Ray's Latest Dishonesty

Just got back from the Swamp, where I was unfortunate enough to read this latest gem from Ray:

"And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart" (Genesis 6:6).

CONTRADICTION: "God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of a man that he should repent" (Numbers 3:19).

EXPLANATION: God is without sin, so any references to Him and repentance merely mean "a change of mind."

Ray supplements this with a graphic that reads thusly:

REPENT:

= to feel remorse for failures
= to feel sorry for sins
= to change your mind
= to alter your mind when conditions change

Which one of these fits God best?

One again, Ray proves that his intellectual dishonesty truly knows no bounds.


First off, the Bible passage from Genesis clearly points to the "remorse" definition of "repent", as should be obvious by the word "grieved".

Courtesy of thesaurus.com (excessive emphasis mine):

Remorse synonyms:
anguish, attrition, compassion, compunction, contriteness, contrition, grief, guilt, pangs of conscience, penance, penitence, penitency, pity, regret, remorsefulness, repentance, rue, ruefulness, self-reproach, shame, sorrow

Grief synonyms:
affliction, agony, anguish, bemoaning, bereavement, bewailing, care, dejection, deploring, depression, desolation, despair, despondency, discomfort, disquiet, distress, dole, dolor, gloom, grievance, harassment, heartache, heartbreak, infelicity, lamentation, lamenting, malaise, melancholy, misery, mortification, mournfulness, mourning, pain, purgatory, regret, remorse, repining, rue, sadness, sorrow, torture, trial, tribulation, trouble, unhappiness, vexation, woe, worry, wretchedness

Two, the Bible passage from Numbers doesn't say anything about the meaning of the word "repent", so how exactly does Ray make the case for maintaining that the word "repent" means one thing in Genesis, and another in Numbers?

Both of these intellectually bankrupt "arguments" are just two more iterations of the same old tired "context" nonsense that Ray and his fellow Fundies try to pass off as a valid argument again and again. It's getting tiresome.

UPDATE: the second Bible passage referenced in Ray's post is not Numbers 3:19...it is Numbers 23:19. Any predictions on how Ray will address this latest error? Check back here for further updates.

Debate Killers: How Theists Avoid Honest Debate

This morning I ran across a great article at atheism.about.com. It outlines many different ways in which theists, when presented with the opportunity to have a rational discussion with atheists regarding the question of God, instead insist on approaches that effectively end the debate before it even begins. Below is a quick summary of the "Debate Killer" tactics often employed by theists:

Presume to Instruct Us that We're "Really" Agnostics, Not Atheists

Presume to Preach and Proselytize, As If We Needed It

Commit Obvious and Egregious Logical Fallacies

Try to "Prove" Something By Quoting the Bible

Threaten Us With Damnation or Say Atheism is a "Bad Bet"

Pretend that You Don't Have the Burden of Proof

Cut & Paste Arguments From Others That You Can't Defend

Ignore What We Say and Pretend that We Didn't Just Object to that Argument

Offer That Same Argument Again That We've Refuted a Million Times

Announce That You'll Be Praying for Us

(Details of each tactic can be found in the original article.)

Now Austin Cline, the author of the above referenced article, takes the tack that these tactics are "errors", and states that "These errors can be avoided if theists know about them in advance and care.".

Apparently, Austin has never attempted to debate with Ray Comfort.

Ray, as well as his more prolific sycophants, know full well what they are doing when they employ these tactics. It's not an "error" on their part at all...it's a concerted effort to divert the dialogue away from rationality - where they know they are weak - and into an area where their "arguments" are unassailable, because such quaint notions as "logic" simply don't apply.

In short, while some theists may indeed employ these tactics erroneously, believing they are legitimate dialectic strategies, many of them employ them knowing full well that they are illegitimate and will only derail honest debate...and do so with precisely that end in mind.

Presupposistionalism is retarded.

And yes, even though I will not claim certainty about anything else - ever - I'll claim certainty about this. And state that my proof is in the impossibility of the contrary.

So, arguing with morons espousing the presupposistionalist viewpoint has become a bit of a hobby of mine. Out of all the the 'arguments' for christianity, I think that this is the most arrogant, irrelevant, annoying and anti-intellectual.

I've been debating a guy named SCMike about his beliefs for over a week now. If any of you are interested in presupp and all of its inadaquacies as a philosophy, I encourage you to check it out. Lots of posters have made lots of great points.
I'd like to include my latest post which I think highlights many of the problems with presupposistionalism, but it is quite lengthy so I'll drop it behind this cut.

Seeing as my cut won't work, I've reposted the comment here.

Credulity

Hi guys,

Well, I have been waiting for a set of long posts by Dan "debunking atheists," and he is finally done with it.

Now, before you jump to Dan's blog to destroy his arguments, this is what I really want to share with you today:

I started blogging to Ray because I saw the "evolution" video. I felt furious because these guys were lying blatantly to the Christians, and I could not believe it. Well, this is what I detest, the way the likes of Ray, Kirk, Ham, the whole of answers in genesis, and all, abuse the trust of the fundies.

In the case of Dan, well, the guy does an awful job mostly because what he does is ... he trusts these guys! So, he simply copies from some creationist web site whichever propaganda he finds. Thus, he does not even understand properly what he is posting (he admits to it), and yet, he expects us to just believe that he gave us a good "debunking." Setting aside how foolish this is, the guy exposes himself to ridicule, and when I warn him about this possibility he thinks I am insulting him, which he often calls an ad hominem.

So, where is this going? Well, Dan is an excellent example of why I detest Ray and the like. There you have it. A guy who candidly posts stuff that has already been shown to be fallacies and lies, thinking he is doing a good job. The guy gets a good beating, but seems not to notice, but I bet he will notice one of these days (though he seems to forget what we say from one thread to the next, so this might take a while).

I do not know, maybe I am too compassionate, but I truly think Dan is somewhat naïve, and that in his innocence he is risking to have his trust in humanity destroyed because, if you cannot trust those you should be able to trust (aren't Christians supposed to be guided by high standards of morality, especially if the issue is their deeply held beliefs?), then what is left? Those "amoral" atheists? (unless he also gets to understand that atheism does not lead to lack of ethics).

Dan does not seem to be brilliant, but he tries to be honest. Still, either he will become a cynic, just like Ray and the like, or he will understand. What is your bet?

G.E.

Debunking evilution?

Hey guys!

A long time. This post is kind of a test of honesty for the Christians.

My Christian friends,

This is a re-post of something I wrote at Ray's, with a few editions for better clarity. I would like to know what you think of this, and whether this convinces you that Ray and Kirk's "Evolution" is actually dishonest:

How could the WOTM about Evolution be brilliant? You call telling lies and doing ridiculous acts of dishonesty brilliant? What would you think of a video against God where I would go outside and ask unaware teens whether they have proof that God exists? Then I get them to hesitate about what they think that is writen in the Bible, get them to say they are no expert priests, then put them into some fallacious test where they would have to conclude that there is no God. Would that be "Brilliant"? Wouldn't you wonder why did I not interview Ray (for instance), or someone alike? Someone who has supposedly thought about it, rather than any random teen at the street?

Then, suppose I also go and make false statements about the "theory of God's existence"? Imagine that I say that to prove the God of the Christians it is necessary to examine all of the printed copies of the Bible, no matter which version. Then I say: according to the Christians, the Bible is the inerrant word of God. To prove this we should not find a single typo in them, not a single copy of it with misprint, nor anything alike, because it is the work of God, and thus every copy has to be pristine and perfect. Then I show you a few copies, taken from some place where Bibles have to be old, odd printed, and tattered by time and use, let us say these come from a time and place when Bibles were forbidden, and thus printed in basements with poor equipment and low-quality paper, then I claim, you see, all Bibles are like this! Would that be "Brilliant"?

Then I proceed and go searching for someone with mental problems, and take him/her for dinner, and I show that he/she has no manners, and spills everything, or whatever, then claim, well, he/she should be perfectly well behaved, this is what you should expect since the creationists would want you to believe that we were created to the image of God. How come this person has so much trouble with table-manners? Would that be "Brilliant"?

I could continue, but seriously, would you call such a thing brilliant, or preposterous bunch of lies, full of treacherous tactics, and misrepresentations?

Please be honest guys, now compare my imaginary video on "The theory of God's existence" with the Evolution video. Do you see the problem with Ray and Kirk or not?

G.E.

Evidence of Ray's Dishonesty

My trip is winding to a close and, as such, I have had no time for blogs. Rest assured, though, I'll make a return this weekend with an exciting new project for next week.

I had to, though, address Ray's latest post where he claims he has not been dishonest with his quotes. Allow me to dispel this latest bit of dishonesty. I hope you're reading this, Ray, you may learn a thing or two. Here are the exposures posted by me alone:

With Egg On His Face -- Ray makes a post claiming that Einstein believes the Bible is the Word of God. Later on he deletes it with no mention or retraction.
His Learning Stumbling Block -- Following up on the above, he distorts what Einstein has said and clarified, using only select quotes.
Einstein MUST Have Believed in a Creator -- Ray insists that Einstein believed in a Creator and attributes to him the "creation must have had a creator" yet sources it not. It also points out the quote mine of Hawking.
Another Toe-Stubbing Post on Hawking -- Points out where he has quote mined from A Brief History of Time. Hawking has used a rhetorical statement to lead into a discussion followed by a conclusion of a closed universe wherein there is no place for a creator.
Dictionary of DisComfort -- Shows how Ray redefines and deceptively misuses words.
No, the Banana Is *Proof* -- Ray recycles his banana argument after having conceded it, because the banana was intelligently designed by man, not God. Ray fails to mention this and instead accuses the "atheists" of editing the argument to misrepresent it.
"Blind" Ignorance and Blatant Dishonesty -- Ray edits his "light is invisible" post without any notice after people have pointed out his ignorance.
Ray Has Damned the Midwest -- Ray first says he would not say the fires in California are God punishing the gays, but then turns around later and makes a post stating that.
Atheists Don't Die -- Ray posts a fictitious quote, attributing it to Plato.
Any Toe Left to Stub? -- Ray quote mines Hawking... again.
I Crossed the Line... -- Ray posts another fictitious quote attributing it to Plato. This time, he let's a few comments in and changes it, without any notice.
Ray Comfort is an Animal -- Ray deliberately skips the first, scientific definition in favor of a lay definition on animal.


There are also those questionable posts which are either a result from his dishonesty or his ignorance/stupidity. For example, he continually recycles the creation/creator argument despite being shown that it's circular logic by the bare assertion that it's creation (as I have pointed out, the same argument could be done for evolved beings/evolution). And what of his using misrepresentation of atheists? Or what of his continually using the same flawed arguments against evolution... including those arguments which his fellow creationists urge him not to use (such as the Second Law of Thermodynamics)? Or his misrepresentation of evolutionary theory? Or his comments to his own blog insisting that Einstein said that he thought humans were intelligently designed?

And the above posts are just my posts from my blog from the past one month. This doesn't include his own tracts and materials outside his blog, such as his quote mining of Darwin in his Atheist Test.

Ray is dishonest and the quote miner extraordinaire.

I've figured out Ray's new tactic...

Have you noticed how long it takes for Ray to admit the first batch of comments to his blog these days? He has been accumulating comments and then posting them all at once, pretty much since the strike began.

The reason for this, I believe, is that if he let comments flow through more frequently, people would realize that the very first atheist comments succinctly deal with the errors in his post and they would not bother to add their 2 cents after that (other than the usual suck-ups and Terry Burtons, of course).

See his latest piece of crap on 'transitional forms'. I was sucked in too this time and half the responses all say pretty much the same thing. Without this lag time his comment numbers would disappear.

He is far more cunning than I gave him credit for and we need a plan if we're going to avoid him pulling our strings.

I suggest that we destroy whatever inanity he has most recently posted, and then pick out the best of our comments to be sent over (referencing the ongoing discussion at Raytrators, of course) for publishing at the ol' Soapbox (remember the good old days?).

Quite frankly, I'd like us to move onto a more wide-ranging scope of discussion and take the spotlight off Comfort's dishonesty for a while, but there's just so much WRONG over there that needs addressing!


Any thoughts?

Ray Comfort: Master Baiter

He's at it again.

Another day, another asinine post at Atheist Central. This time Ray makes it clear that a species-to-species transitional would have to be something like Tiktaalik - a transitional form "between fish and land animals" or Archaeopteryx - a transitional form "between reptiles and birds" as quoted by the scientific journal; The Guardian newspaper (well, at least it's not AIG).

At this point I was wondering when the stupid was going to kick in becuase this almost sounds like he knows what he's talking about...


"Of course, the above claims can’t be substantiated. Archaeopteryx (unlike Archaeoraptor) is not a hoax—-it is a bird, not a "missing link" between birds and reptiles. The missing link is still missing, and I'm still waiting for the first piece of genuine evidence for the theory of evolution." - R. Comfort

Ah, there's the stupid!

So he defines it as something like Tiktaalik, only Tiktaalik doesn't count because, well, erm, you see.... if you see a building, you know it must have had a builder....

Just to be clear; he is definately baiting to try and get us to return, don't fall for it (unless you really want to) my fellow Raytractors, stay strong!

Matt

This Busy Monster

(Cross posted to Stranger Than Fiction )

pity this busy monster, manunkind
not. Progress is a comfortable disease:
your victim (death and life safely beyond)
plays with the bigness of his littleness
--electrons deify one razorblade
into a mountainrange; lenses extend
unwish through curving wherewhen until unwish
returns on its unself.
A world of made
is not a world of born – pity poor flesh
and trees, poor stars and stones, but not this
fine specimen of hypermagical
ultraomnipotence. We doctors know
a hopeless case if – listen: there’s a hell
of a good universe next door; let’s go.

(e.e. cummings)

I know everybody here remembers Ray's recent post entitled "Sad News for Some." It’s not the first time Ray has posted a fake obituary for himself. The bleevers always scold him "Don't do that to me, Ray!" and he always ignores them and does it again.

If you asked him, "Ray, why do you shock your friends like that? You know they'll believe anything they read on your page, you know what their reaction will be, so why do you do it?" he would protest that he does it as a joke on the atheists and that no harm is meant by it.

He might even add, “And if anybody’s dumb enough to believe it, that’s their problem.”

Here’s a not-totally-unrelated story that came to my mind when I read that post.

A schoolmate of mine, R., was a lovely young woman – tall and graceful, with dark hair, dark eyes, creamy skin and a throaty contralto voice. She was also painfully shy and self-conscious. Her brothers teased her cruelly, partly because their father did nothing to stop them.

One evening R. was babysitting her younger siblings when the phone rang. A male caller, who did not identify himself, informed her that her parents had been killed in a car accident. With shaking hands, she hung up the phone and sat down at the kitchen table to cry.

R. got another shock a couple of hours later, when the door opened and her parents walked in, alive and well.

Long story short: The unidentified male caller was R.’s own father. He had slipped away from whatever function they were attending and made a prank call.

He thought it was hilarious.

I’ve always wondered whether he thought R.’s subsequent breakdown was also funny. I certainly hope he was entertained by paying the bills for her meds and psychotherapy. It was months before R. could return to school, and years before she could be described as “normal” again. She’s still fragile – definitely not the woman she might have been – and while she seems to be on good terms with most of her family, she maintains as little contact with her father as possible.

I know that we neighbors were less than amused by the whole thing.

* * * * * * * * * *

[Aside to those who may be wondering why R. didn’t recognize her father’s voice: On the rural phone lines of thirty years ago, it was a wonder that any actual communication ever took place. They were that bad. And Call Display was still years in the future.]

* * * * * * * * * *

Of course I know that families hurt each other all the time, it’s not intentional, “it’s all fun ‘n’ games until someone loses an eye,” or their sanity, or something.

But some things simply shouldn’t be forgiven, not even by family – perhaps especially by family.

I’ll never understand why R.’s mother didn’t walk out of the house that night and take all six of her children with her. I’ll never understand why R.’s sister works for her father to this day. I can’t believe any of the kids actually trust their father. I know (the whole neighborhood knows) that the oldest son is busily, methodically robbing the old man blind and when he takes over the family business it will be bankrupt in less than six months, and I’ll never understand why this smart and successful businessman keeps this thief in his employ.

Then again, family is family. It’s not like you can simply pick another father, or another son. I’m reliably informed that mafiosos trust each other precisely because they can’t trust anybody else -- right up to the day when they turn on each other.

I know why Ray lies to his friends (same reason he lies to everybody else). I just don’t understand why they continue to follow him. It’s not like there aren’t other – and more appealing – bible-pounders available. I wonder what he could say that would convince any of them that he ain’t all that.

And (irony alert) they think we’re the miserable ones. At least we don’t feel obligated to keep company with people who can’t be trusted to behave properly.

Sourcing Quotes and Lying for Jesus

As I pointed out in I Crossed the Line..., Ray changed an unsourced quote from Plato to an unsourced quote from Newton -- one about atheism and one about "atheism." This was done after he had already approved at least three comments, and he made no note of it. As I predicted, several people tried to source the Newton quote in response.

Scott In Vegas
Two readers, though, didn't think sourcing was important. The first commenter, "scott in vegas" writes:

"Source?" If he provides it, will you concede he's right? [...] And come on... don't ask for a source...that shows weakness. Just assume he's wrong.

Concession of what? The the quote is authentic or that "atheism is a disease of the soul"? I ask for a source because I want to know firstly (a) that it is authentic and secondly (b) to get the context of it. Ray has a horrible track record for quoting people. He has on times not bothered to check the authenticity of the quote, such as the Plato ones (more below).

He has, frequently, quoted people either entirely out of context or quoted them to mislead the reader as to their intention. This is the essence of quote mining. An excellent example is the recent quote he made of Hawking wherein he quotes him as stating that the universe began. He, luckily, provided the source for that quote. By reading the lecture you learn, just as you would if you had read any of Hawking's works, that he is speaking of an entirely different sort of beginning than Ray is.

That was an example of the latter, quoting to mislead the reader as to the author's intention (such as when Einstein uses the term "God"). A more frequent quote mining is with the former, quoting them out of context. He uses the following quote mine from Darwin in almost all of his materials, including his Atheist Test:

To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

This gives the uninformed reader the impression that Darwin is responding to some challenge to his theory, or is stating that there is some other cause for this. This particular quote is, perhaps, the most famous example of quote mining. So much so that even creationist organizations (here and here, for example) urge other creationists to stop using it. Wikipedia's article on quote mining even gives this quote as a common example of quote mining.

To the point, now, of "just assuming he is wrong." Are quotes supposed to persuade us? If you are given a quote by Newton on alchemy, would that change your mind as to its validity? Or Plato on his gods? What will convince us is evidence of it. Quotes are always a nice rhetorical strategy within a greater argument, but the quote cannot be an argument in and of itself. Furthermore, Ray incorrectly quotes Einstein as being a deist (which he wasn't). Is that quote supposed to make you become a deist?

Saying that we shouldn't ask for a source and simply assume he's wrong gets us nowhere. By the very fact that we are requesting a source shows that we are not simply assuming he is wrong; we want to look further into it. If Ray wants to quote someone, we need a source to at least verify it and then investigate it. Given Ray's dishonest track record, are we supposed to simply trust him? How many times does it take for you to get burned before you learn not to trust the fire not to burn you?


Brittany
The next commenter, brittany, first writes:

just copy and paste the quote into google....it shouldn't be to hard to find...!

To this, Pvblivs responds:

Perhaps you would like to source the Plato quote that Ray had originally. Ray got caught in a lie and edited his post. Good grief, the http address of the post reveals the original wording.

After this, Brittany makes a lengthier reply in which several questions of point I think are worth replying to:

"Perhaps you would like to source the Plato quote that Ray had originally."
[...]
Although as I said earlier; just copy and post plato's quote into google; it shouldn't be to hard to find.

It is incumbent on Ray, the poster, to provide the source. Anytime Ray (or anyone else for that matter), posts some quote or excerpt (including Bible verses), I immediately look them up for reasons outlined above. If I am asking for a source, it obviously is hard to find, which is why I don't ask for sources on everything he posts. You should try copying and pasting this into Google for yourself:

Google query of Plato's quote.

I tried pages of results and found no source for it, just it being used over and over unsourced. I did find many places saying they could not find a source and others saying there is no source. Quotes are often misattributed or unscrupulously attributed to famous individuals and intellectuals to add credence to the quote. For example, allow me to give you one that atheists often use and appears almost as frequently as the Plato one:

The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites. -- Thomas Jefferson

Just as I hate when people like Ray Comfort posts fictitious quotes or quotes out of context, I hate it when atheists do it too. It does not take much time to verify the validity of a quotes one use. Using such a quote is either dishonest in effort or integrity.

"Ray got caught in a lie and edited his post. Good grief, the http address of the post reveals the original wording."

Perhaps Ray decided not to use that particular quote because he decided that it did not go well with what he was trying/wanting to say.

"edited his post."

It is indeed his post...He can edit it all he wants, and he does not have to have permission from you or anyone else who wants to challenge him over it.

This doesn't go to quotes, but I want to address it nonetheless. He should have either rejected the comments we posted correcting him, or he should have made an entirely new post. In either case, he should have noted why he chose not to use it. Failing to do so makes him dishonest. He should acknowledge his mistake, instead of just pulling out a bottle of white-out, as he did when he realized he was wrong about quoting Einstein as believing the Bible was the Word of God.

Ray, though, seems to be very dishonest, or part of the "it's okay to lie for Jesus" camp. For example, years ago he conceded the banana argument because the only reason bananas look the way they do is because man improved them to have those design features. Ray knows this as I have heard him corrected on it (which is why he conceded it) and yet he continues to use it claiming that God made those features. Or, the Darwin quote... corrected many times on that. Or, Einstein's or Hawking's views on God... corrected many times on that.

This is why I ask for a source and simply request to acknowledge when he is wrong, rather than trying to cover it up until he can use it again on a lesser informed crowd.

Winston Smith Erases Einstein

My first post here and I must say, I was excited to get the invite. I like the idea of this blog, as my own blog, DisComforting Ignorance, is primarily focused on Ray Comfort.
[End introduction :-)]

My fellow Raytractor, Lance, posted on Ray's Winston Smith. He exposed the editing of one post to tone it down and chastised him for not acknowledging his mistake on the behemoth-dinosaur conjecture (which I give an analysis of here). This is similar to him losing the banana argument and then, instead of admitting that he conceded it because the supermarket banana is engineered, claimed "atheists" were unscrupulously editing it to make him appear foolish.

My blog actually started by exposing him doing this very thing. We are all familiar with how Ray loves to distort, quote mine, and invent Einstein's religious positions. He actually in a recent post said that Einstein believed that God intelligently designed him without citing any source.

Did you know, though, that Ray had made a post wherein he claims that Einstein believed that the Bible was the Word of God? Here is the text of the post:

Weaver said..."The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." -- Einstein

I never knew that Einstein believed that the Bible was "the of Word of God." I knew that be was a believer in God's existence (see quote on Blog-header), but this quote is very encouraging. The Scriptures sure were an honourable product of human weakness. God chose to inspire the weakness of men to write His Word to humanity. Albert naturally reacted to it as I did before my conversion. This reaction is explained in Scripture: "But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14). [emphasis added]

I have a screen shot along with commentary and analysis in my blog entry on it. When Ray was called out on it, did he post a retraction or acknowledge his mistake or even admit he's never actually read anything Einstein wrote in its entirety? No. His employee Winston Smith simply went to work and flat out deleted it.

It is ignorance exacerbated by dishonesty of the greatest degree.