Penn & Teller barbecue the Bible

[CplFerro]

You'll love it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8463073960287313294&q=penn+and+teller+********

[Foster Zygote]

Loved the bit comparing the claims of Jesus' resurrection with the claims that Elvis isn't dead. Favorite line: "Monty Python's Life of Brian is more historically accurate than Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ."

Steven

[grayman]

TiVoed this earlier. Coincidence that I saved it to videotape this morning. Have to share it with a few fundy friends of mine.

:D

[andyandy]

deconstructing the bible is really less challenging than shooting fish in a barrel.....but good video none the less :)

[Alareth]

deconstructing the bible is really less challenging than shooting fish in a barrel.....but good video none the less :)

Have you ever tried shooting a fish in a barrel? ;)

[RandFan]

Have you ever tried shooting a fish in a barrel? ;) Yes, I recomend 6" of water, a 12 gauge shotgun and no choke. Makes great shark chum.

[BillC]

You'll love it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8463073960287313294&q=penn+and+teller+********
Ooh, zing!!

[davefoc]

Yes, I recomend 6" of water, a 12 gauge shotgun and no choke. Makes great shark chum.

The depth and range of RandFan's knowledge continues to amaze me.

[Crowbot]

Bible pages are great for rolling papers. Coincidence?

Please buy the penn and teller DVDs if you like watching them free on google video...Support the cause and whatnot.

[I less than three logic]

I have season 1 and 2 of P&T’s BS. This episode is on disk 3 of season 2, 3rd episode on the disk if I recall correctly. :)

Anyone know when season 3 is being released on DVD, or has it already?

[Alareth]

Sadly, I've never enen had a chance to see Penn & Teller Get Killed. I must make up for this.

I also need a new copy of Penn & Teller's Cruel Tricks for Dear Friends.

[c4ts]

Yes, I recomend 6" of water, a 12 gauge shotgun and no choke. Makes great shark chum.

Or you could simply stuff the barrel full of dead fish and fire into it with a handgun.

[grayman]

Or you could simply stuff the barrel full of dead fish and fire into it with a handgun.

I'm thinking of a great TAM stunt: Get a huge cannon, load it with fish, aim at Sylvia Browne...

:D

[Dark Jaguar]

Some of it didn't really go "all the way" with certain arguments. Fun for people who already don't believe in the bible, but ya know, they should really expand that show to a full hour. More time to actually expose these things. I'm sure they can point out the logical flaws, in depth, and still be entertainment. Just read out the logical flaws and contradictions as though you are reading a joke, bam, instant comedy gold.

[grayman]

Some of it didn't really go "all the way" with certain arguments. Fun for people who already don't believe in the bible, but ya know, they should really expand that show to a full hour. More time to actually expose these things. I'm sure they can point out the logical flaws, in depth, and still be entertainment. Just read out the logical flaws and contradictions as though you are reading a joke, bam, instant comedy gold.

How about a film like The Aristocrats? A who's who of comics spend the entire film reading the Bible as a joke. You may have something there.

Rowan Atkinson alone would be worth it.

[Beerina]

I have season 1 and 2 of P&T’s BS.

I like the middle-aged redhead in the nudist episode.

Thank god Penn wasn't one of 'em.

[alfaniner]

I have season 1 and 2 of P&T’s BS. This episode is on disk 3 of season 2, 3rd episode on the disk if I recall correctly. :)

Anyone know when season 3 is being released on DVD, or has it already?

My Netflix queue says October.

[KingMerv00]

Yup...the Bible episode was one of the better ones. Funny stuff.

Plus, Michael Shermer makes an appearance.

[Dark Jaguar]

How about a film like The Aristocrats? A who's who of comics spend the entire film reading the Bible as a joke. You may have something there.

Rowan Atkinson alone would be worth it.

Never heard of it, but it sounds amusing. My idea was that instead of simply saying there are two creation stories and barely skimming the surface of that, and giving the "other guy" too much weight with his own side (ridiculous yes, but still effective for those who just never "got" what reason was all about), the idea would be to actually READ the two creation stories and point out the direct logical inconsistencies. What I mean is, it's one thing to say "this ideal of god seems pretty cruel in this book and also these things are pretty silly and have no evidence", and it's another more powerful tool to say "this part is directly contradictory to this part and I'll show them both to you right now".

I will say this. They did a pretty good job exposing the total lack of evidence and countering the one guy's arguments by basically flatly calling it out as saying "our evidence is that there is no evidence at all".

[alfaniner]

Someone have an alternate link for this vid? It seems to have been removed.

I need a link to it for a rebuttal.

[Huntster]

Penn and Teller are a pair of fools.

[KingMerv00]

Penn and Teller are a pair of fools.

"Fools" as in jesters? I agree.

Personally, I don't think they are the best at presenting arguments but the Bible episode is pretty spot on.

[T'ai Chi]

Penn and Teller for information on religion?

Didn't Penn say something like Christians are f***tards?

[Dog Boots]

Penn and Teller are a pair of fools.

Opinion........check
Spelling.......check
Grammar......check
Arguments....n/a
Relevance....Error: get.arguments() returned 0 value

Please run this test before next post.

[elliotfc]

Opinion........check
Spelling.......check
Grammar......check
Arguments....n/a
Relevance....Error: get.arguments() returned 0 value

Please run this test before next post.

Such a post is rather common round these parts...except for atheists being the target of course.

Barbecuing a bible. Tee hee. They so clever! That'll show those Christians!

[jjramsey]

Plus, Michael Shermer makes an appearance.

Unfortunately, in his appearance, he said that Apollonius of Tyana supposedly had been crucified, which is, AFAICT, dead wrong. It is certainly not in Philostratus' Life of Apollonius. Indeed, calling Apollonius a kind of messiah is grossly misleading. He was basically a philosopher-magician, not a revolutionary leader, or someone trying to reform his people in preparation for a coming judgment, or any other analogue of the various Jewish conceptions of a messiah.

P&T here are spreading b******t as well as debunking it.

[Beerina]

Unfortunately, in his appearance, he said that Apollonius of Tyana supposedly had been crucified, which is, AFAICT, dead wrong. It is certainly not in Philostratus' Life of Apollonius. Indeed, calling Apollonius a kind of messiah is grossly misleading. He was basically a philosopher-magician, not a revolutionary leader, or someone trying to reform his people in preparation for a coming judgment, or any other analogue of the various Jewish conceptions of a messiah.

P&T here are spreading b******t as well as debunking it.

Don't worry. There're plenty of proto-religions that Christianity evolved from and later competed with to go around. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras)

[jjramsey]

Don't worry. There're plenty of proto-religions that Christianity evolved from and later competed with to go around. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras)

More 19th claptrap, from you anyway, not the article, which seems to steer clear of much of the nonsense about Mithras (http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Mithras) found online.

If you want a religion from which Christianity evolved, start with Judaism.

[davefoc]

jjramsey,
I tend to agree (based on a somewhat informed view) that the similarities between Christianity and other preceding relgions and beliefs is exaggerated.

None the less, I felt the tone of your last few posts goes a little too far. For the most part people were making up Christianity in the first few centuries following the death of Jesus. Not all of the ideas were pulled out of the ether, it is reasonable to suspect that the people that were making up Christianity were inspired by other reliigious ideas beyond Judaism which seems to have been affected by hellenization, itself.

I agree with your idea that is very likely that Jesus existed. Beyond that I don't think we know much about the nature or teachings of Jesus. What we do know is that he left no writings that are available to us today, most of the words attributed to him almost certainly weren't spoken by him and most of the details concerning the description of his life are probably false. From that we know that people were making stuff up like mad about Jesus and some of that stuff has the potential to have been inspired by other relgious ideas.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Penn and Teller are a pair of fools.
Opinion........check
Spelling.......check
Grammar......check
Arguments....n/a
Relevance....Error: get.arguments() returned 0 value

Please run this test before next post.

No test needed.

My opinion is that Penn and Teller are a pair of liars and fools (as in buffoons).

Period.

[Pauliesonne]

Hunty, have you ever asked David Swidler why he's not a christian?

You might just get the awakening you so sorely need.

[elliotfc]

None the less, I felt the tone of your last few posts goes a little too far. For the most part people were making up Christianity in the first few centuries following the death of Jesus.

Certainly the religious dogmas developed over the first few centuries, but the basics of the life of Christ were established by the synoptic gospels 55-85 AD.

I agree with your idea that is very likely that Jesus existed. Beyond that I don't think we know much about the nature or teachings of Jesus. What we do know is that he left no writings that are available to us today, most of the words attributed to him almost certainly weren't spoken by him and most of the details concerning the description of his life are probably false. From that we know that people were making stuff up like mad about Jesus and some of that stuff has the potential to have been inspired by other relgious ideas.

There's the letter to Agbar, but most people doubt the authenticity of it (Eusebius being a notable exception).

Your last paragraph was basically my mindset whilst in high school. I guess I was impressed that those who knew Christ were willing to die for the story. It's not just dying for faith, or beliefs, but dying for events in a person's life that either happened or didn't happen.

I am content to have faith in the canonical gospels. I'm open-minded enough to understand and appreciate the fact that I could be wrong, and if I'm wrong, oh well. I don't know about the "most of the words attributed to him almost certainly weren't spoken by him" bit, I think people had better memories when it come to that stuff back then, no tape recorders and notepads back then. As for most details "probably being false", I don't know how you'd calculate the probability of that.

-Elliot

[Huntster]

Hunty, have you ever asked David Swidler why he's not a christian?

Nope. Nor have I asked you.

I really don't give much of a damn what others believe or don't believe.

You might just get the awakening you so sorely need.

No, I wouldn't.

I awakened years ago.

[jjramsey]

Not all of the ideas were pulled out of the ether, it is reasonable to suspect that the people that were making up Christianity were inspired by other reliigious ideas beyond Judaism which seems to have been affected by hellenization, itself.

True, but the Hellenistic influences on theology seem mostly to have come from Greek philosophy, especially Platonism, rather than pagan myths per se.

[Pauliesonne]

Nope. Nor have I asked you.

I really don't give much of a damn what others believe or don't believe.



No, I wouldn't.

I awakened years ago.

Nope.

You just went backwards.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
...I awakened years ago.
Nope.

You just went backwards.

That's your opinion.

Mine is different.

[Pauliesonne]

That's your opinion.

Mine is different.

Well, it's your choice.

[ImaginalDisc]

Unfortunately, in his appearance, he said that Apollonius of Tyana supposedly had been crucified, which is, AFAICT, dead wrong. It is certainly not in Philostratus' Life of Apollonius. Indeed, calling Apollonius a kind of messiah is grossly misleading. He was basically a philosopher-magician, not a revolutionary leader, or someone trying to reform his people in preparation for a coming judgment, or any other analogue of the various Jewish conceptions of a messiah.

Do you have any evidence that Jesus was crucified, or that he was a messiah?

[elliotfc]

Do you have any evidence that Jesus was crucified, or that he was a messiah?

First, I don't think you're appreciating the context of the point. The Life of Appollonius being analogous to the canonical gospels...and jjramsey was responding to the idea that the gospels copped the crucifixion when it can't be found in the analogue.

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.

-Elliot

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
That's your opinion.

Mine is different.
Well, it's your choice.

We all have choices. I've made mine, and I assume you've made yours.

All is well.

[elliotfc]

We all have choices. I've made mine, and I assume you've made yours.

All is well.

And then we die. You two have that in common. You can argue that you're both going in the same *real* direction, and the banter is just filler.

-Elliot

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
We all have choices. I've made mine, and I assume you've made yours.

All is well.
And then we die. You two have that in common. You can argue that you're both going in the same *real* direction, and the banter is just filler.....
Yup.

When I die, if there really wasn't a God or afterlife, what did I lose in life?

When Pauliesonne dies, and if there is a God and afterlife, what's he gonna say?

Rejection of God is the ultimate in losing, and for all the wrong reasons.

[fuelair]

The depth and range of RandFan's knowledge continues to amaze me.

Just remember to use stainless steel pellets or you will need to be careful in eating the shark.

[Pauliesonne]

Yup.

When I die, if there really wasn't a God or afterlife, what did I lose in life?

When Pauliesonne dies, and if there is a God and afterlife, what's he gonna say?

Rejection of God is the ultimate in losing, and for all the wrong reasons.

...and for all you know the Jews were correct and you are rejecting God.

Tell me....when you go to bed tonight, will the thought ever enter your head about what awaits after your death.

I once did.

[RandFan]

The depth and range of RandFan's knowledge continues to amaze me. I missed this stroke to my ego. You flatter me.

[Buckaroo]

Yup.

When I die, if there really wasn't a God or afterlife, what did I lose in life?

When Pauliesonne dies, and if there is a God and afterlife, what's he gonna say?

Rejection of God is the ultimate in losing, and for all the wrong reasons.

Please tell me a member of this forum didn't just trot out Pascal's Wager -- isn't this one of the most thoroughly refuted ideas in philosophy?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Yup.

When I die, if there really wasn't a God or afterlife, what did I lose in life?

When Pauliesonne dies, and if there is a God and afterlife, what's he gonna say?

Rejection of God is the ultimate in losing, and for all the wrong reasons.
...and for all you know the Jews were correct and you are rejecting God.

I worship the same God as the Jews.

Tell me....when you go to bed tonight, will the thought ever enter your head about what awaits after your death.

Nope. I fall asleep really fast.

I tend to think of the afterlife when thinking about loved ones who have passed on.

I once did.

And what did you figure awaits after your death?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Yup.

When I die, if there really wasn't a God or afterlife, what did I lose in life?

When Pauliesonne dies, and if there is a God and afterlife, what's he gonna say?

Rejection of God is the ultimate in losing, and for all the wrong reasons.
Please tell me a member of this forum didn't just trot out Pascal's Wager

Okay.

A member of this forum did not just trot out Pascal's Wager.

isn't this one of the most thoroughly refuted ideas in philosophy?

I don't know. Don't care, either.

[Pauliesonne]

I worship the same God as the Jews.



Nope. I fall asleep really fast.

I tend to think of the afterlife when thinking about loved ones who have passed on.



And what did you figure awaits after your death?

If a group believe in a donkey, it is one thing.

If a group believe in a donkey with a subrero, it's another thing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I figured the afterlife is something that life itself can and will never understand and all that claim to know can't because no human can.

[RandFan]

I worship the same God as the Jews.Depends on how you define god. Jews don't subscribe to the concept of trinity. Jews don't believe that Christ is god nor do they believe in a holy ghost (AIU).

[ImaginalDisc]

First, I don't think you're appreciating the context of the point. The Life of Appollonius being analogous to the canonical gospels...and jjramsey was responding to the idea that the gospels copped the crucifixion when it can't be found in the analogue.

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.

-Elliot

None of which is at all relevant to the question I asked. Thanks for playing.

[Pauliesonne]

Depends on how you define god. Jews don't subscribe to the concept of trinity. Jews don't believe that Christ is god nor do they believe in a holy ghost (AIU).

See, that's the problem.

When I try to say that, my mind goes completely blankkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

[Buckaroo]

Okay.

A member of this forum did not just trot out Pascal's Wager.

*Whew.* Thanks! :D

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I worship the same God as the Jews.

If a group believe in a donkey, it is one thing.

If a group believe in a donkey with a subrero, it's another thing.

It's still a donkey. It's just wearing a hat.

I figured the afterlife is something that life itself can and will never understand and all that claim to know can't because no human can.

That's pretty much how I see it, too.

[Huntster]

*Whew.* Thanks! :D

You're welcome!

[Huntster]

...Thanks for playing.

I think he's probably "played" with you before, knows your "game", and is too wise to "play" with you anymore.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I worship the same God as the Jews.

Depends on how you define god.

God: (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.htm#g)

The infinite divine being, one in being yet three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God has revealed himself as the "One who is," as truth and love, as creator of all that is, as the author of divine revelation, and as the source of salvation (198, 279).

Jews don't subscribe to the concept of trinity. Jews don't believe that Christ is god nor do they believe in a holy ghost (AIU).

Okay. I worship the same God as the Jews, but they don't worship the same complete God as me.

[RandFan]

Okay. I worship the same God as the Jews, but they don't worship the same complete God as me. Jews believe in A
Christians believe in B

For Jews A is not B
For Christians B = Not B

Very good.

[Huntster]

Jews believe in A
Christians believe in B

For Jews A is not B
For Christians B = Not B

Very good.

No, I think that's faulty.

Jews believe in A.
Christians believe in A, B, and C.

Jews don't accept B (as Christians do) nor C, but Christians certainly accept A.

Penn and Teller don't accept anything. They will lie in order to make poor examples of others, but by doing so they have become liars. They say their lies are justified.

I say that they're simply liars and fools.

[RandFan]

No, I think that's faulty.

Jews believe in A.
Christians believe in A, B, and C.

Jews don't accept B (as Christians do) nor C, but Christians certainly accept A. But to a Christian who believes in the trinity A is B is C. That is not the same as A.

[RandFan]

Penn and Teller don't accept anything. They will lie in order to make poor examples of others, but by doing so they have become liars. They say their lies are justified. What did they lie about?

[Huntster]

But to a Christian who believes in the trinity A is B is C. That is not the same as A.

It includes A.

[Pauliesonne]

It includes A.


You just don't get it.

[Huntster]

What did they lie about?

They created a lousy fake Bigfoot video with the goal of trying to show how gullible those who believe in the existence of Bigfoot are. The vast majority of people who believe in or research sasquatchery were unimpressed, or simply stated that the video offered nothing of any value. I refer you to here (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=13453&st=0) to see for yourself, and quote this post (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=13453&view=findpost&p=279585) as an example:

What a bunch of horsecrap.... But sadder still....
It will probably end up on the BFRO's top ten best footage hit parade.

Then, sure enough, the phony video and some possible profiting did indeed attract BFRO (Bigfoot Field Research Organization) and it's contoversial leader. Later, Penn and Teller exposed the whole thing and acted like some skeptical version of Jesus Christ, bringing salvation to the Earth with lies and hoaxes that only caught the greedy Matt Moneymaker.

What a bunch of ************.

Go here (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=55745) for the apologetic discussion among "skeptics."

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
It includes A.
You just don't get it.

From you and yours, I don't want it.

Get that?

[RandFan]

You just don't get it.Nope.

[RandFan]

They created a lousy fake Bigfoot video with the goal of trying to show how gullible those who believe in the existence of Bigfoot are. The vast majority of people who believe in or research sasquatchery were unimpressed, or simply stated that the video offered nothing of any value. I refer you to here (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=13453&st=0) to see for yourself, and quote this post (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=13453&view=findpost&p=279585) as an example:It sounds like an appropriate use of deception to me.

Then, sure enough, the phony video and some possible profiting did indeed attract BFRO (Bigfoot Field Research Organization) and it's contoversial leader.:) Cool. That is genius. I invite anyone to do the same to Penn & Teller. What is good for the Goose is good for the Gander. We don't do enough of this kind of thing.

This is what James Rand did to legitimate scientists with his Project Alpha (http://skepdic.com/projectalpha.html) experiment.


Later, Penn and Teller exposed the whole thing and acted like some skeptical version of Jesus Christ, bringing salvation to the Earth with lies and hoaxes that only caught the greedy Matt Moneymaker.Thanks, I honestly did not know about this. I owe you big time.

What a bunch of ************.:) Yup. It sure is.

Go here (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=55745) for the apologetic discussion among "skeptics."Again, thanks.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
They created a lousy fake Bigfoot video with the goal of trying to show how gullible those who believe in the existence of Bigfoot are. The vast majority of people who believe in or research sasquatchery were unimpressed, or simply stated that the video offered nothing of any value. I refer you to here to see for yourself, and quote this post as an example:

It sounds like an appropriate use of deception to me.

I'm not surprised.

Quote:
Then, sure enough, the phony video and some possible profiting did indeed attract BFRO (Bigfoot Field Research Organization) and it's contoversial leader.

Cool. That is genius. I invite anyone to do the same to Penn & Teller. What is good for the Goose is good for the Gander. We don't do enough of this kind of thing.

Why bother?

This is what James Rand did to legitimate scientists with his Project Alpha experiment.

So?

Again, thanks.

You're welcome.

[RandFan]

Why bother? To expose them if they are not truly skeptics or critical thinkers. Con men and politicians rely on ignorance to manipulate people (see Jim Jones). Those who are skeptical and think critically are less likely to fall victims. I think this manipulation exploitation is extreme. I think it is a priority to educate and expose the overly credulous who foster this kind of environment and the outright scammers like Uri Geller and Sylvia Browne. If Penn and Teller truly don't care about people and they are cynically using people to make a buck or even if they are innocently doing it then I welcome anyone who would expose them. The best antiseptic is the light of day. Sometimes deception is required to get the dirty little secrets out in the open. So long as the deception is intended to be revealed then it is a good thing.

So? Tremendously informative. It demonstrated conclusively that sincere and rigorous scientists can be fooled.

[jjramsey]

Excuse me, but I don't see how P&T did anything unethical here. The approach was about the same as that of Alan Sokal's hoax on Social Text (http://physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/).

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Why bother?

To expose them if they are not truly skeptics or critical thinkers.

To whom? Who needs the likes of Penn and Teller to take them by the hand and teach them how to think?

Please. That reminds me of the old saying Daddy liked to tell me:

Be chary about giving advice. The wise don't need it, and fools won't heed it.

Con men and politicians rely on ignorance to manipulate people (see Jim Jones).

Frankly, with politicians, my experience is that they tend to get more mileage out of allegience to ideology than ignorance. People already believe certain things, and are extremely predictable as a result.

That includes people who like to think of themselves as "skeptics."

Those who are skeptical and think critically are less likely to fall victims.

That, too, is a bunch of bullspit, and is coming from one who would pompously claim to be such a person.

Sheesh..........

If Penn and Teller truly don't care about people and they are cynically using people to make a buck or even if they are innocently doing it then I welcome anyone who would expose them. The best antiseptic is the light of day.

I just ignore them. In fact, I've never stooped so low as to watch their "show."

Sometimes deception is required to get the dirty little secrets out in the open. So long as the deception is intended to be revealed then it is a good thing.

It's a lie, they didn't fool anyone, and they didn't admit to not fooling anyone.

And that was the worse part of their lie.......

Quote:
So?

Tremendously informative. It demonstrated conclusively that sincere and rigorous scientists can be fooled.

No s**t?

You needed some kind of scam to realize that?

[RandFan]

Excuse me, but I don't see how P&T did anything unethical here. The approach was about the same as that of Alan Sokal's hoax on Social Text (http://physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/).I agree. Thanks.

[Huntster]

Excuse me, but I don't see how P&T did anything unethical here. The approach was about the same as that of Alan Sokal's hoax on Social Text (http://physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/).

Look, did you read some of the posts from the Bigfoot Forums that I linked to? Penn and Teller didn't fool anyone. It was a lousy hoax, and people were actually laughing about it. Here's (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=13453&view=findpost&p=280298) my first post on the matter there at BFF:

Another video teaser?
Will this foolishness never end?

Penn & Teller's front man on the hoax negotiated an exclusive deal with the BFRO (run by a man well known within sasquatchery as a con man) regarding the video, then crowed about how they fooled sasquatchery with a phony video.

They didn't fool anyone but skeptics, which apparently isn't too difficult.

[RandFan]

To whom? Who needs the likes of Penn and Teller to take them by the hand and teach them how to think? Since Penn and Teller tell people to think for themselves then the answer is no one. But if you think that they do this then it would be appropriate for you to do it for those who believe in them.

Please. That reminds me of the old saying Daddy liked to tell me: Then you needn't come to this forum. You are just wasting your time.

Frankly, with politicians, my experience is that they tend to get more mileage out of allegiance to ideology than ignorance. Well we sure disagree there.

That includes people who like to think of themselves as "skeptics."Then pull one over on a skeptic. Oh, it can be done but it is unlikely.

That, too, is a bunch of bullspit, and is coming from one who would pompously claim to be such a person. I don't give my money to the likes of Uri Geller, Sylvia Browne, or any religion. I'm on good ground to make that statement.

I just ignore them. In fact, I've never stooped so low as to watch their "show." Freedom is a great thing.

It's a lie, they didn't fool anyone, and they didn't admit to not fooling anyone. Actually, it looks like they did.

You needed some kind of scam to realize that? Not me but apparently a bunch of scientists did.

[RandFan]

They didn't fool anyone but skeptics...What is your basis for saying this?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
To whom? Who needs the likes of Penn and Teller to take them by the hand and teach them how to think?

Since Penn and Teller tell people to think for themselves then the answer is no one. But if you think that they do this then it would be appropriate for you to do it for those who believe in them.

Huh?

Quote:
Please. That reminds me of the old saying Daddy liked to tell me:

Then you needn't come to this forum. You are just wasting your time.

And I'm wasting my time in a manner pleasing to me.

Or, are you going to "decide" something for me? (Classic Californian)

Quote:
That includes people who like to think of themselves as "skeptics."

Then pull one over on a skeptic. Oh, it can be done but it is unlikely.

What a laugh! You skeptics are like superhuman or something?

Hahahahahahahahahaha!

Quote:
It's a lie, they didn't fool anyone, and they didn't admit to not fooling anyone.

Actually, it looks like they did.

Who? Got some names?

Quote:
You needed some kind of scam to realize that?

Not me but apparently a bunch of scientists did.

You claimed to find it "tremendously informative", as if you learned something.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
They didn't fool anyone but skeptics...
What is your basis for saying this?

Because P&T claimed to fool sasquatch researchers, and they didn't. Again, here is the link (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=13453&hl=sonoma) where the largest bigfoot forum on the internet discusses the video long before Penn & Teller's hoax was revealed, and virtually nobody thinks it's the real thing.

Now, I shouldn't have to take you by the hand and read them for you, but I will:

As usual, pictures inconclusive at best....

why is it only 10 seconds long???
if this guy was filming it then why dont he release the whole tape of it???
unless it shows the guy getting out of the suit

What a bunch of horsecrap.... But sadder still....
It will probably end up on the BFRO's top ten best footage hit parade.

Upon further review, the ruling on the field stands--it's bullcrap.

Why not show the rest of the footage after the blurry?

Fake as can be. Unless I see more. Ian

There are 28 pages of that.

Then, here is the link (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=55745&highlight=ethics) where skeptics on this very forum pompously discuss the hoax as if Penn and Teller fooled anybody.

Wanna read what the skeptical supermen write?:

I don't have any problem at all with a skeptic who concocts UFO footage, a fake haunted house, a trap for a faith healer, or photos of Bigfoot, then puts them out in the public forum to catch the unwary, and prove the silliness of their beliefs.

And frankly, I think anyone who seriously claims it's unethical is a whiner.

I would add that anyone who thinks it is unethical probably was taken in by the footage and now feels stupid.

Not only do I think P&T's faking of the Sonoma Bigfoot video is ethical, I believe it performs an absolutely essential function by establishing a "baseline of credulity." As ImaginalDisc and UrsulaV point out, how else can you disprove the believers' contention that they can always tell the difference between real and faked BF footage?

Yeah. How about admitting that it didn't fool anybody.

The only one on that thread with any sense is blutoski:

I have a second concern, which is that the public will see skeptics as unconscionable liars. Some of the literature I read after the Snopes fiasco came across as: "Now we know that skeptics will say something, and later, if proven wrong beyond any credible defense, they'll just laugh and say it was only a test."

Face it; skeptics are human, they can be fooled, they're biased, they're opinionated, they enjoy stupid TV shows like Penn & Teller's, and they're no different than anybody else.

[RandFan]

Huh? I'm not sure how to make it simpler.


Penn & Teller encourage people to think for themselves.
Penn & Teller encourage skepticism.
Penn & Teller encourage critical thinking.
Penn & Teller don't have a pre-packaged set of beliefs. They do note that religions do however.
No one needs Penn & Teller to tell them how to think.
If you or anyone else think your statement true then pull a scam on Penn & Teller.And I'm wasting my time in a manner pleasing to me.So, you didn't learn anything from your father.

What a laugh! You skeptics are like superhuman or something?This is just rhetoric. It means nothing. Skeptics aren't credulous. Tell us those things that skeptics believe in that would demonstrate that you are correct?

You claimed to find it "tremendously informative", as if you learned something.Yes, I learned that serious and rigorous scientists can be fooled by skilled magicians. I learned that I should be skeptical of claims by scammers who claim to talk to god, heal the sick, bend spoon or communicate with the dead and especially be skeptical of scientists who claim they have tested such people without the aid of a trained magician.

[RandFan]

Face it; skeptics are human, they can be fooled, they're biased, they're opinionated, they enjoy stupid TV shows like Penn & Teller's, and they're no different than anybody else. Yes, skeptics are human, often biased and can be fooled. Far less so than non skeptics.

A number of your points about the video are fair. It will take me some time to look at them in depth.

ETA: It really was a great idea. Even assuming that it failed (I don't know that it did I only know that you have posted a link of a forum that after a number of posts indicate that a number of those individuals don't buy it.) I need more information. But I dig the idea big time.

[RandFan]

Looking closer at the posts there are a lot of skeptics who are questioning the ethics of the tape. I disagree with them but that's pretty damn cool. I'm hoping that you will acknowledge that fact.

ETA: This commentary was about the JREF thread.

I'm really impressed with that thread. I'm impressed that there was a rigorous debate about the ethics of what P&T did. I think that what they did was ethical but I'm impressed with a number of the arguments made. I didn't see much apologetics and I'm rather disapointed that was your take.

[RandFan]

As to the Big Foot forum. Again, I'm rather disapointed in your analysis of the discussion. There are people who are skeptical of the tape but then there are people on the forum who are skeptical of ALL of the evidence of big foot. There are also people who think that it is ligit.

But after repeated viewings, it may be legit.

hi everyone this is a very interesting filmfootage of a sasquatch. the area looks great habitat for sasquatch. i think some researchers here should call or email the man who took the footage. it looks authentic to me but more research needs to be done to it.

After viewing the video a few times I don't have an opinion either way (real vs hoax). I don't think you can dimiss the video as an outright hoax based upon the expected direction a bigfoot would travel if startled or the length of the video.

Folks, I know the need to analyze this film is strong, but please keep some perspective. This gentleman has not been interviewed yet, investigators are in contact with him. We don't know if that is all the film, if there is sound on the original, or where exactly the film was taken. Let them do their work and get back with you (they post here) before you go on record stating one view point or another (I personally like to give birth, have the doctor tell me its a boy, before I yell boy...but that's just me). I know that Rick Noll is looking at the film as well, and his perspective will be very valuable.

In any event, I'm not sure why BFF would be considered to be a purely woo site.

[Huntster]

Penn & Teller encourage people to think for themselves.
Penn & Teller encourage skepticism.
Penn & Teller encourage critical thinking.
Penn & Teller don't have a pre-packaged set of beliefs. They do note that religions do however.
No one needs Penn & Teller to tell them how to think.
If you or anyone else think your statement true then pull a scam on Penn & Teller.

1) People who don't think for themselves probably never will, regardless of P&T scams

2) Skepticism is not the be-all, end-all in reasoning

3) Critical thinking has it's limits

4) Yes, no one needs the likes of Penn & Teller to tell them how to think

5) I don't need to pull a scam on Penn & Teller, because I really don't give much of a damn about them and their silly show.

Quote:
And I'm wasting my time in a manner pleasing to me.

So, you didn't learn anything from your father.

He always said I've got a thick skull............

Quote:
What a laugh! You skeptics are like superhuman or something?

This is just rhetoric. It means nothing. Skeptics aren't credulous. Tell us those things that skeptics believe in that would demonstrate that you are correct?

The very fact that you admit that skeptics believe things, for example.

Quote:
You claimed to find it "tremendously informative", as if you learned something.

Yes, I learned that serious and rigorous scientists can be fooled by skilled magicians.

Now why wouldn't you know that beforehand? Did you consider scientists to be superhuman?

I learned that I should be skeptical of claims by scammers who claim to talk to god, heal the sick, bend spoon or communicate with the dead and especially be skeptical of scientists who claim they have tested such people without the aid of a trained magician.

I've learned to be skeptical of such claims to, but I include claims about skepticism being "the way to think" as well.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Face it; skeptics are human, they can be fooled, they're biased, they're opinionated, they enjoy stupid TV shows like Penn & Teller's, and they're no different than anybody else.

Yes, skeptics are human, often biased and can be fooled. Far less so than non skeptics.

Yeah, right.

Why am I skeptical of that claim?

[Huntster]

As to the Big Foot forum. Again, I'm rather disapointed in your analysis of the discussion. There are people who are skeptical of the tape but then there are people on the forum who are skeptical of ALL of the evidence of big foot.

Yup. Skeptics. That's us.

There are also people who think that it is ligit.

Really?

Quote:
But after repeated viewings, it may be legit.


Quote:
hi everyone this is a very interesting filmfootage of a sasquatch. the area looks great habitat for sasquatch. i think some researchers here should call or email the man who took the footage. it looks authentic to me but more research needs to be done to it.

Quote:
After viewing the video a few times I don't have an opinion either way (real vs hoax). I don't think you can dimiss the video as an outright hoax based upon the expected direction a bigfoot would travel if startled or the length of the video.

Quote:
Folks, I know the need to analyze this film is strong, but please keep some perspective. This gentleman has not been interviewed yet, investigators are in contact with him. We don't know if that is all the film, if there is sound on the original, or where exactly the film was taken. Let them do their work and get back with you (they post here) before you go on record stating one view point or another (I personally like to give birth, have the doctor tell me its a boy, before I yell boy...but that's just me). I know that Rick Noll is looking at the film as well, and his perspective will be very valuable.

In any event, I'm not sure why BFF would be considered to be a purely woo site.

Because "skeptics" here, with no knowledge or experience with the site, like to portray it as such so they have a feeling of superiority. They really don't know squat.

And Penn & Teller played right into their shallow minds.

[RandFan]

1) People who don't think for themselves probably never will, regardless of P&T scams

2) Skepticism is not the be-all, end-all in reasoning

3) Critical thinking has it's limits

4) Yes, no one needs the likes of Penn & Teller to tell them how to think

5) I don't need to pull a scam on Penn & Teller, because I really don't give much of a damn about them and their silly show.1.) Having watched all of the shows I would not call them "scams". In any event I think they will have a profound influence on the younger generation. Many of my children's friends (high school age) come over to watch the shows with my kids. We have all of the shows on DVD. I've seen a profound change in a number of them. There eyes are opening and they are questioning.

Such changes in popular culture, even something as innocuous as Family Guy and South Park can have a significant influence.

2.) No one says that it is. Only that it is very important to finding the truth.

3.) Sure it does but it is called "critical" for a reason. The single greatest contribution to society its members can make is to think critically.

4.) No one say that we need Penn & Teller for anything. However seeing the effect that it can have on people I'm convinced that it is a very substantive program for young minds and a few old ones also.

The very fact that you admit that skeptics believe things, for example.You've lost me. Skeptics believe in things that are based on empirical evidence. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. I believe that the speed of light is constant and that the laws that enable humans to travel to the moon and split the atom. I hold all beliefs provisionally and I'm skeptical of claims without proof.

Now why wouldn't you know that beforehand? Did you consider scientists to be superhuman? "Superhuman"? That's just a strawman. No, I didn't know it, like the scientists didn't know it because I didn't understand how it was possible to fool a rigorous scientist. Many people including many scientists were surprised at that.

I've learned to be skeptical of such claims to, but I include claims about skepticism being "the way to think" as well.:D Let me guess, your skeptical of skepticism. That's rich.

[RandFan]

Yeah, right.

Why am I skeptical of that claim? My guess is that it doesn't conform to your world view.

[RandFan]

Really?None of those quotes are calling it an outright hoax. This is exactly what I would expect from that forum. I'm not certain why you think this is significant?

[davefoc]

...Many of my children's friends (high school age) come over to watch the shows with my kids. We have all of the shows on DVD. I've seen a profound change in a number of them. There eyes are opening and they are questioning.

That surprises me a little. I have downloaded a few of them and watched a streaming version of one of them. They are more or less in sync with my views and approach to life. But I haven't shared them with anybody in my family. The relentless cussing would offend some and the disrespecful approach to relgion would offend others in my family. I gave copies to a few friends of mine but I didn't hear back about what they thought but I don't think it was that positive a response or they would have probably mentioned it to me.

So, although I enjoy them, I didn't see them as having a general appeal. But I'm glad to see that I might have been wrong about that, unfortunately in my world I think watching them is going to remain a privately enjoyed experience.

[Huntster]

1.) Having watched all of the shows I would not call them "scams". In any event I think they will have a profound influence on the younger generation.

Now, that's a scary thought.

Such changes in popular culture, even something as innocuous as Family Guy and South Park can have a significant influence.

And that influence can die out as people mature and discover the truth.

2.) No one says that it is. Only that it is very important to finding the truth.

It is not exclusive to finding the truth.

3.) Sure it does but it is called "critical" for a reason. The single greatest contribution to society its members can make is to think critically.

I think the greatest contribution to society it's members can make is to think positively.

4.) No one say that we need Penn & Teller for anything. However seeing the effect that it can have on people I'm convinced that it is a very substantive program for young minds and a few old ones also.

I think they're a pair of lying fools.

Quote:
The very fact that you admit that skeptics believe things, for example.

You've lost me. Skeptics believe in things that are based on empirical evidence.

Me, too. Big deal.

I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. I believe that the speed of light is constant and that the laws that enable humans to travel to the moon and split the atom. I hold all beliefs provisionally and I'm skeptical of claims without proof.

There ya' go. First it's "empiracal evidence", then it's "proof."

Belief is one of the choices one must make when "proof" is unavailable. One bases his belief (or disbelief) on the evidence.

Quote:
Now why wouldn't you know that beforehand? Did you consider scientists to be superhuman?

"Superhuman"? That's just a strawman. No, I didn't know it, like the scientists didn't know it because I didn't understand how it was possible to fool a rigorous scientist.

Why not? Aren't scientists people, too?

Quote:
I've learned to be skeptical of such claims to, but I include claims about skepticism being "the way to think" as well.

Let me guess, your skeptical of skepticism. That's rich.

Not quite accurate. I'm not skeptical of skepticism so much as I'm skeptical of people who claim to be skeptics.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Face it; skeptics are human, they can be fooled, they're biased, they're opinionated, they enjoy stupid TV shows like Penn & Teller's, and they're no different than anybody else.

Yes, skeptics are human, often biased and can be fooled. Far less so than non skeptics.
Originally Posted by Huntster
Yeah, right.

Why am I skeptical of that claim?

My guess is that it doesn't conform to your world view.

It damned sure doesn't conform to my experience with people.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Really?
None of those quotes are calling it an outright hoax. This is exactly what I would expect from that forum. I'm not certain why you think this is significant?

I guess you really did need someone to read it to you:

To me it sure does look like a fake,

why is it only 10 seconds long???
if this guy was filming it then why dont he release the whole tape of it???
unless it shows the guy getting out of the suit

What a bunch of horsecrap

Upon further review, the ruling on the field stands--it's bullcrap.

I call bullspit

Fake as can be.

I have to say it's a hoax.

Those are all opinions from different people, and all on the 1st page. There are 28 pages of that. On page 28, dated June 4, there is this:

Penn & Teller claim to have faked Sonoma footage

Please tell me you realize the significance of a hoax that didn't fool it's intended victim...................

[RandFan]

That surprises me a little. I have downloaded a few of them and watched a streaming version of one of them. They are more or less in sync with my views and approach to life. But I haven't shared them with anybody in my family. The relentless cussing would offend some and the disrespecful approach to relgion would offend others in my family. I gave copies to a few friends of mine but I didn't hear back about what they thought but I don't think it was that positive a response or they would have probably mentioned it to me.

So, although I enjoy them, I didn't see them as having a general appeal. But I'm glad to see that I might have been wrong about that, unfortunately in my world I think watching them is going to remain a privately enjoyed experience.I think we underestimate young adults. And we are fools if we think these kids are going to be offended by cussing. Unless of course they are evangelical Christian. None of my son's friends are.

[RandFan]

Now, that's a scary thought. I'm not sure how.

And that influence can die out as people mature and discover the truth. ? you haven't watched the shows have you?

I think the greatest contribution to society it's members can make is to think positively. I don't.

I think they're a pair of lying fools. You are entitled to an opinion. There is no basis for that opinion.

Me, too. Big deal. Then I have no idea why you have a problem with P&T.

There ya' go. First it's "empiracal evidence", then it's "proof."Why do you think those are exclusive of each other?


Belief is one of the choices one must make when "proof" is unavailable. One bases his belief (or disbelief) on the evidence. I choose to believe absent proof that what is not in evidence is not there. I'm not sure where you got the idea that evidence wasn't "proof". That's a rather odd view.

Why not? Aren't scientists people, too?They are trained to look at the world objectively. They are trained to control their experiments to avoid spurious data. Knowing this it is very surprising.

However, once you understand what James Randi understands and what Penn & Teller understand you realize how these scam artists can manipulate psychology to their benefit. It turns out that religious leaders and politicians use the same methods.

Not quite accurate. I'm not skeptical of skepticism so much as I'm skeptical of people who claim to be skeptics. I will grant you that and apologize for making the assumption that I did. Sorry. It is perfectly valid to question the skeptics. I can't complain about that but I do disagree. Only anecdotal evidence comes to mind but I will try and find something more substantive.

[RandFan]

I guess you really did need someone to read it to you:Not at all. I read the quotes and I stand by my assessment and I'm still disappointed in yours. I conceded that there are folks who are skeptical of the film. That is what I would have expected. However a number of people were voicing a call for a fair hearing of the video and some did think it legit. You are only picking and choosing that which supports your view.

More importantly was the thread that you call the "apologetics" thread. That was a great thread.

Please tell me you realize the significance of a hoax that didn't fool it's intended victim. You know that BFF was the "intended victim"? I'm sorry but the folks at BFF seem fairly reasonable and rational. I'm not sure why anyone would think that they would be the target of this video. It looks like you are making a straw man but I await your proof that the video was made for BFF. If that is the case let me apologize now.

RandFan

[davefoc]

I think we underestimate young adults. And we are fools if we think these kids are going to be offended by cussing. Unless of course they are evangelical Christian. None of my son's friends are.

Sorry, I had no doubt that young people in general didn't mind cussing. ALthough, my only contact with young people is through my daughters, . One of whom doesn't live with us anymore. The other I have a somewhat strained relationship with. She has had a strong sense of right and wrong from early on and she both thinks cussing is wrong and is somewhat relgious. My skepticism, which I believe I don't impose on anybody, still manages to trouble her and serve as a something of a wedge between us. At any rate my only opportunity to interface with a teenager type young person turns out to be with somebody who is both offended by cussing and is somewhat religious.

[RandFan]

Sorry, I had no doubt that young people in general didn't mind cussing. ALthough, my only contact with young people is through my daughters, . One of whom doesn't live with us anymore. The other I have a somewhat strained relationship with. She has had a strong sense of right and wrong from early on and she both thinks cussing is wrong and is somewhat relgious. My skepticism, which I believe I don't impose on anybody, still manages to trouble her and serve as a something of a wedge between us. At any rate my only opportunity to interface with a teenager type young person turns out to be with somebody who is both offended by cussing and is somewhat religious.I understand. I wasn't certain how my kids were going to turn out. They had a lot of religious influence through friends and family. I didn't preach or push. I simply answered their questions as best and honestly as I could and as neutral and unbiased as I could. I think children should make informed decisions about religion. I always told them that if they chose to embrace religion that I would both support and respect their choice. I'll tell you, we had a lot of frank discussions about god and religion.

I grew up in a stifling religious atmosphere that caused a lot of stress and serious emotional problems for my family. To be honest not all religious families are so strict or so dysfunctional. I just didn't want my kids to experience any of that. Life is just too short for all of these hang-ups and worries about religion and sex and guilt about doing what some invisible man in the sky demands that we do like praying and going to church and not masturbating. What the hell is that all about anyway?

I'm sorry that there is a wedge issue for you and them. Love and respect them. I wish you the best of luck.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Now, that's a scary thought.

I'm not sure how.

I can see that.

Quote:
And that influence can die out as people mature and discover the truth.

? you haven't watched the shows have you?

Nope. I don't watch much TV.

Quote:
I think the greatest contribution to society it's members can make is to think positively.

I don't.

I can see that, too.

Quote:
I think they're a pair of lying fools.

You are entitled to an opinion. There is no basis for that opinion.

They tried to hoax a sasquatch film. They lied.

Quote:
Me, too. Big deal.

Then I have no idea why you have a problem with P&T.

They're liars.

Quote:
There ya' go. First it's "empiracal evidence", then it's "proof."

Why do you think those are exclusive of each other?

The dictionary should explain that to you. Must we read that together, too?

Quote:
Belief is one of the choices one must make when "proof" is unavailable. One bases his belief (or disbelief) on the evidence.

I choose to believe absent proof that what is not in evidence is not there. I'm not sure where you got the idea that evidence wasn't "proof". That's a rather odd view.

Yup. You really need someone to read the dictionary to you, don't you?

Quote:
Why not? Aren't scientists people, too?

They are trained to look at the world objectively. They are trained to control their experiments to avoid spurious data. Knowing this it is very surprising.

Yet, in their humanity, they too have preconcieved "beliefs".

Just like almost all "skeptics."

However, once you understand what James Randi understands and what Penn & Teller understand you realize how these scam artists can manipulate psychology to their benefit. It turns out that religious leaders and politicians use the same methods.

So do others.

[Huntster]

....However a number of people were voicing a call for a fair hearing of the video...

And that is wrong, how?

....and some did think it legit.

Yup. Two.

You are only picking and choosing that which supports your view.

I'm looking at the whole thread. The evidence.

All of it.

More importantly was the thread that you call the "apologetics" thread. That was a great thread.

Some of the posters are obviously quite wise. I mentioned blutoski.

You know that BFF was the "intended victim"? I'm sorry but the folks at BFF seem fairly reasonable and rational. I'm not sure why anyone would think that they would be the target of this video. It looks like you are making a straw man but I await your proof that the video was made for BFF. If that is the case let me apologize now.

The hoax was actually intended for whoever could be caught, and I'm assuming P&T were quite pleased to have caught BFRO and Mr. Moneymaker in it's scam.

BFF is just the largest internet forum that discusses sasquatchery, and very few of the participants there were fooled.

There is also speculation that BFRO and Mr. Moneymaker weren't fooled, either, and were simply negotiating with "Mr. Nelson" with a profit in mind.

[RandFan]

I can see that. Non responsive. Rhetorical.

Nope. I don't watch much TV. So you base your conclusions on incomplete data. Would you think it fair for me to judge a Christian on so incomplete of data?

I can see that, too. Again, rhetorical.

They tried to hoax a sasquatch film. They lied.And the police and DA's office conduct sting operations. Deception doesn't render someone a liar. They always intended to make the deception known. I can't call them liars based on this evidence.

They're liars.You are entitled to an opinion. However by your own admission it is incomplete.

The dictionary should explain that to you. Must we read that together, too? Empirical evidence IS proof.

Yup. You really need someone to read the dictionary to you, don't you?{sigh}

Evidence (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence)

–noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

Now, there IS the dictionary definition. Please to tell me how evidence is mutually exclusive of proof based on the definition.

Yet, in their humanity, they too have preconcieved "beliefs". But unlike many, and perhaps most, skeptics are far more aware of their "beliefs" and biases and work to guard against them. It is something we think about a lot. I used to fall for all kinds of marketing ploys and telemarketers and pseudo science without critically thinking about them. Now I don't. It is that simple. Instead of simply relying on intuition the skeptic seeks proof of claims. That is the difference.

Just like almost all "skeptics."Yes, of course. We can all be fooled. This is something known to skeptics. It was discussed at length at last years TAM. In fact, an experiment was conducted to show how magicians can be fooled.

Please, don't get me wrong, of course skeptics and scientists can be fooled. That is not may point. My point is that we are far less likely to because we are skeptical.

Oh, and all people are skeptical to a point. Christians are skeptical of other religions and other Gods. Skepticism is built into most if not all humans. The difference between skeptics and most humans is that skeptics understand the dangers of relying on intuition and work to hone their skepticism.

So do others.Of course, so question everything and everyone as much as you can. We of course must make assumptions and rely on our intuition in everyday life. We can't function very well if we abuse skepticism and question everything all of the time. It is when unusual claims are made or our quality of life or our money is at risk that we must be extra careful and be skeptical.

[RandFan]

And that is wrong, how? That is my point. It is not wrong.

Yup. Two.

I'm looking at the whole thread. The evidence.

All of it.I am also. I have no problems with the thread.

The hoax was actually intended for whoever could be caught, and I'm assuming P&T were quite pleased to have caught BFRO and Mr. Moneymaker in it's scam. Sounds right.

BFF is just the largest internet forum that discusses sasquatchery, and very few of the participants there were fooled. I don't see any problem with this. Good.

There is also speculation that BFRO and Mr. Moneymaker weren't fooled, either, and were simply negotiating with "Mr. Nelson" with a profit in mind.?

[RandFan]

I have to add that in my humble opinion JREF exists not to simply inform the uneducated but to point out how we all can be fooled and to ever warn us to be on our guard. That IS, it seems to me a very large part of Randi's point. It is why he fooled the scientists. It is why he has fooled an otherwise skeptical Australian news industry with the Carlos Swett affair.

This problem is known and understood and it is why James Randi does much of what he does. Skeptics don't deny their propensity to be fooled because it is only when we are so confident that we can't be fooled that we are. Which is why scientists are often fooled by magicians. Their confidence is used against them.

Even assuming that P&T failed to fool anyone their attempts to were a very valuable and important attempt it is only when we show how people can be fooled that people will come to accept when they are.

[Huntster]

Quote:
Nope. I don't watch much TV.

So you base your conclusions on incomplete data. Would you think it fair for me to judge a Christian on so incomplete of data?

You claim that isn't done by many?

Quote:
They tried to hoax a sasquatch film. They lied.

And the police and DA's office conduct sting operations. Deception doesn't render someone a liar.

Yes, it does. Sting operations have become necessary because of how our judicial system has been perverted.

They always intended to make the deception known. I can't call them liars based on this evidence.

Then why did they not clearly illustrate who they fooled, and who they did not fool?

Quote:
They're liars.

You are entitled to an opinion. However by your own admission it is incomplete.

It is complete. The question is whether or not the lie was justified. You say it is. I say it wasn't.

Quote:
The dictionary should explain that to you. Must we read that together, too?

Empirical evidence IS proof.

Quote:
Evidence

–noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

Now, there IS the dictionary definition. Please to tell me how evidence is mutually exclusive of proof based on the definition.

There is a dictionary definition. Classic, isn't it? When comparing two words, you choose a single definition of only one of them.

Okay. Let's read the dictionary together (linked for your review):

Evidence: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence)

1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
–verb (used with object) 4. to make evident or clear; show clearly; manifest: He evidenced his approval by promising his full support.
5. to support by evidence: He evidenced his accusation with incriminating letters.
—Idiom6. in evidence, plainly visible; conspicuous: The first signs of spring are in evidence.

Proof: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof)

1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5. Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
6. the effect of evidence in convincing the mind.
7. an arithmetical operation serving to check the correctness of a calculation.
8. Mathematics, Logic. a sequence of steps, statements, or demonstrations that leads to a valid conclusion.
9. a test to determine the quality, durability, etc., of materials used in manufacture.
10. Distilling. a. the arbitrary standard strength, as of an alcoholic liquor.
b. strength with reference to this standard: “100 proof” signifies a proof spirit, usually 50% alcohol.

11. Photography. a trial print from a negative.
12. Printing. a. a trial impression, as of composed type, taken to correct errors and make alterations.
b. one of a number of early and superior impressions taken before the printing of the ordinary issue: to pull a proof.

13. (in printmaking) an impression taken from a plate or the like to show the quality or condition of work during the process of execution; a print pulled for examination while working on a plate, block, stone, etc.
14. Numismatics. one of a limited number of coins of a new issue struck from polished dies on a blank having a polished or matte surface.
15. the state of having been tested and approved.
16. proved strength, as of armor.
17. Scots Law. the trial of a case by a judge alone, without a jury.

Proof is evidence, but all evidence isn't necessarily proof.

[Tony]

When I die, if there really wasn't a God or afterlife, what did I lose in life?


The ability to think and live free.

When Pauliesonne dies, and if there is a God and afterlife, what's he gonna say?

Pauliesonne is gonna say: "I'm not responsible for your incompetence."

Rejection of God is the ultimate in losing, and for all the wrong reasons.

You can't reject something you don't believe in.

[Marc L]

Never mind. I asked a question, then went back and re-read the posts involved, and answered my own question.


Marc

[Pauliesonne]

You just don't get it.

I admit, neither do I.

Peter eats apples.
I eat apples, oranges and grapes.
Just because Peter doesn't eat oranges and grapes, doesn't mean I don't eat apples.

Or is my fundie background showing again?

Marc

Like Linsey Lohan in the 18th century, I too am confused.

[Tony]

To whom? Who needs the likes of Penn and Teller to take them by the hand and teach them how to think?


For starters, you.

[Marc L]

Like Linsey Lohan in the 18th century, I too am confused.

I misread the arguments as I was going through, so I missed parts.

Hunster said that he worshipped the same god as the Jews do.
RandFan* pointed out that they weren't the same because Christians believe that their god is three persons in one (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), whereas Jews believe their god is one person only**(Father).
Hunster rejoined with the fact that the Trinity includes the Father, and therefore, they are the same.

That's where I got confused, and included the question that I erased, but you so thoughtfully quoted on me :P

Having gone back and re-read everything, I figured out what RandFan was saying, and I have to say I agree with her.

*She wasn't as detailed as that, which is why I missed it.
** As in the statement, "Hear, Oh Israel, the Lord thy God is One"

Marc

[RandFan]

You claim that isn't done by many? Of course not. I'm saying that it isn't fair when it is done regardless if it is P&T or a Christian, agreed?

Yes, it does. Sting operations have become necessary because of how our judicial system has been perverted. Fallacy.

Then why did they not clearly illustrate who they fooled, and who they did not fool?Ask them.

It is complete. The question is whether or not the lie was justified. You say it is. I say it wasn't.No, you did admit that you do not watch their show so you are judging them on a single incident. This is not a fair thing to do to Christians and it is not fair when you do it to P&T.

There is a dictionary definition. Classic, isn't it? When comparing two words, you choose a single definition of only one of them. Only because that is how I used the word.

Let's go back,

I hold all beliefs provisionally and I'm skeptical of claims without proof. There ya' go. First it's "empirical evidence", then it's "proof."
Why do you think those are exclusive of each other? Let's look at that definition one more time.

Evidence

–noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.Ok, so let me ask the question one more time. Why do you believe, based on MY usage of the word that proof and empirical evidence are exclusive of each other?

And please, stick to what I meant and not irrelevant and spurious information, ok? Fair enough? I apologized to you when I wrongly accused you of being skeptical of skepticism. I did so because it was the fair and honest thing to do. Would you afford me the same courtesy?

[RandFan]

Having gone back and re-read everything, I figured out what RandFan was saying, and I have to say I agree with her.Sorry for the confusion but I'm a guy and the avatar is Janeane Garofalo (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000413/), my contribution to the cult of *personality (which I detest) in the non-political sense.

:boggled:

*I'm really enamored of her so the label of hypocrite, for me, is not entirely unfair.

ETA: I know, far more than you wanted to know.

[Hawk one]

Okay.

A member of this forum did not just trot out Pascal's Wager

I don't know. Don't care, either.

It would be better for you if you actually knew what Pascal's wager was, because then you'd perhaps know that your first sentence is a lie.

Pascal was a fellow who once said that it was better to believe than not, because if you believed, and it was true, it'd make a huge difference if you did or didn't. But if God didn't exist, then it wouldn't matter. You know, just what you said.

However, there are several problems with this: Problem 1, which god? THere are thousands of them, and hundreds of different pantheons. Either you have to believe and worship them all, or you'll most likely end up doing the wrong choice, which means your fate will be no different from an atheist's.

Secondly, as far as the Judeo-Christian god is concerned, that kind of hedging-the-bet "belief" is nothing but empty falsehood, and I'm sure that "believing" in this manner will be dealt with as swiftly as other sinners and men of false convictions. So, since you base your belief on this silly wager, it's most likely that should even your god exist, you'll end up same place as me afterwards for trying to pull a trick on it.

Heck, even if a god exists, who can tell if what It really wants is belief in the bible? I mean, it's all too easy to imagine a god that said something like:

"What? The bible? That self-contradicting piece of crap in which I'm portrayed as a righteous ass, pretty much killing a lot of people for no good reason, making up rules as I go along (and breaking them myself), and where the few claims made about the world was either well-known long before it was written, or just plain out wrong?
No, no, no, you see, the Bible, and other assorted religious texts, are nothing more than tests. To check if you go for what the world and nature is actually telling you, should you go and take a proper look, instead of relying on fairy tales. Oh, you believed in those fairy tales, and actually thought the world was created 6 000 years ago? Well, I'm not sending you to Hell, I'm just putting you in this room full of textbooks in biology, physics, chemistry, cosmology, you know the works. Once you gain a proper understanding of the universe as it is, as opposed to the silly stuff in the Bible, then we can talk again."

I mean, there's really no way to tell that a God won't work like that, is there?


So, instead of using an incredibly flawed rhethoric that most likely won't help me anyway, I'll go for trying to understand this world as it actually works, relying on proper evidence and scientific theories. That makes this life so much more fulfilling and awe-filled. And any god that wants me to believe in lies and stories instead of reality... Well, why should I even believe in such a thing, much less worship it?

[Marc L]

Sorry for the confusion but I'm a guy


*sigh* So much for that fantasy...(just kidding). Thanks for the clarification. :)

Marc

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
When I die, if there really wasn't a God or afterlife, what did I lose in life?

The ability to think and live free.

Thinking and living free must exclude God?

Quote:
When Pauliesonne dies, and if there is a God and afterlife, what's he gonna say?

Pauliesonne is gonna say: "I'm not responsible for your incompetence."

We'll just have to guess at the response to that.

Quote:
Rejection of God is the ultimate in losing, and for all the wrong reasons.

You can't reject something you don't believe in.

By not believing, you have rejected.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
To whom? Who needs the likes of Penn and Teller to take them by the hand and teach them how to think?

For starters, you.

Sorry. I don't watch TV.

I damned sure don't use it as a guide to life.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
You claim that isn't done by many?

Of course not. I'm saying that it isn't fair when it is done regardless if it is P&T or a Christian, agreed?

Or politician, or skeptic, or anybody else.

Quote:
It is complete. The question is whether or not the lie was justified. You say it is. I say it wasn't.

No, you did admit that you do not watch their show so you are judging them on a single incident.

You're asking me how many lies they tell?

I don't know.

Ok, so let me ask the question one more time. Why do you believe, based on MY usage of the word that proof and empirical evidence are exclusive of each other?

"Epirical evidence" is great stuff.

"Proof" is absolute. It's the "end-all, be-all." It's the end of question.

It's "proof."

[RandFan]

Or politician, or skeptic, or anybody else.

You're asking me how many lies they tell?

I don't know.Perhaps it would be fair and reasonable to reserve judgment.


"Epirical evidence" is great stuff.

"Proof" is absolute. It's the "end-all, be-all." It's the end of question.

It's "proof." Agreed, and I stand by my statement. I'm on solid ground to say that "empirical evidence" and "proof" are not exclusive. Since "emperical" evidence is the best you can have and "evidence" is defined as proof then it is clear that they are not exclusive of each other. QED

[Marc L]

Thinking and living free must exclude God?


If said god enforces negative consequences for not obeying him, then yes, living free is incompatible with your god. Thinking is also incompatible with your god as shown from the beginning where Adam and Eve are punished for wanting to decide right from wrong for themselves.

Nothing in the Bible supports the idea of free will. Everything points to either predestination (prophecies), God interfering with man's free will directly (Pharoh, Judas), or God punishing someone for not obeying him (Jonah, the lake of fire).

Marc

[elliotfc]

The ability to think and live free.

First, all humans with brains think. Anyone who suggests otherwise is being ridiculous.

Second, as for living free, you could be a slave to your way of thinking just as Hunster is a slave to his way of thinking. It's a useless characterization.

But of course Hunster does live free.

You can't reject something you don't believe in.

This could turn into pure semantics...

Let's say you're taking a math test, multiple choice. You can reject answers because they don't make any sense...they are completely wrong...they don't correspond to the true answer. In this way I'd say you can reject something that you don't believe in.

-Elliot

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Thinking and living free must exclude God?

If said god enforces negative consequences for not obeying him, then yes, living free is incompatible with your god. Thinking is also incompatible with your god as shown from the beginning where Adam and Eve are punished for wanting to decide right from wrong for themselves.

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.

Nothing in the Bible supports the idea of free will. Everything points to either predestination (prophecies), God interfering with man's free will directly (Pharoh, Judas), or God punishing someone for not obeying him (Jonah, the lake of fire).

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

[I less than three logic]

Let's say you're taking a math test, multiple choice. You can reject answers because they don't make any sense...they are completely wrong...they don't correspond to the true answer. In this way I'd say you can reject something that you don't believe in.

-Elliot
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.

[Huntster]

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.

Spirituality is not a physical science like mathematics.

[ImaginalDisc]

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.


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.

[I less than three logic]

Spirituality is not a physical science like mathematics.
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.

[elliotfc]

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.

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

[elliotfc]

You can't use the gospels as evidence of the cruci-ficition.

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.

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

[elliotfc]

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.

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.

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

-Elliot

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Spirituality is not a physical science like mathematics.
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 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]

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

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

[Katana]

The video appears to be there no longer. I tried to find it on YouTube without success. Suggestions, anyone?

[I less than three logic]

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.

[Marc L]

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.

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

[RandFan]

Again, for example, humans can no more change the laws of goodness/evil than they can gravity. 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?

[davefoc]

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.

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.

[I less than three logic]

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
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.

[RandFan]

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.? 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?

[Huntster]

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.

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.

[ImaginalDisc]

Sure you can, a lot of people do.

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.

[RandFan]

You can't use the gospels as evidence of the cruci-ficition.
Sure you can, a lot of people do. That's like saying you can't eat ice cream. Sure you can.I think what Imaginal is saying is that you can't do it without committing a fallacy. It's not logically valid to use the gospels as evidence of very much at all.

[RandFan]

No, you can't; it's logically impossible. I got your back. :)

[I less than three logic]

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.
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.

[IllegalArgument]

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.

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?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
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.
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.

Yet the consequences of not wearing your seat belt can include the entire spectrum. You might never get in an accident, so no problem. You might wear your seat belt "religiously", then the one day you forget, you get dead.

The consequences of a rejection of God may be a similar comparison. If God has chosen you, you may be "disciplined" more than another. Why? I don't know. However:

John 6:44 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john6.htm)

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him...

The Bible, however, teaches the opposite. God imposes the consequences for disobeying him.

The consequences of rejecting God is a life without God. That is abundantly clear.

Moses' speech about all the curses Israel will suffer if they don't follow God, for example.

Those "curses" amount to life without God's blessings.

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."

Matthew 5:45 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew5.htm)

....He makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.

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.

You still have free will. You have the choice to counterattack the mugger. You have the choice to give him the few bucks in your pocket and hope he goes away. You have the choice to tell him to go f**k himself, because you're not giving him squat.

Some choices are wise, some are not, but whatever you do, you will have to endure the consequences.

Don't like it? Put an end to armed robbery.

Good luck.

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.

And therein lies the problem. You want to be God.

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)).

But you didn't get to "rationally look" at the consequences of Joseph's disobedience, because Joseph was obedient to God's will at all times.

Unfortunately, there's no way to know what the natural consequences of not accepting Jesus might be.

Yes, there is. Rejection of Christ will mean either a life without Christ, or (if you're lucky) a series of disciplinary measures from God that bring you back around (like Jonah, David, and others have gotten).

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.

Correct. Happiness doesn't seem to be predicated solely on being a Christian, nor does success and health. All good things are predicated solely on the blessings of God.

The only consequences we know of are the ones God threatens us with in the Bible.

Those are the only consequences you appear to entertain.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc
You can't use the gospels as evidence of the cruci-ficition.

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

I think what Imaginal is saying is that you can't do it without committing a fallacy. It's not logically valid to use the gospels as evidence of very much at all.

That's what he is saying, but he is defining evidence in accordance with The World According to Imaginal Disc.

I choose not to share his world with him.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc
No, you can't; it's logically impossible.
I got your back. :)

Wow. How reassurring that must be.

Psalms 118:8 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/psalms/psalm118.htm)

Better to take refuge in the LORD than to put one's trust in mortals.

[ImaginalDisc]

I got your back. :)

Ah, thanks :)

[IllegalArgument]

Bascially, the message I'm getting from Huntster.

"I'm doing good things because God will punish me if I don't"

Is this really the only reason you would do good things? I have faith that's not true.

[ImaginalDisc]

That's what he is saying, but he is defining evidence in accordance with The World According to Imaginal Disc.

I choose not to share his world with him.

It's the world according to the elementary rules of logic. If two or more documents directly conradict one another, they cannot all be true. Conversely, they may all be false.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
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.
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?

You may reject the entire concept of mathematics if you so choose, and you will have to live with the consequences.

The analogy of absolutes still does not hold up.

This is absolute:

If you reject God, you run the risk of life without Him. If you accept Him, there is the possibility of living life with Him.

Catholic theology defines Hell (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.htm#h) as such:

The state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives

That seems pretty simple to me. If you exclude yourself from God by your own free choice, God may allow your choice.

I don’t see why I should accept the concept of the laws of good/evil....

How about because this is how the universe was set up?

Do you refuse to accept the the laws of gravity? Time? Relativity?

thus I can not proceed to accept or reject that God is good and/or Godlessness is evil...

What you are refusing to accept are the determinations of previous theologians/sages/clergy that God is Good, and that Goodness is God.

The rules to get to that point haven’t been shown to exist quite yet.

Yes, they have. You reject them because they don't fit your evidentiary requirements.

[RandFan]

That's what he is saying, but he is defining evidence in accordance with The World According to Imaginal Disc.

I choose not to share his world with him.You are free to do what ever you want (so long as it is legal) but that won't change the fact that it is still a fallacy. In addition to Imaginal's point, it's circular logic. You have to have faith that the Bible is the word of God before you can use it as evidence of much of anything.

[Huntster]

Bascially, the message I'm getting from Huntster.

"I'm doing good things because God will punish me if I don't"

Then you have misinterpreted me.

What I'm saying is this:

"I seek communion with God because I love Him, I'm grateful for the blessings He has bestowed on me, I wish to be one with God because He is Goodness, and God makes me very happy."

I will also say this:

"There have been times in my life when I was thinking and behaving in a manner which God disapproved of, and like the loving Father He is, he disciplined me."

What loving Father fails to guides and discipline his children?

Is this really the only reason you would do good things?

Nope.

[I less than three logic]

You may reject the entire concept of mathematics if you so choose, and you will have to live with the consequences.



This is absolute:

If you reject God, you run the risk of life without Him. If you accept Him, there is the possibility of living life with Him.

Catholic theology defines Hell (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.htm#h) as such:



That seems pretty simple to me. If you exclude yourself from God by your own free choice, God may allow your choice.



How about because this is how the universe was set up?

Do you refuse to accept the the laws of gravity? Time? Relativity?



What you are refusing to accept are the determinations of previous theologians/sages/clergy that God is Good, and that Goodness is God.



Yes, they have. You reject them because they don't fit your evidentiary requirements.
This is a blatant false analogy. There is plenty of evidence for gravity, time, and relativity, enough to prove the concepts in the scientific sense. You’ve already admitted that your laws of good/evil can not be proven in such a way. Your analogy is simply wrong.

[Huntster]

....You have to have faith that the Bible is the word of God before you can use it as evidence of much of anything.

I have faith that the Bible was written by people of God, inspired by God, and it is enough evidence for me to have faith in the teachings of my church.

Is it full understanding? Obviously not.

Is it infallible? Probably not.

It's a hellava lot closer than what I can get from you or Imaginal Disc.

[ImaginalDisc]

I have faith that the Bible was written by people of God, inspired by God, and it is enough evidence for me to have faith in the teachings of my church.

Is it full understanding? Obviously not.

Is it infallible? Probably not.

It's a hellava lot closer than what I can get from you or Imaginal Disc.

John, George, Paul, and Ringo's books all contradict one another constantly. It's IMPOSSSIBLE for them to all be true. It's easily possible that they're all false. Logic tells us that you cannot possibly believe them all to be true.

[Huntster]

This is a blatant false analogy. There is plenty of evidence for gravity, time, and relativity, enough to prove the concepts in the scientific sense.

Today there is. Ten thousand years ago the evidence of gravity, time, and relativity were there, but there were virtually no conceptual understandings. But the laws were still there, weren't they?

Even today, do we have full understanding of gravity, time, and relativity? Nope.

The same is true of spiritual law.

You’ve already admitted that your laws of good/evil can not be proven in such a way. Your analogy is simply wrong.

You will not prove or disprove spiritual law with physical tests. Period. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it works/doesn't work.

[ImaginalDisc]

Today there is. Ten thousand years ago the evidence of gravity, time, and relativity were there, but there were virtually no conceptual understandings. But the laws were still there, weren't they?

Even today, do we have full understanding of gravity, time, and relativity? Nope.

The same is true of spiritual law.



Our understanding of the natural universe has been expanded by relentless questioning of assumptions, testing, checking, measuring and meticulous inquiry over thousands of years.

Our "understanding" of "spiritual laws" is maintained by people who refuse to question their own assumptions, and who deny reality.

[IllegalArgument]

I have faith that the Bible was written by people of God, inspired by God, and it is enough evidence for me to have faith in the teachings of my church.

Is it full understanding? Obviously not.

Is it infallible? Probably not.



This is why I don't think you need God to be good, you are cherrypicking the parts of the Bible that you think are right. You wouldn't stone your neighbor or give your child up as a burnt offering.

You don't need "God" to be good.

[I less than three logic]

Today there is. Ten thousand years ago the evidence of gravity, time, and relativity were there, but there were virtually no conceptual understandings. But the laws were still there, weren't they?

Even today, do we have full understanding of gravity, time, and relativity? Nope.

The same is true of spiritual law.



You will not prove or disprove spiritual law with physical tests. Period. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it works/doesn't work.
What makes you think these laws even exist? Faith is not an acceptable answer here. The laws of gravity, time, and relativity did exist before we had any concept of them that is true. However, they’ve always had a measurable effect, that’s kind of what exist means; we just needed to know how to measure those effects. Our understanding of those laws came about by our noticing of those effects, and develops by our observations of those effects. Your laws of good/evil can have no measurable effect apparently by definition, what does it mean to say they exist then?

[Huntster]

John, George, Paul, and Ringo's books all contradict one another constantly. It's IMPOSSSIBLE for them to all be true....

What a lame statement. I don't know why I bother responding to your drivel.

Minor details/words in the Gospels differ. To someone like yourself, who's goal is simply to inject doubt into a world of faith, that's all you want/need.

To me, it remains fully possible that the different authors were describing true events.

It's easily possible that they're all false.

Yup. It is. You think that's the case. I don't.

Logic tells us that you cannot possibly beleive them all to be true.

That's your logic, which I reject.

[RandFan]

I have faith that the Bible was written by people of God, inspired by God, and it is enough evidence for me to have faith in the teachings of my church.Yes, and it is still circular reasoning.

[Huntster]

Our understanding of the natural universe has been expanded by relentless questioning of assumptions, testing, checking, measuring and meticulous inquiry over thousands of years.

Our "understanding" of "spiritual laws" is maintained by people who refuse to question their own assumptions, and who deny reality.

Trust a 25 year old child to come up with a statement like that.

Our understanding of spirituality has been undergoing growth, refinement, change, etc since the dawn of mankind. The mere age of the Bible as well as the plethora of religious understanding out there in the world should make that abundantly clear.

It's just that you reject that understanding completely.

[RandFan]

You will not prove or disprove spiritual law with physical tests. Period. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it works/doesn't work. And we will not prove or disprove elves exist with physical laws. Why should we accept either?

[IllegalArgument]

Trust a 25 year old child to come up with a statement like that.

Our understanding of spirituality has been undergoing growth, refinement, change, etc since the dawn of mankind. The mere age of the Bible as well as the plethora of religious understanding out there in the world should make that abundantly clear.

It's just that you reject that understanding completely.

So, you're saying it's ok to ignore the parts of the Bible you don't agree with?

[Huntster]

This is why I don't think you need God to be good, you are cherrypicking the parts of the Bible that you think are right.

What do I or my interpretation of the Bible have to do with "needing God to be good"? I've already noted that there are people out there who aren't "religious" who are good, and we all know there are "religious" people out there who are not good.

I have every right to judge how various religions interpret the Bible (or whatever "Good Book" they like) and, when I find things I can understand and relate to, I will understand and relate to them. Who are you to judge what I understand and relate to? God?

You wouldn't stone your neighbor or give your child up as a burnt offering.

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

You don't need "God" to be good.

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

You want or reject Him to your own pleasure, whether you're "good" or not. That's up to you and Him.

[ImaginalDisc]

So, you're saying it's ok to ignore the parts of the Bible you don't agree with?

He's also saying I'm 25. I want that extra year's birthday presents.

[IllegalArgument]

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

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

You want or reject Him to your own pleasure, whether you're "good" or not. That's up to you and Him.


First off, you just admited you would follow God's will if you were required to stone another human to death.

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

And I ask again, is God the only reason you do good things? To gain favor? And it would be alright to do bad things because you again God's favor by doing that?

[RandFan]

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

[elliotfc]

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.

I don't believe that you can prove that there are "laws" of goodness/evilness in the same way that you can prove that there is a "law" of gravity.

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

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.

To be fair, sometime's it's quite clear. One must wipe out any nearby village that prays to another god. One must also kill one's own family if they worship a different god than YZL33TWAY. Killing is specifically commanded for all sorts of infractions, both minor and major.

[ImaginalDisc]

I don't believe that you can prove that there are "laws" of goodness/evilness in the same way that you can prove that there is a "law" of gravity.

-Elliot

The reason for that is simple, such rules do not exist. At least, they are not sent down from on high. They are a product of the evolution of altruism, and human culture.

[elliotfc]

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.

I disagree. The mugger recognizes two different choices, and whether you want to accept it or not, *the mugger could be bluffing*.

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.

The fundamentalist *might* argue that it's more like jumping off a building. You just off a building, something bad will happen. It's a given. *Worry is beside the point* if you're dealing with a given. It is what it is.

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.

Agreed.

The only consequences we know of are the ones God threatens us with in the Bible.

Disagree.

Many atheists recognize that theists can live happy lives and die happy, but as a consequence they live as slaves or don't think or whatever the insult du jour happens to be at the moment.

-Elliot

[Huntster]

What makes you think these laws even exist?

What makes you think that good/evil don't have laws? Doesn't everything else?

Faith is not an acceptable answer here.

Why not?

Who are you to dictate whether or not faith is acceptable?

Are you God?

The laws of gravity, time, and relativity did exist before we had any concept of them that is true. However, they’ve always had a measurable effect, that’s kind of what exist means; we just needed to know how to measure those effects.

Are you suggesting that good/evil do not have observable effects?

What we are debating here is our understanding of how good/evil work, how to measure them, how to manipulate/interact them, etc.

Our understanding of those laws came about by our noticing of those effects, and develops by our observations of those effects.

Our understanding of physical law has come through experimentation with physical tests. You cannot experiment with spiritual law with physical tests or measurements and expect accurate answers.

Your laws of good/evil can have no measurable effect apparently by definition, what does it mean to say they exist then?

The effects of spiritual law cannot be "measurable" with physical tests or measurements.

[IllegalArgument]

Huntster, I would like to say, that I don't think you are capable of stoning another human to death.

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

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I have faith that the Bible was written by people of God, inspired by God, and it is enough evidence for me to have faith in the teachings of my church.
Yes, and it is still circular reasoning.

And who says that circular understanding doesn't conform to spiritual law?

Indeed, in accordance with some theologians, circular is exactly what occurs spiritually:

You come back to God.

[RandFan]

I don't believe that you can prove that there are "laws" of goodness/evilness in the same way that you can prove that there is a "law" of gravity. The law of gravity follows from an objective and consistent observation. The law of gravity is falsifiable. The law of gravity can be used to make testable predictions. Do you have an objective and consistent observation of goodness/evilness that would lead to a law? Can the laws of goodness/evilness be used to make testable predictions? Are such laws of goodness/evilness falsifiable?

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

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
You will not prove or disprove spiritual law with physical tests. Period. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it works/doesn't work.
And we will not prove or disprove elves exist with physical laws.

What kind of stupid statement is that?

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

What an idiot.

Why should we accept either?

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

Congratulations.

[RandFan]

And who says that circular understanding doesn't conform to spiritual law?

Indeed, in accordance with some theologians, circular is exactly what occurs spiritually:

You come back to God.There is no god because I say there is no god. If you don't believe me just ask me. QED.

[Huntster]

So, you're saying it's ok to ignore the parts of the Bible you don't agree with?

Is that what you want me to say?

Do you want me to say that so you can then continue debate under terms that you like to use?

No, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the parts of the Bible that I don't understand, or which I don't think are significant in my life will not be focused on for obvious reasons.

[elliotfc]

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.

Dave, I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm pretty sure it's generally held that all 3 synoptics were dependent on a non-extant source. Or, you're right, but Matthew and Luke used Mark as well as another, or other, non-extant sources.

So Matthew and Luke are not independent witnesses adding credibility to the account of another author.

Christian tradition holds that the evangelists were associates of the witnesses, and the differences may very well (or not) come from the memories of the actual witnesses.

In my opinion, Luke 1:1-4 recognizes that other gospels are/were in circulation, so I'd guess Luke was familiar with Mark, sure.

-Elliot

[RandFan]

What kind of stupid statement is that?

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

What an idiot.Uncalled for.

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

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

[elliotfc]

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.

I agree, as a theist. I have *faith* in the existence of God (based on my Christian faith), but I'm of the opinion that I'll accept God in the next one. There won't be faith in the next one, but we are commanded to have faith in this one.

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.

Agreed. I don't articulate this often because it's usually not helpful, or, I'm content with sticking with conventional speaking because it's just easier. I say I believe in God, I accept God, I know God, but I am cognizant that it is only when I face God that I will *truly* know God.

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

Dave, I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm pretty sure it's generally held that all 3 synoptics were dependent on a non-extant source. Or, you're right, but Matthew and Luke used Mark as well as another, or other, non-extant sources.

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

Do you see how silly this is?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster

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

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

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

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

No, that is not what I said. Again:

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

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

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

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

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

Does He tell you that?

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

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

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

I will not gain favor with God by doing bad things.

[elliotfc]

? I'm sorry but...what? Is it also fundamentally unsound to reject unicorns? Faeries? Elves? Leprechauns? Santa Claus? Flying Reindeer?

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

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

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

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

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

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

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

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

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

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

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

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

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



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

-Elliot

If there are differences between the books it means that at least 3 of the books are false. Why is elementary logic so challenging for you?

[elliotfc]

I think what Imaginal is saying is that you can't do it without committing a fallacy. It's not logically valid to use the gospels as evidence of very much at all.

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

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

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

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

Should we turn the other cheek or stone our neighboors?

If someone slaps you, turn the other cheek.

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

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

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


Logic is the primary means used to determine whether some can or cannot be true. When you tell logic to screw off because it disagrees with your ideas, that is called being delusional.

[elliotfc]

The reason for that is simple, such rules do not exist. At least, they are not sent down from on high. They are a product of the evolution of altruism, and human culture.

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

-Elliot

[RandFan]

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

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

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

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

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

RandFan

The many, diverse, controversial and incompatible beliefs in god and all of the associated rituals are mythology. As to this last point, you agree with me, that is with just one exception, right? So?

[IllegalArgument]

If someone slaps you, turn the other cheek.

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

-Elliot

Those are perfectly fine guidelines, but you would have to agree that God is not requried from them to be good?

[Huntster]

Huntster, I would like to say, that I don't think you are capable of stoning another human to death.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Killing should always be regrettable and traumatic, but it is sometimes justified, even under Roman Catholic religious law (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.htm) and the laws of God:

Legitimate defense

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


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


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

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


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


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

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

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

And:

Avoiding war


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


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

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


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


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


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


there must be serious prospects of success;


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

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

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


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

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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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

Insofar as men are sinners, the threat of war hangs over them and will so continue until Christ comes again; but insofar as they can vanquish sin by coming together in charity, violence itself will be vanquished and these words will be fulfilled: "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."112

[ImaginalDisc]

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

-Elliot

Yes, it is tremendously important that we accept responsability not only for our own actions, but how we judge our actions, and the actions of others. Morality is a complex issue and no paternal sky chieftan can or will sort it out for us. Once we accept that morality is not imposed by a god, but something we've partly evolved, and partly developed through our culture, we can grow up and start to behave like civilized adults. We can stop whitewashing our actions as "good" because "god told us to do that," and we can stop denouncing different as "evil," merely because some long dead ignorant bigots claimed to have channeled the will of a "god."

[Huntster]

There is no god because I say there is no god. If you don't believe me just ask me. QED.

You have every right to say so, and I have every right to reject what you say.

[RandFan]

Screw what you say are fallacies. Objective truth is what it is, I don't care about these fallacy constructs. They don't mean anything. This is a nonsensical and incoherent statement. Objective truth and fallacy are mutually exclusive, always. No exception has been found to date.

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

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

QUESTION: How can Muslims find the truth that they are wrong?

[elliotfc]

The law of gravity follows from an objective and consistent observation. The law of gravity is falsifiable. The law of gravity can be used to make testable predictions. Do you have an objective and consistent observation of goodness/evilness that would lead to a law?

No. Except...

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

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

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

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

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

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

There is no god because I say there is no god. If you don't believe me just ask me. QED.

I agree that there is no god. There is a God though!

-Elliot

[Huntster]

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:
What an idiot.

Uncalled for.

So was the stupid elf.

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

Congratulations.

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

Congratulations. Enjoy your life with the elves and in accordance with Elfen law.

[elliotfc]

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

Do you see how silly this is?

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

-Elliot

[RandFan]

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

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

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

Atheists: We will only accept that which can be objectively and/or logically proven.

[elliotfc]

If there are differences between the books it means that at least 3 of the books are false. Why is elementary logic so challenging for you?

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

-Elliot

[RandFan]

No. Except...

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

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

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

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

-ElliotIn all honesty I don't understand your point. You say that the law of gravity can no more be "proven" than gravity. I disagree. In the scientific sense it can be proven. Moral laws can't.

[IllegalArgument]

I will not gain favor with God by doing bad things.

Now, I understand if do a bad thing it's not God's will, but if you do a good thing it is God's will.

You would never do a bad thing in God's will, because God would never ask you to dol a bad thing.

Still sounds like circular logic, but at least I understand you.

[elliotfc]

Logic is the primary means used to determine whether some can or cannot be true.

Assuming you are right, that's independent of whether or not something actually is true.

When you tell logic to screw off because it disagrees with your ideas, that is called being delusional.

I don't actually think that logic exists. Objective truth exists, and logic is a coping mechanism. If there were no humans, there would be no logic. And if the logic that we proclaim is faulty or is out of its league when it comes to certain questions, so be it. I'll stick with objective truth, as it is, not as you as the prophet of logic would have it be.

-Elliot

[RandFan]

I agree that there is no god. There is a God though! I don't want to debate the point but your statement is incoherent. I understand you wanting to quibble with my lack of formalizing the word but one is not mutually exclusive of the other. "God" would most certainly fit the definition of "god". At best your argument is semantical, and wrong at that.

[elliotfc]

Only because there exist people who believe in god. That a lot of people are fixated on some concept, a concept that effects me directly, is not a reason to suppose that it is of any significance other than the effect it has on my life.

No, obviously it *is* significant. I never suggested otherwise.

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

I think there is a big difference. As far as I know, no one is asserting that elves created/designed the universe, or, are unbegotten, or are the supreme judges of everything that is. You're welcome to be the first.

Evasive. I don't believe that Muslims, Pagans, Hindus, Sikhs, etc. believe in their god for no reason. I'm not sure what significance that is.

So?

My only point was that people believe in god for reasons, and not for no reason.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Those are perfectly fine guidelines, but you would have to agree that God is not requried from them to be good?

I dunno. I could answer this in many ways, but I'll keep it simple. No, you don't have to be a theist to accept what may be promoted as theistic morality.

-Elliot

[RandFan]

However, if one shows up on my doorstep, should I confirm/reject it by praying, or by touching it and asking what the Hell he's doing on my doorstep? That's the problem. If an elf showed up at your door step that would be physical proof.

1.) The elf has not shown up at your door (no physical proof).
2.) God has not shown up at your door (no physical proof).

That doesn't keep people from believing in elves and god, does it?

So was the stupid elf.It was called for and it wasn't a personal attack.

Congratulations. Enjoy your life with the elves and in accordance with Elfen law.Since there is as much god's law as elves law then I should do just fine.

[elliotfc]

Yes, it is tremendously important that we accept responsability not only for our own actions, but how we judge our actions, and the actions of others.

Agreed.

Morality is a complex issue and no paternal sky chieftan can or will sort it out for us.

Agreed. God will not sort out our issues with morality for us.

Once we accept that morality is not imposed by a god, but something we've partly evolved, and partly developed through our culture, we can grow up and start to behave like civilized adults.

I agree that God does not impose morality on us. If he did, there would be no immorality.

We can stop whitewashing our actions as "good" because "god told us to do that," and we can stop denouncing different as "evil," merely because some long dead ignorant bigots claimed to have channeled the will of a "god."

I agree that different doesn't mean evil. God knows I think different from you, eh?

-Elliot

[RandFan]

No, obviously it *is* significant. I never suggested otherwise. Yes, but what significance. That there exists some significance is no reason to elevate what ever it is we are talking about. There was a time lots of people believed in leprechauns and that he leprechauns were significant in the lives, culture and customs of those people, so what?

I think there is a big difference. As far as I know, no one is asserting that elves created/designed the universe, or, are unbegotten, or are the supreme judges of everything that is. You're welcome to be the first. So what? I hardly see the difference except your brother is bigger than the schools bullies brother. Who cares about how grand the fantasy is?

My only point was that people believe in god for reasons, and not for no reason.Ally beliefs in mythologies exist for reasons, so what?

[Huntster]

......Truth shouldn't be based on opinion.

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

RandFan: I have the truth because I say so.

Huntster: I don't have the truth, but being raised Catholic and finding Catholic theology as sound as any other (and sounder than many), choose to seek Truth in the Catholic tradition, recognizing that no person has Truth in a cage.

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

You'll have to ask them. I'm not among 'em.

Atheists: We will only accept that which can be objectively and/or logically proven.

Good luck. Go with...........Whoever or Whatever.

[elliotfc]

This is a nonsensical and incoherent statement. Objective truth and fallacy are mutually exclusive, always. No exception has been found to date.

I don't know if I want to get into this. Many things that have been claimed to be fallacious were shown to be not-fallacious. Fallacy is dependent, and not the other way around. If something hasn't been shown to be fallacious *yet*, oh well, that doesn't mean that our declarations of fallatio are anything more than what we are currently able to understand.

"IF". That one great big "if". Let's figure out if it is true first. Hey, if Allah wants us all to be good little Muslims then that would dwarf any point you are trying to make about Jesus being crucified.

Agreed.

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

First, *which of your assumptions are you actually questioning*.

Second, I'd argue that Muslims tend *not* to use the Koran to try to convince everyone else that they are right. I've known many Muslims, and I've never experienced Koran fueled proselytizing.

QUESTION: How can Muslims find the truth that they are wrong?

Heck, send me a PM and I'll give you my e-mail address, and distribute it amongst all your Muslim friends, I'll set 'em right. Duh. :)

Seriously, wrong about *what* in particular?

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

In all honesty I don't understand your point. You say that the law of gravity can no more be "proven" than gravity. I disagree. In the scientific sense it can be proven. Moral laws can't.

My point is that if we never articulate the law of gravity, it doesn't matter. If we never understand the law of gravity, it doesn't matter. It just is, independent of "law" which only exists because people exist.

Now, you don't need "science" to understand that if you jump off a building, you'll fall. Anecdote or personal experience will suffice.

I've never invoked the phrase "moral law" in this thread, so I don't know if I ought to be defending the phrase. I've simply said what I'm saying. Maybe that's why you're not understanding my point. You're waiting for me to proclaim the wonder of moral laws, when I'm not trying to do any such thing.

-Elliot

[Huntster]

Now, I understand if do a bad thing it's not God's will, but if you do a good thing it is God's will.

IMO, that is correct.

You would never do a bad thing in God's will, because God would never ask you to dol a bad thing.

That is not correct. I do bad things, they are not God's will, but I do them occasionally because I'm human (weak in spirit, trapped in the flesh).

Because I accept that the crucifixion of Christ was full redemption for the sins of man, I am grateful and in awe of His sacrifice for us, I can be forgiven for my sins.

If you refuse to accept this sacrifice, how can it possibly redeem you?

[elliotfc]

Now, I understand if do a bad thing it's not God's will, but if you do a good thing it is God's will.

I disagree. For example, pro-life Catholics believe that they are doing a *good thing* in praying rosaries in front of abortion mills, I mean clinics. But does God will to shut down those abortion clinics because of the rosaries? It appears not.

As Mother Teresa said, we credit *successes* to God, but mere faithfulness (most certainly a good thing) we don't credit to God.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

I don't want to debate the point but your statement is incoherent. I understand you wanting to quibble with my lack of formalizing the word but one is not mutually exclusive of the other. "God" would most certainly fit the definition of "god". At best your argument is semantical, and wrong at that.

It was meant to be cheeky, and just that.

I don't know if God fits the definition of god by the way. Some gods were begotten, while the Christian God is unbegotten. In some ways does it fit the definition of god? I guess so.

-Elliot

[I less than three logic]

What makes you think that good/evil don't have laws? Doesn't everything else?
I don't think they have absolute laws. No, I don't think everything has absolute laws which govern them. What do you find attractive? Do we all abide by absolute laws there?

Why not?

Who are you to dictate whether or not faith is acceptable?

Are you God?
Don't need to be God here. Admitting that it is based on faith renders your analogy of absoluteness comparable to gravity simply incorrect. Those others examples are not based on faith, but observable analysis.

Are you suggesting that good/evil do not have observable effects?
Observable perhaps, but observable with objective results, hardly. Remember your making an analogy with absolute laws; such laws would require objective right or wrong answers. You know, like the mathematics of gravity.

Our understanding of physical law has come through experimentation with physical tests. You cannot experiment with spiritual law with physical tests or measurements and expect accurate answers.
Oh, I don't require physical tests. Any tests that can produce some objective answers will suffice. Can you think of any, or is it completely immeasurable?

The effects of spiritual law cannot be "measurable" with physical tests or measurements.
How do you know there are effects for these laws? What evidence are you basing this assumption on?

[ImaginalDisc]

Now, you don't need "science" to understand that if you jump off a building, you'll fall. Anecdote or personal experience will suffice.

Yes, you do. "Things fall down," Is a scientific law. It's just an inaccurate one, and also imprecise. Laws are descriptions of natural phenomenea. Animals tends to adapt to natural laws. The skylab experiments with rats and spiders that even such lower order animals are capable of recognizing natural phenomenea, and altering their behavior to match.

[Huntster]

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

That's the problem. If an elf showed up at your door step that would be physical proof.

1.) The elf has not shown up at your door (no physical proof).
2.) God has not shown up at your door (no physical proof).


The problem is that elves are physical beings (thus subject to physical law) and God is obviously not.

Get it?:

Physical; subject to physical law.

Not Physical; not observable, testable, etc with physical law.

That doesn't keep people from believing in elves and god, does it?

Obviously. I accept the concept of spiritual law, and believe in God. I accept physical law, have seen or know of no physical evidence of elves, and thus greatly doubt their existance.

You reject spiritual law as well as the spiritual existence of God. You claim to be an adherent to physics, yet are discussing elves and Elfen Law.

Go figure............

Quote:
So was the stupid elf.

It was called for and it wasn't a personal attack.

You're right. It wasn't a personal attack.

It was an intellectual insult.

You "called for the elf". Enjoy him/her.

Quote:
Congratulations. Enjoy your life with the elves and in accordance with Elfen law.

Since there is as much god's law as elves law then I should do just fine.

Interesting. I stated I wasn't much interested in wasting time studying up on elves, but if you have as much reference on Elfen Law as I can drum up on God's Law, I might take a peek at it. Hell, maybe it can explain your bizarre behavior.

Got a reference to this vast library of Elfen Law?

[Pauliesonne]

[QUOTE=IllegalArgument;1951774]Now, I understand if do a bad thing it's not God's will, but if you do a good thing it is God's will.[QUOTE]

IMO, that is correct.



That is not correct. I do bad things, they are not God's will, but I do them occasionally because I'm human (weak in spirit, trapped in the flesh).

Because I accept that the crucifixion of Christ was full redemption for the sins of man, I am grateful and in awe of His sacrifice for us, I can be forgiven for my sins.

If you refuse to accept this sacrifice, how can it possibly redeem you?


Maybe you're asking forgiveness to a non-existant god and should be praying to the Jewish god.

I don't believe in either but as long as the chicago tribune pays me, I'll say anything.

[I less than three logic]

Got a reference to this vast library of Elfen Law?
That would be Elven Law. :)

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
What makes you think that good/evil don't have laws? Doesn't everything else?

I don't think they have absolute laws. No, I don't think everything has absolute laws which govern them. What do you find attractive? Do we all abide by absolute laws there?

Okay. Matters of opinion (like what is attractive or not, or any other CHOICE is not subject to law. (I hope you recognize the circle we've run with this.........).

Are you now suggesting that good and evil are fully matters of opinion?

Quote:
Why not?

Who are you to dictate whether or not faith is acceptable?

Are you God?

Don't need to be God here. Admitting that it is based on faith renders your analogy of absoluteness comparable to gravity simply incorrect.

Admitting that my acceptance of God is based on faith is simply writing the truth. Theorizing that good/evil is related to spiritual law is accepting the teachings of theologians. Admitting that spiritual law cannot be tested, measured, quantified, or otherwise manipulated by man with physical measures is simply stating the obvious.

Quote:
Are you suggesting that good/evil do not have observable effects?

Observable perhaps, but observable with objective results, hardly. Remember your making an analogy with absolute laws; such laws would require objective right or wrong answers. You know, like the mathematics of gravity.

Mathematics is physical law. Good/evil, God/Absence-from God is not.

Quote:
Our understanding of physical law has come through experimentation with physical tests. You cannot experiment with spiritual law with physical tests or measurements and expect accurate answers.

Oh, I don't require physical tests. Any tests that can produce some objective answers will suffice. Can you think of any, or is it completely immeasurable?

It is measurable with faith.

Quote:
The effects of spiritual law cannot be "measurable" with physical tests or measurements.

How do you know there are effects for these laws? What evidence are you basing this assumption on?

My experience in prayerful life.

[I less than three logic]

Okay. Matters of opinion (like what is attractive or not, or any other CHOICE is not subject to law. (I hope you recognize the circle we've run with this.........).

Are you now suggesting that good and evil are fully matters of opinion?
What one considers good or evil is dependent on one’s moral philosophy, which is formed by a variety of factors. The environment they grew up in, aspiring to be like those they admire, lessons learned through action and consequence (based on the moral philosophies of others around them), predictions on what others will think of certain actions to name a few. So yes, I consider good and evil to be matters of opinion, although I prefer terms right and wrong or, perhaps, just and unjust since good and evil carry with them a lot of religious baggage.

Within society, it is generally a consensus of opinions that determines what is considered good or evil within that society. Some are rather common, such as not killing or stealing. Others, such as polygamy, may be less common. What one society views as evil may not be seen that way by another. I see no evidence that any view of good or evil is absolutely correct the same way that no matter what society you inhabit on Earth, rocks still fall at the same speed.

Admitting that my acceptance of God is based on faith is simply writing the truth. Theorizing that good/evil is related to spiritual law is accepting the teachings of theologians. Admitting that spiritual law cannot be tested, measured, quantified, or otherwise manipulated by man with physical measures is simply stating the obvious.
You are attempting to make an analogy that good/evil are as absolute as the laws of gravity. One can not make claims of the absolute on faith, faith deals with unknowns. If you admit it is unknown, how can then state you know it is absolute, let alone prove it is absolute? It would be far easier just to admit your analogy is incorrect.

It is measurable with faith.
Oh, well in that case the absolute laws of good and evil are obviously those of the Muslim extremists. Hands down, their faith is measurably more devout than any others. I doubt you’re willing to blow yourself up to prove your faith.

My experience in prayerful life.
Which could just as easily be evidence you’re suffering from some mental disorder as it could for the existence of these effects of these laws, what makes you convinced it’s the latter?

ETA - Seems I forgot one of the most obvious bases for one’s moral philosophy, the tenets of their religion. Not one I put much value in, but many people at least unitize the tenets of their religion in determining their moral philosophy. This is what I’d believe Huntster does. Others use the tenets themselves as their moral philosophy, such as KuriousKathy seems to.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Okay. Matters of opinion (like what is attractive or not, or any other CHOICE is not subject to law. (I hope you recognize the circle we've run with this.........).

Are you now suggesting that good and evil are fully matters of opinion?

What one considers good or evil is dependent on one’s moral philosophy, which is formed by a variety of factors. The environment they grew up in, aspiring to be like those they admire, lessons learned through action and consequence (based on the moral philosophies of others around them), predictions on what others will think of certain actions to name a few. So yes, I consider good and evil to be matters of opinion, although I prefer terms right and wrong or, perhaps, just and unjust since good and evil carry with them a lot of religious baggage.

So, it is perfectly "right" for a New Guinea tribesman to kill a visitor and eat him because that is the moral environment he grew up in, he aspires to succeed in that moral environment, and he has learned that lesson through observing it done.

Thus it is "good" because he "opines" that it is good based on his life experiences, even though a 25 year old college student in a California suburb might "opine" that it is "wrong" (or the Huntster "opine" that it is "evil", because the Huntster is religious).

Sorry. I reject that. I say it is "wrong" or "evil" (whichever you prefer) because spiritual law dictates that it is "wrong" or "evil."

Within society, it is generally a consensus of opinions that determines what is considered good or evil within that society. Some are rather common, such as not killing or stealing. Others, such as polygamy, may be less common. What one society views as evil may not be seen that way by another. I see no evidence that any view of good or evil is absolutely correct the same way that no matter what society you inhabit on Earth, rocks still fall at the same speed.

And what I am saying is that society doesn't have the authority or an understanding complete enough to dictate morality. They can establish civil law (which might be moral or not), but they can no more establish morality any more than they can legislate whether gravity will exist in their political jurisdiction.

Quote:
Admitting that my acceptance of God is based on faith is simply writing the truth. Theorizing that good/evil is related to spiritual law is accepting the teachings of theologians. Admitting that spiritual law cannot be tested, measured, quantified, or otherwise manipulated by man with physical measures is simply stating the obvious.

You are attempting to make an analogy that good/evil are as absolute as the laws of gravity. One can not make claims of the absolute on faith, faith deals with unknowns.

That's right. I can no more establish spiritual law based on faith than you can claim that it doesn't exist based on physical law, because (like you write), it is unknown. However, I can believe in an unknown with faith. You are locked up in physics. You cannot fully rule out unknowns. You can only fail to test and verify them physically, then admit that you cannot find proof either way.

If you admit it is unknown, how can then state you know it is absolute, let alone prove it is absolute?

I state that I believe spiritual law is absolute. Faith allows me that right.

I've already stated that I cannot prove it, and I have repeatedly outlined why.

Quote:
It is measurable with faith.

Oh, well in that case the absolute laws of good and evil are obviously those of the Muslim extremists. Hands down, their faith is measurably more devout than any others. I doubt you’re willing to blow yourself up to prove your faith.

Even though you don't seem to be getting it (or are dancing around the debate, not liking what I'm writing), you're right. I'm not willing to blow myself up to prove anything because:

1) It wouldn't prove anything about my faith to God
2) It would be a sin in the Catholic tradition, and thus evil
3) It is probably immoral in the eyes of God
4) Mrs. Huntster would be really pissed off, and thus God would be very disappointed in me
5) and I hate the injuries associated with blasts; they really hurt.

Quote:
My experience in prayerful life.

Which could just as easily be evidence you’re suffering from some mental disorder as it could for the existence of these effects of these laws, what makes you convinced it’s the latter?

Because the psychological testing I've undergone for employment purposes have indicated good psychological health, and even a high degree of many traits which many people consider "moral".

Those were tests based on scientific knowledge of psychology. You wouldn't debate the results of those, would you?

Now, do you have any evidence whatsoever that a reflection of life's experiences in prayer are any evidence whatsoever of a mental disorder?

I've been subjected to a various number and types of psychological examinations for employment purposes.

When was the last time you were psychologically evaluated?

[RandFan]

RandFan: I have the truth because I say so. Wrong. Strawman.

I seek truth through objective means relying on the scientific method.

Huntster: I don't have the truth, but being raised Catholic and finding Catholic theology as sound as any other (and sounder than many), choose to seek Truth in the Catholic tradition, recognizing that no person has Truth in a cage. Sounds like pro-hoc reasoning to me.

Good luck. Go with...........Whoever or Whatever. "Good Luck"? This is the method that unlocked the secrets of the atom and of DNA. This is the method that took humans to the moon and sent probes to the outer most regions of our solar system, created computers, airplanes, automobiles, technology to grow sufficient food, medicine, etc.

None of this was based on luck.

Your method has given us many incompatible religions that have caused people to strap on bombs and kill people.

I would take my method exclusively over yours any day. ANY DAY.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
RandFan: I have the truth because I say so.

Wrong. Strawman.

I seek truth through objective means relying on the scientific method.

So, do you freely admit that you don't "have the truth" if the scientific method is incapable of determining it?

Quote:
Huntster: I don't have the truth, but being raised Catholic and finding Catholic theology as sound as any other (and sounder than many), choose to seek Truth in the Catholic tradition, recognizing that no person has Truth in a cage.

Sounds like pro-hoc reasoning to me.

Reasoning it is.

Quote:
Good luck. Go with...........Whoever or Whatever.

"Good Luck"? This is the method that unlocked the secrets of the atom and of DNA.

Both of which are physical phenomena.

This is the method that took humans to the moon and sent probes to the outer most regions of our solar system, created computers, airplanes, automobiles, technology to grow sufficient food, medicine, etc.

All of which are physical phenomena.

None of this was based on luck.

And none of that was spiritual phenomena.

Your method has given us many incompatible religions that have caused people to strap on bombs and kill people.

Religion and spirituality don't cause people to strap on bombs and kill people.

Evil does.

I would take my method exclusively over yours any day. ANY DAY.

Then take it and go with..........................Science.

(I'd wish you luck, but you don't seem to like that. Should I just say don't leave angry..............just leave?).

[RandFan]

I don't know if I want to get into this. Many things that have been claimed to be fallacious were shown to be not-fallacious. Fallacy is dependent, and not the other way around. If something hasn't been shown to be fallacious *yet*, oh well, that doesn't mean that our declarations of fallatio are anything more than what we are currently able to understand.This is very misleading. It's true that there were things in the past that were believed to be correct that turned out not to be later. That said, there is no controversy or mystery about logic and fallacy. This is jut a great big red herring.

I was, and still am to a small degree, a programmer. I worked full time for nearly 20 years as a programmer. I can tell you that logic just doesn't work the way that you suggest. If you get an opportunity I recommend a course in logic or philosophy. I can assure you that if you understood what you are talking about as it concerns logic you wouldn't make such an error. I apologize for being patronizing but I've got to insist on sticking with logic and avoiding fallacy. Otherwise there really is no point in logically debating anything.

First, *which of your assumptions are you actually questioning*. At the moment I'm not actively questioning any specific assumption. I do so on an as needed basis. I will tell you that when I first discovered that many of my assumptions were tenuous and subject to error I seriously examined my held beliefs. Based on the philosophical work of Descartes I started by questioning everything. Eventually I came to even question Descartes only certainty. "I think, therefor I am" (but that is another subject). This gave me a baseline and for the first time in my life I acquired knowledge not by simply relying on others to tell me what was correct and was not but I could critically examine the data and form for myself an opinion much the way a scientist tests a hypothesis by first finding a base line. I have been building on that ever since. Adopting the scientific method I hold no absolutes and that which I do hold I only hold provisionally. I can go back to my baseline at anytime. My foundation for my knowledge is strong because like science it is built on empiricism and critical inquiry rather than simply relying on intuition and emotion.

Second, I'd argue that Muslims tend *not* to use the Koran to try to convince everyone else that they are right. I've known many Muslims, and I've never experienced Koran fueled proselytizing. Poor choice of words on my part.

1.) Muslims hold the that the Koran is their source of truth.
2.) Many Muslims believe that Christianity must be abolished and infidels converted.

I hope that clarifies things.

Seriously, wrong about *what* in particular?If I adopted your view point I would assume that salvation comes only by Jesus Christ.

If I'm wrong and that is not your belief the please accept my apology. If I was wrong then let me ask you, do you belief that any set dogma or any specific theology incidental to salvation?

[RandFan]

So, do you freely admit that you don't "have the truth" if the scientific method is incapable of determining it? Where did you get this notion? Let me quote someone else who is better than I at explain what I mean by "the truth".

Laurence Moran (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html)

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. ... In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Reasoning it is.Yes, but pro-hoc is an extremely poor and notoriously unreliable method of reasoning. It is completely rejected by the scientific community. I wouldn't recommend it but I understand why you might want to use it. Pro-hoc is popular among those who would rather figure out what they believe and then prove that belief rather than simply find out the truth first and then decide what to believe.

Oh, oh, oh...

This is a great time for a great SNL quote.

Theodoric of York: [ steps toward the camera ] Wait a minute. Perhaps she's right. Perhaps I've been wrong to blindly follow the medical traditions and superstitions of past centuries. Maybe we barbers should test these assumptions analytically, through experimentation and a "scientific method". Maybe this scientific method could be extended to other fields of learning: the natural sciences, art, architecture, navigation. Perhaps I could lead the way to a new age, an age of rebirth, a Renaissance! [ thinks for a minute ] Naaaaaahhh! You see Huntster, post-hoc was the method employed during the dark ages.

But you are right, it IS reasoning.

Both of which are physical phenomena.Ok and?

All of which are physical phenomena.Ok and?

And none of that was spiritual phenomena. I prefer "none of that is superstition".

Religion and spirituality don't cause people to strap on bombs and kill people.:confused:

Evil does.Oh right, when "The God of Abraham" told his "people" to slaughter men, women and children that was not EVIL!

Huntster, one man's evil is another mans command from god.

Then take it and go with..........................Science.

(I'd wish you luck, but you don't seem to like that. Should I just say don't leave angry..............just leave?).:D Oh hell, I'm not going anywhere. I rather like it here. Science, skepticism and reason have something to say in the Religion and Philosophy forum. And you can be damn sure I'm not angry. I leave that to the folks who get emotional and call others "stupid".

So, stick around, I'm here, we'll discuss enlightenment. :)

[Wheezebucket]

Evil?! THAT'S what makes us fight and kill?! Pssshh, who know it was that simple? All this time we've been arguing like schmucks, turns out - it's evil. And I should have known, really, I mean come on...it IS evil we're talking about. Well, that's that then. Evil is caused by evil, let's call it a night.

[jjramsey]

It occurs to me that to say, "The Gospels are contradictory, so they cannot be used as evidence" rests on the hidden assumption "false in part, false in all." That may be a useful legal rule for erring on the side of caution, but it just does not fit how humans actually behave. Not only do people tend to lie about some things more than others, but they also often make mistakes when they lie, and those mistakes can be used to figure out bits and pieces of the truth.

The Gospels are lousy evidence for miracles, true. However, given that crucifixion was regarded as degrading and dishonorable, it is unlikely that the doctrine was created de novo. The theology around the crucifixion makes far more sense as a post-hoc rationalization of an unfortunate event.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
So, do you freely admit that you don't "have the truth" if the scientific method is incapable of determining it?

Where did you get this notion?

From the fact that you indicate everybody else doesn't have the truth. I wanted to ensure that you aren't claiming to have it, and to have obtained it with the scientific method.

Let me quote someone else who is better than I at explain what I mean by "the truth".

Quote:
Laurence Moran

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. ... In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Spirituality is also "not about the empirical world". It is, by nature, not physical. It does not react to science.

Quote:
Reasoning it is.

Yes, but pro-hoc is an extremely poor and notoriously unreliable method of reasoning. It is completely rejected by the scientific community. I wouldn't recommend it but I understand why you might want to use it. Pro-hoc is popular among those who would rather figure out what they believe and then prove that belief rather than simply find out the truth first and then decide what to believe.

Then it doesn't apply to me, since I have no intent to try to prove my beliefs, have repeatedly stated that, and state it is not possible to prove them.

You see Huntster, post-hoc was the method employed during the dark ages.

Yup. Even physical, scientific phenomena was treated in such a way then.

But you are right, it IS reasoning.

That's right.

Quote:
Both of which are physical phenomena.

Ok and?

The scientific method is appropriate to test and learn of these phenomena. It is not appropriate to test and learn of spirituality, because it won't work.

Quote:
All of which are physical phenomena.

Ok and?

The scientific method is appropriate to test and learn of these phenomena. It is not appropriate to test and learn of spirituality, because it won't work.

Quote:
And none of that was spiritual phenomena.

I prefer "none of that is superstition".

Superstition and spirituality are two different things.

Quote:
Religion and spirituality don't cause people to strap on bombs and kill people.

Quote:
Evil does.

Oh right, when "The God of Abraham" told his "people" to slaughter men, women and children that was not EVIL![/QUOTE]

Apparently not.

Huntster, one man's evil is another mans command from god.

I say God doesn't command evil acts.

[RandFan]

From the fact that you indicate everybody else doesn't have the truth. I wanted to ensure that you aren't claiming to have it, and to have obtained it with the scientific method.When did I indicate this? Please to stick with what I say and not what you think I said.

Spirituality is also "not about the empirical world". It is, by nature, not physical. It does not react to science. That's right. So why should anyone rely on it? How many "truths" does it generate? There are hundreds of incompatible religions. Since none of them can be empirically tested how does one find the truth?

Then it doesn't apply to me, since I have no intent to try to prove my beliefs, have repeatedly stated that, and state it is not possible to prove them. Follow the responses back to the beginning of our exchange and you get this "You are free to do what ever you want (so long as it is legal) but that won't change the fact that it is still a fallacy."

It is still fallacy.

Yup. Even physical, scientific phenomena was treated in such a way then.What? I don't know what this means.

That's right.Bad, dangerous reasoning.

The scientific method is appropriate to test and learn of these phenomena. It is not appropriate to test and learn of spirituality, because it won't work.:) No kidding. It's a crap shoot. It depends... oh, how did you say it?

...but being raised Catholic and finding Catholic theology as sound as any other (and sounder than many), (emphasis mine) That's it, it depends on how you are raised. Odd way for god to disseminate the truth. Oh, and have you noticed that everyone's religion is "sounder than many". That's kind of like asking people to rate their driving abilities. Most people are better than average. :boggled:

The scientific method is appropriate to test and learn of these phenomena. It is not appropriate to test and learn of spirituality, because it won't work. You and I agree. We must rely on how we were raised.

Superstition and spirituality are two different things. There is no such thing as superstition to the superstitious.

Oh right, when "The God of Abraham" told his "people" to slaughter men, women and children that was not EVIL!

Apparently not. Wow, so evil is determine by god? Any time someone kills in the name of god it is not evil. Muslims say there god tells them to kill non-Muslims. By your logic, so long as they believe this, it is not evil. And let's be intellectually honest here, you have admitted that the spiritual can't be proven. It is simply to be believed. Good job, you just found a way for anyone to defend evil. They need but honestly believe that god told them to act in a way that would otherwise be evil. Apparently 9/11 wasn't evil.

I say God doesn't command evil acts.That's what the terrorists keep telling us. Allah Akbar.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
From the fact that you indicate everybody else doesn't have the truth. I wanted to ensure that you aren't claiming to have it, and to have obtained it with the scientific method.

When did I indicate this? Please to stick with what I say and not what you think I said.

By listing others who you claim claim to have the truth, and not listing your own position, you indicate that you have something they don't. I asked to verify this wasn't the case.

Quote:
Spirituality is also "not about the empirical world". It is, by nature, not physical. It does not react to science.

That's right. So why should anyone rely on it?

Because it's an issue that science apparently can't verify, and which requires either faith, rejection, or indifference.

How many "truths" does it generate? There are hundreds of incompatible religions. Since none of them can be empirically tested how does one find the truth?

I don't believe any of them have truth caged. The best one can do is study and pray.

Quote:
Then it doesn't apply to me, since I have no intent to try to prove my beliefs, have repeatedly stated that, and state it is not possible to prove them.

Follow the responses back to the beginning of our exchange and you get this "You are free to do what ever you want (so long as it is legal) but that won't change the fact that it is still a fallacy."

It is still fallacy.

That is your opinion, and you are free to hold it dear.

Quote:
Yup. Even physical, scientific phenomena was treated in such a way then.

What? I don't know what this means.

Physical science wasn't treated or exercised in the Dark Ages like it is today.

Quote:
That's right.

Bad, dangerous reasoning.

Your opinions are yours, but calling my reasoning "dangerous" is coming close to stepping over the line.

Quote:
The scientific method is appropriate to test and learn of these phenomena. It is not appropriate to test and learn of spirituality, because it won't work.

No kidding. It's a crap shoot. It depends... oh, how did you say it?

I don't know. How do you say it?

Quote:
...but being raised Catholic and finding Catholic theology as sound as any other (and sounder than many),

(emphasis mine) That's it, it depends on how you are raised. Odd way for god to disseminate the truth.

No, it doesn't fully depend on how you are raised, although that is a significant factor. That's why raising children is such a critical effort.

And who are you to determine what God should do and why?

Oh, and have you noticed that everyone's religion is "sounder than many". That's kind of like asking people to rate their driving abilities. Most people are better than average.

Ever consider the possibility that the religion people are familiar with is the one they have studied, understand, and otherwise are most knowledgable about?

Does it take a "scientific" study to figure that one out, Einstein?

Quote:
The scientific method is appropriate to test and learn of these phenomena. It is not appropriate to test and learn of spirituality, because it won't work.

You and I agree. We must rely on how we were raised.

Again, not necessarily. How we were raised will dominate our learning processes and what we learned at an early age, but it shouldn't necessarily be the "only way."

Quote:
Superstition and spirituality are two different things.

There is no such thing as superstition to the superstitious.

But there are faulty superstitions that are recognized by many religious people.

Quote:
Oh right, when "The God of Abraham" told his "people" to slaughter men, women and children that was not EVIL!

Maybe the person who claimed God told his "people" to slaughter men, women, and children was evil, and falsely claimed that "God told me to do it".

Maybe the people who were killed were evil, God did direct the massacre, and it was just.

I don't know. Neither do you.

Quote:
Apparently not.

Wow, so evil is determine by god?

Yes. More precisely, since God is good, evil is the opposite of God.

Any time someone kills in the name of god it is not evil. Muslims say there god tells them to kill non-Muslims. By your logic, so long as they believe this, it is not evil.

That is not true. I've already pointed that out in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1952318&postcount=223):

Originally Posted by I less than three logic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huntster
Okay. Matters of opinion (like what is attractive or not, or any other CHOICE is not subject to law. (I hope you recognize the circle we've run with this.........).

Are you now suggesting that good and evil are fully matters of opinion?

What one considers good or evil is dependent on one’s moral philosophy, which is formed by a variety of factors. The environment they grew up in, aspiring to be like those they admire, lessons learned through action and consequence (based on the moral philosophies of others around them), predictions on what others will think of certain actions to name a few. So yes, I consider good and evil to be matters of opinion, although I prefer terms right and wrong or, perhaps, just and unjust since good and evil carry with them a lot of religious baggage.


So, it is perfectly "right" for a New Guinea tribesman to kill a visitor and eat him because that is the moral environment he grew up in, he aspires to succeed in that moral environment, and he has learned that lesson through observing it done.

Thus it is "good" because he "opines" that it is good based on his life experiences, even though a 25 year old college student in a California suburb might "opine" that it is "wrong" (or the Huntster "opine" that it is "evil", because the Huntster is religious).

Sorry. I reject that. I say it is "wrong" or "evil" (whichever you prefer) because spiritual law dictates that it is "wrong" or "evil."

And let's be intellectually honest here, you have admitted that the spiritual can't be proven. It is simply to be believed. Good job, you just found a way for anyone to defend evil. They need but honestly believe that god told them to act in a way that would otherwise be evil. Apparently 9/11 wasn't evil.

You call that intellectual honesty?

Give me a break.........

Quote:
I say God doesn't command evil acts.

That's what the terrorists keep telling us. Allah Akbar.

God is great.

And that has nothing to do with killing innocent people.

[RandFan]

By listing others who you claim claim to have the truth, and not listing your own position, you indicate that you have something they don't. I asked to verify this wasn't the case.In all honesty I have no idea what you are talking about.

Because it's an issue that science apparently can't verify, and which requires either faith, rejection, or indifference. That's not an answer to the question.

I don't believe any of them have truth caged. The best one can do is study and pray. That doesn't inspire confidence.

That is your opinion, and you are free to hold it dear. More than mere opinion but you are free to think that it is.

Physical science wasn't treated or exercised in the Dark Ages like it is today. That's right. We gave up on pro-hoc reasoning. There is a message there for anyone willing to recieve it.

Your opinions are yours, but calling my reasoning "dangerous" is coming close to stepping over the line. Faulty reasoning is dangerous which is why science has stopped using it. Faulty reasoning is the reason so many people died because their doctors removed the patients blood when doing so only made things worse.

I don't know. How do you say it? "Coincidental"

No, it doesn't fully depend on how you are raised, although that is a significant factor. That's why raising children is such a critical effort. I never said fully. But it is a fact that Muslims raise Muslims, Sikhs raise Sikhs, Buddhists raise Buddhists, Mormons raise Mormons, etc. This is a fact that can't be reasonably denied.

And who are you to determine what God should do and why? I'm only noting that it is a poor way to do something.

Ever consider the possibility that the religion people are familiar with is the one they have studied, understand, and otherwise are most knowledgable about? Of course. That IS my point. The results still leave incompatible religions.

Does it take a "scientific" study to figure that one out, Einstein? Not called for especially since that was the very point that I was trying to make.

Again, not necessarily. How we were raised will dominate our learning processes and what we learned at an early age, but it shouldn't necessarily be the "only way." Of course not but it renders consistent results.

But there are faulty superstitions that are recognized by many religious people.One person's faulty superstition is another's religion.

Maybe the person who claimed God told his "people" to slaughter men, women, and children was evil, and falsely claimed that "God told me to do it". You've lost me, are you saying that the events depicted in the bible could have been the result of evil men?

Maybe the people who were killed were evil, God did direct the massacre, and it was just.(emphasis mine)

1.) Women, children and infants?
2.) If you say yes to #1 then is it not reasonable that God directed the 9/11 conspirators to kill Americans because we are evil?

I don't know. Neither do you. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" --6th Commandment.

In all honesty, I don't know. I do know that killing humans in the name of god is fairly universal.

Yes. More precisely, since God is good, evil is the opposite of God.Therein lies the problem. Since god is good (translated "allah akbar") killing infidels for allah and his one true prophet, Mohammad, is good. Nice.

That is not true. I've already pointed that out in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1952318&postcount=223):This is contradictory with your above post. Who are YOU to tell god what he can and can't do (please see your response above).

You admit that god can't be proven, only believed.
You stated "Maybe the people who were killed were evil, God did direct the massacre, and it was just."
If the fact that god can't be proven and it can only be believed then we must accept that simply believing that god wants you to kill people is sufficient justification.Huntster, I know that you don't like this and I'm sorry but there simply is no escape from your own logic.

Either god can be proven or god can't.
If god can't be proven then either belief is sufficient for killing or it isn't.You call that intellectual honesty?I don't simply call it intellectually honesty, the logic compels an intellectually honest person to accept the result of the logic. The choice is yours.

God is great.Tell that to all who have died to please god.

And that has nothing to do with killing innocent people.Really?

Tell that to the baby boys killed by the destroying angel as a result of god's wrath against Pharaoh.
Tell that to the innocent children who were the victims of god's command to Moses "Kill every male among the little ones".

You can't reasonably have your cake and eat it to. If you get to say that you don't have to prove that god lives and ordered these killings and therefore they are just then the terrorists get to say that they don't have to prove that god told them to kill innocents.

[elliotfc]

In all honesty I don't understand your point. You say that the law of gravity can no more be "proven" than gravity. I disagree. In the scientific sense it can be proven. Moral laws can't.

The law of gravity *is* gravity. That's my point. You could just call it gravity, or, in your case, you call it the "law of gravity". I guess it's no biggie. It's gravity.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Yes, but what significance. That there exists some significance is no reason to elevate what ever it is we are talking about.

No, we already *have* elevated what ever it is we are talking about. Whether we ought to or not...too late for that, right?

There was a time lots of people believed in leprechauns and that he leprechauns were significant in the lives, culture and customs of those people, so what?

I dunno, you tell me, you bring it up. I never brought up leprechauns, and you're trying to pull a "so what" on me?

So what? I hardly see the difference except your brother is bigger than the schools bullies brother. Who cares about how grand the fantasy is?

Well I see a lot more differences, so I don't accept your premise. As for the who cares, apparently a lot of people, including yourself, care.

Ally beliefs in mythologies exist for reasons, so what?

I think it's good to understand reasons, personally.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

This is very misleading. It's true that there were things in the past that were believed to be correct that turned out not to be later. That said, there is no controversy or mystery about logic and fallacy. This is jut a great big red herring.

Logic and fallacy are proclaimed. Invoked. Promulgated. I get that this is the *thing* that you HAVE to be dogmatic about, as it enables the classifications of others as illogical, irrational, etc. Logic and fallacy are not disembodied entities that exist. It is what is, and what isn't. And there is a hell of a lot of controversy/mystery about what is and what isn't. You *prove* that by talking with me. I'd take you more seriously if you acted as if there was no controversy/mystery, but you prove the opposite by having a discussion. It strikes me as desparate. Your turn to invoke the phrase "canard" or "strawman" or "red herring". The ubermenschian playbook hasn't changed in the two years I've been here.

You say there is no controversy/mystery about logic and fallacy, and human history proves otherwise.

I don't accept you as the articulator of logic/fallacy, it's bluster, and I'll spare you my reactions to your bluster for the rest of this thread.

I was, and still am to a small degree, a programmer. I worked full time for nearly 20 years as a programmer. I can tell you that logic just doesn't work the way that you suggest. If you get an opportunity I recommend a course in logic or philosophy. I can assure you that if you understood what you are talking about as it concerns logic you wouldn't make such an error. I apologize for being patronizing but I've got to insist on sticking with logic and avoiding fallacy. Otherwise there really is no point in logically debating anything.

I don't think you're being patronizing, I just think you're being a blusterbuss.

At the moment I'm not actively questioning any specific assumption. I do so on an as needed basis. I will tell you that when I first discovered that many of my assumptions were tenuous and subject to error I seriously examined my held beliefs.

I recognize my assumptions and understand that my beliefs may be wrong. I have zero expectation that anyone in this forum take my assumptions and beliefs as their own. You may or may not be implying that I don't seriously examine my held beliefs. If you aren't, fine, and if you are, there's an objective answer to the matter, but the result I think would determine whether or not you'd agree.

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

The Gospels are lousy evidence for miracles, true. However, given that crucifixion was regarded as degrading and dishonorable, it is unlikely that the doctrine was created de novo. The theology around the crucifixion makes far more sense as a post-hoc rationalization of an unfortunate event.

That's merely an assumption. Why wouldn't the writers of the Bible fiction use a horrible, but common, tragic death?

[elliotfc]

This is very misleading. It's true that there were things in the past that were believed to be correct that turned out not to be later. That said, there is no controversy or mystery about logic and fallacy. This is jut a great big red herring.

Another response, I was quite miffed with the first one, but geniality has returned.

Re: logic/fallacy, if you're talking about mathematical reasoning, I get yer point. I think we agreed that this stuff is not exactly the same (going back to the laws question, "gravity" laws vs. moral/legal laws).

Also, you're just saying Q.E.D. over and over again. You're saying you're being logical, others aren't, all that. Fine. Q.E.D. I'm not content with just that obviously.

I was, and still am to a small degree, a programmer. I worked full time for nearly 20 years as a programmer. I can tell you that logic just doesn't work the way that you suggest.

Well you're an intelligent designer, right? What you say works, works within the confines of your intelligent design. I get that. I don't know if the totality of the understanding which you have in the *world* of programming necessarily translates and dictates the totality of how logic/reason works, or ought to work, in this one. You can be adamant that it does, but I dunno.

If you get an opportunity I recommend a course in logic or philosophy.

:) Tickled that you would make a statement, but it's a manifestation of your particular faith.

Based on the philosophical work of Descartes I started by questioning everything.

No problem with that.

My foundation for my knowledge is strong because like science it is built on empiricism and critical inquiry rather than simply relying on intuition and emotion.

I'm not questioning either your knowledge, or your foundation. I would disagree if you assert that certain things/opinions *necessarily* follow from your knowledge or your foundation.

1.) Muslims hold the that the Koran is their source of truth.
2.) Many Muslims believe that Christianity must be abolished and infidels converted.

I hope that clarifies things.

If I adopted your view point I would assume that salvation comes only by Jesus Christ.

Yes, it's a very curt way of putting it, but this is correct.

If I'm wrong and that is not your belief the please accept my apology. If I was wrong then let me ask you, do you belief that any set dogma or any specific theology incidental to salvation?

I think that I was thinking that you were saying that all religious arguments are essentially the same and how the hell do you know which to go with, if Christianity why not elves or whatever.

I'm saying, and these aren't connected really...

1)If you examine Christianity closely, and examine elves closely, the differences are quite astounding, and you can probably figure out why people tend to go with Christianity and not elves, even if you have no use for either

2)There are specific dogmas that Muslims and Christians would mutually reject, but others can be harmonized. Kind of like how you actually can be a Christian and a Zen Buddhist at the same time.

3)I've been told that you can't understand the Koran unless you know Arabic and that it's a fool's errand to preach the Koran in English because the Koran can't be appreciated in English. I don't know if that's a majority or minority opinion in Islam.

4)Objections to my particular religion are real, and I recognize that if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. And if I'm right, then I'm right. If I'm right, I'm not going to taunt others (in the next one) for being illogical, unreasonable, irrational. Who the hell cares.



And finally, and in general, I have *never* had a problem, in this forum, of talking about *specific* points regarding what is reasonable, or rational, etc. Mantras invoking logic/fallacy as general rules are annoying.

-Elliot

[RandFan]

No, we already *have* elevated what ever it is we are talking about. Whether we ought to or not...too late for that, right? I haven't elevated it and don't think it should be. That's my point. It's not too late. Let's simply say that it shouldn't be. That's all.

I dunno, you tell me, you bring it up. I never brought up leprechauns, and you're trying to pull a "so what" on me?Yes, I am. It's called making a point by counter example. "So what" for one earns a "so what" for the other. Your response is simply evasive.

Well I see a lot more differences, so I don't accept your premise. As for the who cares, apparently a lot of people, including yourself, care. Of course you see a lot more differences, it's your belief. The premise however stands. Whether or not I "care" is not proof of anything. This is a non point.

I think it's good to understand reasons, personally. Having a reason to think or do something doesn't make the reason valid. You are simply arguing that people have reasons. So what?

[RandFan]

The law of gravity *is* gravity. That's my point. You could just call it gravity, or, in your case, you call it the "law of gravity". I guess it's no biggie. It's gravity. I shrug my shoulders. This is a non-point. At best it is a semantic quibble.

[RandFan]

Logic and fallacy are proclaimed. Invoked. Promulgated. I get that this is the *thing* that you HAVE to be dogmatic about, as it enables the classifications of others as illogical, irrational, etc. Logic and fallacy are not disembodied entities that exist. No. Logic is the only way to arrive at the truth. You either use it or you don't. If you choose to ignore it then there is no point of discussion. End of story.

It is what is, and what isn't. And there is a hell of a lot of controversy/mystery about what is and what isn't. You *prove* that by talking with me. I'd take you more seriously if you acted as if there was no controversy/mystery, but you prove the opposite by having a discussion. It strikes me as desparate. Your turn to invoke the phrase "canard" or "strawman" or "red herring". The ubermenschian playbook hasn't changed in the two years I've been here. Logic and reason gave us the workings of the atom and DNA and the vast majority of all our discovery is due to logic. It is the only constant we have to reliably get to the truth. I will dogmatically cling to it because it is such a powerful tool and because those who fail to dogmatically cling to it flail about in the dark. Human progression, understanding and enlightenment exist due to rigorous and dogmatic adherence to logic and I won't apologize for choosing logic and reason over the alternative.

I would like to point out that there are many Christian philosophers and scientists who publish for Christian journals who agree with me as to the importants of rigirous adherence to logic. I stand in good steed I assure you.

You say there is no controversy/mystery about logic and fallacy, and human history proves otherwise. Please to demonstrate this?

I don't accept you as the articulator of logic/fallacy, it's bluster, and I'll spare you my reactions to your bluster for the rest of this thread. This is just rhetoric.

I don't think you're being patronizing, I just think you're being a blusterbuss.This is more rhetoric.

I recognize my assumptions and understand that my beliefs may be wrong. I have zero expectation that anyone in this forum take my assumptions and beliefs as their own. You may or may not be implying that I don't seriously examine my held beliefs. If you aren't, fine, and if you are, there's an objective answer to the matter, but the result I think would determine whether or not you'd agree. I have serious doubts as to the fruits of any examination due to your careless use of logic.

[RandFan]

Re: logic/fallacy, if you're talking about mathematical reasoning, I get yer point. I think we agreed that this stuff is not exactly the same (going back to the laws question, "gravity" laws vs. moral/legal laws).I'm sorry but I don't know what this means.

Also, you're just saying Q.E.D. over and over again. You're saying you're being logical, others aren't, all that. Fine. Q.E.D. I'm not content with just that obviously.? Could you demonstrate this? I use QED perhaps once or twice a year.

Well you're an intelligent designer, right? What you say works, works within the confines of your intelligent design. I get that. I don't know if the totality of the understanding which you have in the *world* of programming necessarily translates and dictates the totality of how logic/reason works, or ought to work, in this one. You can be adamant that it does, but I dunno. I haven't the time to teach you logic. I loath to be patronizing but I beg you to learn. There are many Christian sources for logic. It is vitally important. FWIW, many of my favorite heroes of logic were religious and most of them Christian, Blasé Pascal, George Boole, Isaac Newton, Emanuel Kant, Saint Thomas Aquinas and C.S. Lewis to name a few. Oh, and for what it's worth ceo_esq on this forum has an excellent grasp of logic. I have outright conceded an argument to him because he was better versed in the subject matter and was able to logically make his arguments.


:) Tickled that you would make a statement, but it's a manifestation of your particular faith.:(

I'm not questioning either your knowledge, or your foundation. I would disagree if you assert that certain things/opinions *necessarily* follow from your knowledge or your foundation. Of course not. To claim so would be the height of arrogance and would be folly. It is only by admitting ones potential for bias and illogical thinking can one work against it.


I think that I was thinking that you were saying that all religious arguments are essentially the same and how the hell do you know which to go with, if Christianity why not elves or whatever.

I'm saying, and these aren't connected really...

1)If you examine Christianity closely, and examine elves closely, the differences are quite astounding, and you can probably figure out why people tend to go with Christianity and not elves, even if you have no use for either

2)There are specific dogmas that Muslims and Christians would mutually reject, but others can be harmonized. Kind of like how you actually can be a Christian and a Zen Buddhist at the same time.

3)I've been told that you can't understand the Koran unless you know Arabic and that it's a fool's errand to preach the Koran in English because the Koran can't be appreciated in English. I don't know if that's a majority or minority opinion in Islam.

4)Objections to my particular religion are real, and I recognize that if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. And if I'm right, then I'm right. If I'm right, I'm not going to taunt others (in the next one) for being illogical, unreasonable, irrational. Who the hell cares.

And finally, and in general, I have *never* had a problem, in this forum, of talking about *specific* points regarding what is reasonable, or rational, etc. Mantras invoking logic/fallacy as general rules are annoying. They might be annoying but the are critically important.

RandFan

[Huntster]

Quote:
Because it's an issue that science apparently can't verify, and which requires either faith, rejection, or indifference.

That's not an answer to the question.

That's my answer.

Quote:
I don't believe any of them have truth caged. The best one can do is study and pray.

That doesn't inspire confidence.

Sorry about your inability to foster faith. What you're asking for is proof, guarantees, and "having-it-done-your-way", not confidence. It's my reckoning that you're not going to get what you desire.

Quote:
That is your opinion, and you are free to hold it dear.

More than mere opinion but you are free to think that it is.

Indeed.

Quote:
Physical science wasn't treated or exercised in the Dark Ages like it is today.

That's right. We gave up on pro-hoc reasoning. There is a message there for anyone willing to recieve it.

There are several messages.

Quote:
Your opinions are yours, but calling my reasoning "dangerous" is coming close to stepping over the line.

Faulty reasoning is dangerous which is why science has stopped using it. Faulty reasoning is the reason so many people died because their doctors removed the patients blood when doing so only made things worse.

When physically sick, doctors no longer bleed me like they would have 500 years ago.

When spiritually sick, maybe 500 years from now scientists can heal me, but I doubt it.

Quote:
No, it doesn't fully depend on how you are raised, although that is a significant factor. That's why raising children is such a critical effort.

I never said fully. But it is a fact that Muslims raise Muslims, Sikhs raise Sikhs, Buddhists raise Buddhists, Mormons raise Mormons, etc. This is a fact that can't be reasonably denied.

For the most part, that is correct.

Quote:
And who are you to determine what God should do and why?

I'm only noting that it is a poor way to do something.

Your opinion on how to do something is just that: your opinion.

Quote:
Ever consider the possibility that the religion people are familiar with is the one they have studied, understand, and otherwise are most knowledgable about?

Of course. That IS my point. The results still leave incompatible religions.

Quote:
Again, not necessarily. How we were raised will dominate our learning processes and what we learned at an early age, but it shouldn't necessarily be the "only way."

Of course not but it renders consistent results.


Fairly consistent, yes.

Quote:
But there are faulty superstitions that are recognized by many religious people.

One person's faulty superstition is another's religion.

Sometimes, yes. And vice versa.

Quote:
Maybe the person who claimed God told his "people" to slaughter men, women, and children was evil, and falsely claimed that "God told me to do it".

You've lost me, are you saying that the events depicted in the bible could have been the result of evil men?

I don't know.

Quote:
Maybe the people who were killed were evil, God did direct the massacre, and it was just.

(emphasis mine)

1.) Women, children and infants?

Yup.

2.) If you say yes to #1 then is it not reasonable that God directed the 9/11 conspirators to kill Americans because we are evil?

That's certainly the way the terrorists claim to see it.

Do you believe them?

Quote:
I don't know. Neither do you.

"Thou Shalt Not Kill" --6th Commandment.

In all honesty, I don't know. I do know that killing humans in the name of god is fairly universal.

Yup. So is killing for money and control, both en masse and as individual killings.

BTW, that's the 5th Commandment, not the 6th. Perhaps you're in need of some review?

Quote:
Yes. More precisely, since God is good, evil is the opposite of God.

Therein lies the problem. Since god is good (translated "allah akbar") killing infidels for allah and his one true prophet, Mohammad, is good. Nice.

Do you believe that?

You admit that god can't be proven, only believed.

More accurately: believe, reject, or indifference.

You stated "Maybe the people who were killed were evil, God did direct the massacre, and it was just."

Yup.

If the fact that god can't be proven and it can only be believed then we must accept that simply believing that god wants you to kill people is sufficient justification.

That is not sufficient justification, you and I both know that, that is clear in the Roman Catholic Catechism, and the rational behind the Catholic position is clearly published in that Catechism.

Huntster, I know that you don't like this and I'm sorry but there simply is no escape from your own logic. Either god can be proven or god can't. If god can't be proven then either belief is sufficient for killing or it isn't.

You're right: I don't like that "logic", you're very sorry, and God cannot be proven scientifically. I've already written that several times.

And you're also wrong: belief in God is not sufficient for killing.

I much prefer the "logic" and "reasoning" that is offered by my Church. It beats the kind of crap that people like you try to serve up to people on a regular basis.

For a very comprehensive review of what the largest church on Planet Earth has to say about killing (including war), please check this (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.htm) out.

Quote:
You call that intellectual honesty?

I don't simply call it intellectually honesty, the logic compels an intellectually honest person to accept the result of the logic. The choice is yours.

Damned right it is, and I choose to reject your "logic", "intellect", and "honesty."

Quote:
God is great.

Tell that to all who have died to please god.

If they are physically dead, they know it now better than both you and I.

Quote:
And that has nothing to do with killing innocent people.

Really?

Tell that to the baby boys killed by the destroying angel as a result of god's wrath against Pharaoh.
Tell that to the innocent children who were the victims of god's command to Moses "Kill every male among the little ones".

Tough stuff, huh? It's like war. Lots of innocent casulties. National sin. A good introduction into that phenomena can be reviewed here (http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ideas/030717harvest.html).

You can't reasonably have your cake and eat it to.

It's not my cake, and yes I can eat some of it and save the rest. It doesn't have to be either-or.

If you get to say that you don't have to prove that god lives and ordered these killings and therefore they are just then the terrorists get to say that they don't have to prove that god told them to kill innocents.

I don't have to prove the existence of God, and I couldn't if I wanted to.

I don't have to justify Islamic terrorists killing indescriminately, because I think that's a sin.

I don't have to justify the deaths of the first born of Egypt at the original Passover, because I didn't kill anybody, and I'm not in authority do determine the righteousness or evil of that event.

[davefoc]

Elliotfc,
Thank you for your responses to my previous posts. Several times I thought you had made relevant insightful comments that I wanted to respond to but the threads seemed to move beyond your posts before I had a chance to respond: From earlier in this thread:

Davefoc:
… For the most part people were making up Christianity in the first few centuries following the death of Jesus.
Elliotfc:
Certainly the religious dogmas developed over the first few centuries, but the basics of the life of Christ were established by the synoptic gospels 55-85 AD.
I agree with this. Although I think it is very significant that Mark was probably modified to add four verses describing the resurrection and the ascension. So it looks like one of the underlying source documents for Christian writings was modified to support developing ideas about the nature of Jesus and Christian theology. It is also somewhat significant that modifications to Christian scriptures continued to be made intentionally and accidentally all the way up until the invention of the printing press.

I think it is even more significant that the Christianity of about 100 AD had many theological theories about the nature of Jesus and about Christian theology in general. There were some such as Marcion that believed the entire Jewish bible should be rejected as it was in conflict with the teachings of Christ. There were some such as the Jewish Christians who thought that following Jewish religious laws was a requirement of Christianity. There were some that thought that God adopted Jesus after the baptism of Jesus.

So the picture for me is not of a religion that is founded and described by a single entity, supernatural or not, rather it is of a religion formed by people just making stuff up for several hundred years after Jesus lived.

I think your idea here, based on your previous responses would be that Christianity was created by a series of divinely inspired people that followed in the footsteps of Jesus. That is of course one interpretation. Another is that the people who were creating Christianity were people just like people who have lived more recently like the founder of Mormonism or the founder of scientology that just made stuff up and managed to convince other people to believe in the stuff they made up.

[RandFan]

That's my answer. To be more precise that is your response. It makes no sense but that is fine..

Sorry about your inability to foster faith. What you're asking for is proof, guarantees, and "having-it-done-your-way", not confidence. It's my reckoning that you're not going to get what you desire. This is just silliness. There are many religions that claim to know the truth. Many claim that there is only one way to salvation (assuming that it exists) and I'm supposed to just pick one? Huh? What I desire is to know the truth. The majority of the world claims that the majority of the world is going to hell. What am I to make of that?

There are several messages.Sadly you are unwilling to grasp the most important one.

When physically sick, doctors no longer bleed me like they would have 500 years ago. Thanks to jettisoning post-hoc reasoning.

When spiritually sick, maybe 500 years from now scientists can heal me, but I doubt it. If there is such a thing and it is healed post-hoc reasoning sure as hell won't have anything to do with it.

For the most part, that is correct. So we are back to square one, why do most people believe that most people are going to hell based on geography?

Your opinion on how to do something is just that: your opinion.Saint Thomas Aquinas, Emanuel Kant, George Boole and Blasé Pascal would all agree with me. That's an appeal to authority but since these are some of the finest Christian minds of all time it is a damn good appeal.

Sometimes, yes. And vice versa. Which leaves the problem unsolved. How does one know when one is engaging in superstition?

I don't know.Then what good is the information?

Yup.How nice, yet we are supposed to be outraged that terrorists target innocent humans? Why?

That's certainly the way the terrorists claim to see it.And why should we disagree?

Their belief cannot be proven or disproven.
All they have is faith and their claim that god tells them to kill Americans.
All anyone has is faith that god told Moses to kill women and children.I can find no difference between the terrorists of today and the alleged divinely inspired genocide of the bible.

Do you believe them? If there is a just and merciful god he/she/it would never order the killing of children. There is no logical reason or justification for it.

Yup. So is killing for money and control, both en masse and as individual killings. So doesn't it make sense to condemn murder in the name of god, money and control?

BTW, that's the 5th Commandment, not the 6th. Perhaps you're in need of some review? Perhaps you need to learn the history of the Ten Commandments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments). I have a protestant background. To Jews and Protestants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Division_of_the_commandments) it is the 6th.

Please don't be so smug and arrogant when in fact you are ignorant.

Do you believe that?I don't believe god told Moses to kill children and I don't believe god told terrorists to kill children.

I consistently reject and condemn genocide or terror in the name of god.

More accurately: believe, reject, or indifference. So then you agree that there is no more basis for Moses and other supposed prophets to kill children than there is for Muslim terrorists, right?

Yup. Is there a difference in your mind between Moses killing women and children and Palestinians killing killing women and children? If so, what is it?

That is not sufficient justification, you and I both know that, that is clear in the Roman Catholic Catechism, and the rational behind the Catholic position is clearly published in that Catechism. Ok then, answer the question, was it ok for Moses to kill women and children?

You're right: I don't like that "logic", you're very sorry, and God cannot be proven scientifically. I've already written that several times. So will you condemn the atrocities in the bible?

And you're also wrong: belief in God is not sufficient for killing. I condemn ALL murder and killing in the name of god. ALL.

Are we clear?

I much prefer the "logic" and "reasoning" that is offered by my Church. It beats the kind of crap that people like you try to serve up to people on a regular basis. This is simply evasion and rhetoric. It doesn't answer the question. Do you condemn all killing in the name of god including that which is documented in the bible?

For a very comprehensive review of what the largest church on Planet... Are you saying that the size of the church is proof of something?

Earth has to say about killing (including war), please check this (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.htm) out. Is there something in there about Moses killing children?

Damned right it is, and I choose to reject your "logic", "intellect", and "honesty."Rhetorical and non-responsive.

If they are physically dead, they know it now better than both you and I. Really? This just sounds like justification to me. How do I know what they know? According to Muslim terrorists those who died in the 9/11 attack now know that they died because god wanted them dead.

Your answer is rather poor.

Tough stuff, huh? It's like war. Lots of innocent casulties. National sin. A good introduction into that phenomena can be reviewed here (http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ideas/030717harvest.html). You are all over the board on this one. Can you make up your mind? I say killing in the name of god,

1.) Has always been wrong.
2.) Is wrong.
3.) Will always be wrong.

Which of the 3 do you believe?

It's not my cake, and yes I can eat some of it and save the rest. It doesn't have to be either-or. Actually, yes it does. There is no escape from it.

I don't have to prove the existence of God, and I couldn't if I wanted to.No one is asking you to.

I don't have to justify Islamic terrorists killing indescriminately, because I think that's a sin. Are you consistent in your condemnation?

I don't have to justify the deaths of the first born of Egypt at the original Passover, because I didn't kill anybody, and I'm not in authority do determine the righteousness or evil of that event. Again, you are contradictory, either killing is sin or it is not. No one is asking you to justify anything. You are being asked if there is a universal standard for the *6th commandment?

*The Jewish and protestant divisions lists murder as the 6th commandment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Division_of_the_commandments)

[Huntster]

....So the picture for me is not of a religion that is founded and described by a single entity, supernatural or not, rather it is of a religion formed by people just making stuff up for several hundred years after Jesus lived....

Luke 1:1-4 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke1.htm)

Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.

The Gospel of Luke was a letter to a friend.

Those who wish to find inconsistencies and fault with human testimony can do so with much ease. It's more difficult to completely destroy the message.

I think your idea here, based on your previous responses would be that Christianity was created by a series of divinely inspired people that followed in the footsteps of Jesus. That is of course one interpretation. Another is that the people who were creating Christianity were people just like people who have lived more recently like the founder of Mormonism or the founder of scientology that just made stuff up and managed to convince other people to believe in the stuff they made up.

We are all free to believe either of your proposed scenarios, or any number of other propositions, because proof of any of them is not available.

I choose to believe that "Christianity was created by a series of divinely inspired people that followed in the footsteps of Jesus."

[davefoc]

I choose to believe that "Christianity was created by a series of divinely inspired people that followed in the footsteps of Jesus."

This strikes me as a completely rational approach to life. It would seem to eliminate the need for much discussion about the actual historical events or of the theology that arises out of those historical events. God has inspired some folks to write about Christianity and God has divinely inspired some others to select what of those writings will go forward and comprise Christianity. So the Christian theology that has withstood the test of time was divinely inspired.

How does this work today while the evolution and modification of Christianity continues? Every year some Christian sects decline and others grow. Christian theology is expanded in different directions by different Christian leaders. It used to be against Catholic rules to eat meat on Friday and now its ok. Which of these rules were divinely inspired? How do you choose? Pat Robertson says that Sharon was struck down because Israel abandoned the Gaza strip under his leadership. Was Robertson divinely inspired? Should a Christian now add into his faith the idea that Israel should not surrender land? The Jewish Christians seemed to favor circumcision as a requirement for Christianity. Were they divinely inspired on that? So does God want his flock to be circumcised? Was Paul divinely inspired when he said it wasn't necessary?

As an aside I had not seen the opening paragraph of Luke interpreted as you did. Normally, I thought, the interpretation was that Theophilus was Luke's benefactor or patron. Of course that doesn't preclude the possibility that Theophilus was a friend also. There is also the interpretation that Theophilus wasn't actually a name, it was just a term for a friend of God.

[Huntster]

Quote:
Sorry about your inability to foster faith. What you're asking for is proof, guarantees, and "having-it-done-your-way", not confidence. It's my reckoning that you're not going to get what you desire.

This is just silliness. There are many religions that claim to know the truth. Many claim that there is only one way to salvation (assuming that it exists) and I'm supposed to just pick one? Huh?

Not necessarily. You can choose more than one if you choose (and if they allow it). Or you can start your own if you wish (at least you can as long as you live in a nation like the United States). Or you can choose to disregard religion altogether if you wish.

I've chosen to adhere to Roman Catholicism because I don't see a better alternative out there, but I do enjoy learning about other religions, and thoroughly enjoy the similarities among different religions.

What I desire is to know the truth. The majority of the world claims that the majority of the world is going to hell. What am I to make of that?

You may not be able to secure the complete truth in this lifetime. Sorry about that.

The majority of the world says that the majority of the world is going to hell? I can't argue with that. That's one reason why I love Alaska and simply hate even visiting elsewhere. The world seems to be going to Hell in a handbasket to me.

And I don't know what to make of that at all, but keeping the TV off, staying here in Alaska, and spending as much time in the woods seems to help.

Quote:
There are several messages.

Sadly you are unwilling to grasp the most important one.

Their heirarchy of importance is a matter of opinion.

Quote:
When physically sick, doctors no longer bleed me like they would have 500 years ago.

Thanks to jettisoning post-hoc reasoning.

I'm not sure about "jettisoning post-hoc reasoning", but I will certainly jettison needless bleeding.

Quote:
When spiritually sick, maybe 500 years from now scientists can heal me, but I doubt it.

If there is such a thing and it is healed post-hoc reasoning sure as hell won't have anything to do with it.

I can agree with that.

My spiritual healing in the past has come from God.

Quote:
For the most part, that is correct.

So we are back to square one, why do most people believe that most people are going to hell based on geography?

If you're correct that this is a matter of geography, I would disagree with the belief.

I frankly believe that most people aren't going to Hell. RCC doctrine teaches that Hell is:

The state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives

Quote:
Your opinion on how to do something is just that: your opinion.

Saint Thomas Aquinas, Emanuel Kant, George Boole and Blasé Pascal would all agree with me.

Why do I find that claim downright hilarious?

Quote:
Sometimes, yes. And vice versa.

Which leaves the problem unsolved. How does one know when one is engaging in superstition?

When you believe others over your own spiritual experience and learning.

Quote:
I don't know.

Then what good is the information?

It's good to consider.

Quote:
Yup.

How nice, yet we are supposed to be outraged that terrorists target innocent humans? Why?

I'm not entirely positive, but perhaps because we're the innocent humans they are targetting?

Quote:
That's certainly the way the terrorists claim to see it.

And why should we disagree?

Because they are killing innocent people?

Their belief cannot be proven or disproven.

Nor can yours or mine.

All they have is faith and their claim that god tells them to kill Americans.

That's what some of them claim. Do you believe them? I don't.

All anyone has is faith that god told Moses to kill women and children.

As well as the Angel of Death in Egypt at the first Passover.

I can find no difference between the terrorists of today and the alleged divinely inspired genocide of the bible.

That's your opinion. Others opine differently.

Quote:
Do you believe them?

If there is a just and merciful god he/she/it would never order the killing of children. There is no logical reason or justification for it.

Sorry. I can't go there with you.

An innocent is an innocent, whether they're a fit, 20 year old male, an old woman, or a young mother. Yet a war or natural disaster can and will take any or them all.

Physical death is a reality. It's proven.

I say evil is a reality, too. And it can take many forms.

Quote:
Yup. So is killing for money and control, both en masse and as individual killings.

So doesn't it make sense to condemn murder in the name of god, money and control?

My! We finally agree on something?

Quote:
BTW, that's the 5th Commandment, not the 6th. Perhaps you're in need of some review?

Perhaps you need to learn the history of the Ten Commandments. I have a protestant background. To Jews and Protestants it is the 5th.

Please don't be so smug and arrogant when in fact you are ignorant.

Sorry. I really wasn't aware of that!

Quote:
Do you believe that?

I don't believe god told Moses to kill children and I don't believe god told terrorists to kill children.

I consistently reject and condemn genocide or terror in the name of god.

I consistently reject and condemn genocide or terror for any reason.

Quote:
More accurately: believe, reject, or indifference.

So then you agree that there is no more basis for Moses and other supposed prophets to kill children than there is for Muslim terrorists, right?

Let me put it this way:

War sucks.

Quote:
Yup.

Is there a difference in your mind between Moses killing women and children and Palestinians killing killing women and children? If so, what is it?

Initially, I see two differences:

1) Moses killed women and children thousands of years ago.

2) Palestinians are still killing women and children.

Quote:
That is not sufficient justification, you and I both know that, that is clear in the Roman Catholic Catechism, and the rational behind the Catholic position is clearly published in that Catechism.

Ok then, answer the question, was it ok for Moses to kill women and children?

I don't know. I'm not the authority or judge.

But I'm glad we both feel passionate that the event really occurred as it was written.

Quote:
You're right: I don't like that "logic", you're very sorry, and God cannot be proven scientifically. I've already written that several times.

So will you condemn the atrocities in the bible?

Hell, yeah! I'd like to even condemn things like the tsunami almost two years ago. An act of "God."

However, as much as I wish I could, I can't make them end for you.

Quote:
And you're also wrong: belief in God is not sufficient for killing.

I condemn ALL murder and killing in the name of god. ALL.

Are we clear?

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm.......................yeah.

Can I raise a toast and second that with:

I condemn ALL murder!?

Quote:
I much prefer the "logic" and "reasoning" that is offered by my Church. It beats the kind of crap that people like you try to serve up to people on a regular basis.

....Do you condemn all killing in the name of god including that which is documented in the bible?

I refuse to bend to your "authority" to define "all killing in the name of god." Nor will I play with the attempt to exploit the realities of war to destroy or even besmudge religion (especially mine).

No. Not only do I not condemn all killing in the name of god including that which is documented in the bible, I don't even condemn all killing.

Quote:
For a very comprehensive review of what the largest church on Planet...

Are you saying that the size of the church is proof of something?

Well..........................yeah.

It has more members than the others.

Duh...............?

Quote:
Earth has to say about killing (including war), please check this out.

Is there something in there about Moses killing children?

Nope.

Quote:
Damned right it is, and I choose to reject your "logic", "intellect", and "honesty."

Rhetorical and non-responsive.

Rhetorical or not, it is not non-responsive, because that's the response you're going to get from me.

Quote:
If they are physically dead, they know it now better than both you and I.

Really, sounds like justification to me.

Not justification. Belief.

How do I know what they know.

You don't. Neither do I.

Quote:
Tough stuff, huh? It's like war. Lots of innocent casulties. National sin. A good introduction into that phenomena can be reviewed here.

You are all over the board on this one. Can you make up your mind? I say killing in the name of god,

1.) Has always been wrong.
2.) Is wrong.
3.) Will always be wrong.

Which of the 3 do you believe?

Killing, according to human history, appears to be a necessary evil. Sometimes even mass killing.

Sorry about that. I wish it wasn't so.

With regard to "war" (mass casulties), civil or national, no matter who does it, when they do it, offensive or defensive, right or wrong, conducted justly or not, you can be sure both sides will claim that God (any God) was on their side.

So, you were asking?........................................... .....

Quote:
It's not my cake, and yes I can eat some of it and save the rest. It doesn't have to be either-or.

Actually, yes it does. There is no escape from it.

There is always escape.

Quote:
I don't have to justify Islamic terrorists killing indescriminately, because I think that's a sin.

Are you consistent in your condemnation?

As much as I can.

Quote:
I don't have to justify the deaths of the first born of Egypt at the original Passover, because I didn't kill anybody, and I'm not in authority do determine the righteousness or evil of that event.

Again, you are contradictory, either killing is sin or it is not.

It can be a necessary evil.

No one is asking you to justify anything. You are being asked if there is a universal standard for the *6th commandment?

No, there is no "universal standard* for *killing.*

However, I've been instructed, trained, indoctrinated, and practiced in a few theories. They are remarkably similar, and as repulsive, regretable, difficult, and horrifying as killing is, I hold them to be acceptable.

Killing solely in the name of God isn't included.

*The Jewish and protestant divisions lists murder as the 6th commandment.

Got it.

Thanks for that. I really didn't know.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster

I choose to believe that "Christianity was created by a series of divinely inspired people that followed in the footsteps of Jesus."
This strikes me as a completely rational approach to life. It would seem to eliminate the need for much discussion about the actual historical events or of the theology that arises out of those historical events. God has inspired some folks to write about Christianity and God has divinely inspired some others to select what of those writings will go forward and comprise Christianity. So the Christian theology that has withstood the test of time was divinely inspired.

How does this work today while the evolution and modification of Christianity continues?...

I must state that Catholic evolution has been every bit as dynamic today as in the past, but that dynamism is different than what most people might think.

At least it has for me. I might be wrong. In fact, I will admit before challenge that some of what I see is cultural difference from the Church that I remember where you're at (Orange County, where I was raised) and where I'm at now (Alaska; been here over 30 years).

But even when I was young in Orange County, the Church was going through the Vatican II era. As an altar boy, I didn't understand or pay attention to the changes, but I sure see how dramatic it was today from what I remember.

Every year some Christian sects decline and others grow. Christian theology is expanded in different directions by different Christian leaders. It used to be against Catholic rules to eat meat on Friday and now its ok.

If I'm not mistaken (I might be), the sacrificing of Lent 9or any other sacrifice, self-originated or not) is that it's something that the individual must desire or accept for the sacrifice to have meaning. Thus, a Church imposed rule on sacrifice would be a meaningless regulation.

Which of these rules were divinely inspired?

I don't know.

How do you choose?

In prayer.

Pat Robertson says that Sharon was struck down because Israel abandoned the Gaza strip under his leadership. Was Robertson divinely inspired?

I don't know.

Should a Christian now add into his faith the idea that Israel should not surrender land?

I don't. I'm going by U.S. policy first, and U.N. policy second.

The Jewish Christians seemed to favor circumcision as a requirement for Christianity. Were they divinely inspired on that?

In accordance with their religious foundation, yes.

So does God want his flock to be circumcised?

I don't know.

Was Paul divinely inspired when he said it wasn't necessary?

I suspect so.

As an aside I had not seen the opening paragraph of Luke interpreted as you did. Normally, I thought, the interpretation was that Theophilus was Luke's benefactor or patron. Of course that doesn't preclude the possibility that Theophilus was a friend also. There is also the interpretation that Theophilus wasn't actually a name, it was just a term for a friend of God.

All true. Theophilus in the Greek of the era has been interpreted as "Friend of God" (which came first; the chicken, or the egg; especially in the year 175 AD?). The title "Most Excellent" has often been interpreted as one of Roman citizenry or position. It has also been interpreted as a title of a Bishop or Archbishop. Today, the title of RCC Bishop in the U.S. is "Excellence", and that of a U.S. Cardinal is "Eminence."

In all the above possibilities, I suspect Luke considered Theophilus his friend.

[Tony]

Thinking and living free must exclude God?


If your god demands unquestioningly obedience or else you burn, yes.

By not believing, you have rejected.

Non sequitur. How does it follow that by not believing I have rejected? I simply don't think there is anything to reject.