Video: Penn & Teller versus … creationism
posted at 8:30 pm on July 26, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
With due thanks and praise to the Lizard King, I give you the ultimate lazy-Saturday flame-war starter. If this thread doesn’t do a thousand comments then the terrorists have already won. Content warning.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Thanks for the link, aengus, I see someone has been stealing my ideas. :)
OldEnglish on July 27, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Bet you $20 it don’t. (Unless you or Ed temporarily opened the registration floodgates during my vacation. Then yes. All bets are off)
I would think that in a closed community like HA, (and thank you for that) people would get tired of arguing the same old same old.
God Bless
Rod on July 27, 2008 at 11:41 AM
I’m sorry you don’t understand it but one of the mistakes a lot of atheists is assuming that faith is purely an intellectual exercise and when they see there isn’t sufficient material proof of the existence of God to put it beyond all doubt assume they are smarter than the mental dwarves who are religious.
In fact if the existence of God could be 100% proved here on earth that would mean the end of free will and the whole purpose of human life would be negated. I’d recommend you read The Grand Inquisitor by Dostoyevsky. Its a discussion between a Christian and an atheist. The story is told by the atheist.
You know, as well as I do, if you jump off a building you will fall to the ground. Yes. But you don’t know what will happen after you die. What will happen to the part of you that animates your existence, your soul? You don’t know for a fact that it will be extinguished and all thats left will be an expired body to be eaten by worms or buzzards.
aengus on July 27, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Fair question. An unbeliever COULD do things or say things just the same as believers but they don’t. Where are the atheist orphanages? Oh that’s right, there are none. Where are the atheist hospitals, universities, food relief programs, et cetera? Oh that’s right, there are none. Atheists in theory COULD set these up but only believers do because of their marching orders from Jesus in the great commission. The atheist has only himself. Think of George Carlin’s legacy… That’s right, he has none. He had only himself and nothing outside of himself, nothing greater than himself.
It’s good to look at the negative side in any debate. With atheism there is simply no reason to NOT be cruel to others. To the atheist Bin Laden is a moral equal to Billy Graham. One kills in the name of his god Allah and the other evangelizes in the name of God. Same, same to the atheist. To say that “as long as you don’t hurt others” in an argument assumes some underlying moral tao which brings you right back to Judeo-Christianity.
For the intellectual philosophe type I would recommend that you read a Christian philosopher named Francis Schaeffer. Read his book “The God Who Is There” and get back to me. He breaks it down pretty well there. God bless you in your searchings.
Mojave Mark on July 27, 2008 at 11:47 AM
This is why I never get very exercised about Evolution/Creationism debates and tend to join these threads later on when they whittle down to the question of the existence of God as they inevitably do.
aengus on July 27, 2008 at 11:48 AM
It’s like we do, and we don’t. I know personally, I get sucked into these threads, even if I hate the actual debate. Like bees to honey. : )
Anna on July 27, 2008 at 11:49 AM
I remember a good while back AP posted an Evolution/Creationist thread that got a ton of comments. Then he posted one a few days later and it got only a few. He asked why so few comments? Everyone was just exhausted I think. The trick, I guess, is to just post on the topic once in a while.
These threads don’t bore me though I haven’t really read this one, I just jumped in at the end.
aengus on July 27, 2008 at 11:54 AM
No. Morality pre-dates religion. Religion merely used it for its own purposes, which was to corral people into submission to a cult.
OldEnglish on July 27, 2008 at 11:57 AM
If theres no difference between a religion and a cult why do you suppose the English language has two different words, to fool people?
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a cult as “a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious”.
You’ll really have to try harder.
aengus on July 27, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Gratuitous flame-bait.
Love it ;)
LimeyGeek on July 27, 2008 at 12:20 PM
That is my definition, also. It;s just that I regard all religions as so.
OldEnglish on July 27, 2008 at 12:21 PM
That is nonsensical. How can all religions be unorthodox when an unorthodox religion i.e. a cult is defined as deviating from an orthodox religion like Christianity? Or are you claiming that atheism is a religion?
aengus on July 27, 2008 at 12:29 PM
No, atheism is not a religion. Religion is a belief/faith – not fact.
The word “orthodox” means straight/right – as in true. That is why I believe that all “faiths” are unorthodox. IIRC, “The Orthodox Church” was that which was decided by a bunch of bishops who were fighting for supremacy over alternate views – which they declared to be heretical.
OldEnglish on July 27, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Even a fairly godless organization like the UN created UNICEF to help with the well-being of children. The desire to help other humans in need extends beyond the bounds of a particular church or certainty of an anthropomorphic deity.
dedalus on July 27, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Well, it has been fun, but it is a fact that if I don’t service my car, it won’t go. :)
OldEnglish on July 27, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Okay I know what you’re saying now. Sorry for the confusion.
aengus on July 27, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Perhaps the stupidest monkeys – the ones that kept falling out of the trees, and pooped where they ate – eventually devolved into the religious right.
LimeyGeek on July 27, 2008 at 12:51 PM
“[The UN] provokes the desire, but takes away the performance.”
– Macbeth, II, iii
aengus on July 27, 2008 at 12:52 PM
I thought the whole point of evolution was that the stupidest monkeys didn’t survive to procreate?
aengus on July 27, 2008 at 12:54 PM
All of the above arguments about whether Xtians do more or less good are irrelevant.
The fact is they worship an imaginary god.
I’ll concede there are a few things in Xtian ideology that are good, but the entire concept of: “worship me or be punished for eternity” is a purely evil concept.
Under the Xtian rules, an atheist that dedicates their life to helping all mankind will be punished for all eternity, while a serial killer who asks for forgiveness and takes Jesus as his “personal savior” 5 minutes before his execution will be rewarded for all eternity.
JayHaw Phrenzie on July 27, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Not true. The trick of trying to convert at the last minute to avoid punishment is attrition and is a sin.
Also, “No murderer shall enter the kingdom of heaven”.
aengus on July 27, 2008 at 1:01 PM
It would seem that there is a fly in the evolutionary ointment. Stupid people seem to have no problem figuring out how to deploy their genitalia.
‘Idiocracy’
LimeyGeek on July 27, 2008 at 1:04 PM
So according to you evolution is disproved not by the arguments of the religious right but by their very existence. :)
That was a funny film but did you notice in the future there weren’t any Christians?
aengus on July 27, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Why does one have to be afraid of an afterlife, of god, of Satan, or whatever, to do good?
Alexis De Tocqueville saw in America a capacity of “self interest well understood”. It generally meant that Americans helped out their fellow neighbor with the idea that one should expect members of your community to do the same in return if you were ever down and out.
Self interest well understood is a great reason to be good to others. We offer universal education in this country because of self interest well understood–it does no good to me to be surrounded by illiterate idiots, so I may as well support the efforts to educate them because it makes my life better. Whether our education system succeeds in that goal is debatable, but it certainly is better than no education system at all.
Instead of seeing God and religion as the only reason to lead a good life, I see it as a crutch for those who are weak willed and must be convinced of the utility of positively contributing to society by scaring them. I suppose finding god is a good waste of time for most prisoners–it helps them focus on that instead of harming, molesting, killing, stealing, etc. But then again, a lot of harming, molesting, killing, stealing, etc goes on in the name of god so I guess it’s a wash.
BryanS on July 27, 2008 at 1:08 PM
I can’t beleive that I’m doing this, actaully posting against my own bet.
Mark, I’m a Evangelical Christian and with respect, your statements here are very incorrect.
My wife and I adopted our two children from an “atheist orphanage” in California – a county social services agency.
There are many, many for-profit hospitals and clinics that have nothing to do with religion. The same for colleges and universities.
And we have a food bank in town that is completely community supported.
Atheists are not sociopaths. Compassion, empathy, and love are not exclusive to believers. Rather, they are traits that all men and women carry.
And, they are strong evidence that all men have been created in God’s image in that they, among many other uniquely human characteristics, set us apart from all other species.
Perhaps you’re saying that without these God-given traits there could be no good. With that I agree.
God Bless
Rod on July 27, 2008 at 1:12 PM
I could either point out the fallacy of deigning to judge what is or is not evil based on your own flawed intellectual concepts, or I could point out that even if you are correct, this is not a statement that defines Christian salvation.
Two strikes in a single assertion, ready for the next pitch?
Fatal on July 27, 2008 at 1:18 PM
That may be the funniest thing I’ve ever read here.
Stick around for a while. You’ll see the same people argue the same topic with the same mindless ferocity at least a dozen times a year.
And yes, I enjoyed the irony of you hopping right in even though you were perfectly aware of what you were doing.
This particular dead horse was turned into glue at least two years ago. And yet all AP has to do is toss out some atheist versus Christians article … and the gloves instantly come off.
People are funny. And stupid.
Professor Blather on July 27, 2008 at 1:19 PM
People are funny. And stupid.
Professor Blather on July 27, 2008 at 1:19 PM
You do gotta laugh, don’t you? I’m thinking all the while I’m typing, “Rod, you are such a stupid idiot. Go do something productive for a change.”
But I’ll still bet Allah $20 (even with my 3 posts now) this thread never makes it to 1,000.
Rod on July 27, 2008 at 1:32 PM
I agree. I’ve been reading this thread, but I’m still too spent from the last two to be very excited about another one so soon.
I remember making the crack about us reaching 1000 comments and “May Allahpundit forgive us if we ever do it again.” Apparently we have forgiveness in advance on this one, but I don’t think we’ll make it.
backwoods conservative on July 27, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Not sure why Charles has gone on a crusade to drive Christians off of his website…but he’s managed it in my case. Debate is one thing…mockery is another. And some evolutionists are just as doctrinaire and intolerant of opposing views as any global warming extremist.
packsoldier on July 27, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Not sure why Charles has gone on a crusade to drive Christians off of his website…but he’s managed it in my case. Debate is one thing…mockery is another. And some evolutionists are just as doctrinaire and intolerant of opposing views as any global warming extremist.
packsoldier
This may come as a shock to you, but plenty of Christians have absolutely no problem whatsoever with Evolution. What he’s doing is driving away the really annoying Evangelicals who managed to drive off some good contributors.
Krydor on July 27, 2008 at 2:07 PM
If that was on on purpose rather than by mistake, which could have been fixed later, then that would be immoral, very immoral, design if you ask me.
Or maybe God wasn’t as clever as he thought either. Maybe God didn’t mean to do that evil part but just goofed up and has been in another part of the Universe creating life there and will come back later to fix things up here. Maybe even a God can’t travel faster than the speed of light, so it may be some while before He gets back to fix His mistake.
MB4 on July 27, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Actually, I don’t think the poster was referring to government or secular agencies (which are not necessarily “ATHIEST”, but rather are not run by any particular identified group and may have Christians as well as athiests, etc working for them), he was asking where the orphanages run by an organized and specifically identifiable athiest group were. In that case I think you will find he was correct, there really aren’t any (at least none that can be located via a quick web search).
Fatal on July 27, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Chas swung his ban stick at me because I disagreed with him about how best to deal with Ahmadinejad. He banned another long time poster because he called Chas out on his criticism of “anonymous” posters, when most of the posters that agree with him do so anonymously.
For the record, I don’t see how a fundy vs science feud helps the cause of trying to stop the jihadists. It’s not an argument that I care to take part in.
john1schn on July 27, 2008 at 2:13 PM
SMUG ALERT!
ronsfi on July 27, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Its not “immoral” design. The basic idea of all morality is that individuals are responsible for their actions. If you do something wrong its your fault for doing it, not God’s fault for your having been born in the first place.
aengus on July 27, 2008 at 2:26 PM
You have no basis for deciding morality, if there is no God. The idea of a universal good or bad presupposes something greater than individual experience; you can’t really ground morals without something bigger than us by which to measure and judge us.
That something is most coherently communicated in the form of God.
Now, as per the “choosing good or evil” thing, it’s absolutely true and inherent in the biblical narrative that we choose good or evil, even prior to the fall; Eve, after all, chose to disobey before eating the apple. It’s not “immoral”; humankind being unable to choose between good and evil would lose both. It would be bland. And it would ruin the human experience.
emailnuevo on July 27, 2008 at 2:35 PM
I started my response at like 2:24 but I left to see a Fiat 500 (don’t ask). Well said.
emailnuevo on July 27, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Sounds like we agree that organizations consisting of believers and non-believers are capable of charity outside the bounds of a church sponsorship.
It doesn’t seem common that people leave organized religions and then rush into atheist clubs, any more than people who dislike football get together on Sunday to fill stadiums with their collective dissatisfaction with the NFL.
dedalus on July 27, 2008 at 2:37 PM
For the record, I never bothered with registration because there seemed to be far to many “Muke Necca” people for my liking, and that helps the cause not at all.
For the record, I don’t see how a fundy vs science feud helps the cause of trying to stop the jihadists. It’s not an argument that I care to take part in.
john1schn
Oh, a fundy versus science feud does help the cause. The war is based around stone age thinking versus modernity.
Krydor on July 27, 2008 at 2:37 PM
I can’t see how proving 100% the existence of God, something that God, if God existed, could easily do, would end free will, let alone negate the whole purpose of life, unless God exists and is an immoral, or at least amoral, mad scientist and it would goof up His experiment.
Does man even have pure free will? I guess it depends on what the meaning of free will is and what the meaning of sex is and what the meaning of is, is.
I think that Schopenhauer was correct when he said, “A man can do as he wills, but not will as he wills. Everybody acts not only under external compulsion but also in accordance with inner necessity.”
Frankly I think that this religious use of free will is just a rationalization of desperation to try to get around what Epicurus said so well, “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?“, but it doesn’t work.
Man’s creation of the Devil to try to get around things doesn’t work either.
MB4 on July 27, 2008 at 2:46 PM
Oh, a fundy versus science feud does help the cause. The war is based around stone age thinking versus modernity.
Yes, we have to be on our guard against all those militant snake-handling Bible thumping terrorists…oh, wait a minute.
packsoldier on July 27, 2008 at 2:46 PM
Some people behave morally based on the greater good of their family, their professions, their community, or their country.
dedalus on July 27, 2008 at 2:48 PM
First off, the theory of evolution is compatible with the theory of intelligent design. It is possible that they are both true or both false. The theory of evolution does not explain creation but only the changes in living organisms after they have already been created (if and how they evolve). Intelligent Design (Creationism) is a theory that an intelligent being created an organism and not with the changes it might or might not go through after it is created. They are compatible theories. Second, neither is science. Science is a process not a thing or an idea. You must open up theories to scientific scrutiny. Science is used to disprove as often as it is to prove theory. I am amazed a some of these scientists don’t understand this. Why are they afraid of opening up the theory of creationism to scientific scrutiny? They should welcome the opportunity to do so. How can applying the scientific method to any theory “destroy” science? If they are so certain a theory is not true then they should welcome the opportunity to destroy it with science not be afraid to even consider it. That is not the scientific method. The school board decision was wrong too. Science does not “respect all people’s views” or theories, that is not what science is for. It is to analyze possibilities and reach conclusions if possible based on the known facts and laws of the natural universe. As a confirmed agnostic I must side with the creationists here. I look forward to analyzing the scientific method applied to religious theories. To dismiss any theory without looking at it from a scientific point of view would be, well, unscientific.
Dollayo on July 27, 2008 at 2:50 PM
I did not mean to imply they couldn’t be moral. There are many moral non-believers/non-Christians, who follow what has in the past been known as “natural law.” I was merely saying that they have no way to ground it, or to defend or rationalize it. That is, if someone wanted to behave in a way that was not to the good of their family/country/interests, they have no convincing reason why he shouldn’t. It will eventually devolve into “Says you.”
emailnuevo on July 27, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Yes, we have to be on our guard against all those militant snake-handling Bible thumping terrorists…oh, wait a minute.
packsoldier
Well, if they are hell bent on teaching not-science in a science class, then yes we must. The only other group who holds this ID/YEC notion to have merit are the Fundie Muslims.
If there’s ever going to be an English equivalent of a Madrassa, it will come from Fundamentalist Christians. And yes, people who think that the creation of Israel is a sign of the end are equally are dangerous as Fundamentalist Muslims who think the exact same thing.
Krydor on July 27, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Oh but you see it is a “feud” that Islam could never have, not without a lot of head chopping anyway, and hence further demonstrates what they are.
MB4 on July 27, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Some people behave morally based on the greater good of their family, their professions, their community, or their country.
But why should they care about the “greater good” unless it happens to benefit them personally?
packsoldier on July 27, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Oh you don’t really believe that do you?
MB4 on July 27, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Sorry Ronsfi. I’ll really try to be less confident and less of a self-satisfied jerk in the future. In fact, if you like, give me your Email and I’ll send my comments to you first so you can review them for smugness seeing you’ve set yourself up as the smug policeman.
And yes, this whole post reeks of it, doesn’t it?
Sorry.
Rod on July 27, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Scientists have long examined religious teaching whether by looking at the stars or artifacts. One challenge that ID has is its compliance with the scientific method, notably parsimony.
dedalus on July 27, 2008 at 3:02 PM
There’s that argument again–that without a god there is no good in the world. If that were true, then there would be a lot of people–probably religious ones like yourself–all bound to end up in hell.
My favorite South Park episode made fun of this fact–that all religions proclaim their truth to be above all others. In the two episode sequence “Do the handicapped go to hell?” follwed by the episode “Probably”, the joke is that the only folks who guessed right were the Mormons. While protesting that they lead a good christian evangelical life on earth upon their entry through the gates of hell, the director for new entries into hell says “I’m sorry, I’m afraid you were wrong… you chose the wrong religion.I’m afraid it was ‘the Mormons.’ Yes, ‘the Mormons’ was the correct answer.”
BryanS on July 27, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Because of their inner necessity to try to do right.
MB4 on July 27, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Read the Dostoyevsky story I linked.
As I said the last time you quoted this he is able, but not willing and that does not make him malevolent.
Epicurus was only interested in liberating his appetites so I guess he had good reason to posit his suppositions.
aengus on July 27, 2008 at 3:08 PM
I guess I didn’t clarify well. A fundy vs. science feud divides us against the common enemy, i.e. the rock worshipers from mecca, who WILL KILL YOU if you don’t follow their belief system.
I’m Catholic, and believe that God did create everything we see and don’t see. I just don’t take the Bible so literally that it all happened in the timeline given in scripture. I also believe that human beings and other species evolved. You don’t have to be opposed to one to believe in the other.
john1schn on July 27, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Because only a sociopath does not understand the benefit to themselves that a well functioning society provides. Every man for himself leads to that “nasty, brutish, and short” Hobbesian hellhole that would exist without concern for one’s fellow man.
BryanS on July 27, 2008 at 3:10 PM
So religions are mutually exclusive. That settles pluralism but it doesn’t answer my argument against secular morality’s basis. That isn’t to say that you can’t be moral while secular; it can, and has, been done. Without something greater than man, though, there is nothing stopping us from being Howard Roarks or Ellsworth Tooheys. There’s no reason to be moral without a standard of morality that’s universal, so that murder is always wrong, something most cultures have agreed on.
And universal laws presuppose a law-giver.
emailnuevo on July 27, 2008 at 3:10 PM
So who’s fault was it? Darwin’s? Don’t you believe in product liability for faulty products? Sounds like very poor design to me, more than enough to invoke a lemon law if someone could find God to serve Him the papers. There should be a class action suit.
MB4 on July 27, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Even Hitchens doesn’t go that far.
Christians believe that inner necessity was implanted by God, that “He wrote the Law on men’s hearts” (forget what passage) hence why we have a conscience.
aengus on July 27, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Yes. I think I see your point. Your not going to find the Atheist’s Hospital of New York or the Atheists of Boston Soup Kitchen.
But if the point was to infer that atheists don’t have organized outreach programs because they lack compassion or empathy then I have to stand by my original post.
How about the 4,200+ orphanages in Russia. Do they count as “specifically identifiable atheist” organizations?
Rod on July 27, 2008 at 3:14 PM
A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
- Albert Einstein
Why is this thread giving me that deja vu feeling all over again? I can’t quite put my finger on it but something about this thread seems vaguely familiar.
MB4 on July 27, 2008 at 3:16 PM
If God were to get rid of evil, he’d have to get rid of you. We think rage, anger, and hatred are evil, yet I’m sure you have (because we all have) been guilty of these.
That you compare Him to a producer with faulty products is telling, as it implies that there’s an actual reason that a misleading businessman should be punished. What reason?
After all, he was just serving the interests of his “family” by doing what he thought was “right.” If it’s wrong to you, but not to him, it’s an ethical stalemate – you have no higher law to answer to. So he’s not “in the wrong”; he’s in “his own right.”
emailnuevo on July 27, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Maybe the same reason that grandchildren give joy to believers and non-believers alike. Knowing that your efforts during your natural life will live beyond you is of some comfort.
dedalus on July 27, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Oh you don’t really believe that do you?
MB4
Um, yeah, actually I do. I’m from the “other side”, when I was a kid Hal Linsay’s “Late Great Planet Earth” was required reading. I’m amazed that the book still sells. I’m also amazed that Jack Van Impe has a TV show. It’s all incumbent upon Israel existing and getting blowed up real good. All of it.
We are talking about people who think the Bible is literal truth and all other things must conform to the truth of the Bible. Evolution is wrong because it does not conform with a 6,0000 year old earth. That is the only argument you’ll get from the Ken Ham’s of this world. Jesus must have walked with dinosaurs because they must have walked together because an earth billions of years old does not conform with the Bible.
Krydor on July 27, 2008 at 3:23 PM
But that still misses my point. A religion is not just a god, but a collection of mores and values. How can one claim an absolute authority of the bible, the torah, the koran, the book of mormon, or dianetics :) when these “absolute authorities” conflict with each other.
Some islamic countries/communities claim absolute authority of the koran is why they stone women for being raped. Yet that repulses us.
An absolute authority only says stop asking questions, it does not provide any benefit beyond that. The old testament was mostly silent on a man having multiple wives. Jesus is quoted in the new testament as admonishing the idea, explaining that people in the old testament days were not ready to hear that message. Well if that isn’t an example of changing values, I don’t know what is.
The problem with these absolute authorities religions provide is that millions need to die to change them. Christianity has a very bloody past, and it looks like islam is bound to go through a similar “modernization” . Problem is, by the time islam overcomes their modernization problem to get past their current unassailable moral views, they will have a nuclear weapon and feel the itch to wipe out the “pigs and apes” that are jews and christians.
It really is wonderful, this absolute moral authority that religion provides, isn’t it.
BryanS on July 27, 2008 at 3:29 PM
So, by the same token, that school over in Minneapolis that caused such an uproar because it might be influencing children toward Islam, could do so legally if the parents of that district voted so. Can you imagine the uproar that would cause? Oh, and isn’t ‘intelligent design’ a lot like Scientology?(that probably torqued a few people off) What if that were taught in public schools? My Daughter and her Husband so believe that Christianity should be taught, that they homeschool and do just that.(they even allow their heathen Grandfather to help teach once in a while) I know all parents can’t do that now days, but isn’t that one way churches can aid parents? Over generations, if allowed, I see it very possible that schools evolve to places of worship with a side of math, English (if still used) and ‘theory’, formally known as science.
oakpack on July 27, 2008 at 3:31 PM
Bring it on.
The old we are all the same as everybody does it argument? I don’t think you want to go there.
Misleading? Goes way beyond “misleading”. Where do you come up with simply “misleading”?. Are you a lawyer? Well if lots of people are killed because of his faulty products and he knew what he was doing there should be some very serious consequences. Indeed. Maybe a trial in absentia at Nuremberg.
That does not strike me as a very good defense of God. I think He needs another lawyer if He is going to beat this rap. Maybe John Edwards is available.
MB4 on July 27, 2008 at 3:35 PM
God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.
- Voltaire
MB4 on July 27, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Then there is the corollary :
People believe in their faith only because they are too afraid not to.
-Me
BryanS on July 27, 2008 at 3:39 PM
You mean that claims of exclusivity are exclusive? I acknowledged that. Which means that either I’m right, or I’m not. There’s no Universalist, all-roads-are-ok posturing. I accept that I’m right and every other faith is wrong; otherwise I disavow the “I am the way” claims of Christ.
Interesting example, given that the stoning of women by the religions is one of the most famous things in the New Testament. Jesus made them (remember, these were the false-religious – that is, those who had no heart of God but wanted to look good) stop.
Jews were monogamous. Moses even said that God let them divorce, even though He hated it, because they were so wretched there was no other way. Christ simply reinforced the point.
The fundamental doctrine of Christianity – that Christ died for the sins of man, that He is the path to salvation – never changed. We have some skirmishes every now and then, but the faith remains unchanged. As for women’s rights, read about the lives of Roman women, or the lives of Biblical non-Hebrew women, and then compare to the Christians/Jews. Things we view as horrid are really not that bad. For example, Jews never offered their children in sacrifice to God. Or had incestual relations. Or bestial ones. All of which were common place, outside of the Judeo-Christian world.
The bloody battles in Christianity were the failings of man, not the faith.
emailnuevo on July 27, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Christianity’s past is not as bloody as you think. Modern, popular conceptions of the Crusades and the Inquisition usually derive from novels by7 Sir Walter Raleigh, Voltaire etc.
The bloodiest period in Christian history is probably the Thirty Years War. But it gets less attention perhaps because in popular fiction it has been ignored or obscured (Brecht thought, wrongly, that the religious motives were just a pretext).
Christianity has not changed and will not change. Similarly, Islam will not change.
aengus on July 27, 2008 at 3:41 PM
So followers of one can feel free to disparage another religion.
MannyT-vA on July 27, 2008 at 3:51 PM
So we agree there is documentation within the bible itself of changing religious views on women’s position. That was precisely my point–there was a religious view that then changed. How absolute is this authority that can change its mind? The catholic church recently ruled that “Oops, infants that die before baptism don’t end up in limbo. Our mistake”.
You may find a more nuanced view of the role Jesus had from some catholics. I’m not an expert on catholicism, but my understanding is that they may view Jesus as the sacrificial lamb, but view Mary as just as important in the salvation of mankind.
And finally, yes religious views are mutually exclusive. So your moral authority excludes other moral authorities held by other people. Thus multiple people have a strong conviction that they are right and have the absolute truth. This obviates the role of any religion’s ability to be an absolute authority except for the personal views of an individual–the authority of religion does not extend to a pluralist society.
BryanS on July 27, 2008 at 3:59 PM
No, we don’t agree. I said women’s rights were the same. The way Jewish women were treated, it can be argued, in religious ceremonies is different than Christianity modern, but, by the way, so has the way for men. The church is the body of Christ; it lives.
I am also not a Catholic, but denying Christ as the salvation of the world (or by delegating his powers to another) is heretical. I think Catholics consider Mary as “Mother of God” because she bore Christ as a babe.
We don’t live in a pluralist society, we just live in a tolerant society. We don’t say “Oh well, he thinks murder is ok; that’s his truth.” We have absolutes on which we don’t compromise. You’re confusing actual absolutes with argued absolutes; just because I think something is absolutely true doesn’t mean it is. Truth is measured by whether or not it corresponds to reality. Man cannot “make” an absolute truth of his own and claim it has value without denying that someone else has made an absolute truth – meaning that there are no absolutes.
Which is in itself an absolute, and is thus self-defeating. Absolute truth is objective, not subjective.
emailnuevo on July 27, 2008 at 4:04 PM
Really? What was all that reformation stuff all about then? You know, protesting indulgence payments to the catholic church, challenging the moral authority of the church to establish doctrine in favor of a more individual relationship with god.
Yeah, that must have just been a little spat, quickly resolved–centuries later, the Irish were really fighting over which was better, russet vs red.
/sarcasm
BryanS on July 27, 2008 at 4:05 PM
He’ll probably respond to this – but those were corruptions of the faith. Removing false teachings is the exact opposite of changing a faith.
Catholics and I disagree on certain things, but the faith remains the same. The faith traditions just differ.
emailnuevo on July 27, 2008 at 4:06 PM
I think we’re probably talking past each other. For someone who does not recognize your version of the absolute truth, your views are heretical. At most, only one religion can actually be right. Your argument doesn’t seem to contemplate the other person who feels as strongly as you do that they are right.
For those people, then, are their perceptions of truth just not possibly valid? Even within an established religion there are disagreements about things that are not the core beliefs and different conclusions about what is right/good are reached in good faith. Relating to this post, for instance, there is difference of opinion about whether the creation story is to be taken as literal fact or allegory.
I for one, think all the religions have it wrong. I don’t think we can ever have absolute truths simply because of the limits of our human perceptions. Newtonian physics was right–until Einstein pointed out where it was wrong. Christians believe in their faith because of what was written down in a book, by humans with human perceptions and failings. Sure, one can claim that the bible is the word of god, but that is only because some other humans told you that.
BryanS on July 27, 2008 at 4:20 PM
Again, it’s not “my” absolute truth. For it to be absolute, it must be objective. My argument is not built on the feelings of the other individual; it is reason, not emotion. They can stomp and scream all day, doesn’t change a thing.
I am of the opinion that all mankind (and thus, yes, followers of all religion) have at least a grain of truth. So they know that killing is wrong, for example. Charity and love are more examples. But none of those are good enough for salvation.
At what point, though, do we cease the criticism of truth? You don’t know that Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa. You have no idea whether or not Mozart was real. You cannot possibly say that Caesar was, well, Caesar. These were things that you were told, by people or authorities. But you and I have no verifiable proof of these things.
We won’t go into the “Johann Sebastian Bach, therefore God” argument. Probably not wise. :P
Interesting point about the universe. Why should the universe be observable without a God who designed it? It should be random and pointless, proceeding unguided for all eternity. The principle of the study of the universe rests on the belief that there is sense in the universe, as Newton, Pascal, Galileo, etc. recognized.
Our perceptions are limited. But if we know absolute truths like the law of gravity, why can’t we know absolute truths about God?
emailnuevo on July 27, 2008 at 4:28 PM
This won’t hit a thousand, mostly because Penn is an idiot.
But…
HotAirExpert on July 27, 2008 at 4:29 PM
We…
HotAirExpert on July 27, 2008 at 4:29 PM
Can…
HotAirExpert on July 27, 2008 at 4:29 PM
Try!
HotAirExpert on July 27, 2008 at 4:29 PM
I like your style.
Lan astaslem!
emailnuevo on July 27, 2008 at 4:32 PM
HotAirExpert on July 27, 2008 at 4:29 PM
What is this, a Shatner impression convention?
john1schn on July 27, 2008 at 4:42 PM
What is this, a Shatner impression convention?
john1schn on July 27, 2008 at 4:42 PM
Ahh, but we do not know such an absolute truth–though I understand you feel that about your faith. Curiously, there is no universal law of gravitation–we think we have a good idea of it, and throw in some general relativity to correct the “law of gravitation” we thought we knew. (just as we had to throw in special relativity for objects moving close to speed of light). Einstein tried to find such a law that unified gravity like his theories unified electricity and magnetism. The latest efforts are still underway to acheive this in the realms of string theory.
And if Einstein’s genius weren’t enough to belittle anyone’s sense of really being able to perceive reality (who the heck could have guessed that the speed of light was the same no matter your frame of reference), string theory is the most obtuse, bizarre explanation of the nature of things that to think any one human is capable of perceiving all this by themselves is to think there is a god. Ohhh wait….ummm.
Anyway, my point is, we have very limited capabilities of perception. From general relativity, to special relativity, to schroedinger’s equation for quantum mechanics (there’s another one that baffles even physicists as to how the guy came up with that one), we cannot know of god with absolute certainty. I agree, I cannot “know” Caesar, or Da Vinci except to the extent that their effects on earth are observable today. The bible, by the way, was not written extemporaneously during the life of Jesus.
BryanS on July 27, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Judging from this post and others you sound like you either haven’t read Aquinas or are ignoring everything he wrote (in that you sound like you don’t understand the concept of free will and good and evil as it fits into Christian mythology – the problem is that to accept Aquinas’ worldview is to accept that God doesn’t truly want to stop evil in the world), which for a Christian is pretty shocking. And you’re not “justifying moral reasoning” by saying “God says it is right/wrong;” if it can be called anything it would be projection.
Nonfactor on July 27, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Fair, we’re discerning the truth about gravity. Yet we acknowledge that there is a truth that is not relative – by which I mean, it does not change according to the person observing it. We can still discern truth about reality. Unless you’re David Hume, you recognize there is truth in the world. (Can I answer Hume? No. But then neither can he.)
Of course, the Bible was written after Christ died (at least the NT). The four gospels deal with his life, death, and resurrection, and it’s hard to write that ahead of time (but don’t tell Isaiah, because he did). But they were written within a good time period that allowed for eyewitnesses.
On at least one point we can agree – we are very limited creatures. It complicates arguments about trinity, creation (I dissent on evolution as a form of new life – obviously there’s been some adaptation – but not because the Bible tells me to), etc., but at some point we have to acknowledge that perceive something. Otherwise we couldn’t be having this conversation.
The odds that all of this – our place in the universe, the forces holding atoms together, the weight of the universe – happened by chance are pretty slim.
(Incidentally, you believe that I’m wrong about God, so you think that’s absolute. We disagree, but that doesn’t mean neither of us is right. One of us definitely is, by definition.)
emailnuevo on July 27, 2008 at 5:02 PM
“Definitely is, by definition.”
Good Lord, that’s poor English.
emailnuevo on July 27, 2008 at 5:08 PM
While I believe truth can exist–I believe our ability to perceive that truth is so limited as to render the notion of our grasp of the truth laughable.
The fact that the universe happened only upon the slimmest of chances is precisely what I think–pretty much where the big bang comes down on things is that the universe is just one huge accident, so rare and so unlikely.
I do not think it is impossible for a god to exist–I could never prove the absence of one, but I highly doubt any of the human explanations/religions come even close. Science is the pursuit of the truth through ongoing testing and refinement. While we will always make progress, we will never finish and be done with finding the whole truth. One area where science will also never go is to explain why. The question of why is for best guesses, conjecture, and religion. And religion can never be founded on truth–by definition religion deals with the unknowable. One has to have faith because religion is not a science that can test or prove a religious hypothesis. When religion tries to be a science, it risks being disproven and ridiculed.
Thanx for the back and forth–been interesting. At least if we accomplished anything, we got AP just a few posts closer to his 1000 post nirvana, though it seems that this thread won’t get there anyway.
BryanS on July 27, 2008 at 5:20 PM
That’s a clever dodge. Not all orphanages have an explicitly religious mission, and I’d wager that at least one was founded by, or is funded by, atheists. It would be difficult to identify such an orphanage, since atheists don’t generally use their good works as advertisements for their belief system. So, I guess Hitchens still waits for his question to be answered.
The whole moral authority question has been answered ad nauseum, but this is how I look at it – I reject that a moral authority is necessary for morality. I believe in morality because the benefits are self-evident. If I were to believe in an absolute moral authority, however, I’d prefer it weren’t somebody who went around torturing people for eternity for the crime of not satisfying his ego.
RightOFLeft on July 27, 2008 at 5:31 PM
The principle of Christianity is not truth we discovered, but truth revealed by God himself. We can surely grasp this.
But how does such a slim thing happen? The chances are impossibly slim, for a godless universe to create everything. Why would the big bang happen? What would cause it? Reminds me of the old Kalam argument – everything begins; the universe exists; it has a beginning. God doesn’t fit here; it’s a categorical error to argue that, but everything else requires that explanation.
I was never a deist – I wavered between Christianity and existentialism/atheism, then returned to the faith – but I think we’re confusing things. Christianity is not a human explanation; on its own terms, it is a direct revelation from God. Islam is a man’s revelation, and the rest of the world’s religions are man’s wisdom. Christianity is revelation from God, to many men, a God who came into the world and suffered for crimes and sins of which he was not guilty. That’s a huge difference – the difference between an impersonal and personal God.
The evidence for Christianity is really quite profound – Josh McDowell has a book called something like “Evidence that needs a Verdict,” funnily enough. I haven’t read it, but it’s worth checking out. I’m sloshing my way through Sam Harris’ End of Faith, and I’m quite sure McDowell is more readable than Harris-drivel.
This has been a good, enlightening discussion (and a civil one!). Hopefully it overshadows the flame wars a bit.
emailnuevo on July 27, 2008 at 5:35 PM
This time the dodge is yours. Morality doesn’t require moral authority? You just gave yourself one – you. It absolutely does. Secularism cannot ground its morality, and has no foundation for it, beyond the temporal and the individual, meaning that each morality is subjective, unimportant, and untrue. It’s insanity.
No one’s saying atheists can’t be moral (I don’t think; if they are, they’re juvenile). But there is no justification for being good, and no condemnation for being bad, without a law-giver or a greater good higher than ourselves.
And, as a Christian, I appreciate the Dawkins-esque “God’s an egotistical madman” argument. That always adds a bit of spice.
emailnuevo on July 27, 2008 at 5:38 PM
Sorry for the delay – didn’t see you there!
Yes, all of humankind is sinful. We punish those who harm each other, or at least our governments do, but we’re still all sinful and potentially evil.
I was thinking of a salesman who sells you a junky car while presenting it well to you. Thus, misleading. You can substitute whatever you want, but you’re arguing semantics. Let’s say he’s murderous and vile; why should that businessman be prosecuted? He was serving his own interests. You presuppose a greater moral authority than the man himself, and the only thing that can give such a universal law is a law-giver, a God.
The edge of your wit is quite dull. Nuremburg jokes about God? Hitchens wouldn’t even print that. By the by, if we blame God for every murder, do we thank God for killing the murderer, at long last?
However, that last paragraph wasn’t a “defense” of God. It was proving that your argument is silly. People suck, so God doesn’t exist? That argument itself takes for granted a “good” and a “bad” for which you cannot account, and which you cannot defend, outside from God.
emailnuevo on July 27, 2008 at 5:48 PM
If the shoe fits…
In a way, I guess I am dodging the uncomfortable admission, that yes, I ultimately hold all the responsibility for my actions. I don’t bear all the consequences, though, and that’s what makes me accountable to society, to community, and to my family. So yeah, I’m my own moral authority, but it’s not absolute. How can I not consider the effects of my actions on the people I love? Or the people I might love, if given the chance?
RightOFLeft on July 27, 2008 at 5:54 PM
Yes, that’s it exactly. State run organizations don’t count. The State has recognized the need for them in large part because of the laws created by, you guessed it, Christians! Governments aside, you simply will not find agencies that help people physically, socially, or spiritually outside of the faith community. Atheists are too busy in the self-serve line of life to bother to set up such organizations. Are all help groups specifically Christian, no. But all help groups presume a higher power and thus cannot be atheistic.
I don’t think I dodged the original question. I hope I didn’t. I said that an unbeliever COULD, in other words agreeing that atheists are certainly able to do great good in society. My point was, they simply don’t. You won’t find any St. Unbeliever hospitals out there.
Good thread everybody.
Mojave Mark on July 27, 2008 at 6:00 PM
On what basis would a nonbeliever declare a person a saint?
backwoods conservative on July 27, 2008 at 6:05 PM
For all the talk of absolute moral authority, and all the breathless condemnation of moral relativity, Christians have adapted their own morals often enough over the years. Christianity was for slavery before it was against it. What about the inquisitors, and the witch hunters, and the indulgence merchants, and the holy warriors? Are they all in hell now? Christians make the just argument that they weren’t typical of Christianity; but what Christian objected to their crimes? Christian morals have adapted to modern life – to a more enlightened view of the value of every human life and the abomination of cruelty. But it wasn’t Christ that affected the change in attitude – it was ordinary human beings appealing to their own consciences.
Christians believe that their morality is immutably codified in just a few chapters of an ancient pseudo-history, but truthfully morality is, as ever, a uniquely human invention.
RightOFLeft on July 27, 2008 at 6:11 PM
Fair enough, and your criticism of atheism is well-taken, if overstated (IMO).
RightOFLeft on July 27, 2008 at 6:18 PM
Apologies for flooding the thread in these last few minutes, but I’m not thinking quick enough to get everything into one post.
Organization according to ideology is anathema to many atheists, and there aren’t that many of us to begin with. We’re starting to get the idea, though.
RightOFLeft on July 27, 2008 at 6:26 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »