Bullshit Control
Bullshit sells.
Tell people they can get rich quick with your proven system that anyone can use to make millions. Tell people they can profit with real estate for no money down. Tell people they can achieve their full potential with 7 simple steps. Tell people that media darlings The Beatles invented rock music or that lovable loser Al Gore invented the Internet. Tell people that they can have their best life now if they submit to God and trust the Bible. Your books will sell. And your readers will suffer.
Bullshit sells so well that, just as political success seems to require corruption, success in advice writing seems to require bullshit. It's no surprise, then, that the most popular gurus and critics are so full of bullshit. And, market forces being what they are, much of the best advice is shoved underground.
Examine the biography of most success gurus and you'll find they never succeeded at much of anything except telling other people how to succeed (Robert Kiyosaki, Tony Robbins, Joel Osteen, etc.).
This is a page to help you separate wisdom from bullshit.
Helpful Websites
- Amway/Quixtar Information (scams)
Amway and Quixtar are two of the biggest scams in the world. Here's a public-info breakdown. - Federal Trade Commission (consumer protection)
A great site run by the feds on consumer scams. - Quackwatch (medical scams)
Maintains 21 sites for health topics and false treatments. - John T. Reed (real estate investing).
John T. Reed gives his opinions on dozens of real estate gurus, separating the scam artists (Kiyosaki, Allen) from the honest experts (Trump, Roulac). He offers a great checklist for detecting bullshit and has self-published 20 books on real estate. - Snopes (urban legends)
What Guiness is for world records, Snopes is for urban legends. They separate fact from fiction. - Rick Ross (cults, scams, movements)
The Rick A. Ross institute collects information and news on controversial groups, whether Bible-based (Jim Bakker), commercial (Amway), sci-fi (scientology), MLM (Herbalife), self-help (John Gray), or other. The site has some tips for filtering groups/leaders and a nice list of useful books. - Scambusters (scams)
Scambusters keeps a regularly updated list of online and offline scams, from fake anti-virus software to work-at-home schemes to auction scams and much more. - Skeptic Magazine (weird ideas)
Skeptic magazine challenges popular belief in UFOs, gods, magic, etc. with science and reason. - Ripoff Report (scams)
Ripoff Report lets consumers file complaints about ripoffs and bad corporate practices. It has a great list of consumer tips for avoiding ripoffs, and lists the major types of scams. - Piero Scaruffi (music, movies, science, politics, fiction, travel).
Piero Scaruffi is a mathematician, computer scientist, cognitive scientist, historian, poet, and music & film critic who has visited 100 countries. The most popular part of his site critiques rock music, separating the pretenders (Elvis, The Beatles, Radiohead) from the underground masters of artful innovation (Captain Beefheart, Faust). His movie reviews have a similar style. His opinions on the development of politics and science are similarly divisive and well-informed. - Better Business Bureau (business)
The Better Business Bureau lets consumers file a complaint about U.S. businesses, and offers an extensive database of consumer tips. - MLM Watch (Multi-level-marketing schemes)
This site features many general MLM articles and special investigative reports. - Crimes of Persuasion (scams)
This site gives a great overview of common tricks and scams. - Software award scams (scams)
A great post on software award scams.Evil Sites
These sites look legit, but are actually bullshit.This post is always under construction. Please comment.
Lukeprog, we are thrilled to have you back!
Welcome!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Huzzah, he's back! I'm happier than a monkey who has realized that his ancestors will evolve into humans!
Terrible joke, I know. But anyway, welcome back!
Woo-hoo, welcome back!
Hehe, all your enthusiasm has me more excited about it than I was in the first place! Thanks for the warm welcome.
America is in financial crisis. Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who knows a damn thing about the economy and how to fix it. He's also the only one who seems to care.
See here.
Too bad he is a mysoginist, racist flip flopper.
It wouldn't surprise me if he's a bit racist and mysoginist, though his critics have severely overstated the case.
As for "flip flopper", he has been one of the most consistent members of congress for decades, and has only "flip flopped" on issues when better evidence or perspective arrived. One of the great flaws of Bush was that he did not flip flop when he should have.
Fact is, I vote for the man with the best policies. I would vote for a convicted rapist if he had the best policies. Ron Paul is the only candidate who understands money policy or understand why it is important. His actions as president would save millions of lives, trillions of dollars, and improve the education and living conditions of millions of people. Therefore, voting for Ron Paul would be a MORAL choice even if he did have some bad personal morality.
As for "racist", consider that he wants to abolish the most racist policy of the US; the war on drugs.
Your criticism reminds me of the people who got Clinton impeached over a blowjob, but who have not responded with moral outrage at the trillions of stolen dollars and thousands of stolen lives under George Bush. Truly, that is a distorted vision of "morality."
But I do not know your full position. I'd like to hear it, if it is as open to criticism as my own opinions are.
I will be voting for the person who IMO has the best policies as well, and I agree with your defense of flip-flopping, but I really don't see how abolishing the Department of Education will improve the education of millions of people. That's just one of the ways I disagree with Mr. Paul.
Sure. And all these issues are worth debating.
Ron Paul's ideas frighten most people who have grown accustomed to the welfare "entitlement" state. But his ideas are, quite simply, what the constitution says. The Constitution provides a very limited role for the federal government, and the founding fathers wrote profusely about government's natural tendency to get big and kill freedom.
For decades, Republicans ran on the claim that they would destroy the Department of Education. Why? Because it wastes your money.
How is education a waste of money? Well, only when government does it. Government is terrible at almost everything it does. Why? Because it doesn't play by the rules. It doesn't have to be good at what it does, because it eliminates all competition.
If government runs our schools, the schools can just say "We need more money" if their students suck. But if schools were competitive, crappy schools and teachers would go away, and the winners would find ways of teaching better with less money, instead of teaching worse with more money, like government does.
And even if we could set up a competitive system for government schools (using vouchers, for example), it could still be better handled at a state level. The founders would be ashamed to know that the federal government is now deciding on things like the curriculum for sex education in our schools.
Ron Paul also wants to stop policing the world, stop building nations, stop interfering, stop supporting dictators, stop the "war" on drugs, stop subsidizing rich people, stop subsidizing illegal immigration.
Far more important than all this is that he wants to save our currency and actually knows how. The other candidates are ignorant fools who win votes with empty rhetoric about "change" and "straight-talk", without ever addressing real issues in significant detail.
And by the way, I disagree with Ron Paul on many issues as well - many of them relating to his religious bent. He has, for example, said that "evolution is just a theory" - which shows a 3rd-grade understanding of science on his part. And we probably disagree on lots of "moral" issues.
But those won't matter the way monetary policy and foreign policy do. Those are the two most moral issues I could possibly vote on.
Your statements would look nice in a Microeconomics 101 textbook, but I really find them hard to believe in the real world. The ideas don't frighten me, they just strike me as ill-founded. Our education system isn't as efficient as possible, but it actually does need more money, and there will still be people whose socioeconomic level forces them to be stuck with crappy schooling, or worse, no schooling at all. The education system could use a major reform, sure, but I feel that a competitive education system will screw over the poor.
With all due respect to our founding fathers, I couldn't really give a crap what they would think of how we're running our country today, because they didn't know what life would be like today. I'm going to vote for someone based on what I think is right, not based on what Thomas Jefferson thought was right.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not really thrilled with any candidate in the race, and less so with the candidates that have a chance of winning. I like seeing an unconventional candidate with fresh, new ideas, but in terms of his actual policies, Ron Paul really ain't the answer for me.
I'm sorry you don't think those ideas work in the real world. I'm a big believer in Adam Smith.
I agree that we should try to set up the government as best we can for today, not with loyalty to the founding fathers. I just happen to think that the founding fathers had a MUCH better government going than we have now, and "going back to the Jefferson age" would be a vast improvement. But then, I'm libertarian.
And I do think it's ridiculous that the federal government is nit-picking over sex education. I don't want my government doing that! I want them doing as little as possible. Of course, most Americans - and politicians - disagree with me. They think the solution to every problem is more government (and, by extension, either more taxes or more debt or both).
I think Adam Smith would be the first person to admit that there are limits to how perfectly economic theory can be applied in the real world. I've taken multiple classes on how consumer psychology sways consumers to act in irrational ways, and given that perfect rationality is an innate assumption in Smith's economics, one can already see that things don't work out as neatly as Smith's model.
What's more, the "invisible hand" of competition says that if price is too high for a consumer's valuation of the product, then the consumer can simply not buy it. Which is fine when you're talking about a magazine or something, but education is a very different story. Maybe some people would benefit from the massive changes this would cause, but some would definitely get left in the dust.
And I just don't think the national debt is the biggest problem facing our country today. We have more pressing matters to worry about. I do think public school sex ed is ridiculous as well, but I think that speaks to larger issues I find ridiculous in America's value system, and those issues I have won't go away with privatized education.
No, our biggest issues won't go away with privatized education, and that's not one of Ron Paul's major concerns. He's far more anxious to fix our monetary policy and foreign policy.
What issues do you think are the most important? Is there a candidate that represents your opinions for some of them?
Eh, who can tell what a candidate's stance on any issue is anymore? Presidential candidates have been constantly rewarded for avoiding specifics and giving us vague bullshit, so that's what the frontrunners are sticking to. I do admire Ron Paul's ability to avoid that, but what he has done has made me certain that I don't support his stances, rather than leaving me with a feeling of uncertainty, and I prefer a maybe to a definite no. The only candidate who came close to obviously supporting my views was Dennis Kucinich, and he's officially out of the race, not that he ever had a chance of winning in the first place.
As for the issues: education, health care, and dealing with global warming are very important to me right now, and I think all of those require better government involvement and not less. Gay rights are also important to me, and I think they should have the right to have civil unions, but I feel like I'll just have to wait out that issue until our value system shifts enough in that direction. Finally, I do like smaller government to some degree, if it means getting back some of the rights that the Bush administration has no shame in infringing upon, and this is where Ron Paul and I see eye-to-eye, but since pretty much every other candidate supports the Patriot Act, I guess that's just a fantasy.
Some other stuff I've found it hard to care about. So many words have been spent on the Iraq War, and I'm finding it hard to give a crap anymore. We shouldn't have gotten into the war in the first place, but I don't feel it's right to just bail out and leave Iraq out to dry. At the same time, we're still losing lives and money over there, so I could be okay with withdrawing too. I also don't feel comfortable saying that getting involved in conflicts with other countries is always a bad idea.
Ditto immigration, I must admit I'm finding it hard to care. Yeah, it has some harmful effects, but the venom that some people have for individuals looking for a better life in this country is really distasteful to me, and I must admit I find some of the plans for citizenship truly absurd.
I wish I knew more about the recession we're heading for, because it seems like something should be done, but the American media is completely ignoring it, so...
Hope that helps you understand my views.
Well i do like some of his ideas a lot, the thing is i've seen some links and articles in one of the messageboards i frequented, and i saw that yes the guy "used to" be very racist and mysoginistic. It just happens, he changed his mind about those things now that he is running for president in a major party. There are extracts of his old newsletters and articles. He was a supporter of Lott, and a Ku Klux Klan sympathizer or should i say defender. I just can't really believe in a person like that, also politicians talk a lot during campaigning, it doesn't mean that they are gonna do everything he promised, and is gonna be a lmsot impossible to implement his policies, with an oposition congress and while being almost a pariah in your own party. Its really great that he keep bringing issues that would be forgotten if he wasn't running, and that it seems that he has a real plan. Its just seem to me, that the poor won't be better off, the abortion and gay rights may go backwards if he is elected, and it might Isolate the USA a lot more than Bush has does already.
Well, I strongly disagree. I think the poor will be much better off under Ron Paul, that USA would become respected and beloved in the world field under Ron Paul (we'd be like Canada), and that gay rights would improve.
I do think Paul would attack Roe v. Wade. I'm not pro-life (or pro-choice, really), but Roe v. Wade is blatantly unconstitutional and is rightly attacked.
Not too long ago, I used to have conversations with an invisible friend, thought everyone of a different religion had an inferior eternal destiny, and opposed gay rights. I changed my mind. I hope those things won't be held against me forever. I hope people don't hold things against Ron Paul forever if his policies now are what can save the USA from going the way of Rome. I hope people don't hold it against Obama that he did pot (as if that was a problem, anyway).
Well you did attack me assuming that i had to be in the anti blowjob Clinton plan, just for saying some truths about Paul. You used to think those things, until you got older and got in touch with other people outside of your church and household, you used to live a sheltered life, that is forgivable.
About Clinton i don't care that he got a blowjob, hell all presidents deserve to get them, but he couldn't find a hotter more discreet woman?. But i do agree with Miller, the blowjob was not the issue, the issue was the he lied about it, if he lies about such a trivial thing, he probably lied about worst things, he probably even compromised the nation's security by lying or trying to cover other things.
I've never liked Bush, i can't believe he even won as a governor, when the only thing he had going for was his father, he was inept and inarticulate, and then he wins again, because the democrat candidate was a charisma less unlikeable guy, which didn't feel much different than Bush, and because there was a war going on, and some people felt that changing the president was some sort of sign of weakeness.
Come on,the war was going in a wrong direction, it still is, and the person responsible of that is Dubya.
How are the poor gonna be better off? i think his policies benefit people the upper classes, people who already have money and/or own their business.
I did not mean to imply that you approved of the hype around Clinton's blowjob. I just said, "it reminds me of...", which it did.
A few ways Paul's policies will help the poor:
1. Dismantling the welfare state. He wants to eliminate subsidies for the rich. He also wants to eliminate subsidies for the poor, which will encourage people to get off their asses and innovate.
2. Ending the war on drugs. This racist, anti-poor war will finally end.
3. A return to limited government that will have fewer beaurocracies built to line the pockets of the already-rich (for example, the military-industrial complex).
4. No more stupid wars and nation-building, which recruits from the low class and gets them killed making the world a worse place.
5. Lower taxes, which of course keeps the rich rich but helps the poor escape poverty.
6. Monetary policy reform that will pull us out of debt and make the dollar stronger. A strong currency again keeps the rich rich (no problem with that) but especially helps the struggling lower class.
Of course, there are deep philosophical issues here, too. Since 1930, we've grown into a welfare ("compassion") state under a theory of justice later articulated by John Rawls. The libertarian philosophy of Ron Paul is very different (for example, read Robert Nozick). But I have not studied enough to political philosophy to get into that! I very well might be wrong.
Exactly how does he plan to end the war on drugs? We've been working on that one for years...
I dunno, you kind of sound like I did when I was 16 or 17, thinking that everything was a conspiracy and that there was an invisible hand to keep us down. I think you're missing a few key points. Do you really think those "no money down" schemes are proving successful? Everyone knows they're a hoax. "Tell people that media darlings The Beatles invented rock music or that lovable loser Al Gore invented the Internet"? Does anyone actually believe either of those things? And what's wrong with trusting the Bible? A lot of people come up with goofy interpretations, but when it was written I believe it had great advice as to how to best live your life and it should still have relevance today.
I think that a lot of people (mostly Ron Paul supporters) have a lot to learn about the ways other people do and do not work, and need to learn not to dismiss other people's ideas as stupid or uneducated. It leads down a slippery slope to say things like "I used to be religious, but now I condemn those people - why can't they just see the light like I did?"
I'll leave you guys with an articule from Ron Paul's self-published newsletter (written in 92):
"Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action…. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the “criminal justice system,” I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."
Considering he was around 60 when he wrote this, do you understand the skepticism many would have if you simply said, "well, he's changed"?
How will Paul end the war on drugs? For starters, he'll decriminalize marijuana, which is way less dangerous than alcohol anyway.
No, I don't think everything is a conspiracy. And I have met a few people who thought the Beatles invented rock music or Al Gore invented the Internet, but I don't know what that has to do with our discussion.
What's wrong with trusting the Bible? I could write whole books on this, but basically: you have the same problems as you would if you trusted any other book of ancient mythology. Not only is it full of lies and absurdities, but ancient morality that I'm glad we all find disgusting today. Why someone would use it as a guide to life is beyond me. How would you feel if I said, "What's wrong with trusting the Egyptian Book of the Dead as a historical document and a book of moral advice?"
No, I do not dismiss other people's ideas as stupid or uneducated. Just like you, I think many ideas are stupid or educated, but I don't "dismiss" them. I engage them. Turns out, I often find that such ideas aren't as stupid as I thought.
I am very happy to engage ideas in debate. I will share my opinions, you will share yours, and hopefully we will both walk away from the conversation a little more informed. That's what usually happens for me, anyway.
I don't "condemn" religious people. Religious people are the ones who think I'm going to be tortured in hell for eternity, remember. I just think religious people are wrong about something, just like I think global warming alarmists are (a little) wrong about something, Freudian psychoanalyists are (a lot) wrong about something, flat-earther are (mucho) wrong about something, etc. So I engage religious people in debate, too, because I like to talk about sound and unsound ideas. I always walk away from such conversations learning something, too.
I was quite recently religious, too. Religious people aren't generally any more ignorant or prejudiced or selfish than non-religious people. They just have complex life experiences that have led them to believe there is a god.
The best thing that ever happened to me was the discovery of critical thinking. I'm really excited about it. I love to share it with other people. For a lot of Christians, the best thing that ever happened to them was when they met Jesus. And they want to share that with other people.
That's cool. Let's talk about it, and share our ideas, and try to look at which ones are sound and which ones should be placed on the shelf next to Astrology, Phrenology, and Zoroastrianism.
I am quite aware of that quote from Ron Paul's newsletter. He has said he didn't write it, and apologized for not keeping a closer eye on what was published under his name.
Maybe we'll never know if that is true. But it makes sense. I haven't seen a hint of racism throughout his campaign (unlike John McCain, for example). In fact, he seems to be the candidate who most clearly understands individual liberties. He ignores groupings of people and wants to give everyone the same liberties to everyone (and pull government intrusion out). And as I've said before, he wants to end our racist war on drugs.
If all there was to it was "Well, he changed," then yes you should be extremely skeptical. Even in light of everything in the above paragraph, you should be skeptical. I'm skeptical of Ron Paul's racism.
But maybe Ron Paul is racist. In any case, it isn't really Ron Paul that excites me. It's the ideas he stands for: government non-intervention, a peaceful foreign strategy, tiny government, smart fiscal policy, a return to the gold standard, killing the IRS, ending the war on drugs, etc.
Those are great ideas, and I will support them wherever I find them.
So thanks for engaging in a conversation, JAMOOL. That's always what I'm looking for. I know I can sound challenging. I want to be. I want you to challenge my ideas (which you've done), and I want to challenge your ideas. That doesn't mean I "condemn" you. I just want to challenge some of your ideas.
Marijuana is way less dangerous in that hasn't killed anyone - but it does destroy the brain more and it can make you sterile. I don't think the war on drugs was ever really about reefer anyways, and I don't think legalizing it is going to solve many problems (the only benefit I can see is taxes). We DO and always will still have a problem with harder drugs - LSD, coke, heroin, and the like.
Okay, now, the Bible...I'm curious to hear what parts of it you find so objectionable. I mean, looking at the Ten Commandments, yeah they're old, but anyone who based their life off them, yeah, I would think they'd turn out to be moral people. What's wrong with trusting the Book of the Dead? I don't know, I haven't read it. Does it say, "don't kill, don't steal, respect your parents, don't cheat on your wife, etc. etc."?? I couldn't really argue with that...
"Why someone would use it as a guide to life is beyond me." It's a little surprising to see a former Christian use a phrase like this - why did YOU use it as a guide to your life?
One more thing (I'm not going to get into a debate about Ron Paul - I know little about him, and am aware that the debate is taking place everywhere on the internet - I WILL say he's the only Republican I'd vote for right now, and I'll take him over Hillary, no matter the repercussions):
"That's cool. Let's talk about it, and share our ideas, and try to look at which ones are sound and which ones should be placed on the shelf next to Astrology, Phrenology, and Zoroastrianism."
I guess being a skeptic you have to dismiss all these things as being pretty much outright false, but I think we can learn something from all of them. Okay, what did we discover through Astrology, and why do people believe that? Some people still believe that you can channel a ghost through a Ouija board. I don't think it's simply because they were told they could and thought it was a cool idea. Some people really believe it, and I don't want to trivialize their experiences by saying, "yeah, well, you're wrong". In my opinion that's what too many scientists and skeptics are doing these days in lieu of actual scientific work, and it's obnoxious. Would millions of people believe in such "ridiculous" phenomenon as UFOs and ghosts if there was absolutely nothing going on?
Just a talking point really - I'm glad you've become comfortable with yourself :)
Yes, I'll skip a debate about Ron Paul and drugs.
About Christianity, Zoroastrianism, astrology, and phrenology...
Would millions of people believe in such "ridiculous" phenomenon as UFOs and ghosts if there was absolutely nothing going on?
Yes. The popularity of a belief has nothing to do with its truth. Most humans used to think the earth was flat, or that every object on earth had a spirit, or any number of, yes, ridiculous beliefs. And yes, I can ignore certain ideas if (1) they are contradicted by lots of evidence, and (2) there are no good reasons to think they are true.
Nothing is certain. But we can be 99.99999% certain on some things. For example, that the earth is round. Now, I think both of us feel pretty comfortable dismissing the idea that the earth is flat, because (1) there is no evidence supporting that hypothesis, and (2) there is lots of evidence against it.
Let's say a billion people today thought the earth was flat, even though there was no evidence for that, and lots of evidence against that. Would it be wise to say, "Well, lots of people believe it. There must be something to that..."
I think not. Leaving that as an "open question" would greatly slow our ability to get things done. What if half the airline CEOs thought the earth was flat and that its edge went down the middle of the Pacific ocean? If you wanted to fly from California to Japan, you'd have to fly the long way on one of those airlines.
That's a silly example, but there are a million ways in which beliefs that are clearly out of sync with reality have bad effects. That's why it matters to teach sound ideas and combat unsound ones.
If you believe that a witch doctor can heal people but not modern medicine, that has consequences. If you believe building big churches to worship in is a better use of your money than economic productivity or charity, that has consequences. If you believe an invisible god condemns you for your urges to masturbate, that has consequences. If you believe the world will end in 50 years, that has consequences.
Ideas are powerful. It is important that beliefs correspond to reality as much as is possible with our current knowledge.
And there are lots of open questions. Tons. Science - by far our most reliable path to truth - has only developed in the last couple centuries. We're really intellectual infants. But we know a few things now.
And we can't ever really disprove something. I can't search the whole universe and tell you Zeus doesn't exist and never did. But we've been looking at that idea for centuries and not come up with one shred of evidence, so it seems safe to push that idea off as extremely unlikely.
I think we can do the exact same thing with Yahweh. And astrology. And myths of Atlantis. And myths of unicorns.
why did YOU use [the Bible] as a guide to your life? Because everybody I respected in my life, including my parents, told me to. Once I started thinking for myself, I realized I had been just as badly duped as any fundamentalist Muslim, Scientologist, or animist.
What do I find objectionable in the Bible?
Thousands of things. A semi-complete list, broken down by category, is here.
Let's consider this on two fronts: the historical/actual component, and the moral component.
Historical/actual
Yes, there are some historical bits in the Bible. For example, Jerusalem did exist during Jesus' time. But a lot of it is anti-factual and anti-historical, too.
The Bible talks of dragons and unicorns as if they actually existed (these words have been swapped out in modern translations because they are embarrassing, but the original Hebrew does mean "one-horned beast" and "dragon"). If you read this in another ancient document, you would conclude it is obviously mythical.
God created light and darkness before he created light-producing objects (sun and stars). When he created the earth again in Genesis 2, he created things in a different order. The whole creation story is apparently borrowed from an older Babylonian creation myth.
Early humans lived for nearly a millenia. Any other ancient book, and you'd see this for what it is: myth.
Noah fits 2 animals each of millions of species on a (relatively small) boat. Uh-huh.
Hundreds of things happen in the Bible which defy everything we know and have ever experienced. Jesus is born of a virgin, flies off into the sky and walks through walls, hundreds of dead people crawl out of their graves and walk around, etc. If you read this in any other book, you'd know it was myth.
Lots of events in the Bible contradict all our other historical evidence, for example Herod's slaughter of all the male babies, or the idea that
Quirinius was governor of Syria during Jesus' birth, or the whole Egyptian slavery during Moses' time.
Finally, there are a million contradictions in the Bible. Resolutions to these given by apologists are almost always ad-hoc. Answer me this: what was the name of Joseph's father? Etc.
And this really is just the tip of the iceberg. And that metaphor is being kind.
Moral
Yes, there are some good moral teachings in the Bible, as with almost any text. The Golden Rule is great. It was great when Zoroastrians started preaching it a millenia before Christ, too.
But let's face it, the Bible was produced in a time of incredible racism, sexism, and barbarism, which are disgusting to us now.
There are commands to kill your family if they don't believe in Yahweh, to kill people for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, to kill gays, etc.
Yahweh himself performed, or commanded, evil acts that compare best with those of Hitler and Stalin.
Even Jesus, in the NT, spoke out:
- in favor of castration
- to "hate your family" (don't fudge this one; the word literally means "hate", not "love less than me")
- everyone who doesn't believe in him or never has the opportunity to hear of him will be tortured for all eternity
- when he returns, he promises to slaughter millions
Of course, whole books have been written about the anti-historicity, anti-factual, anti-moral, and anti-sensible content of the Bible - including by honest Christians, for example Bishop Shelby Spong and Don Cupitt.
I don't wish to open a long debate with you on each of these topics. We could go on forever.
If you wish to share your response, I'd love to hear it. But don't expect a debate from me. :)
"Yes. The popularity of a belief has nothing to do with its truth. Most humans used to think the earth was flat, or that every object on earth had a spirit, or any number of, yes, ridiculous beliefs. And yes, I can ignore certain ideas if (1) they are contradicted by lots of evidence, and (2) there are no good reasons to think they are true."
This has nothing to do with the earth being flat. It's a logical conclusion given what they saw, but it was proven wrong. You can't prove that ghosts or UFOs don't exist. There are no good reasons to believe they're true for YOU - what about those like my Dad who saw the famous fireball over Texas 40 years ago, or those like my friend who used to watch things get randomly thrown across the room whenever profanities were said? THEY'VE got good reasons, and to outright dismiss them because you don't believe it is irresponsible.
If a billion thought the Earth was flat? They won't. We have the data. It's pretty convincing. We have pictures. People have flown and sailed around the world. We don't live in a world where people regularly ignore that kind of evidence.
As for things like witch doctors...well, there have been studies to suggest that acupuncture works too, but nobody really knows why...
"Early humans lived for nearly a millenia. Any other ancient book, and you'd see this for what it is: myth."
Well, I've heard from many many Christians that they don't actually BELIEVE that they lived that long, or that Noah's ark was real - they see it as parable, along with the Adam & Eve story, and the rest. If you want to rebut fundies who take this as literal, well, I'm with you there. These stories are easy to understand now, and certainly easy to understand when the Bible was written. So not all Christians believe those stories happened verbatim. Many Christians believe that evolution is true, too.
As for the moral issue, questioning that and drawing the conclusion that "killing is right" is kind of like watching an executioner do the same on command from a higher authority and deriving the same. What I've heard is that God has a master plan and we can't quite understand what it is. If that's true, it seems kind of silly as an atheist to bring that kind of stuff up.
I dunno, maybe God's playing a huge game of Sim City or something. You play that game, you build a city, something doesn't work out right, and you destroy it. If the townspeople start doing the same, then you've got a problem.
I don't need to prove that ghosts or UFOs don't exist. Those who claim such fantastic things need to provide some good reasons to think they exist. Such people haven't. "I swear I saw it" is not a good reason. I had a dream once and saw giant robots running through my town.
Often, when people talk to an invisible friend, we lock them up because they are so disconnected from reality. I wish somebody had locked up the people who flew planes in the WTC.
Yes, there are many Christians who don't believe in young earth creationism or unicorns or other such nonsense. I'm glad you're "with me" on those things. But do you still believe that Jesus rose from the dead, walked through walls, and flew off into the sky?
Morality
So, you like a few of the Bible's suggestions (don't murder, don't steal), but discard hundreds of others (kill gays, kill your family if they don't believe in Yahweh, don't wear clothing made of two kinds of thread, etc.) Why are you using the Bible as a moral guide at all? It seems you are using a sense of morality outside the Bible to judge what's in the Bible, anyway.
As for God, my point was that if I can "judge" anybody for doing evil things, I judge him. What a ruthless, uncaring, unjust, jealous, murderous nut. If that God exists, I refuse to worship him. He is not worthy.
Do you not consider God to be the ultimate moral being? Then why are so many of his actions profoundly immoral?
I admit I have not before heard the "Sim City" defense. If you worship a God who is playing Sim City with you, I still question your reason and your morality.
And I think I have every right to do so, just as you have the right to question my reason and morality. And that's what we're doing.
Morals are not a divine order, societies had them way before Christianity, and not all with religions giving the rules. Religions are a method of control.
I've heard all the arguments for god (Ontological, Transcendental, Cosmological, Argument From Design, Religious Experience), and yet they still don't give me evidence or a rational proof. If you are going to believe in God, become a Deist, not a Theist.
A moral god would not allow the world to work in the way that it does, particularly an Abrahamic God (by that I mean Christianity, Judaism & Islam), who if we judge on its actions is a sadistic, jealous, moody git. I see no reason why intelligent people believe in a God, short of the fact that it is the way they are brought up.
Religion is a bad thing, an affliction of which the world would do much better without.
"I've heard all the arguments for god (Ontological, Transcendental, Cosmological, Argument From Design, Religious Experience), and yet they still don't give me evidence or a rational proof."
"I see no reason why intelligent people believe in a God, short of the fact that it is the way they are brought up."
Does this not seem a little presumptuous to you? "The arguments don't convince me, and I think I'm intelligent, therefore no intelligent person could ever be convinced?" A moral god wouldn't allow the world to work the way it does, or you don't understand why one would? The worst things that atheists can do in these debates is look at Christianity in this way - "look, I know everything, so here's what I think about this 'God' fellow". Trying to argue in this way will be nothing but a frustrating experience for both parties, and the debate would never be worth having. You try to deny that Jesus rose from the grave? Well, most Christians believe that it's FACT, so you'll have to restructure your argument a little bit.
Please stop twisting my words, it's actually you being presumptuous. By the intelligence comment, I was suggesting people who look at the God question in a rational and sensible way.
I'm an athiest who believes that proof and evidence are of more importance than lots of people believing in it, or believing scripture.
I've looked at Christianity on both sides (and as an agnostic), as I was brought up Catholic. I know about the religion, and the beliefs, and it is pure crap. It is rubbish, in a society where science has done so much for us, and people tend to look at everything critically. However, when religion is brought up, believers make up excuses, exceptions and even though they may make fluid, interesting arguments, they are all fundamentally flawed.
I would argue that many Christians are intelligent and have looked at their beliefs in a rational and sensible way. I'm curious to hear how I'm twisting your words. You say that Christianity is crap, rubbish, etc. (in your own words). Christians say that it's true and that atheism is foolish. I wouldn't consider either viewpoint to be completely rational or sensible. On a complex argument with as many viewpoints as this, simply calling the other side 'pure crap' isn't an argument.
"The arguments don't convince me, and I think I'm intelligent, therefore no intelligent person could ever be convinced?" I never said that. I actually restated what I meant last comment, about how if you look at it in an intelligent way not necessarily being an intelligent person.
Hence my point about looking at everything critically, including God. A lot of believers do look at most things critically, but when God is mentioned some special rule must come in to play. Please, give me a break. And yes, crap sums it up quite well really, as the arguments about believing in resurrection, magician's tricks and Noah's flood are nonsense. You can't just pick and choose bits of the Bible to be literal and others symbolic as you go along. The Church will continue to do this as the world becomes more and more scientifically aware, claiming parts were symbolic when once they were taken literally. What has changed from the dark ages when people believed in Creationism to now? They have become more aware, and more sensible, so Christians make exceptions. Christians just get angry when people make these points because logic defies every defence they try and muster back.
Why has God had a disappearance from the world for some thousand years? He just decided to take a holiday? And what about the thousands of years beforehand, he just overslept? (And yes, I'm aware I'm saying "he", but it's just easier than saying he/her/it all the time)
We can see that ancient religions such as the Greek or Roman gods are pure myth, but what's really different from them and all the religions that involve a god now? People believe in them, that's all. Perhaps in a couple more thousand years, people will look back Abrahamic religions and laugh at them.
The ethics Christianity is founded on is based on Greek philosophy and the God based on the Jewish faith, two incompatible thought schemes.
Here's a simple one (though a good one nonetheless); Do you believe your God is all powerful, all knowing and all loving? Why does he allow the evil and suffering of the world to take place?
Everything that a theist would describe as God contradicts what your God is Jamool, he fails to fulfill the criteria. Also, as all the religious texts contradict each other, which do you say is right, The one which fits your upbringing or society best?
Has God ever contacted you? Have your prayers been answered? If not, haven't you ever wondered why? I mean nothing personally by this discussion by the way, but it's always interesting and informative to challenge one another's ideas as that is what forwards progress.
Ooof, we've reached the point where the text becomes impossible to read.
I know you never said that. I quoted the two things you DID say, and indeed that's what they imply. Does it occur to you that all those proofs for the existance of God actually DO convince some people?
"Why has God had a disappearance from the world for some thousand years? He just decided to take a holiday? And what about the thousands of years beforehand, he just overslept?" Who says he is? Because another testament isn't being written? Obviously no Christian would justify that statement; they believe God is still working today.
"We can see that ancient religions such as the Greek or Roman gods are pure myth, but what's really different from them and all the religions that involve a god now? People believe in them, that's all. Perhaps in a couple more thousand years, people will look back Abrahamic religions and laugh at them."
I think this demonstrates a lack of understanding of Christianity. Jesus Christ is the reason why many believe. He fulfilled many of the prophecies in the Old Testament. It's like arguing against a political or economic system - "many political systems have fallen against the wayside, what makes you think this is the best one?" Will Christianity be alive in the future? Who knows?
"Here's a simple one (though a good one nonetheless); Do you believe your God is all powerful, all knowing and all loving? Why does he allow the evil and suffering of the world to take place?"
That's an easy one. Man lives in a universe of cause and effect. It's what makes reality real. Many 'bad' things could be prevented if humans choose to do so. It's a thing called 'free will', which many would say is the greatest gift of them all. Should people be saved from themselves?
"Everything that a theist would describe as God contradicts what your God is Jamool, he fails to fulfill the criteria. Also, as all the religious texts contradict each other, which do you say is right, The one which fits your upbringing or society best?
Has God ever contacted you? Have your prayers been answered? If not, haven't you ever wondered why? I mean nothing personally by this discussion by the way, but it's always interesting and informative to challenge one another's ideas as that is what forwards progress."
I was raised as a Jew. Now my perception of God is much different than what most Christians or religous people in general believe. But this isn't a debate about me. "The religions all contradict each other"? On which points? They seem to agree much more than they disagree.
Has God ever contacted me? Well, if you're asking if I've ever had a supernatural experience the answer is yes. Whether you consider that "God" is your decision. Have my prayers been answered? Well, I pray (or at least, used to when I was younger) for my friends and family and thus far nothing terrible's happened to them. The ones that don't get answered? Like..."could I please win this hand of poker?" Or what? Do you think God could answer every single prayer WITHOUT the universe going insane in an instant?
Listen, I find Christianity has a lot of questions to answer as you do, and some of their actions are downright appaling (for example, the reasons why they oppose the HPV vaccine). I think if you were ever to get into an argument with one however, you'd get nowhere. Because their platform is that you're an immoral unbeliever, and your platform is that they're stupid. Fundimentalist Christianity can be refuted, but how about those who see the Bible as mostly figurative, and God as the ultimate judge of character? These people seem pretty sensible to me...
I don't think Christians are stupid, I just think the way they look at God is, if that makes sense. I'm also not immoral, and I don't see why people would see me so, just because I don't believe in their God, I thought Christians shouldn't judge anyway.
Determinists believe free-will is non-existent anyway, so the whole "God gave us free will" idea fails in that respect.
The fact that your friends and family are in good health could suggest there's a God, but maybe you're just a lucky guy whose family and friends are in good health.
If God is all knowing, powerful and loving he should be able to answer every prayer, but that might conflict with others' prayers so the whole system gets bogged down.
I just see so many holes in theism I fail to see how people can believe it, that's all. As for organised religion, I still have no doubt all it is there for is controlling large groups of followers.
We're obviously not going to budge on each of our respective viewpoints, but still it's been an interesting discussion.
Another good example of the contradictions of a "loving" Christian God is on this page of Luke's website...
http://www.lukeprog.com/religion/evil_bible_stories.html
"I had a dream once and saw giant robots running through my town."
We're not talking dreams here.
"But do you still believe that Jesus rose from the dead, walked through walls, and flew off into the sky?"
Do I? Not really. Christians do, however. He's the son of God so I don't think you can use the "it's not scientifically sound!" argument here.
"As for God, my point was that if I can "judge" anybody for doing evil things, I judge him. What a ruthless, uncaring, unjust, jealous, murderous nut. If that God exists, I refuse to worship him. He is not worthy."
By your standards, of course. You're not supposed to judge others though (according to the Bible).
"Do you not consider God to be the ultimate moral being? Then why are so many of his actions profoundly immoral?"
That's contradictory. If God is the ultimate moral being, then everything he does is moral. Once again, it's a case of "it's okay for God because he's the one with the plan for the universe and not me, he's the one who created life, so he's allowed". I can't really say much more than that. You'd have to take it up with some fundamentalist Christian...I can't offer much on this debate, especially considering the multitude of ways people interpret what the Bible says.
"I admit I have not before heard the "Sim City" defense. If you worship a God who is playing Sim City with you, I still question your reason and your morality."
It's not a defense, it's an analogy. When you're playing that game, the little people within it are capable of doing certain things - like they can go to work, or move into a house, or whatever, but they don't really know what you're doing, at all. They've their own little world and that's it. If you have to destroy things to do something you think is good for the game, then that's your choice, but you wouldn't want the people inside the game doing the same. They don't think on your level and can't understand at all the things that you do. It's just an analogy.
I can see this is going to go in the same endless circles it always does. But thanks for sharing your viewpoint. I hope you didn't mind me sharing mine.
I love the list. Having been literally driven insane (12 mental disorders, several permanent, apparently) by a bullshit company (cult), I appreciate this sort of list. I recommend http://www.collegepro.com/ for your evil sites section. It looks so legitimate that it's a perfect fit. I may make a list of scams, actually.