Hey, that;s the Ted Talker.Heard on the radio today that the Vatican archaeologists think they'll tell us they found the apostle Paul in a dig in some basilica.


Faith is much better than belief. Belief is when someone else does the thinking.
R. Buckminster Fuller

Is that QM at 7:30?

Sounds like science is quite a religion unto itself, with Penn and Teller apparently some of it's most ardent followers. Anyhow, it's material like this that makes me wish we taught logic, and fallacies, to kids. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

Well tooley if you're thinking that facts and science and things like that are considered a "religion" unto itself, then I guess that's your belief. But hey, don't let facts and history get in the way of religion and the Bible.

Also, could you expand on your comment. Perhaps I'm not one of the kids that learned logic and fallacies. So how is this material (meaning Penn & Teller) make you wish they taught logic etc etc? Or are you agreeing with them? Where the hell are you standing on this?

Wouldn't it be weird if a debate about religion arose due to this clip submission?

q[Anyhow, it's material like this that makes me wish we taught logic, and fallacies]q

Ofcourse calling out logical fallacy in poor judgement is a fallacy itself. You cant prove a universial negative, and the bible is just too damn long to go through point-by-point in a half-hour show. What this clip shows is some of the most basic, fundamental mistakes and contradictions in the bible, going against both itself and everything we as modern people understand basic empirical, scientific proof.

Science is not a religion, its not a series of beliefs, it is neither the full and complete truth. Its simply the best ideas we have so far, and its also the notion that we should continue investigating and thus improve, change or even discard those ideas, and get closer to some truth.

Religion is when you are simply told to believe something and told to accept it and live by it, no matter what evidence against you may have.

I don't mind people believing in whatever they must to, but don't try to force your beliefs on me or use some book written by man to do so.

Tags changed from "micheal shermer, religon, science" to "micheal shermer,religon,science,bullshit" by gold star member lucky760.

“Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.”

- Isaac Asimov

"Religion is when you are simply told to believe something and told to accept it and live by it, no matter what evidence against you may have."

Nope, that statement leaves out the response from the receiver, that response, produces action, then some crazy receiver's take on that religion at large, or, in some cases, a new and improved discipline-like Cruise and his ilk. Religion is practiced, or created,;universal truths, part of every good religion, are just there, and understood.
Agree with the sentiment, and the rest of it.

Ah, but if a person of authority teaches you from a book that can't be wrong, life should be a lot easier! Just sit back, follow sports, get a job working on cars, and remember to repent your sins before you die.

Sorry, but I don't think I'll base my belief system on what Pen & Teller or Isaac Asimov say.

i miss the point in this video.

i didn't see it all, i admit it.

but, well, what are they saying that is not obvious?

Religion in the 00's is no different than the sexual revolution/drug culture of the 60's.
In fact, they live by the same credo: "if it feels good, do it".
The baby boomers have just found themselves a new indulgence, a new "high".

The sooner that generation of narcissists are locked away in retirement homes, the better. Complete wastes.

I hate that word. Boomers. It sounds so bloody idiotic. Every other week Newsweek puts out an issue about the Boomers...

What about the Sooners?

I can understand the sentiment that science is a sort of religion. I mean, it's impossible for one person to verify every single scientific precept for veracity. No one can hold the whole of science in their heads, so in a sense you do sort of have to have faith that every other scientist is doing his job right.

The situation really isn't analogous, though. It's not like somebody, or a bunch of somebodies, just stopped you on the street and said, "Hey man, have you heard about this new science thing? We're gonna make a better world man!"

Science is dynamic, science is constantly building upon its previous successes. That's why it's reasonable to believe science works, because if science didn't work we'd have never gotten past observing the Newtonian world. We couldn't have gotten this far without a string of consistent successes.

And it's not like there are any equally successful systems competing with science. Any faith you choose has thousands of competing systems that, as far as we can tell, are more or less equally successful in bringing their participants happiness, etc., whatever benefits you might list. The only significant possible difference, ie: the state of your eternal soul in the hereafter, requires faith to perceive. Essentially, any of your religions's demonstrable effects are easily replicated by a similar system with a whole different set of beliefs.

Contrast this with science. Never in history has a drum circle been successfully used to generate the discoveries which precipitated solid state electronics. People don't dance skyscrapers up from the ground. Scientists stand on the shoulders of giants. The reason that we can take the discoveries of the past for granted as descriptive of reality is because the discoveries of the present would not be possible if they weren't descriptive of reality.

You can play a semantic game if you wish. I can not disprove every single case of the statement "Science is a sort of religion," when you get to choose the meaning of the words. However, in every significant sense of the sentence, science is not a sort of religion.

--Joe

Pretty good overview although it had a couple of problems.

It talked about how there is no extra-biblical evidence for a proto-Israelite people being enslaved in Egypt. While this is true per se, there is significant evidence to suggest that the Egyptians had a labor pool made up of resident aliens at the supposed time of Moses. It would therefore not be inconceivable for there to be a population of proto-Israelites living and working in Egypt, potentially having migrated their after a string of bad harvests in the marginal Caanite territory they supposedly had dwelled in during the time of the Patriarchs.

It was nice that they talked about the Sea of Reeds, certainly the most influential mistranslation in the Western tradition.

I'm surprised they didn't talk about the relationship between the Canaanite deity El and Yahweh. If the proto-Israelites dwelled in marginal Canaanite territory they certainly would have worshipped Canaanite gods. This is because deities in ancient paganism were not omnipresent; their power and influence typically centered around a specific geographic area. Therefore if you move to a foreign land, your old gods will no longer be able to protect you and you had therefore best start worshipping local deities. The chief god of the Canaanite pantheon was El, who you've probably heard of before with such names as Isra-El, Samu-El etc. Yahweh supposedly loved the Israelites and viewed them as a chosen people, which is a conception of the divine which is very Egyptian in origin (the Egyptians viewed themselves as a chosen people that the gods cared deeply about). It's highly likely that Yahweh is therefore an Egyptianized version of the Canaanite deity El.

It also would've been great if they used the passage from the Book of Job (forget the exact verse) where God is said to be sitting with his sons. It's almost like Judaism evolved out of polytheistic religion, huh?

So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the
Gospels in praise of intelligence.
--Bertrand Russell

Penn and Teller: If you don't have enough evidence for something, that means its bullshit.

The Bible has historical aspects vis a vis God people, but it isn't intended to be a strict historical text. Making it into this is an easy avenue to condemn it.

Stoning people was a commandment to Israelites circa 3000 BC. If you read the whole book it doesn't apply to all Christians. It was commandments to those specific people. Laws always exist in the context of civilization. Its utterly idiotic to assume the laws should not change for 5000 years or so. I am sure life was so harsh then most posters here could'nt fathom it.

The only things you need to ask is : Did Jesus exist? Was he who he said he was?

The rest is fairly academic.

tooley / mac / DavidM : instead of entering into these debates anymore, I'm simply posting a link to my Religion playlist instead - the 10+ hours of videos discuss everything I'd want to.

Your list is interesting benjee, but not really conclusive. It really should be labeled: The men I choose to believe instead of Christ.

The Bible's origins do not dispute Jesus in any way whatsoever. If Jesus was not the Son of God, then what facts exist which contradict this? His body was not found, he has secular accounts of his travels and crucifixion. Do tell.

The fact the romans wrote about him at all is amazing, since they wanted to *stop* Christianity before Constantine converted.

The Abiogenesis/ID stuff is particulary hilarious.
I have yet to see any actual abiogenesis factual data, just a set of theories...which is exactly what the athiests condemn of religious people. Not exactly the scientific method.
(not speaking of microevolution, but origin of life)

Google 'crutches of atheism' and dispute the numbers...

Science will continue to search for how, but I do not believe it can answer *why*. I doubt those men in your videos can either.

DavidM I personally don't question your faith or belief in it. What I am against is when your faith and belief come to be pressed on my life. That's what I am against.

And thats happening too much now. Too many times those of any faith sit on some morally high stool above all other mankind. Following faith and the belief is your choice, not mine.

If we are damned to burn in hell so be it, theres more space for you in heaven.

But don't come pressing your beliefs in my life.

i just went looking for that bit in the bible about putting disobedient children to death (i've actually read the bible and never come across that before). Guess what? It's not there. I found the bit of old testament law talking about purity in sexual relations, but nothing about killing disobedient children. It seems slightly ironic that in this short video pontificating on biblical inaccuracies Pen and Teller have managed to add text that isn't even there. Also they don't seem to have a strong grasp on what rules were for the Israelites and how Jesus death fulfilled the requirements of the law. I suppose it is easier to just assume that all Christians and ill informed morons.

talk about bullshit.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Chubs, maybe they are talking about this one:

He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. -- Exodus 21:15

You can certainly say the Bible hasn't remained 'pure' throughout the ages. I know it *can* be changed because in the last verses of revelation the penalties for doing so are given.

I think the lessons it teaches are still present though.

farhad:"But don't come pressing your beliefs in my life."

I havent, have I? Don't paint me with that brush, please.
As a matter of fact, there is no such thing as forcing beliefs on anyone because if they are forced they are no longer, in fact, beliefs.

Dag:
If a child is old enough to murder(not kill) his mother or father, it doesn't sound very barbaric to me.

Ironically one story concering the word chutzpah :
"A boy is on trial for murdering his parents, and he begs of the judge leniency because he is an orphan."

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I'm no bible scholar, but does "smite" = murder?

Dag...it does mean kill, but it also means to "strike" someone. A couple of verses before this one it reads:
"He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death." (21:12)

So perhaps in this case it means if you strike or attack your parents with intent to kill you shall be put to death.

Later it says: "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death." (21:17)

If cursing your parents could earn death for you...then certainly hitting them would don't you think?

meh - to each their own I always say. I found this entertaining to say the least.

But - to be fair killing in the name of religion is the #1 cause of wars in our world's history. All because we think our version of Jeebus (or cow, spaghetti monster, Buddha..) is better then theirs were willing to die for it.

I do believe in something - just not whats written down and been played "telephone" with for 2000 years. Something I'm sure has been lost in the translation.

Wow. I always thought the Bible was literal truth. Thanks, P&T. I don't even think that they are preaching to the converted here. More like masturbating into a cup.

And if you look scientifically behind the catchphrase, real estate is probably more accurately the #1 cause of wars in world history. I grant that a real estate grab justified by using in the name of [INSERT FIGUREGODHEAD HERE] is exceedingly common.

I am just as wary of science being used for political purposes as I am of religion used for political purposes. Both are fairly dynamic and flexable. Both are products of human limitation.

Well said, rickegee, particularly the last paragraph.

And remember kids, critical thinking is never an option, always a responsibility (---rainbow---'the more you know!')

Actually, rickegee's last paragraph was very poorly said.

Religion and science try to cover some of the same ground occasionally, but let's not pretend they're equal or interchangeable concepts.

I respect the attempt to get everyone to hold hands and sing "Kumbaya", but science is about truth (or, at least, the pursuit of it) and faith is about truthiness.

I hate describing "science" or "religion" as single, unitary things. Though I am guilty of doing just that.

And I am always skeptical of science being described as the pursuit for truth. It can be. It may also be a pursuit for funding and grant monies.

Are there religions that abhor doubt and require absolutism? Absolutely. See Jesus Camp or many videos on this site.

But I tend to dislike how this site paints every religion from Buddhism, to Hinduism, to Dorothy Day Catholicism, to Tom Cruise Scientology as mere stupid variations of down-home Mississippi Fundamentalism.

And science alone has such a difficult time with art, inspiration, human attraction, and social interaction. For instance, that discarded but exceedingly scientific and clinical realblankman video shows how science wholly misses the fun of sex. I am still scarred. Evil science.

If you're analyzing art and sex scientifically, the only person taking the fun out of it is you.
And dumping something that can't be broken down easily by the scientific method into the lap of religion or spirituality shows a lack of imagination on the part of that person.

Because religious types often make idiots of themselves and their claims can be easily dissected with rational thought isn't the fault of VideoSift.
Please, if you have a treasure trove of entertaining, informative video about religion, by all means, submit them.

(Oh, and that crack about science being about funding and grant money?
Why do you suppose so much pre-Renaissance art had religious themes?
Because all those artists were "divinely" inspired? Probably not.)

And thus we are back to the last paragraph of my post farther up on the page. Money creates product which creates further ideas/ideals which creates more money. And then people fight.

It is very easy to view the pursuit of science as something pure and exceptional, but in the end, it is still a product of confused but well-meaning bipeds (FN: paraphrasing some nice bits by choggie). I prefer to view it about as skeptically as I view Jesus. But not nearly as skeptically as I view Benny Hinn.

Rational people who are also religious: Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, William Alston, E.P. Sanders, Elaine Pagels,James Carroll, et al.

I will try to find some Swinburne for the Sift. YouTube may or may not have him, but he is just great.

That's another ridiculous attempt to equalize science and religion, when they're not even on the same playing field. Honestly, just stop.

And religious scientists are the exception, not the rule; and all that proves is the human ability to partition the brain into different parts - such as say, an anti-gay Republican Congressman who crusaded against child predators, yet is a gay child predator in his personal life.

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

Or for a self-described liberal to be a fundamentalist on so many issues.

One quote, poorly taken out of context.

Dawkins and Sagan both agree Einstein was "religious" not in the Biblical sense, but in the sense of wonderment about the universe.

Sorry.

I can pretty much guarantee that at least Penn is probably guilty of violating a number of the 10 commandments he mocks and ridicules in this piece.

It's a typical thing which you see all the time. One-time religious church going people hit a commandment or doctrine they don't agree with becuase they're breaking it. Then they kick themselves out of whatever church they're attending, saying it's wrong. And more often than not, they go completely against religion.

At the root of it all is a deep-seated belief that they are more righteous than God is. Which is why, when questioned or challenged, they nearly always say something like "Look at all the horrible things Christians have done over the centuries". And in the back of their minds they must be thinking, "if there IS a God, he would do something about all this misery in the world. If I had all that power, you can bet I'd sail in like the biggest superhero in the galaxy, wave my hand and put a stop to all the suffering. God has that power, but he's not using it. So that means I'm better than God. Why should I have to obey God's 'commandments' when I'm more righteous than he is?"

I have never met Penn. But I can safely deduce, from this piece alone, that he's probably broken a LOT of God's commandments and he's seeking to justify himself because he knows he's guilty.

Oh, that's right. All religion is the Bible to you, theo. My bad. The quote fairly speaks for itself.

I cannot possibly divine Penn's scorecard on the Commandments. I imagine that he can name more Commandments than a Georgia Congressman. An exceptional magician, though, and I firmly believe that Teller swears like a sailor when not on stage.

I think you misunderstand Rickegee's point.

We have come to the realization that the world is not as is, based on our previous religious beliefs. Now we come to science. But science does not offer all the answers, but it asks the right questions. I mean for a while scientists thought that a trip to the moon is a ridiculous idea.

One must be careful not to fall into the same pit of blind acceptance as we have with religion.

I recommend also watching this video.

farhad is on eloquent fire today.

The Band Aid/Geldof/NGO post in particular said everything I have felt but with multi-syllabic words.

And I don't wish to bait the bear any longer. Particularly when there are Jack Frost clips to be playlisted.

You kinda frighten me, Slyrr.

Re:Dawkins video

Its one man who has *faith* in science which cannot 'see' the existence of God so he doesn't believe in it. Big deal.

If God *created* everything we see around us, its idiotic to assume he couldn't escape the notice of 'smart' people like Richard Dawkins. Because he sees similarities in other stories does not make the Bible false or some fantasy. A true man of the (scientific) cloth.

For people who keep saying: If there is a God where is he? Well He was here and told everyone who He was. You either choose to believe Him or you don't. To imagine it is more 'scientific' to call Jesus a liar is blind faith of narcissism. Atheism REQUIRES faith too.

PS. The 3 basic elements of physics are matter, energy and time. Ironically those are the first three things mentioned in the Genesis 1.

Slyrr's line of reasoning is cute: those who criticize/question religion are sinners, and therefore suspect and not worth listening to.

Forgive Slyrr: he hasn't accepted Flying Spaghetti Monster into his heart. Verily, his soul is like a meatball, naked and shivering without His noodley love.

DavidM kinda frightens me, too.

you know what!

I totally disagree with this clip and i think it should get banned! it is insulting to me and probably to many other christians out there!

some of you can believe what you want if you aren't a christian, but really, what good is it to argue!?!?!?! i think that everyone would be better off if they focused on the POSITIVES in life (and the bible) and not try to prove everything wrong! i mean, sure there are a few mis quotes from the bible, but have you ever thought about seeing at all the good things in it???

some of you guys are SOOOO freakin pessimistic, just like Penn and Teller!!!!!!!!!!

Downvote for instead of saying "Maybe this book should not be taken literally page to page, cover to cover." they say basically say "All of this book="bullshit."

A good bit of the Bible is supported by history. Many of the Bible's battles are known to have happened. The Bible even goes so far to give details of certain battles. It is even sometimes used as a historical source.

Now, lets go through all those verses that Penn and Teller starting pulling out around 8:30.

Exd 21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

Exd 35:2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.

1Cr 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

1Cr 11:19For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

1Cr 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, [this] is not to eat the Lord's supper.

1Cr 11:21 For in eating every one taketh before [other] his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

1Cr 11:22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise [you] not.

1Cr 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the [same] night in which he was betrayed took bread:

1Cr 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

*1stTube

Adding video to channels (1sttube) - requested by Grimm.

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by jwray.

*history *religion *books *debunked

Adding video to channels (Books, Debunked, History, Religion) - requested by xxovercastxx.