Penn & Teller barbecue the Bible

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
That's your opinion, and you are free to have and to hold it. You are also free to make that recommendation, and knowledgeable people are free to reject your recommendation.

And knowledgeable people are free to accept my recommendations and ignorant people are free to accept it.

Quite correct.

I suggest you focus on the ignorant people, like the radical imams do in the Islamic world. They'll probably be most receptive to your premise.

Quote:
What authority do you have to dictate how I should determine the Bible's value to me?

I have told you countless times that I don't care what you determine.

Oh, okay. I thought I saw another contradictory post there.

Quote:
I find you very contradictory.

This isn't argument. This is rhetoric.

Well, there we go again!

I find you very "rhetorical." I have extreme difficulty understanding when you're being "rhetorical" and when you're being serious.

 

[I less than three logic]

Will you now admit that was a faulty "observation", since you cannot possibly know if I was "purposefully" not trying to understand what RandFan is telling me (unless, of course, you can read minds)?

I have to agree with him here Tony. If a person can’t swim, you can’t say he drowned on purpose.

 

[Tony]

Will you now admit that was a faulty "observation", since you cannot possibly know if I was "purposefully" not trying to understand what RandFan is telling me (unless, of course, you can read minds)?

Umm, ok. Then you are dumb, it's not willful misunderstanding.

I asked if you could read my mind several times because you wouldn't answer.

Can you

Yes, I can read your mind.

 

[RandFan]

You may dismiss them for any reason that you wish.

Christ gave a new spiritual law which incorporated the 10 Commandments:

Love your neighbor as yourself, and love God above all else.

Maybe because they are the foundation of modern law, just like the Old Testament is the foundation for the New?

Here you go with the flawed logic again.

Old testamant unreliable as a moral guide.
10 commandmants were given in the old testamant.
Therefore the 10 commandmants are not reliable as a moral guide.

I think that you need to think. Period.

This is just childish personal attack.

We are arguing.

No, that is what YOU are doing.

1. to present reasons for or against a thing: He argued in favor of capital punishment.

That is what I AM doing. And I do it for those who lurk. Those who can distinguish reason from childish personal attacks, fallacy, and rhetoric.

I acknowledge and accept logically valid arguments when I encounter them. I haven't encountered any from you within this thread.

This is just a claim. One that can be demonstrated to be wrong.

And very many reasons why it is an outstanding moral guide.

So you have to pick and choose which ones you use?

I'm not receptive to your flawed reasoning.

This is rhetorical. It is not argument.

I'm not demanding anything from anyone.

You are acting like a child, making personal attacks (see this very post), using profanity, etc.

 

[Tony]

I have to agree with him here Tony. If a person can’t swim, you can’t say he drowned on purpose.

I agree. I now accept that Hunster isn't misunderstanding on purpose. My natural impulse to think better of people got the better of me.

 

[RandFan]

I have to agree with him here Tony. If a person can’t swim, you can’t say he drowned on purpose.

I don't think he could understand your point. I do.

 

[RandFan]

So you have to pick and choose which ones you use?

Of what value is a moral guide if you have to first decide what is good and what is bad? Am I the only one that sees a problem with that?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
What's more, I believe that is because RandFan is biased. Instead of taking the Bible in its entirety, he/she is focused on a historical event described in the Old Testament, then professing that the entire Bible (made up of seperate books by seperate authors) as valueless as a moral guide.

Dude, how is what you're doing any different? You see the Bible having value as a moral guide (do you see the Bible as a moral guide?

Not really, I suppose. I see it as a history book, primarily, but since my favorite books are those known as "The Books of Wisdom" in Catholicism (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Wisdom, and Sirach), it is also a spiritual guide and source of wisdom.

Morally? Yeah, but that isn't my first word to describe it.

You're biased. You're not taking the Bible in it's entirety. You're focused on the bits you see as wisdom and neglecting to take into account the atrocities your god inspired therein.

I am biased, and I do take the Bible in it's entirety as a series of different books written by different authors on different themes and accept them as such.

RandFan's reasoning is sound, if the bible is the word of your god, if your god ordered those atrocities (as the bible clearly says), then your god's word has no credibility as a moral guide.

I disagree, because (like I've written before in this thread) the killing of innocents during civil war may be a necessary evil, and that the study of national sin (especially the writings of Thomas Paine and Abraham Lincoln) regarding the consequences of national sin have brought me to an understanding of how innocents may have to suffer for the sins of a nation.

The very crucifixion of Christ is just such an example. He suffered and died for the sins of God's people.

See that? That's called a syllogism*. That is fundamental logic.

*Read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

Syllogism doesn't address logical reasoning performed with faulty or incomplete information.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Will you now admit that was a faulty "observation", since you cannot possibly know if I was "purposefully" not trying to understand what RandFan is telling me (unless, of course, you can read minds)?

Umm, ok. Then you are dumb, it's not willful misunderstanding.

Thank you for such a graceful admission.

Dumb. After yet again explaining to RandFan how contradictory (...oh, yeah; "rhetorical") he/she is.

And you wonder how I have trouble understanding such a person..........

Quote:
I asked if you could read my mind several times because you wouldn't answer.

Can you?

Yes, I can read your mind.

Great. Back to my question:

What am I thinking at this precise moment?

 

[RandFan]

I disagree, because (like I've written before in this thread) the killing of innocents during civil war may be a necessary evil, and that the study of national sin (especially the writings of Thomas Paine and Abraham Lincoln) regarding the consequences of national sin have brought me to an understanding of how innocents may have to suffer for the sins of a nation.

It is a long way from innocents dying as a result of war and intentionally targeting innocent children. Are you really saying that you don't see the difference? That is not intellectually honest.

There is no moral equivalence.

 

[RandFan]

After yet again explaining to RandFan how contradictory...

What? This is a claim. You explained nothing. I have not been contradictory.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Maybe because they are the foundation of modern law, just like the Old Testament is the foundation for the New?

Here you go with the flawed logic again.

Old testamant unreliable as a moral guide.
10 commandmants were given in the old testamant.
Therefore the 10 commandmants are not reliable as a moral guide.

Is this a bait and switch game?

You asked why people are fussing over the 10 Commandments being posted in and on buildings of justice; legal buildings.

I cited the fact that the 10 Commandments are the foundation of modern law. You go back to your "logic" regarding morality.

Before I go on, are you being "rhetorical" again, or can I rely on the words you typed?

Quote:
I think that you need to think. Period.

This is just childish personal attack.

Sheesh.......Please mature a bit here, will you?

Quote:
We are arguing.

No, that is what YOU are doing.

Lord, have mercy!...........

You are simply amazing!

Quote:
And very many reasons why it is an outstanding moral guide.

So you have to pick and choose which ones you use?

No, I don't. I don't like working with portions of data and then "logically" reason myself into a pit.

Quote:
I'm not receptive to your flawed reasoning.

This is rhetorical. It is not argument.

Excuse me, but you have this habit of declaring both what you write as well as what I write as "rhetorical." It has gotten a bit tiresome.

This is not "rhetoric":

I'm not receptive to your flawed reasoning. I reject it.

 

[Tony]

Not really, I suppose. I see it as a history book, primarily, but since my favorite books are those known as "The Books of Wisdom" in Catholicism (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Wisdom, and Sirach), it is also a spiritual guide and source of wisdom.

Morally? Yeah, but that isn't my first word to describe it.

"Not really" what? You don't see the bible as a moral guide?

I am biased, and I do take the Bible in it's entirety as a series of different books written by different authors on different themes and accept them as such.

You can't have it both ways. Which is it. Do you take the bible in it's entirety as the word of god or as a series of different books written by different authors on different themes?

I disagree, because (like I've written before in this thread) the killing of innocents during civil war may be a necessary evil, and that the study of national sin (especially the writings of Thomas Paine and Abraham Lincoln) regarding the consequences of national sin have brought me to an understanding of how innocents may have to suffer for the sins of a nation.

Then the conclusion, since Randfan and I consider such atrocities immoral, is that our morality is superior to yours.

The very crucifixion of Christ is just such an example. He suffered and died for the sins of God's people.

Which, for an allegedly all-knowing, omnipotent, omni benevolent god, is a and sick and nonsensical idea, but hey, if you want to base your world-view on it, cool. But don't try to pretend it's reasonable.

 

[Tony]

Thank you for such a graceful admission.

Dumb. After yet again explaining to RandFan how contradictory (...oh, yeah; "rhetorical") he/she is.

You did no such thing.

Great. Back to my question:

What am I thinking at this precise moment?

Nothing.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I disagree, because (like I've written before in this thread) the killing of innocents during civil war may be a necessary evil, and that the study of national sin (especially the writings of Thomas Paine and Abraham Lincoln) regarding the consequences of national sin have brought me to an understanding of how innocents may have to suffer for the sins of a nation.

It is a long way from innocents dying as a result of war and intentionally targeting innocent children. Are you really saying that you don't see the difference? That is not intellectually honest.

It is intellectually honest and a painful reality:

Unlike many of his contemporaries, Lincoln always kept in mind the need for reconciliation. In his second Inaugural Address, he carefully avoided blaming the South for inflicting the war upon Americans. Instead, he declared that both the North and the South "deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came." In that same speech he suggested that perhaps the war was God's punishment on all Americans for the national sin of slavery. He closed with a call for a better future:

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on, to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan-- to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.....

There is no moral equivalence.

National sin requires national penance and reconciliation. That includes innocents within that nation.

 

[Tony]

You asked why people are fussing over the 10 Commandments being posted in and on buildings of justice; legal buildings.

Yes.

I cited the fact that the 10 Commandments are the foundation of modern law.

No you didn't. You dodged his inquiry by begging the question "maybe because the 10 Commandments are the foundation of modern law?". You cited no fact.

You go back to your "logic" regarding morality.

He never left.

I'm not receptive to your flawed reasoning.

You haven't given us reason to think you're receptive to any reasoning.

 

[Tony]

National sin requires national penance and reconciliation. That includes innocents within that nation.

Incredible. You actually support the concepts of human sacrifice and collective punishment. I don't think I've yet seen such barbarism or primitive thinking on this forum. Tellingly, I have seen support of such concepts on white-nationalist and islamist forums.

It is intellectually honest and a painful reality:

This is an appeal to authority fallacy. Lincoln was wrong on that count. The civil war was not a punishment from God, it was an act of men. Any attempt to claim it was a punishment from god is simply a failure to hold the people who let it happen responsible for their actions.

 

[RandFan]

You asked why people are fussing over the 10 Commandments being posted in and on buildings of justice; legal buildings.

I cited the fact that the 10 Commandments are the foundation of modern law. You go back to your "logic" regarding morality.

The 10 commandmants are not the foundation of modern law. That is a myth.

Before I go on, are you being "rhetorical" again, or can I rely on the words you typed?

Somehow I don't think you know what that word means.

Sheesh.......Please mature a bit here, will you?

You act like a child and you tell me to mature?

Lord, have mercy!...........

You are simply amazing!

This is rhetorical.

No, I don't. I don't like working with portions of data and then "logically" reason myself into a pit.

But that is what you have done. The bible contains incest, the devaluation of humans (slaves), killing people for moral sin, murdering children, commandmants to kill offspring, etc. Do you accept the entire bible or not?

Excuse me, but you have this habit of declaring both what you write as well as what I write as "rhetorical."

? I don't engage in rhetoric.

It has gotten a bit tiresome.

Stop engaging in rhetoric.

This is not "rhetoric":

Yes, it is.

I'm not receptive to your flawed reasoning. I reject it.

See, when you accuse someone of flawed reasoning but don't point out the flaw then you are just engaging in rhetoric. There is no argument. There is no specific claim. Just general accusation. Someone reading your posts would have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Not really, I suppose. I see it as a history book, primarily, but since my favorite books are those known as "The Books of Wisdom" in Catholicism (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Wisdom, and Sirach), it is also a spiritual guide and source of wisdom.

Morally? Yeah, but that isn't my first word to describe it.

"Not really" what? You don't see the bible as a moral guide?

Again, primarily I see it as a series of history books, books of wisdom, and then, yes, a moral guide.

Quote:
I am biased, and I do take the Bible in it's entirety as a series of different books written by different authors on different themes and accept them as such.

You can't have it both ways. Which is it. Do you take the bible in it's entirety as the word of god or as a series of different books written by different authors on different themes?

Actually, I can have it any damned way I wish, thank you.

I accept the Bible as a series of different books written by different authors on different themes, and I believe these authors were inspired by God.

Quote:
I disagree, because (like I've written before in this thread) the killing of innocents during civil war may be a necessary evil, and that the study of national sin (especially the writings of Thomas Paine and Abraham Lincoln) regarding the consequences of national sin have brought me to an understanding of how innocents may have to suffer for the sins of a nation.

Then the conclusion, since Randfan and I consider such atrocities immoral, is that our morality is superior to yours.

That is your opinion. You may be correct, and your opinion may be flawed.

My opinion is that your opinion is flawed, and I also wonder if your "superior" moral standing has been put through an adequate test.

Quote:
The very crucifixion of Christ is just such an example. He suffered and died for the sins of God's people.

Which, for an allegedly all-knowing, omnipotent, omni benevolent god, is a and sick and nonsensical idea, but hey, if you want to base your world-view on it, cool.

Judging God Himself? Under what authority?

Judging national sin, penance, and redemption without a basis in study from which to do so? As if Lincoln was a fool?

You're quite an act, aren't you?

But don't try to pretend it's reasonable.

I'll declare it reasonable if I please, and I suspect reasonable people will respect it.

I'll also note that unreasonable people won't.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Thank you for such a graceful admission.

Dumb. After yet again explaining to RandFan how contradictory (...oh, yeah; "rhetorical") he/she is.

You did no such thing.

Yes, I did:

I find you very contradictory.

This isn't argument. This is rhetoric.

Well, there we go again!

I find you very "rhetorical." I have extreme difficulty understanding when you're being "rhetorical" and when you're being serious.

Do you read, or do you just type with complete abandon?

Quote:
Great. Back to my question:

What am I thinking at this precise moment?

Nothing.

That is incorrect. At that precise moment I was thinking how much of a fool you are.

So you've been incorrect with each and every attempt to read my mind.

Wanna try again?