---------------------------------- She taught him what was real She taught him he was okay That his thoughts were not just rubbish That he had something good to give
Posts: 3820 | Location: Don't Ask Me to Explain | Registered: 18 October 2004
I only agreed with small parts of the film. One point in particular is the atheism espoused by many of these so-called scientists. These jokers essentially compromise their own professional integrity by championing one kooky belief system against another. They are practically goading the religious fundamentalists into attack mode. In that sense, Stein was correct. Ofcourse, then, as atheists one would expect them to be both reactionary and intolerant as they beat back any perceived threat to their ideologically bankrupt orthodoxy. If only Stein has the sense to focus on scientism run amuck rather than science.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: syzygy,
Originally posted by syzygy: Of course, then, as atheists one would expect them to be both reactionary and intolerant as they beat back any perceived threat to their ideologically bankrupt orthodoxy.
As an atheist I take quite a bit of offense to this comment.
I quite frankly have no problem with religion in general, only when religion is interpreted incorrectly to further someone's agenda (ex: Crusades, Holocaust, Racism, Sexism [although arguably some religions themselves are sexist, which does bother me]). I feel like when a comment like that is made it sets everyone back a step and doesn't help the problem that all. While obviously there are some intolerant and reactionary atheists, there are also some intolerant and reactionary Christians. At the same time there are a lot of Christians and Atheists that are quite reasonable people. If any sort of debate on the validity of either is going to be held then, we can at the very least try not to be stereotypical.
there are various types of atheists. the negative and positive are the two dominant kind. the former claims no belief whatsover in god; the whole idea being batty, undemonstrable, etc. the later state categorically no god exists or can exist and anyone who professes belief in such is, at the very least, deluded.
The film depicts the 'positive' type who also happen to be scientists and rather notorious proselytizers of their faith who believe that no god (however defined as an immaterial entity) can exist. They are as much fundamentalists as their religious brethren, and every inch the hypocrite.
there is nothing to find offense with if you are able to distinguish between the two; one being responsible, rational, content with personal non-belief, and understanding of their epistemic limitations; the other fanatical, vain, hypocritical, and self-deluded.
Originally posted by syzygy: there are various types of atheists. the negative and positive are the two dominant kind. the former claims no belief whatsover in god; the whole idea being batty, undemonstrable, etc. the later state categorically no god exists or can exist and anyone who professes belief in such is, at the very least, deluded.
The film depicts the 'positive' type who also happen to be scientists and rather notorious proselytizers of their faith who believe that no god (however defined as an immaterial entity) can exist. They are as much fundamentalists as their religious brethren, and every inch the hypocrite.
there is nothing to find offense with if you are able to distinguish between the two; one being responsible, rational, content with personal non-belief, and understanding of their epistemic limitations; the other fanatical, vain, hypocritical, and self-deluded.
I couldn't agree more. A lot of people found the movie offensive and I couldn't understand why. Facts are facts, interviews are interviews.
Originally posted by IndieFolkExperimentalLover: Facts are facts, interviews are interviews.
...
---------------------------------- She taught him what was real She taught him he was okay That his thoughts were not just rubbish That he had something good to give
Posts: 3820 | Location: Don't Ask Me to Explain | Registered: 18 October 2004
This "documentary" is so laughably bad that calling it bullshit is an insult to bullshit everywhere.
How lame is it that people who are supposed to be morally superior, have to hide thier intentions with lies and psudeo-science to try and push thier religion into schools? They even tricked the people who they interviewed for this crap-fest into thinking they were participating in a different documentary. How moral is that?
This movie has the lowest score I have ever seen at imdb, rottentomatoes, and here. There's a reason for that, not only is it poorly made, but the subject matter is retarded.
At rottentomatoes only one reviewer gave it a favorable review and guess who that was.....Christianity Today! Big surprise! But as a testament to how bad it was, even they had complaints about it.
There is no use in defending this trash. If you do, everyone will immediatly identify you as the mindless religious zealot that you are.
Religion is supposed to be based on faith, NOT SCIENCE. Practice your religion privately and quit trying to force everyone to swallow your belief system.
There is no debate here and there never was. This "documentary" is absurd and you do your religion a disservice by associating it with this stupidity.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: spazzblaster,
Originally posted by IndieFolkExperimentalLover: Is that a joke? That is called "Survival of the Fittest" not Evolution!!!
Uh, no. It's both. The lizards that are there now were not there thirty years ago, nor were they introduced into the population in their current state... and they have the same DNA as the lizards we did introduce, yet they are extremely different.
"Listen to the silence in between. It's louder than the bombs when they come screaming in."
Posts: 257 | Location: Between 762 and 767 | Registered: 10 June 2007
Originally posted by The Twinkie That Wouldn't Die:
quote:
Originally posted by IndieFolkExperimentalLover: Is that a joke? That is called "Survival of the Fittest" not Evolution!!!
Uh, no. It's both. The lizards that are there now were not there thirty years ago, nor were they introduced into the population in their current state... and they have the same DNA as the lizards we did introduce, yet they are extremely different.
How is that evolution? That is survival of the fittest! The lizards adapted to their surroundings and produced young with similar characteristics. It's not evolution pal, hate to burst your bubble.
Originally posted by IndieFolkExperimentalLover: How is that evolution? That is survival of the fittest! The lizards adapted to their surroundings and produced young with similar characteristics. It's not evolution pal, hate to burst your bubble.
Wait. What? If that is not evolution then what is? Madness!
"Listen to the silence in between. It's louder than the bombs when they come screaming in."
Posts: 257 | Location: Between 762 and 767 | Registered: 10 June 2007
Originally posted by The Twinkie That Wouldn't Die:
quote:
Originally posted by IndieFolkExperimentalLover: How is that evolution? That is survival of the fittest! The lizards adapted to their surroundings and produced young with similar characteristics. It's not evolution pal, hate to burst your bubble.
Wait. What? If that is not evolution then what is? Madness!
"Macroevolution" is cross-species evolution and "Microevolution" is survival of the fittest or minor characteristic changes within the species. Microevolution has been proven; Macroevolution, or cross-species evolution, has never been proven.
Originally posted by youandwhosearmy: Anti-evolutionism is almost always based on a poor understanding of what evolution is. And here we have Exhibit A.
You have no solid proof of evolution anywhere. Face it "Youandwhosearmy".
Originally posted by IndieFolkExperimentalLover: "Macroevolution" is cross-species evolution and "Microevolution" is survival of the fittest or minor characteristic changes within the species. Microevolution has been proven; Macroevolution, or cross-species evolution, has never been proven.
These are not separate concepts. The DNA is the same all around. It's not like it's armor-clad in certain regions that make it impossible for species to change drastically.
"Listen to the silence in between. It's louder than the bombs when they come screaming in."
Posts: 257 | Location: Between 762 and 767 | Registered: 10 June 2007
