Penn and Teller: The Bible is bullshit

[Courtesy Flush]

They make some very good points.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RV46fsmx6E

[YellowRubberDuckie]

1. Awesome.

I love that series. I really miss it now that we don't have Showtime.
Duckie

[RebelOne]

5. Here are some Penn & Teller clips.

http://del.icio.us/ThrowawayyourTV/Penn%26Teller

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Connonym]

3. K&R

[kwassa]

4. These are the famous biblical scholars Penn and Teller?

Do tell.

[Orrex]

10. Well, in terms of verifying that the bible is the Word of God

They're every bit as qualified as Augustine, Aquinas, Lewis, or (God forbid) MacDowell, aren't they?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

16. Augustine was a Real COMMEDIAN, I mean his jokes rocked!

the fact that those who didn't get the joke died, well, forget about that stuff.

[gbate]

96. No, not really.

[Orrex]

114. Care to elaborate on that very cogent rebuttal?

While you're at it, name for me someone who has conclusively demonstrated that the bible is, in fact, the actual Word of actual God. We can say things like "God is a metaphor for all that is good, and the bible is the discussion of that metaphor," but frankly I find such semantic games to be trite and intellectually dishonest.

I await your reply with great eagerness.

[hedgehog]

6. Penn and Teller prove once again t\hat the two groups most

invested in a literal interpretation of the Bible are atheists and fundamentalists!

[Bunny]

8. .

:applause:

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[smoogatz]

11. In what way are atheists invested in Biblical literalism?

Just curious.

[Orrex]

12. Because it contains so many contradictions and obsolete directives

If the bible is the literal Word of God, then the atheist can point to these and say "how can they both be literally true?" or "why do you use Leviticus to condemn homosexuality but not the eating of shellfish?"

And heaven help you, so to speak, if you happen to touch a woman during her menstrual cycle.

[deepthought42]

13. Well I'm screwed...

I love seafood. Mmmmmmm... :evilgrin:

As a woman, I don't really want anyone touching me that time of the month, but that's for obvious reasons, none of which have to do with religion.

[smoogatz]

14. As an atheist, I'm profoundly dis-invested in any/all interpretations

of the Bible, or any religious text, except that which correctly identifies it/them as mythologies. Biblical literalism strikes me as a form of mental illness. What rational person wastes his/her time arguing with crazy people?

[hedgehog]

15. Some vocal atheists are invested in the notion that the Bible must

be accepted as literal truth in its entirety or discarded as complete bullshit. For me, the Bible is a group of books recording encounters between people and God over a span of 4000 years. It is a record of faith, not a literal history book. Since it was written by men, not dictated by angels, it reflects the life and times of its authors. Thus, men from a misogynistic society attribute that misogyny to God. The amazing thing is to look at how attitudes change from author to author as people learn more about God.

Consider this, the rabbis compiled the Book of Genesis sometime after the Babylonian exile. For them , the story of Abraham is the story of the Covenant. The nomads of their day had camels, so they assumed that Abraham also had camels. They didn't know that camels were domesticated after the time of Abraham. Penn and Teller would point to the mention of camels in Genesis as proof it's all bullshit. Talk about missing the point!


I really enjoy those who try to use archeology to prove that the Exodus story is complete fabrication. I'll allow that the plagues of Egypt probably had a natural explanation (Explosion of Thera, perhaps?) but to suggest that there is no truth there is ludicrous. Not so long ago, anyone reading American History would conclude that blacks did not participate in the Civil War. We now know that they formed a significant part of the Union Army by the end of the war. Try and find an older battlefield painting that shows any blacks. It's just about impossible. If that's how whites managed to forget events of the last century, why are we so surprised that the Egyptians weren't exactly the best sources for the story of Exodus?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

17. obviously you did not watch the video.

but that's ok. I am ignorant about how some people of faith can avoid the sciences, including archeology, and math.

[hedgehog]

19. I did watch the video.

It was suggested that the Exodus never happened due to a lack of archaeological evidence of the 40 year sojourn in the Sinai. I suppose we'll have to wait until someone finds piles of quail bones before all the skeptics will be satisfied.

[smoogatz]

22. It said that there's no evidence that the Israelites were ever enslaved

by the Egyptians. But if that's not true, then of course there'd be no reason for them to wander in the desert, either.

[Heartling]

149. Actually they are right in debunking Moses and the story of Exodus

Do a little research and you will find this.

Exodus occurred between 1500 and 1200 BCE. The problem here is beyond no archaeological evidence found in the Sinai desert. The Promise Land shows no evidence at all of an influx of a couple of million Hebrews. To the contrary evidence (yes evidence = proof) shows NO sudden population increase at all. There is no increase in the amount of pottery or a change in the styles of pottery due to a couple of hundred years of Egyptian influence. In this case absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

[smoogatz]

18. I'm pretty sure the notion of the literal truth of the Bible comes to us courtesy

of fundamentalist Christians, not from atheists. Most atheists would argue that, yes, Biblical literalism is ludicrous, but that the Bible is still a valuable cultural artifact. Laughable as a science text, and obviously not a great historical text, and not an acceptable basis for governance or public policy, but still an interesting and important document, if only because it tells us a lot about how magical thinkers view the world.

[eridani]

39. The parts of the OT that its original compilers of real history--

--accepted as history, square pretty well with the histories left behind by their contemporaries. The notion that there is such a thing as history relatively uncontaminated by the notion that one of your main purposes is to explain why you are better than your neighbors is a pretty modern one.

[Orrex]

20. Even if the historical events described in Exodus were proven

That would do nothing to give even the slightest shred of credibility to the notion that the bible is the Word of God.

However, you make a good point when you observe that not every believer feels compelled to cling to the literal truth of every word on every page. Your task, then, is simple: explain to us exactly how you go about distinguishing literal truth from metaphor when you read the bible.

[BurtWorm]

82. What if the point of the covenant was political and only dressed up as theological?

Then aren't all those who read it as purely theological missing the point?

(Hint: Yes.)

PS: I'm reading a very interesting book, written by two Israeli archaeologists, that very respectfully lays out the evidence against the historical truth of Exodus. It's called The Bible Unearthed. I highly, highly recommend it.

[onager]

98. I really enjoy bad analogies. Like yours.

I really enjoy those who try to use archeology to prove that the Exodus story is complete fabrication.

You mean those folks called "archeologists?" Including quite a few Israeli archeologists who presumably have a vested interest in the story? Even a lot of them say it's bullshit.

The recorded history of Egypt goes back several millenia, with thousands of archeological finds extant, from massive official carved stelae to private letters.

And in all the massive archeological data from ancient Egypt, the name "Israel" is mentioned...

...exactly once. That's on a stelae dating from Pharoah Meneptah, the son of Ramses II. And the Israelites didn't come to Egypt, Meneptah went to them. The stelae is a straightforward account of a military expedition, first west to Libya and then east into Palestine.

You can still see the Meneptah Stele today, in Cairo's Egyptian Museum.

Even that notorious atheistic tome The Catholic Encyclopedia notes with a little embarassment: Notwithstanding the long sojourn in Egypt , the number of Egyptian words that have found a place in the Hebrew vocabulary is exceedingly small.

Not what you'd expect if the Hebrews had really spent 400 years in Egypt. Certainly a glaring contrast with all they picked up during the Babylonian Captivity, including stuff like flood myths and other religious ideas.

The latest scholarship thinks the Exodus yarn is a garbled account of the Semitic Hyksos rulers being driven out of Egypt, overlaid with Hebrew mythology.

I'll allow that the plagues of Egypt probably had a natural explanation...

Well, you'd be right about that. I've lived in Egypt for nearly 2 years now. So far this winter two massive sandstorms have caused darkness in the middle of the day. (One of them just last week.) Winter is when hordes of locusts also come zooming across Egypt, frequently darkening the sun.

Not so long ago, anyone reading American History would conclude that blacks did not participate in the Civil War...Try and find an older battlefield painting that shows any blacks.

You mean, like this 1865 work by Thomas Nast?

[Goblinmonger]

21. I think it comes down to a simple point

Is the bible the word of god or not?

If it is, you are screwed and you know the reasons why.
If it isn't, then what is the justification for the Christian religion? You won't find any mention anywhere else about this dude Jesus. There is no historical evidence of his existence. And even if you think there is, there is no documentation of his teachings, his followers, anything. So the only thing you have is the non-inspired word of people who seem to be clearly writing myths in the format of Homer (at least the gospels) and Paul who certainly isn't someone you want to hitch your wagon to (or maybe it is but then we have another discussion that will pop up).

Is it a cool set of stories? Sure. There are some pretty shitty ones in there, too. But that is all it is, then, if it isn't the word of god. It's not sacred. It's not holy. It's just a collection of metphors, parables, and other fiction. And not particularly good fiction in comparison to the rest of the library of fiction out there (though some of the poems in solomen are kinda hot, really). And if that is all it is then just shut up about it and stop taking people's money in the name of a guy for which there is no non-fictional basis for the existence of.

But go ahead and write me off as a fundamentalist atheist. I'm ready for it.

[smoogatz]

23. I think Jesus is mentioned in the Koran.

Muslims consider him a major prophet, I believe. But not THE prophet.

I get a kick out of the "fundamentalist atheist" label; anyone who would use it seriously has absolutely no understanding of what atheism is, or isn't.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

24. But the Koran was written based upon the Bible.

So the Koran would be null and void as well.

[Orrex]

30. That's a premature conclusion

If the Koran is based only on the bible, and if the bible has been shown to be "null and void," then you're correct.

But I don't think that it's accurate to say that the bible is the sole source of the Koran (nor do I think that you're saying that, to be honest).

The Koran is true or false independent (for the most part) of whether the bible is true or false.

[Goblinmonger]

31. The Jesus part of the Koran

would be based on the bible or on bible-inspired writings. There is no record of this Jesus character in any other place than those two options.

[Orrex]

32. I met him on the bus to Austin once--does that count?

And there was a guy wearing a boot and a sneaker, too.

If that's not a primo basis for theological ruminations, I don't know what is.

[TechBear_Seattle]

53. Not quite true

The Jesus parts of the Koran were based on the teachings of the monophysites, various "heretical" groups of Christians who took refuge in the Arabian penninsula during the 4th and 5th centuries. Most held that Jesus was fully divine with no human nature (a position soundly refuted by the Council of Chalcedon in 451) and taught that the crucifixion was either a meaningless show or that the person killed by the Romans was not Jesus but a substitute (different sects pointed to Simon the Cyrene or Judas Iscariot.) It is interesting to note that as depicted in the Koran, it was not Jesus who died on the cross (see Sura 4:157.)

[BurtWorm]

83. On the question of Jesus, however, it was written some 600 years after

the alleged events the gospels describe, and some 300 after the Roman emperor made Christianity the state religion. The tenets of Christianity were well known in the Arab world by that time. It's ridiculous to argue that because the Koran takes the historicity of Jesus for granted, Jesus must have really existed in history.

[Imperialism Inc.]

33. I don't think that is accurate. At least to specifically say the "Bible"

It would be true to say the same cultural milieu of oral traditions and writings but not the Bible itself. The belief that Jesus had somehow escaped or survived crucifixion (the Muslim view) was present early (2nd and 3rd century). There were strands of belief that he either ascended to heaven or just got someone else to take his place (or both). That of course is not the biblical view.

This may sound like splitting hairs, but I am just trying to point out that the Muslims didn't look at the bible and decide to change the story so that Jesus gets away. Instead it is more likely their views are just one of the early strands that lived on in their area (out of the reach of Rome).

[Bill McBlueState]

36. or fundamentalism, for that matter

Anyone who would use "fundamentalist atheist" seriously has absolutely no understanding of what fundamentalism is, or isn't.

[hedgehog]

27. "If it is , you're screwed and you know the reasons why"

That's why it's referred to as the Good News, I suppose.

[kiahzero]

55. I think you gloss oveer half of that test.

Say, the first half, where you assume that the Bible being "the Word of God" implies that it must be read literally.

[Goblinmonger]

58. I don't think so

If the bible is the word of god, are you arguing that the word of god would be fallible? Because if that is the case, I'm not sure where to go from there. If it is indeed the word of god (or even inspired by god) then how, perchance, can a follower/believer of that god decide which portions of the bible to pick and choose from? How can you write off "Shrimp is an abomination" as simply good dietary practice for that day and time if "Shrimp is an abomination" is the word of god? Where does god tell you in the bible that you can disregard or put your own spin on the stuff that is in the bible? God doesn't.

[kiahzero]

59. You're assuming certain interpretations are logically necessary.

I'm saying that those interpretations are not logically necessary. For instance, God might be telling you not to eat shrimp because they're not healthy. :shrug:

As for textual support for a non-literal reading, I think the fact that much of the words attributed to Jesus in the New Testament are metaphorical (for the purposes of a parable) indicates that a metaphorical reading of the work overall may be appropriate.

Alternatively, you could believe that the Bible was divinely inspired, but was scribed by humans of a particular period and therefore would be cast using certain a priori cultural assumptions.

[cyborg_jim]

60. "Divinely inspired" still leaves one with the need for a 'divine' filter

It just pushes the problem into another definition - it doesn't resolve the basic issue. As far as I can see it just gives believers the opportunity to claim the Holy Spook is explaining exactly to them how to 'filter' the Bible.

As for textual support for a non-literal reading, I think the fact that much of the words attributed to Jesus in the New Testament are metaphorical (for the purposes of a parable) indicates that a metaphorical reading of the work overall may be appropriate.

Jesus is a metaphorical man for how we should behave; he did not exist.

[kiahzero]

61. So you're agreeing with me?

As for textual support for a non-literal reading, I think the fact that much of the words attributed to Jesus in the New Testament are metaphorical (for the purposes of a parable) indicates that a metaphorical reading of the work overall may be appropriate.

Jesus is a metaphorical man for how we should behave; he did not exist.

I wasn't making a claim regarding the fictionality of Jesus. Rather, I was arguing that in a book largely dedicated to extolling his virtue, he is presented as frequently teaching through metaphor, and thus, one might come to the conclusion that such an understanding of a story is superior to a literal understanding.

[cyborg_jim]

62. 'Superior' is subjective.

If one is to conclude metaphorical understanding of the Bible is superior then I postulate the the most metaphorical reading is the most superior.

[Goblinmonger]

64. So they are imbedded metaphors.

The story of Jesus is a metaphor in which metaphors are taught?

and what of the old testament. The story of Lot, Job, and Elisha are seriously fucked up. If they were inspired by god, I want to know what the "metaphoric" take we are supposed to have from those? Don't call someone baldy or a bear will eat you seems pretty straight forward.

Additionally, I don't buy the "reflective of the times" argument either. If god inspired people to write those things, there is no reason for that god to change from a vindictive prick to a really nice guy just because "times were different." Couldn't he have inspired nice stories even back in the day?

[CarbonDate]

93. Genesis does need to be literally true....

...in order for Jesus's death on the cross to be relevant, since he is supposed to have died to absolve mankind of Original Sin, which, as we'll all recall, is when Adam & Eve ate of the Tree of Knowledge. If there was no Original Sin, then Jesus's sacrifice on the cross is superfluous, is it not?

[Critters2]

107. Yep. I always say

Fundies say "The Bible is either all literally true or none of it's true. So all of it's true."
Atheists say "The Bible is either all literally true or none of it's true. So none of it's true."

Both positions lack imagination and an ability to see nuance.

[beam me up scottie]

115. No, atheists usually ask for the evidence that proves it's the WORD OF GOD.

And we're still waiting.

But feel free to lie about us as often as you need to if it comforts you and bolsters your faith.

We understand. ;)

[deepthought42]

7. One of my favorite episodes n/t

[roguevalley]

25. Penn and Teller bore me. I don't care what they think about anything.

[Dorian Gray]

26. Was that an old show?

I think I saw that one over a year ago.

[Evoman]

28. Yeah, its old.

But its hiliarious....especially when they are reading from a stack of bibles, and then throw them away as they read em.

[Imperialism Inc.]

29. I kind of force myself to watch this show from the hardcore libertarians

Penn and Teller. The show varies and can be about debunking obvious garbage, challenging stuff that may make you question things you believe or, sometimes, the only bullshit is the stuff coming out the mouths of the host.

They produce some good stuff but a lot of the episodes are not focused against pseudo-science but instead against the political left. I'm not saying they don't make good points but they make some pretty bad ones too. Watch just about any of the episodes on the environment for example. Showing that some of the "in the field" activists that big environmental groups hire are completely clueless is a valid point, but it doesn't necessarily show that organization's issues are wrong. Talk to some experts! And , no, not just the ones that agree with you! I remember one where they were comparing Global Warming to a pop-culture phenomena in the 1970's about how an ice age was coming. I did some research and it turns out there was almost no presence of this theory in the scientific literature. So they were basically comparing a pop/media hype story on the one hand to real (and massive in quantity) scientific research on the other. I don't know, maybe that's what they teach as science there at the CATO institute (where Penn has a fellowship).

[DemBones DemBones]

34. Two magicians playing theologians on You Tube. Wahoo. nt

[Evoman]

35. Its easy playing theologian

You make up bullshit about bullshit that was made up thousands of years ago.

[DemBones DemBones]

37. It's easy PLAYING anything. Actually doing it is a different matter.

This forum is such a riot. Why do people who don't believe in God or practice any religion spend so much time talking about God and religion?

[varkam]

38. Because aggravating theists is so much *fun*!

Seriously though, theology tends to interest folks like me very much. I didn't just luck into my atheism, I arrived at it after much thought, reading, and discussion on the topic of theology - it's a perpetual interest of mine.

[jgraz]

41. Seriously, atheists are some of the best theologians you can find

The only way to truly study any topic is to be open to all viewpoints, including the possibility that it's all complete bullshit. On the other hand, if you start from the assumption that your beliefs are true and then try to spin the text to support them, you're not really studying anything -- you're just fanwanking.

[Evoman]

40. Why?

I was told they were serving free pizza and juice.

[Random_Australian]

42. Ah, similarly, why do those who believe in anything talk about it?

And I also don't believe that the earth was made 6000 years ago, but tell me that this is the truth and I will dispute it.

But on a much less confrontational level, I am here to find out about people, what makes them tick.

:)

And yes, I spend soooooo much time talking about religion/theology. I'm so glad that you're super-powers allow you to tell the attributes of whole groups at a glance.

[jgraz]

43. Personally, I don't believe in Australia

I think it's all a fraud cooked up to sell fancy new wine and Kylie Minogue CDs.

I mean, are we supposed to believe there are people who actually EAT vegemite??

[Random_Australian]

45. To you I say this: Lemons.

They're foods that are not made better with the addition of either chocolate OR bacon.

[jgraz]

46. Lemon Chocolate Pie

http://herselfsrecipes.com/2007/02/lemon-chocolate-pie.html

[Random_Australian]

47. Tastes awful.

I still win.

Edit: Dragonfruit

[jgraz]

48. Chocolate DragonFruit Cake with Lemon-Bacon Dressing

Still tastes better than vegemite.

[Random_Australian]

49. Interestingly, the American dislike of vegemite is the joke here.

It stems not from vegemite itself, but the american cultural determination of worth. :)

[jgraz]

50. No, I just think Marmite is vastly superior

:P

[Random_Australian]

51. You know, for some reason I just don't feel like kidding around anymore.

Which is odd, given that it is usually ALL I do.

Bah, perhaps the thing about images in the Lounge got to me.

Anyway, askgnjaksgnkasg n to the whole subject of food.

[cyborg_jim]

44. Because we find ourselves in a world gripped by superstition

[WhollyHeretic]

52. We'd have to be suicidal to ignore religion

Before anyone says it, I know the Phelps group is a small minority hated by mostly everyone but there are plenty of large religious groups that promote hatred to the GLBT community

[varkam]

54. Isn't that what theologians do?

[SidDithers]

56. Dawkins on theologians...

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/emptiness_of_theology.shtml

What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference?

Sid

[cyborg_jim]

57. Spot on, which is going to annoy theists.

[Ron Green]

63. What Dawkins doesn't seem to get...

is that his brand of science fundamentalism is outmoded. A purely mechanistic view is as unable to deal with a unified theory as is a "distant God" theology.

If we're going to regain meaningful and sustainable community from the thousands of years of Empire we've endured, we'll need more than such a rigid cosmology.

[Goblinmonger]

65. So just toss "fundamentalism" on anything you disagree with?

Is that the new meme that is being developed? What the hell is scientific fundamentalism anyway?

[Ron Green]

66. It's science without the opening of a possibility of extra-observational reality.

In a Newtonian world, what science has discovered in the last half century makes no sense. Observational capacity has outstripped older frames of reference, and now even relativity is not able to adequately explain the latest particle observations.

Someone like Dawkins, who allows no theology into his science, is just like a fundamentalist Bible-thumper who allows no science into his religion.

If we're going to learn from life, and live life, we have to run from Dawkins as well as from Falwell, in my opinion. They're both fundies.

[cyborg_jim]

67. Um, science cannot deal with anything extra-observational

If it cannot be observed it cannot be a part of science.

As such your 'scientific fundamentalism' contention is merely the standard whining that theists do when they are told that science can't say anything about gods that don't want to show themselves.

[Ron Green]

68. They're at the extra-observational level now, and the fundies are being challenged

to make a paradigm shift. Naturally, a scientist can't admit evidence that doesn't exist, but where does he go from here?

All I'm saying is that old-fashioned science does us no more good, in a real human-potential sense, than does old-time religion.

[cyborg_jim]

70. Sigh.

No, there's no extra-observational level to science. Observation is paramount to science. Without observation we are left with idle speculation.

All I'm saying is that old-fashioned science does us no more good, in a real human-potential sense, than does old-time religion.

How the fuck can you say that with a straight face whilst benefiting so profusely from 'old-fashioned science'? I seriously do not get it.

Old-time/new-time religion? As though there were a difference other than the novelty factor - it's still based on the fundamentally flawed ideas the old-time religions came from.

[Ron Green]

71. Sigh.

Look, I'm sure you're a very earnest young man, and thirty years ago I would've agreed with you. I still embrace science, and I embrace other stuff too.

Maybe you'll widen your view; maybe not.

[cyborg_jim]

74. You got anything but meaningless rhetoric?

Why should I embrace other stuff? It's worthy is what? Why are your thirty years worth a damn? Would you give a crap if someone said, "thirty years ago I would have agreed with you, but I've come to realise that bullshit is not worth a damn?"

[Orrex]

76. Ah, yes: Classic Argument from "I'm older than you."

Sorry, but you need to do better than "Harken to my wisdom, young whippersnappers." If your argument doesn't have any more strength than that (and so far, it doesn't), then you're not going to convince anyone of anything.

The fact that you "embrace science" and "embrace other stuff too" really sums up the entirety of your argument. By putting science and "other stuff" into the same broad category, you're revealing an ignorance of science and an overly forgiving attitude toward the "other stuff."

I'm sure that you've arrived at your conclusions after deep and sincere reflection, but the way that you're formulating them suggests that, rather than achieving a greater fundamental understanding of either, you've relaxed your standards of judgment regarding both.

[Ron Green]

78. Relaxing standards of judgment, in a thoughtful way, is part of what maturity is about,

in my opinion.

[cyborg_jim]

86. Relaxing standards -> reduced quality

[immoderate]

103. Extra observational is the same as not real.

If something has an effect, it is observable. If something has no effect (non-observable) how can it have reality?

--IMM

[Leopolds Ghost]

118. You're confusing Schrodinger's hypothesis with logical positivism. n/t

[immoderate]

122. Ooops! 'Scuse me!

:blush:

--IMM

[Evoman]

69. Hehe....not this again.

Dude, how can ANYTHING be open to extr-observational reality (whatever that means). If something doesn't show itself to us, interact with us in a physical manner, and hides itself from all attempts to observe it, it might as well not exist. If we can not make instruments to measure it, and can never experience it, then it might as well not exist.

And it isn't even that science isn't open to it...its the probablity that nothing extra-observational EXISTS that keeps us from wasting our lives trying to study these things. There is a huge difference between someone like Dawkins and someone like Falwell and your attempts to equate them is sad and ignorant.

If you show Dobson evidence of evolution (which we have tons of) or evidence that things in the bible CANNOT be true, he DENIES the evidence.

If you show Dawkins evidence that god exists, he would not Deny it. Is it his fault that theologicans and religous people bring NOTHING to the table except bullshit claims that fold at the smallest scrutiny.

I'm sorry, but religions rely on ignorance to exist. It relies on what scientist DON'T know. It hides in the gaps.

[Ron Green]

72. If you spent all your time on the "Automobile & Truck" Forum,

would you do so just to deny the existence of cars and trucks?

:shrug:

[Evoman]

73. Lol...if the world was cars and trucks, and the people

on that forum were arguing in favour of punching air holes into their hoods to increase performance I might very well go in.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/01/20/nedflanders2_narrowweb__200x269,1.jpg

[Ron Green]

79. I'm equating Dobson with Dawkins only in that each is at an extreme of a very important continuum,

and in the middle of this continuum is where life is found. There's just no life without spirit, in any human tradition. Our understanding of science has given us the physical world we've got, and it hasn't really done much for our happiness. I mean, the Masai people rate above most industrialized societies on a happiness scale.

Atheism is fine for individuals who are rejecting the bullshit fear-based religions of their upbringing, but it's got nothing to offer groups of people who need to build real community. That requires spirit.

[cosmik debris]

84. That's YOUR continuum

And I might add, George Bush's continuum too. You put the reality based community on one end and the faith based community on the other end. But reality is not a continuum. You just made that up out of whole cloth to give your faith the semblance of universal importance that it doesn't have.

In fact, there is observable reality and there is imagination. Imagination has no significance to anyone other than the imaginer unless that imaginer tries to force his imagination onto other people. But your imagination has no more significance than the power you have to force it on others. And your imagination is no more significant that the imagination of Stan Lee or Quinton Tarentino. Neither have any significant impact on the reality that we all MUST live by.

Your continuum only applies to people who live in their imagination. And their imagination has no impact on me or any reality.

[Ron Green]

87. I don't think you've accurately described "my" continuum.

It's not reality vs. faith. It's the absolute refusal to allow a spiritual realm, vs. a belief that we are controlled by a magical entity. You may see these as the same; I don't, of course. But to say that faith doesn't have universal importance is to admit you haven't read history, or studied cultures. Religious expression has been far more important in human history than the relatively recent accomplishments of science, and there's no reason to believe we are any more fully-realized as human beings than "primitive" people living in pre-Empire days.

My point, though, is that to compare Dawkins' refusal to accept ANY spiritual dimension of life to Falwell's absolute assertion that his God will judge us as Falwell tells us he will, is reasonable. Each position is at the extreme of where people live their lives, and stand ready to build tolerant and loving communities that reject not only magical thinking, but cold materialism.

[cosmik debris]

88. Your spiritual realm exists only in the imagination

And the history you speak of is not the history of god influencing mankind, it is the history of imaginative zealots influencing mankind. Remember, white supremacy was a myth that had an enormous impact on culture, but it is no more valid than the myth of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Just because bad ideas influence mankind doesn't mean that they have any basis in reality. If you judge the validity of the idea by its impact, white supremacy must have been 100% true in the ante-bellum years.

Of course Dawkins refuses to give credibility to the spiritual realm. There is no reason to award any credibility to the various imaginary friends that people tend to dream up. There is no evidence, there is no impact, there is no interaction between the imaginary and the real. For all practical purposes, gods are nonexistent. There is no practical application for the concept of god.

It is bizarre to me that you pose the idea that strict adherence to reality is an extreme position. If a person rejects magical thinking as you suggest, what is left other than reality?

[Ron Green]

90. When you have found a new answer to the last question in your post,

you'll understand what I'm talking about.

Best wishes to you.

[cosmik debris]

91. So you don't have that answer?

That's no surprise from a person who believes that he can live in a world that is half magic and half real.

Your imaginary world may serve you well, but it has no relevance outside your own skull.

[cosmik debris]

95. I get it now!

Your analogy of a linear continuum broke down when you realized that you can't be half way between rational thinking and irrational thinking without being half irrational. So you turned the burden on me so that you won't look so foolish for creating such a foolish analogy!

And yet I am forced to agree that you are in fact half irrational.

And best wishes to you too.

[varkam]

92. With all due respect

My point, though, is that to compare Dawkins' refusal to accept ANY spiritual dimension of life to Falwell's absolute assertion that his God will judge us as Falwell tells us he will, is reasonable.

Dawkins asserts no such refusal, neither does Harris. In fact, Harris seems to endorse spirituality through Buddhist practices. I've read several of Dawkins' books and what I gather is that he is actually a very spiritual man, but just not in the metaphysical sense. He does refuse to accept, however, any spiritual dimension (insofar as metaphysical concerns go) to life in the face of zero evidence to support those claims. That, from my perspective, is a far cry from the likes of Falwell and his ilk going so far to claim absolute certainty when there is absolute nothingness to support those claims.

[Evoman]

89. Your continuum means nothing to me.

It is something you and other liberal theists have invented to put yourselves at some imaginary middle point, so that you can criticize "the extremes".

Anybody can make an artificial continuum, and pretend it means something. A person who likes to kill could say, "Well, at one extreme we have Pedro Lopez who has killed and raped 300 women. At the other extreme, there are people who think murdering and raping women is wrong ALL the time. I am in the middle of this continuum...I'm not an extremist"

Not to mention that you, and every other theist, like to mischaracterize Dawkins. Dawkins would be religious if someone showed him proof of god. On the other hand, there is nothing any of us could do to make you, Dobson, or most other theists stop believing in god. Yet you would probably argue that Dawkins is closed minded or closed to the spiritual world, when it is in fact the other way around. The spiritual world is closed to Dawkins, and all of us who do not believe, because it never shows evidence for itself.

An open mind believes something when it is shown good proof for that concept. A closed mind makes its mind with no evidence.

Your continuum is false.

[cyborg_jim]

75. Argument by stupid analogy

The mainstay of those who simply cannot pony up the goods.

[Ron Green]

80. Right, I should have said,

"Would you do so just to scorn and ridicule cars and trucks?"

[varkam]

85. Saying that something is wrong and demonstrably harmful

Is neither scorn nor ridicule.

[Orrex]

77. Oh, come on

Your analogy doesn't even make sense. This is the "Religion/Theology" forum and no one here is denying the existence of religion or theology. Instead, some here deny the existence of God, some question God's existence, and others point out that God is becoming less and less necessary as our understanding of the universe grows.

[Leopolds Ghost]

119. Wow... positivism rears its ugly head

Are we retreating to the High Modernism of the fascist era?

We hear a lot about religion hiding in the gaps here on DU...

If science as you claim consists of the set of observable
phenomena, plus (as your opponent claims!) other phenomena
as well, then by definition anything which does not fall in
the "gap" of un-observable phenomena will be considered
scientific, whether or not it says anything about religion,
provided that it is translated into scientific semantics
as the number one achievement of Postmodern scholars has
been to point out how scientific discourse is shaped.)
It is a tautological argument that is ultimately based on
positivism -- the disturbing notion that nothing in the
universe matters except that which is observable by a machine.

[immoderate]

123. On the chance that you're serious...

I'm not sure what you mean by using the word "matters." To whom, and with what criterion? How shall we think of the set of objects which in themselves are unobservable, and have not even a theoretically detectable effect on the universe? I call those things non-existent. That doesn't mean there aren't an infinity of objects that populate that space. They're just unknown and unreal. Also, for something to be a "phenomenon" it has to occur, and how can it occur if there is no manifestation? How can you say something occurred if nothing happened? Observable phenomena is a redundancy. All phenomena are observable. Non-observable phenomena is therefore an oxy-moron.

I guess you're right about the tautology. (I've been accused of worse.) Science is a method of discovering and isolating information. It's a rather contained system as it has mechanisms for ejecting false or discredited information. It works well because it is a closed system. Non scientific information doesn't work within the system. Similarly, logic, one of the tools of science, doesn't work unless all the premises are statements (something whose truth value can be determined.)

I have a friend who spends time worrying about ghosts. I ask him what ghosts do besides going around and scaring people, and he can't tell me. Do they kill people, steal their shit, rape and torture? Not many reports of that. My friend doesn't worry about cancer or heart attacks, or being hit by the cross town bus, or choking on a frankfurter, all common causes of death. He worries about ghosts.

Before you consider scientific types arrogant. Consider an analogy. (Grant that analogies prove nothing.) Science works by strict observance of its rules, as do sports. What if the rule about stepping out of bounds was not consistently enforced? Some times it's OK, sometimes it gets called. What good are the results? Are athletes arrogant for strictly enforcing the rules?

Spiritualists, and psychics have no shortage of customers, but they need to get scientific recognition as well. Disingenuous (ironic?) that they put it down then.

--IMM

[Imperialism Inc.]

81. Why should I care one iota about things which cannot be observed?

If it can't be observed then it has no effect on me and this world. If you are claiming it does have an effect then I should be able to observe the effect (and so it is not outside observation to begin with).

[Leopolds Ghost]

120. Have you ever seen an imaginary number of objects?

Your name, Waking Life, is ironic to this discussion since the movie in question is a gnostic tract, and a refutation of solipsism and materialism.

[muriel_volestrangler]

97. What latest particle observations?

Yes, relativity may not explain them; but, since relativity has never been about explaining sub-atomic particles, that's not exactly surprising. Quantum theory would be the area to look at, not relativity. There are further hypotheses about strings, superstrings and so on, that people are developing. But how do you think 'spirituality' is connected with these observations? (And please define 'spirituality' if you do claim there is a connection)

Have you any evidence at all that Dawkins insists on physics (or any other science) theories that have been superseded in the last 50 years?

[Ron Green]

99. By insisting that only a mechanistic process of mutation and natural selection

has produced the world that we know, and by treating this rigid view as proven fact rather than a basis for conducting science, Dawkins holds to an old-fashioned (and fundamentalist) position that nature functions with a predictability that is understandable and explainable by humans. A more modern scientific view does not deny the existence of what it cannot measure, thereby allowing the higher orders of human consciousness, for example.

Scientists don't lose what they've already got by expanding into new ways of knowing, just as spiritual seekers can and do grow beyond dogma of the past.

[cyborg_jim]

100. Fundamentalist = new boogey word for bad

Never let the semantics get in the way of some good fearmongering.

A more modern scientific view does not deny the existence of what it cannot measure, thereby allowing the higher orders of human consciousness, for example.

BOLLOCKS.

Science has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to say about things that cannot be measured. Not a goddamn thing. Stop pretending this is a more 'modern' scientific view. It's not scientific and it NEVER WILL BE. It cannot be.

Higher orders of human consciousness indeed - vauge, meaningless, unscientific.

Scientists don't lose what they've already got by expanding into new ways of knowing,

Despite protests to the contrary those who claim to have such ways don't.

I'm sorry science is so superior woo-woos, I really am, but that's because it WORKS. Stop trying to ride your own non-functional crap on its coat-tails.

[Ron Green]

101. Wow, that's a pretty rigid-sounding post.

Science is in no danger of not working anymore. Maybe you could just relax.

[cyborg_jim]

102. Wrong. Science is very much in danger of not working when it's not done correctly.

That's the goddamn point you woo-woos don't get. For you evidence is an inconvenience that gets in the way of fanciful thinking.

Please though, I'm sure saying I'm 'fundamentalist', or 'closed-minded' or 'rigid' is going to change the fact you're wrong if you say it enough times.

[Ron Green]

104. "Done correctly" used to mean Newtonian reality. Then space and time started to curve.

Then there were Uncertainty and other observational funnies. All I'm saying is we've all got to GROW, as scientists and as humans. My rejection of rigidity and fundamentalism is no more dangerous to human advancement as is your characterization of me as a "woo-woo."

[cyborg_jim]

105. Sorry, you don't know what you're talking about

Then there were Uncertainty and other observational funnies.

So, you want to tell me Quantum Mechanics makes 'higher forms of conciousness' a scientific plausibility don't you?

All I'm saying is we've all got to GROW, as scientists and as humans.

And all I'm saying is that's meaningless bullshit rhetoric designed to sound pretty but be vacuous in content.

My rejection of rigidity and fundamentalism is no more dangerous to human advancement as is your characterization of me as a "woo-woo."

One doesn't complain about correct ideas being fundamental - if they are correct you don't need to change them!

So you can whine all you like that science doesn't care that you want a god or whatever else in the equation - it's not going to change just because the method doesn't let you have what you want. That's not how it works.

Science is better than just making shit up. That's not dogmatic - that's reality.

[Dogmudgeon]

112. This is "Bollocks"?

"A more modern scientific view does not deny the existence of what it cannot measure"

In other words, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence after all -- right?

:shrug:

And this "woo-woo" thing -- it's like when when Don Imus calls female basketball players "nappy-headed hos", right? Or when Michael Richards ... you get the picture. (Well, I hope you do.)

--p!
Frequently embarrassed to be an atheist.

[cyborg_jim]

113. Okay

In other words, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence after all -- right?

No.

And this "woo-woo" thing -- it's like when when Don Imus calls female basketball players "nappy-headed hos", right? Or when Michael Richards ... you get the picture. (Well, I hope you do.)

No.

Frequently embarrassed to be an atheist.

Your choice.

[Dogmudgeon]

117. My choice

The Argument Clinic

--p!

[beam me up scottie]

116. Woo woo is more like the "skeptinazi" thing, except without the comparison to Nazis.

Don't feel too bad, lots of us are embarrassed by atheist apologetics too.

[muriel_volestrangler]

106. So you can't point to these observations you claimed have been made

and neither can you point to anything that Dawkins claims that has been superseded. You made these 2 claims, but haven't tried to back them up in any way. Your argument has no basis in reality, it seems.

[cmkramer]

94. I don't know about Teller, but I think Penn Jillette is an atheist

Why would it be so shocking that he'd think the Bible was "bullshit"?

On the other hand, they love Wal-Mart.

[Critters2]

108. Love Wal-Mart?

More proof atheism offers no ethical framework.

[Evoman]

109. Most. bigotted. post. EVER.

I'm an atheist and I don't shop at Walmart. My Christian relatives do.

I honestly hope your joking, and if you are, please disregard this post.

[Critters2]

110. I was joking.

Didn't think this was necessary :sarcasm: but I guess..

And now, something about atheists lacking a sense of humor...:)

[Evoman]

111. You have to actually be funny, for my sense of humour to kick in.

:P

[MistressOverdone]

121. You know

I wish they would just have kept quiet. I watch entertainers to be entertained. That's their business.

Once they venture into the "I'm right and you're wrong" territory, they just aren't entertaining to me anymore. Then they become..well, I don't know...pundits...or something but no longer entertainers.

Kind of like a vessel that you drink from. It it is half full of lemon juice and you innocently pour milk into it to drink, the whole thing curdles up and it isn't of use to you anymore.

Not that they don't have to right to voice their opinions; they do. But to me, once they have, their entertainment value is nil.

I put Tom Cruise, Dennis Miller, Rosie O'Donnel, Al Franken in the same category. They are good spokesmen for their causes, but they have lost entertainment value for me. I guess they've made their millions so they don't care.

[immoderate]

124. Perhaps so, but many artists adopt an ethical position.

It's particularly so among magicians, for whom there is a tradition of debunking, from Houdini, through Randi, to Penn. The fact is that people use magic to defraud others, usually vulnerable and desperate, and rob them of their fortune and health. :(

I have nothing against pure entertainers, but Bob Dylan and John Lennon (and their mentors) changed the sensibilities of a generation.

--IMM

[MistressOverdone]

125. I didn't know that about magicians

and I agree about Dylan and Lennon, but they were troubadours, really, and their genre was protest music, particularly Dylan. So they don't quite count. When I say "entertainer" I think of someone who I look to for some relief from the heavy thoughts of the world.

[immoderate]

126. I think you want the lounge...

;)
--IMM

[MistressOverdone]

128. LOL

push me in the right direction...I haven't had my coffee yet.

But to continue the subject, when I was younger I was much more selective in my choice of entertainment. Now I have only one requirement. It has to make me forget my troubles while I'm watching it. I used to hate "dumb" comedy, now I rather like it. Of course, after reality shows, dumb comedy is rather a relief.

Different strokes.

[immoderate]

129. I agree that it's important to laugh. A lot.

And there's no telling what people will find funny. I've seen Dodge Ball six times! Laughed every time.

I agree that I'm not as much a "hard" art person as I was in my youth. Entertainment shouldn't be work.

--IMM

[cyborg_jim]

127. Some of us like to be entertained and think at the same time

[eagler]

130. What do ya know? there are even fundamentalist atheists

[cosmik debris]

131. Would you be kind enough to define that term

"fundamentalist atheists"? What exactly does that mean?

[eagler]

133. Certainly. Bigoted Atheism

[cosmik debris]

134. I understand

Any one who points out the inconsistencies in the Bible is a bigot. Anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot. Anyone who presents evidence that you are wrong is subject to your insults. Who is the bigot here?

[eagler]

136. If I try to force my beliefs on you and openly denegrate your beliefs

then yes I am a bigot. If I use revisionist history or debatable history tovalidate my position - the yes I am a bigot. This is a multicultural multicreed world and lack of respect for anyone's beliefs is a threat to all.

[cyborg_jim]

137. No, automatic deference to belief just because it is belief is a threat to all

Ideas should be respected on merit, not on how upset someone gets by criticism.

[cosmik debris]

138. So you would respect the KKK's beliefs?

I mean, I can understand tolerating their beliefs, but respect for hateful racism is beyond me. How about the belief that all Jews should be exterminated? Do you respect that belief too? How about the belief that it is OK to kill people who don't share your religion? Is that a respectable belief?

[eagler]

139. Do I respect those beliefs ? No but

the courts have held that they do have a right to those beliefs even if they look like fools.

[cyborg_jim]

140. You called them fools. You bigot. n/t

[eagler]

141. Yep I'm guilty, A bigot against bigots.

[cyborg_jim]

142. So much for multiculturalism then.

[eagler]

143. I'm sorry . I didn't realize that you belong to the KKK.

[cyborg_jim]

144. I'm sorry - I didn't realise you were the decider of what is and what is not a valid culture

It is nice to know who to ask when I need to know whether or not I am free to attack an idea or not without being a bigot.

[eagler]

145. Glad I could be of service. Please call for an appointment next time.

[cosmik debris]

146. "...lack of respect for anyone's beliefs is a threat to all."

And you say that you don't respect those beliefs. So It is safe to conclude that you are a threat to all. Do you see the hypocrisy yet?

[cyborg_jim]

147. I seriously doubt it.

[beam me up scottie]

132. Those polysyllabic words are real boogabears, aren't they?

Definition of "fundamentalism": fun·da·men·tal·ism (fŭn'də-mĕn'tl-ĭz'əm)
n.

1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

2. a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.

b. Adherence to the theology of this .

Please explain what fundamentalist principles atheists adhere to, how and why we oppose secularism, what scriptures we use, what our theology is, and how you came to the conclusion that a lack of belief in gods can be considered a type of fundamentalism.

Take your time, I realize there are many right wing christian websites and it's difficult to choose just the right material to post on a liberal political forum.

[varkam]

135. I've heard that term many, many times.

I've yet to hear anyone mention what religious text, exactly, atheists are fundamental about.

[Heartling]

148. I saw the whole episode

It was a great episode.