Interesting video on biblical claims

[letianchen]

A cool thought inspiring video. What are your opinions on the claims, whether you are religious or not?

 

[AmerikaJin5]

A cool thought inspiring video. What are your opinions on the claims, whether you are religious or not?

I think "destroys" is giving him waaaay too much credit. He simply said (paraphrasing) "you can't prove it happened, so by that I can prove it didn't happen." There are people who have never seen a 'shooting star' in their lives, but they exist and telling them you saw one is not a topic of debate -- it seems Hitchens' view on recorded miracles disagrees. Frankly, I don't see why so many people insist on proving/disproving things like Biblical miracles to each other -- either you believe or you don't, that's the whole point.

 

[Majestic]

Actually what Hitchens says is that even if there was a virgin birth or a resurrection or any of these other miracles, it doesn't prove that the teachings of that religion are inherently moral.

 

[letianchen]

I think "destroys" is giving him waaaay too much credit. He simply said (paraphrasing) "you can't prove it happened, so by that I can prove it didn't happen." There are people who have never seen a 'shooting star' in their lives, but they exist and telling them you saw one is not a topic of debate -- it seems Hitchens' view on recorded miracles disagrees. Frankly, I don't see why so many people insist on proving/disproving things like Biblical miracles to each other -- either you believe or you don't, that's the whole point.

Actually the claim was not that it is proven by the fact it cant be proven. It was just to show how things like these are unfalsifiable, and unfalsifiability by nature is not an argument of its strengths, but of its weaknesses.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

He simply said (paraphrasing) "you can't prove it happened, so by that I can prove it didn't happen."

I have not seen the video, but I am vaguely familiar with Hitchens and I seriously doubt he said that.

But the fact remains that if it cannot be proven that some spectacular and for all knowledge, unique, thing happened we generally refer to the believer as a "fool". This is not at all like proving "I went shopping". People go shopping everyday. You have seen people shop all the time, so on the surface, you have no special reason to disbelieve a person went shopping.

But a virgin birth in 1 B.C.? Okay, I could buy into a primitive form of artificial insemination, barring the idea that would constitute losing virginity. But that some supernatural being did it? This being I have never seen direct evidence proving it exists? Not me.

And sure, you might say that well, I have never seen DNA with my own eyes. Why do I believe it exists and people can be identified by it? I guess the answer to that would be consistency in the reports I get about it. Very consistent, unlike say, Easter. Two major groups say Christ rose from the dead on different days. Sure, I could chose to believe one version, but on what grounds? With no grounds, the intelligent person knows they can't choose. They also know the odds are stronger that "it never happened", since, again, it is a spectacular unique event.

But I will tell you something that does happen every day: people choosing to believe a thing because its emotionally convenient for them (often because disbelief would harm their social standing, and that is a major, major emotional hurdle for most people). You can give people a mountain of solid evidence to the contrary and they often still won't budge. I have seen that an awful lot in my life.

Up to now its been mostly an atheistic argument by me: to believe the odds, and the odds say its all bogus. But I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic. The only difference is that I fully accept that I need solid proof of non-existence and there can never be any. But if I had to make a hard and fast decision (and I don't) I would got with the odds, and atheism is the clear winner.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

He simply said (paraphrasing) "you can't prove it happened, so by that I can prove it didn't happen."

I did not realize the video was so short. I finally watched it.

What he said was more like all these so called "miracles" are unrelated to each other and none of the so-called miracles does a thing to prove the others occurred, even if they all happened somehow. But most importantly they do nothing to prove they were caused by a divine hand.

For example, if my wife POOF disappeared in front of a thousand witnesses, it would be a miracle. If ten years later I gained the ability to fly, it would be a miracle. And while you might suspect that the miracles are related, what is the proof? They might not be related. Since the one common denominator is me, you would be right to SUSPECT I am at the center of it all, but maybe my wife was disappeared for something no to do with me at all. You might further SUSPECT I am divine, or at least innately special. But maybe it was just dumb luck.

If however 20 men's wives disappeared and ten years later they could all fly, then you would have proof of a relation between the miracles. But, you would still have no proof of divinity or being special. You are still left only with suspicions.

Hitchens rightly points out the inconsistencies between the resurrection of Christ and all the other claimed resurrections. Consistency is a vital proof, and in Christianity its either one off events with no such proof possible, or similar events with no consistency.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Frankly, if you don't have the mental capacity to absorb all of what I just said, you will default to miracles, divinity, magic etc. because even if your logical brain is totally shut down, your emotional/dream state brain is always on unless you are dead.

And that in a nutshell explains why superstition is so common.

 

[WonkoTheSane]

For example, if my wife POOF disappeared in front of a thousand witnesses, it would be a miracle.

Might not want to mention that to the wife...

 

[letianchen]

I have been consumed in my studies so much I have not been following the news too much and i just recently figured out what happened in Paris. Crazy to think that happened in France. What is everyone's views on how we prevent or minimize to the least these attrocities?

I saw several prominent muslim figures of news shows condemning the attacks saying how its a minority of people who share this view. While im sure they are right there are quite a high percentage of practising muslims who think apostates should be killed and you should not be allowed legally to criticize Islam ( I read a study a while ago saying this accounting for something like 18% of practicing muslims?), obviously these are not the people who are going to kill anyone, but these should be ideas that are unacceptable in any functioning society. I think people need to stop using this majority- minority argument, and the true meaning of the koran promotes peace, when scholars in the islamic community cannot prove themselves what the actual contextualization of islamic verses imply, anyone who says that people who use verses literally are not taking the true word of god or the true meaning of the koran has still all their time ahead of them to prove why their contextualization of the koran is superior.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I think if you are going to bring up Charlie Hebdo, you are going to need to get a better handle on what it was about.

I don't think it was about criticism of Islam or even just drawing Mohammad. I think it was about patently obscene portrayals of Mohammad, such as him completely naked with things sticking out of his anus.

I think its sad that apparently the freedom of speech is now being interpreted as the right to incite violence, because I don't think actual satire with an actual point would have garnered this reaction even from most extremist wanna be Muslims (cause they are about as Muslim as the Nazis were Christian).

 

[letianchen]

I think if you are going to bring up Charlie Hebdo, you are going to need to get a better handle on what it was about.

I don't think it was about criticism of Islam or even just drawing Mohammad. I think it was about patently obscene portrayals of Mohammad, such as him completely naked with things sticking out of his anus.

I think its sad that apparently the freedom of speech is now being interpreted as the right to incite violence, because I don't think actual satire with an actual point would have garnered this reaction even from most extremist wanna be Muslims (cause they are about as Muslim as the Nazis were Christian).

You are actually quite wrong. In fact In ancient culture and present day, Shia muslims have often portrayed the prophet Muhammed in drawings and in tales, never were they in distaste, obscene manners, rather a hero in a story, or a portrait. Yet Shia's and Sunni's have had several disputes over this and even lives have been lost. Moreover South park has portrayed Muhammed in a santa costume, and also portrayed him as a super hero. I watched both episodes and in my opinion nothing was really obscene there, nothing sexual, just comedic portraying him as a pretty funny dude. Family guy portrayed Muhammed playing football I believe, nothing obscene at all. People sent death threats to both of the cartoon creators. While I agree that obscenity is kind of distasteful, its super hard to draw the line. For example on the Jon stewart show and Colbert report etc, they often sexualize governors senators. And sometimes even make fun of religious people. They often do things similar to what you describe as obscene.

The fact of the matter is while in this case it could be linked to the obscenity, regardless of the portrayal there will be violence over it. My point was simply the argument that the minority should not be a viewed as the majority is an apologetic non sequitor, that alot of muslims like to use , when they have no idea what their own religion even says.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

You need to learn to separate violent attacks from death threats. They are not remotely the same thing.

Yes, I am well aware that Sunnis tend to go ape $#!T over any and all pictures of Mohammad and that death threats are probable. However, the likelihood of actual killings goes way down if you portray Mohammad in a semi-respectable way. Surely you can see that in simple numbers. Make a toon with Mohammad getting bufued by Jesus and you p!$$ of the Shiites as well and probably most Christians too, especially the fundies. With more numbers comes more risk. But of course you have also upped the quality of the anger among Sunnis as well. I am sure that even the truly loony ones are used to simple pictures of Mohammad by now or there would be attacks all the time. These Charlie Hebdo pics were just sick.

For some I suppose that type of depiction is comedy and satire gold right there. But I bet most who would do such a thing only have a death wish or just can't find life worth living except for making trouble. They probably get bummed out if they open the paper and can't find that anybody died that day.

P.S. Golly I sure hope my idea of a sex scene with Jesus and Mohammad does not rankle any of these die hard free speech supporters at Google. No no. Its just Muslims out to quash our freedom of speech! Keep telling yourselves that.

 

[letianchen]

Sure there is a difference between death threats and the actual carrying out of them. I guess what I was saying is that generally some groups of muslims seem to be more passionate about their religious beliefs in comparison to other faiths. Sure there are people who will threaten south park when they portray jesus shooting guns, but generally I think its fair to say in the muslim population this occurs more, I have no statistic to back this up, but I am confident this is likely true, although I admit I could be wrong.

The question is how far do we allow people to go. Should we stop people like Jon stewart and Colbert when they sexualize photos of some senators who said funny things. I mean my position is that nah, its funny. I agree with you, it is obscene, but to be honest I kind of do smirk at some of their comics ( Im fluent in french). The fact of the matter is, its literally so hard or us to draw the line for what people can and can't do. I honestly think cartoons like south park when they make fun of religious figures like Jesus and Satan sexually is really hilarious. I can see people getting offended by this, but its not like people are being forced to watching it or reading it. Moreover, they have every right to publish articles or even go on peaceful strikes saying why they dont want these shows or publishers to do these kinds of drawings or media.

So what is your solution? We stop over exaggerating and making fun of really important figures or things that people are touchy on? Do you suggest we make doing drawings or media like this actually illegal? Or do you think people should just be more considerate?

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I agree with most of what you said. And I yeah, I have to admit my sense of humor is pretty perverse too. Jesus and Satan getting it on..yeah, I am sure there is lots of humor waiting in that scenario.

So what is your solution? We stop over exaggerating and making fun of really important figures or things that people are touchy on? Do you suggest we make doing drawings or media like this actually illegal? Or do you think people should just be more considerate?

Its never easy to determine intent, but I think that is all we have. I think there needs to be a panel that decides if people are doing such things for the basic purpose of causing trouble, inciting hate, and inciting violence. I don't see that with the other examples you mentioned. But I cannot see Charlie Hebdo any other way.

And here is the Mother of all Hypocrisies: So far, 54 people have been arrested in France for verbally supporting the attacks on Charlie Hebdo and the kosher market. Riiiight.

Looks like some people's freedom to incite is more important than others.

 

[Majestic]

if it cannot be proven that some spectacular and for all knowledge, unique, thing happened we generally refer to the believer as a "fool".

the odds say its all bogus

Frankly, if you don't have the mental capacity to absorb all of what I just said, you will default to miracles, divinity, magic.

You have just insulted a billion muslims.
Vous etes Charlie.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

You have just insulted a billion muslims.
Vous etes Charlie.

As I have often stated, points of fact are not insults, particularly if statement of the facts are for learning purposes and not attempts to anger.

I have zero desire to push anyone to anger, although I do seem to have a knack for it by coldly pushing the facts and logic forward. I often feel like Mr.Spock on Star Trek. People were always getting emotional and accusatory on him for coldly stating facts.

So, I think it would be accurate if you said I just offended Muslims and other religious people, not that I insulted them.

Je suis Ahmed.

 

[Majestic]

Hello Ahmed,
Your spirited defense of your offensive speech is noted, but your admission that you offended a billion muslims will not look good to The Panel. While I, personally, would like to extend some leniency, it is The Panel who will ultimately decide if your calling a billion muslims "foolish and superstitious" will constitute hate speech - and in these difficult times I am pained to say your offensive speech is not longer protected speech, and that the public safety and the feelings of the religious take precedence over your free expression. With apologies.

 

[letianchen]

The bottom line is, Freedom of religion and speech can only truly be withheld in a secular society.Well thats if its not getting pressured by religious states..

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Your spirited defense of your offensive speech is noted, but your admission that you offended a billion muslims will not look good to The Panel.

Attempts to be witty and tricky noted, but I think you are falling short.

Like it or not, there is no society with complete freedom of speech, and if there was, it would certainly be easier to defend. That France and all her supporters should be all "Je suis Charlie!" while 54 are arrested for saying things (key word to follow) perceived to be supportive of the attacks is laughable.

 

[Majestic]

I wasn't being tricky, and I don't know what you think I might have fallen short of. You call for restrictions on offensive speech while simultaneously being offensive. You think nothing of charging a satirical magazine with inciting to riot, yet you whinge when the French police actually make arrests for inciting to riot. Presumably the 54 who were arrested will get their day in court, whereas, alas, the cartoonists have already been convicted, sentenced, and executed by the religious police for the crime of satire. And who gets your condemnation?; the satirists and the French police.

You are welcome to your viewpoint, and I will defend your right to post it (no matter how scattershot, duplicitous, obfuscatory it is), but calling it "logic" is overselling it.

 

[Grandpa Frank]

Please don't let the flames get out of control , hate to close threads.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I made a point about inconsistency with regard to the crackdown on incitement. That was not support for anybody.

I cannot support or condemn 54 separate people's words because I don't know exactly what each person said. But I have far too often seen in Europe that anyone who has trouble with Holocaust numbers has been accused of Holocaust denial (Hitchens has made that point many times), so I have good reason to doubt the case of the government.

Religious police? There are no religious police at work here. There may have been a death fatwa out, but that would be by individual clerics who are extremists with a minority opinion.

The crime of satire? Hardly. I might post a link to the patently offensive toons, but I have no idea what will get me in trouble with Thomas these days. This site made a U turn on freedom a while a back.

You call for restrictions on offensive speech while simultaneously being offensive.

I called for restrictions on people who are aiming to rankle while saying nothing of argumentative importance. Pictures of He Who Shall Not be Drawn with things stuck up his @$$ does not really convey any sort of message that could be confused with something of social import. My concept of what should be tolerated goes up when a message that is seemingly offensive comes with a point besides just aiming to anger.

I know this area pretty well because I have been accused umpteen times of being troll for my opinions. But you really only need half a brain to see that when I speak, its to say something. I could not really give a $#!T if you are banging on the table and pulling your hair out except that at that point I know you are no longer listening. I get no pleasure out of it. Nothing for me there so its never my goal.

That said, I know people who live for getting under people's skin. There are few people I hate more than those types. The people at Charlie Hebdo seem like that type to me. And while I never wished them death, I sure as hell am not going to bother myself with their defense or mourn the "loss". I condemn the attacks, and that is plenty. I cannot defend people who egg on attacks, merely for the purpose of egging on attacks and selling print to people of like mind.

 

[Majestic]

That said, I know people who live for getting under people's skin. There are few people I hate more than those types.

And on that supremely ironic note, I think we can stick a fork in this thread. It's done.

 

[thomas]

And on that supremely ironic note, I think we can stick a fork in this thread. It's done.

I concur. Sorry @letianchen . Thread closed.