Calling BS on Penn & teller BS: bible

[Kanster]

Threads like these require cliffs. I ain't reading all that shit.

 

[WalkenWouldOwn]

Made a fool of yourself yet again wp.

Penn gilette is much, much smarter than you.

 

[sangreporsangre]

Can't wait until TS gets to the martial arts episode

 

[Gametheory]

Perhaps a dumb question, but are you Aubrey Marcus or not?

 

[MGLucas]

God doesn't exist and religion is socially accepted brainwashing but I say feel free to believe any old shit you want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. What do I care if you want to be a knuckle dragging moron with your head up your own ass?

 

[Pork Mahogis]

Do bottled water next.

 

[LionExMachina]

Thread of the year imo

 

[osudude]

Because your last thread about Penn and Teller worked out so well.

 

[Lekarzem]

Ts shoot urself in the face

with a shotgun

 

[Level25Virgin]

1) i will try to keep this short
2) they mean the christian bible compirsing both the old and new testament
3) Agenda - Penn's agenda is that the bible is wrong and is used for hatred and bigotry
4) one phd who calls himself doctor will be referred to as CON (contrary to penn's position) and one phd who does not call himself doctor will be referred to as PRO
-note, see the nice vilification of the phd who is against Penn's agenda?

1) penn tries to take genesis literally. NO ONE who is respected on bible studies takes Genesis literally. It is the tale of the creation of the universe in theological terms. It is not a science book. Science did not exist until about the 16th century.
The PRO guy supports Genesis to not be taken literally, but Penn still cannot get this

2) penn takes Exodos literally. PRO guy says there is no proof that israelites were in egypt was there or that the Red Sea could part.
- egypt did not record losses
- is hyklos the israelites?
- The Merneptah Stele

 

[Dogstarman]

1) i will try to keep this short
2) they mean the christian bible compirsing both the old and new testament
3) Agenda - Penn's agenda is that the bible is wrong and is used for hatred and bigotry
4) one phd who calls himself doctor will be referred to as CON (contrary to penn's position) and one phd who does not call himself doctor will be referred to as PRO
-note, see the nice vilification of the phd who is against Penn's agenda?

1) penn tries to take genesis literally. NO ONE who is respected on bible studies takes Genesis literally. It is the tale of the creation of the universe in theological terms. It is not a science book. Science did not exist until about the 16th century.
The PRO guy supports Genesis to not be taken literally, but Penn still cannot get this

2) penn takes Exodos literally. PRO guy says there is no proof that israelites were in egypt was there or that the Red Sea could part.
- egypt did not record losses
- is hyklos the israelites?
- The Merneptah Stele

 

[Rhood]

Penn Jillette is a superior god.
Jesus was an inferior peasant.

Any questions?

 

[WARRIOR POET]

I love how his addressing an inerrant interpretation of Genesis/Exodus is so outlandish because "NO ONE who is respected on Bible studies take Genesis literally", even though that wasn't just the most common interpretation of the scripture, but the only interpretation of it by by ALL of them up until around the 18th century. How come?

Because, indeed, WP, science only began in the 16th century, and with its rise, these obvious superstitions were destroyed one by one (a tradition Penn & Teller have proudly continued). Christians were forced to reinvent themselves as slightly less primitive in order to stay relevant. Bravo.

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

I predict this ends up in the Dump or deleted.

taking the bible literally is what fundamentalists started doing in the 19th century
it is also what atheists do, because that is their best and only argument. so if it fits your agenda it must be true

and a POLL = people with respectable knowledge of what bible means??????

lol, "3 out of 10 AMERICANS" not even 3/10 christians or 3/10 catholics

lets tell the truth, unfortuntaley a large portion of christians do not know shit about the bible other than a very few things

and atheists again only know the part that fits their agenda

hey, if 3/10 people think the earth is flat, does that make it so???

if 3/10 people believe that evolution is false, does that make it so???

now, as far as what is right and wrong as far as christianity, i choose the catholic church's opinion, because honestly, they are the only ones to be trusted and have been doing it for over a 1000 years


as far as deleting or dumping this thread, WHY? if it sucks it goes off the front page?
i mean, we can't have a rational discussion religion. i mean i waited a day to respond just to make sure it wouldn't be deleted in 4 hours.


now, as far AS NOT TAKING GENESIS LITERALLY over a 1000 years before the scientific method

here you go. i will post just one blurb but you can read whole thing if you want a more educated argument against christianity

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

origen in 260 AD

Origen of Alexandria, in a passage that was later chosen by Gregory of Nazianzus for inclusion in the Philocalia, an anthology of some of his most important texts, made the following very modern-sounding remarks:

For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.[15]

And in another passage, writing in response to the pagan intellectual Celsus, he said:

And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day, and of the firmament upon the second, and of the gathering together of the waters that are under the heaven into their several reservoirs on the third (the earth thus causing to sprout forth those (fruits) which are under the control of nature alone), and of the (great) lights and stars upon the fourth, and of aquatic animals upon the fifth, and of land animals and man upon the sixth, we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world.[16]

 

[WARRIOR POET]

No one says it's a science book. It is, however, a story, and one that the writers believed to be true. It is false.

Penn is correct. The Exodus is another Bible story we know to be false.

Apparently archaeology doesn't either.

No. The Hyskos were an invading tribe who the Egyptians had to drive OUT, not a domestic group of slaves the Egyptians had to chase to keep IN.

The Stele indicates Israel was a foreign culture and associates them with other groups of Canaanites; which is exactly what the rest of archaeology tells us: the Israelites were a Canaanite offshoot, not an Egyptian slave faction that escape and moved into Canaan.

Dying-and-rising gods were commonplace in that day. Jesus was not original.

Jesus didn't do those either.

Absurd arguments. God had to promote slavery because everyone else around there was? I didn't know God was so weak to peer pressure (or underling pressure, as it be).

I'm not sure how killing your citizens for minor crimes makes your society stronger.

Strange. Mohammad died and his religion kept going. Siddhartha died and his religion kept going. Joseph Smith died and his religion kept going. It doesn't seem like a religious leader dying is really that big of an obstacle.

...they didn't.

so the writer(s) of Genesis told it as 100% fact that it was literal??? no one was telling literal creation stories that long ago. ever. please stop with this nonsense.

show me proof where the writers say this, otherwise I will assume it is like all theological creation stories and not to be taken 100% literal

slavery - it was everywhere, it was commonplace. some people got OFFERED freedom and denied it because a slave is always taken care of. a free worked might or might not have work and may or may not eat

but god created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Gave everyone, even SLAVES a day off

in leviticus you could keep a HEBREW slave for 7 years then you must give him the choice of freedom or he is your slave forever. of course the loophole for non hebrews were to convert, ha

rome was actually limiting the number of slaves you could free at that time.

dying and RISING people WERE NOT COMMONPLACE. That is the whole point, but yet they do not live on. but yet people didn't die for the cult leader after the cult leader was dead


apostles - yeah 10/12 were claimed to be martyred. john escaped and judas suicided
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/bl...ve-apostles-how-their-deaths-evidence-easter/
and this link is giving probabilities of each one actually being martyred

are you also going to argue that the romans did not steal christians property and kill them in the colosium???


mohammed still has followers -- well, not shit. M was a warlord. you converted or you died. he had heirs who kept up on the tradition. that is why there is sunni and shiites
so, just a little bit different than enduring the beating christians took until about 360 AD.


as far as jesus not doing the miracles, um, what proof do you have? it is just your opinion
my proof? the following he had during his life and after his death
how many of the magicians were followed after his death?

 

[El Chimpo]

jesus copy pasted everything that horus did

 

[Grooboggle]

so the writer(s) of Genesis told it as 100% fact that it was literal??? no one was telling literal creation stories that long ago. ever. please stop with this nonsense.

show me proof where the writers say this, otherwise I will assume it is like all theological creation stories and not to be taken 100% literal

slavery - it was everywhere, it was commonplace. some people got OFFERED freedom and denied it because a slave is always taken care of. a free worked might or might not have work and may or may not eat

but god created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Gave everyone, even SLAVES a day off

in leviticus you could keep a HEBREW slave for 7 years then you must give him the choice of freedom or he is your slave forever. of course the loophole for non hebrews were to convert, ha

rome was actually limiting the number of slaves you could free at that time.

dying and RISING people WERE NOT COMMONPLACE. That is the whole point, but yet they do not live on. but yet people didn't die for the cult leader after the cult leader was dead


apostles - yeah 10/12 were claimed to be martyred. john escaped and judas suicided
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/bl...ve-apostles-how-their-deaths-evidence-easter/
and this link is giving probabilities of each one actually being martyred

are you also going to argue that the romans did not steal christians property and kill them in the colosium???


mohammed still has followers -- well, not shit. M was a warlord. you converted or you died. he had heirs who kept up on the tradition. that is why there is sunni and shiites
so, just a little bit different than enduring the beating christians took until about 360 AD.


as far as jesus not doing the miracles, um, what proof do you have? it is just your opinion
my proof? the following he had during his life and after his death
how many of the magicians were followed after his death?

Your post is a mess.
Its pointless to do a line by line rebuttal as you really don't make many or any points really. Things you should keep in mind are that Penn and Teller are hardly attempting to do a philosophical rebuttal. If you admit freely that the bible is not literal and merely allegory you should have no issue with the vast majority of non religious people. If the bible isn't literal its fiction. This is broadly speaking the position of most atheists. Now you may claim the fictional stories in the bible have value as a teaching tool and non religious people would say no but at its base your position on the literal truth of it are the same.


You pick the parts of the bible you want to be true and choose them to be literal ...Jesus performing miracles say....the parts you don't like you say are fictional. I have no issue with this. This is the same thing every person ever has done in the justification of their own world view. Recognize it though.

 

[GODZILLA213]

Do bottled water next.

Seconded. But I am really hoping TS believes people can talk to the dead. Not interested in what his counter argument would be, but based on the replies in this thread it would be most enjoyable.

 

[WARRIOR POET]

Wrong, I'll shit on the Bible and just about anyone that believes in it anytime I please... Because it's dangerous, the people that read it are dangerous and the idea's it promotes are dangerous.

really? what is funny is you are one of the butthurt atheists after 9/11. you see religion as dangerous BECAUSE of muslim extremists

hey, how about we show some atheist extremists

hitler = murdered MILLIONS

Stalin = murdered MILLIONS - more than hitler

Alan Bullock wrote that Hitler frequently employed the language of "divine providence" in defence of his own myth, but ultimately shared with the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, a materialist outlook, "based on the nineteenth century rationalists' certainty that the progress of science would destroy all myths and had already proved Christian doctrine to be an absurdity".



Now, bukowski, people like YOU are exactly my fucking problem

You are DANGEROUSLY STUPID in thinking that Christianity is evil and leads to violence and hate and bigotry
when it is the opposite

ANYONE who is a GOOD christian and follows the MESSAGE OF JESUS is commanded to love his neighbor and his enemy, and to love one another and to give sharity to the poor and to be just and do not lie or bear false witness and ETC

I finished my OP with examples of words attributed to Jesus supporting this, go back and read it

But IF YOU ARE SO RIGHT about your bullshit, pull ONE fucking quote from one of the 4 gospels where JESUS promotes VIOLENCE
should be easy, right?

You are fucking enjoying the fruits of a society built by christians with christian ideals.

and Christianity IS the reason there is no slavery in the WEST. period.

oh, i guess for my famous christian i could post

0 million killed. used the nonviolent resistance inspired by the life of jesus to get at least a little bit better civil rights in america



oh, and for books being dangerous, how about Catcher in the Rye?
insane crazy people can twist any book to do the crazy shit they do, they are CRAZY

 

[TheBox]

so the writer(s) of Genesis told it as 100% fact that it was literal??? no one was telling literal creation stories that long ago. ever. please stop with this nonsense.

Literalism was long the position of Orthodox Judaism. It still is, in some circles.

Genesis doesn't just contains errors in the order of creation, or the processes used, it has elements that don't make any sense even under a non-literal interpretation. For instance, the cosmology involves a flat Earth under a solid dome.

slavery - it was everywhere, it was commonplace.

Again, God succumbs to peer pressure?

The fact that the Hebrew's culture was so similar to everyone else of the period indicates that they were simply one of many tribes, not a special tribe that had contact with an omnipotent, omniscience, omnibenevolent god.

The Hebrew god could have told the Hebrews not to practice slavery. Why didn't he? Because he is an invention of the Hebrews and they wanted to practice slavery.

in leviticus you could keep a HEBREW slave for 7 years then you must give him the choice of freedom or he is your slave forever. of course the loophole for non hebrews were to convert, ha

In other words, slavery was for life for non-Hebrews. Forceful religious conversion doesn't make it any "nicer".

dying and RISING people WERE NOT COMMONPLACE. That is the whole point, but yet they do not live on. but yet people didn't die for the cult leader after the cult leader was dead

I said dying and rising gods. They were in vogue. As were god born of magical circumstances. It is no coincidence that the mythmakers of Christianity assigned such attributes to Jesus.

apostles - yeah 10/12 were claimed to be martyred. john escaped and judas suicided
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/bl...ve-apostles-how-their-deaths-evidence-easter/

Exactly. CLAIMED to be martyred. Numerous apostles have multiple martyr stories.
They're simply church stories.

are you also going to argue that the romans did not steal christians property and kill them in the colosium???

In some instances, but stories of early Christian persecution are largely overblown.

mohammed still has followers -- well, not shit. M was a warlord. you converted or you died. he had heirs who kept up on the tradition. that is why there is sunni and shiites
so, just a little bit different than enduring the beating christians took until about 360 AD.

That isn't relevant to the question of belief. Religions carry on even when followers meet facts that contradict the religion.

as far as jesus not doing the miracles, um, what proof do you have? it is just your opinion

There is no burden of proof on me, WP. It's on you to provide extraordinary evidence for this extraordinary claims.

My position requires that a handful of people be delusional or that myth and legend grow over time. Your position requires breaking numerous scientific laws.

my proof? the following he had during his life and after his death

A following is not evidence of miracles; only how deluded religious people can be. There were numerous early Christians who were martyred despite never having met Jesus. Religious fervor is powerful.

 

[El Chimpo]

none of those "famous atheist extremists" did it in the name of atheism