Penn & Teller barbecue the Bible

[RandFan]

No, they do it for reasons of hatred.

The problem is that it is the religion that justifies their atrocities.

 

[Tony]

There most certainly is "your logic" if you insist on reasoning with information or facts that are untrue, incomplete, or biased.

No, there isn't. You are wrong.

 

[RandFan]

That's just the way I am.

But the direct approach attracts a lot of venom in return.

You know how much you injure the Beast by how loud he screams.........

I have never used heated rhetoric, personal attacks and inappropriate language resulting in an admonition from the administration, you did. Look in the mirror.

 

[Huntster]

Agreed 100% That all killing is bad doesn't excuse killing in the name of god though. More importantly, it doesn't make the bible a source of moral instruction....

If you choose to focus and dwell on the warfare of the era, you will be consumed by their violence.

I prefer to focus on the words of wisdom, and leave the history of Jewish warfare to the historians.

Quote:
Maybe if you drop the "in the name of God" stuff, and focus on showing people how utterly evil it is to kill people PERIOD, you might gain some ground.

What reason do you have to believe this is true?

You might find religious people of peace as allies instead of alienating them by condemning their beliefs.

The problem, as this discussion is concerned, isn't people killing it's people killing for god.

The problem is people killing others, period. Whether they do so in the name of God in reality or as a lie is just one of the many ways they try to justify that which can't be justified.

 

[Tony]

I didn't prove any point you might have tried to make. I asked a question, which you didn't answer. Again:

If you know that I'm "purposefully not trying to understand what RandFan is telling me", then you must also know what I'm thinking at this precise moment.

Can you tell us all what that is?

Keep proving my point.

Why do you continue to assume what I'm thinking

Begging the question.

yet when I test your powers of mind reading, you fail to answer the question?

Because your question is based on your willful ignorance.

Again, what am I thinking at this precise moment?

You're proving my, and Randfan's point. The question is, is this an act, or are you really this stupid?

Oh, ouch! Wow! What a powerful blow you have delivered me!

Ahh, now I know what it is. You're still in high school. Hang around son, you might learn a thing or three.

 

[RandFan]

I prefer to focus on the words of wisdom, and leave the history of Jewish warfare to the historians.

I would be happy to reject the bible as a moral guide. Leave the entire thing to scholars.

You might find religious people of peace as allies instead of alienating them by condemning their beliefs.

I don't condemn their beliefs. I'm saying that I don't recommend that people use the bible as a moral guide. It is problematic and uneven at best.

Of course people are free to choose. If you find the bible good for you fine so long as you pick and choose that which conforms with modern sensibilities. I just don't think it is a very good moral guide because it is so contradictory.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by RandFan
I personally find it difficult to look at the bible and come to any reasonable understanding as to what is good and bad. The 10 commandments state "thou shalt not kill" however the Jews did a lot of killing and that includes women and children. Now, perhaps it was justified (I'm not convinced but perhaps). Perhaps god told them to. Ok, so is killing good or bad? It really isn't clear.

This is how this all started.

I stand by this post. I can't use the bible to decide what is good and bad.

Moses ordered the murder of children and all of the arguments since then can't make that ok. No apologetics from the RCC can make that ok....

You are citing a biblical passage from among the oldest books of the Bible, not the New Testament.

I am not Jewish. I am Christian. The Old Testament serves as the foundation of Christianity because Christ was Jewish, and the prophesies that set the stage for His ministry are found throughout the Old Testament.

I cited and linked RCC doctrine on the taking of human life here. In the same post I linked to an article discussing the theory of national sin, which BTW both Thomas Paine and Abraham Lincoln both wrote of in our own history, and which likely played a part in the Mosaic massacre which you refer to.

You refuse to entertain the view from a Roman Catholic perspective. That's fine. It's your right.

I've repeatedly written that your opinions on God, killing, etc are yours to have and hold.

No one has made a single argument to change this fact.

One cannot change a fact. It is fact. Debate can change attitudes. Arguing seldom does.

We are arguing. Nothing will change.

I don't care if Huntster or elliot accept this. I don't. The point remains, one can't use the bible to determine what is good and bad.

That is simply not true. By picking a single story in the Old Testament to condemn the entire collection is very immature and obviously faulty.

You guys don't have to stop believing in the RCC or god or anything. The only thing you need to know is that there is no reason for a rational, logical and reasonable person to believe in god or use the bible as a source of moral guidance. End of story.

What I already know is that for you there is no reason to believe in God or use the Bible as a source of moral guidance. For me, there most certainly is.

If you'd stop demanding that the entire world view everything through your smudged glasses, and insisting that it's either your way or the highway like a child, perhaps things might go more smoothly for you.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
No, they do it for reasons of hatred.

The problem is that it is the religion that justifies their atrocities.

The problem is that they attempt to justify their atrocities with religion. I'm not stupid enough to accept it.

Why do you?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
There most certainly is "your logic" if you insist on reasoning with information or facts that are untrue, incomplete, or biased.

No, there isn't. You are wrong.

Let me get this straight:

Are you claiming that if someone logically reasons out a decision or judgement using faulty or incomplete data, that logical conclusion is accurate?

 

[Tony]

Let me get this straight:

Are you claiming that if someone logically reasons out a decision or judgement using faulty or incomplete data, that logical conclusion is accurate?

No, I making you aware of the reality that logic isn't subjective.

 

[Huntster]

Quote:
Again, what am I thinking at this precise moment?

You're proving my, and Randfan's point. The question is, is this an act, or are you really this stupid?

Did you or did you not accuse me of?:

....purposefully not trying to understand what RandFan is telling you.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Let me get this straight:

Are you claiming that if someone logically reasons out a decision or judgement using faulty or incomplete data, that logical conclusion is accurate?

No, I making you aware of the reality that logic isn't subjective.

Thank you for answering my question and clarifying your position.

What I am trying to do is respond to your and RandFan's accusations that I don't understand logic by pointing out that RandFan's logical conclusions are faulty because they are based on faulty or incomplete data.

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.

If he/she wants to call that "logic", and you agree, that's fine. That's "your" logic, but I reject it, because it's faulty.

 

[RandFan]

You are citing a biblical passage from among the oldest books of the Bible, not the New Testament.

{shrug}

I am not Jewish. I am Christian. The Old Testament serves as the foundation of Christianity because Christ was Jewish, and the prophesies that set the stage for His ministry are found throughout the Old Testament.

And the 10 commandments, where did they come from? Should I dismiss them because they are from the old testament? Why are people marching to keep these "sacred" words in courthouses? I think you need to rethink this line of argument.

One cannot change a fact. It is fact. Debate can change attitudes. Arguing seldom does.

Depends on what you mean by arguing.

One definition of Arguing is the process of presenting reason or arguments for a thing or concept. One definition of an argument is a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition. A debate is typically a formal argument.

We don't need to argue formally to have a productive argument.

We are arguing. Nothing will change.

If you won't acknowledge logically valid argument then nothing can change.

That is simply not true. By picking a single story in the Old Testament to condemn the entire collection is very immature and obviously faulty.

There are many reasons why the bible is a very poor moral guide.

If you'd stop demanding that the entire world view everything through your smudged glasses...

I'm not demanding anything. I'm demonstrating to those who are receptive why the bible is a poor moral guide.

...and insisting that it's either your way or the highway like a child, perhaps things might go more smoothly for you.

I'm not the one who made personal attacks. I'm not the one to use profanity. I'm not the one who had my post edited by and administrator.

Again, you need to look in the mirror.

 

[Tony]

Did you or did you not accuse me of?:

No, it was an observation of your "reasoning" in this thread. You then proceeded to ask me if I could read your mind. Based on that, I stand by my original observation.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I prefer to focus on the words of wisdom, and leave the history of Jewish warfare to the historians.

I would be happy to reject the bible as a moral guide. Leave the entire thing to scholars.

Thank you for that promise. Please leave the entire thing to scholars, who know what to do with it. You have no business worrying yourself about it, because it's obviously too much for you to deal with rationally.

Quote:
You might find religious people of peace as allies instead of alienating them by condemning their beliefs.

I don't condemn their beliefs. I'm saying that I don't recommend that people use the bible as a moral guide. It is problematic and uneven at best.

That's your opinion, and you are free to have and to hold it. You are also free to make that recommendation, and knowledgable people are free to reject your recommendation.

Of course people are free to choose. If you find the bible good for you fine so long as you pick and choose that which conforms with modern sensibilities.

What authority do you have to dictate how I should determine the Bible's value to me? I've outlined your complete freedom repeatedly, and you return with instruction on how I must value the Bible?

I just don't think it is a very good moral guide because it is so contradictory.

I find you very contradictory.

 

[RandFan]

Thank you for that promise. Please leave the entire thing to scholars, who know what to do with it. You have no business worrying yourself about it, because it's obviously too much for you to deal with rationally.

I spent 3 years in seminary and 2 years as a full time missionary. I'm just fine I assure you. But I agree that we should leave it to scholars.

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.

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.

I find you very contradictory.

This isn't argument. This is rhetoric.

 

[Tony]

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? I don't want to make an assumption) because of a some scattered bits of wisdom. 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.

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.

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

*Read about it here:

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

 

[Huntster]

Quote:
I am not Jewish. I am Christian. The Old Testament serves as the foundation of Christianity because Christ was Jewish, and the prophesies that set the stage for His ministry are found throughout the Old Testament.

And the 10 commandments, where did they come from? Should I dismiss them because they are from the old testament?

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.

Why are people marching to keep these "sacred" words in courthouses?

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

I think you need to rethink this line of argument.

I think that you need to think. Period.

Quote:
One cannot change a fact. It is fact. Debate can change attitudes. Arguing seldom does.

Depends on what you mean by arguing.

Argue:

1. to present reasons for or against a thing: He argued in favor of capital punishment.
2. to contend in oral disagreement; dispute: The Senator argued with the President about the new tax bill.
–verb (used with object) 3. to state the reasons for or against: The lawyers argued the case.
4. to maintain in reasoning: to argue that the news report must be wrong.
5. to persuade, drive, etc., by reasoning: to argue someone out of a plan.
6. to show; prove; imply; indicate: His clothes argue poverty.

Quote:
We are arguing. Nothing will change.

If you won't acknowledge logically valid argument then nothing can change.

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

Quote:
That is simply not true. By picking a single story in the Old Testament to condemn the entire collection is very immature and obviously faulty.

There are many reasons why the bible is a very poor moral guide.

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

Quote:
If you'd stop demanding that the entire world view everything through your smudged glasses...

I'm not demanding anything. I'm demonstrating to those who are receptive why the bible is a poor moral guide.

I'm not receptive to your flawed reasoning.

Quote:
...and insisting that it's either your way or the highway like a child, perhaps things might go more smoothly for you.

I'm not the one who made personal attacks. I'm not the one to use profanity. I'm not the one who had my post edited by and administrator.

Again, you need to look in the mirror.

I'm not demanding anything from anyone.

 

[RandFan]

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? I don't want to make an assumption) because of a some scattered bits of wisdom. 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.

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.

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

*Read about it here:

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

Yep, that's valid logic alright.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Did you or did you not accuse me of?:

....purposefully not trying to understand what RandFan is telling you.

No, it was an observation of your "reasoning" in this thread.

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)?

You then proceeded to ask me if I could read your mind. Based on that, I stand by my original observation.

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

Can you?