Christians=Liars?

[Prometheus]

Quote by Starboy: Hey if Christians wouldn't lie so much much then I wouldn't have to point it out. But I will not continue along a dishonest track simply to be polite.

I fail to understand your justification for statements like that that you pepper this forum with.

The floor is yours Starboy, please, as succinctly as possible, answer the following question:

Why are all Christians liars?

[Starboy]

Quote by: Prometheus I fail to understand your justification for statements like that that you pepper this forum with. The floor is yous Starboy, please, as succinctly as possible, answer the following question: Why are all Christians liars?

It is not just Christians but most supernaturalists. The Muslim is no different than the Jew or the Hindu. I have been over this before. You can refer to this thread:

Supernatural religion and dishonesty....

Here is the OP:

Quote by: Starboy Nobody likes to be called dishonest but if someone is being dishonest either knowingly or unknowingly, then they should expect to hear it and the supernatural religious have been dishonest. Here goes: 1. Reality claims Let's face it. The supernatural religious claim that they have a special take on reality. They also claim that they have a special way to know this reality called revelation. For many these claims are in direct contradiction with the discoveries of science. For Catholics, the pope has dealt with this conflict by proclaiming separate magesterium. There is the book of god and the book of nature and both were supposedly written by god, But make no mistake, the pope can make authoritative statements about anything in reality and religion however by order of the pope science has no authority to make statements about the purported reality claimed by the pope. But this position by the pope is just a double standard. Then there are other religions that require that their holy writings be taken verbatim and that anything science has to say about reality is just wrong. All of this is possible because the religious are trained to believe in realities that do not have to be real (a self deception and a lie if there ever was one.) 2. Faith - the institutionalized double standard This has got to be the most insidious aspect of supernatural religion. This one thing alone makes all supernaturalists liars. This is what faith essentially does. It allows the faithful to apply a different standard of acceptance to one set of claims verses another. They accept their own supernatural religious claims using faith but reject the supernatural claims of other religions because there is no evidence to accept those claims. The funny thing about it is that there is just as much evidence to support their claims as there is to support the claims of supernatural religions that they reject. If one set of evidence is good enough for one supernatural religion then it is good for all. Either accept all supernatural religions or accept none. That is the only honest position to take. 3. Truth mongering This tactic relies on a common semantic confusion, the confusion of "truth" and reality. If they claim something is "true" then they imply that it must be real however they will not subject their claims to the same methods that any other reality claim would be subjected, in other words, their claims are not subject to the requirement of evidence of even a common court case let alone a scientific investigation. This is a deliberate tactic on their part and when pressed on the matter they will then try to claim that their "truth" is a higher "truth" and is not subject to the constraints of reality. 4. Fraud and the offer you can't refuse Then there are outright frauds. The ones that present you with the offer from the godfather, the offer you can't refuse, "Believe in me and I will see that you get rewards in the after life, all you gotta do is do what the godfather wants. But if yous don't do what da godfather wants then it will be hell to pay." Hello! Nobody knows if there is an afterlife. If there is one, no one has lived to tell the tale. What a sweet fraud. Tell people they will get their payoff or punishment in a place that no one can verify even exits. It is essentially the fraud known as “Selling a bill of goods”, because that is all the religious have is the bill of goods; they cannot demonstrate that they have the actual goods themselves. The fact that they are promising to deliver the goods after you are dead only adds to the absurdity of the fraud. If this kind of thing were perpetrated by any business like say Enron, the executives would be facing jail time but because it is supernatural religion they not only get a pass but they are praised in society. These people should be locked up and the key should be thrown away. 5. Lies, lies and more lies about almost everything Then there is just the constant drone of lies and nonsense from the religious about everything, such as morals coming from god, god could only be good, the universe was created just for us, the constitution is based on the bible and on and on and on... It makes me wonder if you must be a moron to be religious. 6. Presumption of exclusivity This is not only dishonest but it is dangerous for all of us. All supernatural religions claim that they are the only way that people should live. That their supernatural god is the source of everything and that everything from that god pre-empts anything of man. This is the sort of thing that our president subscribes to. The law of his god overrules the constitution. Be afraid. Be very afraid. 7. And much, much more – The religious prey on the young when they are unable to critically examine their outrageous claims. The religious ask that insane acts done in the name of their religion be excused where as if an act of religion performed in the name of a religion they do not believe in is done then they are all for applying the maximum punishment under the law. In other words if a mother bashes her kids heads in because god told her to then she is insane, but if Bush runs for the presidency because god told him that he wants him to be president then Bush is still sane. Hello! Is it possible for supernatural theists to think at all? I don’t think so. Starboy

Starboy

[The Analog Kid]

I suppose this is called "red state outreach" by the Democrat party.

Stuff like this will be sure to increase your voting base and continued electoral success.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: The Analog Kid I suppose this is called "red state outreach" by the Democrat party. Stuff like this will be sure to increase your voting base and continued electoral success.

It's stuff like that that keeps the GOP in power and the DNC left standing around going "Why aren't people voting for us?"

[Starboy]

Quote by: The Analog Kid I suppose this is called "red state outreach" by the Democrat party. Stuff like this will be sure to increase your voting base and continued electoral success.

What makes you think I care about the red state voting reach?

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio It's stuff like that that keeps the GOP in power and the DNC left standing around going "Why aren't people voting for us?"

Gosh, and I thought that magical thinkers were in both the GOP and the DNC.

Starboy

[Flip Jackson]

Well Starboy, it is dificult to respond to you because your post is absurdly long. I will try to address points seperately to save space and keep everyone's attention.

I will first address "the offer you can't refuse." First, I will admit that I am religious. And you are right that many people hold this view. I agree it is a ridiculous one. Anyone who claims ,"you join my church you go to heaven and if you don't you go to hell," is full of crap and can shove it up their butt. I don't mean to be cruel, but this is a senseless idea. I don't believe this at all, and I know many religious people who hold the stance that I do. Many people wish to scare you so that they can get your money. But a lot of people genuinly believe the church they are in. It isn't dishonest if you truly believe what you say. Misguided perhaps.....
As for the belief in an afterlife, you can't say for a fact that no one knows if there is one. I will not bore you with details, but if nothing else there are many people who think they know there is an afterlife. Many of these tales are absurd, but I believe a select few. Very few.
That is all for that one.... stay tuned.

[Prometheus]

Thanks for consolidating that. Now that this has it's own topic, we can discuss it alone instead of throwing this debate in on top of other topics.

(1). This point presupposes that god does not exist. This is a logical fallacy. You cannot presuppose this. You must keep the possibility open. In this point you point out that religion requests that you accept a false reality. But since we don't know the reality to be false, this point holds no water.

(2). This is probably the strongest point. The basic principal here is the inconsistancy of religions, and the verification of the correct one. The point you make is that only one religion can be true, and there is no way to pick the right one. The mistake you make here is that the truth of religions is not mutually exclusive. Parts of religions may be true. Basic things like gods existance, an afterlife, right and wrong. These are very consistant themes.

Lets say I go into a classroom of 8 year olds and give a long, detailed lecture on the process of cellular respiration. Then lets say that you test them the next day to see what they retained and understood. Their explinations of the process would vary. None of them would be completely true. But a lot of the basic ideas would be the same. Most would probably understand that you put gluclose in and get ATP out (although some would get that wrong). Fewer would remember how many carbons in a glucose. Mabey only one child would remember that you get 32 net ATP from a glucose. Maybe another sudent argue that you actually get 34. They would both be right, you get 34 gross. The point here is that when truth is revealed by a higher intellegance, lower intellegances often get it wrong. Their stories contradict, and are sometimes blatently false. But it dosen't prove the underlying phenominon we are describing to be false.

Some religions out there do not claim that only they are true. They fit into this model. Some religions claim that only they are right. Well obviously they got at least that one point wrong. Some religions (mine) claim that nearly all religions have truth, but only theirs has all the truth that has been revealed. All of them are an honest possibility within the model I propose above.

You would not say that the 8 years olds were lying when they gave false facts. They are 8. They are not equiped to handle this stuff. It's understandible that thy make mistakes. In relation to god, we would be the same.

(3) You bemoan a different standard for verifying truth. How do we verify truth? Our sences. Science only accepts 5 of those sences for the verivication of truth. Is a spiritual sence not possible? If you accept that this sence can exist, then it is possible to use this sence to verfy a proposition scientifically. Many religions challenge the worshiper to seek verification from this "sixth sence". Let me give you an excerpt from a book of mormon scripture:

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth• of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. Mormon 10:4

This is a perfectly valid scientific hypothisis if you allow a spiritual sence.

(4) If you can verify a belief (see above) the "offer you can't refuse" can be verified, so there is no lie.

(5) Just gripe that lots of things in lots of religions are false. I already alled for this.

(6) Already addresed exclusivity

(7) Non applicible.

[Flip Jackson]

Wow, after looking back over your argument, I notice how set you are against religious people in general. It is kind of sad

I would like to address revelation and faith next. As Prometheus said, this is the hardest topic to approach. However, I think his example is excellent. Your are extremely presumptuous here Starboy. You claim that faith alone makes all supernaturalists liars. That is far too extreme. Faith is merely belief, or in some cases belief and action. You would condemn people for their beliefs? Seems hypcritical, but whatever floats your boat.

I can't really address revelation with your definative stance against a God, so I won't try. The way you attack revelation and a higher truth sounds like a whiney teenager who can't accept that maybe his parents are right. Like Prometheus said, you can't start an argument with a claim that there is no God. If there is no proof, the idea for and against a God must be allowed.

That's all for now. Have fun doudes.

[Prometheus]

Flip The way you attack revelation and a higher truth sounds like a whiney teenager who can't accept that maybe his parents are right.

I laugh!

[Starboy]

Quote by: Prometheus (1). This point presupposes that god does not exist. This is a logical fallacy. You cannot presuppose this. You must keep the possibility open. In this point you point out that religion requests that you accept a false reality. But since we don't know the reality to be false, this point holds no water.

I make no claims about god. My comments and observations are about god advocates. It is possible to have the correct answer but to have obtained it dishonestly and it is possible to have an honest answer that is incorrect. There may be some supernatural religion in the universe that got it right. Who knows? Not I. My comments were about honesty.

(2). This is probably the strongest point. The basic principal here is the inconsistancy of religions, and the verification of the correct one. The point you make is that only one religion can be true, and there is no way to pick the right one. The mistake you make here is that the truth of religions is not mutually exclusive. Parts of religions may be true. Basic things like gods existance, an afterlife, right and wrong. These are very consistant themes.

That is not my point. My point is that they all for the most part claim to be completely correct and they claim that the other religions are wrong. They may say that the other religions have some things right but they will also say that for the magic to work one must have the completely correct incantation and only their religion has it. This is the equivalent of going to any doctor and having each doctor that you go to tell you that all the other doctors are not completely competent, some more than others and only that particular doctor is completely competent and could cure you. If you found that was the state of medicine you would wonder if they were all a bunch of quacks. Same goes for supernatural religion. At best one religion is being honest and the rest are being dishonest but most likely all of them are being dishonest.

Lets say I go into a classroom of 8 year olds and give a long, detailed lecture on the process of cellular respiration. Then lets say that you test them the next day to see what they retained and understood. Their explinations of the process would vary. None of them would be completely true. But a lot of the basic ideas would be the same. Most would probably understand that you put gluclose in and get ATP out (although some would get that wrong). Fewer would remember how many carbons in a glucose. Mabey only one child would remember that you get 32 net ATP from a glucose. Maybe another sudent argue that you actually get 34. They would both be right, you get 34 gross. The point here is that when truth is revealed by a higher intellegance, lower intellegances often get it wrong. Their stories contradict, and are sometimes blatently false. But it dosen't prove the underlying phenominon we are describing to be false. Some religions out there do not claim that only they are true. They fit into this model. Some religions claim that only they are right. Well obviously they got at least that one point wrong. Some religions (mine) claim that nearly all religions have truth, but only theirs has all the truth that has been revealed. All of them are an honest possibility within the model I propose above. You would not say that the 8 years olds were lying when they gave false facts. They are 8. They are not equiped to handle this stuff. It's understandible that thy make mistakes. In relation to god, we would be the same.

You are confusing honesty with being correct. You can get the correct answer honestly or dishonestly and you can come by the incorrect answer honestly or dishonestly. I make no claim that any of the religions are correct or incorrect. My claims are that they are all dishonest. If the student incorrectly measured 29 and thought that it should be 34 and they reported 34, then they are being dishonest. They may have what is considered to be the correct answer but they came by it dishonestly. They would be lying if they reported a different number than what they observed. Kinda like claiming that demons make the world go round when no one can show that the critters can do anything. That is dishonest. It could very well be the case that demons do make the world go round but until you can show it you can only state it as speculation, not the way things actually are.

(3) You bemoan a different standard for verifying truth. How do we verify truth? Our sences. Science only accepts 5 of those sences for the verivication of truth. Is a spiritual sence not possible? If you accept that this sence can exist, then it is possible to use this sence to verfy a proposition scientifically. Many religions challenge the worshiper to seek verification from this "sixth sence". Let me give you an excerpt from a book of mormon scripture: And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth• of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. Mormon 10:4 This is a perfectly valid scientific hypothisis if you allow a spiritual sence.

You have missed my point entirely. I don’t care if you use your senses or a Ouija board or tea leaves or whatever. If you claim that tea leaves proves your particular religion to be the “truth” and the same exact method also shows other religion to be true that you claim to be false then you are not being honest. The actual method is not at issue, although many of the methods of supernaturalists are severely cracked at best, it is their double standard that makes them dishonest. Their methods just make them stupid but that is another topic. It is funny that your quote illustrates this nicely. The sincere in the heart test works for any religion even the ones you know are wrong. Just ask their adherents. Yet for some strange reason in those cases you do not find the same test that convinced you of your religion convincing for other religions. Gee, could it be because you are dishonest?

(4) If you can verify a belief (see above) the "offer you can't refuse" can be verified, so there is no lie.

Really? Care to verify it for me. Kill yourself and come back and fill me in on heaven or hell.

(5) Just gripe that lots of things in lots of religions are false. I already alled for this.

You have missed my point entirely. This is not about "truth". It is about dishonesty. But then again I have repeated this so many times.

(6) Already addresed exclusivity (7) Non applicible.

**whoosh** right over your head. Why am I not surprised that a supernaturalist doesn't understand honesty.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Prometheus, you are in serious need of remedial study. Here is a link to an essay by Richard Feynman on honesty and science. In case you don't know, Feynman shared the Nobel Prize for his work on QED.

Cargo Cult Science - Richard Feynman

Quote by: Richard Feynman ... But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school--we never say explicitly what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

You see unlike religion honesty is a core value of science.

Starboy

[Inquisitor]

To a blind person all the colours look the same. To a spiritualy blind person all religions look the same.

I agree that all religions but one are lies ( though many have various dozes of truth to make a fake look genuine).

Interstingly, that most of atheist's-satanists hatred directed towards Christianity. To me this looks like another evidence that Christianity is The Truth.

There is also undisputable evidence that Christians are not liars. Many have sacrificed their lives but refused to denounce their faith. Would a liar sacrifice his life for his lies? Highly doubtful.

Muslim suicide bombers are poor example because they are the product of psychological manipulation ( hypnosis, NLP etc).

[Gorgo]

Quote by: Inquisitor There is also undisputable evidence that Christians are not liars

Blue states, martyrs, none of you are addressing his point at all. Read what he wrote, and address the point that he makes. You're all skirting the point.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio It's stuff like that that keeps the GOP in power and the DNC left standing around going "Why aren't people voting for us?"

Yes, only real Christians support the murder of thousands.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Gorgo Blue states, martyrs, none of you are addressing his point at all. Read what he wrote, and address the point that he makes. You're all skirting the point.

Gorgo, these posts of supernaturalist illustrate my point well. They appear to be very unfamiliar with the concept of honesty. As if their religions do not deal with it at all.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Flip Jackson I would like to address revelation and faith next. As Prometheus said, this is the hardest topic to approach. However, I think his example is excellent. Your are extremely presumptuous here Starboy. You claim that faith alone makes all supernaturalists liars. That is far too extreme. Faith is merely belief, or in some cases belief and action. You would condemn people for their beliefs? Seems hypcritical, but whatever floats your boat.

Now be honest. You act as if supernaturalists have only one meaning when they use the word faith. Try to have some integrity and go look the word up and take the time to examine how many supernaturalist use the word and the concept. Admittedly its uses can be confusing but that doesn't mean that they do not do exactly what I claim and do it constantly everywhere.

I can't really address revelation with your definative stance against a God, so I won't try. The way you attack revelation and a higher truth sounds like a whiney teenager who can't accept that maybe his parents are right. Like Prometheus said, you can't start an argument with a claim that there is no God. If there is no proof, the idea for and against a God must be allowed.

In this debate I am not taking a stance for or against god. Why do so many supernaturalists have a reading comprehension problem? This is not about god. It is about the honesty of god advocates. But it is interesting that you must resort to name calling rather than actually refuting my point. Could it be you actually have nothing substantive to say?

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Gorgo Blue states, martyrs, none of you are addressing his point at all. Read what he wrote, and address the point that he makes. You're all skirting the point.

If only they were skirting it. They are missing it as if they were completely blind to it. As of they had no concept of honesty at all.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Inquisitor To a blind person all the colours look the same. To a spiritualy blind person all religions look the same. I agree that all religions but one are lies ( though many have various dozes of truth to make a fake look genuine).

Inquisitor provides a fine example of what I am talking about.

Interstingly, that most of atheist's-satanists hatred directed towards Christianity. To me this looks like another evidence that Christianity is The Truth.

Again another fine example. By this argument all other religions must be just as "true" as his but somehow that escapes him. Gee I wonder why? Could it be that he is dishonest?

There is also undisputable evidence that Christians are not liars. Many have sacrificed their lives but refused to denounce their faith. Would a liar sacrifice his life for his lies? Highly doubtful.

Again another fine example. It also completely escapes him that just about all other religions that he considers to be false can make the very same claim. I have seen this kind of dishonesty so many times and yet it shocks and amazes me at how bald faced dishonest supernatural religion is. I have no idea why anyone would think that supernatural religion should be considered to be the source of morals of any kind.

Muslim suicide bombers are poor example because they are the product of psychological manipulation ( hypnosis, NLP etc).

As if Inquisitor is not? Too dang funny.

Starboy

[fedfem]

Incredible. I wouldn't say christians are liars, however theologians and scholars who refuse to lie are not allowed to teach or publish. There is an article in Free Inquiry regarding this. Most christian leaders know very well it is bunk.

Religious people are mostly uneducated. That is why it is rare to find an educated person who is a devout believer--it is impossible.

This is why education outside the church is discouraged and why even in the US there is persecution of intellectualism.

The supernaturalists constantly bring up the existence of god rather than the details of their particular religion because religion is quite easy to debunk. The existence of an invisible entity has no details to debunk--it is impossible to prove a negative.

The religions do a fine job keeping the followers defensive with claims of persecution. When a christian loses a debate they usually state that without the holy spirit, we cannot understand. Again, we are being required to prove another negative.