Atheists Disrespecting Respectful Theists

I'm still working on my Free Exercise post, but I thought I would cover some DisComforting Comments from Ray's blog, and also some sentiments of his own: that atheists are often disrespectful while Christians are often respectful. I have planned this post for a while (I in fact wrote it several weeks ago), but decided to finally pull it out again when I saw yet another comment on a slavery post over at the Raytractors. The cliche goes that atheists should be more respectful, but sadly, most are very rude, profane, disrespectful, etc:

You guys are honestly making me rethink that the atheist/non-believers only reasonable answers to Christians are to attack them verbally with cruelty.

The original comment which prompted this post was from a Christian poster to Ray's blog I found one night:

So far, the many (while there are some who have respectful blogs)atheists blogs I have been on are degrading, and un-respectful,,,towards Christian's in particular.

In the thread where I found this weeks ago, I counted, at the time, 7 uses of "atheist" and 4 uses of "Atheist." Ray has written that it is a sign of disrespect to improperly not capitalize "Jesus" or "God" (when reference the god of the Christians). I would imagine, then, it should also be taken as a sign of disrepect when any variant of atheism is improperly capitalized.

Besides the possible ulterior motives for doing such, this is pedantic and I doubt it is to what the commenter is referring with regard to disrespect towards the opposition. Or what of the popular "atheists have potty mouths" such as Sower Benjamin says: (thanks to Captain Howdy for the heads up)

The topic of decorum within the constraints of the "Blogosphere" is one that has been on my mind lately... If you've been reading the comments on my particular blog or those of any Christian on the Internet who is attempting to carry out Christ's Command to "seek and save that which is lost" you have no doubt, encountered the venom of the atheist.

[...]

It's difficult to really decipher what you are trying to say when your posts are so riddled with profanity... Perhaps science has come up with a pill for that or something...

If you have included yourself in the "atheists all use profanity" or anything along that line and juxtapose it with the nice, clean Christians who don't, you are either blithely regurgitating something you hear other sheltered Christians say and/or you've never had many experiences with atheists yourself.

There are plenty of "respectful" atheist blogs who don't have "potty mouths." These aren't obscure blogs; they are fairly well known in most atheist circles:

About.com Atheism / Agnosticism
Daylight Atheism
The Atheist Blogger
de-conversion
Atheist Ethicist
Friendly Atheist

I could go on, but that's just copying the first few out of my Google Reader which have new posts. And what of dirty, disrespectful Christian bloggers? Except for the first one below, I don't care to read them, so I don't, but I have a few I remember visiting recently:

Debunking Atheists
Debunking Atheism
Debunking Crap

The list could go on (or perhaps simply replaced with "Westboro Baptist Church"), but the point is that there are disrespectful atheist blogs but as are there disrespectful Christian blogs. Not only blogs, but disrespectful Christians in general. Take a look at some of the emails to PZ Myers, or even death threats. You can find Christians being nasty in blogs, forums, and chats, using profanity, and issuing threats.

You can also watch the popular TV show, The Atheist Experience, which I do recommend for Christians as it is aimed at non-atheists. On here, I can't count the number of Christians who call in and one way or another insult the hosts or threaten one. In one segment, after the host has dismantled him for ten minutes, the good Christian concludes with "why don't I come down there and punch your fat face in..."

I hope that my blog is represented in a respectful manner, as that is how I conduct myself in person and what I aim for here. For those Christians who comment here, I respond to them as respectfully as I do the atheist commenters. I certainly do not call them fools as Ray calls atheists, or fiends as Terry has called me, or baby-eaters as Dan has called us. I have been told here on this blog that I fabricate stories, I am arrogant, a muckraker, a pompous ass, and write mindless drivel.

That isn't to say that Christians aren't respectful. Some are and some aren't. The same with atheists. There are those Christian blogs which are meant to vent frustration for Christians and mock the opposition, as there ought be. There are those atheist blogs which are meant to vent frustration for atheists and mock the opposition, as there especially ought be. We shouldn't make the mistake of using them as the basis for characterizing either atheists or Christians as representing disrespect.

An Unjust Lawgiver

I was asked once in a comment to my blog why, if I somehow came to know that the Christian God exists, do I qualify that I would believe in him, but not worship him. Ray's most recent post Heaven or Hell? sheds some light on it (along with his previous God is not All-Loving).

I remember being a freshman or sophomore in high school and was taking World History. I am not sure where the subject of American Law came up, but it was in juxtaposition to other countries where laws are arbitrary, unwritten, or undisclosed. She commented that, in America, not knowing the law is not an excuse for violating it; in America, we have a justice system wherein all the laws are written down and available to the public (voluminous though they may be).

God has fashioned himself after America by also writing all his laws down in a book -- very just, right? Some of them, like slavery, subjugation of women, etc, have been repealed (due to secular modernity) but the law has not been updated to reflect this nor does it have an amendment process. But I digress.

He has written them down, being the just god that God is. He has, however, failed to make them available to all those who are subject to the laws (every person who has and ever will live). And if you fail to receive a copy of these laws, through no fault of your own, you are to be tortured for all eternity, regardless of whether or not you lived your life better than those who are getting into Heaven?

Some child in a miserable third world country and who never even heard the name Jesus Christ and never even knew that such a book of laws existed, starves to death -- literally starves to death -- then gets tortured for all eternity?

This... this is justice? This is how a just God behaves? Either we are to believe that a perfect being, who is perfectly just, would commit to his creations such atrocities, or we are to believe that the book has been corrupted and perverted over the MILLENIA (regardless of whether it was divinely inspired or not in the first place). What greater injustice could there be than to infinitely punish someone for a finite violation of a law that a Lawgiver never gave them?

I thought, for sure, all of the Christian commenters would attack Ray on his post. Some did, but some took a more peculiar approach:

Some have said, "Um, okay, no one's ever told me that before and I've been fine so far, so..."

I don't think any of us can say that we have absolute knowledge that anyone who has died and gone to Hell never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel.

Let's just avoid the hard questions altogether by pulling out the gem of absolute knowledge? Someone has listened to a bit too many Ray-tracts. There are several things wrong with this, but I will point out two problems with this statement:

Absolute knowledge of the antithesis

Your claim is that you know that no one has died without hearing the Gospel. Such a claim requires absolute knowledge. How dare you make such a claim! You are not omniscient jesusrulzme, only God is. Therefore, you don't really know... you are agnostic (ignorant).

Hypothetical question

This doesn't even require any evidence that there has ever been a case where no one has heard the Gospel (though I could make irrefutable arguments to such an end). It, like my third world country child, is taken as a purely hypothetical question:

A hypothetical question is one that is answered only in terms of validity, not soundness. Thus the question is designed to make a number of assumptions, and be answered as if those assumptions are true.

Based on the hypothetical question that a person died without ever hearing the Gospel, Ray (speaking for God) casts them into the fiery bowels of Hell.


Others on this topic
The Raytractors (Clostridiophile)
Flinging Dust

The Death of an Atheist

I was over at Atheist Central today and read his Sad News for Some post. A comment he posts to it was really telling. He mentions in his post, though, asking if:

Have you ever noticed how a man may be a money-grabbing, lying, womanizer, who has been hated by almost everybody, but the moment he dies, the whole world says he was "a good man"--a generous person, and a loving husband?

Yes. The reaction to the death of Christian evangelical Jerry Falwell was the opposite of what I would have expected. This wicked man spewed racist and homophobic rhetoric any time he opened his mouth. Although he was a strong advocate for racial segregation, there were nothing but kind words and praises for the man on the news. Bill Maher was one of the few to give a proper eulogy.

What will the preacher say at your funeral?

As many of the atheists noted there, me included, there won't be a preacher at my funeral, unless they were a friend. I have no religious text which dictates that I be buried nor any dogma which mandates that I be buried as a necessary step to the afterlife. As such, my organs will, if possible, be donated to potential recipients in need and then my corpse will be donated to an accredited university through a willed body program where it will be used for medical research and study. Once done, the remains will be cremated and disposed of. This is because I will no longer exist and, as such, I do not need my body so I might as well let others benefit from it.

If there is any service for my family, it will be up to them how they would like it done. My only requests have been a financial restraint (explicitly no ceremonial coffin) and no religious services. I think a comment by Ray was exemplary of the reason I do not want any religious service:

You won't be there. What say I show up and charm your wife into letting me preach? Don't worry, I wouldn't even mention you (too late). I would simply preach the gospel to the living--your grieving friends and family. Who knows; she may let me do it as a payback for all the annoying habits you had . . . :)

I would not want someone like Ray Comfort taking advantage of my family in their weakest hour. What a horrible sentiment! Disrespecting the final wishes of the deceased just because they were an atheist? Would he be so quick to comment about disrespecting the final wishes of the deceased if they were a Christian?

I can't help but wonder if this is insight to why people like the Westboro Baptist Church can show up and desecrate funeral services by spouting their nonsense. I don't ask for decency for the sake of me, as I will no longer exist; however, I do ask it for my bereaved loved ones.


Others on this topic.
The Raytractors

Malicious Comments

A regular commentary I have read from Ray about his blog is how polite and respectful the Christian commenters are and how malicious and filthy the atheist commenters are. The Christian commenters try to reason with the atheist and have a civil discourse, but he has to continually delete atheist comments which are full of insults, profanity, and blasphemy.

I have been working on an entry about the atheist definition and was referring to some past comments and thought it's humorous the Christian comments on here. I'll take two commenters for example who are also regular commenters on Ray's blog...

"HBKS" Terry
I am sure every atheist blogger who regularly reads Ray's blog is familiar with this "gentleman." He has left two comments on my blog. In response to "Hard" Philosophy (concerning the necessity of a perfect, absolute standard):

'cut n paste' from Ray's blog does not show you are correct in your viewpoints, it only shows the people that you will fabricate any story to support your paranoia.

Hope you will open your mind to the reality of God and His Son Jesus Christ.

Our foundation is based on what the Holy Bible teaches us. Our salvation comes from the New Testament.

There is life after death, but without Jesus Christ as your Savior, you will go to Hell.

Its that simple! Secular reasoning will get you straight to Hell when you die. All men have sinned and fallen short! ITs only by grace we are saved. Praying for you!!!

http://hbks1.blogspot.com

I have embolden the part where he makes a baseless accusation (and completely irrelevant to the post) that I am fabricating stories to support my paranoia. He also threatens me with Hell. If he believes it to be true or not, he has still threatened me to either come to his point of view or suffer physically.

The second comment he posts to Why I Hate Vacations:

Your ingnorance is very Discomforting!

.. and may I say... your arrogance is astounding!

Repent while you still can fiend.

He posts that to a short entry on hating vacation because it causes my feeds and email inbox to back up. Again, he insults me without providing any supporting context. I'm ignorant, arrogant, and a fiend.

"In Christian Love" Brittany
Now, contrast this with my favorite Christian commenter Brittany. Not once does she insult me or fling baseless accusations. Here's an excerpt of a comment discussing Hell to the entry Bleeding Heart Prayers:

"I would be forced to suffer knowing that they were dealt a great injustice in this life, forced to live and die in miserable conditions, only to spend eternity in the next life burning in Hell."

Your comment makes me think of many of my un-saved family members. It makes me want to talk to them right now about their eternal life. But I have to
remember that everyone is given a choice. They get to choose to accept Christ or not. I cannot force them to accept Him.

If they do not accept Him, then I can only continually pray for them and show them Christ's love for them through my life.

I see where your coming from,,,because I don't think that any person would want anyone to suffer in hell....Therefore I hope you understand why so many Christians are adamant about telling the non-believers about Christ and all He has to offer them.

She's not coming out and saying "you're going to Hell." It's what she believes and she discusses it as such. (To give context, it is her and I going back and forth about perspectives on Heaven and Hell.) In contrast to Terry, she's always polite and is open to questions and poses questions of her own.

The Point
What's the point of this? There really is no point. I see many atheists' comments which are in poor taste and/or illogical. But just as often (actually more often as I read more atheist-friendly blogs) I see Christians posting horrible things. They'll post death threats, they use all kinds of profanity, the malign posters, and the such.

I receive mainly friendly and respectful atheist comments on my blog as mine is an atheist blog. Ray receives mainly friendly and respectful Christian comments on his blog as his is a Christian blog. He does not seem to realize it, though, and instead makes a hasty generalization about the behavior of atheists and Christians alike in all situations.


Others on this topic
Pharyngula

Atheists Don't Die

I'm working on an entry for the two science lessons of dinosaurs, but I noticed some comments on Ray's posts on atheists.

Ray made a simple post with only a subject of "'No one ever dies an atheist.....' Plato." The Atheist Blogger rightly pointed out that Ray has gotten lazy. But beyond that, there are three points to note:

1) Where is the source for this quote? If he's going to keep quoting people and usually wrongly (just as he quote mines Charles Darwin on the eye), he must start citing sources. I searched for maybe ten minutes but could not find a source for this quote anywhere, but several websites saying it is improperly attributed to him.

2) Plato lived in the fourth century BCE. I don't say this to make an argument that if it is old, it is wrong. Plato made significant contributions. I am applying it only to religion. This is a time before modern science when there is so much unknown about why things happen or explanations about our origins. It is like when he quotes Newton with him describing all the complex organisms and how they couldn't have popped into existence. This is a man, though, who lived over a hundred years before Origin of Species.

3) The main point though:

Allow me to pull out my Ray Comfort shtick: To make such a claim that no one dies an atheist, you must have absolute knowledge. You aren't omniscient Ray, only God is. Therefore, you do not know... you are agnostic (ignorant).

To this post, I made a simple comment:

No one ever dies a Christian.....

My hope was to provoke some kind of a response such as "how can you say that," "how do you know that," etc. My statement is as baseless as the apparently misattributed quote to Plato. You cannot know that no one dies an atheist unless you specifically know that there is no one who ever dies an atheist. Then you must also know what they believe the moment they die. As The Atheist Blogger also makes the point to mention, this is just like the thoroughly debunked saying "there are no atheists in foxholes." Why do people like Ray make such absurd statements? Because stories like the afterlife give them great comfort and hope. They don't have to approach an unknown. It is simply a transition for them to eliminate the fear. They can't see how someone can possibly approach death without such false comfort.

Atheists handle their own death just as we handle the death of those we love. We don't comfort ourselves with false hope. When one of my loved ones dies, I am bereaved. I believe I will never see this person again, and it causes me great pangs. I don't turn to some comfort of "they are in heaven now." Neither will I when I approach my deathbed.

To the point of my comment: to one quite picked up on it, though. Our old friend keywesthaven1 (who has posted two comments to this blog) responded:

Christians die every day, atheists die every day, but they quickly find out there is a "God" when an angel tells them so, and escorts them to Hell. There is no debate, you come along quietly.

Muslims die every day, Christians die every day, but they quickly find out that Allah is the one true God when an angel tells them so, and escorts them to Hell. There is no debate, you come along quietly... right along with us atheists.

---

Others on this topic:

• The Atheist Blogger

DisComforting Fetish: Pascal's Wager

So, when you ask an atheist "What if you're wrong?" as a serious question against their disbelief... you should first ask yourself "How could they not have asked themselves this already?"

Pascal's Wager is almost as unlikely to convert an atheist as quoting Scripture at them. Nevertheless, while searching through Ray's past posts for his statements about the arrogance of atheists for "Haughty, Audacious Arrogance," I found a surprising number of comments threatening Pascal's Wager. Here's just the first five hits for the keywords of "if you're wrong":

#1:
Arizona athiest IF you are right and we Christians are wrong then you will not even know it as there will be nothing after life. On the other hand if you are wrong, then there will be hell to pay...literally! Don't gamble with your eternity.

#2:
If you are right (we know better because we’ve gone into communication with God), you have nothing to lose, but if you are wrong, you have everything to loose. Whether you believe or not, if there could be (never mind all testaments) and as far as you could possibly know, there COULD be, eternal life with God, doesn’t it make sense to error on that side? That is, you don’t know there isn’t, and denying is not going to make eternal judgment less true. How foolish-no wonder God wrote all those scriptures about fools. Don’t be one.

#3:
But, the words you wrote, will be required of you in the day of Judgment. You can think that as fairy tale, too, if you like. But, the fact is, one day, like the rest of us, you will have to face death. What do you believe happened after someone dies? Do you have any evidence of what you believes is true? Will you be willing to stake your lives on what you believes regarding what happened to someone after death? Because, you are. Please, I beg of you. Just think about it, what if you are wrong? You are staking everything on this.

#4: (was preceded by science statements which I've italicized)
I believe God created man. I do not believe man created God. I have a degree in science and understand the difference between micro and macro evolution. I choose to worship the Creator rather than the created. If I am wrong, I have nothing to lose. If you are wrong, you have made the biggest mistake of your life.

#5:
We don't deny uncertainty--we just say not to place your eternal fate in the hands of uncertain things, because death is irreversible, and, if you are wrong, you can't get back to change it. Go with what is real--Jesus Christ, the risen Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

To those Christians who subscribe to this blog who choose to use Pascal's Wager, I will briefly explain why you shouldn't use it. Better explanations are linked at the bottom as this is a well debunked argument (oft described as "fractally wrong").

• It assumes a false dichotomy between atheism and Christianity. There are thousands of religion; why should we give any more credence to Christianity? Many are mutually exclusive. For example, Christianity teaches that Muslims go to Hell while Islam teaches that Christians go to Hell.
• It assumes God simply rewards belief... or belief at all.
• It assumes that you can will yourself to believe something.
  
• It assumes all current religions are the only possible considerations. It could very well be there is a God who has not revealed himself yet in any religion.
• It assumes God would reward someone who is simply choosing to believe to avoid Hell.
• There is a great toll to pay if you believe and are wrong. You do not simply "lose nothing." You lose, by virture of having only one life, everything. There is a serious price to pay for compliance.

There could just as easily be, and probably more likely, a God who punishes blind faith and rewards critical thinking. There could also be a God who punishes non-computer scientists as computer scientists are most like his profession of intelligently designing, in which case I'm covered.

If I were to wager on something regarding Pascal's Wager, it would be that every atheist has asked himself "What if I'm wrong?" It's something the troubled me greatly as I was coming around to a rational view from my fundamentalist beliefs. It was a heavy weight to bear; I was constantly tormented with the thought of not only Hell, but of disappointing Yahweh. I still am occasionally haunted by such feelings as they were so inculcated in me as a child. So, when you ask an atheist "What if you're wrong?" as a serious question against their disbelief... you should first ask yourself "How could they not have asked themselves this already?"


More Information
Here is a two-minute debunking of Pascal's Wager.

• Iron Chariots on Pascal's Wager
• Wikipedia on Pascal's Wager
  
• Pascal's Sucker Bet
• Sam Harris's Empty Wager
• The Atheist's Wager
  

Wikipedia Is a Godsend

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena. -- National Academy of Sciences

This is a note for both theists and atheists. When reading someone's claim, why don't you at least read the Wikipedia article on it before rebutting it? Below is one thing from theists I wish they would turn to Wikipedia about and one thing from atheists I wish they would turn to Wiki about.

Theists: Theory vs Science

One of the biggest irritations from theists I commonly have is statements about science. I won't even be as specific as false science statements as "evolution is unfalsifiable" or that "light is invisible." I mean general statements. Flinging dust points out two comments on Ray's blog by theists making completely false statements about general science principles and terms.

The second comment says:

Wow! You guys think gravity is a theory! You need to get out more. It was proven to be a Law a long time ago.

The commenter is a Christian. What always baffles me about comments like this from Christians is I was raised with a fundamentalist father who is currently working on correcting translations of the Bible. God removing a rib from Adam to create Eve is far different than removing a part from Adam to create Eve. One would think Christians, in general, would have a better appreciation for terms.

Of course, there is no hierarchy in validity among law, theories, and facts. In lay terms, a theory is more a hypothesis or conjecture while a fact is something proven. Scientific illiteracy is shown when you then bungle the lay uses with the scientific uses. A quick search of gravity or theory and fact on Wikipedia would have removed the words from your mouth which made you a fool.

One of the top results, in fact, is an article on evolution and gravity BOTH as theories and also as facts. You could also go straight to Newton's law of gravity which introduces it in the first sentence as a theory.



Atheists: Newton's Religion

As much as we hate when people like Ray Comfort make ignorant statements about the religious views of people like Einstein and Hawking, it is always quite shocking to see an atheist doing the same to Newton. I have never seen quote-mining on the part of atheists with respect to Newton's religion. What I usually see is them making some ignorant statement about him or saying they are skeptical about the claims that Newton believed the Bible.

Why? Because it's quite shocking to them that a scientist as great as Newton could believe such a thing. In this, they are as guilty as Ray Comfort in claiming what he does about Einstein because it's shocking to him that Einstein couldn't believe in his definition of God.

A quick navigation to the Wikipedia article on Isaac Newton would quickly clear it up. In fact, you can read the article dedicated to his religious views.

The Dictionary of DisComfort

Ray likes to play war of the words in his evangelism. It's obviously a successful strategy of misdirection as I see people parrot his arbitrary definitions and liberal uses of words in their comments. Case-in-point, in response to my providing context to a Hawking quote Ray mined, a commenter made the following comment to mine:

So Hawking is still leaving it open that either there is a self contained universe or a Creator, thanks for the added quote. This just shows that Hawking is agnostic(ignorant) to just how the universe began. All Ray is trying to show you is that some of the most brilliant men won't settle on speculative claims of the origin of the universe. You beleive [sic] your scientists, I beleive [sic] Gods word. So yes God did it.

To the point on Hawking, the reader obviously does not know what a rhetorical question is or a figure of speech. This reader is guilty of quote mining in his own mind. He scanned through the paragraphs of context I put and honed in on the concluding statement:

But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? -- Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time pg 141

He ignores the entire chapter wherein Hawking argues and demonstrates the self-containment nature of the universe. He concludes with a sentiment by saying that if the universe really is self-contained, then there's no role for a Creator. This would be the same if you were to give me a recipe for Rock Soup. The basics of it is that you cook an entire soup with a rock sitting next to the pot. I could write a response to you, detailing all the ingredients and how they contribute to it, so as to show how there's no need for the rock. I might conclude such a response with: "If all of these ingredients individually contribute to the taste of the soup and the rock never touches it (so as not to add any of its own taste to the soup), it would gain nothing from the rock. What place, then, for a rock?" It would be false to conclude that I am thus arguing that either the soup's taste is defined by its ingredients or the rock gives it it's taste, simply because I have phrased my conclusion in the form of a question.

But I have digressed again from the point of this post. The point refers to the comment's next sentence:

This just shows that Hawking is agnostic(ignorant) to just how the universe began. (emphasis added)

Atheists are often called arrogant. This statement reminds me of that pageant queen who challenged Hawking to a debate on black holes. Blacks holes and the big bang are Hawking's area of expertise, and you have the arrogance to say that he is ignorant?

I can't fault the commenter too much, though, as he is using Ray's terminology of agnostic = ignorant (and Hawking may be agnostic about the origin). As such the point of this post is to outline some of these terms he liberally redefines:

Ray on Agnosticism and Ignorance

Ray attempts to redefine agnostic to mean ignorant. Why does he do this? To make an ad hominem attack (and logical fallacy). Sadly, it seems many are taken in by the fact that both concern knowledge, so they fail to look them up for themselves. It is also redefining agnostic so as to make it as an insult, as has been tried to be done to the word atheism. Let's define these terms:

Ignorant (adj):

1.	lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.

2.	lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.

3.	uninformed; unaware.

Agnosticism (n): the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable.

Ignorance is a statement about a person's lack of information/education on a certain subject. Agnosticism is a view that the truth of a particular claim is unknown or even unknowable.

For example, Ray Comfort is ignorant about Hawking's religious views of a Creator-God when Ray (incorrectly) believes that Hawking believes in a Creator-God instead of (correctly) believing that Hawking views the universe as entire self-contained and with no role of a Creator-God. Ray is ignorant on this because he lacks information and education on Hawking's views. Ray would be agnostic if he were to claim that knowledge about Hawking's religious views is unknown or unknowable.


Ray on Liars

Ray's typical spiel when he's on his soapbox is:

Ray: Have you ever told a lie?
Person: Yes.
Ray: What do you call someone who tells lies?
Person: A liar.

This is very effective as the logical fallacy he commits is very subtle. Here is the structure of it:

Premise A: If you tell lies, you are a liar.
Premise B: You have told a lie sometime in your life.
Conclusion: Therefore, you are a liar.

In this, he has changed the definition of liar from "one who tells lies" to "one who has ever told a lie." Which one is the correct definition?

Liar (n): a person who tells lies.

One could easily flip this fallacy on him with the following:

Premise A: If you tell truths, you are truthful (or a truth-teller).
Premise B: You have told the truth sometime in your life.
Conclusion: Therefore, you are truthful (or a truth-teller).

The reason the above is a fallacy is because the person could have never told the truth ever in his life, except once. As such, just because he has told the truth once does not mean he is truthful. Similarly, Ray's is fallacious because the person could have never told a lie in his life, except once. As such, just because he has told a lie once does not mean he is a liar.


Ray on Thieves

This is exactly the exact same of the above, except stealing instead of lying.


Ray on Adultery

This is one of the more humorous ones, as it's ridiculous ("causing or worthy of ridicule or derision"). His spiel goes:

Ray: Have you ever lusted after a woman?
Person: Yes.
Ray: Jesus said in that whoever has lusted after a woman has committed adultery. Therefore, you are an adulterer.

Jesus redefined adultery in Matthew 5:28 with:

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

There are two things wrong with this. Firstly, the definition Jesus gives is wrong, adultery is not the same as lust.

Adultery (n): voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse.

Lust (n): intense sexual desire or appetite.

He has just redefined adultery to arbitrarily mean lust. Secondly, this is fallacious as the structure of the argument is:

Premise A: Adultery is the lusting after a woman.
Premise B: You have lusted after a woman.
Conclusion: You are an adulterer.

Ray has committed two logical fallacies (besides the false premise):

1. Bare assertion fallacy: premise in an argument is assumed to be true purely because it says that it is true.
2. Appeal to authority: where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it

I could just as arbitrarily redefine adultery and make a conclusion:

Premise A: Adultery is the posting a blog entry which mentions a woman.
Premise B: Ray has posted a blog entry which mentions a woman.
Conclusion: Ray is an adulterer.

Ray on Atheism

Ray redefines atheism to mean "knowing that there is no god or gods." This is so he can do the following spiel:

To be an "atheist" one needs absolute knowledge. The atheist with integrity must admit: "With the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God, but I really don't know ." So the professing atheist is actually an "agnostic"--one who doesn't know.

I will ignore the problems with his above "logic" and instead cut straight to the point and give the proper definition of atheism. I was considering an article called Militant Atheism from Atheist Revolution for inclusion in my top ten list as it does a straightforward job about what atheism is and what atheists believe. I will just copy/paste what vjack writes about atheism:

Atheism comes from the Greek "a - theos," and since the "a" prefix means "without" or "the absence of," we must first make sure we understand theism. Theism refers to the belief that some sort of god or gods exist. A theist is one who accepts the theistic claim (i.e., some sort of god or gods exist). An atheist is one who does not accept the theistic claim. That is, atheism means "without theism" and refers to the absence or lack of theistic belief.

I'll save burden of proof for a later post when Ray posts on it again. But as you can see, Ray has distorted and redefined atheism not only to set up an ad hominem attack, but also to create a straw man argument. Let me give you the following quiz:

Question: Regardless of whether you know or don't know, regardless of whether you have any evidence or no evdience at all... Do you believe that a god or god exists.

Possible Answers:
1. Yes
2. No
3. I am unsure

If you answered anything other than "Yes," then you are, by definition, an atheist. Atheism is a statement of belief; it is not a statement of knowledge.

I'll go into this more when Ray makes a post about atheists not existing.

Einstein MUST Have Believed in a Creator

One of the many things I genuinely appreciate about Ray Comfort (and there are many) is that he actually reads and replies to some of the comments in his blog. He does not ignore them, nor does he only reply to those praising him. As such, I was going back through his recent posts since he posted that despicable post about Einstein believing that the Bible is the "Word of God." In a comment to the post Quote-mining From an Atheist Site, one individual writes:

Seriously, Ray, I think that it is disingenuous of you to have that quote from Einstein at the header of your website.

Einstein was not a Christian, and he did not believe in Jesus, nor did he beleive [sic] in a personal God.

You should remove that quote and replace it with some bible verse.

To this, Ray had the following to say:

I have never said that Einstein was a Christian, that he believed in Jesus or in a personal God. He wasn't dumb. He knew there was a Creator, because creation couldn't have created itself. Something that didn't exist, can't create itself...because it didn't exist. It's impossible. Whatever created, had to be eternal. That's obvious to a thinking person. (emphasis added)

Firstly, from this I have a new quote I can mine to put in my header, namely:

I have never said that Einstein was a Christian, that he believed in Jesus or in a personal God. He wasn't dumb.

But secondly, I think this comment really sheds light on why he uses these mined quotes and also how he could so mangle a quote by reading his own view into it as to argue that Einstein believed the Bible was the "Word of God." It is because Ray's argument is that Einstein must have believed in God. He says that Einstein knew there was a Creator and then tacks on his argument about creation couldn't have created itself. Where has Einstein ever said this? Where has he ever said there was a Creator? He lived a little before the time of Hawking's developments, but I am sure he wouldn't play a god of the gaps type argument.

Nonetheless, this post shows why Ray interprets the quotes the way he does. He doesn't understand how someone could not believe the same as He. As such, he reads his own arguments, understanding, and definitions into the writings of great men. To his oft-repeated argument:

Something that didn't exist, can't create itself...because it didn't exist. It's impossible. Whatever created, had to be eternal. That's obvious to a thinking person.

Then, as a "thinking" person, Ray, you must also concede that the Creator must have at a Creator-creating Creator. After all, the Creator "can't create itself... because it didn't exist."

I know what he's thinking: "But ah! JT! That only applies to things that didn't exist; God, however, always existed." That's Ray's false premise. "Something that didn't exist." Absolutely, something that didn't exist could not create itself. But that argument for God only works if you assume that everything at one point didn't exist and that God always existed. That is called the fallacy of begging the question and an arbitrary false premise.

As anyone who has read Stephen Hawking's many books and articles knows, which you must have seeing as how you quote him in your header. The quote Ray has mined from Stephen Hawking comes from Chapter 8: The Origin and Fate of the Universe from his bestselling book A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes (it may have also come from A Briefer History of Time, but I am still in the middle of that book). The quote comes from roughly the middle of it when he is discussing the governance of the universe and some people's view of the role of God. In the same fashion as Ray, I will also quote from the same Chapter 8, with context, by leaving you the concluding paragraph of that chapter:

The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?