Penn & Teller barbecue the Bible

[RandFan]

I have to add that in my humble opinion JREF exists not to simply inform the uneducated but to point out how we all can be fooled and to ever warn us to be on our guard. That IS, it seems to me a very large part of Randi's point. It is why he fooled the scientists. It is why he has fooled an otherwise skeptical Australian news industry with the Carlos Swett affair.

This problem is known and understood and it is why James Randi does much of what he does. Skeptics don't deny their propensity to be fooled because it is only when we are so confident that we can't be fooled that we are. Which is why scientists are often fooled by magicians. Their confidence is used against them.

Even assuming that P&T failed to fool anyone their attempts to were a very valuable and important attempt it is only when we show how people can be fooled that people will come to accept when they are.

 

[Huntster]

Quote:
Nope. I don't watch much TV.

So you base your conclusions on incomplete data. Would you think it fair for me to judge a Christian on so incomplete of data?

You claim that isn't done by many?

Quote:
They tried to hoax a sasquatch film. They lied.

And the police and DA's office conduct sting operations. Deception doesn't render someone a liar.

Yes, it does. Sting operations have become necessary because of how our judicial system has been perverted.

They always intended to make the deception known. I can't call them liars based on this evidence.

Then why did they not clearly illustrate who they fooled, and who they did not fool?

Quote:
They're liars.

You are entitled to an opinion. However by your own admission it is incomplete.

It is complete. The question is whether or not the lie was justified. You say it is. I say it wasn't.

Quote:
The dictionary should explain that to you. Must we read that together, too?

Empirical evidence IS proof.

Quote:
Evidence

–noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

Now, there IS the dictionary definition. Please to tell me how evidence is mutually exclusive of proof based on the definition.

There is a dictionary definition. Classic, isn't it? When comparing two words, you choose a single definition of only one of them.

Okay. Let's read the dictionary together (linked for your review):

Evidence:

1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
–verb (used with object) 4. to make evident or clear; show clearly; manifest: He evidenced his approval by promising his full support.
5. to support by evidence: He evidenced his accusation with incriminating letters.
—Idiom6. in evidence, plainly visible; conspicuous: The first signs of spring are in evidence.

Proof:

1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5. Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
6. the effect of evidence in convincing the mind.
7. an arithmetical operation serving to check the correctness of a calculation.
8. Mathematics, Logic. a sequence of steps, statements, or demonstrations that leads to a valid conclusion.
9. a test to determine the quality, durability, etc., of materials used in manufacture.
10. Distilling. a. the arbitrary standard strength, as of an alcoholic liquor.
b. strength with reference to this standard: “100 proof” signifies a proof spirit, usually 50% alcohol.

11. Photography. a trial print from a negative.
12. Printing. a. a trial impression, as of composed type, taken to correct errors and make alterations.
b. one of a number of early and superior impressions taken before the printing of the ordinary issue: to pull a proof.

13. (in printmaking) an impression taken from a plate or the like to show the quality or condition of work during the process of execution; a print pulled for examination while working on a plate, block, stone, etc.
14. Numismatics. one of a limited number of coins of a new issue struck from polished dies on a blank having a polished or matte surface.
15. the state of having been tested and approved.
16. proved strength, as of armor.
17. Scots Law. the trial of a case by a judge alone, without a jury.

Proof is evidence, but all evidence isn't necessarily proof.

 

[Tony]

When I die, if there really wasn't a God or afterlife, what did I lose in life?

The ability to think and live free.

When Pauliesonne dies, and if there is a God and afterlife, what's he gonna say?

Pauliesonne is gonna say: "I'm not responsible for your incompetence."

Rejection of God is the ultimate in losing, and for all the wrong reasons.

You can't reject something you don't believe in.

 

[Marc L]

Never mind. I asked a question, then went back and re-read the posts involved, and answered my own question.


Marc

 

[Pauliesonne]

You just don't get it.

I admit, neither do I.

Peter eats apples.
I eat apples, oranges and grapes.
Just because Peter doesn't eat oranges and grapes, doesn't mean I don't eat apples.

Or is my fundie background showing again?

Marc

Like Linsey Lohan in the 18th century, I too am confused.

 

[Tony]

To whom? Who needs the likes of Penn and Teller to take them by the hand and teach them how to think?

For starters, you.

 

[Marc L]

Like Linsey Lohan in the 18th century, I too am confused.

I misread the arguments as I was going through, so I missed parts.

Hunster said that he worshipped the same god as the Jews do.
RandFan* pointed out that they weren't the same because Christians believe that their god is three persons in one (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), whereas Jews believe their god is one person only**(Father).
Hunster rejoined with the fact that the Trinity includes the Father, and therefore, they are the same.

That's where I got confused, and included the question that I erased, but you so thoughtfully quoted on me

Having gone back and re-read everything, I figured out what RandFan was saying, and I have to say I agree with her.

*She wasn't as detailed as that, which is why I missed it.
** As in the statement, "Hear, Oh Israel, the Lord thy God is One"

Marc

 

[RandFan]

You claim that isn't done by many?

Of course not. I'm saying that it isn't fair when it is done regardless if it is P&T or a Christian, agreed?

Yes, it does. Sting operations have become necessary because of how our judicial system has been perverted.

Fallacy.

Then why did they not clearly illustrate who they fooled, and who they did not fool?

Ask them.

It is complete. The question is whether or not the lie was justified. You say it is. I say it wasn't.

No, you did admit that you do not watch their show so you are judging them on a single incident. This is not a fair thing to do to Christians and it is not fair when you do it to P&T.

There is a dictionary definition. Classic, isn't it? When comparing two words, you choose a single definition of only one of them.

Only because that is how I used the word.

Let's go back,

I hold all beliefs provisionally and I'm skeptical of claims without proof.

There ya' go. First it's "empirical evidence", then it's "proof."

Why do you think those are exclusive of each other?

Let's look at that definition one more time.

Evidence

–noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

Ok, so let me ask the question one more time. Why do you believe, based on MY usage of the word that proof and empirical evidence are exclusive of each other?

And please, stick to what I meant and not irrelevant and spurious information, ok? Fair enough? I apologized to you when I wrongly accused you of being skeptical of skepticism. I did so because it was the fair and honest thing to do. Would you afford me the same courtesy?

 

[RandFan]

Having gone back and re-read everything, I figured out what RandFan was saying, and I have to say I agree with her.

Sorry for the confusion but I'm a guy and the avatar is Janeane Garofalo, my contribution to the cult of *personality (which I detest) in the non-political sense.



*I'm really enamored of her so the label of hypocrite, for me, is not entirely unfair.

ETA: I know, far more than you wanted to know.

 

[Hawk one]

Okay.

A member of this forum did not just trot out Pascal's Wager

I don't know. Don't care, either.

It would be better for you if you actually knew what Pascal's wager was, because then you'd perhaps know that your first sentence is a lie.

Pascal was a fellow who once said that it was better to believe than not, because if you believed, and it was true, it'd make a huge difference if you did or didn't. But if God didn't exist, then it wouldn't matter. You know, just what you said.

However, there are several problems with this: Problem 1, which god? THere are thousands of them, and hundreds of different pantheons. Either you have to believe and worship them all, or you'll most likely end up doing the wrong choice, which means your fate will be no different from an atheist's.

Secondly, as far as the Judeo-Christian god is concerned, that kind of hedging-the-bet "belief" is nothing but empty falsehood, and I'm sure that "believing" in this manner will be dealt with as swiftly as other sinners and men of false convictions. So, since you base your belief on this silly wager, it's most likely that should even your god exist, you'll end up same place as me afterwards for trying to pull a trick on it.

Heck, even if a god exists, who can tell if what It really wants is belief in the bible? I mean, it's all too easy to imagine a god that said something like:

"What? The bible? That self-contradicting piece of crap in which I'm portrayed as a righteous ass, pretty much killing a lot of people for no good reason, making up rules as I go along (and breaking them myself), and where the few claims made about the world was either well-known long before it was written, or just plain out wrong?
No, no, no, you see, the Bible, and other assorted religious texts, are nothing more than tests. To check if you go for what the world and nature is actually telling you, should you go and take a proper look, instead of relying on fairy tales. Oh, you believed in those fairy tales, and actually thought the world was created 6 000 years ago? Well, I'm not sending you to Hell, I'm just putting you in this room full of textbooks in biology, physics, chemistry, cosmology, you know the works. Once you gain a proper understanding of the universe as it is, as opposed to the silly stuff in the Bible, then we can talk again."

I mean, there's really no way to tell that a God won't work like that, is there?


So, instead of using an incredibly flawed rhethoric that most likely won't help me anyway, I'll go for trying to understand this world as it actually works, relying on proper evidence and scientific theories. That makes this life so much more fulfilling and awe-filled. And any god that wants me to believe in lies and stories instead of reality... Well, why should I even believe in such a thing, much less worship it?

 

[Marc L]

Sorry for the confusion but I'm a guy

*sigh* So much for that fantasy...(just kidding). Thanks for the clarification.

Marc

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
When I die, if there really wasn't a God or afterlife, what did I lose in life?

The ability to think and live free.

Thinking and living free must exclude God?

Quote:
When Pauliesonne dies, and if there is a God and afterlife, what's he gonna say?

Pauliesonne is gonna say: "I'm not responsible for your incompetence."

We'll just have to guess at the response to that.

Quote:
Rejection of God is the ultimate in losing, and for all the wrong reasons.

You can't reject something you don't believe in.

By not believing, you have rejected.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
To whom? Who needs the likes of Penn and Teller to take them by the hand and teach them how to think?

For starters, you.

Sorry. I don't watch TV.

I damned sure don't use it as a guide to life.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
You claim that isn't done by many?

Of course not. I'm saying that it isn't fair when it is done regardless if it is P&T or a Christian, agreed?

Or politician, or skeptic, or anybody else.

Quote:
It is complete. The question is whether or not the lie was justified. You say it is. I say it wasn't.

No, you did admit that you do not watch their show so you are judging them on a single incident.

You're asking me how many lies they tell?

I don't know.

Ok, so let me ask the question one more time. Why do you believe, based on MY usage of the word that proof and empirical evidence are exclusive of each other?

"Epirical evidence" is great stuff.

"Proof" is absolute. It's the "end-all, be-all." It's the end of question.

It's "proof."

 

[RandFan]

Or politician, or skeptic, or anybody else.

You're asking me how many lies they tell?

I don't know.

Perhaps it would be fair and reasonable to reserve judgment.

"Epirical evidence" is great stuff.

"Proof" is absolute. It's the "end-all, be-all." It's the end of question.

It's "proof."

Agreed, and I stand by my statement. I'm on solid ground to say that "empirical evidence" and "proof" are not exclusive. Since "emperical" evidence is the best you can have and "evidence" is defined as proof then it is clear that they are not exclusive of each other. QED

 

[Marc L]

Thinking and living free must exclude God?

If said god enforces negative consequences for not obeying him, then yes, living free is incompatible with your god. Thinking is also incompatible with your god as shown from the beginning where Adam and Eve are punished for wanting to decide right from wrong for themselves.

Nothing in the Bible supports the idea of free will. Everything points to either predestination (prophecies), God interfering with man's free will directly (Pharoh, Judas), or God punishing someone for not obeying him (Jonah, the lake of fire).

Marc

 

[elliotfc]

The ability to think and live free.

First, all humans with brains think. Anyone who suggests otherwise is being ridiculous.

Second, as for living free, you could be a slave to your way of thinking just as Hunster is a slave to his way of thinking. It's a useless characterization.

But of course Hunster does live free.

You can't reject something you don't believe in.

This could turn into pure semantics...

Let's say you're taking a math test, multiple choice. You can reject answers because they don't make any sense...they are completely wrong...they don't correspond to the true answer. In this way I'd say you can reject something that you don't believe in.

-Elliot

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Thinking and living free must exclude God?

If said god enforces negative consequences for not obeying him, then yes, living free is incompatible with your god. Thinking is also incompatible with your god as shown from the beginning where Adam and Eve are punished for wanting to decide right from wrong for themselves.

It's not the thinking that's prohibited. It's certain choices.

Human freedom includes consideration and choosing, but it doesn't include defining good and evil. You either choose goodness (God), or you are free to choose otherwise, but you must live with the consequences of your choice.

Nothing in the Bible supports the idea of free will. Everything points to either predestination (prophecies), God interfering with man's free will directly (Pharoh, Judas), or God punishing someone for not obeying him (Jonah, the lake of fire).

Again, we are free to choose. We must simply live with the consequences of our choices.

 

[I less than three logic]

Let's say you're taking a math test, multiple choice. You can reject answers because they don't make any sense...they are completely wrong...they don't correspond to the true answer. In this way I'd say you can reject something that you don't believe in.

-Elliot

So you don’t believe the rules of mathematics require there be only correct and incorrect answers to a problem? I think you’re using “believe” in an incorrect way here, equivocation in other words.

 

[Huntster]

So you don’t believe the rules of mathematics require there be only correct and incorrect answers to a problem? I think you’re using “believe” in an incorrect way here, equivocation in other words.

Spirituality is not a physical science like mathematics.