Penn & Teller barbecue the Bible

elliotfc said:
Second, the Christian would say that the canonical gospels would be the primary evidence. Whatever. If Christ was crucified, then the canonical gospels are the primary evidence. If Christ wasn't crucified, then the canonical gospels are curious mythic artifacts. Objective reality determines whether they are evidence or not, and not the other way around.
Click to expand...

You can't use the gospels as evidence of the cruci-ficition. The four books directly, and incessantly contradict one another about the cruci-fiction and the rest of the Easter events. The gospels cannot possibly be accurate on this subject, because they are mutually exclusive.
 
Last edited:
Huntster said:
Spirituality is not a physical science like mathematics.
Click to expand...
Exactly. He's using two different contexts for believe and pretending they’re the same. Tony’s statement was within a spiritual context, thus he meant you can not reject the will, opinion, or meaning (whatever rejecting God means) of a spiritual concept if you don’t believe in that concept in the first place. Elliot’s statement was concerning concepts outside the context of spirituality, but used believe in the spiritual sense. However, he made the statement as though the two had equal meaning. That is a fallacy.
 
I less than three logic said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, I do believe that the rules of mathematics require there be only correct and incorrect answers to a problem.

My reason for the example is that someone said that you can't reject what you don't believe in. I disagree, because when you take tests you reject what you don't believe in quite often.

-Elliot
 
ImaginalDisc said:
You can't use the gospels as evidence of the cruci-ficition.
Click to expand...

Sure you can, a lot of people do. That's like saying you can't eat ice cream. Sure you can.

The four books directly, and incessantly contradict one another about the cruci-fiction and the rest of the Easter events. The gospels cannot possibly be accurate on this subject, because they are mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

They can be generally accurate, often when studying historical texts you'll come up with what are determined to be non-essential contradictions and disagreements, but that doesn't mean you blow up the whole general topic.

When, in the next one, you are told that it all actually happened, you will be allowed to maintain your position. I'm not asking you to change your mind. But it's silly to say that you "can't" use the gospels as evidence. And if Jesus was crucified, the gospels are certainly the best of all the evidence that people have for believing in the crucifixion.

-Elliot
 
I less than three logic said:
Exactly. He's using two different contexts for believe and pretending they’re the same. Tony’s statement was within a spiritual context, thus he meant you can not reject the will, opinion, or meaning (whatever rejecting God means) of a spiritual concept if you don’t believe in that concept in the first place.
Click to expand...

Let me retreat. I'm talking about the "theory of God", as opposed to God. That's the it that I mean, not God.

I agree that if Tony is talking to a theist, and if he rejects the theists theology, he is simply doing that. Rejecting the theists theology. All theologians are aware that theology does *not* equal God, so certainly Tony is not rejecting God. I'm of the opinion that atheists reject articulations of God, as opposed to God.

When you encounter it, of *course* you can reject it. The "it" being a particular theory of God.

Now...let's say that God is alilgned to particular theories. In that case Tony is indirectly rejecting God, but I've never considered that to be direct rejection, which I've never held atheists capable of doing.

Elliot’s statement was concerning concepts outside the context of spirituality, but used believe in the spiritual sense. However, he made the statement as though the two had equal meaning. That is a fallacy.
Click to expand...

Sure, my analogy compared to things that weren't the same.

-Elliot
 
I less than three logic said:
Originally Posted by Huntster
Spirituality is not a physical science like mathematics.
Click to expand...
Exactly. He's using two different contexts for believe and pretending they’re the same. Tony’s statement was within a spiritual context, thus he meant you can not reject the will, opinion, or meaning (whatever rejecting God means) of a spiritual concept if you don’t believe in that concept in the first place. Elliot’s statement was concerning concepts outside the context of spirituality, but used believe in the spiritual sense. However, he made the statement as though the two had equal meaning. That is a fallacy.
Click to expand...

I believe what elliot was trying to do (like what I was trying to do) was analogize the absolutes of good/God and evil/absence-of-God with the absolutes of, say, mathematics.

Again, for example, humans can no more change the laws of goodness/evil than they can gravity. We can understand gravity to the point where we can defy it or manipulate it. We can fly in machines. We can power our way off the planet physically (the consequences of those acts is that on occasion, when our machines fail, we crash). But we cannot make gravity go away.

People can try to define God as a mean, old, silvered haired tyrant on a cloud if they choose, but that doesn't make it so, nor are others who see it in a different way required to subscribe to their kicking and screaming.
 
elliotfc said:
Let me retreat. I'm talking about the "theory of God", as opposed to God. That's the it that I mean, not God.

I agree that if Tony is talking to a theist, and if he rejects the theists theology, he is simply doing that. Rejecting the theists theology. All theologians are aware that theology does *not* equal God, so certainly Tony is not rejecting God. I'm of the opinion that atheists reject articulations of God, as opposed to God.

When you encounter it, of *course* you can reject it. The "it" being a particular theory of God.

Now...let's say that God is alilgned to particular theories. In that case Tony is indirectly rejecting God, but I've never considered that to be direct rejection, which I've never held atheists capable of doing.



Sure, my analogy compared to things that weren't the same.

-Elliot
Click to expand...

As a follow-up, I don't think that it is *possible* to reject God in this life, only in the next one, if anybody cares. I indulge atheists, or I indulge the word atheist. I use the word as it is generally used...but for many years I've considered it to be fundamentally unsound.

-Elliot
 
The video appears to be there no longer. I tried to find it on YouTube without success. Suggestions, anyone?
 
Ok, perhaps I was mistaken. However, can you prove (i.e. scientifically to the same extent of gravity) that there are laws of goodness/evilness? I’m not sure such laws exist the same way gravity or other laws of nature do.
 
Huntster said:
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.

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

See, I'd accept that, if God wasn't the one making the consequences. For instance, imagine seatbelt use wasn't mandatory. If I chose to get in the car without wearing it, I'm acknowledging the potential consequences. If I get into an accident, there is a greater risk of serious injury than if I wear one. The consequence is a natural one-an outcome of the act itself.

The Bible, however, teaches the opposite. God imposes the consequences for disobeying him. Moses' speech about all the curses Israel will suffer if they don't follow God, for example. Jonah being swallowed by the whale, being thrown into the lake of fire at the end of times-all examples of God saying, "I will do this to you if you don't obey me."

That's not free will. A mugger holding a gun to your head and saying, "Your money or your life" is not free will-only dictating and punishment for disobedience.

To have free will, I'd have to be able to say to God, "Nope, not happening" and not have to worry that he'll be the one imposing the consequences.

If there are natural consequences to disobeying (such as, for example, if Joseph disobeyed God and didn't flee Bethlehem ahead of Herod's henchmen-which would have resulted in Jesus being among the massacred), that's one thing. Then I'd be able to rationally look at the real consequences of obeying (Joseph, Mary and Jesus surviving), vice disobeying (Jesus being killed (if not all three of them)).

Unfortunately, there's no way to know what the natural consequences of not accepting Jesus might be. Many non-Christians lead happy, successful (as defined by them) lives. They aren't in want and they're not suffering, so happiness doesn't seem to be predicated solely on being a Christian, nor does success and health. The only consequences we know of are the ones God threatens us with in the Bible.

Marc
 
Huntster said:
Again, for example, humans can no more change the laws of goodness/evil than they can gravity.
Click to expand...
You are going to have to help me out with this one. What are these laws?

Are you talking about the 10 commandments?
Not kill? Is that absolute?
Not Lie? Is that absolute?
Can the laws only be found in the Bible?
What if different cultures, with different religions have different laws?
Can we compare these other cultures with Judeo-Christian ones and see a demonstrable difference?
 
ImaginalDisc said:
You can't use the gospels as evidence of the cruci-ficition. The four books directly, and incessantly contradict one another about the cruci-fiction and the rest of the Easter events. The gospels cannot possibly be accurate on this subject, because they are mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

I think I understand where you are coming from with this, but it seems to me you overstate the case a bit. Self contradiction may reduce the credibility of the gospels for the purposes of being used as a source of information about the life and death of Jesus but they don't eliminate their value as evidence.

Another issue that, for me, reduces the credibility of the gospels even more than their internal contraditions, is the depency of Matthew and Luke on Mark. Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source for a great deal of their material. So Matthew and Luke are not independent witnesses adding credibility to the account of another author. Matthew and Luke come across to me more like historical fiction authors reworking Mark's writing to add interest and to support their own theological notions.

As an aside, speaking as somebody that has attempted to develop an understanding of what is known and knowable about Jesus, my guess is that the crucifiction is a real event. For me, this passes the more likely than not test. I think there are many other details of his reported life that don't pass this test. You seem to believe that the crucifiction was a made up detail and I agree the evidence about the life and death of Jesus is weak enough that even that possibility is in the range of plausible.
 
elliotfc said:
As a follow-up, I don't think that it is *possible* to reject God in this life, only in the next one, if anybody cares. I indulge atheists, or I indulge the word atheist. I use the word as it is generally used...but for many years I've considered it to be fundamentally unsound.

-Elliot
Click to expand...
Quite. The same way I don't think that it is *possible* to accept God in this life, only in the next one, if anybody cares. I indulge theists, or I indulge the word theist. I use the word as it is generally used...but for many years I've considered it to be fundamentally unsound.

Your rejection here seems to be based on knowing that God does exist, then rejecting him. The same holds true for acceptation then. No one knows “in this life” if God exists or not, one can either believe or not believe.
 
elliotfc said:
As a follow-up, I don't think that it is *possible* to reject God in this life, only in the next one, if anybody cares. I indulge atheists, or I indulge the word atheist. I use the word as it is generally used...but for many years I've considered it to be fundamentally unsound.
Click to expand...
? I'm sorry but...what? Is it also fundamentally unsound to reject unicorns? Faeries? Elves? Leprechauns? Santa Claus? Flying Reindeer?

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?
 
I less than three logic said:
Ok, perhaps I was mistaken. However, can you prove (i.e. scientifically to the same extent of gravity) that there are laws of goodness/evilness? I’m not sure such laws exist the same way gravity or other laws of nature do.
Click to expand...

No, I cannot prove it. That is why the central theme of God is faith.

One must believe or reject. It is that simple. And we must all live with the consequences of our decision.
 
elliotfc said:
Sure you can, a lot of people do.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
Huntster said:
No, I cannot prove it. That is why the central theme of God is faith.

One must believe or reject. It is that simple. And we must all live with the consequences of our decision.
Click to expand...
Alright, then how can one reject an answer as incorrect if one first rejects the entire concept of mathematics needed to provide what is considered correct or incorrect? The analogy of absolutes still does not hold up. I don’t see why I should accept the concept of the laws of good/evil, thus I can not proceed to accept or reject that God is good and/or Godlessness is evil. The rules to get to that point haven’t been shown to exist quite yet.
 
Huntster said:
No, I cannot prove it. That is why the central theme of God is faith.

One must believe or reject. It is that simple. And we must all live with the consequences of our decision.
Click to expand...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom