Question for Sapient/Kelly about the Nightline debate
Offline Hi there!
So Ray comfort's publisher sent me a free copy of his book "You can lead an atheist to evidence, but you can't make him think" and I am using it as a springboard for daily blog posts on my blog (www.ziztur.com for the interested).
I'm a little over halfway through this sad waste of trees. In the intro to chapter six, Ray says this:
"Before Kirk Cameron and I debated two bitter atheists on ABC's Nightline, the mother of one wrote to me and sincerely thanked me for befriending her beloved son. She was a Christian and she believed that the contact we were having with him prior to the debate was an answe to prayer.
Immediately before the debate itself, a woman in the front row introduced herself to me. she was the mother of the other bitter atheist. She also loved the Lord and thanked us for befriending her daughter."
I can only assume he is talking about Sapient and Kelly. Did this actually happen? If it didn't, I'd of course like to admonish these clowns for once again being dishonest.
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
- Login to post comments
Probably. What a creeper.
Instead of waiting for an answer that may or may not arrive depending on various circumstances, you could simply use Ray's own vagueness against him. The very fact that he wouldn't identify the person himself lends credibility to the suggestion that it's all in his head.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Well, the fact that we're on a forum where the two respective atheist are to be found, Ray's claim can be easily tested for credibility. Judging that Sapient has already admitted that his mother is a devote Christian, it's more than plausabile that the correspondence took place, but I'm not too sure about Kelly's mom.
But I suggest not passing judgement, until Sapient or Kelly have their say in it.
Plausability is irrelevant. Ray made a claim that wasn't supported by evidence or testimony. It auto-fails as a result, regardless of its veracity.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
The question is did the correspondence between Ray and the mothers of the two happen or not.
evidence:
a witness (ray) claiming that the correspondence took place.
The claim was made in a soon to be published book of his, and the unlikelihood that Ray would claim as fact, what could easily be revealed as false, with a simple response from Sapient or Kelly, and a quick phone call to their mothers. Ray has a great deal of credibility to lose amongst his flock if he were so evidently lying about this.
Sapient's and Kelly's silence (which would be more revealing as time goes on). They shouldn't be.
From what we know of at least Sapient's mom, she's of a christian persuasion that is in sync with Ray's own, so it's highly likely that she would have enjoyed that Ray and Kirk were able to talk to her son, and was thankful for it. I know my mother for one enjoys when devote christian friends talk to me about God, enough so that she'd thank them for it. So its highly probable that Sapients mother would have been compelled to do the same.
So if you were to ask me, given the available evidence, I'm going to claim that it more than likely happened than not, but not with any great sense of certainty. But if Sapient or Kelly would like to deny it, I'd more than likely sees Rays claims as doubtful then. But as of now my money is on Ray, until some counter evidence is presented.
Ray has proven his dishonesty and spoken outright lies so many times over that even referring to him as a credible witness reduces your own comments credibility to absolutely nothing.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Clearly you don't know Ray Comfort very well. He has no compunctions about saying things as fact that can easily be revealed as false. And his audience aren't that bright to connect two and two to see that Ray's compulsive lying is a detriment to his credibility.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
I am already more than aware that Comfort is dishonest. He constantly misrepresents the positions of evolutionary biologists and atheists, invents random statistics in hos books, quote-mines Stephen Hawking (among others) and publishes hateful, atheoptobic, bigoted books characterizing all atheists as rapists, pedophiles, fans of torture, homicidal, intellectually dishonest walking scum of the earth. (I am not being snarky, he really says these things).
So anyway, when he mentioned the nightline debate, I figured it would be easy to verify his statement (or not.)
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
Well, can you prove to me that Ray Comfort spoke outright lies?
Where is evidence for it?
It should be noted that if a person actually believes the world is flat and tells others the world is flat, he is not lying. Lying consists of passing off something i don't believe is true, to be true.
Well, I have no qualms in claiming that Ray comfort does indeed believe things that can easily be revealed as false, most us probably have at least a few such beliefs.
But here Ray is claiming what he believes.
What I don't see any reason to believe, is that Ray comfort says things as fact that he himself doesn't believe to be facts, or in other words lying. If you or anyone else has compelling reasons for why I should believe that Ray is a liar, you are more than welcome to present it.
People that believe in irrational delusions and use that against others are pretty likely to create their own delusions to use against others.
It's not "evidence", it's called good judgement of a person.
*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*
"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby
Would this mean that as long as Comfort believed he talked to their mothers, that he isn't lying if he says he did and reports it as fact.
Isn't that the whole problem with atheism vs theism. Misrepresentations of belief as fact or truth.
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22ray+comfort+lies%22&btnG=Search&meta=
Plenty of examples.
Also, ignoring evidence to continue to spout bullshit qualifies as a lie. Someone shows you that the sky is blue, but you continue to declare it red, then you're a liar.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
If someone has evidence supporting their claim and you have no evidence to support you own you have two logical options:
1. Reject your own claim.
2. Reject their claim (attempt to disprove) but discontinue making your own claim until able to provide evidence.
You can't just call it a belief so you don't look bad lying. I consider it lying to make any claim as fact without having any supporting evidence.
I believe the story to be true in reference to my mother. If you're looking for any embellishing at all it is in the term "befriended." Kelly and I never considered Ray a friend and still don't to this day. With that said I do believe Kelly's mom said hello to Ray at the "debate" as well.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
No, he wouldn't be lying. Anymore so than someone with a mental illness who believes he talks to the easter bunny is lying when he says he does. A lie is something perpetuating something that one knows to be false, it's not a lie to perpetuate something that you don't believe to be false.
In the God Delusion, Dawkins suggest that 93% of the scientist elected to the NAS are atheist. He derived the conclusion from a survey that states that only 7% of NAS members believed in a personal God. When in fact, just because someone doesn't believe in a personal God doesn't mean he's an atheist, Jefferson, Franklin, Einstein, Voltaire believed in God (just not a personal one) thereby excluding them from being labeled atheist.
Dawkins clearly misinterpreted the facts, does that mean we should call him a liar? If I sent him a message making him aware of this misrepresentation of the fact, and he doesn't alter his subsequent editions of the God Delusion, is he than to be labeled as deceptive?
Does Kelly's mom also "love the Lord"? Or in other words is she a devout theist as your mom is? I know that you've admitted that your mom is a number of times on the web, but I wasn't aware that Kelly's mom religious beliefs where also out in the open like that? If they're not, then I doubt that it was just merely a "hello" that took place between Ray and her mom.
No they are not. What occurs for Comfort is something common in human of nature, for things we are passionately attached too. We are all prone to believe contrary to facts and evidence in matters concerning those we love, ideas we passionately believe in. In fact a passionate attachment to rationalism here, can delude individuals into thinking they are above these sort of "delusions".
This is not a sign of mental illness, or even anything remotely close to it.
While on the other hand if Ray Comfort actually believes he talked to Sapient's and Kellys mom when in fact he didn't, then he might need some serous psychological help, and some meds.
You don't think him calling you bitter at every opportunity is embellishment?
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
Thanks Brian! It sounds a little embellished, but not something I feel the need to quibble over.
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
double post
=
Quick question for whomever want to take it:
Are we really talking about whether the man who is so fond of the phrase “If you have lied, then you are a liar” is a liar?
Just checking...
=
Indeed.
Like so many others, if Ray didn't have a double standard he wouldn't have a standard at all.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Yes Kelly's mom also "loves the lard." However Kelly's mom freely admits that it's just faith, it can't be proven, and sometimes even sees the light that she's likely wrong about her beliefs. She shares a trait in common with my mom in that they both feel as if they can't live without belief in Jesus Christ as their lord and savior.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Damn...I missed this. Now I have to search on Youtube.
That Ray Comfort is a delight, huh?...and that bundle of acting talent called Kirk Cameron?...How could there *not* be a god to bestow such gifts on two such worthy believers? I mean, it would be a damn shame if they both were to require bone marrow transplants and the only matching donors they could find were each other, and an HIV+ tranny hooker...
Yup...A damn shame ...not as much of an atrocity as when Wham broke up...but a damn shame nontheless...
www.RichWoodsBlog.com
Yes, he would be lying. A lie makes a liar, whether the liar knows he or she is lying or not. It's a very simple and basic definition. Not knowing the truth simply removes certain descriptive comments that can accompany the term "liar" or "lied". Descriptions like "knowingly" or "complete asshole". In Rays case, both the former and the latter is applicable.
Although at least Ray has now demonstrated a capacity for telling the truth. Something I'd determined he wasn't capable of a couple years ago. Nice to know.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Absolutely not.
A lie can ONLY come with an INTIMATE knowledge of the truth, or belief of what the truth is. If you KNOW the truth to be one thing, and yet SAY another, then you are lying. Also, if you BELIEVE the truth to be one thing, and say another, then you are lying. Lies are told with the intention of getting someone to believe what you know not to be true. A liar's goal is to hide the truth from others.
If you tell something untruthful without CARING about the truth, then you are "bullshitting." Bullshit is actually a well-defined philosophical term. This is when someone tries to get someone to believe what they are saying without knowing or caring about what the truth is. A bullshitter only cares about what the listener believes about THEM, not necessarily the truth. If a bullshitter is actually telling the truth, all the better, but it makes no difference to him either way.
If you tell something untruthful without knowing what the truth is, but you BELIEVE what you say to be true, then you are not lying. You are saying things that are false, but you are saying them SINCERELY. When someone does this, they have an honest, ethical desire to tell someone something they believe to be true. If someone who is sincere realizes they are telling falsehoods, then they would be highly disappointed. A liar knows what he is saying is false, and a bullshitter would not care no matter what he was saying.
Absolutely so.
Buy a dictionary. Liar.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie%5B3%5D
intransitive verb 1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive 2 : to create a false or misleading impression transitive verb : to bring about by telling lies
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie
lie
–nounhttp://dictionary.oed.com
1. a. An act or instance of lying; a false statement made with intent to deceive; a criminal falsehood. Phrase, to tell (
formerly to make) a lie.
b. white lie: a consciously untrue statement which is not considered criminal; a falsehood rendered venial or praiseworthy by its motive.
c. transf. Something grossly deceptive; an imposture.
Thanks. Bolded and Underlined the applicable entries.
Edit:
I'm looking at my last post again, and I see I didn't add an emoticon to lessen the impact of my accusation, which just looks mean as is. I apologize.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.