don't simply blaspheme the name of Jesus. They go one further. For example, the award-winning Blow, directed by Ted Demme, is a typical R-rated film. The name of Jesus Christ is blasphemed eleven times in the movie. Three of those times, for some reason, the "F" word is used in the middle of His name.

So, how can you (as one person), make a difference and influence the powerful Goliath of the entertainment industry? The answer is in your own hands. In 2005, roughly $8.8 billion was spent on movie tickets in the U.S. How much of $8.8 billion do you think came from those who call themselves Christians? According to The Barna Group, it was a massive $6.94 billion. Over 70% of the box office intake comes from people of faith.

With more than 170 million professing Christians in America, we have a powerful sling that can hit Hollywood between the eyes and leave a deep impression on its money-making mind. They are causing an entire generation to hate Christianity, and to use the name of Jesus Christ to express disgust.

TAKE ACTION

1. Watch the video above, then forward to everyone on your list.

2. Make a personal committment from this point forward, to not watch movies that blaspheme God. If it happens in the theater, walk out. If it happens at home, change the channel.

3. Show this video to your circle of friends (Sunday school, youth group, entire church congregation). You can download it for FREE, or purchase a DVD copy ($7 donation suggested with FREE shipping).

Are you a good person? Take the test!

Click here to learn how to share your faith effectively.

"Action Alert" my ass -- this is an advertorial; nothing more than a cleverly worded sales pitch to send traffic to the AFA store, WOTM and Ray's Living Waters.

Ray Comfort is a liar.

Invisible friends are for children and psychopaths.


bredbored
Posts: 7
Joined: 2007-08-17
User is offlineOffline
WWRCGWN?

I've not been here long, but...

IMO, having a lead item on the RRS front page headed 'Ray Comfort is a Liar' is a poor move. David's observation re: Ray's use of the word 'liar' is relevant, but to make such a big deal of it is inflammatory and petty. It just invites RC-apologists to argue over dictionary definitions, diverting from the central principles of atheism, rationality and reason.

Anyway, that's my 2p/ 2c worth.

Kingsley

 

WWRCGWN: What Will Ray Comfort Get Wrong Next?


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

bredbored wrote:

It just invites RC-apologists to argue over dictionary definitions, diverting from the central principles of atheism, rationality and reason.

Kelly and I have laughed at quite a bit of that. We found this one particularly funny: "being a liar does not make you dishonest."

 

The authoritative dictionary on the English language is the Oxford English. The full version should be consulted which I don't own currently, but here is the abridged:

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/liar?view=uk

 

liar

 

noun a person who tells lies.

 

Their entry on dishonest...

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/dishonest?view=uk

dishonest

 

adjective not honest, trustworthy, or sincere.

 

Personally I have no problem calling a liar dishonest, but that's just me, maybe I haven't reached the re-definers intellectual plane yet. Undecided

 

About your point of this post being on the homepage...

1. Keep in mind that our site is a big Ray Comfort fan site, so the on topic issue is a nice one to have on the front page exposing the terrorist.

2. I think the argument is a simple one to understand, which is good because we tend to get simple minded lurkers.

3. The argument is funny. Some argue that humor is the best way to sway someone to a particular position.

4. It was a post from a new user, and I wanted to reward him with a little press for his argument.

if that wasn't enough to sway you, have no fear....

5. It wont be on the homepage much longer. It'll be swapped out soon for something in a natural cycle.

 

P.S. Sorry we can't make everyone happy all the time with how we run our site.


 

 

- Brian Sapient


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


Michael A. Thompson
Michael A. Thompson's picture
Posts: 79
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I use this thread as a

I use this thread as a perfect example of why I stick with Biblical Errancy.  My argument would be that Ray Comfort is wrong because his underlying reference is wrong (Not just his definitions and strategies.).  Truth is defined by Princeton as: “A fact that has been VERIFIED (emphasis added by me)”.   When you look at the Germ Theory of medicine you can be confident that it is correct because it explains things around you, predicts future events with virtual pin point accuracy AND has no errors.  When you look at Einstein’s Theory of Relativity it explains things around you, predicts future events with virtual pin point accuracy AND has no errors, so you can have confidence in it being “true”.  You have the Holy Bible that explains nothing around you, makes no future predictions at ANY level of accuracy AND is chalked full of errors and therefore not "true". The following links shows that Ray’s underlying reference is chalked full of errors:  http://biblicalerrancy.org/    and  http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rook_hawkins/biblical_errancy/47

 

If any Christian is in doubt of these then simply break out a copy of your own comic book and see for yourself.  So to quote an old TV public announcement:  “That’s a FACT in the Library of Congress.  Read more about it in your local Library.”  Smiling

"Those who have stepped into the arena shall forever cherish a feeling the protected will never know."


the_ignored
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-11-26
User is offlineOffline
I wouldn't say that Comfort

I wouldn't say that Comfort is a liar; I'd just go with Ed Brayton's latest assessment of him as being an idiot.

 

When you go to Comfort's site that Ed links to, guess what happens?  Several commentators there shoot Comfort down.

 

 

Well, that's some comfort for us, at least. 

The Bad Grammer Dude


TK (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Ray Comfort and theist are all idiots

This issue is with all theist...

Please point out in your religious text where it says;

You can alter or amend any law or commandment

 

Please point out in your religious text where it says;

You can omit any law or commandment.

 

The answer is, you can't. Ray Comfort is a moron because he, just like all others do not follow the religious text they are attempting (and a very poor attempt I might add) to defend.

 

The very minute you bring up the argument against gays means that you place power in that statement. Read Leviticus 19:27. ('Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard. )

 

When was the last time you had a hair cut... dumbass.


ugzog
Bronze Member
ugzog's picture
Posts: 84
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
Why can't I see all the post

Why can't I see all the post in this section?


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Damn, wish I'd seen this

Damn, wish I'd seen this thread earlier.

"Have you lied? Then you are a liar."

The condition of being a liar depends on the first action. All the blather about Original Sin is beside the point. If the point were that people are inherently liars, then the statement would read:

"You are a liar."

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


jmartinez83
jmartinez83's picture
Posts: 4
Joined: 2008-07-05
User is offlineOffline
You got be kidding, right?

You got be kidding, right? This is the most ridiculous rebuttal I have heard yet. Don't get me wrong: I disagree with Ray on more than a couple things, but this is the most ridiculous retort I have heard. For a thing (epistemic knowing) to be known, it does not need to be delineated exhaustively. If that were the case, then I too can modify Ray's logic:

  • All human beings have lied in the past
  • The past informs us about future
  • All human beings will lie in the future

The basic contention is that the past does not provide us with proof claims of future contingencies. However, if future contingencies are informative of past knowledge claims, like people who have lied in the past, it most likely (by reason of induction) will be the case that people will lie in the future.

I'm not agreeing with Ray on every issue; however, premises of liars and other law-breaking "axioms" (that is, men know they are axioms by admission) are assented in my opinion. The logic behind this retort is simply fallacious.

I could also use Modus Tollens to refute the method in which one would try to debunk Ray's logic:

  • The dictionary says that liars are defined as all people who HAVE lied in the past.
  • Dictionaries don't provide exhaustive knowledge for the definition of "liars."
  • It is not the case that the definition of "liar" in dictionaries qualifies as a substantive definition.

 


JanCham
Posts: 102
Joined: 2007-09-21
User is offlineOffline
I still remember the wonder

I still remember the wonder of what it was to be a Child of God, I also remember the desire to return to planet Mobius (I was ten, I had a troubled childhood)... thankfully both delusions were destoryed.  I take fantasy as any drug, if it can be refined and it's doses controlled then it can be a useful thing.  I sill use fantasy to get away from the overwhelming details of life, but it's been sone time since I've gotten drunk on it.  People like Ray Comfort... I can't help but pity them as you would a homeless man who spins a tale of trying to care for his children, all for the sake of buying his next bottle of rum.  I pity ray comfort, but I can't forgive him for trying to make more fantasy addicts like himself.

If there is anything I could say to Ray Comfort it would be this, "Ray, I know it makes you feel warm inside to belive that there is a great father looking over you... but the emptyness inside your heart tells you better.  I know the truth is ugly, it's frightening, but it's real.  An illusion is something that is only beautiufl if you deny yourself to embrace it, but reality is something that will embrace you back.  You can let it fall into uglyness or you can help us make it beautiful.

To go beyond your limits you must first find them.


JanCham
Posts: 102
Joined: 2007-09-21
User is offlineOffline
Michael A. Thompson wrote:I

Michael A. Thompson wrote:

I use this thread as a perfect example of why I stick with Biblical Errancy.  My argument would be that Ray Comfort is wrong because his underlying reference is wrong (Not just his definitions and strategies.).  Truth is defined by Princeton as: “A fact that has been VERIFIED (emphasis added by me)”.   When you look at the Germ Theory of medicine you can be confident that it is correct because it explains things around you, predicts future events with virtual pin point accuracy AND has no errors.  When you look at Einstein’s Theory of Relativity it explains things around you, predicts future events with virtual pin point accuracy AND has no errors, so you can have confidence in it being “true”.  You have the Holy Bible that explains nothing around you, makes no future predictions at ANY level of accuracy AND is chalked full of errors and therefore not "true". The following links shows that Ray’s underlying reference is chalked full of errors:  http://biblicalerrancy.org/    and  http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rook_hawkins/biblical_errancy/47

 

If any Christian is in doubt of these then simply break out a copy of your own comic book and see for yourself.  So to quote an old TV public announcement:  “That’s a FACT in the Library of Congress.  Read more about it in your local Library.”  Smiling

 

It's interesting to show some people who they don't even understand their own holy books, but it's silly if you think about it.  Arguing their delusions with a storybook...  It would be like trying to argue a Pirate with the book "Peter Pan".

To go beyond your limits you must first find them.


Michael A. Thompson
Michael A. Thompson's picture
Posts: 79
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Yours would be a false

Yours would be a false comparison.  I don't know of anyone who claims "Peter Pan" is literally true AND infallible whereas people DO claim that for the Bible.  I simply point out that these two claims are verifiably asinine. 

 

"Those who have stepped into the arena shall forever cherish a feeling the protected will never know."


Death Dragoon
Bronze Member
Death Dragoon's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2008-07-24
User is offlineOffline
Damn, im having to use the

Damn, im having to use the dictionary way to much nowadays, funny posts tho.


trubeliever
Theist
Posts: 28
Joined: 2008-09-15
User is offlineOffline
i am a little confused abt

i am a little confused abt something brian said in his first statement, he said that he simply has a lack of belief in god, as well as christians have a lack in belief of other false gods they dont believe in and that we are all born atheist. a lack of belief in god.

im just wondering, does that make my dog an atheist? cause he has a lack in a belief of a god.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
trubeliever wrote:i am a

trubeliever wrote:

i am a little confused abt something brian said in his first statement, he said that he simply has a lack of belief in god, as well as christians have a lack in belief of other false gods they dont believe in and that we are all born atheist. a lack of belief in god.

im just wondering, does that make my dog an atheist? cause he has a lack in a belief of a god.

You can read your dog's mind ?

Kewl !


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
trubeliever wrote:i am a

trubeliever wrote:

i am a little confused abt something brian said in his first statement, he said that he simply has a lack of belief in god, as well as christians have a lack in belief of other false gods they dont believe in and that we are all born atheist. a lack of belief in god.

I believe you when you tell us you are confused, thanks for the warning. The point Brian is making is that of the 1000's of concepts of the thing theists call god you have ignored 99.99% of them and you only recognize one god, your god.

Quote:
im just wondering, does that make my dog an atheist? cause he has a lack in a belief of a god.

 

It is impossible for me to determine that, you should discuss the matter with your dog.

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


DudefromNorway
DudefromNorway's picture
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-08-24
User is offlineOffline
What the hell???  To hold

What the hell???

 

 To hold anything to be a "perfect" science is just ludicrous. The good thing about science is that it tries to disprove itself all the time - in order to improve the imperfect. So to claim that either physics, maths or biology are "perfect" sciences is just dumb. They are indeed positivistic, but not "perfect".

 Leibnitz did not prove God, neither did Newton, although they were both deeply  religious. If anything, both modern scientists and theologists have learned that its useful to keep the two separate..

 As for the argument of the second law of thermodynamics I'll leave it to Richard Carrier..cheers

ake the life-lie away from the average man and straight away you take away his happiness.

- Henrik Ibsen


Flagg
Flagg's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2008-10-07
User is offlineOffline
lucretis wrote:What do you

lucretis wrote:

What do you think the Golden Rule (mentioned in the excerpt you supplied is?   The "Golden Rule" or the ethic of reciprocity is a fundamental component of Christian ethics.  It occurs in the New Testament
in numerous places.  It is quitessentially Christian.  It is similar to Kant's "Categorical Imperative" as the quote above (which you supplied) indicates.

Leviticus 19:17-18: "You must not hate [lit. stand against] your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor directly, and you will not incur guilt because of him. Do not take revenge or bear a gruge against members of your community, but love your neighbor as yourself; I am YHWH." 

The translation I get from this is that delivering rebuke without holding hate in your heart should be the way to go, as should steering clear of revenge or baseless grudges. In the sense here, it's a matter of respect (and of telling your neighbor when he's wrong harsly, but not hatefully). This is at most a subset of the Categorical Imperative, which is ultimately one of the worst moral maxims in the history of mankind (even though some of its reasoned morality is not). 

 

Quote:
The explicit form of the argument is as follows:

PA1. Man has a sinful nature.
     PA2. You are a man.
     CA. You have a sinful nature.

     PB1. Pride is a feature of sinful nature.
     PB2. You have a sinful nature.
     CB. You are prideful.

     PC1. Pride obscures your sinful nature.
     PC2. You are prideful.
     CC. Your sinful nature is obscured by your pride.

     PD1. A sinful nature is evinced by vicious   behaviour.
    PD2. You have behaved viciously.
    CD.  You have a sinful nature.

This too is deductively valid. 

PA1 doesn't need to be argued for -- though it can be.  It is an axiom.  All worldviews and "grand theories" start with some assumption converning human nature even Secular-Humanism

 PB1 is derived from Christian axiology.  It can be justified through a justification of Christian ethics which can in turn be justified through a justification of Christianity. 

 PC1 can be justified via Christian theology and this can be substantiated with research results in Narcissistic Personality Disorder. 

PD1 is derived from Christian theology and axiology.

There is no question-begging or circularity here.  The strength of the final conclusion hinges on strength of the preceding conclusions.

 

PB1 doesn't follow. Its roots are: 

1) Pride is a part of a sinful nature.

2) All men have a sinful nature. 

3) Therefore, all men have pride. 

 

The problem is (1), which implies man enacts all parts of a sinful nature; surely, this is absurd, since we would all be murderous fiends that rape children; additionally, I'd argue that a Buddhist monk is not prideful, but under the Christian view, still ignoring the message of God through sin of a different nature. 

Quote:
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.  

From either side of the pond, it's just genetic fallacy anyway. 


Quote:
Quote:
"Have you ever told a lie?" yes. "See? men are essentially corrupt and debased."

"Have you ever told a lie?" yes. "See? You're a liar."

Completely fucking different.

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.

 

The problem with Comfort (whoever he is) is that he is proving his corruption claim like this: 

1) A lie is morally wrong. 

2) You have lied. 

3) Therefore, you're born morally corrupt. 

The problem is that (3) doesn't follow. All that follows is that the person who has told a lie is guilty of moral wrongs; the conclusion that he's born morally corrupt is a statement he needs to prove separately. I do realize it is rhetorical, but it seems a bit ineffective; even if one buys (3) one can just thank Comfort for his time and look to Islam for forgiveness. 

Quote:
Philosophical debate undertaken in good faith doesn't go that way.  Consider the work Alvin Plantinga.  Rather then jump on the weakest interpretation of his opponents arguments he will instead:

"(1) State the position of an opponent.

(2) Search for the weakness in the position.

(3) Modify the opponents's position so that the weaknesses are removed.

(4) State the modified position.

(5)Search for weaknesses.

(6) Modify the psoition again in order to remove the weaknesses,

(7) Repeat steps (4) through (6) until the psoition can no longer be helped.

(Cool Accept or reject the position based on its strongest possible formulation"  ( from David Wood )

 

The problem with the Presuppositionalist method is twofold: 

1) The method is usually employed by members of the Calvinist cult, who consider evidential apologetics to actually be sinful. I understand that Plantinga is a mix of the two (he's a Molinist and therefore a Universe away from Calvinism) but even then, this apologetic method leads to at best angry standstills with opposers who are well-tuned in their arguments. The whole method prevents honest intellectual consideration in general, since it leads the user to too easily accept any point - even a logically validated one - as  a contradiction. 

2) The method's ultimate purpose - to show Christianity is the only coherent worldview - simply does just that if it is in fact objectively valid. All that would mean is that Christianity is the only coherent worldview, not that Christianity is true


Quote:
Quote:
What are you even arguing by "essentially bad"?
Are you saying that men, as free moral agents, cannot act in a good moral fashion?

I think you're trying to say that we are inherently bad.
Are we inherently infinitely bad?
Can any amount of good moral action salvage us?
If this is the assertion,
again,
there is no reason for the account of actions Comfort requests of his victims.
And what's the nature of a good moral action if no amount of them is evidence of a good nature (for any person)?

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

Is Comfort a Calvinist? If so, the person you're arguing with is actually correct, except for the "infinitely" part. If Comfort isn't a Calvinist he shouldn't be taking the total depravity path, since accepting Christ is (like all truly good works in the Calvinist view) an action of forced grace from God that has nothing to do with any depraved action the individual is capable of doing. 

"When the Lord Jesus Christ in His own words describes in some little detail that great drama that's the most important event in all human history, time, and eternity - this event, the great general judgment - the Lord Jesus Christ, then shall He say unto them on His right hand, 'Come ye blessed of My Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world, for when you had opportunity at one of Billy Graham's campaigns you went forward and took good ol' Jesus as your very own personal savior.' NO! GET REAL!" - Fred Phelps


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
trubeliever wrote:i am a

trubeliever wrote:

i am a little confused abt something brian said in his first statement, he said that he simply has a lack of belief in god, as well as christians have a lack in belief of other false gods they dont believe in and that we are all born atheist. a lack of belief in god.

Is it really that complicated? A theist believes in a God or Gods. An atheist does not believe in a God or Gods. However, given the fact that there are a multitude of Gods from many different religions and a typical theist only believes in one of them, we played with the meaning of the word and stated that everyone is an "atheist" regarding most of the Gods in the world. Atheists just take it one God further. Richard Dawkins said something like this. 

trubeliever wrote:
im just wondering, does that make my dog an atheist? cause he has a lack in a belief of a god.

Huh? Well, he's an atheist, I guess? But, your dog isn't even human, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.  

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
Gwendolan wrote:I think also

Gwendolan wrote:

I think also his "courtroom-example" is pretty bad. I can't understand, why people don't see the difference. He says: "You are in court. You are guilty. The judge sets the fine to 50'000 bucks. You don't have the money. You are going to Jail. Someone comes in, says: "Hey, thats my friend, I'll pay the fine, so he doesn't have to go to jail" and so the judge can let you go. That would than be Jesus-boy with his Salvation-trick.

Actually, the story should go like this: The judge makes up laws wich no one can life after. Then, he says, you are guilty and sets your fine to 50'000 bucks. After that, the judge gives his own son a phonecall, that he should come to the courtroom and pay your fine, so he could let you go.

Well, I actually have to admitt that this Ray-man doesn't bother me alot. Only already-Christians fall for his arguments anyway..

LOL. Damn. I mean first I would need to know the charges...

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
Gwendolan wrote:I think also

Gwendolan wrote:

I think also his "courtroom-example" is pretty bad. I can't understand, why people don't see the difference. He says: "You are in court. You are guilty. The judge sets the fine to 50'000 bucks. You don't have the money. You are going to Jail. Someone comes in, says: "Hey, thats my friend, I'll pay the fine, so he doesn't have to go to jail" and so the judge can let you go. That would than be Jesus-boy with his Salvation-trick.

Actually, the story should go like this: The judge makes up laws wich no one can life after. Then, he says, you are guilty and sets your fine to 50'000 bucks. After that, the judge gives his own son a phonecall, that he should come to the courtroom and pay your fine, so he could let you go.

Well, I actually have to admitt that this Ray-man doesn't bother me alot. Only already-Christians fall for his arguments anyway..

Ray Comfort got us confused with Ashley Todd. LOL

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


--Third_EYE_Lasik--
High Level Donor
--Third_EYE_Lasik--'s picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Are Indeed.

Are Indeed.


smithla@hayscisd.net
Posts: 1
Joined: 2008-10-30
User is offlineOffline
Ray Comfort is a lying liar

Okay, then what about the converse of this rule?  "Have you ever told the truth?"  Logically, if you've ever told the truth once you are exactly equally a 'truth-teller' as you are a 'liar.'  Ray even hedges his bets on the question many men dread 'Honey, does this size two dress make my size 12 butt look big?'  He even says that lying in THAT situation isn't lying.  I read a critique of Ray's ministry by another minister saying that Ray Comfort is 99% correct in his biblical interpretation and IS STILL A HERETIC, is still himself going to hell and all who believe him, listen to him and support his ministry are ALSO going to hell.  Yet Ray continues on absolutely confident in his beliefs.  The other minister claims that Ray's true beliefs are those similar to John Calvin, the most important for this discussion is predestination.  Ray believes that before any of you were even born, God knew/decided who would end up where after they expired.  No amount of good works, charity, etc on your lowly mortal insignificant self can change god's mind.  The problem I and most people have with the concept of predestination is it surely does absolve you of even trying to be a good person.  If I'm elect, then I'm elect and that's all there is to it.  I can be a serial killer, rapist, whatever.  If I'm NOT elect, then what difference does it make HOW I live my life.  Ray is even hypocritical about his beliefs because he does say that you must repent your sins.  The absolute menu of beliefs each as carefully documented from dispirite biblical passages as the next is as silly to us as the shocking findings that when Saddam Hussein paid for a search of his family's genealogy, lo and behold, the researcher found that Saddam was a relative of the prophet Muhammad.  Who saw that one coming?  Now in these religious debates, which I think are even more rancorous than the debates between creationists and evolutionists, especially since they're BOTH supposed to be christian, doesn't logic indicate that at least ONE of them HAS to be wrong since they assert diametrically opposed views on this or that piece of folderol trivia?  We find that it's much more likely BOTH are wrong.


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
 Whatever happened to old

 

Whatever happened to old Ray and Captain Crocoduck? Are they still broadcasting nonsense from the shadows cast by their towering Nightline defeat?

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


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx

Archeopteryx wrote:

 

Whatever happened to old Ray and Captain Crocoduck? Are they still broadcasting nonsense from the shadows cast by their towering Nightline defeat?

 

Oh yes. Their little 'Salacious Crumb' named Todd Friel is still doing his schtick too.

Kirk has a religious themed movie coming out.

They still deny that the Faceoff was anything but win for them.

However, I think it will be a while before they crawl out onto the kitchen floor like their brethren, the tenement cockroaches.

I could sit and talk with Ray and come away just fine; no anger. no frustration. He'll talk and exhibits a great deal of patience. (Side note: He couldn't stand Kirk and Todd if he didn't have patience. lol.)

Put Kirk and I in a room and we would talk. He'd scream and claw at the walls crying and I wouldn't have to lay a finger on him or even raise my voice.

Todd, darth_josh, and a dark alley... Well, let's just say 11 o'clock news. I can't stand him. He attacks callers and gives the most horrid advice to people who look to them for some semblance of guidance. People at the end of their proverbial rope call in and Todd seemingly draws those calls every time.

There are some shitty human beings. I may even be one, but at least I'm not the Todd Friel kind of shitty.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Conor Wilson
Posts: 451
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Darth_josh wrote:

"Put Kirk and I in a room and we would talk. He'd scream and claw at the walls crying and I wouldn't have to lay a finger on him or even raise my voice."

 

My $0.02: You know, darth...it may make me a lousy excuse for a human being...but I'd actually pay to see that, at least once.

 

Conor


Not_Your_Therapist
Bronze Member
Not_Your_Therapist's picture
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-06-28
User is offlineOffline
It's quite possible that I

It's quite possible that I am some sort of masochist, but Ray Comfort's publisher sent me a review copy of his new waste of defenseless trees, "You Can Lead an Atheist To Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think" and so I've decided to read the whole thing, and each time I have a counter-argument or a comment on Comfort's writing, I am posting it as a blog post. I am on page 20, and post 22 of the longest blog entries I have ever written. He's a great springboard for discussion on argumentation and failed apologetics.

 

You now you've done something wrong when it takes 3x as much text to explain why your text fails so miserably.

 

Anyway, it's over at www.ziztur.com.

 

My favorite quotes from the book thus far is this : "Having an atheist speak for science is like having Jeffrey Dahmer speak for the Boy Scouts of America."  I can't believe a publisher (even WND) would let someone publish something so hateful and bigoted. Atheophobia, we haz it.

Your resident OTD/S, Christina
A good scientist will always change her mind if new evidence is presented which gives her sufficient reason to change it.
www.ziztur.com


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The dollar > ethical

The dollar > ethical publishing.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


darkprince56
darkprince56's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2008-07-30
User is offlineOffline
!!!

todangst,

 

I am blown away by your responses. You my friend, are a fucking genius!!! Good to have you on our side. I am so thankful (to no God) that there are persons that think like you and that are able to speak for those who can't. Like me. I totally suck at debate. I cannot put my thoughts into words, so when I see your posts my heart is glad. You say everything I can't. I am happy to know I'm not the only one that is rational...alot of people here in this community are.

But thanks for retorting back at poor brainwashed, callous sheep like lucretis. Their kind need to be put in their place and you have done a fine job of doing it!

 

       Ah, but also many thanks to RRS!  I love you guys!

"How come when its us it's an abortion, and when it's a chicken, it's an omelette...?"-George Carlin


darkprince56
darkprince56's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2008-07-30
User is offlineOffline
*rolls eyes*

Then why the fuck are you here? Go elsewhere if you don't like it. At least the RRS is not a mindfuck like religion. It's a great community full of WONDERFUL, rational, intelligent ( I could go on) people. Then people like you come along and mar it. For my part, I buy stuff to support their noble cause. But you wouldn't know about it, would you? You prefer to give your money to charlatans who sell you fear to keep you in line and sad little fairytales made to make you feel better and give you a false sense of security......

"How come when its us it's an abortion, and when it's a chicken, it's an omelette...?"-George Carlin


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
darkprince56

darkprince56 wrote:

todangst,

 

I am blown away by your responses. You my friend, are a fucking genius!!! Good to have you on our side. I am so thankful (to no God) that there are persons that think like you and that are able to speak for those who can't. Like me. I totally suck at debate. I cannot put my thoughts into words, so when I see your posts my heart is glad. You say everything I can't. I am happy to know I'm not the only one that is rational...alot of people here in this community are.

But thanks for retorting back at poor brainwashed, callous sheep like lucretis. Their kind need to be put in their place and you have done a fine job of doing it!

 

       Ah, but also many thanks to RRS!  I love you guys!

 

Nice to meet you. Odd timing of your post, I've just returned.

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

Books on atheism.