micheal shermer,religon,science,bullshit Penn & Teller - The Bible Myth
posted by Farhad2000
2 years 11 months 2 weeks ago • 4632 viewstags: micheal shermer, religon, science, bullshit
Comments 
playlists with this video Religion and the Sift by James Roe
• Controversies by Krupo
• Religious Rants by benjee
• Knowledge by Farhad2000
• Penn & Teller: Bullshit! by nibiyabi
• Penn & Teller by rbar
who voted for this video Farhad2000
- mauz15
- HistNerd
- choggie
- theo47
- grspec
- djsunkid
- Flip
- NTB
- mjasonprickett
- sometimes
- darkrowan
- BicycleRepairMan
- dbalsdon
- deputydog
- Goofball_Jones
- conan
- coreburn
- barraphernalia
- bob.dobbs
- hixsonj
- dw1117
- bigbikeman
- skforty
- manadren
- lucky760
- lordnull
- oohahh
- Fiver2
- viewer_999
- bl968
- mlx
- guitarwolf
- blackout
- snaremop
- julianj
- pho3n1x
- swampgirl
- Spiff
- drforeverclear
- thecosmicshame
- SlipperyPete
- Mara
- zentopia
- Nowan
- jimnms
- qruel
- cfhdavid
- Skoll
- skhisma
- NetRunner
- benjee
- NickyP
- crayfish
- calvados
- cardboardhut
- Fred_Chopin
- brnz
- rickegee
- beanflip
- Zifnab
- brendotroy
- roosh4
- winkler1
- southblvd
- Wingoguy
- raven
- jongala
- pyrex
- lucid
- Greattornick
- sillma
- jdbates
- TimothyChenAllen
- Sageous
- applelicious
- wazant
- nibiyabi
- InvaderSil
- LifeIsSweet
- kamil.t
- everyplatewebreak
- lmayliffe
- lurgee
- cheesemoo
- randeepsamra
- Fletch
- siftbot
x9 - steroidg
who voted against this video mac
- amxcvbcv
- gorgonheap
who has this post bookmarked LifeIsSweet
- wazant
- darrindoss
- WavetraX
- swampgirl
- conan
Penn & Teller - The Bible Myth Related Videos
|
Top 15 Sifters of All Time 7. ant
(35397 votes)13. mlx
(21761 votes)Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 14. ant
(147 votes)
Newest Appreciated Comments
| 
Stumble This
Faith is much better than belief. Belief is when someone else does the thinking.
R. Buckminster Fuller
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?
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.
“Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.”
- Isaac Asimov
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.
i didn't see it all, i admit it.
but, well, what are they saying that is not obvious?
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.
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
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?
Gospels in praise of intelligence.
--Bertrand Russell
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.
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.
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.
talk about bullshit.
He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. -- Exodus 21:15
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."
"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?
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.
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.
And remember kids, critical thinking is never an option, always a responsibility (---rainbow---'the more you know!')
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
Or for a self-described liberal to be a fundamentalist on so many issues.
Dawkins and Sagan both agree Einstein was "religious" not in the Biblical sense, but in the sense of wonderment about the universe.
Sorry.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!!!!!!!!!
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.
God permitted slavery to exist in both Old and New Testament times. But this does not mean that slavery was a God-ordained system. Slavery was an invention of fallen man, not of God. Nevertheless, God allowed it to exist the way He allows other things to exist that He does not approve of: murder, lying, rape, theft, etc.
God also works within the system of fallen man and makes allowances for the freedom and failures of mankind within that system. We see this, for example, in Jesus saying that God allowed divorce because of the hardness of peoples' hearts (Matt. 19:8). The fact is, people are sinners and do things contrary to the will of God. But, even though people have murdered, lied, raped, and stolen, God has still used people who've committed these sins to accomplish His divine will. Moses murdered an Egyptian but was used by God to deliver Israel. David committed adultery but was promised to have the Messiah descend from his seed. This is proof that though God desires that people not do much of what they do, He permits them their freedom, yet uses the system and the people according to His divine will.
In the case of a slave being property, that is simply the way things were done back then. As I said, God worked within the fallen system of man and put limits and guidelines concerning the treatment of slaves.
While the New Testament assures us that the 10 commandments were not drafted simply for "another age.", Romans 13:1-10 assures us that the Church has adopted them for our time as well. However, since the whole Old Covenant (the Mosaic Law, as specified in 2 Cor 3:7-14) has been set aside (Hebrews 7:18; 8:13; 10:9), then the Church can pick the religious and moral practices from the Old Testament as she sees fit to use in the New Testament. Therefore, she can decide to use the 10 commandments but reject the civil and ceremonial laws that were tied to the theocracy of Israel (e.g., eating shellfish).
One should note that national customs furnish an explanation here. 1 Cor was addressed to a Greek audience, where long hair on men often indicated effeminacy and indulgences in unnatural vices.
This is where I ran into a problem. They say that verses 19-24 say that a man shouldn't go near a woman when she is on her period...
I am going to post verses 19-24 and you can tell me where you see that, because I don't see it. Perhaps that was just a mess up on Penn and Tellers part.
Will somebody let me know when they figure out what verse they meant?
This video dissapointed me. I usually like their show and often agree with them on many things. This would be an exception.