Penn & Teller barbecue the Bible

Originally Posted by Huntster

I might stone my neighbor (depends on circumstances). I might shoot him. I might blow them up. I don't know. I sure hope I don't or don't have to, but I might. Been there. Circumstance. I'm not in control here. I'm not God.

I want God, because I love Him, I appreciate the blessings He has bestowed on me, and want to be with Him.

You want or reject Him to your own pleasure, whether you're "good" or not. That's up to you and Him.
First off, you just admited you would follow God's will if you were required to stone another human to death.

Oh. I'm dealing with another fool who likes to interpret words in accordance with their own "dictionary".

No, that is not what I said. Again:

I might stone my neighbor (depends on circumstances). I might shoot him. I might blow them up. I don't know. I sure hope I don't or don't have to, but I might. Been there. Circumstance. I'm not in control here. I'm not God.

It wasn't God who told me to shoot/bomb people. It was Uncle Sam.

It wasn't God who forced me to protect my home from criminal invasion. It was the irresponsible act of a criminal.

So, you personally would have no issue with God telling you to stone another human to death?

God doesn't tell me to stone another human being to death.

Does He tell you that?

And I ask again, is God the only reason you do good things?

I will not answer again. I've already done so at least twice. If you don't like the answer, go pound sand.

And it would be alright to do bad things because you again God's favor by doing that?

I will not gain favor with God by doing bad things.
 
? I'm sorry but...what? Is it also fundamentally unsound to reject unicorns? Faeries? Elves? Leprechauns? Santa Claus? Flying Reindeer?

I don't think so, if only because the definition (if not *need*) for "God" is pertinent in ways that dwarf what you offer.

The things that you mention are quite fixed in *this* world, and not in the next one. It's easy to say that it's all the same...but if it really was, you wouldn't have needed to bring up the examples, right?

I find this a bit offensive. For much of my adolescent and young adult life I was a vocal proponent of the Judeo-Cristian concept of god. I stopped believing when I became convinced that there was no reason to believe in such a concept. I find that accepting god is fundamentally unsound, as unsound as believing in invisible pink unicorns. The many, diverse, controversial and incompatible beliefs in god and all of the associated rituals are mythology. As to this last point, you agree with me, that is with just one exception, right?

Clearly there are reasons to believe in the Judeo-Christian concept of God. I don't believe that Judeo-Christians believe in God for no reason. Now it's your turn to belittle the reasons. :)

-Elliot
 
No, you can't; it's logically impossible.

So, the people who say the Bible is evidence are not saying that the Bible is evidence?

You say/said that the Bible can't be used as evidence. That's what I'm talking about. I can report that your statement is demonstrably false.

The four books contradict eachother on, for example, what Jesus said, what the totally fictional Roman offical said, who went to Jesus's tomb, who saw Jesus first, and what mountain he went to. The four books are completely inconsistent with one another. It is impossible for all four books to be correct, and there's no evidence that any of the four are correct at all.

If there are differences, that does not mean that everything in the books are false.

-Elliot
 
So, the people who say the Bible is evidence are not saying that the Bible is evidence?

You say/said that the Bible can't be used as evidence. That's what I'm talking about. I can report that your statement is demonstrably false.



If there are differences, that does not mean that everything in the books are false.

-Elliot

If there are differences between the books it means that at least 3 of the books are false. Why is elementary logic so challenging for you?
 
I think what Imaginal is saying is that you can't do it without committing a fallacy. It's not logically valid to use the gospels as evidence of very much at all.

Screw what you say are fallacies. Objective truth is what it is, I don't care about these fallacy constructs. They don't mean anything.

If Jesus was crucified, that dwarfs any point you are trying to make about the gospels being evidence, not being evidence, not being much evidence. If Jesus was crucified, it's the best evidence we have. If you don't think it's good evidence, fine. Whatever. If you're right, nice one, I'd give you a sticker but I may die before you do, and if not, I doubt I'd give you a sticker, but you never know.

-Elliot
 
Let me ask this question, there are many contradiction in the bible. How are supposed to determine god's definition of wrong and right?

Should we turn the other cheek or stone our neighboors?

If someone slaps you, turn the other cheek.

If someone kicks you in the head, run away or fight back.

-Elliot
 
Screw what you say are fallacies. Objective truth is what it is, I don't care about these fallacy constructs. They don't mean anything.

Logic is the primary means used to determine whether some can or cannot be true. When you tell logic to screw off because it disagrees with your ideas, that is called being delusional.
 
The reason for that is simple, such rules do not exist. At least, they are not sent down from on high. They are a product of the evolution of altruism, and human culture.

You might be right. I figger you reject the word "might". But I'll make you a deal. If you're right, nice one! That's awesome! Woo hoo!

-Elliot
 
I don't think so, if only because the definition (if not *need*) for "God" is pertinent in ways that dwarf what you offer.

The things that you mention are quite fixed in *this* world, and not in the next one. It's easy to say that it's all the same...but if it really was, you wouldn't have needed to bring up the examples, right?
Only because there exist people who believe in god. That a lot of people are fixated on some concept, a concept that effects me directly, is not a reason to suppose that it is of any significance other than the effect it has on my life.

If and when lots of people start passing laws and killing other humans in the name of elves I will agree that it is significant in a way that the other examples aren't. Aside from that, I see no difference.

Clearly there are reasons to believe in the Judeo-Christian concept of God.
I can't think of any. You will have to help me out.

I don't believe that Judeo-Christians believe in God for no reason. Now it's your turn to belittle the reasons. :)
Evasive. I don't believe that Muslims, Pagans, Hindus, Sikhs, etc. believe in their god for no reason. I'm not sure what significance that is.

RandFan

The many, diverse, controversial and incompatible beliefs in god and all of the associated rituals are mythology. As to this last point, you agree with me, that is with just one exception, right?
So?
 
Huntster, I would like to say, that I don't think you are capable of stoning another human to death.

Depends on if there are appropriate stones at hand, and if they are the best weapon I can get my hands on.

I'm quite capable of killing another human being. I even admit that I'm capable of doing so in an unjustified manner. I am not immune from sin/evil.

I'd like to think that I would not do so, or that I would not be forced to do so, but my life has already shown me that I am not in control of such things. It is very possible that another person might force me to physically defend myself or loved ones with deadly force, or that Uncle Sam may hand me a set of orders that will entail similar grave results.

Neither case would be enjoyable, and I pray that "I am delivered from evil."

I think that you would realize that stoning another human being is "bad" by every standard of rational human conduct.

No, I do not. Been there, done that.

Killing should always be regrettable and traumatic, but it is sometimes justified, even under Roman Catholic religious law and the laws of God:

Legitimate defense

2263
The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65


2264
Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:


If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66

2265
Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.


2266
The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67


2267
Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."68

And:

Avoiding war


2307
The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.105


2308
All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."106


2309
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:


the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;


all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;


there must be serious prospects of success;


the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.


2310
Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.

Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.107


2311
Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.108


2312
The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties."109


2313
Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.

Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.


2314
"Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."110 A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons—especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons—to commit such crimes.


2315
The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations;111 it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.


2316
The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.


2317
Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war:

Insofar as men are sinners, the threat of war hangs over them and will so continue until Christ comes again; but insofar as they can vanquish sin by coming together in charity, violence itself will be vanquished and these words will be fulfilled: "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."112
 
You might be right. I figger you reject the word "might". But I'll make you a deal. If you're right, nice one! That's awesome! Woo hoo!

-Elliot

Yes, it is tremendously important that we accept responsability not only for our own actions, but how we judge our actions, and the actions of others. Morality is a complex issue and no paternal sky chieftan can or will sort it out for us. Once we accept that morality is not imposed by a god, but something we've partly evolved, and partly developed through our culture, we can grow up and start to behave like civilized adults. We can stop whitewashing our actions as "good" because "god told us to do that," and we can stop denouncing different as "evil," merely because some long dead ignorant bigots claimed to have channeled the will of a "god."
 
Screw what you say are fallacies. Objective truth is what it is, I don't care about these fallacy constructs. They don't mean anything.
This is a nonsensical and incoherent statement. Objective truth and fallacy are mutually exclusive, always. No exception has been found to date.

If Jesus was crucified, that dwarfs any point you are trying to make about the gospels being evidence, not being evidence, not being much evidence.
"IF". That one great big "if". Let's figure out if it is true first. Hey, if Allah wants us all to be good little Muslims then that would dwarf any point you are trying to make about Jesus being crucified.

See, that's the thing about truth. I start by questioning all of my assumptions and then try and find the truth. Muslims start with the assumption that they are right and try and then use the Koran to try and convince everyone else that they are right.

QUESTION: How can Muslims find the truth that they are wrong?
 
The law of gravity follows from an objective and consistent observation. The law of gravity is falsifiable. The law of gravity can be used to make testable predictions. Do you have an objective and consistent observation of goodness/evilness that would lead to a law?

No. Except...

In my opinion, laws can be *broken*. I guess it depends on what level you define or accept law. There are civil laws that are broken all the time. Are they laws. Or are "scientific" laws the only true laws?

The thing about laws, if you go with the scientific understanding...is...they don't need to be understood, or articulated. It is what it is. Calling it a law doesn't change or effect that, and if we never called it a law, the erstwhile laws would not care in the least.

We're fixating on law, and it's just going to lead to word quibbling, but I get your point, really.

I think that you will find that there is far too much ambiguity and subjective nature laws/ethics/morality to form any tests that would lead anyone to conclude that the laws of goodness/evilness are as constant and objective as gravity.

I never intended to assert it to be the case, and if you inferred that from what I said I wish you wouldn't have, but oh well.

-Elliot
 
Originally Posted by Huntster
What kind of stupid statement is that?

If a fricken elf shows up on your doorstep, you will (and can only) prove it's existence with the physical test that he is there, can be seen, felt, heard, etc.

Until the elf shows up is it rational to believe in the elf?

I don't know. I don't know a damned thing about elves, and I don't care to invest much time studying them.

However, if one shows up on my doorstep, should I confirm/reject it by praying, or by touching it and asking what the Hell he's doing on my doorstep?

Quote:
What an idiot.

Uncalled for.

So was the stupid elf.

Quote:
You don't have to. Indeed, you've clearly made your choice. In accordance with God's law, you have that choice, and you have made it.

Congratulations.

And also in accordance with Elven law. Looks like I'm in the clear.

Congratulations. Enjoy your life with the elves and in accordance with Elfen law.
 
Let's entertain this claim for a momment. Do you know what other collection of litterature is often conflicting, but based on a single source? Harry Potter fanfiction. There's more "contemporary" material about Harry Potter than there was about Jesus. Ergo, we can ignore the contradictions, and accept that Harry Potter is our Lord and Savior, may he deliver us from Valdemort.

Do you see how silly this is?

I agree that it is silly to compare the Harry Potter genre with the gospels, sure.

-Elliot
 
You have every right to say so, and I have every right to reject what you say.
A reasonable person would reject what I say because it is circular reasoning. Truth shouldn't be based on opinion.

Hindus: We have the truth because we say we do.
Sikhs: We have the truth because we say we do.
Pagans: We have the truth because we say we do.
Mormons: We have the truth because we say we do.
Jehovah's Witnesses: We have the truth because we say we do.
Scientologists: We have the truth because we say we do.

Everyone has the right to say so but what good is it?

Atheists: We will only accept that which can be objectively and/or logically proven.
 
If there are differences between the books it means that at least 3 of the books are false. Why is elementary logic so challenging for you?

If details are different, that does not necessarily mean that everything incident imperfectly related never happened. If someone relates an event that happened 30 years earlier, but gets some details wrong, that doesn't mean that the related event never happened.

-Elliot
 

Back
Top Bottom