Found a person, Jason, trying to defend Zeitgeist (popular internet conspiracy movie) on Facebook. Copies of my responses are posted below. Since I respond to points directly quoted, I'm not going to bother to post his comments in their entirety as I usually do. I went from thinking he was rather innocently confused about the movie to thinking he is a full blown Zeitgeist Zombie.
Everything you need to know about this ridiculous movie is dealt with at this most excellent debunking site:
http://conspiracyscience.com/
***
DAR
I highly recommend against referring people to Zeitgeist as a source of information because for every sideways halfway fact they are getting nine completely upside down falsehoods. How this is not completely clear to a critical thinking skeptic type boggles me.
Each issue of the Watchtower magazine (JW) also contains many accurate "facts" but it is not a good source of information about the Bible or anything else. And The Watchtower has a far higher fact to falsehood ratio than Zeitgeist which is terribly, astonishingly, profoundly dishonest and just plain ignorant from start to finish. I don't think I have ever seen such a compilation of misinformation.
The 9/11 stuff is pinched from "Loose Change" another completely rubbish 9/11 truther piece of nonsense. It's hard to be all wrong all the time but they did it.
The "Jesus didn't exist" part is pinched from "The God who wasn't there" and the unscholarly works of "Acharya S."
The section about the Federal reserve is filled with the most pedestrian errors and falsehoods which undermine all of that part. As Jim Lippard put it:
"It's almost entirely garbage, dependent on crackpot sources."
http://lippard.blogspot.com/2008/06/zei ... movie.html
I think that's putting a lot of sugar on it. He gives a good summary of the problems at that link. Lot's of places are much more thorough.
How can anyone, under any circumstances, recommend something that is so palpably, ridiculously wrong? If this movie doesn't trigger the "too many falsehoods too much misinformation to be able to recommend" what, on, earth would it possibly take? The young greenhorns watching this typically won't know about these issues and rather than being well informed and accurately informed about these topics, they are being misinformed by a nicely packaged movie worthy of what a cult would produce. They are being groomed to be paranoid by a bullshit artist. And big surprise, this thing produces cult like followers.
Cults are my specialty, I've been dealing with them for 30 years. I know how they operate, how they work. This is a dumb little cult flick with an extra emphasis on paranoia and not getting their facts straight.
D.
***
JAS: The Invention of Lying for example, as we are all aware this move is NOT factual, but I would still recommend it to people.">>
DAR
Loved that movie. Considered it freethinker movie of the year.
100% of the people watching it know it is a fictional story with some interesting metaphors they are encouraged to read into it.
This is completely different than Zeitgeist which portrays itself to be a true documentary passing along hundreds of factual assertions. I have no idea where you got or get this notion that Z is intended to be anything other than a flick filled with claims, intended and understood by watchers, to be true. This is completely different than Ricky Gervais's comedy.
JAS: If a christian watches it and realizes the similarities and how silly religion seems from the outside and their perspective is changed, again, it is a win.>>
DAR
More likely they are going to do a little checking and not trust you to refer accurate movies to them. And they would be right.
JAS: for me recommending Zeitgeist is no different than recommending The Invention of Lying.">>
DAR
It's completely different. Is there a movement with a couple hundred thousand people defending and distributing The Invention of Lying as if it is true? No.
JAS: Why do you think that the Zeitgeist movie was intended to be non-fiction...">>
DAR
Jason, I have been watching these types for decades. This is an Alex Jones conspiracy variant. I consider Peter borderline insane (watch the youtube clip with him and Jones). Zeitgeist pretends to have the inside scoop. It makes hundreds and hundreds of claims. These are presented as factual. They even make lame attempts to reference a thing or two, here and there. Where on earth do you get the notion that there is any intent for this to be understood as fiction? There is no basis for this and the idea is completely bizarre to me.
How you are viewing this movie is not how the vast majority of people are viewing it.
JAS: "why would you not recommend a fictional movie if it was effective in its intent?">>
DAR
a) It's not intended to be understood as fictional and invariably it isn't taken that way
b) It's actual effect is to create a great number of people that are profoundly and serially misinformed on every issue the movie touches.
I have a 20 year old son, quite bright, second year at U of A. But he doesn't follow these issues much and wouldn't know much about what the movie covers. If he was to watch this, he would fill his head with it's first batch of information on these issues. And that information would be wrong, stupid, spun and paranoid. This is terribly counter productive. People should be told/trained to look to the best, most reputable, most scholarly sources for information on such interesting questions. Zeitgeist the worst. It's a complete disgrace to the concept of imparting accurate and truthful information. I can think of no movie more counter to what I am interested in, which is, imparting and disseminating accurate and truthful information (and teaching others how to discern these things for themselves via critical thinking).
***
JAS: [quotes]"How can a movie so chock full and overflowing with misinformation be useful entertainment?",... well my guess would be because it is effective.">>
DAR
Effective at disseminating disinformation. Most cults are. Tens of millions of each bi-weekly issue of the Watchtower are printed and disseminated. Don't confuse good sales and distribution teams with quality of content. The content of Z, is rubbish. I don't care how many have watched it.
JAS: It has had millions of views. Effective in that it is reaching a large number of people.">>
DAR
Meaningless with regard to veracity.
JAS: I do not know 1 person that I have ever heard or know of that has every told someone... "By the way, everything in here is 100% factual".>>
DAR
You are equivocating between absolute true/false as if it means something. The movie makes hundreds of claims and is not passed along as a piece of fiction. What are the use of these claims if they are not true? Other than to misinform that is.
JAS: "...provide me with some similar documentaries (say 10-20 million views) that are 100% factual,">>
DAR
Number of views is entirely irrelevant. See the ad populum fallacy. 100% factual is not in question. False dichotomy. It's not black or white. If we were to grade a documentary on factual accuracy, most successful large mainstream ones should rank in the 85%-95% range. A couple of errors may occur. Zeitgeist would be in the single digits. It's either profoundly dishonest or doesn't give a flip about accuracy. Doesn't matter either way, it gets nearly everything wrong. That's an intellectual disgrace. No intellectually honest person, once informed of this, would want to be associated with it. You seem to understand it's full of errors but have some emotional attachment to it. Defending it as "entertaining" or intended as "fiction" is not relevant or persuasive.
JAS: "The Invention of Lying is filled with erroneous material,">>
DAR
The Invention of Lying is a *fictional comedy.* It makes no factual claims about the world. Not one. Zeit, is not fictional (by intent) or a comedy. It makes hundreds of claims about the world. No comparison, whatsoever.
JAS: "(I have faith) that people are intelligent enough to know that this movie is not 100% factual and therefore they shouldn't be "entertaining false information",">>
DAR
You are completely, utterly, exactly, wrong. And again with the 100%/0% dichotomy. If we rate documentaries on their truth content and error ratio, Z scores incredibly low. Avoid documentaries that score low on truth content and high on error content. Z is a worst case example. And absolute intellectual car wreck.
JAS: interview with Peter Joseph, pay special attention to the 7 minute mark.">>
DAR
Not really interested in anything a serial misinformer like this fellow has to say but, watched it anyway (and had seen it before when doing research for a lecture on Zeit).
JAS: [quotes] "That is not a good argument for using lies and very poorly sourced information to misinform people." See [link] above.
DAR
I don't see how that video bit changes the fact that there are no good arguments for using lies and very poorly sourced information to misinform people. Peter has very poor critical thinking skills and his movie appeals to the multitudes that also do not. Philosophy is about the pursuit of wisdom and love of truth. And movie like this makes a philosophy want to puke because it stands in contrast to both.
JAS: "There is no proof Jesus did not exist and there never will be." Lol, I was, of course, referring to the biblical Jesus, the son of God,">>
DAR
Of course. This doesn't change the fact that "there is no proof Jesus did not exist and there never will be." You can't prove a universal negative such as this.
JAS: I believe it is completely save to say that THAT Jesus did not exist.">>
DAR
Safe, but you can't prove it. Nor should you have to. I am suggesting you be precise with language. This is another problem with movies like Z, while they are terribly sloppy with facts, they are also just as sloppy with language and thinking and reasoning (i.e. the area of philosophy). It's really quite a disgusting display to those who know what's going on in the movie.
JAS: "I wonder if how America and, more importantly, people who view you as a leader in the local skeptic community would feel knowing how little you think of their critical thinking skills.">>
DAR
Don't give a flip.
"The vast majority of the populace does not have good skeptical and critical thinking skills." ~Darrel Henschell
If you don't agree with that statement, you haven't been paying attention.
About 1/3 of the populace believes in astrology.
About 1/3 believe the Bible, a book with talking animals in it, is inerrant
Nearly 1/2 believe the Adam & Eve story and that the earth is about 10,000 years old.
My claim is a profound understatement. What people may think of it, is irrelevant to whether it is true.
JAS: ..is very demeaning.">>
DAR
Don't care. I'm long past putting sugar on the medicine.
JAS: This makes you sound like you are "not" part of the vast majority and makes you sound like an ignorant elitist.">>
DAR
Ignorant and elitist are not related. I am not part of that vast majority but regularly take occasion, in public lectures, to point out that I used to be. Having spent the last ten years subscribing to about four different skeptical magazines, reading, studying, lecturing, doing TV and radio shows, debates, 5,800 posts in our forum etc, my position (while irrelevant) is unique when compared to the regular public. That's just the way it is.
The vast majority of the populace have *astonishingly* horrible skeptical and critical thinking skills. I say this having studied the issue for decades.
JAS: I believe the vast majority of people have the very same critical thinking skills as you do,">>
DAR
Then you don't know me, or the populace very well.
JAS: if they choose to ignore those skills that is their choice, but it does not mean they do not have them.">>
DAR
Actually it does. Critical, skeptical thinking, is a learned, trained, acquired, skill. It doesn't mean you are smarter (but it can have that appearance). Most people are taught to be gullible, in church or by society. Most people simply don't have the skills of critical thinking, the ability/knowledge to point out a fallacy etc.
***
JAS: "Where do you get such a notion that everything in the movie was fact?">>
DAR
Again you equivocate between must be all true or not true. It's a range, and Zeit scores very very very poorly by any measurement. And it doesn't matter what Peter intended. All we need to know is that he has very poor research skills and critical thinking skills. His movie shows this in spades from beginning to end.
JAS: Point out the voice or text or print somewhere before the movie that states: "everything in this movie is a verified fact".>>
DAR
100% irrelevant. When you make a movie that makes factual claims about the objective measurable world (unlike a fictionalized comedy), it is implied that the claim is true.
Otherwise what is the point?!
The person making the false claim is either mistaken, lying or deluded. This Peter fellow is probably all three but it doesn't matter. The result of his efforts has been an extraordinarily wrong movie only embraced by the conspiracy crowd who also don't know truth from fiction. When someone knowledgeable and interested in truth and accuracy watches this movie, they want to scream.
JAS: In fact, if you watched the interview I posted you will understand the writer/directors intent.">>
DAR
The intent of the Mormons, JW's, Scientologists and Zeitgeisters is all quite irrelevant to the question of whether their claims are based upon good evidence. They aren't. I am not interested in Peter's excuses any more than any of the others.
JAS: He was just getting started, angry, passionate, and wanted to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING, so he did what he felt was right.">>
DAR
And he pooped the bed. The fact that such an intellectual abortion took off is an excellent example of just how gullible and intellectually lazy the populace is. However, his material is so bad it only fools the more paranoid conspiracy types. He doesn't get much traction outside of that circle. And he never will, regardless of his "intent."
JAS: "So Zeitgeist never says "factual claim X".>>
DAR
Of course it does. I can easily give you a hundred examples. Let me know if you would like a hundred examples.
JAS: "It is ONE mans opinion, view, and explanation for the three events.">>
DAR
And that is supposed to be some kind of excuse? It's almost entirely pinched from other stupid conspiracy sources so it's not even original crapola. That he would pass it along shows he is at best profoundly gullible. Don't get your information from people who are profoundly gullible.
JAS: "Are all your opinions fact?">>
DAR
You'll find that I am quite careful to not make claims that I can't back up. This is quite in contrast to Peter.
JAS: The Zeitgeist movement has nothing to do with the accuracy of the first movie.">>
DAR
That's the claim, I don't believe it, and don't really care. If it is separate, it's to it's credit. They should have picked a new name. This one has been soiled beyond repair for those who love truth and are interested in acquiring accurate knowledge.
***
JAS: I believe the problem exists in your false premises that the Zeitgeist movie is 100% fact.">>
DAR
This is your strawman. I don't require documentaries to be inerrant. But when they reach a certain threshold of error, I dismiss them as poorly constructed, worthless. If I was to create a grading scale it might be like the school system. I would require an A grade. Lot's of stuff on the history channel wouldn't make it. Zeit would receive, as I said, something in the single digits. This is far far far below a fail.
JAS: Even reputable documentaries are not 100% fact,">>
DAR
This is indeed a bizarre defense of an indefensible movie.
JAS: " if you are so inclined, develop a “documentary rating scale” and be very through and scientific and grade all the documentaries throughout history.">>
DAR
I don't need to grade all of the documentaries throughout history to know this flick is crap on stilts.
JAS: if there is a scale from 1 to 10 and Zeitgeist scored a 2">>
DAR
The part ripped from Loose Change I give zero. The Jesus part I give a three, but it's nullified and nearly useless because it only appeals to unpeer reviewed, unscholarly material. Don't want to set a bad example. The Fed Reserve stuff borrowed from John Birch Society conspiracy junk I give a zero out of ten. Overall this is less than one out of ten and that's probably too high.
JAS: give people some freaking credit and understand that not everyone needs you to hold their hand and teach them how to think">>
DAR
I'll distribute my opinion as I wish, thanks.
JAS: "while not everything in the movie is factual, its intent is to entertain and give people a new perspective.">>
DAR
The result is to vastly misinform and peddle falsehoods. All of it's main premises (except to some extent the Jesus part) are false and for very well understood reasons. Once people are given false information, it is much harder to remove than if they hadn't learned it in the first place. This is why in good conscience I could never encourage anyone to watch something so ridiculously false and dishonest.
JAS: I do not know anyone that is part of the Zeitgeist movement that defends the fact that the movie is 100% accurate.">>
DAR
Irrelevant to the vast scope of it's problems.
JAS: The movie and the movement are not synonymous, they are separate events with separate goals and objectives.">>
DAR
Sure they are.
JAS: Your opinion of Peter Joseph does little to help prove your argument,>>
DAR
I didn't use that to prove an argument. I don't like when people are intellectually lazy and don't care about the difference between truth and lies.
JAS: Zeitgeist... is one mans view and opinion on three events, that’s it.">>
DAR
You keep giving this excuse as if it accomplishes something. It doesn't. None of his stuff was original, it was all warmed over poop he stole from others. If he had good good critical thinking skills he would have known better. Those that are in some sense persuaded by it and go off and make a movement connected with it, should have known better.
JAS: I somehow doubt you know how the “vast majority of people are viewing (Zeitgeist)",>>
DAR
It makes factual claims about the objective world. These claims are plainly false (even you won't defend them). What is the utility of piles of false assertions? Humor? No, not funny. Entertaining? Not to people who love truth and accurate information. It is a colossal waste of time. It peddles warmed over conspiracy crap. Zeit, is going no where.
JAS: I think your son would make an excellent test subject for your argument then.">>
DAR
I just called him, here's the scoop. He watched it, thought it was crap. But he had several friends that thought it was "amazing." And it was starting to spread to some of his other friends, some friends that he had already helped to think more critically on religious issues. That's when he came to me and wanted help debunking for his friends. That's when I finally got around to looking at it and doing a proper debunk for the freethinker meeting. He brought several to the meeting and apparently it successfully deprogrammed them and it died out.
The idea that people (typically the teenagers and gullible types watching this) understand this thing to be fiction and aren't taking it's claims seriously, is ludicrous on its face.
My son's a bit of a sharp cookie on skeptical issues so, unlike his friends, it didn't work on him.
JAS: "sit down with him and after the movie, ask him what he thought.">>
DAR
He watched it and saw through it all on his own. Many of his friends didn't until they received a little training in how to debunk, which I guess I provided.
JAS: If he says, “yeah, I totally believe 100% of that as fact”>>
DAR
You can drop the "100% fact" canard at any time. More factual = better. Less factual = worse. Zeit = horrible.
Dar said earlier: “People should be told/trained to look to the best, most reputable, most scholarly sources for information on such interesting questions.”
JAS: Man, you have very little faith in the human race… “People should be told…” Wow, prior to this conversation, I held you in a pretty decent regard,>>
DAR
I don't care what think about me.
JAS: but now, I have to admit, it has gone down some. Maybe I am just reading it wrong, but that sounds really bad to me.">>
DAR
You're reading it wrong. Try this:
With regard to the question of Global warming, people should be told/trained to look to the best, most reputable, most scholarly sources of information."
Still have a problem? Try this:
"With regard to questions about the Bible, people should be told/trained to look to the best, most reputable, most scholarly sources of information."
Are you really having trouble with this?
JAS: People already know how to critically think, some just choose to ignore that on certain subjects.">>
DAR
Yes, it's called compartmentalization.
JAS: It is a choice, not a lack of an ability.">>
DAR
With many it is a lack of ability, but it really doesn't matter what is causing it.
JAS: you are going to have to do better to prove your argument than that.">>
DAR
You conceded my argument from the beginning. Zeit isn't accurate. Now you are just trying to make excuses for why that doesn't matter that it's inaccurate. None of them are any good.
JAS: "we could host a viewing for random people and conduct a survey afterward to gauge peoples reactions.">>
DAR
That's what an Amway salesman would suggest for their product too. I could not in good conscience participate in more innocent victims being exposed to this intellectual travesty and pile of disinfo. I am only interested in exposing and debunking Zeitgeist for what it is. Warmed over conspiracy nonsense based upon rubbish.
***
COMMENT by Aaron:
As for Zeitgeist, it is /information poison/. Noone's claiming that it's bad because people think it's 100% true, noone's even asserting that people think that. What I will claim though is that it is bad because it is 90% untrue and the true portions are backed up with -incorrect- data. Anyone that Zeitgeist encourages to look at Christianity skeptically, if they look for evidence to back up or discredit the information presented in Zeitgeist (specifically about Christianity) will find a disproportionate amount of it at best heavily twisted and mostly outright indefensible.
Zeitgeist does not turn people into skeptics, and well, you've already said Zeitgeist isn't aimed at people who are already skeptics. Zeitgeist most assuredly changes people's ideas, but that -is- not always a Good Thing.
"more effective movie than Zeitgeist that is 100% accurate."
It is precisley that it is both highly effective and highly inaccurate that makes it information poison. It takes people that are willing to question religion (and many who have a tendency to question things still arrive at a horribly bad conclusions. This is not good in and of itself.) and associates their doubts about religion to many other ideas. If they were people inclined to do proper research about it then well.. Zeitgeist wouldn't be targeted at them anyway.
***
Now that we've seen the nature of the beast, let's continue...
JAS: If you do not require that documentaries be 100% fact then the rest is just subjective and your opinion.">>
DAR
No, that doesn't follow (non sequiter fallacy). Example:
If I am shopping for a used car and I tell the salesman I don't mind if it has a ding in the door and a scratch or two, this doesn't suggest he should bring me a car that has no wheels, has all panels full of punctures from an axe, all the windows are smashed, it's been rolled eight times, engine is missing and it's been torched.
That's the condition of your Zeitgeist movie, intellectually speaking, described as a car.
JAS: Someone does not need to be part of a cult to watch this movie.">>
DAR
No, but it helps. This is a ready made just add water and stir cult movie. It makes little cult members that don't know what to do. They're angry and frustrated so they go off and start a "movement" but since all of the main reasons for frustration are based upon a movie filled with nonsense, they don't know what to do. So they go around telling people, "the movement isn't the movie, but let's watch the movie and talk about it."
JAS: I have known several people that see it and were not aware of a lot of the information in there.">>
DAR
Typically this appeals to the more uninformed of the 18-25 crowd. Poor discernment, very little experience or wisdom. Conspiracy crank theories 101. Hits all of the emotional buttons and gives quite a ride. Spooky, ooky and woo woo too. Unfortunately...
JAS: "...while it might not be accurate,...">>
DAR
That's the problem. It's not at all accurate. And at this point, not knowing it is inaccurate, or in your case, not caring it is inaccurate, is inexcusable.
JAS: If they realize that Zeitgeist was not 100% accurate but still retain the knowledge that there were other gods before theirs...">>
DAR
If you want to show people a decent case against Jesus existence, show "The God Who Wasn't There." It has none of the conspiracy baggage. No person in good conscience can refer Zeitgeist to someone else.
JAS: "People should not go into a movie and come out of it believing that it is factual,...">>
DAR
Your comment is ridiculous. When people go to a documentary they don't have either the skills or the time to check every point made. This is why there should be some modicum of peer review, grading, oversight, responsibility. Peter took a bunch of conspiracy crank material from the usual sources and threw it in a pile. Now his defenders must run from it as they attempt to build a cult upon it's foundation. Most if not all religions/cults have ridiculous foundations. I don't know why. Looks like this one has already fizzled.
JAS: "For some maybe the threshold is higher or lower, for some (like me) effectiveness is more important.">>
DAR
It's only effective at promoting poisonous, inaccurate conspiracy crank information. Anyone who shows or promotes this, knowing this, is not an honest person.
JAS: I am smart enough to research the material and form my own opinion and I believe everyone else is also.">>
DAR
Obviously you aren't. You are the "public" I was referring to. Anyone who watches this and doesn't run screaming from it has a problem in the discernment department. Teenagers can be excused because they don't know much. For an adult, once they have had the truth exposed, to continue to promote this piece of junk, it's completely inexcusable. You have succumbed. You are a member of the cult, you should be deprogrammed. Or you can wait for it to wear off or you tire of getting mad fun of.
JAS: I do not feel this movie is a documentary.">>
DAR
That's absurd but it really doesn't matter what genre/box it goes in. It's poisonous misinformation. Of course it is a documentary and intended as a documentary. You are simply trying to defend the indefensible because you have an emotional investment in it.
JAS: I have always felt the movie was just a fictional story of one mans opinion on three events told in a dramatic way.">>
DAR
It's all warmed over crap that he is regurgitating. There is nothing original in this movie so you stop saying it's "one mans opinion."
I'll add my comments to the Conspiracy Science conclusion:
Part I Anti-Jesus stuff, poorly sourced all based upon one non-scholar.
Part II is the same stuff that has been debunked by hundreds of other people, and is essentially a copy from movies such as Loose Change.
Part III Everything in this part is out of context, a lie, misquoted, made up, or taken from anti-Semites who have made the same claims for years. I heard about these claims many times, and many people have made them. What is most interesting, there was a movie from the late 1980s about how the UN is going to take over the world, and it made nearly all the same claims. Why didn't that come true?
Overall there are absolutely no connections between Part I and any other part of the movie, Part II is a complete lie because 9/11 was an Outside Job, and Part III is the same things that have been said for decades, just replace "Banking Interests" with "Jews", "Illuminati", "Aliens", and many others, and you will automatically create the scripts for many other similar movies.
So, the conclusion is, the film is 99.999% a complete lie, complete farce, made up garbage."
http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/z ... onclusion/
That guy goes through every line and roasts the movie to a crisp, top to bottom. I had forgotten how bad it was.
And another thing, I forgot that saying "the movement isn't the movie" is another standard knee jerk defense. Here are six reasons why that isn't true.
***
"Movies Aren't the Movement
Something that I never stop hearing is the phrase the movies aren't the movement. This referring to the fact that the movies promote conspiracy theories, but TZM is something else entirely, and exists separately from the movement. I would believe that if not for the following issues:
1) The movement originated out of the movies, and has the same name. Whether or not you desire for people to equate them, they always will.
2) Peter Joseph uses the movement to attack people, such as myself and others, who disagree with his films -- if they were truly separate, he wouldn't do this.
3) Members at meetings still show the films, the films are passed out to promote the movement, and even Peter Joseph himself says that the movies are the primary way they recruit new members.
4) The Zeitgeist movie web site links to The Zeitgeist Movement on the Activism page.
5) Most hardcore members are conspiracy theorists, a search on the forums alone shows hundreds of references to the earthquake in Haiti being "man made."
6) Once you have to start explaining to people that the movies and movement aren't the same, the battle is lost, you're already a laughing stock. Just like how the Communist Party has to explain how the Soviet Union/China/etc isn't what they had in mind either.
http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/t ... -movement/
I am going to cross post this on our forum so others can see it.
***
Jason didn't respond.
Facebook thread:
http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?s ... 1579635711
Facebook Debates, Religion (Zeitgeist too)
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Facebook Debates, Religion (Zeitgeist too)
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
-
Jason
Re: Facebook Debate, Zeitgeist roasted
Hello everyone, sorry for the delay, but I was in Miami and then OKC for work, put off responding and then forgot until the yesterday, but by then I could not find the post. Anyway, if this is a moot point now, just ignore, if the argument ...is still viable then feel free to respond.
Ok, so this will be in response to DAR’s last post.
We can have a fallacy finding contest all day long DAR, but what would be the point? We both have used fallacies in our arguments in previous posts on here and are both guilty of using them, so I do not see the relevance in pointing them out, but I will oblige in kind and point out yours as well.
As for my non-sequiter fallacy, my point is, unless there is a some test declaring the accuracy of a documentary then the point where you declare its insignificant and false is subjective and is YOUR opinion.
DAR: That's the condition of your Zeitgeist movie, intellectually speaking, described as a car.
JAS:
Yes, that is YOUR opinion (also I would say a False analogy as well). Your opinion does not equate to being the same for everyone else.
JAS: Someone does not need to be part of a cult to watch this movie.
DAR:
No, but it helps. This is a ready made just add water and stir cult movie. It makes little cult members that don't know what to do. They're angry and frustrated so they go off and start a "movement" but since all of the main reasons for frustration are based upon a movie filled with nonsense, they don't know what to do. So they go around telling people, "the movement isn't the movie, but let's watch the movie and talk about it."
JAS:
Lets see here, Appeal to probability, Base rate fallacy, False dilemma, Proof by example, Appeal to ridicule, Correlation does not imply causation, Fallacies of distribution (Composition), Hasty generalization, Take your pick. I could go on, but I think you get my point.
DAR
Typically this appeals to the more uninformed of the 18-25 crowd. Poor discernment, very little experience or wisdom. Conspiracy crank theories 101. Hits all of the emotional buttons and gives quite a ride. Spooky, ooky and woo woo too. Unfortunately...
JAS:
Hasty generalization, Appeal to ridicule, Psychologist's fallacy, etc. Again, YOUR opinion.
DAR: That's the problem. It's not at all accurate. And at this point, not knowing it is inaccurate, or in your case, not caring it is inaccurate, is inexcusable.
JAS:
Argument from fallacy, Fallacies of distribution (Composition), Appeal to ridicule, etc.
There are many things in the Zeitgeist movie that ARE accurate. Even then link you posts starts of many of the responses with statements like “The first part is fairly accurate” or “While this is generally true”, etc. So your statement that “It's not at all accurate” is, again, your opinion, and an incorrect one at that.
DAR:
If you want to show people a decent case against Jesus existence, show "The God Who Wasn't There." It has none of the conspiracy baggage. No person in good conscience can refer Zeitgeist to someone else.
JAS:
This statement puzzles me. Why would you cite a movie that has been just as equally “debunked”, although not as popular as Zeitgeist? TGWWT might be more or less accurate, who knows. I guess you could claim that it is more accurate, but I would love to see the thesis and evidence supporting that conclusion.
I would also like to submit that since TGWWT’s intent for the Jesus section of the movie is to beg the question “did Jesus exist” that it does in fact, have a lot of the same “conspiracy baggage”.
Your opinion on the intent and conscience of a person who would refer Zeitgeist is both incorrect and childish. You are not the moral compass of humanity and do not get to dictate how people behave. You sound no better than a priest who would say “No person in good conscience can refer The God Delusion to someone else”. It is just your opinion, as is almost everything you have posted on here.
(Links removed due to unable to post links. Links are in FB thread)
DAR:
Your comment is ridiculous. When people go to a documentary they don't have either the skills or the time to check every point made. This is why there should be some modicum of peer review, grading, oversight, responsibility. Peter took a bunch of conspiracy crank material from the usual sources and threw it in a pile. Now his defenders must run from it as they attempt to build a cult upon it's foundation. Most if not all religions/cults have ridiculous foundations. I don't know why. Looks like this one has already fizzled.
JAS:
Appeal to ridicule, Hasty generalization, etc. I do agree with you that, as I have stated earlier, there does need to be a grading scale of documentaries, and not just documentaries, but all forms of evidence and sources. And I disagree about Zeitgeist movement being a cult and also that it has fizzled out though.
DAR:
It's only effective at promoting poisonous, inaccurate conspiracy crank information. Anyone who shows or promotes this, knowing this, is not an honest person.
JAS:
Appeal to ridicule, Hasty generalization, Appeal to fear , Appeal to spite, Wishful thinking, Poisoning the well , etc
As with many statements you have made in this argument, I disagree with you. Please provide evidence to support your claim.
DAR:
Obviously you aren't. You are the "public" I was referring to. Anyone who watches this and doesn't run screaming from it has a problem in the discernment department. Teenagers can be excused because they don't know much. For an adult, once they have had the truth exposed, to continue to promote this piece of junk, it's completely inexcusable. You have succumbed. You are a member of the cult, you should be deprogrammed. Or you can wait for it to wear off or you tire of getting mad fun of.
JAS:
Appeal to ridicule, Hasty generalization, Appeal to fear, Appeal to spite, Poisoning the well, Judgmental language, Appeal to consequences, Red Herring (Ad hominem), Association fallacy, etc.
Again, we disagree and again, these are your opinions. I would love to see more fact from you, but alas, I am left wanting again.
I could make the inference that from your tone and attitude towards me and what seems like a large portion of the entire human race that you may be a supporter of eugenics and that you do not care much for those that do not get in line with "your way" of thought.
I’m sorry that you were born late, but 1939 has already come and gone and guess what, you are stuck here with the rest of the “public”.
I’m sorry that you do not get the exhilarating experience of “deprogramming “ people. I’m sure you would have done well, what, with all of your 401k going into your Zyklon-B stock, but your golden era has passed, sorry.
Now I know I have used a lot of fallacies there, but you are being an ass and it illicits an ass response back.
DAR:
So, the conclusion is, the film is 99.999% a complete lie, complete farce, made up garbage."
(Links removed due to unable to post links. Links are in FB thread)
...That guy goes through every line and roasts the movie to a crisp, top to bottom. I had forgotten how bad it was.
JAS:
Lol, the film is not “99.999% a complete lie, complete farce, made up garbage”. I know that is your opinion, but as we’ve seen your opinion is wrong again.
As I’ve stated there are plenty of true statements in Zeitgeist and your debunking site states this as well. I would also like to point out that, while Edward L Winston does do a decent job refuting a lot of the inaccuracies of the movie, even his comments and sources are not all accurate.
I am glad to see that you do such an awesome job doing your own research though, oh wait you did a search for “Zeitgeist debunked” on Google and of course everything on that page is correct.
As for the movement stuff, 1. Its ok that people relate the two. 2. I am unaware of said event and therefore can not form an opinion. 3. Ok, so what? 4. Again, so what? 5. Association fallacy, Faulty generalizations (Composition), etc. 6. Appeal to Ridicule, Appeal to spite, Appeal to consequences, etc
In conclusion, Zeitgeist is just a movie. It is one man’s view on three subjects (regardless of how poor his sources were). It is effective in its intent for some people. People can and should be competent enough to watch a movie and form their own opinion. If someone walks away from Zeitgeist believing that it is all or almost all true then that person has some issues, not the movie.
Darrel, prior to this discussion I had viewed your opinion as one of interest and critical thought, but now, I just see you as someone full of rage and oppression towards those he feel are beneath him. Someone who uses his intelligence to beat down those who oppose him. Someone who abuses his power to further his objectives. Someone who views his way as the only right way and anyone who opposes him must be thoroughly and swiftly delt with.
You are not superior to anyone. Just because you say something or believe it, does not make it so. You need to get off your high horse and realize that not everyone comes to the same conclusion as yourself and those that do might not have gotten there taking the same path you did. You sound like an elitist ass hole, not some honorable scholar.
I consider myself to be a strong agnostic, explicit atheist and we probably have more in common than we do in opposition, but your childish attacks have done nothing but push away a like-minded person rather than bring our numbers together towards a common goal.
Therefore, I wish you the best in your endeavors, but feel there is nothing of value to be learned through your way of thought. For me, you are no better than a priest forcing your beliefs upon others.
Ok, so this will be in response to DAR’s last post.
We can have a fallacy finding contest all day long DAR, but what would be the point? We both have used fallacies in our arguments in previous posts on here and are both guilty of using them, so I do not see the relevance in pointing them out, but I will oblige in kind and point out yours as well.
As for my non-sequiter fallacy, my point is, unless there is a some test declaring the accuracy of a documentary then the point where you declare its insignificant and false is subjective and is YOUR opinion.
DAR: That's the condition of your Zeitgeist movie, intellectually speaking, described as a car.
JAS:
Yes, that is YOUR opinion (also I would say a False analogy as well). Your opinion does not equate to being the same for everyone else.
JAS: Someone does not need to be part of a cult to watch this movie.
DAR:
No, but it helps. This is a ready made just add water and stir cult movie. It makes little cult members that don't know what to do. They're angry and frustrated so they go off and start a "movement" but since all of the main reasons for frustration are based upon a movie filled with nonsense, they don't know what to do. So they go around telling people, "the movement isn't the movie, but let's watch the movie and talk about it."
JAS:
Lets see here, Appeal to probability, Base rate fallacy, False dilemma, Proof by example, Appeal to ridicule, Correlation does not imply causation, Fallacies of distribution (Composition), Hasty generalization, Take your pick. I could go on, but I think you get my point.
DAR
Typically this appeals to the more uninformed of the 18-25 crowd. Poor discernment, very little experience or wisdom. Conspiracy crank theories 101. Hits all of the emotional buttons and gives quite a ride. Spooky, ooky and woo woo too. Unfortunately...
JAS:
Hasty generalization, Appeal to ridicule, Psychologist's fallacy, etc. Again, YOUR opinion.
DAR: That's the problem. It's not at all accurate. And at this point, not knowing it is inaccurate, or in your case, not caring it is inaccurate, is inexcusable.
JAS:
Argument from fallacy, Fallacies of distribution (Composition), Appeal to ridicule, etc.
There are many things in the Zeitgeist movie that ARE accurate. Even then link you posts starts of many of the responses with statements like “The first part is fairly accurate” or “While this is generally true”, etc. So your statement that “It's not at all accurate” is, again, your opinion, and an incorrect one at that.
DAR:
If you want to show people a decent case against Jesus existence, show "The God Who Wasn't There." It has none of the conspiracy baggage. No person in good conscience can refer Zeitgeist to someone else.
JAS:
This statement puzzles me. Why would you cite a movie that has been just as equally “debunked”, although not as popular as Zeitgeist? TGWWT might be more or less accurate, who knows. I guess you could claim that it is more accurate, but I would love to see the thesis and evidence supporting that conclusion.
I would also like to submit that since TGWWT’s intent for the Jesus section of the movie is to beg the question “did Jesus exist” that it does in fact, have a lot of the same “conspiracy baggage”.
Your opinion on the intent and conscience of a person who would refer Zeitgeist is both incorrect and childish. You are not the moral compass of humanity and do not get to dictate how people behave. You sound no better than a priest who would say “No person in good conscience can refer The God Delusion to someone else”. It is just your opinion, as is almost everything you have posted on here.
(Links removed due to unable to post links. Links are in FB thread)
DAR:
Your comment is ridiculous. When people go to a documentary they don't have either the skills or the time to check every point made. This is why there should be some modicum of peer review, grading, oversight, responsibility. Peter took a bunch of conspiracy crank material from the usual sources and threw it in a pile. Now his defenders must run from it as they attempt to build a cult upon it's foundation. Most if not all religions/cults have ridiculous foundations. I don't know why. Looks like this one has already fizzled.
JAS:
Appeal to ridicule, Hasty generalization, etc. I do agree with you that, as I have stated earlier, there does need to be a grading scale of documentaries, and not just documentaries, but all forms of evidence and sources. And I disagree about Zeitgeist movement being a cult and also that it has fizzled out though.
DAR:
It's only effective at promoting poisonous, inaccurate conspiracy crank information. Anyone who shows or promotes this, knowing this, is not an honest person.
JAS:
Appeal to ridicule, Hasty generalization, Appeal to fear , Appeal to spite, Wishful thinking, Poisoning the well , etc
As with many statements you have made in this argument, I disagree with you. Please provide evidence to support your claim.
DAR:
Obviously you aren't. You are the "public" I was referring to. Anyone who watches this and doesn't run screaming from it has a problem in the discernment department. Teenagers can be excused because they don't know much. For an adult, once they have had the truth exposed, to continue to promote this piece of junk, it's completely inexcusable. You have succumbed. You are a member of the cult, you should be deprogrammed. Or you can wait for it to wear off or you tire of getting mad fun of.
JAS:
Appeal to ridicule, Hasty generalization, Appeal to fear, Appeal to spite, Poisoning the well, Judgmental language, Appeal to consequences, Red Herring (Ad hominem), Association fallacy, etc.
Again, we disagree and again, these are your opinions. I would love to see more fact from you, but alas, I am left wanting again.
I could make the inference that from your tone and attitude towards me and what seems like a large portion of the entire human race that you may be a supporter of eugenics and that you do not care much for those that do not get in line with "your way" of thought.
I’m sorry that you were born late, but 1939 has already come and gone and guess what, you are stuck here with the rest of the “public”.
I’m sorry that you do not get the exhilarating experience of “deprogramming “ people. I’m sure you would have done well, what, with all of your 401k going into your Zyklon-B stock, but your golden era has passed, sorry.
Now I know I have used a lot of fallacies there, but you are being an ass and it illicits an ass response back.
DAR:
So, the conclusion is, the film is 99.999% a complete lie, complete farce, made up garbage."
(Links removed due to unable to post links. Links are in FB thread)
...That guy goes through every line and roasts the movie to a crisp, top to bottom. I had forgotten how bad it was.
JAS:
Lol, the film is not “99.999% a complete lie, complete farce, made up garbage”. I know that is your opinion, but as we’ve seen your opinion is wrong again.
As I’ve stated there are plenty of true statements in Zeitgeist and your debunking site states this as well. I would also like to point out that, while Edward L Winston does do a decent job refuting a lot of the inaccuracies of the movie, even his comments and sources are not all accurate.
I am glad to see that you do such an awesome job doing your own research though, oh wait you did a search for “Zeitgeist debunked” on Google and of course everything on that page is correct.
As for the movement stuff, 1. Its ok that people relate the two. 2. I am unaware of said event and therefore can not form an opinion. 3. Ok, so what? 4. Again, so what? 5. Association fallacy, Faulty generalizations (Composition), etc. 6. Appeal to Ridicule, Appeal to spite, Appeal to consequences, etc
In conclusion, Zeitgeist is just a movie. It is one man’s view on three subjects (regardless of how poor his sources were). It is effective in its intent for some people. People can and should be competent enough to watch a movie and form their own opinion. If someone walks away from Zeitgeist believing that it is all or almost all true then that person has some issues, not the movie.
Darrel, prior to this discussion I had viewed your opinion as one of interest and critical thought, but now, I just see you as someone full of rage and oppression towards those he feel are beneath him. Someone who uses his intelligence to beat down those who oppose him. Someone who abuses his power to further his objectives. Someone who views his way as the only right way and anyone who opposes him must be thoroughly and swiftly delt with.
You are not superior to anyone. Just because you say something or believe it, does not make it so. You need to get off your high horse and realize that not everyone comes to the same conclusion as yourself and those that do might not have gotten there taking the same path you did. You sound like an elitist ass hole, not some honorable scholar.
I consider myself to be a strong agnostic, explicit atheist and we probably have more in common than we do in opposition, but your childish attacks have done nothing but push away a like-minded person rather than bring our numbers together towards a common goal.
Therefore, I wish you the best in your endeavors, but feel there is nothing of value to be learned through your way of thought. For me, you are no better than a priest forcing your beliefs upon others.
-
Jason
Re: Facebook Debate, Zeitgeist roasted
DAR
Found a person, Jason, trying to defend Zeitgeist (popular internet conspiracy movie) on Facebook. Copies of my responses are posted below. Since I respond to points directly quoted, I'm not going to bother to post his comments in their entirety as I usually do. I went from thinking he was rather innocently confused about the movie to thinking he is a full blown Zeitgeist Zombie.
Everything you need to know about this ridiculous movie is dealt with at this most excellent debunking site:
JAS
Some of the fallacies for the comments above:
Hasty generalization, Appeal to authority, Appeal to fear, Appeal to pity, Appeal to ridicule, Judgmental language, Poisoning the well, Nirvana fallacy, Argument from repetition, Fallacies of distribution (Composition), False attribution, etc.
Again Darrel, you are incorrect. I was not trying to defend Zeitgeist as a whole. As I have stated several times, the movie has many inaccuracies, but that it succeeded in the intent of the director and also as shown by its popularity. By that, I mean the movie is the opinion of one mans views on three events (regardless of his sources used, it is still his opinion). If some people begin to research information about other gods or feel validated knowing that there are others out there that stopped believing in god/jesus simply because this movie helped them along their path then, in my opinion, I view that as a success.
I do not know anyone that has watched this movie and believes that 100% or even most of it is correct and therefore Darrel's premises that it is only for cult fanatics and a breeding ground for them is incorrect. People can think for themselves and if they walk away from this movie believing everything in it then the problem is with the individual, not with the movie.
While I have stated that it would be great if there were some kind of test or monitoring board that rates documentaries and other sources of evidence out there, as of right now there is not.
And like Darrel, my opinion of him changed as well, I went from thinking he was an intelligent human being to an elitist asshole.
As for the debunking source that he cites, it too, is not without its flaws.
Found a person, Jason, trying to defend Zeitgeist (popular internet conspiracy movie) on Facebook. Copies of my responses are posted below. Since I respond to points directly quoted, I'm not going to bother to post his comments in their entirety as I usually do. I went from thinking he was rather innocently confused about the movie to thinking he is a full blown Zeitgeist Zombie.
Everything you need to know about this ridiculous movie is dealt with at this most excellent debunking site:
JAS
Some of the fallacies for the comments above:
Hasty generalization, Appeal to authority, Appeal to fear, Appeal to pity, Appeal to ridicule, Judgmental language, Poisoning the well, Nirvana fallacy, Argument from repetition, Fallacies of distribution (Composition), False attribution, etc.
Again Darrel, you are incorrect. I was not trying to defend Zeitgeist as a whole. As I have stated several times, the movie has many inaccuracies, but that it succeeded in the intent of the director and also as shown by its popularity. By that, I mean the movie is the opinion of one mans views on three events (regardless of his sources used, it is still his opinion). If some people begin to research information about other gods or feel validated knowing that there are others out there that stopped believing in god/jesus simply because this movie helped them along their path then, in my opinion, I view that as a success.
I do not know anyone that has watched this movie and believes that 100% or even most of it is correct and therefore Darrel's premises that it is only for cult fanatics and a breeding ground for them is incorrect. People can think for themselves and if they walk away from this movie believing everything in it then the problem is with the individual, not with the movie.
While I have stated that it would be great if there were some kind of test or monitoring board that rates documentaries and other sources of evidence out there, as of right now there is not.
And like Darrel, my opinion of him changed as well, I went from thinking he was an intelligent human being to an elitist asshole.
As for the debunking source that he cites, it too, is not without its flaws.
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: Facebook Debate, Zeitgeist roasted
Jason, you may ask yourself why you would put such (or even any) emotional energy into stooping to defend this stinking pile of dishonest lies and crap known as Zeitgeist. Why, on earth? What's the point?
Your response above is just embarrassing. The notion that a person who would consider themselves in any sense a critical thinker, would also defend Zeitgeist just boggles the mind. You must set the intellectual honesty bar so low in order to let an idiotic movie like this through that it's really quite beyond ridiculous. Is this where you set the bar? If someone lies to me, they are a liar. I generally don't associate with liars. If a movie makes an error, hey, it happens. If it is 2% or 5% erroneous, that's pretty sloppy but I will gladly point it out it's mistakes. No apologies. Ten to 20%? That's really bad. You are reduced to quoting a critic who refers to the best cherry picked parts as "fairly accurate" and "generally true?" Really? What about all of the truther nonsense? What about all of the banking bullshit? All of the main points in that section are well known, tired and recycled... lies. Claims that aren't even close to true and this has been known for decades. How can you defend such utter crap with a straight face? Oh you don't, you just say it doesn't matter that it's crap, you like it for other reasons, "it's entertainment" or you pretend that it wasn't meant to be true. Pathetic.
JAS: I do not see the relevance in pointing them [fallacies] out,>>
DAR
On a few occasions I pointed out a couple specific and rather obvious fallacies in your reasoning, with details provided. No big deal. You respond with a bunch of cut and paste fallacies that you don't even attempt to back up and don't provide any reason to think you even understand what they mean. It's cut and paste fallacy bombing, juvenile and boring.
JAS: but I will oblige in kind and point out yours as well.>>
DAR
Since you provide no argument beyond mere assertion, I will be ignoring this irrelevant distraction entirely.
JAS: "unless there is a some test declaring the accuracy of a documentary then the point where you declare its insignificant and false is subjective and is YOUR opinion.">>
DAR
This is where people use their brain and a little common sense. Zeitgeist fails any reasonable test of accuracy from a standard pedestrian view never mind someone who might claim a little skill in the critical thinking department. No claim in the 9/11 conspiracy part can withstand scrutiny. It's all crap, top to bottom through and through. That's 1/3, toast. The banking part is warmed of conspiracy nonsense that was peddled when you were a child (or earlier). None of the main claims can withstand scrutiny. For a person who loves truth it's horrible, painful, unwatchable. You must know this since you've already admitted as much. Remember your first attempt at defending this steaming pile was to claim:
"it is NOT a documentary. It is a fictional story."
That was a ridiculous strategy you soon gave up. Who could believe that? It's obviously a documentary that makes straightforward claims about how the world works. It's not comedy, it's not satire and it's not entertaining unless you really enjoy being continuously lied to by an obviously ignorant person who doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to discerning truth from fiction. Personally, I don't like that.
JAS: Your opinion [of Zeit] does not equate to being the same for everyone else.>>
DAR
That's what religious people say when you roast them on the facts. You keep trying to hide behind "you can have your opinion, let me have mine." Sorry. Wrong. Zeitgeist makes objectively verifiable claims about how the world works. It gets them wrong, continuously, from beginning to end. That's not opinion, it's a fact that you have already acknowledged. Again, to quote you: "it is NOT a documentary. It is a fictional story." It is a documentary that peddles boatloads of fiction. Observe, a documentary is a movie that is:
"based on or re-creating an actual event, era, life story, etc., that purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional elements"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/documentary
That's what the word means. After giving up on the ridiculous notion that it wasn't a documentary, you've conceded that, in fact it is a documentary. So it's supposed to be true. But it's not. It's crap. How long you want to keep digging because I assure you I don't mind watching.
JAS: "Appeal to probability, Base rate fallacy,... [snip cut and paste fallacies list] I could go on, but I think you get my point.>>
DAR
Yes, I get your point. Cut and paste fallacy filler. Not impressed.
JAS: [more cut and paste fallacies]
DAR
Please note, there is a difference between listing fallacies and actually knowing what they mean and knowing how to think. Doing the former does not demonstrate the latter.
JAS: There are many things in the Zeitgeist movie that ARE accurate.>>
DAR
Let's ask Jason: "it is NOT a documentary. It is a fictional story." When did it go from the fictional column into the accurate column? It's really really really hard to make a movie that is completely false. Zeitgeist gives this a run for the money. Again, any one who recommends Zeitgeist either has their intellectual honesty bar set so low that they cannot be trusted or their have such poor discernment, they can't be trusted. Which are you? Zeitgeist is a conspiracy flick that is consistently wrong, nearly from start to finish.
JAS: Why would you cite a movie that has been just as equally “debunked”, [The God Who Wasn't there] although not as popular as Zeitgeist?>>
DAR
Again, why would you appeal to popularity? How is that relevant to anything? The Watchtower is very popular, they print tens of millions of them every single month. More copies, more popular, more believers has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "more true." Please learn this basic fact and stop peddling this most rudimentary fallacy.
The claim that it has been "just as equally debunked" is unsupported and actually absurd. Two thirds of Zeit is conspiracy nonsense. As I said in my mention of "The God Who Wasn't There", it (of course) has none of that.
JAS: TGWWT might be more or less accurate, who knows.">>
DAR
Well you wouldn't know because you are obviously making this up as you go. Actually, I would know because I actually KNOW something about these issues having debated them for decades. This is just a rather transparent and juvenile attempt at "tit for tat." I've insulted your conspiracy movie so you want to insult one I mentioned as somewhat better. Grow up. I said:
"The "Jesus didn't exist" part is pinched from "The God who wasn't there" and the unscholarly works of "Acharya S."
And I said: "If you want to show people a decent case against Jesus existence, show "The God Who Wasn't There." It has none of the conspiracy baggage."
That's all. Having some knowledge of this issue am aware of the problems with "The God Who Wasn't There" but at least it brings in actual Bible scholars. And it has none of the conspiracy baggage which is two thirds of Zeitgeist.
JAS: I guess you could claim that it is more accurate, but I would love to see the thesis and evidence supporting that conclusion.">>
DAR
Yes, I'll get right on that. Why would someone waste time making a factual case for a person who has already demonstrated they aren't interested in whether material is actually true or not?
JAS: "since TGWWT’s intent for the Jesus section of the movie is to beg the question “did Jesus exist” that it does in fact, have a lot of the same “conspiracy baggage”.>>
DAR
Wrong. I was referring to the 2/3's of Zeitgeist having nothing to do with Jesus. The mythicist position regarding Jesus has nothing to do with a conspiracy (unless you are referring to some other conspiracy crap, who knows what other kind of nonsensical material you look to for information).
JAS: You are not the moral compass of humanity and do not get to dictate how people behave.">>
DAR
When someone promotes a profoundly dishonest and ridiculous movie like Zeitgeist in a public forum they will be mock roasted and ridiculed. And deservedly so. If you want to feel safe trafficking in such ridiculous silliness, stay in conspiracy circles and post your junk on conspiracy sites. They'll eat it up.
JAS: (Links removed due to unable to post... http://www.tektonics.org/gk/godthere.html>>
DAR
Now this is funny. You're so desperate (and clueless) you're quoting fundamentalist Robert Turkel (check it out Doug). See, that's actually his real name, which I know because I was debating him online about such things ten years ago. He's profoundly dishonest but no matter, you wouldn't know that and you wouldn't care, because as you've shown you have very little interest in honesty and accuracy. I would be halfway interested in seeing a scholarly rebuttal to The God Who Wasn't There" (I could put one together myself) but one person who I most certainly would NOT look to would be JP Holding (real name Turkel).
And remember, every error or problem you could point to in "The God Who Wasn't There" is in your Zeit, x2, with bells on. So you haven't helped your position one bit, but nice try.
JAS: there does need to be a grading scale of documentaries, and not just documentaries, but all forms of evidence and sources.">>
DAR
Well, upon what basis could a movie that is so inaccurate that you call it "fiction" pass a test as "documentary?" See the definition of documentary provided above.
JAS: And I disagree about Zeitgeist movement being a cult and also that it has fizzled out though.>>
DAR
I have some specialty in the area of cults and it is definitely a cult, and it has definitely fizzled. I can elaborate on this if you wish. Details on this are at the link already provided.
JAS: [snip more mindless cut and paste fallacy bombing.] ...I could make the inference that from your tone and attitude towards me and what seems like a large portion of the entire human race that you may be a supporter of eugenics and that you do not care much for those that do not get in line with "your way" of thought.">>
DAR
My tone and attitude derive from my hatred of bullshit and lies and those who spread and defend bullshit and lies. Anyone who promotes Zeitgeist is either profoundly intellectually dishonest or completely clueless and careless when it comes to getting facts straight. You can decide which fits you best.
JAS: I’m sorry that you do not get the exhilarating experience of “deprogramming “ people.">>
DAR
Actually, I have helped several people leave cults. But the person in question has to have some motivation toward believing things that are true. I don't see that from you yet. So you get roasted for either being really gullible or really dishonest. I'm guessing a bit of both.
JAS: As I’ve stated there are plenty of true statements in Zeitgeist">>
DAR
You have a different and rather extremely low threshold for what you consider "plenty of true." I do not recommend your extremely low standard of honesty to anyone.
JAS: "while Edward L Winston does do a decent job refuting a lot of the inaccuracies of the movie, even his comments and sources are not all accurate.">>
DAR
I am sure he is not inerrant and would never claim otherwise. This is a completely different scale of error that we see in Zeitgeist. Do try to come up something better than"tit for tat."
JAS: "...you did a search for “Zeitgeist debunked” on Google and of course everything on that page is correct.">>
DAR
Look grasshopper, I've been doing this a long time. To someone who knows what bullshit looks like, Zeitgeist screams stupidity. The movie is so goddamn dumb it wouldn't even have risen to the level of being worthy of debunking at a freethinker meeting and I only did this as a favor to my son who had idiot teenage friends who fell for it. This is understandable, teenagers don't know much about such things. My son doesn't know much about such things and he saw through the movie instantly. For me, it's unwatchable, palpable, obvious, punch you in the face, stupidity. That an adult could be taken in by such rubbish is almost beyond my comprehension. But then, most people don't study these things as closely as I have for a very long time. So they get a pass. I didn't need to research Zeitgeist to know it's garbage, that was obvious. But I am a busy guy and there is no need to reinvent the wheel. I knew others would have done the work. And indeed they have. Perhaps you should have done a little, cursory, basic research before you got so invested in this thing and then you wouldn't have had to make such a public fool of yourself bending over backwards trying to defend something that is completely indefensible.
JAS: As for the movement stuff, 1. Its ok that people relate the two.>>
DAR
You said they weren't to be related, now it's okay. Progress.
JAS: In conclusion, Zeitgeist... is one man’s view on three subjects (regardless of how poor his sources were).">>
DAR
Sorry, opinion is irrelevant. The movie makes a great number of factual claims about objective reality. These claims are wrong. Dismissing them as "just an opinion" is irrelevant to the fact that it's claims are clearly, overwhelmingly, obviously, verifiable, wrong.
JAS: It is effective in its intent for some people.">>
DAR
Nonsense. Lies and misinformation is not good for people who look to it's documentary delivery for accurate information. Whatever the intent was (which is irrelevant), the outcome is one ridiculous conspiracy flick.
JAS: If someone walks away from Zeitgeist believing that it is all or almost all true then that person has some issues, not the movie.">>
DAR
What a lame and utterly pathetic excuse for trying to salvage a crank movie that is a complete and utter crock. You should has stayed with the "it is fiction" excuse. At least then you were in a sense being accurate.
JAS: Darrel, prior to this discussion I had viewed your opinion as...>>
DAR
You can stop with the wanking... "I used to like you but now I don't because you say bad things about my favorite conspiracy flick." I don't know you and at no time in this exchange have I given flip about what you think of me. Get that through your Zeitgeist noggin. I don't care, stop with the hand wringing and crocodile tears. If you promote Zeitgeist in skeptical, freethinker and critical thinking circles you are going to be roasted by people who have learned how to, and care about discerning truth from fiction.
JAS: "anyone who opposes [you] must be thoroughly and swiftly delt with.">>
DAR
Correct. All Zeitgeist promoters peddling their dishonest crap in public forums will be roasted. As time allows of course.
JAS: You are not superior to anyone.>>
DAR
In fact, I am superior to and smarter than an entire room full of Zeitgeist Zombies. And this is not a close call.
JAS: You need to get off your high horse and realize that not everyone comes to the same conclusion as yourself and those that do might not have gotten there taking the same path you did.">>
DAR
More lame, irrelevant Zeitgeist apologetic. Try to focus. Your movie is garbage. Indefensible. If you recommend it to others, you are promoting dishonest material that is patently false. Don't do that.
JAS: You sound like an elitist...>>
DAR
You say that like it's a bad thing. Pet peeve, please don't use a word (elite) that means "the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons." as a pejorative. This is a favorite tactic of right wing regressives that disdain the intellect and hold intelligence in contempt.
JAS: your childish attacks have done nothing but push away a like-minded person rather than bring our numbers together towards a common goal.">>
DAR
We don't have common goal. You promote movies that are intellectually bankrupt and full of shit. And you don't care. That is reprehensible behavior. You should be ashamed of yourself. You sprinkle cut and paste fallacies around like you know something but you don't even know how to begin. Philosophy is the love of truth and pursuit of wisdom, that's what I am interested in. This is in direct opposition to the efforts of the idiots involved with the conspiracy Zeitgeist movement who haven't the slightest interest in truth or wisdom.
D.
Your response above is just embarrassing. The notion that a person who would consider themselves in any sense a critical thinker, would also defend Zeitgeist just boggles the mind. You must set the intellectual honesty bar so low in order to let an idiotic movie like this through that it's really quite beyond ridiculous. Is this where you set the bar? If someone lies to me, they are a liar. I generally don't associate with liars. If a movie makes an error, hey, it happens. If it is 2% or 5% erroneous, that's pretty sloppy but I will gladly point it out it's mistakes. No apologies. Ten to 20%? That's really bad. You are reduced to quoting a critic who refers to the best cherry picked parts as "fairly accurate" and "generally true?" Really? What about all of the truther nonsense? What about all of the banking bullshit? All of the main points in that section are well known, tired and recycled... lies. Claims that aren't even close to true and this has been known for decades. How can you defend such utter crap with a straight face? Oh you don't, you just say it doesn't matter that it's crap, you like it for other reasons, "it's entertainment" or you pretend that it wasn't meant to be true. Pathetic.
I think the point would be that you could use this as an opportunity to distract from the fact that you can't defend this idiotic movie from the criticism that it is horribly, horribly, unforgivably, full of misinformation. And we see this is precisely what you proceed to do.Jason wrote:We can have a fallacy finding contest all day long DAR, but what would be the point?
JAS: I do not see the relevance in pointing them [fallacies] out,>>
DAR
On a few occasions I pointed out a couple specific and rather obvious fallacies in your reasoning, with details provided. No big deal. You respond with a bunch of cut and paste fallacies that you don't even attempt to back up and don't provide any reason to think you even understand what they mean. It's cut and paste fallacy bombing, juvenile and boring.
JAS: but I will oblige in kind and point out yours as well.>>
DAR
Since you provide no argument beyond mere assertion, I will be ignoring this irrelevant distraction entirely.
JAS: "unless there is a some test declaring the accuracy of a documentary then the point where you declare its insignificant and false is subjective and is YOUR opinion.">>
DAR
This is where people use their brain and a little common sense. Zeitgeist fails any reasonable test of accuracy from a standard pedestrian view never mind someone who might claim a little skill in the critical thinking department. No claim in the 9/11 conspiracy part can withstand scrutiny. It's all crap, top to bottom through and through. That's 1/3, toast. The banking part is warmed of conspiracy nonsense that was peddled when you were a child (or earlier). None of the main claims can withstand scrutiny. For a person who loves truth it's horrible, painful, unwatchable. You must know this since you've already admitted as much. Remember your first attempt at defending this steaming pile was to claim:
"it is NOT a documentary. It is a fictional story."
That was a ridiculous strategy you soon gave up. Who could believe that? It's obviously a documentary that makes straightforward claims about how the world works. It's not comedy, it's not satire and it's not entertaining unless you really enjoy being continuously lied to by an obviously ignorant person who doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to discerning truth from fiction. Personally, I don't like that.
JAS: Your opinion [of Zeit] does not equate to being the same for everyone else.>>
DAR
That's what religious people say when you roast them on the facts. You keep trying to hide behind "you can have your opinion, let me have mine." Sorry. Wrong. Zeitgeist makes objectively verifiable claims about how the world works. It gets them wrong, continuously, from beginning to end. That's not opinion, it's a fact that you have already acknowledged. Again, to quote you: "it is NOT a documentary. It is a fictional story." It is a documentary that peddles boatloads of fiction. Observe, a documentary is a movie that is:
"based on or re-creating an actual event, era, life story, etc., that purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional elements"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/documentary
That's what the word means. After giving up on the ridiculous notion that it wasn't a documentary, you've conceded that, in fact it is a documentary. So it's supposed to be true. But it's not. It's crap. How long you want to keep digging because I assure you I don't mind watching.
JAS: "Appeal to probability, Base rate fallacy,... [snip cut and paste fallacies list] I could go on, but I think you get my point.>>
DAR
Yes, I get your point. Cut and paste fallacy filler. Not impressed.
JAS: [more cut and paste fallacies]
DAR
Please note, there is a difference between listing fallacies and actually knowing what they mean and knowing how to think. Doing the former does not demonstrate the latter.
JAS: There are many things in the Zeitgeist movie that ARE accurate.>>
DAR
Let's ask Jason: "it is NOT a documentary. It is a fictional story." When did it go from the fictional column into the accurate column? It's really really really hard to make a movie that is completely false. Zeitgeist gives this a run for the money. Again, any one who recommends Zeitgeist either has their intellectual honesty bar set so low that they cannot be trusted or their have such poor discernment, they can't be trusted. Which are you? Zeitgeist is a conspiracy flick that is consistently wrong, nearly from start to finish.
JAS: Why would you cite a movie that has been just as equally “debunked”, [The God Who Wasn't there] although not as popular as Zeitgeist?>>
DAR
Again, why would you appeal to popularity? How is that relevant to anything? The Watchtower is very popular, they print tens of millions of them every single month. More copies, more popular, more believers has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "more true." Please learn this basic fact and stop peddling this most rudimentary fallacy.
The claim that it has been "just as equally debunked" is unsupported and actually absurd. Two thirds of Zeit is conspiracy nonsense. As I said in my mention of "The God Who Wasn't There", it (of course) has none of that.
JAS: TGWWT might be more or less accurate, who knows.">>
DAR
Well you wouldn't know because you are obviously making this up as you go. Actually, I would know because I actually KNOW something about these issues having debated them for decades. This is just a rather transparent and juvenile attempt at "tit for tat." I've insulted your conspiracy movie so you want to insult one I mentioned as somewhat better. Grow up. I said:
"The "Jesus didn't exist" part is pinched from "The God who wasn't there" and the unscholarly works of "Acharya S."
And I said: "If you want to show people a decent case against Jesus existence, show "The God Who Wasn't There." It has none of the conspiracy baggage."
That's all. Having some knowledge of this issue am aware of the problems with "The God Who Wasn't There" but at least it brings in actual Bible scholars. And it has none of the conspiracy baggage which is two thirds of Zeitgeist.
JAS: I guess you could claim that it is more accurate, but I would love to see the thesis and evidence supporting that conclusion.">>
DAR
Yes, I'll get right on that. Why would someone waste time making a factual case for a person who has already demonstrated they aren't interested in whether material is actually true or not?
JAS: "since TGWWT’s intent for the Jesus section of the movie is to beg the question “did Jesus exist” that it does in fact, have a lot of the same “conspiracy baggage”.>>
DAR
Wrong. I was referring to the 2/3's of Zeitgeist having nothing to do with Jesus. The mythicist position regarding Jesus has nothing to do with a conspiracy (unless you are referring to some other conspiracy crap, who knows what other kind of nonsensical material you look to for information).
JAS: You are not the moral compass of humanity and do not get to dictate how people behave.">>
DAR
When someone promotes a profoundly dishonest and ridiculous movie like Zeitgeist in a public forum they will be mock roasted and ridiculed. And deservedly so. If you want to feel safe trafficking in such ridiculous silliness, stay in conspiracy circles and post your junk on conspiracy sites. They'll eat it up.
JAS: (Links removed due to unable to post... http://www.tektonics.org/gk/godthere.html>>
DAR
Now this is funny. You're so desperate (and clueless) you're quoting fundamentalist Robert Turkel (check it out Doug). See, that's actually his real name, which I know because I was debating him online about such things ten years ago. He's profoundly dishonest but no matter, you wouldn't know that and you wouldn't care, because as you've shown you have very little interest in honesty and accuracy. I would be halfway interested in seeing a scholarly rebuttal to The God Who Wasn't There" (I could put one together myself) but one person who I most certainly would NOT look to would be JP Holding (real name Turkel).
And remember, every error or problem you could point to in "The God Who Wasn't There" is in your Zeit, x2, with bells on. So you haven't helped your position one bit, but nice try.
JAS: there does need to be a grading scale of documentaries, and not just documentaries, but all forms of evidence and sources.">>
DAR
Well, upon what basis could a movie that is so inaccurate that you call it "fiction" pass a test as "documentary?" See the definition of documentary provided above.
JAS: And I disagree about Zeitgeist movement being a cult and also that it has fizzled out though.>>
DAR
I have some specialty in the area of cults and it is definitely a cult, and it has definitely fizzled. I can elaborate on this if you wish. Details on this are at the link already provided.
JAS: [snip more mindless cut and paste fallacy bombing.] ...I could make the inference that from your tone and attitude towards me and what seems like a large portion of the entire human race that you may be a supporter of eugenics and that you do not care much for those that do not get in line with "your way" of thought.">>
DAR
My tone and attitude derive from my hatred of bullshit and lies and those who spread and defend bullshit and lies. Anyone who promotes Zeitgeist is either profoundly intellectually dishonest or completely clueless and careless when it comes to getting facts straight. You can decide which fits you best.
JAS: I’m sorry that you do not get the exhilarating experience of “deprogramming “ people.">>
DAR
Actually, I have helped several people leave cults. But the person in question has to have some motivation toward believing things that are true. I don't see that from you yet. So you get roasted for either being really gullible or really dishonest. I'm guessing a bit of both.
JAS: As I’ve stated there are plenty of true statements in Zeitgeist">>
DAR
You have a different and rather extremely low threshold for what you consider "plenty of true." I do not recommend your extremely low standard of honesty to anyone.
JAS: "while Edward L Winston does do a decent job refuting a lot of the inaccuracies of the movie, even his comments and sources are not all accurate.">>
DAR
I am sure he is not inerrant and would never claim otherwise. This is a completely different scale of error that we see in Zeitgeist. Do try to come up something better than"tit for tat."
JAS: "...you did a search for “Zeitgeist debunked” on Google and of course everything on that page is correct.">>
DAR
Look grasshopper, I've been doing this a long time. To someone who knows what bullshit looks like, Zeitgeist screams stupidity. The movie is so goddamn dumb it wouldn't even have risen to the level of being worthy of debunking at a freethinker meeting and I only did this as a favor to my son who had idiot teenage friends who fell for it. This is understandable, teenagers don't know much about such things. My son doesn't know much about such things and he saw through the movie instantly. For me, it's unwatchable, palpable, obvious, punch you in the face, stupidity. That an adult could be taken in by such rubbish is almost beyond my comprehension. But then, most people don't study these things as closely as I have for a very long time. So they get a pass. I didn't need to research Zeitgeist to know it's garbage, that was obvious. But I am a busy guy and there is no need to reinvent the wheel. I knew others would have done the work. And indeed they have. Perhaps you should have done a little, cursory, basic research before you got so invested in this thing and then you wouldn't have had to make such a public fool of yourself bending over backwards trying to defend something that is completely indefensible.
JAS: As for the movement stuff, 1. Its ok that people relate the two.>>
DAR
You said they weren't to be related, now it's okay. Progress.
JAS: In conclusion, Zeitgeist... is one man’s view on three subjects (regardless of how poor his sources were).">>
DAR
Sorry, opinion is irrelevant. The movie makes a great number of factual claims about objective reality. These claims are wrong. Dismissing them as "just an opinion" is irrelevant to the fact that it's claims are clearly, overwhelmingly, obviously, verifiable, wrong.
JAS: It is effective in its intent for some people.">>
DAR
Nonsense. Lies and misinformation is not good for people who look to it's documentary delivery for accurate information. Whatever the intent was (which is irrelevant), the outcome is one ridiculous conspiracy flick.
JAS: If someone walks away from Zeitgeist believing that it is all or almost all true then that person has some issues, not the movie.">>
DAR
What a lame and utterly pathetic excuse for trying to salvage a crank movie that is a complete and utter crock. You should has stayed with the "it is fiction" excuse. At least then you were in a sense being accurate.
JAS: Darrel, prior to this discussion I had viewed your opinion as...>>
DAR
You can stop with the wanking... "I used to like you but now I don't because you say bad things about my favorite conspiracy flick." I don't know you and at no time in this exchange have I given flip about what you think of me. Get that through your Zeitgeist noggin. I don't care, stop with the hand wringing and crocodile tears. If you promote Zeitgeist in skeptical, freethinker and critical thinking circles you are going to be roasted by people who have learned how to, and care about discerning truth from fiction.
JAS: "anyone who opposes [you] must be thoroughly and swiftly delt with.">>
DAR
Correct. All Zeitgeist promoters peddling their dishonest crap in public forums will be roasted. As time allows of course.
JAS: You are not superior to anyone.>>
DAR
In fact, I am superior to and smarter than an entire room full of Zeitgeist Zombies. And this is not a close call.
JAS: You need to get off your high horse and realize that not everyone comes to the same conclusion as yourself and those that do might not have gotten there taking the same path you did.">>
DAR
More lame, irrelevant Zeitgeist apologetic. Try to focus. Your movie is garbage. Indefensible. If you recommend it to others, you are promoting dishonest material that is patently false. Don't do that.
JAS: You sound like an elitist...>>
DAR
You say that like it's a bad thing. Pet peeve, please don't use a word (elite) that means "the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons." as a pejorative. This is a favorite tactic of right wing regressives that disdain the intellect and hold intelligence in contempt.
JAS: your childish attacks have done nothing but push away a like-minded person rather than bring our numbers together towards a common goal.">>
DAR
We don't have common goal. You promote movies that are intellectually bankrupt and full of shit. And you don't care. That is reprehensible behavior. You should be ashamed of yourself. You sprinkle cut and paste fallacies around like you know something but you don't even know how to begin. Philosophy is the love of truth and pursuit of wisdom, that's what I am interested in. This is in direct opposition to the efforts of the idiots involved with the conspiracy Zeitgeist movement who haven't the slightest interest in truth or wisdom.
D.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
-
Savonarola
- Mod@Large
- Posts: 1475
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
- antispam: human non-spammer
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
- Location: NW Arkansas
Re: Facebook Debate, Zeitgeist roasted
Not a close call, and not saying much. It's like saying that you're smarter than the average third grader, although I give you much more credit than that.Darrel wrote:JAS: You are not superior to anyone.>>
DAR
In fact, I am superior to and smarter than an entire room full of Zeitgeist Zombies. And this is not a close call.
Yeah, I've never quite understood this, either. I can imagine that there are two possibilities: (1) that it's an accusation of one behaving as if s/he is elite, or (2) that it's an accusation of one wanting the elite to rule. Frankly, both are true for me: I am smarter and more responsible than the vast majority of people in this country, and I want the people in this country to be governed by people who are actually intelligent and responsible. Nobody can seem to explain what's wrong with this view.Darrel wrote:JAS: You sound like an elitist...>>
DAR
You say that like it's a bad thing.
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: Facebook Debate, Zeitgeist roasted
DARSavonarola wrote:SAVDarrel wrote:JAS: You are not superior to anyone.>>
DAR
In fact, I am superior to and smarter than an entire room full of Zeitgeist Zombies. And this is not a close call.
Not a close call, and not saying much. It's like saying that you're smarter than the average third grader, although I give you much more credit than that.
You're right. But of all of my comments above I think you caught the one that I have been thinking I worded poorly and rather regret. One shouldn't confuse the acquired skill of critical thinking and knowledge of skeptical issues with intelligence. I am probably smarter than a handful of Zeitgeist drones but as you note, that's not saying much. A person's IQ doesn't go up the day they learn their religion is a fraud and give it up (but there is a good chance that they were a little smarter than all of the ones the never discover this).
Maybe we need to have a presentation on this conspiracy genre and why it is so seductive for some? Skeptic magazine has covered it recently. I skipped it because personally I find it quite boring and the people falling for it rather thick to say the least.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
-
Savonarola
- Mod@Large
- Posts: 1475
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
- antispam: human non-spammer
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
- Location: NW Arkansas
Re: Facebook Debate, Zeitgeist roasted
So is there a conspiracy to foment conspiracies?Darrel wrote:Maybe we need to have a presentation on this conspiracy genre and why it is so seductive for some?
One might suppose that it would be counterproductive for conspiracists to promote the idea of conspiracy, but that's exactly what they want you to think!
-
Jason
Re: Facebook Debate, Zeitgeist roasted
Darrel,
Wow, how big a person you must be to post a thread from facebook on your own forum, deleting and editing out all the stuff that you choose.
Your right, you arent an elitist asshole...
Wow, how big a person you must be to post a thread from facebook on your own forum, deleting and editing out all the stuff that you choose.
Your right, you arent an elitist asshole...
Re: Facebook Debate, Zeitgeist roasted
Well, Jason, post a link to the FB thread. I would love to read your argument in its entirety. I can't imagine what you could have said that was "edited out" which could possibly make up for the inept pseudo-arguments to which darrel replied. It should be pointed out, however, that this is how MOST people respond to material--i.e. snipping out the relevant points to which they are responding. However if you feel that you have been unfairly represented by these selections please feel free to provide a link or drop the original text as a reply. I don't understand your complaint...are you not free to defend yourself on this forum? Have you been blocked from making post? Is someone deleting or altering your post? What is stopping you from posting your original argument in its entirety? Seriously what are you bitching about?! Nut up or shut up son!Jason wrote:Darrel,
Wow, how big a person you must be to post a thread from facebook on your own forum, deleting and editing out all the stuff that you choose.
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: Facebook Debate, Zeitgeist roasted
DARJason wrote:Darrel,
Wow, how big a person you must be to post a thread from facebook on your own forum, deleting and editing out all the stuff that you choose.
This is an odd objection for you to raise at this point. When I first responded to you on facebook, I also posted a copy here as well, with a link provided telling you where it was. That was three weeks ago. You showed up and posted your response here which I was glad to see. So what is suddenly the problem now? I noticed you didn't bother posting your latest response, but, minus the whining and insults, there really wasn't much there. Perhaps this is why?
Please feel free to post your comment, any comments, in their entirety.
To Kevin... I provided in my very first response a link to the facebook thread in question (see above and again below). Problem is, you probably won't be able to read it or respond without first friending Demetri who has the thread on his facebook. Hence the reason I prefer to publish here but am quite happy to post to the couple of folks following the discussion on facebook as well. When I take the time to write a lengthy response that may be of interest to other freethinkers I often cross post on this forum. Have for years. Sunshine is the best disinfectant for horse shit and Jason's tardy complaint (that too many eyeballs may be reading these exchanges) doesn't suggest he feels very confident about his defense of this conspiracy material. And with good reason.
DARJAS
Your right, you arent an elitist asshole...
When you make up your mind, do let us know. And don't forget, as I told you before, I don't give a shit what you think about me. For me it's open season on Zeitgeist promoters, 24/7, 365 days a year. If you don't like that, avoid skeptics and freethinkers. There are lot's of gray areas and things we don't know. The truth/accuracy of Zeitgeist is not one of these things.
You have shown yourself to be a promoter of, and one who has bought into, these conspiracy theories. I recommend to you the current (Jan/Feb) issue of Skeptical Inquirer. It has a fairly good article on the subject written by Ted goertzel, Professor of Sociology at Rutgers University in Camden New Jersey. In my opinion it's a little milquetoast and far too easy going on the vast mountain of intellectual stupidity contained in almost all conspiracy theories currently making the rounds today, but it may be a good starting point for you.
D.
PS: Cross-posted to the facebook thread as well.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
-
Applecrate
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:13 pm
- antispam: human non-spammer
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Re: Facebook Debate, Zeitgeist roasted
For those who can't see it and want to, here's the whole damn thread.
Here's how it started:
And it's quite long, here's the link to the rest so far: http://www.webpagescreenshot.info/img/6 ... 01110247PM
Here's how it started:
And it's quite long, here's the link to the rest so far: http://www.webpagescreenshot.info/img/6 ... 01110247PM
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: Facebook Debate, Zeitgeist roasted
A fellow calling himself "He's Alive" friended us on Facebook. See we have been having a little interaction. Here is a copy of one I just posted (not sure if you can join in, might have to be his friend):
LINK
***
He's Alive: "you have a great Faith
DAR
No, faith is believing things without requiring proof or evidence. That is the primary meaning of the word:
faith n.
1. unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence
-- Webster's New World Dictionary -- Third College Edition
HA: "Can you Guarantee that there is No God?">>
Of course not. One cannot prove a universal negative. Nor can I prove that a teapot is *not* in space orbiting around the sun or that planets don't move as they do because angels are pushing them in circles. That I can't prove the negative in these cases is NOT a good reason to believe in those claims. The burden is on the one who asserts such claims.
I have a dictionary with about 1,500 Gods listed. Most can't be disproven but some of them can because they have specific self-contradictory attributes. Your God has contradictory attributes and I write about many of them in my book.
HA: "Can you Guarantee that there is no heaven and that Jesus Christ is dead and did not rise...?>>
You have it backwards. It is not up to you to disprove the miraculous claims of the countless gods invented by other religions. Nor is it up to me to disprove the ridiculous claims made in the Bible. The burden of proof, or at least providing compelling evidence, lies with the one making the claim. In your case, you have very extraordinary claims, and no good evidence. This is why you spend so much time talking about believing by faith. You don't have good reasons for your beliefs. If you had good reasons you would use those and not appeal to faith.l I have good reasons for my beliefs, each and every one.
HA: "what if youre wrong?">>
That's Paschal's Wager. We have a tract on that there:
http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/pascalswager.shtml
Five easy to understand reasons showing why it doesn't work.
HA: "you mentioned to me earlier in a msg that you were "All for there being an afterlife">>
That's right. I am also all for me having a billion dollars, five girl friends, 29 houses, and perfect health for 1,000 years. But I don't believe those things because they are not true. And having faith about it doesn't change the situation. Believing things are true, because you want them to be true, is called wishful thinking, or delusion. Reality doesn't care what you wish and carries on regardless no matter how much you try to "build up your faith" in trying to believe otherwise.
HA: "I believe and trust in Christ through Faith">>
I know you do. I used to also. But faith is never a reason to believe. It's an excuse. A band-aid word called upon when there isn't a good reason to believe something.
HA: "you disbelieve through Faith">>
Here you admit that faith is a bad foundation for believing something because you try to pretend that I have fallen for it just as you have. But I haven't. I don't hold beliefs based upon faith. I have good reasons for my beliefs. If I don't have a good reason, I withhold judgment, depending on the claim. You probably do this when it comes to non religious matters. But because of a fear of death, and a few other emotional things, you have invested a great deal of time and energy into convincing yourself that in the area of religion, it is a special category and for some reason, you don't need to have good reasons to believe even outrageous claims. That for some reason it is okay to believe extraordinary claims based upon faith. But it isn't.
HA: "to disbelieve God takes a HUGE Step of Faith">>
Not a bit. Just as it doesn't take any "faith" for you to disbelieve in all of the other Gods you don't believe in.
My dictionary of God's has over 1,500 and is very incomplete. Your God is listed, as it should be, along with Abaasy, Azi, Calliope, Daikoku, gyges, Kishimo-jin, Pereplut, Pinga Qaholom, Wakan-Tanka, Baal, Allah, Vishnu, Shiva, Loki, Quetzalcoatl, Zeus, Odin, Apollo, Osiris, Krishna and all the rest. Like me, you are an atheist with regard to all of those other gods but unlike me, you are inconsistent and make a special exception for just one of them. I apply the same logic to all of them. No evidence, no belief.
Remember:
"An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question."
Darrel
LINK
***
He's Alive: "you have a great Faith
DAR
No, faith is believing things without requiring proof or evidence. That is the primary meaning of the word:
faith n.
1. unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence
-- Webster's New World Dictionary -- Third College Edition
HA: "Can you Guarantee that there is No God?">>
Of course not. One cannot prove a universal negative. Nor can I prove that a teapot is *not* in space orbiting around the sun or that planets don't move as they do because angels are pushing them in circles. That I can't prove the negative in these cases is NOT a good reason to believe in those claims. The burden is on the one who asserts such claims.
I have a dictionary with about 1,500 Gods listed. Most can't be disproven but some of them can because they have specific self-contradictory attributes. Your God has contradictory attributes and I write about many of them in my book.
HA: "Can you Guarantee that there is no heaven and that Jesus Christ is dead and did not rise...?>>
You have it backwards. It is not up to you to disprove the miraculous claims of the countless gods invented by other religions. Nor is it up to me to disprove the ridiculous claims made in the Bible. The burden of proof, or at least providing compelling evidence, lies with the one making the claim. In your case, you have very extraordinary claims, and no good evidence. This is why you spend so much time talking about believing by faith. You don't have good reasons for your beliefs. If you had good reasons you would use those and not appeal to faith.l I have good reasons for my beliefs, each and every one.
HA: "what if youre wrong?">>
That's Paschal's Wager. We have a tract on that there:
http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/pascalswager.shtml
Five easy to understand reasons showing why it doesn't work.
HA: "you mentioned to me earlier in a msg that you were "All for there being an afterlife">>
That's right. I am also all for me having a billion dollars, five girl friends, 29 houses, and perfect health for 1,000 years. But I don't believe those things because they are not true. And having faith about it doesn't change the situation. Believing things are true, because you want them to be true, is called wishful thinking, or delusion. Reality doesn't care what you wish and carries on regardless no matter how much you try to "build up your faith" in trying to believe otherwise.
HA: "I believe and trust in Christ through Faith">>
I know you do. I used to also. But faith is never a reason to believe. It's an excuse. A band-aid word called upon when there isn't a good reason to believe something.
HA: "you disbelieve through Faith">>
Here you admit that faith is a bad foundation for believing something because you try to pretend that I have fallen for it just as you have. But I haven't. I don't hold beliefs based upon faith. I have good reasons for my beliefs. If I don't have a good reason, I withhold judgment, depending on the claim. You probably do this when it comes to non religious matters. But because of a fear of death, and a few other emotional things, you have invested a great deal of time and energy into convincing yourself that in the area of religion, it is a special category and for some reason, you don't need to have good reasons to believe even outrageous claims. That for some reason it is okay to believe extraordinary claims based upon faith. But it isn't.
HA: "to disbelieve God takes a HUGE Step of Faith">>
Not a bit. Just as it doesn't take any "faith" for you to disbelieve in all of the other Gods you don't believe in.
My dictionary of God's has over 1,500 and is very incomplete. Your God is listed, as it should be, along with Abaasy, Azi, Calliope, Daikoku, gyges, Kishimo-jin, Pereplut, Pinga Qaholom, Wakan-Tanka, Baal, Allah, Vishnu, Shiva, Loki, Quetzalcoatl, Zeus, Odin, Apollo, Osiris, Krishna and all the rest. Like me, you are an atheist with regard to all of those other gods but unlike me, you are inconsistent and make a special exception for just one of them. I apply the same logic to all of them. No evidence, no belief.
Remember:
"An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question."
Darrel
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: Facebook Debates, Religion (Zeitgeist too)
Have been having some exchanges on our freethinker facebook. A fellow named Zack had some questions:
***
Response:
Zack: "Quite a number of people at that presentation tried to poke holes in his argument for the existence of God, but to no avail.">>
DAR
W.L. Craig doesn't have any arguments you can't drive a bus through. I travel around the country with a friend (Doug, co-founder) who debates evangelicals like Craig. Craig has been avoiding Doug for years. Long story.
ZK: "[Craig] mentioned various scientists that have calculated the probability of a planet such as ours to be able to permit life,">>
DAR
The Goldilocks zone. But as expected, we just discovered several hundred of those last month. And that was only looking nearby and at a tiny portion of the sky with our fancy new telescope. All explained nicely in this three minute video (we played it at our last freethinker meeting).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMUDXO4xkW8
ZK: "these calculations must be so precise">>
DAR
You are probably thinking of the fine tuning argument. It has lots of problems too. Wiki page is quite good.
ZK: "I have yet to hear an clear and valid explanation for how all of the permutations and combinations needed for life to exist happened in a random fashion.">>
DAR
"Random" is actually quite the opposite of how evolution works. This is a very common misunderstanding. The Skeptic society has a very nice explanation of this in their "Ten Myths' about Evolution" tract. This one is #5:
"Natural selection is not “random” nor does it operate by “chance.” Natural selection preserves the gains and eradicates the mistakes. To illustrate this, imagine a monkey at a typewriter. In order for the monkey to type the first 13 letters of Hamlet’s soliloquy by chance, it would take 26 13 number of trials for success. This is 16 times as great as the total number of seconds that have elapsed in the lifetime of the solar system. But if each correct letter is preserved and each incorrect letter eradicated, the phrase “tobeornottobe” can be “selected for” in only 335 trials, or just seconds in a computer program. Richard Dawkins defines evolution as “random mutation plus nonrandom cumulative selection.” It is the cumulative selection that drives evolution. The eye evolved from a single, light sensitive spot in a cell into the complex eye of today not by chance, but through thousands of intermediate steps, each preserved because they made a better eye. Many of these steps still exist in nature in simpler organisms."
See the other nine myths here:
http://www.skeptic.com/downloads/top-10 ... -myths.pdf
ZK: "The metaphor of pulling an arm on a slot game millions of times seems like it makes sense to me.">>
DAR
But that metaphor is completely wrong. Be careful not to get your science information from creationists.
***
My dictionary of God's has over 1,500 and is very incomplete. The Bible God is listed, as it should be, along with Abaasy, Azi, Calliope, Daikoku, gyges, Kishimo-jin, Pereplut, Pinga Qaholom, Wakan-Tanka, Baal, Allah, Vishnu, Shiva, Loki, Quetzalcoatl, Zeus, Odin, Apollo, Osiris, Krishna and all the rest. Like me, Christians are atheist with regard to all of those other gods but unlike me, they are inconsistent and make a special exception for just one of them. I apply the same logic to all of them. No evidence, no belief.
***
The theory of evolution, in the main, is biological and doesn't directly address the pet theories humans create to console themselves, (mostly for the purpose of avoiding their observed, impending, death). We are social/tribal animals and it seems rather intuitive that religion could possibly provide some useful attributes to a primitive society. Even today it does, but at other times it mostly gets in the way. And it (faith based religions/reasoning) certainly don't provide a useful tool for discerning reality. Nothing could be worse.
When people wanted answers in primitive times they looked to superstition and witchdoctors. Or they just made things up. Even simple animals learn from observing cause and effect. But we know that nearly all of these beliefs based upon superstition are wrong. We know because we know how to test such claims. Likewise, we know nearly all religious claims are wrong. They clearly must be because the vast majority of religious claims contradict competing religious claims (see list of gods above).
So evolution really doesn't have much to say about spiritual beliefs, and it doesn't need to. Spiritual beliefs are true or false entirely independently of whether evolution is true.
Which it is by the way.
And the existence of spiritual beliefs (or wishful faithbased thinking or bad reasoning) presents no problem for evolution whatsoever. It's more of a cultural anthropology question.
D.
-------------
"If all the achievements of scientist were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witchdoctors, no transport faster than a horse, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference?" --Richard Dawkins
***
Oh my. This is a clip from "What the Bleep do we know?" An astonishingly ludicrous flick. I have a good friend who got his Ph.D. in physics in 1966 (teaches currently at the U of A) and he specializes in quantum mechanics. I ask him question about it all the time but I would never impose any of the nonsense in this flick upon him. It doesn't rise to that level of seriousness. As he would say, it doesn't even rise to the level of "wrong."
There are few fields where so much science is abused for the purpose of supporting new age nonsense, as physics and QM. Here's a little story about that, which is right on the mark:
"Advice from a (real) physicist ---When you're at a dinner party and you hear any 3 of the following words:
quantum, reality, consciousness, mind, Kant
Run, run away as fast as you can to a costume store and buy a clown mask. Put it on, then return to the party and resume the conversation."
But seriously, I have watched this flick (I wasted that time) and it is foolishness from beginning to end. Here is a simple debunk that rips it from stem to stern:
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005 ... leep_.html
If you have a specific question/concern regarding QM or physics, do pass it along, or post it in our freethinker forum:
index.php
We have two physicists standing by that will be happy to answer.
Larry Dossey is perhaps the leading proponent of prayer and he's written many books about it. When he lectured locally I went up to him after and asked, if prayer works, how come every time we properly test it, it fails? He said he didn't know. Here is a reference that goes through some of the studies:
http://www.skepdic.com/prayer.html
And:
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005 ... ll_us.html
Regarding QM having something to do with "God," you'll need to be more specific. There are few scientific fields that have more atheists than physics. That is, those that best understand how our universe works, don't think a god is needed to explain it. Note:
"Survey of views of “greater” scientists (those who are members of the National Academy of Science) toward religion found”near universal rejection of the transcendent” by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2 percent and 69.0 percent repectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0 percent and 76.3 percent. “Among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever—almost total,” conclude the authors”
--Kendrick Frazier, in 11/12 Skeptical Inquirer, referring to an article in Nature, 394:313, July 23, 1998.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
***
Not sure if anyone can see or comment on this thread, but here it is.
***
***ZACK: "My support for intelligent design actually started after listening to a presentation on an unrelated topic.
It was a presentation on whether or not God exists by Dr. William Lane Craig at UC Davis about 3 years ago. Quite a number of people at that presentation tried to poke holes in his argument for the existence of God, but to no avail.
His reasoning was simple and straightforward, outline in 5 or 6 key points, I think. The point that stood out to me most was when he mentioned various scientists that have calculated the probability of a planet such as ours to be able to permit life, and concluded that these calculations must be so precise they are balanced on a "knife's edge". Literally 1 in a trillion trillion trillion etc.
Richard Dawkins claims that after studying the theory of evolution he has come to the conclusion that God does not exist. He has gone on to say that the debate over the theory of evolution is but a small battle within a larger war (hinting to the debate over the existence of God). So I suppose my interest over this issue is not so much whether ID is correct, but the larger picture of whether or not God exists.
So to answer your question, Mike, I don't have all the answers regarding ID. I am still researching all the evidence on the matter, and it's been interesting so far. But I lean toward support the ID theory over Evolution because I have yet to hear an clear and valid explanation for how all of the permutations and combinations needed for life to exist happened in a random fashion. The metaphor of pulling an arm on a slot game millions of times seems like it makes sense to me.
Some of the links I have posted on your wall regarding debates with Dr. Craig may help give you perspective to my position on the matter so far."
Response:
Zack: "Quite a number of people at that presentation tried to poke holes in his argument for the existence of God, but to no avail.">>
DAR
W.L. Craig doesn't have any arguments you can't drive a bus through. I travel around the country with a friend (Doug, co-founder) who debates evangelicals like Craig. Craig has been avoiding Doug for years. Long story.
ZK: "[Craig] mentioned various scientists that have calculated the probability of a planet such as ours to be able to permit life,">>
DAR
The Goldilocks zone. But as expected, we just discovered several hundred of those last month. And that was only looking nearby and at a tiny portion of the sky with our fancy new telescope. All explained nicely in this three minute video (we played it at our last freethinker meeting).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMUDXO4xkW8
ZK: "these calculations must be so precise">>
DAR
You are probably thinking of the fine tuning argument. It has lots of problems too. Wiki page is quite good.
ZK: "I have yet to hear an clear and valid explanation for how all of the permutations and combinations needed for life to exist happened in a random fashion.">>
DAR
"Random" is actually quite the opposite of how evolution works. This is a very common misunderstanding. The Skeptic society has a very nice explanation of this in their "Ten Myths' about Evolution" tract. This one is #5:
"Natural selection is not “random” nor does it operate by “chance.” Natural selection preserves the gains and eradicates the mistakes. To illustrate this, imagine a monkey at a typewriter. In order for the monkey to type the first 13 letters of Hamlet’s soliloquy by chance, it would take 26 13 number of trials for success. This is 16 times as great as the total number of seconds that have elapsed in the lifetime of the solar system. But if each correct letter is preserved and each incorrect letter eradicated, the phrase “tobeornottobe” can be “selected for” in only 335 trials, or just seconds in a computer program. Richard Dawkins defines evolution as “random mutation plus nonrandom cumulative selection.” It is the cumulative selection that drives evolution. The eye evolved from a single, light sensitive spot in a cell into the complex eye of today not by chance, but through thousands of intermediate steps, each preserved because they made a better eye. Many of these steps still exist in nature in simpler organisms."
See the other nine myths here:
http://www.skeptic.com/downloads/top-10 ... -myths.pdf
ZK: "The metaphor of pulling an arm on a slot game millions of times seems like it makes sense to me.">>
DAR
But that metaphor is completely wrong. Be careful not to get your science information from creationists.
***
DARZACK: ALright, so with all these links and videos you've shown me what is your belief in the existence of God?
My dictionary of God's has over 1,500 and is very incomplete. The Bible God is listed, as it should be, along with Abaasy, Azi, Calliope, Daikoku, gyges, Kishimo-jin, Pereplut, Pinga Qaholom, Wakan-Tanka, Baal, Allah, Vishnu, Shiva, Loki, Quetzalcoatl, Zeus, Odin, Apollo, Osiris, Krishna and all the rest. Like me, Christians are atheist with regard to all of those other gods but unlike me, they are inconsistent and make a special exception for just one of them. I apply the same logic to all of them. No evidence, no belief.
***
It doesn't need to.ZACH: "how does the theory of evolution account for mankind's belief in the spritual world?"
The theory of evolution, in the main, is biological and doesn't directly address the pet theories humans create to console themselves, (mostly for the purpose of avoiding their observed, impending, death). We are social/tribal animals and it seems rather intuitive that religion could possibly provide some useful attributes to a primitive society. Even today it does, but at other times it mostly gets in the way. And it (faith based religions/reasoning) certainly don't provide a useful tool for discerning reality. Nothing could be worse.
When people wanted answers in primitive times they looked to superstition and witchdoctors. Or they just made things up. Even simple animals learn from observing cause and effect. But we know that nearly all of these beliefs based upon superstition are wrong. We know because we know how to test such claims. Likewise, we know nearly all religious claims are wrong. They clearly must be because the vast majority of religious claims contradict competing religious claims (see list of gods above).
So evolution really doesn't have much to say about spiritual beliefs, and it doesn't need to. Spiritual beliefs are true or false entirely independently of whether evolution is true.
Which it is by the way.
And the existence of spiritual beliefs (or wishful faithbased thinking or bad reasoning) presents no problem for evolution whatsoever. It's more of a cultural anthropology question.
D.
-------------
"If all the achievements of scientist were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witchdoctors, no transport faster than a horse, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference?" --Richard Dawkins
***
ZACH: Then what about new research in Quantum Physics that has found that consciousness shapes and affects the environment that surrounds us?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVWaRNk- ... re=related
At roughly 8:40 in the following clip, quantum physics is sort of redefining the meaning of "prayer" and "God"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlCozQvv ... re=related
DARZach: "what about new research in Quantum Physics that has found..."
Oh my. This is a clip from "What the Bleep do we know?" An astonishingly ludicrous flick. I have a good friend who got his Ph.D. in physics in 1966 (teaches currently at the U of A) and he specializes in quantum mechanics. I ask him question about it all the time but I would never impose any of the nonsense in this flick upon him. It doesn't rise to that level of seriousness. As he would say, it doesn't even rise to the level of "wrong."
There are few fields where so much science is abused for the purpose of supporting new age nonsense, as physics and QM. Here's a little story about that, which is right on the mark:
"Advice from a (real) physicist ---When you're at a dinner party and you hear any 3 of the following words:
quantum, reality, consciousness, mind, Kant
Run, run away as fast as you can to a costume store and buy a clown mask. Put it on, then return to the party and resume the conversation."
But seriously, I have watched this flick (I wasted that time) and it is foolishness from beginning to end. Here is a simple debunk that rips it from stem to stern:
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005 ... leep_.html
If you have a specific question/concern regarding QM or physics, do pass it along, or post it in our freethinker forum:
index.php
We have two physicists standing by that will be happy to answer.
No I don't think so. The claims of intercessory prayer (where you can effect something outside of yourself, as opposed to meditation which can have effects upon a person) are testable and have been throughly tested. Prayer has failed, every time.ZACH: "quantum physics is sort of redefining the meaning of "prayer" and "God"
Larry Dossey is perhaps the leading proponent of prayer and he's written many books about it. When he lectured locally I went up to him after and asked, if prayer works, how come every time we properly test it, it fails? He said he didn't know. Here is a reference that goes through some of the studies:
http://www.skepdic.com/prayer.html
And:
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005 ... ll_us.html
Regarding QM having something to do with "God," you'll need to be more specific. There are few scientific fields that have more atheists than physics. That is, those that best understand how our universe works, don't think a god is needed to explain it. Note:
"Survey of views of “greater” scientists (those who are members of the National Academy of Science) toward religion found”near universal rejection of the transcendent” by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2 percent and 69.0 percent repectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0 percent and 76.3 percent. “Among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever—almost total,” conclude the authors”
--Kendrick Frazier, in 11/12 Skeptical Inquirer, referring to an article in Nature, 394:313, July 23, 1998.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
***
Not sure if anyone can see or comment on this thread, but here it is.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
-
Savonarola
- Mod@Large
- Posts: 1475
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
- antispam: human non-spammer
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
- Location: NW Arkansas
Re: Facebook Debates, Religion (Zeitgeist too)
Well, I typed up a response to leave on facebook, but I can't post it without friending the guy, so I'll just post it here.Darrel wrote:Have been having some exchanges on our freethinker facebook.
Darrel wrote,
> This is a clip from "What the Bleep do we know?" An
> astonishingly ludicrous flick.
"Astonishingly ludicrous" is way, way too kind. Saying that I "wasted" time watching it doesn't come close to the connotation that I'd prefer to give.
> We have two physicists standing by that will be happy to
> answer.
And a chemist/biochemist.
Zachary wrote,
> .. various scientists that have calculated the probability
> of a planet such as ours to be able to permit life,
Here's a really neat piece of information regarding this. One of the very, very, very few papers that ID proponents have gotten published in peer-reviewed journals was one that purports to calculate the probability of life evolving here. When all was said and done, the probability was strikingly *HIGH*, so much so that it does NOTHING to help the cause for ID. In fact, this is the trend of all approved "pro-ID" papers: they make no point that favors ID over evolutionary theory.
> and concluded that these calculations must be so precise
> they are balanced on a "knife's edge". Literally 1 in a
> trillion trillion trillion etc.
Right, the fine-tuning argument. It's one of the dumbest arguments ever, and for two reasons.
First, the funny, makes-the-person-feel-like-an-idiot reason: "The universe is fine-tuned for life," you say? Consider our solar system, and just our solar system. It appears that life exists only on this one planet, only on and in the shell of this large, mostly molten ball of rock. What volume of the solar system allows for life? What percentage of the solar system's volume is constituted by the crust of the earth? One one-thousandth of a percent? Maybe? Because we're "lucky" enough to be in the Goldilocks zone? Couldn't we expect similar numbers for other solar systems, but only assuming that they have life at all? For those systems that don't, the percentage is even smaller. And what about all of the space between galaxies? No life there, either. So, in this universe allegedly fine-tuned for life, the percentage in which life can be found is statistically insignificant. Rounded to the nearest fifteen decimal places, it's still zero. In a universe "perfect" for life?
Second, the one that's important: The universe isn't fine-tuned for life; life is fine-tuned for the universe, because it evolved in the universe. (See also pothole-water analogy.)
> So I suppose my interest over this issue is not so much
> whether ID is correct, but the larger picture of whether or
> not God exists.
Then I recommend taking a different approach. If the ID proponents were to be trusted (and they're not), then ID doesn't point to a deity. From a strictly scientific point of view, that would be correct; all ID would show is the existence of some intelligence acting as a designer of life, which could be non-deities like aliens. (But let me say -- as a trained biochemist who understands every bit of Behe's "biochemical challenge to evolution" -- not a lick of the anti-evolution argumentation stands up.)
Likewise, whether evolution is true has no bearing on whether a deity exists. (Now, it's possible to disprove a deity with specific attributes like "created all the universe in seven days" using science, but that's because those deities reach into science's realm and become testable.) Acceptance of theistic evolution isn't uncommon. So as evolutionary theory and the existence of God have no necessary correlation, using the ID/evolution issue as a funnel to determine whether God exists is an ill-informed methodology.
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: Facebook Debates, Religion (Zeitgeist too)
ZACH:DAR"...centuries of investigation have been able to determine that the mind has no specific location, shape, form, color, or any other tangible quality...">>
That's not true. We've known for centuries that minds are the product of a brain. That's what brains they do. That we don't understand how they do it, doesn't change this fact. Hearts pump blood, lungs absorb oxygen and brains (advanced ones) produce minds, and if you're lucky, self awareness and consciousness. No brain = no mind, no known exceptions to this rule.
DARZACH: "I see parallels between this argument and the debate whether God exists.">>
You're exactly right. They are both variations of God of Gaps, otherwise known as the fallacy of argument from ignorance. The notion we can know something because we don't know something. We have a tract on this here:
http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/godofthegaps.shtml
DARZACH: "You can't explain where God is, looks like this, and works...">>
Why would anyone even need to explain the attributes of something for which there is no evidence that it exists? And why would they try? It's the old "how many angels on the head of a pin" bit. Religious people love to go on about things they can't possibly know and they have a holy book completely filled with ramblings about all of these juicy details of Gods and worlds that no one can verify in any way. No wonder they spend so much time going on about believing by faith.
Oh it's much worse than that. Most of the Gods mankind has invented have contradictory attributes so we can know with relative certainty that they couldn't exist. As Ingersoll put it:ZACH: "The inability to prove God exists means sufficient information still has to be accumulated to propose a workable model.">>
"Few nations have been so poor as to have but one god. Gods were made so easily, and the raw material cost so little, that generally the god market was fairly glutted and heaven crammed with these phantoms." --Robert Ingersoll
***
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
-
Doug
- Posts: 3388
- Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville, AR
- Contact:
Re: Facebook Debates, Religion (Zeitgeist too)
ZACH:"...centuries of investigation have been able to determine that the mind has no specific location, shape, form, color, or any other tangible quality...">>We have a whole section on philosophical theories of mind in my philosophy classes. The view that the mind is the brain is called the identity theory. (Mental states are identical with brain states.) There are other theories of mind too, but some form of the identity theory is one of the major players in the field of philosophy of mind these days.Darrel wrote:That's not true. We've known for centuries that minds are the product of a brain. That's what brains they do. That we don't understand how they do it, doesn't change this fact. Hearts pump blood, lungs absorb oxygen and brains (advanced ones) produce minds, and if you're lucky, self awareness and consciousness. No brain = no mind, no known exceptions to this rule.
Of those who advocate that the mind is immaterial and has no location or tangible qualities, there are virtually no people defending that view in philosophy of mind today.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: Facebook Debates, Religion (Zeitgeist too)
DARZach: "I'm not saying science will NEVER explain the phenomenon. I'm saying it has yet to come up with a sufficient model."
This is still, precisely, the god of gaps. From this lack of knowledge, you cannot derive knowledge. That's the fallacy of argument from ignorance. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
I said: "We've known for centuries that minds are the product of a brain. That's what brains they do.">>
DARZACH: "That's exactly my point with the existence of God. That we don't understand how he exists doesn't change the fact.">>
How what exists? That which has no existence, needs no explanation. We know brains exist and we know they produce the phenomena of mind. There are no good arguments demonstrating the existence of a God. If there were, then we would might explanations about him/her/it. This is putting the cart before the horse. It's like saying: "This is my point with the existence of ghosts. That we don't understand how they exist, doesn't change this fact." What fact? There are no ghost "facts" just as there are no God "facts." Just piles of assertions, wishful thinking and faith based hope.
ZACH: "what evidence did Edison have after literally HUNDREDS of failures in trying to invent the light bulb?">>
DAR
This is a false analogy. Edison was dealing with rudimentary, natural, observable materials. And he had lots of evidence that if you run current through metals you can make them glow and give off light. No big deal. His many experiments involved finding the right material that could give of a lot off light and also last long enough to be useful.
DARZACH: "Or Einstein in his theory of relativity?">>
Einstein's theories are eminently testable and verifiable and have been confirmed over the decades (they could have been falsified but weren't). This is completely different from any God claims. And any time someone makes their God in any way testable, their God immediately fails the test. No exceptions.
DARZACH: (Einstein, by the way, had once said beyond the Universe exists God.)">>
Einstein was an atheist and said so plainly. At times he used the word God as a metaphor. A few examples:
"Dear Mr. Raner:
I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist." --Albert Einstein 7/2/45 (Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997), online link available.
He also wrote:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." [Albert Einstein, 1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.
"No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this," --letter written on January 3, 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, cited by The Guardian newspaper."
DARZACH: "I think in time we will be better equipped to find out more about God.">>
Well if the last several thousand years are any indication, and I think they are, I expect zilch from the theologians as we have always seen in the past. As Thomas Paine put it over 200 years ago:
"The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of
nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by
no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of
no conclusion." -- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
Just like today.
DARZach: "...what would nurses and doctors would say if you visited a hospital full of sick, dying or seriously injured people and referenced your studies stating that prayer does nothing to change whether or not people live or die...">>
It really doesn't matter what people "say." On the question of what is true, what matters is what can be shown. And what exhaustive testing over decades has shown is that intercessory prayer does absolutely nothing whatsoever to change whether or people live or die (or even get better or worse). It does nothing. Wishing otherwise doesn't change this fact.
Darrel.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: Facebook Debates, Religion (Zeitgeist too)
DARZack: "would you like to see religion become extinct?">>
Well, first and foremost, I am for people having the freedom and right to practice their religion freely, within the confines of normal rules of law. It's very unlikely that it will ever go "extinct" but I think society would benefit from a great decline in religiosity. We have ample examples of this from around the world. Religiosity correlates very strongly with societal dysfunction and this is true at the international level and also (in the US) at the state level. The scientific evidence for this is all laid out nicely here in a short article a friend of mine wrote:
http://physics.uark.edu/hobson/NWAT/09.08.29.html
It also seems that happiness correlates well with unbelief. When we look at some of the happiest countries on the planet we find they are just brimming with fine, godless folks. In the following, the number is the rank of "happiness" (as defined in the survey referenced below) and the number in parenthesis (for the Euro countries) is the percentage of the population that affirms a belief in god (except as noted for non Euro countries).
1 Denmark (31%)
2 Finland (41%)
3 Norway (32%)
4 Sweden (23%)
4 Netherlands (34%)
6 Costa Rica
6 New Zealand (28% atheist/agnostic)
8 Canada (16% no religion)
8 Israel (1/3 secular)
8 Australia (19% no religion)
8 Switzerland (48%)
12 Panama
12 Brazil
14 United States (16% no religion)
14 Austria (54%)
16 Belgium (43%)
17 United Kingdom (38%)
18 Mexico
This is from a Gallup World Poll that surveyed "thousands of respondents in 155 countries, between 2005 and 2009." You can see the Forbes article online here: http://tinyurl.com/3yb3b9s
There are many good things, "works" that are performed by sincere religious folks who go to church. But they are trained that they need religion for morality or in order to "do the right thing." This is not remotely true. It's quite possible to get some of the good things that seem to come out of religion, but with out all of the claptrap and nonsense. It's just a little more work to reason morality out rather than to cherry pick it out of a terribly flawed holy book and pretend you got them from a God (people still follow their own sense of morality anyway). If you do it this way, then you also don't get all of the bad junk that goes along it (i.e. fundamentalism, planes flying into buildings).
But I am not for religious persecution or restriction in anyway (does not include gov. endorsement). Other than providing vast amounts of freethought sunshine on their false claims.
Darrel.
------------------
"All religions die of one disease, that of being found out." --John Morley
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: Facebook Debates, Religion (Zeitgeist too)
Doulos: I mentioned nothing of any backwoods abstinence only programs,">>
DAR
All abstinence only programs are, by definition, backwoods (archaic, outdated, regressive and counter productive).
Doulos: "there is a lack of informaiton to back up the importance abstinence.">>
Any comprehensive sex ed includes abstinence education. But emphasis on abstinence only goes so far, and you can't have teachers using religion, fear and guilt to promote it. And when you remove that from abstinence, there isn't much left.
DOU: "it does seem that the numbers of abortions have decreased...">>
Right. And teen pregnancy just increasing now after a thirty year decline, just as abstinence only education is reaching its peak. This is to be expected. Abstinence only education consistently lies to children about their bodies.
DOU: "Amazingly in correlation to an increase in the pro-life opinion.">>
DAR
Anti-choice opinion doesn't matter. Here's a correlation for you: "pregnancy rates for teens 15-19 reversed their decline in 2006, near the peak of the Abstinence Only campaign in the United States."
"The significant drop in teen pregnancy rates in the 1990s was overwhelmingly the result of more and better use of contraceptives among sexually active teens. However, this decline started to stall out in the early 2000s, at the same time that sex education programs aimed exclusively at promoting abstinence—and prohibited by law from discussing the benefits of contraception—became increasingly widespread and teens’ use of contraceptives declined." --http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2010 ... index.html
DOU: "The overwhelming majority of all abortions, (95%), are done as a means of birth control.">>
DAR
Good. And the overwhelming majority are done early. Want less abortions? Encourage honest, science based, reality based sex education. That's what our peer countries do and they consistently have less unintended pregnancies and thus less abortions.
DOU: "Only 1% are performed because of rape or incest;...">>
DAR
Don't forget that probably the largest cause of terminated pregnancy is the design of the human body. Women naturally miscarry fetuses all the time. Who designed that body?
DOU: "Christianity is not a religion,...">>
DAR
Anyone who says Christianity is not a religion, is playing semantic games and not being honest with language.
DOU: "I wonder if your study looks at the ebb and flow of righteousness and solid Biblical teaching with the correlation between religiousity and immorality?">>
DAR
The term "solid biblical teaching" is meaningless. We have 33,000 sects and divisions of Christianity and they all have different opinions about what defines "solid biblical teaching." Apparently God IS the author of confusion.
DOU: "absitnence is a responsible choice,...">>
DAR
Sure, if a person wishes to go that way, but very few of those who are trained in it (abstinence only Ed.) bother to follow it. It's not a realistic method for the vast majority of young adults and it's counter productive to teach it as if it is.
DOU: "murdering an unborn child is an escape.">>
DAR
"Murder" ("wrongful killing") begs the question (fallacy). If it's unborn, it is by definition not a "child," it is a fetus, embryo or zygote. Best to be honest with language and avoid loaded misleading terminology.
DOU: "The unborn is a person in God's eyes. I have no idea what Bible you looked at.">>
DAR
I have dozens of Bible's. They all agree. The unborn is not a person in God's eyes. God even gives instructions on how to cause an abortion. See here for multiple, scriptural reasons I have put together: http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/fetus.shtml
DOU: "This link may provide..."
DAR
I am very familiar with the Christian apologetics on this issue. If you think you have an argument you can put together and defend, then let's see it. You don't have anything I haven't seen before.
When I give links it is to back up and support my claims. I include the link to our freethinker tract (which I wrote) because it contains my Bible arguments for the non-personhood status of the fetus. You aren't going to persuade me with a link to some warmed over Christian apologetics. If you have some you are willing to defend, post it and I'll respond to it directly. The Bible is thoroughly pro-choice from beginning to end and at no time ascribes the value of personhood to the fetus. This is standard Bible scholarship. I'll include an excerpt below.
Darrel.
----------------
Excerpts from "The Oxford Companion to the Bible"; edited by Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan; Oxford University Press, 1993, p. 4
On Abortion:
"Biblical legislation, as in Leviticus 27:3- 7, indicates that the lives of children as well as women were not valued as highly as those of adult men, while no value whatsoever was given to a child under the age of one month. There is no indication that a fetus had any status.
"A key text for examining ancient Israelite attitudes is Exodus 21: 22-25: (snipped, but translated as "MISCARRIAGE, and yet no further harm follows....") Several observations can be made about this passage. The Hebrew text at v.22 literally reads "and there is no harm," implying that contrary to current sensibilities, the miscarriage itself was not considered serious injury. The monetary judgment given to the woman's husband indicates that the woman's experience of the miscarriage is not of significance, and that the damage is considered one to property rather than to human life. This latter observation is further supported by the contrast with the penalties for harm to the woman herself."
What did the Rabbis say?:
The Rabbis ruled that the fetus was "animated" with a "life" similar to vegetables or animals, but only after birth did an immortal soul, a living person, a "nefesh adam," come into being. In fact, unless a full nine-month pregnancy was definitely known to have been completed, a female child was not considered a "bar Chaiyama" (a viable, living thing) until thirty days after its birth (males were required by the Law to be circumcised on the 8th day after birth, so a male only had to survive for eight days to be given a name).
The Talmud used the phrase, "ubar yerekh imo" ("The fetus is the thigh of its mother") [TB Hulin 58a and elsewhere] and, "the fetus is regarded as one of her limbs" [TB Gittin 23b]. Clearly, as the Rabbis understood the scriptures, the fetus is considered a "part of its mother" rather than an independent entity. [ Cf. "Marital Relations, Birth Control, and Abortion in Jewish Law" by David M. Feldman (New York: Schocken Books) , p. 253.] The Mishnah [Arakhin, I.4 (7a)] ruled that there is no need to wait for a pregnant woman convicted of a capital crime to give birth before being ex ecuted. The Talmud and the Mishnah have actually required abortion in cases where the mental or physical health of the mother was jeopardized by a pregnancy. [Ibid, p. 275]
This decidedly "Pro-Choice" stance is still held by the majority of Jewish organizations today. The United Synagogue of America passed a resolution that says in part: "In all cases, the mother's life takes precedence over that of the fetus up to the minute of its birth. This is to us an unequivocal position."
DAR
All abstinence only programs are, by definition, backwoods (archaic, outdated, regressive and counter productive).
Doulos: "there is a lack of informaiton to back up the importance abstinence.">>
Any comprehensive sex ed includes abstinence education. But emphasis on abstinence only goes so far, and you can't have teachers using religion, fear and guilt to promote it. And when you remove that from abstinence, there isn't much left.
DOU: "it does seem that the numbers of abortions have decreased...">>
Right. And teen pregnancy just increasing now after a thirty year decline, just as abstinence only education is reaching its peak. This is to be expected. Abstinence only education consistently lies to children about their bodies.
DOU: "Amazingly in correlation to an increase in the pro-life opinion.">>
DAR
Anti-choice opinion doesn't matter. Here's a correlation for you: "pregnancy rates for teens 15-19 reversed their decline in 2006, near the peak of the Abstinence Only campaign in the United States."
"The significant drop in teen pregnancy rates in the 1990s was overwhelmingly the result of more and better use of contraceptives among sexually active teens. However, this decline started to stall out in the early 2000s, at the same time that sex education programs aimed exclusively at promoting abstinence—and prohibited by law from discussing the benefits of contraception—became increasingly widespread and teens’ use of contraceptives declined." --http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2010 ... index.html
DOU: "The overwhelming majority of all abortions, (95%), are done as a means of birth control.">>
DAR
Good. And the overwhelming majority are done early. Want less abortions? Encourage honest, science based, reality based sex education. That's what our peer countries do and they consistently have less unintended pregnancies and thus less abortions.
DOU: "Only 1% are performed because of rape or incest;...">>
DAR
Don't forget that probably the largest cause of terminated pregnancy is the design of the human body. Women naturally miscarry fetuses all the time. Who designed that body?
DOU: "Christianity is not a religion,...">>
DAR
Anyone who says Christianity is not a religion, is playing semantic games and not being honest with language.
DOU: "I wonder if your study looks at the ebb and flow of righteousness and solid Biblical teaching with the correlation between religiousity and immorality?">>
DAR
The term "solid biblical teaching" is meaningless. We have 33,000 sects and divisions of Christianity and they all have different opinions about what defines "solid biblical teaching." Apparently God IS the author of confusion.
DOU: "absitnence is a responsible choice,...">>
DAR
Sure, if a person wishes to go that way, but very few of those who are trained in it (abstinence only Ed.) bother to follow it. It's not a realistic method for the vast majority of young adults and it's counter productive to teach it as if it is.
DOU: "murdering an unborn child is an escape.">>
DAR
"Murder" ("wrongful killing") begs the question (fallacy). If it's unborn, it is by definition not a "child," it is a fetus, embryo or zygote. Best to be honest with language and avoid loaded misleading terminology.
DOU: "The unborn is a person in God's eyes. I have no idea what Bible you looked at.">>
DAR
I have dozens of Bible's. They all agree. The unborn is not a person in God's eyes. God even gives instructions on how to cause an abortion. See here for multiple, scriptural reasons I have put together: http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/fetus.shtml
DOU: "This link may provide..."
DAR
I am very familiar with the Christian apologetics on this issue. If you think you have an argument you can put together and defend, then let's see it. You don't have anything I haven't seen before.
When I give links it is to back up and support my claims. I include the link to our freethinker tract (which I wrote) because it contains my Bible arguments for the non-personhood status of the fetus. You aren't going to persuade me with a link to some warmed over Christian apologetics. If you have some you are willing to defend, post it and I'll respond to it directly. The Bible is thoroughly pro-choice from beginning to end and at no time ascribes the value of personhood to the fetus. This is standard Bible scholarship. I'll include an excerpt below.
Darrel.
----------------
Excerpts from "The Oxford Companion to the Bible"; edited by Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan; Oxford University Press, 1993, p. 4
On Abortion:
"Biblical legislation, as in Leviticus 27:3- 7, indicates that the lives of children as well as women were not valued as highly as those of adult men, while no value whatsoever was given to a child under the age of one month. There is no indication that a fetus had any status.
"A key text for examining ancient Israelite attitudes is Exodus 21: 22-25: (snipped, but translated as "MISCARRIAGE, and yet no further harm follows....") Several observations can be made about this passage. The Hebrew text at v.22 literally reads "and there is no harm," implying that contrary to current sensibilities, the miscarriage itself was not considered serious injury. The monetary judgment given to the woman's husband indicates that the woman's experience of the miscarriage is not of significance, and that the damage is considered one to property rather than to human life. This latter observation is further supported by the contrast with the penalties for harm to the woman herself."
What did the Rabbis say?:
The Rabbis ruled that the fetus was "animated" with a "life" similar to vegetables or animals, but only after birth did an immortal soul, a living person, a "nefesh adam," come into being. In fact, unless a full nine-month pregnancy was definitely known to have been completed, a female child was not considered a "bar Chaiyama" (a viable, living thing) until thirty days after its birth (males were required by the Law to be circumcised on the 8th day after birth, so a male only had to survive for eight days to be given a name).
The Talmud used the phrase, "ubar yerekh imo" ("The fetus is the thigh of its mother") [TB Hulin 58a and elsewhere] and, "the fetus is regarded as one of her limbs" [TB Gittin 23b]. Clearly, as the Rabbis understood the scriptures, the fetus is considered a "part of its mother" rather than an independent entity. [ Cf. "Marital Relations, Birth Control, and Abortion in Jewish Law" by David M. Feldman (New York: Schocken Books) , p. 253.] The Mishnah [Arakhin, I.4 (7a)] ruled that there is no need to wait for a pregnant woman convicted of a capital crime to give birth before being ex ecuted. The Talmud and the Mishnah have actually required abortion in cases where the mental or physical health of the mother was jeopardized by a pregnancy. [Ibid, p. 275]
This decidedly "Pro-Choice" stance is still held by the majority of Jewish organizations today. The United Synagogue of America passed a resolution that says in part: "In all cases, the mother's life takes precedence over that of the fetus up to the minute of its birth. This is to us an unequivocal position."
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: Facebook Debates, Religion (Zeitgeist too)
DARDOULOS: "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fgXeLoML7Y ...It does not take but 2min. & 1 sec. to watch...">>
I am very familiar with Zacharias. My best friend Doug has challenged him to a debate (we travel around the country having debates), but Ravi declined. I watched your video with its story. Is there a point you would like to make out of it? He makes the same purposeful mistake of calling a fetus a "baby," and says something about a woman wanting the "moral right to kill it."
Well, no one says a fetus isn't alive, so that's hardly the question is it? We routinely kill things that are alive. So killing is often okay/appropriate/allowed. The question is, (and Ravi knows this but is being disingenuous), does the womb inhabitant have the rights of personhood? It's alive (so were the potatoes I had for dinner), it's human (so are skin cells), and each one is unique (same with sperm and my body makes 11 million of those an hour). So what's his point? He doesn't have one beyond using emotionally loaded words like "baby" and "kill" to avoid the only irrelevant question: Does a fetus have the right of personhood.
The Bible, and the God who supposedly inspired it, says no. Try to address my arguments for this claim:
http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/fetus.shtml
D.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer