In an episode of Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies in 1955 titled "One Froggy Evening" Porky Pig buys a frog...

The frog sings the whole way home, the frog sings while Porky is getting him ready to present to a show producer, sings the whole way over to the producer, and the second another person is present....

Silence...

Nothing...

Nobody believes poor Porky.

Why don't they? Lack of evidence? Why are people willing to accept certain things without evidence, and dismiss others (like Porky's frog) that also have no evidence? There are plenty of people willing to believe in a God, and few would believe Porky. Both have the same evidence, that is to say none, but what is the fundamental difference?

What if Porky had found a soul saving frog....

What if Porky told you his frog save a person's eternal soul from eternal damnation? Would a person be more apt to believe in Porky's soul saving frog, or his singing one? They both lack evidence, but one offers something more doesn't it?

I for one would love to see all my dead relatives, everyone I know and love, up in heaven, healthy, happy, and spend eternity that way. It is a pleasant and comforting thought. I would rather believe in this than I would a singing frog, or real permanent death and a finite existence.

Porky would have had no shortage of people WANTING to believe him and his tale of the soul saving frog. Not saying they would have, just saying they would desperately want to believe, and be more likely to.

So, theists, really ask yourselves WHY you believe what you do. Ask yourselves why you don't believe in Porky's singing frog, but believe in his soul saving one.

I personally love that episode, but have never looked at it that way(mostly because I was 3 when I first saw it, and never have seen it since reruns of those cartoons stopped in the 90's I think).

because despite what theists say, the burden of proof is required to prove a situation rather then disprove. we are naturally extremely skeptical beings, and if something doesn't 'sing' before our eyes we don't believe it.

however religion is different. religion has managed to alter the boundaries of religious skepticism to 'this is untouchable' or even 'whatever, it makes me happy'.

this is dangerous when religion decides to ambush logical thought on other issues with the same mentally. ie. intelligent design.

now all you people that claim me saying 'there is no god' requires burden of proof, i am merely saying my burden of proof is the lack of evidence in your argument. IE. YOUR FROG DOESN'T SING FOR ME AND EVERYONE ELSE

but if it sings for you, fine. enjoy it and keep it to yourself and don't say im missing out, frogs piss me off

because the frog doesn't have the fate of your soul lying in its hands.

people needs something to believe in. weather its science or religion.

its a lot easier to dismiss something that doesn't have the control that religion does. by denying the frog that person is not damning themselves to what could be eternal damnation.

because the frog doesn't have the fate of your soul lying in its hands.

people needs something to believe in. weather its science or religion.

its a lot easier to dismiss something that doesn't have the control that religion does. by denying the frog that person is not damning themselves to what could be eternal damnation.

People don't actually need to believe in something. Believing in science isn't the same as believing in religion. Your stupid propaganda annoys me.

Understand that faith means "belief without evidence". Of course science is the complete opposite.

its a lot easier to dismiss something that doesn't have the control that religion does. by denying the frog that person is not damning themselves to what could be eternal damnation.

People dismiss every other religion to choose one. Science doesn't need faith, science has evidence.

One of my favorite cartoons of all time!

But to be precise, Porky Pig didn't star in this one. In fact, there was no pig at all. It was a male construction worker who, after the demolition of a skyscraper, finds a frog buried in a box underneath the foundation. Amazed it could sing and dance, he sells everything he owns, sinks all his money into a theatre, and attempts to display the frog to the rest of the public, thinking he's going to get rich with the discovery.

Naturally, people don't believe him when he touts the frog's abilities, and naturally, the frog doesn't appear to others in the singing and dancing role it appears to him. Forlorn and frustrated because the performing amphibian won't reveal it's magical talents to others, the man ends up homeless and penniless, and is soon carted off to a mental institution. He goes insane. He looks back on his life and wishes he'd never found the frog.

The ending segment shows the frog surfacing again in the future, being found by yet another man who instantly becomes mesmerized by the frog's magic.

While I love the cartoon (who can't appreciate a frog singing Ragtime Gal and Michigan Ride?), the animated parable can be widely interpreted, and believe it or not - I've heard this very same cartoon be used as a metaphor by a spiritualist trying to explain the lesson to be learned from it - If you find magic, don't try to exploit it for personal gain, but rather, keep it to yourself.

Here's the lesson I took from the 'toon: God showing himself to you is about as likely as a frog getting signed on Broadway. And in the strange event that happens - don't push your God (or the singing frog) on others- they're likely not to have the same reaction to it as you do, and you may go crazy trying to make them believe otherwise.

Porky would have had no shortage of people WANTING to believe him and his tale of the soul saving frog. Not saying they would have, just saying they would desperately want to believe, and be more likely to.

The message you took from it is still a good one, because in the cartoon, that's exactly what happened - passersby on the street lined up in droves when they read the theatre box office read: SEE THE LIVE SINGING & DANCING FROG! ... they wanted to believe, they paid top box office prices to believe - but when the frog didn't sing and dance, they were angry and demanded they get their money back. Hearing a man claim "a frog sings and dances" doesn't measure up to them seeing a singing, dancing frog with their very own eyes.

Here's the lesson I took from the 'toon: God showing himself to you is about as likely as a frog getting signed on Broadway...

Whatever this strange lesson was supposed to mean I think you should have left it at that.

Whatever this strange lesson was supposed to mean I think you should have left it at that.

Ain't happenin'. Shortwindedness has never been my style.

Shortwindedness has never been my style.

And I'm glad, it's good to know that there's a reasoned mod contributing to the forum.

What, no one has posted the cartoon yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bggIK-TgVcE


I hadn't really thought about it in that way before (but I last saw this [i]years/i] ago) but I see how you could draw that kind of subtext from that.

And I'm glad, it's good to know that there's a reasoned mod contributing to the forum.

Which I guess would make me the seasoned one. . . . .

Getting back to topic--to continue the metaphor, I would be one who has seen and heard the frog sing, but have no evidence other than my own experience.

Getting back to topic--to continue the metaphor, I would be one who has seen and heard the frog sing, but have no evidence other than my own experience.

Me too. And since I'm not bothered about "proving god exists" to other people, I don't have to deal with the so called "Burden of proof".

It wasn't Porky was it?

Damn...

My point was this, a comforting or threatening concept (Heaven and Hell) is easier to believe without evidence, than a non-comforting or non-threatening concept is (A singing frog).

Theists believe in a soul-saving frog, but not a singing one.

Most religious people will dismiss supernatural claims on a daily basis, since a majority of these do not comfort nor threaten them, but cling to the one that makes them feel safe/special.

I have tried to understand how someone can put faith in something that for, all intent and purpose (ie evidence), is not there. I conclude that it is the comfort drawn from what could just as likely be a lie, as it is to be true.

Organized religion is Pascal's wager run amok.

Me too. And since I'm not bothered about "proving god exists" to other people, I don't have to deal with the so called "Burden of proof".

Any descision you make that affects other members of your chosen society that is based on these beliefs, justly puts a burden of proof square upon your shoulders.

People dismiss every other religion to choose one. Science doesn't need faith, science has evidence.

i know it has evidence.... thats my point. you believe in science. it is logical, but do you still believe in it yes?

Some people are illogical and believe in religion.

i know it has evidence.... thats my point. you believe in science. it is logical, but do you still believe in it yes?

Some people are illogical and believe in religion.

A person would think so. Science is self critical of itself, constantly testing itself, even some of the most widely accepted theories. It isn't so much that I believe in science, but that science has proven that it's explanations are right over and over. It is a belief, in the sense that a belief is an idea that is held to be true or some of the definitions used by Merriam-Webster, but it must be stressed that there is no faith involved. This is completely different from believing in religion.

I was specifically responding to where you said that it was hard to dismiss religion, because of the control it has. This statement is kind of shaky, because people don't accept religion as a whole, but a specific religion and this would damn them in every other religion. And the follow up to that point completely missed the point of the OP.

[QUOTE=BrokeProphet;10353476]

My point was this, a comforting or threatening concept (Heaven and Hell) is easier to believe without evidence, than a non-comforting or non-threatening concept is (A singing frog).

QUOTE]

Thank you for clearing that up. I was wondering exactly what your point was. But I think your point is invalid for several reasons.

The notion that one class of statement should be "easier" to believe (whatever you mean by "easier") is foreign to me. It makes no sense to me to assume that people would accept a "threatening" statement more readily than a non-threatening one--this flies in the face of the psychological truth that people tend to move toward comfort and away from discomfort.

A recent national religious survey which indicated that more Americans who identify themselves as being religious believe in heaven than believe in hell, for instance, tends to invalidate your point, I think, or at least weaken it.

The notion that one class of statement should be "easier" to believe (whatever you mean by "easier") is foreign to me. It makes no sense to me to assume that people would accept a "threatening" statement more readily than a non-threatening one--this flies in the face of the psychological truth that people tend to move toward comfort and away from discomfort..

I never suggested people gravitate towards discomfort rather than towards comfort. Way to knock down that argument you created there by invoking psychological truth though.

If you are done spitting straw, I will quote what I said, and it does not suggest people prefer discomfort over comfort....

My point was this, a comforting or threatening concept (Heaven and Hell) is easier to believe without evidence, than a non-comforting or non-threatening concept is (A singing frog).

*this is the same quote you responded to with the aforementioned strawman horseshit....FYI.

A recent national religious survey which indicated that more Americans who identify themselves as being religious believe in heaven than believe in hell, for instance, tends to invalidate your point, I think, or at least weaken it.

Once again, I never suggested people believe in something more menacing more often than they will something comforting. Stop suggesting I said that please. It is dishonest.

Your religious survey only invalidates the strawman you erected.

*takes out lighter....torches Arms strawman.

If you would like to honestly address my point, feel free at any time. If you need me to clarify it, so you can honestly address it, feel free to ask.

If you create another strawman, you will be called on it.

because of the accounts of christs life, really. thats all.

i haven't read anything in the bible that wasn't either wise, bad ass, or beautiful.

i haven't read anything in the bible that wasn't either wise, bad ass, or beautiful.

Then you haven't read it enough or you need to read it without the rose colored glasses on.

Leviticus 19:20 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.

If you read that right, it says, go forth and fuck slave women, and you will be unpunished. Wise, bad ass, or beautiful? I offer cruel, misogynistic, and injust to better describe this.

Leviticus 14:2-52 (gonna have to paraphrase here) God's law for lepers: Get two birds. Kill one. Dip the live bird in the blood of the dead one. Sprinkle the blood on the leper seven times, and then let the blood-soaked bird fly off. Next find a lamb and kill it. Wipe some of its blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle seven times with oil and wipe some of the oil on his right ear, thumb and big toe. Repeat. Finally kill a couple doves and offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering.

One of my favs. Is this wise, bad ass or beautiful?

----

I suggest you read more of the bible, or take off your rose colored glasses next time.

Then you haven't read it enough or you need to read it without the rose colored glasses on.

Leviticus 19:20 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.

If you read that right, it says, go forth and fuck slave women, and you will be unpunished. Wise, bad ass, or beautiful? I offer cruel, misogynistic, and injust to better describe this.

Leviticus 14:2-52 (gonna have to paraphrase here) God's law for lepers: Get two birds. Kill one. Dip the live bird in the blood of the dead one. Sprinkle the blood on the leper seven times, and then let the blood-soaked bird fly off. Next find a lamb and kill it. Wipe some of its blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle seven times with oil and wipe some of the oil on his right ear, thumb and big toe. Repeat. Finally kill a couple doves and offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering.

One of my favs. Is this wise, bad ass or beautiful?

----

I suggest you read more of the bible, or take off your rose colored glasses next time.

i suggest you read the whole thing. you don't read half a steven king book and say you read it. don't do it with the bible, either. the old testament law was specifically repealed by christ. replaced with, 'love one another'.

it was a different time back then. what we see as inappropriate is, by ancient standards, not at all inappropriate. and i believe that in the ancient times, the universe was different, things were blurrier, and magic was perhaps real. that has long since been replaced by the invention of man and his mechanical devices and logic, but i don't see our current worship of reason and logic to be a eternal standard; i am open to the possibility that at one time, a ritual involving blood sacrifice could cure disease, just as science can now cure disease. belief can be a powerful thing, even today.

the old testament is nothing but stories and accounts of prophets, take from it what you will. read ecclesiastes, or some of the stories, and tell me there is no wisdom there. read about how wars were fought back then, and tell me those tales aren't bad ass.

now, i SAID, the account of Christs life. the gospel. i would hold those books to be blameless, and the new testament in general to be the finest written work mankind possesses. the new testament is what i love for the sake of it's beauty. are you going to find something wrong with THAT?

now, i SAID, the account of Christs life. the gospel. i would hold those books to be blameless, and the new testament in general to be the finest written work mankind possesses.

Here is your whole quote...

because of the accounts of christs life, really. thats all.

i haven't read anything in the bible that wasn't either wise, bad ass, or beautiful.

NOW, and correct me if im wrong, near as I can tell your bit about the accounts of christs life appears to be offering an answer to the question I presented in my OP.

The latter part of your quote (and the one I responded to) does not single out the new testement from the old. It is not connected with your bit about christs life. Not in the wording nor in the apparent context...

So I stand by my assessment that you were talking about the whole bible being wise, bad ass, or beautiful. You seem to indicate NOW you only feel this way about the new testement.

I am glad you realize the old testemant is pretty useless.

----

With that bit of derailing trollshit out of the way, I would like to tell you how fucking stupid your new testement is...

Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Is this wise, bad ass, or beautiful?

-------------

This is some real good shit here...

John 12:3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.
12:4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him,
12:5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?
12:6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.
12:7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.
12:8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

Let me sum up this little number here for you who dont care to read this nonsense. Mary wastes expensive ointment on Jesus' feet, rather than selling the ointment and giving the money to the poor. But Jesus thinks his feet are more important, saying that poor people will always be around, but he and his precious feet won't be.

So the guy can raise the dead, make the lame walk, and the blind see, but is unable to remove a few corns, and blisters without the aid of ointment that costed an average workers yearly salary back then?

WOW.

Wise, bad ass, or beautiful?

Here is your whole quote...

NOW, and correct me if im wrong, near as I can tell your bit about the accounts of christs life appears to be offering an answer to the question I presented in my OP.

The latter part of your quote (and the one I responded to) does not single out the new testement from the old. It is not connected with your bit about christs life. Not in the wording nor in the apparent context...

So I stand by my assessment that you were talking about the whole bible being wise, bad ass, or beautiful. You seem to indicate NOW you only feel this way about the new testement.

I am glad you realize the old testemant is pretty useless.

well excuse me. i should have spelled it out for you. the new testament, i believe, is entirely w/b/b. the old testament may be any of the three or irrelevant. but, as i said, there is still a whole lot to be gleaned from the old testament. ecclesiastes, and the morals of many of the tales, regardless of how spurious their veracity may be, it doesn't matter any more then the veracity of aesops fables. ecclesiastes is one of the few valuable books of philosophy i have ever seen. and all throughout there is something to be learned... for example, the isrealites in the desert, complaining and whining even after god rained down bread and gave them water, so god sent a earthquake to teach them a lesson. thats a lesson not often taught today... it could rain riches and people will still be bitching. the old testament, even for the minority that is irrelevant, is still better then anything recently published.




With that bit of derailing trollshit out of the way, I would like to tell you how fucking stupid your new testement is...

Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Is this wise, bad ass, or beautiful?

wise. men should be the head of the body. marriage is the union of two people, so that they are one. a body to function efficiently needs a single head, not two. what would it do with four arms, and no head, or two heads and no arms?

and i hope you aren't implying that there is something bad, or lesser, of the position of following, as opposed to leading? that, i think, would foolish.


This is some real good shit here...

John 12:3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.
12:4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him,
12:5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?
12:6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.
12:7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.
12:8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

Let me sum up this little number here for you who dont care to read this nonsense. Mary wastes expensive ointment on Jesus' feet, rather than selling the ointment and giving the money to the poor. But Jesus thinks his feet are more important, saying that poor people will always be around, but he and his precious feet won't be.

So the guy can raise the dead, make the lame walk, and the blind see, but is unable to remove a few corns, and blisters without the aid of ointment that costed an average workers yearly salary back then?

WOW.

Wise, bad ass, or beautiful?

wise. first of all, it's true, second of all, 'live for today' was part of his philosophy. he wasn't a magician, who spat out tricks for his gain and for entertainment or comfort. through faith, he served others.

you seem to be very goal oriented in your thinking, instead of being objective. you want, desperately, to tear up the bible, and so you spend your time turning it every way and another looking for ways to make it seem wrong and bad, instead of trying to learn from it... this is not the path of wisdom.

well excuse me. i should have spelled it out for you.

No, you should have been more clear, and I have already demonstrated how you were obviously not. It was not my fault, as this opening line seems to indicate.

wise. men should be the head of the body.

There is nothing wise in that.

Some men are simply unfit to be the head of said body. Having a cock does not mean you will be the best person to lead the relationship.

In order for this to be wise please show me how having a pair of balls and a cock makes you better at leading a relationship more effectively.

you seem to be very goal oriented in your thinking, instead of being objective. you want, desperately, to tear up the bible, and so you spend your time turning it every way and another looking for ways to make it seem wrong and bad, instead of trying to learn from it... this is not the path of wisdom.

It is an ancient book riddled with inconsistancies, absurdities, injustice, etc. It is also a book that DOES HAVE sound advice, wisdom and beauty. Contrary to your insuinuations I have not made a final blanket statement concerning the value of the bible, as YOU HAVE...

YOU said the bible is ALL wisdom and beauty. To which I spanked you for, by reminding you of the old testament. So you dropped the old testement, and tried to tell me you meant the new testament is ALL wisdom and beauty.

Now I begin to show you it is not A L L wisdom and beauty (while admitting there is some to found) and I am the goal orientated one? I am not being objective?

I dont desperatly WANT to make the bible seem wrong or bad......it filled with shit that is wrong. I dont have to do anything accept read it and post what it says. YOU are the one who has to infinitely regress into abstract nonsense to desperately make it seem like it isn't so.

What you are doing is projecting the shit you do to defend your book onto me. Get your shit straight.

There is nothing wise in that.

Some men are simply unfit to be the head of said body. Having a cock does not mean you will be the best person to lead the relationship.

In order for this to be wise please show me how having a pair of balls and a cock makes you better at leading a relationship more effectively.


sure, there are exceptions. but generally, even mediocre men simply make better decision makers then women. and there is no way to prove or disprove this either way, but you simply have to look through your experience... and i think you know as well as i do men make better leaders then women nine times out of ten.


It is an ancient book riddled with inconsistencies, absurdities, injustice, etc. It is also a book that DOES HAVE sound advice, wisdom and beauty. Contrary to your insinuations I have not made a final blanket statement concerning the value of the bible, as YOU HAVE...

YOU said the bible is ALL wisdom and beauty. To which I spanked you for, by reminding you of the old testament. So you dropped the old testament, and tried to tell me you meant the new testament is ALL wisdom and beauty.

Now I begin to show you it is not A L L wisdom and beauty (while admitting there is some to found) and I am the goal orientated one? I am not being objective?

I don't desperately WANT to make the bible seem wrong or bad......it filled with shit that is wrong. I don't have to do anything accept read it and post what it says. YOU are the one who has to infinitely regress into abstract nonsense to desperately make it seem like it isn't so.

What you are doing is projecting the shit you do to defend your book onto me. Get your shit straight.

no, i admitted you were right. there are parts that are genuinely irrelevant. but you haven't shown me any reason not to believe that the parts that aren't irrelevant, aren't good. keep trying, though. i still believe that it contains only irrelevancies and w/b/b things. but, i am listening.

sure, there are exceptions. but generally, even mediocre men simply make better decision makers then women. and there is no way to prove or disprove this either way, but you simply have to look through your experience... and i think you know as well as i do men make better leaders then women nine times out of ten.

If there is no way to prove men make better descisions.....how can a mandate that men are in charge.....be better?

How can if be wise?

It cannot.

Hint: You should look up the defintion of wisdom, before you spout more stupid onto here.

no, i admitted you were right. there are parts that are genuinely irrelevant..

I never made a case to show irrelevancy. How the fuck can you claim to agree with me on something I never suggested?

I explain below exactly what my case is......again.

but you haven't shown me any reason not to believe that the parts that aren't irrelevant, aren't good.

Get it through your monkey brain, I am not making a case that the bible lacks anything good in it...

Let it sink in for a moment.
A moment longer.
You good?
Okay, here we go....

I am making a case that your claim that E V E R Y T H I N G in the new testement is either wise, bad ass, or beautiful is total horseshit.

Let that sink in for a moment.
Need more time?
You have it?
Okay....

Since that is the case I am making ANYTHING that does not relate to wisdom, bad ass shit, or beauty......(what you call irrelevant)......proves my case that there is more in the bible than what you claimed.

Congratulations, you have completely failed your God.

i suggest you read the whole thing. you don't read half a steven king book and say you read it. don't do it with the bible, either. the old testament law was specifically repealed by christ. replaced with, 'love one another'.



lol

Matthew 5:17

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."

lol

Matthew 5:17

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."

the law as the commandments, all of which are part of the golden rule; the prophets as his own existence confirmed their prophecy.

levitical law is what is considered the old testament law. and he most certainly did repeal it.

the law as the commandments, all of which are part of the golden rule; the prophets as his own existence confirmed their prophecy.

levitical law is what is considered the old testament law. and he most certainly did repeal it.

Then why keep it around?

Seriously, why is it not asswipe paper? It is obsolete.

Unless, you cherry pick what you want out of it now....

Then why keep it around?

Seriously, why is it not asswipe paper? It is obsolete.

Unless, you cherry pick what you want out of it now....

why not keep it around? personally, i would have kept the old and the new testament seperate, with 'bible' referring to the new testament and the old one simply being scripture. that would clear up confusion related to levitical law and such. really, to be honest, i always thought Leviticus was sort of interesting, but i then the only things i don't like to read are teen novels, women poets, and Dostoevsky.