Comments by "Philip Rayment" (@PJRayment) on "'Taunting' people for their beliefs is 'cowardly': Jesus joke on The Project" video.

  1.  @beckyross5572  "If the Australian government is attacking Christian’s for there laughable religious garbage then good on them !" What "laughable religious garbage"? The introduction of public hospitals? Or all the charities they founded? Of is it universal education? Perhaps modern science? Or was it twice stopping slavery? Spreading democracy? Promoting human rights? Elevating the status of women? Which of those are this "garbage" you're referring to?
    5
  2.  @Britannia.  He will be going to heaven if he repents, as I hope—and pray—he will.
    3
  3. "As Christians we are not meant to judge or condemn." And yet we are told to judge with a righteous judgment (John 7:24). "I pray for him! He is clearly needing Jesus and he is loved despite how insulting he is." Amen.
    2
  4.  @earl12121  "*sincerely talking to an imaginary friend in your head" Evidence of him being imaginary, and in his head, please.
    1
  5.  @earl12121  "saying can you prove if an imaginary thing is imaginary, is the one of the dumbest things someone can say. " What's dumb is claiming that it's imaginary if you can't prove it. Which is what you did. "How about you prove the magical invisible dragon that lives behind Saturn isn't real..." Why? I never claimed that it was or wasn't real. I made no such claim, so I don't have to prove it. You DID make such a claim, so you have the burden of proof in this case. "The onus is on the person making the wild claim that something is real, not everyone else's job." That is false. The onus is on the person making the claim. Period. It doesn't matter whether that's a claim of existence or non-existence. What if you were planning on going to the supermarket for milk, and I told you that there's no point in going as they didn't have milk. If you didn't believe me, wouldn't I have the onus to prove I'm right? Or would you blindly believe me and miss out on the milk? "Next why don't you prove that Odin isn't the real god, or that Santa isn't real, or prove that I'm not psychic.." I would (provide evidence at least) IF I made those claims. I didn't. So where is the evidence of your claim? The fact that you're improperly trying to shift the onus onto me suggests that you have no evidence, and that your claim is therefore baseless.
    1
  6.  @earl12121  "and btw the fact that the bible puts the earth as being around 6000 years old, while their is a plethora of evidence that shows otherwise" That "evidence" is selected to fit the naturalistic view. It is not merely empirical science. Most scientists work to a paradigm of all explanations must be naturalistic ones ( methodological naturalism ), so supernatural explanations are a priori rejected, even where the evidence supports them. As such, your argument is circular, as it "proves" what it assumes in the first place. There is actually a plethora of evidence that contradicts the naturalistic view even when you assume naturalism. For example, scientific experiments have shown that soft tissue cannot survive for anything like 65 million years. But soft tissue has been found in dinosaur bones. Therefore, either a) the dinosaurs are not 65 million years old, or b) those scientific experiments were wrong. So what did the scientists conclude? That the science was wrong, not the age! Thus we have a case of scientists rejecting science!
    1
  7.  @earl12121  "In certain environments, permeation with mineral-charged water causes phosphate minerals to form in soft tissues, preserving those soft tissues in organisms that fossilize in those environments (Schweitzer et al., 2007)" Yes, that's how fossils form. So what? "See how I referenced a study at the end there." Yes. Very good. "I don't just spout random gibberish from Christian websites lol" And neither do I. "I mean ven logically just think about the Bible's claims that he loves everyone so much, but he won't hesitate sending someone to burn for ETERNITY because they said Jesus's name in an angry manner,..." Thinking logically, I realise that you're misrepresenting the Bible. If it was actually true that he wouldn't "hesitate sending someone to burn for ETERNITY", then He wouldn't have provided a way to avoid that, which is what He did in taking our punishment on Himself. You wouldn't condemn a judge by saying that he wouldn't hesitate to impose the maximum fine on a criminal if the judge then paid the fine for the criminal, would you? That would show the judge's love, just as Jesus' sacrifice of Himself shows His love. That is logical. "... or didn't believe his claims even though no-one has seen or heard him." Lots of people have seen and heard Him. You've never heard of Jesus? "Or the fact that he thinks saying his name in vein is worse than rape, because the 10 commandments are the biggest sins apparently." Why do you think rape is wrong? After all, two academics wrote a book A Natural History Of Rape: Biological Bases Of Sexual Coercion, about which an article says that "The book argues that rape is to be expected on the basis of our alleged evolutionary heritage." Okay, so if rape is a natural thing, what's wrong with it? An interviewer asked Richard Dawkins, "Okay, but ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we've evolved five fingers rather than six.", to which Dawkins replied "You could say that, yeah." So, on that basis, you can't say that rape is wrong. So why is it wrong? It's wrong because it's against God's design and standards. But if you don't first accept that God is Lord, you have no good basis for saying that rape is wrong. Ergo, taking God's name in vain IS worse than rape, because without the former, you have no basis for condemning the latter. "Or the fact that he's watched every child that has ever been raped, while doing nothing." What's the evidence that He's always done nothing? And why should He intervene if we, as a society, have told Him that we don't want Him? "Or that he doesn't even show himself, ..." Except that He has. "another one is that the bible seems to think that the earth is stationary and the sun and planets revolve around it." "seems to"? You don't even cite where it supposedly "seems to". "This is obviously wrong." You do know that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, don't you? Multiple sources will even tell us what time of the day the sun will rise and set. But doesn't that mean that the sun does rotate around the earth? Or is it that we express it that way because that's the way it appears even though we know that's just from our earth-based perspective, and that it really is that the earth goes around the sun? Of course it's the latter. But why couldn't the Bible be doing the same thing? Simply describing phenomena from our perspective, rather than giving a scientific description? There's even a technical term for this: phenomenological language. But of course if you want to find whatever fault you can in the Bible, even scraping the bottom of the barrel like that, you're not being intellectually honest. Ergo, it's you, not the Bible, that is wrong.
    1