Slashdot Mirror
Imax Theaters Demur On Controversial Science Films
circletimessquare writes "The New York Times is reporting that a number of Imax theatres are passing on science-themed films that might provoke controversy among a handful of religious fundamentalists. Films that are having their distribution impacted include '"Cosmic Voyage," which depicts the universe in dimensions running from the scale of subatomic particles to clusters of galaxies; "Galápagos," about the islands where Darwin theorized about evolution; and "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea," an underwater epic about the bizarre creatures that flourish in the hot, sulfurous emanations from vents in the ocean floor.'"
...that the theater owners think that showing science films is too controversial or not interesting to the general public...
...or that they're probably right.
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
damn right wing fundamentalists. i hate them so much
Imax? More like Imaxn't offend the anti-evolutionists.
because this is epidemic of our society in america.
we lose out on interesting ideas and concepts because they may offend someone. it happens in all levels of education, in business, everywhere.
this is sad but not suprising.
how is "an underwater epic about the bizarre creatures that flourish in the hot, sulfurous emanations from vents in the ocean floor" offensive in any way?
we shouldn't let a minority dictate what is right or wrong because we risk having our freedom become the same "freedom" they have in China.
Investing forum
Why do they stick their heads in the holy sand all the time, why can't they just accept that people have different views and should be allowed to express them.
It makes me sick that religious wackos are given all the freedom to worship/teach/live as they please, but fuck everyone else over with their righteous bullshit.
what does science have to do with religion?
The New York Times is reporting that a number of Imax theatres are passing on science-themed films that might provoke controversy among a handful of religious fundamentalists.
Wake me up when there is something happening the US which doesn't upset a minority group which goes in search for media attention or takes it to court.
bash$
It really is sad that the documentation of the search for truth is so dangerous to some people. I understand in the need for belief and am a scientist that considers myself religious. However, I also believe that there are truths in the universe that need to be revealed and understand that those truths threaten some people and institutions. The task of the documentary film maker in many ways is similar to that of the scientist, and censorship or concealment of truth harms both of our missions. I also understand that businesses are in the business to make money, but it would be nice if businesses could have enough faith in what they do to stand up and be honest about it. That is unless money is your god, but if that is the case, be honest about it. The unfortunate truth is that money is the most important thing to some folks and they also know that if they revealed it, then they might lose business. You are known by your actions and I would encourage those potential patrons of these theaters who are refusing to show these films to boycott those IMAX theaters who are too scared to show a film that documents scientific discovery.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
before they gas us.
That's just how it is sometimes.
looking out at the stars at night, or using a microscope, will result in an equal amount of religious disturbance for that group of people if they use their brains to think about what they see.
So i recommnd preventive suicide, it also helps them get close to their god.
Thanks for leaving us alone, guys, just do it!
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
OK, I get the Galapagos and Cosmic Voyage films being rejected as controversial, but why would a film about animals living in a harsh environment be controversial? Don't Creationists have enough room in their ontology for animals now?
After all, I am strangely colored.
Welcome to America, where ignorance isn't just bliss, it's a virtue.
Who will welcome our new overlords, the ChrisTaliban turning the USA into Afghanistan West? Where are the reasonable Christians who repudiate this demented abuse of our country into a market theocracy in their name? ...tumbleweeds..
--
make install -not war
Okay evolution makes sense sort of, some people don't want the facts to get in the way of the world view eg humans are unique and above animals. I guess the stuff with the universe offends them too if they don't put us at the center of it. But under sea volcanoes? What could posably be contravsial about that? Because it doesn't portray them as the wrath of god?
Is usually the distribution chain for these flix right? I have never expected my local 48-gazillion chain to show these flix
"Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations"
Soon enough American students will not be exposed to scientific methodologies and theory because of the complains of Christian fundamentalists. While the Religious Right will feel their children are pious and enlightened, the rest of the world will progress with our understanding of nature and science. The rest of the world will innovate and prosper, while America will be dragged down into religious strife. Christian fundamentalism will be the death of America.
Merely to imagine a reality outside the banal orbit of a the fundamentalist's brain must surely be as offensive as showing evidence of same.
Why is it news when some religious group gets all in a tizzy about something? It happends all the time, and religious groups are becoming less and less relevant to how things work.
So we have:
+ Christians who are against science
+ Muslims who are against the West and progress
+ Scientologists who believe a SF story
+ Mormons who believe a non-SF story
Jesus, it makes you wonder....
I recently met a girl who chewed me out for accepting evolutionary theory. I was at first shocked, as I thought that the issue of evoultion and religion had been worked out. Then it really bugged me that she could be so backward and regressive in her thinking. Then I finally realised that none of it mattered, I was being just as closed-minded as she was. What was more important was if I just forgot the differences and found a way to get the project we had done without making a big deal out of it.
Why is this even on the front page of slashdot? After reading the article it is clear that they based their decision on the input of the _local_ community and their standards.
Tell me how this is any different than doing the same when it comes to other relative issues such as swearwords and lewd behavior.
None of those movies are offensive to fundamentalists. Galapagos maybe, but most Imax' in my area are near museums which also show... films on evolution.
Methinks IMAX just wants to be commercial because, in reality, those films aren't going to be big money draws as say, "Star Wars: Episode II", and its alot easier to blame things on "Those cwazy fundies" then admit they've got dollar signs in their eyes.
It never stops hurting.
Cares.
:-M
I'm not American, so I can't say how much of a real impact something like this has, but I wonder if this recent rise of very conservative religious fundamentalism in the USA and efforts to stop the presentation of things that contradict their view might not lead to the USA eventually falling beind in key sciences, and, as a consquence, losing its edge in the world of technology.
While the situation isn't as bad as that Escape from LA movie from the late 80's, there certainly are aspects of that in modern American politics it seems.
Fundamentalist: People said I was dumb but I proved them.
One of these films sounds like a Powers of 10 ripoff done with new special effects.
"It seems to be a new phenomenon," he said, "obviously symptomatic of our shift away from empiricism in science to faith-based science."
His distinction is artificial, IMHO. If his comment is an attempt to tar Christianity (I think it's fair to say that this issue isn't really related to most other religions) as blind idiocy, he should have had the courage to say as much and not just imply it. Beyond that, there is no "empiricism" in science or religion that isn't ultimately based on a degree of personal faith and conviction.More like... nerdular nerdence!
It's easier to be religious if you're ignorant towards modern science. Their beliefs are based solely on a large piece of historical fiction (The Bible). Likewise, it's easier to be Republican if you don't keep up with current events. (So called "Passionate Conservatism" is thrown out by national and global statistics on wages, quality of life, the environment, etc)
I'm sure we'll get enough yahoos that hop up and down about how this is repressing freedom and ignore the fact it's a private company making a decision on what they choose to show. So let's skip that.
.. you just aren't going to make a profit by picking it up and it only makes sense from a business perspective.
/. readers of being particularly enlightened on this issue.
I simply don't see the problem here. If you take TFA on face value, and assume that the shows didn't have a very high production value AND they would be playing to audiences that are predominantly in non agreement with the focus
Of course, if this had been a story about an IMAX theatre choosing not to show a vid that discussed creationism there would be dancing and 200 comments on how awesome it is. But no one ever accused
I stole this
First off, I am not a religious person.
....as I watch my Karma plummet....
But, this is my gripe with them...
If I had a conversation with one of these people, they want you to embrace their way of thinking... OK fine.
Yet, when I try to peddle MY truth, its immediately too much to handle, so not right and so horrible they wont hear it.
I am in the south. This is how these people are.
but, then they are quick to call themselves open minded. YEAH RIGHT.
If I cant tell you my truth, and have you at least LISTEN, your not open minded. your a closed minded fool that doesnt deserve to breathe air. its that simple.
All I ask of these people, is to meet us all half way here. they dont have to like it, and they dont have to agree with it.
but saying they are 'good, understanding people' is a REAL stretch.
They DO NOT have to go see these movies....
yet, they boycott their presence. thats not open minded... that is just religion attempting world domination. their way or the highway.
Go watch the documentaries. I do.
Rebel against religious zealots.
I don't understand the sinister undertones, overtones here. If you have one screen to show a movie, you're going to show movies that appeal to the widest-possible audience. This isn't f-ing PBS, this is a for-profit theater with very limited numbers of screens (compared to traditional theaters). If they had 10 screens in every location they would show a broader range of movies.
I would like to recommend all religious people to join sects like Heaven's Gate. By all means... catch the next comet.
It keeps happening! The "PC" culture of this country keeps destroying what's left of the free thought that was painfully conquered a long time ago (I'm not even going to go into free speech).
It's a battle on two fronts: the religious lobbyist that do things like hindering the teaching of science in schools, and the large corporations that would do anything not to offend anyone for fear of losing a few bucks.
How do they get away with it? Why don't people say "oh this is horrid, no more IMAX for me". We just can't be bothered anymore: the PC rants (if you say something controversial YOU are at fault), the lack of any real political debates (besides minor economical and odd moral-related issues) since the outlawing of Communism and any other non-majority view, and of course the the vultures of the media that keeps feeding on this whole thing (WHY show that piece about "evolution is just a theory" over and over?).
I'm an European, and I have no voice in what the American people decide to do, but it's their lack of action and ignorance of the issues at hand that makes me heed this warning: how soon until the free-flying politicians and corporations will do all they wish while you're too busy watching TV? You may have these comfy lives forever, with no blood or guilt on your own hands, but one day you may find yourselves unwilling free citizens of what you yourself would name an "evil empire" if you were on the other side.
The cookie told me to.
Has the religous looney right become so powerful that they really have this sort of influence in the US? Thank god I live in Canada...
When I was in a non-denominational Christian campus ministry during my college years, the guys got invited over by the campus minister's house to watch an R-rated video tape. While he was stuck on the phone, he told us to watch a nature video tape instead since the R-rated video tape had some nudity and sexuality that he wanted to fast forward through. Turns out the nature video tape featured the sexual habits of porcupines. Needless to say, we learned a lot that night. :)
Whether you BELIEVE that x event has/will happen(ed) does NOT change whether x event did/will indeed happen(ed).
I'm disappointed in IMax - I've always loved their shows...
RW
I vote we start controversy pointing out that many of these "science centers" (such as the one here in Ft Worth) are taking the science out. A sort-of fight-fire-with-fire approach.
Then again, it'd be like any argument with a fool. They'll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.... In this case, it's the science-heads vs. the fundies, and somehow I don't think the science-heads will win by throwing a temper tantrum like the fundies did.
Maybe we should study some Chick tracts to get an idea of what their playbook is... (Ok, so I'm feeling a little snarky tonight.)
--JoeProgram Intellivision!
Has an aside, nothing would get IMAX theaters crowded like having a bunch of loons protesting science themed movies would. In fact we should hope this happens as it might finally get the general public interested in science.
Letter To Iran
When I first read this, I wasn't sure about why this would be rejected, then I understood: The film shows the extreme varieties of life that exist in extreme environments. Most certainly this film also talks about how the animals evolved to thrive in these unusual places, and therefore the theatres turned down this film.
The United States of America lost that war in 2000.
Carol Murray, director of marketing for the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History, said the museum decided not to offer the movie after showing it to a sample audience, a practice often followed by managers of Imax theaters. Ms. Murray said 137 people participated in the survey, and while some thought it was well done, "some people said it was blasphemous."
There's something very very wrong with parts of the world today...
I wish this passage was in the bible:
Keep thy religion to thyself.
Gotta love George Carlins version of the 10 Commandments...
"Who says nothing is impossible? Some people do it every day!" - Alfred E. Neuman
As a thinking christian (as opposed to the new moronic version of christian) I really despair of this childish rejection of reality (science). Religion has lived with the reality of the world around them for a very long time. I believe now in this time of deep denial about the changing landscape of America and an uncertain future that the more unstable elements in many sects see the rejection of science as somehow bolstering there own flagging faith. A faith that if real in these people would easily be able to encompass science as a wonder of God and not a challenge to him.
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
Religion is a mental illness.
It seems this neo-conservatism is nothing more than some Fanatical Religious front not unlike the Muslim Fundamentalists Washington likes to demonize as the root of Terrorism.
All this crap about faith based this and faith based that coming out of the whitehouse and with a president who openly claims to have a mandate from God... Uhh... I was gonna talk about church and state but, am I the only one here that thinks the President is fucking batshit loco?
But it's a good thing! Really! Lets embrace our freedom to express fundamentalist Christian religion! Lets ban any science that goes "too far" into ethical grey areas for religious pundits to swallow, lets get the federal government to force a tube down a vegetable's throat... it's nice to have a "conservative" government that wants to regulate our way of life. The Founding Fathers would be proud at this emerging christian police state. And if you voted for Bush I bet you're damn proud too.
Apparently some people were offended by brief mentions of evolution in the documentary about volcanoes (it covered the harsh conditions in the undersea vents, and the life there).
from the article:
"some people said it was blasphemous."
In their written comments, she explained, they made statements like "I really hate it when the theory of evolution is presented as fact," or "I don't agree with their presentation of human existence."
Controversy = Exposure
Exposure = Money
Why are they scared to show the movies again?
i'm a canadian and one of my instructors told the class about birth rate studies that have shown higher birth rates among conservatives and lower birth rates among people who are liberals. (can anyone provide a link??)
They said that this could fuel the conservative movement in the united states and increase the tension between the united states and other countries (such as canada) who tend to be more progressive.
Is this just the beginning of conservative america? Are there any americans scared by the power and influence religion has your country? What of the seperation of church and state?
They will show a movie like Constantine, which portrays the angel Gabriel switching sides and making a deal with Satan, but they won't show a film that might contain evolutionary theory. Too funny.
They're all protesting outside Terri Schiavo's hospice for the next week, so there's a brief window of opportunity for us to sneak in other stuff they don't approve of while they're all busy.
There is no faith or preconceived convictions held by good scientists and good science.
Note the word "good". That's the important bit.
you don't get love from a whorehouse.
likewise, you don't get spirituality from a church/ temple/ mosque.
but that is ok, because just as there are some who will never know real love due to intellectual or character issues, and therefore need whorehouses to sake their lust that would otherwise drive them insane or drive them to commit horrendous crimes on the street, so to are their spiritual pinheads in this world who need churches/ temples/ mosques to give answer to their doubts and fears, so they don't commit horrible atrocities of spiritual void.
so the lowest common denominator empty pap we call organized religion is vile, but still necessary. just like whorehouses.
we don't want ugly or crude men raping women on the streets and we don't want small-spirited people walking around without a sense of morality or a human conscience. if they don't have the spiritual backbone to decide right or wrong, or find the basic goodness in human existence on their own, well then please, let the church turn them into sheep. better sheep than demons without a sense of social responsibility or a clue as to their relationship to human society and the idea of a greater good.
however, when these spiritual pinheads band together and try to gain political power and enforce their narrowminded interpretation of human nature on everyone else, including those who are spiritually sound on their own, they need to be stopped. in many ways, the consolidation of spiritual pinheads into organized religion and then their subsequent desire to see all of humanity fall in lockstep to their blind interpretation of a given creed is unavoidable, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't head them off at the pass and continually deny them political power over the rest of us who are spiritually grounded all on our very own.
so organized religion should not be stopped, it is useful to the health of society by satisfying the spiritual needs of those who can't do that on their own. organized religion and the fruits of its passion is even enjoyable in the way a quaint parade in a rural backwards town is enjoyable to a tourist.
but the cost of accepting that means we must be forever and eternally vigilant that the church, the mosque, and the temple never ever enjoy political power. lest they doom the rest of us to the spiritual zombification that is organized religion.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It's a good thing too. Whenever science conflicts with preconcieved notions, the only polite thing to do is hide the science. After all, offending or presenting notions contrary to popular belief is not the role of the museum curator.
Of course, these museums should be patted on the back for doing the right thing despite the obvious monetary benefits to the contrary. They bit the bullet and avoided the temptation to draw controversy, protesters, and the rise in ticket sales that such media attention brings. Then there are the side issues of overcrowding, parking, and a loss of focus on their scientific and educational mission that such things would bring.
Now we can all safely go back to teaching our children that the creatures at the sulfurous vents at the bottom of the ocean are really demons escaping from hell, souls so small that they slipped through Satan's ever present but large and chubby fingers.
And on a side note, we're all doomed.
The ______ Agenda
Evolution IS fact. It's been scientifically accepted for something like 100 years, and has defeated every serious challenge to date.
:(
Just because YOU feel insulted that you are the descendant of (essentially) pond scum doesn't make it not true.
We're going to be a nation of idiots in the biological field if we keep this crap up.
I always enjoyed the many numerous field trips to the Omnitheater at the Science Museum of Minnesota I went on as a kid... those movies were cool... and definitely sparked an interest in science.
I assume theaters like that would still show science movies obviously... but maybe the local Imax at the mall won't be showing it.
Sad. I would actually go to the Imax for the first time here if they showed a good science film.
that the rapture happens soon. These damn Christians are getting on my nerves.
Gee, it must be a pretty BIG '... handful of religous fundamentalists ...' for IMAX to cancel the films.
I wonder if the NY times editor is as 'open minded' as some of our slashdot readers. ;)
While this article discusses something limited in scope (thanks for the spin, Slashfaux), this is becoming more and more common. But who is to blame? We (secularists and freethinkers) are.
We refuse to affiliate or support organisations which champion our cause. We refuse to be sufficiently vocal about matters of importance to us. We refuse, at the very least, to put our money where our mouths are.
Let me tell you, with absolute certainty, that the religious fundamentalists are more than happy to do all these things.
So, when are we going to step up and demand an end to this nonsense?
Join Tor today!
i could handle the "disclaimer" stickers in science text books. hell, i scribble and sticker all over them myself.
i could handle the wrangling for intelligent design in the classroom; national geographic weighed in with a great big "NO." as needed (as well as many other publications).
the loss of a decent sex ed program was no big deal to me. i've got the internet which provides more intimitate detail on male / female reproductive anatomy than all the text books on the planet.
however, the cosmology film sounds absolutely fascinating; what the fuck?
i mean, you JUST DON'T SCREW WITH IMAX. this is the last straw!!!
I knew this post would become nothing but the religious minority (Atheists and Agnostics) to flame the religious majority (Catholicism and Protestantism). If you don't have anything truly productive to say, don't say it. People have a right to be offended about whatever they want, up to and including one-sided IMAX movies.
Rebel against religious zealots. ....as I watch my Karma plummet....
On Slashdot? Are you joking?! In this place of "open-minded" geeks, you'll get modded to the sky for bashing anything religious. Feel free to continue your religion hating, and enjoy the wave of mod points endowed to you by those that hate God, hate the idea of a god, hate those that believe in god, and refuse to believe -- in their open-mindedness -- that a god could even exist.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
We all should KNOW by now that trying to reason with the loony tunes gang is pointless.
Bashing them further is also pointless.
Let _IMAX_ know thy wrath.
I would expect a much larger percentage of their core audience actually has more than two neurons to rub together, and can actually at least handle the concept that that a 3000>500 (including heavy editing over the millenia) year old book might have some factual errors, and perhaps even some typos.
I rather strongly suspect that the NYTimes article had all of the religious comments that were recieved, not merely a sampling, or very close.
The Galapagos Islands one may offend someone, but Cosmic Voyage, unless they are not telling us something, would be objected to only by a total lunatic fringe... which is no problem because every film will be objectionable to some total lunatic fringe, no exaggeration.
I am not aware of any significant religious group in operation in the United States with any sort of organized, sigificant political clout that has a serious problem with or denies the existance of atoms or galaxies.
If the Imax documentary industry wishes to commit suicide for a dubious political point, they are welcome to. But all y'all Slashdotters would be wise to not suck it up like little lapdogs getting your world views confirmed; for those of you who would consider your world views confirmed by this story, class it in the "too good to be true" category.
The primary adjective to apply to anyone ignorant enough to protest atoms or galaxies is just ignorant, not "religious", and I assure you, a lot of very ignorant people agree with any position you care to name.
Go ahead and mod me flamebate, but I'm going to take this opportunity to remind the Slashdot community that this country (the USA) was founded in a very large part by religious fundamentalists. We were so intolerant of europe, and europeans of us, that we got in some boats and made a pretty long journey all the way accross a big ocean to start new lives in the "new world."
Like it or not, this country still has many of those same sentiments. This is part of who and what America is.
And, as a side-note, I saw absolutely no proof that there was any push by any religion (be it Christian, Hindu, or your garden-variety hippy seance) on Imax to drop such films. It seems to have been a choice Imax made voluntarily, and the liberal media is once again going after the right-wing. Just 'cause Imax dropped some pro-big-bang / pro-evolution type films doesn't mean Jerry Fallwell or whoever is out to get Imax!
/dev/random
I seem to remember a biology teacher of mine who was a Jehova's Witness (I kid you not, I couldn't make that one up if I tried) who felt these creatures who lived in extreme but geographically limitted areas were proof of creation. They basically need their extreme heat/sulfer to survive, so how do they adapt 'into' such an extreme place? Was his point.
When I was growing up as a kid, I never thought that Science and the Bible were necessarily in conflict. Most people believe that the bible represents a guide and isn't to be taken absolutely literally.
For instance, the whole "God created the Earth in seven days." Seven days could mean seven million years, or seven billion years. It's worded in a way that man can understand. Why do people reject Evolution, when it could have been God that kickstarted the whole thing?
I can't say that I believe these things anymore but if you can believe that there is an almighty being that created us, why can't you also believe that this being crafted the universe as we know it now, and all the wonders it contains that science as yet to scratch the surface on?
It's a scary time when the few people with extreme religious views can change the life of everyone to suit their needs.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Since when is it that the 2/3+ of the American population who claims to be Christian is a "handfull"?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
You misinterpreted what they meant by "open minded".
:)
You, mistakenly, thought that "open minded" meant having an open mind, and being open to new ideas.
What *they* meant by "open minded" was that they'd no longer accuse you of witchcraft for being different from your neighbors, or throw you in prison for the crime of "blasphemy", or just come by and burn down your house because you're a filthy non-believer.
The fact that they've allowed you to live, even though you're obviously some sort of eviiil horrible pagan-creationist science-worshipper, shows how open-minded that religious zealots in America have become lately.
I'm not certain, but I think they've screwed up a reference there. The "Volcanoes of the Deep" sounds an awful lot like the IMAX 3D "Aliens of the Deep," which not only talks about the evolution of the "black smoker" ecosystems, but about the possibility that such ecosystems have evolved on planets/planetoids like Europa.
Of course, since it's a James Cameron production, the "possibility" sequences all look like stock footage from "The Abyss."
Specialization is for insects. - R.A.H.
People are constantly reminded on slashdot to keep an open mind and at the slightest bit of US centrism people are immediately flogged for not considering the other point of view. Most comments with obvious prejudice are quickly modded down. However when it comes to religion already there have been posts that get modded insightful for comparing it to mental illness, dictators who killed thousands of people, etc.
In this "enlightened" state where everything is relative and we are to respect every viewpoint the last minority it is ok to hate is the Christian minority.
Not every Christian has the same viewpoint or takes the same action on every social issue. The blatant and glib stereotyping that is being modded up here is sickening.
While it's possible that evolution could be replaced by other theory, at this point evolution is as accepted as gravity. You want to argue that gravity is not fact because it's merely been accepted for 300 years and has defeated every challenge to it?
I cannot believe how the world is being influenced by this new religous dogma. Are we really having to fight all these battles over again after it took us, what, 400 years to break the hold of superstitions on our scociety?
Now we have a world where the christians and the islamics face off like the west and the communists did during the 50 odd years of the cold war (after ww2). So we are going to waste intellectual resources and essentially say that the earth is flat and some spuernatural being controls everything and no, don't watch those science movies, they will pollute your small bumbkin uneducated mind, here look at our pamphet on how god love you and how, here in the west, he looks like some old white guy...get a brain and get real!!
I say we push the fundamentalists further South by continuing to educate the North.
while I do not deny Christian fundementalism featured at America's birth, it would be a simplification to call it the birth of America. It is only one aspect.
You play into the hands of those loonies if you repeat the narrative that they (and only they) founded America.
Dunno bout you, but I saw Galápagos about 4 years ago... Memory is a little hazy, but I don't recall anything offensive.
Big whoopdee freaking do. If you really wanna watch it, you could probably buy it on DVD.
But still...not showing a 5 yr old IMAX...not a big freaking surprise. You woulda thought some new material woulda come out since then. (Oct 1999 was earliest date I've found).
...I actually read the article. What it basically says is that they made a film to show on Imax (lol, why do I want to spell that iMax?) about evolution, but decided that, because of the overwhelming majority of viewers Biblical-centric beliefs, they would not show the film. The "problem" they forsaw was that the film was supportive of the theory of evolution, which many parents would not appreciate. I also feel that no museum manager would ever present a film overtly critical of evolution, though. Before anyone starts bitching about capitalism/censorship, how about you get a life and realise that most people want to share knowledge with one another. Understandibly, no one wants information told to their children that they believe to be untrue. If some jerk walks up to your kids telling them how they should read up on their Nietzsche if you're a conservative Christian, or if they tell your children they're going to hell if they don't read the Bible 6 hours a day and you're a devout atheist.
/and/ we believe in God. Hell, I was going to major in math before I realised how difficult it would be.
/nothing wrong/ with what we're seeing here. It's respectible people with good business sense knowing who their customers. Those truely supportive of science should do everything they can to help conservative Christians accept it if they want people to think rationally, otherwise they force people to retreat further behind their fundamentalism. On the same token, it is the responsibility of the church to understand scientific theories and understand how this does not, in any way, "harm" the image or distort the power of God, all while allowing technology and rationality to continue in a guided, hope filled society.
That out of the way, I'm a good (!!) preachers kid majoring in computer science, a real job in IT, and listens to Metallica and Slayer while I program all night. My entire family believes in evolution
This article doesn't deserve a Slashdotting. There's
"I dont like these kind of people"
"one of these people"
"This is how these people are"
If the above comments/stereotypes were made against any group other than Christians this would have been -1 Flaimbait, instead it is currently +5 insightful.
I would pose your question the other way around. Living in California, if I so much as breathe a single word about God, I am immeadiately told to cease and desist. I am not talking about getting up on a soap box and preaching (not my style), but rather about praying in public. By myself or with a few friends. Not loudly either. Let the Troll begin, but I am going to stand firm. You may be treated like that in the south, but we're treated like that everywhere else! And as a matter of fact, I am open minded. Not every Christian is a bible thumping zealot..just like every atheist isn't going to shove their moral's down your throat through legislation. I have no issue watching documentaries about other religions, or lack thereof (though, of course, it raises an interesting view..if you lack a religion..doesn't that become your religion? If you refuse to believe or acknowledge God, aren't you following a belief system?) But I do have a problem with generalization. Judge us on who we are. Listen to what we have to say, and we will listen to what you have to say. In General. Of course, on both sides you have the loud mouths, which do nothing for either side, just cause more misunderstanding and anger. I'm sure the Anti-christian /.er's are going to take this as a troll, but frankly, I'm sick of being slammed for this. You complain about people acting that way, while you yourself seem to feel free to bash the other side in the manner you just mentioned offended you!
To quote someone I heard once: "If I cant tell you my truth, and have you at least LISTEN, your not open minded. your a closed minded fool that doesnt deserve to breathe air. its that simple."
Why not add a new rating to the g, pg, pg-13, R, X system?
We could name it U, for "unholy". That way the MPAA could stick it on any film that does not represent fundamentalist dogma.
That way the fundamentalists (I can't call them christians, I know too many real christians to insult them that way), can know not to watch because it will offend them, and then won't have to protest these things to let the rest of us know how evil the film is.
Don't worry they will only destroy themselves... Will your children know about evolution... probably.
Obviously this country (the US) either has a vocal minority that trumphs the will of the majority; or is fairly represented, and therefore is extremely puritanical in actuality. Either way, the problem is, the moral framework in this country is not consistent. Look at the media: simulated sex, sexualization of children, etc., but showing female genitalia is going too far. Where's "the line?" It seems as if "the line" has been pushed so far, it no longer makes sense to have such a notion. Parental responsibily, *bah*, they gave that up to teachers and the gov't long ago. Oh, and you can't say a list of seven words or describe excretions, unless it's on cable or between the hours of X and Y, because a kid could hear! *gasp* Sometimes, I think kids nowadays learn those seven words first, before "mommy" and "daddy".
Anyhow, people are dumb, corporations are run by people, and intelligence of a mob is inversely proportional to the exponent of the population times the log of their intelligence; ergo, large corporations must be really dumb.
At least in Europe, you can see soft-core pr0n on TV and no one gets upset.
Script excerpt from M&tHG http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ebarnes/python/witch-tr
The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
Just so the rest of the world doesn't think that it's a small minority of Americans who are doing this, a set of polls on evolution vs Creationism. The majority of Americans believe that we were created by a god in 6 days 10,000 years ago. The religious right's ability to keep proper science out of the class is starting to bite us in the ass as it will get harder to aprove biotech and other "controversial sciences" for funding. The same scientific ignorance causes Americans to abhorr homosexuality as a sinful path chosen by evil people rather than realizing it's a natural mindset encoded into the brain before birth. My only hope for the science in this country is that someone in the government will realize that we should spend money on education instead of war before the median scientific knowledge of our "first world" country falls below that of "third world" countries.
--
Want a free iPod?
Or try a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox. (you only need 4 referrals)
Wired article as proof
It's not about hate. You still have some learning to do...
Jesus Christ, shut up!
/.er
-Your local anti-christian
When I read that I thought it was a satire but increasingly I think it really could happen. Especially when you combine it with the sharp downturn in foreign enrolment in US universities.
Ideally the blue states would join Canada and form the world's first nice-guy superpower. Who cares if some so-called science museum in Jesusland doesn't want to show a science documentary. Their loss.
The thing about these fundies is that they're really no different from certain other extremist groups. Though they'd hotly deny it, the only difference between their ideal American state and, say, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan is the name of the God that they claim to worship.
God wants us to give up our sins. Not our brains.
-- The reason it's called the right wing? Irony.
Was there anything inaccurate or incorrent about what was posted? I didn't think his observations were Insightful, but they're perfectly valid and many would share them.
...The theological terrorists have already won.
I second that, who are the haters?
I have studied the bible, I am agnostic, I am not calling for the passion of the christ to be banned am I?
I think there is much more hate hidden in the double-speak of the religious people which the grandparent so aptly revealed.
well, they might, but nowhere near as bad as the lawyers are.
The US could fall behind in sciences & technology because of overly broad patents and restrictive copyrights - stuff that countries like India and China do not have. They have a highly educated workforce, too.
Overburdening the technology & science industries with legislation is probably a greater risk to us than the religious right currently is. Hrm, although the religious right is sometimes the factor that gets things (stem cell issue?) banned in the first place.
I've actually seen the Galapagos IMAX film and probably one of the other ones mentioned ... about 3 or 4 years ago .... in Melbourne, Australia.
... I like to study things like Buckminster Fullers Synergetics and Quantum Physics...
... /.ers still think Thomas Edison is the man to thank for Lights and Electricity... Pfft!
...
umm.. To be honest, I think they're just getting rid of old material.
However, I do remember the Galapagos film presenting evolution as a fact not a theory.
Yes, I'm christian, I'm also well educated
Aka. not another mindless drone.
I think there are far worse problems than evolution being presented as fact
I bet most
People don't seem to see the problem when they teach Newtons theory of gravity and act like electrons, neutrons and protons are the only subatomic particals to be concerned with...
I bet you also think the sun rises and sets
Thats Earth is the center of the universe mentality.
The Truth will set you Free !
Everyone is already talking about how close minded christians are. The story said these films "MIGHT" cause a controversy among a "handful" of "fundementalists." The stupid people here are not the religious groups, the stupid people are the people running IMAX - the ones who are letting a handful of religious extremists decide what they will show in their theatres.
or else!
...but what about war and violence?
Here are the websites..
http://www.volcanoesofthedeepsea.com/index_flash.h tml
http://disney.go.com/disneypictures/aliensofthedee p/
I have seen Aliens of the Deep, and I know that they focus mainly on deep sea underwater ecosystem. They clearly did dodge around the facts related to creation of such ecosystems on Earth or other Planets (or Even Moons in the film). They also seemed to make everything sound like speculation. For me it seemed just like a lot of pretty pictures, with little information.
It makes if wonder if Disney attempted to remake a converstial film without all the BAD stuff in it. The bad stuff being actual science.
mnewberg.com
The reasons stated in TFA for not showing films with evolutionary content do not make sense.
First, from a marketing standpoint, the decision not to run the film in markets where it is controversial seems exactly ass-backwards. Controversy sells. It is free advertising. And even when it is not free, advertisers still promote films by describing them as controversial: "The controversial new film....". People want to see controversial films even if they expect to disagree with the content. Two controversial recent films were _The Passion of the Christ_ and _Farenheit 9/11_. Both broke box-office records.
Second, it can only help the evolution camp to force the controvesy more into the open, to make it public. Creationism is a joke everywhere in the civilized world outside of the bible belt. If showing these films elicits public protest from the Creationists, then good; Those protests inform the rest of the world who and where are some stupid people. When you are in the right, and in the majority, then the best strategy is to force the issue, not to silently retreat.
My guesses about why these showings were nixed are:
1) The museum officials deciding not to show the films are secretly sympathetic to Creationism, and just looking for excuses
2) They are interpreting the screening results from the test audience in simplistic-marketing-droid style: happy audience=show film, unhappy audience=don't show film.
3) Incentives for Museum officials, as overseers of a non-profit institutions, might work against showing controversial films. The benefits and rewards for non-profit museums are different than for a business which makes money by selling movie tickets. Non-profits are averse to controversy because they have to deal with that controversy, while they have no financial incentive to fill seats, because they do not profit. For-profits, on the other hand, will do anything to sell seats, such as showing a controversial film.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
You're a fundie who hasn't checked his brain at the door?
Oxymoron.
How was he 'bashing the other side' in the same manner? He was definately making generalisations, but he didn't slam you at all. In fact he asked to be met half way and took exception to religious zealots, not people like you.
On another note, why and how do you go about praying in public? I immediately thought of the Flanders family praying and getting Homer pissed off. I've never seen anyone praying in public. I think I would find it amusing but not bothersome.
On 60 minutes or one of those shows I was watching (not paying much attention...half coding/half watching...sorry about the lack of details) about a group of people that managed to avoid the tsunami because they had passed down a story for generations about how the deep sea god had gotten upset and got hungry for what was on the shore and violently went ashore to cleanse the land. Ok, so it wasn't the most technical understanding, but it was a myth that happened to have some utility in terms of making them aware that when the sea recoils you had best clear on out. It had meaning for the people, and while it wasn't true in a scientific sense, there was a truth to it.
Can't there just be different types of truths? There are allegorical truths, and there are factual truths. Is that a truth I just uttered right there? If I told you this story about a boy who cried wolf one too many times, would it matter that his name was Jesus, that he was born in 2 AD, and died on a cross, in terms of the story having a valuable lesson in it?
I'll never forget studying for my final in geology. I had been up all night and I was at a diner in the morning cramming at the last minute. You know how it is when you've been up all night...kind of puts you in a strange state of mind. Anyway, I was reading the chapter about plate tectonics. So usually one plate goes under the other, which is technically known as subduction. Well, the book started talking about how the plates on occasion change direction. The technical cause the textbook gave for why this occurs was, I kid you not, a "self exciting dynamo". Well, I kind of chuckled to myself and thought they may as well be saying, "God makes the plates change direction".
So I guess we should all just RELAX and realize that whatever we know at any given point, is so absolutely pathetically incomplete that to have any sort of ego about any sort of truth we hold at any moment is the greatest sin of all.
Controversy creates attention to your product and attention can bring in an audience.
How hard is it to put out an ad that says "See the movies the fundies don't want you to see!"
Look how easy it was to manipulate the slashdot audience...
How does that make you any better than them? Seems like you both have the same idea...wonder why?. Maybe because that is the intended reaction, and you are just playing right into it.
Instead of focusing your energy on destroying those whom you have been conditioned to believe are wrong, maybe you should step back and re-evaluate your own preconceptions. It is always easier to believe that the other 'side' is wrong because we naturally don't want to believe that we could possibly be wrong about something.
The fact is that both science and religion are lacking. Take human consciousness for example:
Religion explains it as being created by God, and it is therefore unexplainable, and if somebody tries to explain it they are labled as a heretic.
Science tries to fit it into its mechanical view of the world, and it believes that it will someday unlock its secrets through employing scientific method, and if you don't believe in its belief, you are some kind of fundamentalist nut.
The reality is that neither system can accurately explain consciousness (even though they may both uncover some facts about it) because the rules by which the systems are defined will never allow them to uncover the truth because they were never equipped to do so.
Dom
Christianity (and all other religions) are superstitions that enslave people by keeping them wallowing in ignorance.
Until religion can eradicated, mankind will continue to wallow in ignorance.
Dubya and his retard neo-con republicrat lemmings are perfect examples of the stupidity of mankind in general.
God died. Get over it. Grow up..
Everybody knows Ben Franklin "invented" electricity.
But seriously: Edison didn't invent the light bulb... But he was the one the make it pratical.
I'm feeling cheeky tonight.
emt 377 emt 4
Could it simply be that these films are not expected to be as profitable as other films they could show?
The two IMAX theaters closest to me are in malls, next to regular theaters, NOT in science centers or museums. The IMAX theaters near where I live (Los Angeles at the Bridge and in Valencia) show things like Harry Potter, the Matrix, Star Wars, the Incredibles, and Polar Express.
Can you blame them for passing on more scientifically factual fare, if it doesn't sell as many tickets as science-fiction?
The problem with all 3 said movies is probably that they aways stir the controversy in the first place.
They *always* mention evolutionary concepts, almost like a religious dogma itself. Why?
What's wrong with just having a film showing the galapagos or the ocean or the stars for what they are instead of what people believe about them? I don't need to be indoctrinated with the latest wild dogma about how the dinosaurs died to learn what they were like, do I?
Stop treating science and film like a religion and a cosmic quest for "truth" and start treating it as science. Show me the universe for what it is and how it works, not what theories are trendy today about its origins.
Christian "fundamentalism" is a product of the late 19th and early 20th century. As in the publication of The Fundamentals.
Hence the name fundamentalism.
Now if you want to say that Puritanism and Quakerism were involved in the birth of America, then go right ahead. But don't believe for a second the founders of the U.S. were the same kind of blockheaded folks that go around thumping Bibles today.
will IMAX theaters also pass on pictures that would encourage a handful of religious fundamentalists?
It all depends on who your with. Perhaps I was a little vehemet(sp) in my reply, but it was a knee-jerk reaction. My main point that I was trying to make, and forgive my ineptitude at spelling and clear speach, was that while he may be treated like that where he is, the exact opposite happens where I live, unless we huddle in dark corners and whisper softly.
As to the praying in public, it all depends on who you're with and what's going on. A big group of us right before we take a trip might circle up and the leader pray for the blessing of God on our trip so that no one gets hurt, or if it's just me an my friends, we might just stand casually and one of us (or all of us taking turns) pray for eachother. Never is it louder than what it needs to be for everyone to hear (though that might be a little loud if it's a big group, so everyone can hear). And not usually is it longer than a couple minutes. But like clockwork, if me and a buddy are praying in starbucks or whereever, for whatever reason, for any length of time, we have people come over and tell us to stop or leave. That we're "forcing" our religion on them.
Thats all. If I was too trollish on my first post, or offended the original poster, I am sorry, it was not my intention.
Could you imagine Ben Franklin's reaction to "christian fundamentalism" today? How about Thomas Jefferson's?
Don't you think they would find a few choice words for people who claim that science must be wrong when it contradicts the bible?
You know, there is a ski resort in Colorado that is now called "Durango" after the town it is near. It had existed for decades under a different name... "Purgatory." The (new) owners of the resort succumbed to a very real financial pressure-- church-organized ski trips were avoiding their resort because of the (in their eyes) controversial name.
Churches organize all kinds of trips for their younger members. Keeps them active with other church kids so they don't wander off to socialize with the non-believers and potentially decide to abandon christianity. Museums likely are sensitive to this revenue stream and don't want to get blacklisted like that Colorado ski resort.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
I'm just thankful that there are people like you that will at least be mindful that some people have differing opinions. I know a LOT of non-religious people, and many of them are my friends. If I pester them and confront them about my faith, they would probably detest me. I just respect their beliefs as they respect mine.
Anyway, a little more on-topic, I kinda doubt that IMAX would cancel movies just because of crazy fundamentalist concerns. Even down here, businesses are not likely to throw away money for such things. There are probably other factors that are causing the cancellation of these movies. And what is the deal with the last example? I kinda sorta somewhat understand the first two.
The Church made him renounce his teachings... turned out he was right and they were wrong. Those that lead their life based on beliefs and dogma rather than observations and the facts that come from them need to be eradicated from this planet for the better of it.
smart.
Is it me, or does it seem that every week that goes by, I read, hear or encounter something that makes me believe that the U.S. is turning into a increasingly dumbed down, lowest common denominator, theocratic fundamentalist society?
We cant research stem cells because jesus doesnt like stem cells, every other person you meet has a fucking creed or "w" bumper sticker on their car. Creed also sucks but thats another issue. Forget facts, forget learning, its much easier to believe and have faith.
The type of people that listen to screaming right wing nutcases that tell them what to think, then watch their Nascar, sports and wrestling with other people screaming at them, then on sundays go to their protestant churches to listen to yet another person scream heavily edited and faultily translated 'holy' screeds at them.
And I am supposed to listen to these low-grade meme receptacles because they are more righteous, more holy and more american?
Then fuck america and give me a one way ticket to France with a complimentary bag of olestra free French fries.
P.S. to the right wing tool in the house (Rep. Bob Ney) that came up with the idiotic moniker Freedom fries, they were invented in fucking Belgium.
"Why is it that people insist on categorizing all fundamentalists as being the same?"
Because, by and large, the core "features" of Christian fundamentalism that they promote are the same. For example there doesn't seem to be any large debate within the fundamentalist community about the validity of evolution (and all the supporting evidence from biology, astronomy, cosmology, geology, etc). It's simply rejected out of hand.
"I am a fundamentalist Bible-believing Christian, but that doesn't mean that I checked my intelligence at the door."
Then I wish there were far more of you, and I wish you were much louder than those who would see us enter the Dark Ages again. Given my direct personal experience with friends, relatives and associates who claim to be Christian fundamentalists, intelligence (where intelligence == rational reasoning) is the first thing checked at the door. "Fundamentalist" is generally synonymous with "bible literalist" in these folks.
I was speaking to a woman the other day who, with a straight face, told me that lions, tigers, etc. used to graze on the grass in Eden with the deer. Never killed prey or even scavenged meat. Vegetarians. That "carnivore thing" only started after "The Fall". Yes, intelligence checked at the door and the claim check thrown into the shredder.
"It makes me sick that people can't fathom the concept that within such a large group you will have people at all extremes."
Then I hope you loudly and persistently educate those in your religious circles who cannot separate Islam from terrorism, and see all Muslims as "forces of evil". I hope that makes you just as sick. Does it? And do you speak out on their behalf? If so you have my deepest, genuine gratitude. If not, your just another member of a hate group who cries out when receiving the same treatment you give others.
Also please educate me, what are the different extremes in Christian fundamentalism? And who are their leaders? Because all we hear coming from the leadership (and the door-knockers and "sudden friends" on college campuses) is the same thing. That's not flamebait, I really want to know. It'll give me some hope.
They are the mainstream fundamentalist, the ones who get invited to give the invocation at the Republican National Convention. You are the extremist among them who doesn't think evolution and Christianity conflict.
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
What I can not fathom is that these people who object to the theory of evolution believes in God. God is all-powerful, all-seeing and all-knowing they say. If God is all-powerful and created the universe in all its glory, why can he have created evolution as well? It seems logical to me. To make his creations able to adapt to the changes of the world, is that not the greatest gift? (Not counting reason and logic, which some people seem to be lacking.) God has crafted the world from nothing; he created the laws of physics and set he universe in motion. For his human followers to claim to know how everything works, seems to me a bit arrogant, which is a sin.
Warren Buffet, Craig Barrett, Anne Mulcahy, Sam Palmisano, etc.
We are already losing it at a rapid rate.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Perhaps the fundies should visit the Vatican Observatory:
a tican_observe_000716.html
"Analyzing the space rocks, or training the Vatican Observatory's $3 million Arizona telescope on a distant galaxy, are both ways of gaining 'a closer appreciation of the personality of the creator', he said in an interview."
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/v
FWIW, my local parish priest was the Dean of Chemistry at a local State University. I mention this because I would like readers to be aware that the pro-science side has its own lunatic fringe that likes to pretend that hard science and religion are incompatible.
We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
"The fact is that both science and religion are lacking."
Presuming for one second that this sentence is correct.
Are they both EQUALLY lacking? Is it sompletely 50/50 so that you can flip a coin and based on the results of that flip go with one explanation or another?
Any rational being will tell you that it's not equal. While there are some questions for which science has no answers and some questions that science may never have the answer for religion is batting pretty much ZERO in this regard.
Saying "because GOD made it like that" is not an explanation.
evil is as evil does
...S...A! U...S...A!
Soon enough American students will not be exposed to scientific methodologies and theory
The 'two' of the one-two punch is that we are also making it much more difficult for foreign students to enter the country- it used to be a good way to pick up the slack for a poor American education system: just attract the cream of the crop from foreign countries, but that door is narrowing.
This is the current Slashdot page footer MOTD:
Quite apropos, I think.
When the Inquisition persecuted Galileo for postiting that the Earth moved around the Sun, he was forced under pain of death to recant his theories. Legend has it that he muttered "Eppur si muove" ("And yet it moves") under his breath.
The point is that this, the disconnect between faith and science, has been going on for centuries. You would think that humanity would have made some tangible progress since the 1600s, but, over the last 100 years, there's been a resurgence of Christian fundamentalism, a "literal" reading of the Bible (I use "literal" loosely, considering all of the Old Testament cherry-picking that takes place).
Of course, American politics have gotten into the mix, souring any chance for a rational debate. Anyone who tries to rebut fundamentalist dogma is accused of being an anti-Christian bigot. Suddenly, the debate turns on whether the rebutter is racist or not and not about whether teaching creationism in a publicly funded school is a violation of the First Amendment. The best defense is a good offense, of course.
Now, demographics will eventually win out. I don't know of anyone who still maintains that the Earth is the center of the Universe (though I could be wrong). But do we have to wait another 400 years before evolution is accepted by all? And what about the ancilliary issues (e.g., stem cell research)?
I have a proposal, a modest proposal if you will. I believe that it's time to start discrediting fundamentalist leaders, conservative opinion makers, and anyone who stands in the way of progress and rational thought. Out the gay ones, blackmail the ones who are having extramarital affairs, and make the rest see the light of Truth and Reason with a Louisville Slugger.
The next time Rev. Fred Phelps brings his "God Hates Fags" crowd out to picket the funeral of a gay bashing victim, run them all over with a dump truck.
Start a Project Mayhem operation on the most right-wing churches: replace their hymnals with Darwin's Origin of the Species. Swap Scraping Foetus off the Wheel tapes for their pre-recorded liturgical music cassettes.
If that doesn't work, then kill them all. God will sort them out.
k., tounge in cheek, more or less.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
You may be told to shut every time you pray in public out there, but California is wacky land. In the rest of the country - including the north and even the northeast - it is not like that at all. Now, if you try to coerce people to pray along with you, then we get cranky.
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
Including Buddhism?
Thats the only Philosophy/religion that retards the growth of 'fundamentalists' and their ilk.
...given that some states still have laws on the books making blasphemy a criminal offense with penalties of prison time.
of course the US isn't the only western country with such laws -- the UK has laws criminalizing blasphemy as well.
of course, up to just a few years ago there were southern states which had laws making interracial marriage a criminal offense. and when they put the repeal to a vote, a significant percentage voted to keep the bans in place.
so it's hardly suprising that fundamentalists in those states manage to block viewings of blasphemous films.
I'm of the belief that we'd be exploring deep into our solar system with manned flights if not for the damned Catholic Church and the Dark Ages they caused by putting scienties to death for "Blasphemy"
info@imax.com.
I wrote to them, very politely, letting them know how I feel about this and how disappointed I am in them.
Zealous evolutionists get to control the school system. Exactly why are they whining when they can't spread the word to a few theaters?
I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
Everyone has their opinions... People who enjoy religious movies can have their movies (ex Passion of the Christ) and those who do not can have theirs. You can't just have your movies to enjoy and not allow others to do the same, within reason (ex not child porn)
Rather than respond to a bunch of similarly themed posts I would simply like to point out that Religion and Hard Science are compatible. For example:
a tican_observe_000716.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/v
"This is our way of finding God," said Consolmagno, author of Brother Astronomer: Adventures of a Vatican Scientist, published in February by McGraw-Hill.
The Vatican Observatory is one of the oldest astronomical institutes in the world and the only research group directly supported by the Holy See. The church funds the observatory to the tune of about $1 million a year, leaving its operation to the Jesuits, a religious order whose "charism," or special gift to the church, is scholarship.
(No, I don't believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis. Any of the six versions I've read. I'm just pointing out that people read in stuff that was never there to begin with, and that many Fundamentalist interpretations have absolutely nothing to do what what they are Fundamentally interpreting.)
I'm pretty sure it was Asimov who wrote a short story, based on Moses and Aaron, where Moses wanted to write the fifteen billion year history of the Universe, but Aaron talked him into compressing it into seven days as they couldn't afford that much papyrus.
It is sad that science is being crippled out of concern, not for religion - see above for what the Bible does NOT say - but for what pressure groups want presented. The Pope admitted Galileo was right and his persecutors wrong. Given how conservative Catholics can be, that took guts. But wouldn't it be nicer if religious ambassadors such as himself could spend more time on modern issues than fixing avoidable issues of the past?
How hard can it be to not read words that aren't there?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I stumbled across a funny rant on a webpage about how we should try to make this world less religiously offensive...
http://www.angelfire.com/ak2/sid/
Vehement ... hmmm ... perhaps thats the problem with all religious nuts (and all religious people are nuts).
As an atheist I have always wondered about prayer. The muslims go though an elobarate ritual of genuflecting and kneeling, the christians seem to think kneeling or bowing the head is enough.
The thing I wonder is this. If your god is omnipresent and omnicient why do you have to go through physicals gyrations in order to be heard by god? Most christians pray out loud why is that?
I suppose you would get the same reaction to praying in public that a muslim would get if they took out a prayer rug, faced east and started genuflecting or perhaps a wiccan got if they drew a diagram on the ground, lit candles and chanting (or whatever else they do)
I would sincerely like to know your answer to this question. In the same spirit I will answer a couple of your own questions.
"though, of course, it raises an interesting view..if you lack a religion..doesn't that become your religion?"
The answer to this is no. In the same way that not having a porche does not mean you have a porche or not having an ulcer does not mean you have ulcer.
"If you refuse to believe or acknowledge God, aren't you following a belief system?"
Yes but not all belief systems are religions. This is where you seem to have tripped up. You apparently believe that any set of beliefs constitures a religion and that's just not true. For example homosexuality is not a religion although the set of people who are homosexuals believe in having sex with their own gender. Similarly utilitariansim, liberalism, conservatism, and lots of other "ism"s are not a religion even though they are belief systems.
evil is as evil does
I'm a professional astronomer and I teach astronomy at a state university. This ticks me off. I don't complain about The Passion of the Christ, or barge into churches to tell them what science has to say. Ignorant fundamentalists shouldn't have any power over what is available for the rest of the country to see, especially when it is educational. Cosmic Voyages is a wonderful film, and I could probably be driven to punch someone in the face if they were stopping it from being shown.
Flabbergasted.
Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
No hate from me...
I used to be amused by 'believers'
Later I started pitying them.
Now with stories like this coming out all the time, I think I fear them.
And btw.. which god were you talking about?
I have relatives and friends who are fundies. I believe they all have one thing in common: they are baffled and confused by current society moving too fast for them; not just the pace, but also the pace of change. Some of these fundies, IMHO the "good" ones, have benefited from using the bible or the koran as some sort of safe haven, where, when the "hectic" and baffling changes get to them, they can find a safe place to recuperate. By "good", I mean they don't try to impose on others.
Then there are the "bad" ones, who rage and rage about the evil society they think has grown up around them like a fungus. They cannot accept that other people are different. I mean this quite literally. They simply do not have even the concept or a word for the concept that it takes different types of personalities to make the world go round. They see everyone who behaves differently as deviant and the work of the devil. I do mean this literally. Since they haven't got even the concept of different, they are left with seeing differences as pure evil.
These bad fundies are the ones I spit on. I have relatives like that. I have given up trying to even co-exist with them. They are not interested in co-existence with evil people like me any more than they are interested in co-existence with moldy bread or spoiled milk.
I tell you what --- I think the rise in fundies the last few years is temporary. You look back a generation or two, that is people who had contact with the beginnings of the first rapidly changing society, with cars, airplanes, telephones, radio, TV, either personally or via stories from their grandparents. They could see the pace picking up, the gradual quickening, and so the continued quickening does not scare them. Future generations, the ones actually growing up now, see it as natural. The problem is with a generation or two in the middle, who think they have some bizarre vague false genetic memory of a time that existed only in their fantasies, where society was stable, and can only see modern society as being a corruption. They had no gradual start of changes to help them see change as good, and they didn't grow up with the rapid changes of nowadays.
I do believe these fundies will be a shrinking minority soon, a decade or two at the most, and these frenetic attempts at getting the ten commandments into courtrooms and censoring books and movies and everything else -- they are just the tremors of a dying segment of society. Of course, dying things tend to cause havoc around them, and I'd rather they just went away now and quietly, but I console myself with the idea that they are nevertheless the last gasping tremors of a bunch of muddle headed losers who are afraid of independent thought and those who practice it.
Infuriate left and right
I think that both make a lot of assumptions about the universe. I think that 50/50 gives each too much credit.
My views may be difficult ot fathom, but I've seen enough in my life to know that both systems are flawed. I'm a geek just like you, and I can understand your amazement at what I'm saying, but I do have good reson for saying it.
Dom
I'm completely accepting that they don't believe there is a God, yet they consider me a complete idiot for believing what I see as truth.
Science can never explain Creation. Be it Big Bang or 7 days, science will always be asking "what was the cause of that?" Science can never disprove that humans have a soul. It can never prove that there is no life after death. You will never conclusively say if there are or are not miracles, being exceptional events, when you rely on repeated observations to deduct conclusions. There is always room for religion.
But there are many things where the scientific evidence is overwhelming. Where there are only two explainations. Either it did not happen as the Bible says, at least not literally, or God has created a damn lot of false evidence to fool us (you can never dismiss that when dealing with omnipotence).
Some religious people manage to combine this just fine. Others seem to deny a discrepancy which is so clear that even the blind can see it. At that point I call them idiots because they throw out logic and reason. Call it God's work if you will, but don't pretend things like dinosaur fossils doesn't exist.
Personally, I think the most blasphemous people are the fundamentalists who believe that all the wonders of Creation can be gathered in a tiny book written by men. As for "normal" religious people, I'm mostly envious. I really wish I could believe that there's some divine meaning with my life, a heaven and all that. But not one bit of me is able to.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
If you are invoking your god loudly enough for other people to hear then you are indeed "forcing" your religion on them. See my other post. In fact don't reply to this one, reply to the other one.
evil is as evil does
"We [reasonable Christians] tend to be generally peaceful and inoffensive, so you don't hear about us much. Yeah, it pisses me off, but how much can I really do about it? Who's gonna listen or care? "
Lots of us will listen and care! Please please PLEASE speak up and put out an intelligent, compassionate message of your religion! The extreme fundamentalists end up grabbing headlines with their crap and smearing your chosen faith as some kind of Dark Ages hate group.
If you don't take back the reins, who will?
Christian fundamentalism will be the death of America.
Amen Brother!
Providing, of course, the rest of the world doesn't follow down their own religious fundamentalisist path.
I wonder what happens when the Scientologists decide to get in on the action too?
Shitdrummer
Because, by and large, the core "features" of Christian fundamentalism that they promote are the same. For example there doesn't seem to be any large debate within the fundamentalist community about the validity of evolution (and all the supporting evidence from biology, astronomy, cosmology, geology, etc). It's simply rejected out of hand.
You seem to be missing the point. What people believe isn't the issue here, it's tolerance for what others believe. Most Christians have no problem with theatres showing science films that don't line up with their beliefs. If people want to believe these films, then fine, that's their choice. Unfortunately, there is a vocal minority who does have a problem with this sort of thing.
Then I hope you loudly and persistently educate those in your religious circles who cannot separate Islam from terrorism, and see all Muslims as "forces of evil".
Again, vocal minority. Personally, I don't know any Christians who think Islam == terrorism.
Theaters might not be buying the same old science junk anymore but they are embracing the Films like MysticIndia (http://mysticindia.com/) which tells a story of a boy traveling through and exploring India. I for one prefer stories that tell about a Country's Tradition and its Beauty. At the recent La Geode Imax Film Festival...Mystic India won the public's choice award. Just goes to show people like to experience different cultures and traditions as well as science. Recently MysticIndia opened in the Singapore science museum. http://www.science.edu.sg/...if your in the area go see it for your self..
Mod parent up!
I mean seriously, I disagree with it but that doesn't stop it from being insightful. This modding down of posts because you disagree with them is getting silly.
I can understand politicians twisting their will upon others, but the average American child is far from content listening to boring bible sermons. What do kids do these days anyway... By popular margin they most definitely do not go to church every Sunday morning.
Besides, should it ever come to pass that scientific view be ousted by religion - then 'those boring science people' will be the loud minority - speaking their words of precious logic. Mmmmmm. Science.
Reality is going to be an incredible burden for your soul when it finally dawn on you.
Stop being so ignorant of the true world around you.
My question was "are they both equally flawed". I am willing to accept your statement that "both systems are flawed" for the sake of this argument.
It seem to me that one is a like a BMW with a broken tail light and the other is like a wheelbarrow with missing wheel and broken handles.
they are both flawed but one is pretty much useless except perhaps as an aestheric device.
evil is as evil does
Moderate Religious Fundamentalists like you aren't the problem, and aren't what we're discussing here. Just because there are moderates doesn't make the vocal minority any less destructive. ex.: the vast majority of FCC complaints are from a few groups. I'll stop bitching about your extremists when you actually do something about them.
On a side note, it'd kinda hard to be a moderate Fundamentalist. There's tons of evidence against your beliefs, and only your faith to support them. Circumstances like that create a kind of all-or-nothing atmosphere.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It offers an unfalsifiable account, religiously inspired, that it orders me to accept or denounces me as evil.
If it was true, I'd expect to see a fossil layer populated equally and evenly with the same animals I see today. And I do not. But when I bring up this objection, I'm retorted with:
"SATAN IS TRYING TO FOOL YOU! Clearly, God is testing your faith by making the earth with the appearance of age."
This is not science. This is religion dressed up as science.
I have no faith. Otherwise, why not assume the universe was made ten minutes ago? By Satan? As a practical joke?
BTW, nothing like a good evolution vs. creation flamewar to stir /. up. I haven't seen this site be so busy on a Sunday night for a long-ass time. ;-)
Dom
you have done a great job in learning the language of victimhood I see. No one hates God. They may hate the idea of a god but you cannot hate something you don't think exists.
I have been watching the news lately and is what they have been telling me to believe is wrong with America.
1. Sex (Too many issues to count)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sex_po
2. Terrosim http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/
3. Teen Sex http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinio
4. Gays http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150737,00.htm
4. Bad Words / Howard Stern / Media http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149000,00.htm
5. Drugs (sports and non-sports) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150800,00.htm
6. High Gas Prices http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150977,00.htm
7. Lack of Feeding Tubes http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150988,00.htm
8. Abortion http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/35670.html
9.Iraqhttp://www.boston.com/news/world/articles
10. Slashdot http://slashdot.org/
If you watched the news lately you would know that your lack of a right of a feeding tube is the most dangerous thing in America. The President even flew back a week early to sign the bill into law to secure you right, Not to mention Congress having a late session. You need to get your head screwed on straight, and look at the important things in life and stop listening to Science. Science is too busy messing with something called FACTS.
mnewberg.com
More reasons for the fundies to hate the Catholic Church?
I seriously doubt that Hollywood is genuinely concerned about what religious folk like me think. Heck, I'm just a sucker for special effects, so even X-Men sucked me in even with its blatant evolution premise.
Point is, I don't think I've ever seen a movie from Hollywood that had anything remotely to do with science that didn't not just ignore views of religious folks, but was blatantly hostile to them.
But dumbest of all is that this has shown up under YRO. Slashdot editors/submitters show their immense wisdom yet again. NOT!
They do not allow scientists to say that the earth has a certain age, without stating the fact that other people believe that it was created in 7 days.
Go to any church of theirs and when they state something as a fact (e.g. their God made the earth in 7 days) ask them to state the different oppnions as well. If possible, not only the scinetific ones, but those of all other religions around the world.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
These people have the right to express their opinion. Even (especially!) if they disagree with you. That Imax knuckled under to a minority is the crux of the matter. And rest assured, it a minority. Thr 'right' is not a homogenous block of religious, anti-evolutionary fanatics.
"MOST Christians don't have a problem with scientific movies about evolution being shown at IMAX theaters"
Of course they don't, but we're not talking about most Christians (worldwide). We're talking about Christian fundamentalists, American in particular. That's the key distinction. Certainly many of the ones I know view evolution as some kind of "culture war" mantra, the Vietnam "Domino Effect" of Satan's "attack" against the bible.
Heck even the Vatican has turned around from branding as heretics astronomers of old to now declaring that The Big Bang and evolution are compatible with Christian teachings.
It's American Christian fundamentalists that are screwing the pooch here, not Christians in general (American or otherwise).
"Living in California, if I so much as breathe a single word about God, I am immeadiately told to cease and desist."
Funny. I live in the Bay Area (one of the most liberal areas in California), and my high school had regular AGAPE Christian groups singing and praying around the flagpost during lunch/brunch/after-school. I also attend Berkeley, probably THE most liberal/secular campus in the United States - no argument there. However, there are people handing out bibles, fliers for student prayer/bible study groups, and a guy who calls himself Joshua with a huge wooden sign that says "REPENT" and yells at random students who pass by to "remember Jesus"...not a single one of these people get harassed or "Cease and Desisted."
Sorry but if people can do this in possibly the most liberal campus in the most liberal part of California, you're making stuff up.
Also, I don't recall a law being passed that says that Christians can't marry/pray in public. How about the numerous southern states that now ban consentual relationships between two adults? It seems like many Evangelical Republicans have forgotten the "limited government" part of their party.
Now the imbalance in the Palestinian/Israeli viewpoints at Berkeley is another story entirely...but I digress.
It's that damn TitBoobPenisTesticleButtfish
that dwells near some of those vents!
(I knew the National Science Foundation shouldn't
have let 4th graders name that one! >:)
You've given me a bit to think about.
I have no reason to believe that an unsupported object weighing more than the surrounding air will suddenly hover in midair.
I can name things that will not fall when dropped.
Yes, I am going to have to insist that anyone denying that "unsupported things will generally fall down" is insane.
Much of what Newton wrote about was, in fact, stupid bullshit. His Physics have endured because they're "Close enough" for most real world situations. Einstein's relativity replaced most of Newton's principles when accuracy is necessary.
Newton was exactly the sort of person who would be a creationist today, so being a creationist doesn't mean being wrong about all things.
A post that cuts right to the real issue is marked as flamebait? Why do so many idiots have moderator points now? Slashdot's horrible white, Xtian, Bush-worship bias is showing again. No matter how hard those in control of this site try, you will not squash the true. We know how much Bush hates us. We know how he wants all of us unemployed, our jobs moved to China, unable to afford shelter, and unable to afford food. He wants us to starve to death or die of exposure. That is the future for us under Bush. Well, that is unless you are one of the elite. Otherwise, he wants you dead. Bush's hatred of IMAX is just the tip of the iceberg.
I wonder what would happen if you get into a christian church, and complain about not mentioning scientific theories when preaching about the genesis.
I think that they are both equally flawed, but for different reasons, and in different ways. I also think that being geeks, our natural bias is to believe that science is the least flawed system.
I can't say for sure because I am biased as well, but I would wager that our belief in science's superiority has more to do with our preconceptions than anything else.
Dom
I love a good coversation. To answer your questions in kind, the first one is easy. No motion is required. None, at least in Christianity. Now, not being a Catholic(and they are christian), I can't answer why they, or any other fairly conservative denomination kneel. I would suspect it is a symbol of humbling yourself before God, though, as I said, I am not a Catholic, so I am merely guessing.
The second question, why do most Christian's pray out loud. This is an interesting one, and also fairly easy to explain. You don't have to. Sometimes it's considered good manners, such as when in a group so that everyone's not standing there in silence (though, if the group was praying silently..another ball-park). I do not have my Doctorate, so I can't tell you the exact reason. It just sometimes seems appropriate to speak aloud, rather than silently. Again, speaking from my own life, most of my prayers when I'm alone are silent, in my head, without any sign that I'm even praying. And they aren't big things either. Some of the most powerful prayer's in the Bible were short, quick, and to the point.
And I suppose there is a little difference between praying aloud in a group, and everyone getting out a prayer rug and becoming an obstruction to traffic (people, cars, customers, what have you)
And just taking a shot at an answer...the definiton of religion has many points to it according to a quick google look up (because I seem to have misplaced my copy of websters..).."Loosely, any specific system of code of ethics, values, and belief." and "A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." (google Definitions of religion on the Web)
And Homosexuality, if I remember correctly, is a value system and life style choice...so why would you have to believe in it? And I didn't mention that the isms are automatically Religions. Though, one could make it his/her/it's religion.
I would have modded you +5 funny. But I hear that God fella was looking to mod you +5 Lightning Bolt.
just like every atheist isn't going to shove their moral's down your throat through legislation
What, that every citizen deserves equal rights under the law... including homosexuals?
No, you must be talking about the athiest support of stem cell research that could help ease the suffering of millions.
Those bloody athiests.... only ever thinking of themselves. Where are their moral values?
Shitdrummer
Realy? do you have a few days for me to explain to you the difference between the various schools of Buddhism? Do you have the time me to explain the differences between Santaria and Voodun? How about if I want to explain to you the difference between classical Ceremonial Magic and Wicca? How about if I took you aside and explained to you why
Pursuing truth?
or ancient astronaut theory?
Sure. I'm game. I don't know everything, and don't profess to. But I'm more than willing to sit and listen and chat and talk and swap ideas. Is that so hard to believe?
that we're "forcing" our religion on them.
Good question, and in my mind you where. I would not care if you did pray in public but how would you feel if I started reciting a Satanic prayer in your earshot?
I'd probably move out of earshot and give a quick prayer for your soul. Just, a personal thing..
Wow...I live in Central Cal, and we've got some interesting people around here. At least, in my opionion. We've got the guy that sues every walmart..I heard the guy trying to get the pledge of Alliegence lives near here. There are other things that I can look up, but my mind is fried. Email me if you want more info, I'll look it up for you an everything..lol.
...is that the museums and science centers cave in so easily to the superstitious zealots. These institutions have a mission to educate and they are failing by behaving in such a cowardly way.
The Earth is at the center of the Universe.
Geez, you would think Imax is worried about loosing its 'cool' status. Run the damn films, controversy might get some more people to the theater.
I dont do meaning of life questions.
Seriously, the extreme fringes have got themselves into a mess. Evolution is getting harder to deny, as their biggest argument has been the lack of fossils connecting humans to apes. Well, six of those steps were discovered in the past year and a half. That's got to be tough.
Then, there were the moon landings. Another favourite of the fundamentalists, flat-Earthers and other conservative groups. The landing sites are being imaged by Europeans who have no reason to do the US any favours right now. It's interesting to see who is getting nervous and who isn't.
Extremophiles are the biggest problem for fundamentalists, though. Why should that be so? Because such organisms cannot survive under moderate conditions. Well, no problem there, surely! Nobody has ever accused the Bible Belt of offering moderate conditions. That may be true, but extremophiles demand that we accept that our understanding of life in general is incomplete. That is simply never going to cut it with Creationists or even those who doubt the literal interpretation of the Garden story but who do believe in the Great Flood.
How can humans be given stewardship of all living things, when it's blatantly obvious that most living things are doing quite happily without humans around, and even survive where humans cannot?
There are two ways to resolve a paradox. The first is to examine the assumptions to see if a paradox even exists. Usually, the assumptions are faulty and need debugging. The second is to deny enough education and understanding to prevent awareness that there was ever a problem to begin with. The second method often claims to be rooted in faith, but that would appear to be a paradox of its own.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
"I would pose your question the other way around. Living in California, if I so much as breathe a single word about God, I am immeadiately told to cease and desist."
Sorry but as someone that has lived in Cali for 10 years and went to high school there, I have to call bullshit. If you pray on your own time (such as during lunch) and don't bother anyone, nobody cares. That is right, even though California is a blue state there are no prayer police that roam the schools with trained dogs trying to find someone praying so they can toss him in jail.
Whenever people complain about not being allowed to pray in schools, they are not really talking about prayer -- which is always between a single person and God, they are talking about preaching. I.e., praying in a manner that is designed to communicate not with God but with the other kids in the school. And I think this is quite inappropriate, aside from the consitutional arguments, people should be able to send their kids to school without fearing that they will be preached to. Religous education should be up to the parents.
The significant missing 10% is that while someone may understand evolution, it is probably not the original poster. Therefore for him to take a firm stand is being as dogmatic as she is. He's basing his understanding on rote learning whose underpinnings he probably doesn't understand.
Furthermore while I agree that her worldview comes from the Bible, she undoubtably has been exposed to Creationist literature that looks to the casual observer like the result of something resembling the scientific process. If the two of them got into an argument, she could well turn out to know more about the debate than he does.
Of course this 10% is readily fixed with a little education. While her missing 90% can't ever be fixed. But still it is worth admitting that shortcoming.
By your logic, not mine, FDR was an oil/religion wacko too. FDR often used the word 'God' in speeches and he fought a war, the Pacific Campaign against Japan, over oil too. We used our oil exports to pressure Japan over their invasion of China, they decided to invade some local oil producers and attack us since we were on the supply line home. Now that I think of it oil was pretty important in the European campaign as well, we suffered heavy casualties trying to knock out oil fields.
Oh BTW, your full of crap, the Iraqi oil fields are being run by the Iraqi's. As opposed to before the war when it was run by the U.N. and siphoning money back to Saddam, via the French and others. Things are far more complicated than whatever you heard in some campus rally. You really need to get past the politics, be it from the left or right, pro-US or anti-US, and do a little more research and read a little more history. Then you'll start to understand how incomprehensibly complicated things really are.
"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
These days, vigilance is lax and "democracy" seems to be more valued than liberty anyway. The religious right and the politically correct left both seem to have an intense desire to dictate how we live our lives and the current state seems to be a "compromise" where both extremes get to do their worst.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
Thank you. You said exactly what I was thinking.
History teaches us that an empire rises because of inovation, either in the art of war and/or commerce. Look at the Romans with their legions or the British with their navy and the Americans with their commerce, productivity and armed forces after the second world war.
Similarly an Empire falls when it either fails to deal with new inovation or knowledge, or its people become indolent and self-centered or decadent.
In the Middle age's Arab civilisation was vastly in advance of Dark age Europe, mainly because it had a religious view that respected learning and knowledge and was not afraid of learning from others , even if they were not of the same religion or creed, it saved much knowledge from the Greeks that was lost in Europe due to the actions of religious zealots
I think this is just another indicator of the end of the American century, its a shame because America, whilst far from perfect, has or had a lot of good things to teach the world.
Remember, that much (if not most) of all US scientific endeavor is carried out on the far west and far east coast. Most of these jobs are filled by 1st or 2nd generation immigrants who are well versed in science (math, chem, physics, etc etc). The rest of the country merely uses the fruits of these hardworking researchers to advance their own economic development w/o paying them lip service - though they do pay with the wallet :) I know plenty of atheists who work at Intel and Microsoft but let's face it, some christian fundy in alabama can use their products w/o selling their soul to the devil. What we are really seeing is specialization of "culture", just as we had specialization of labor a few decades ago. An atheist in seattle or san fran would rather die than live in a religious right wing state like alabama. Similarly a religious person from alabama, would rather die than live in a hedonous town like san fran or los angeles. To each his own - both types of people make the country stronger... know why? Darwin said it best - D.I.V.E.R.S.I.T.Y.
Let me put it this way:
Are the atheists left wing libbys going to want to fight a war? - No.
Are the religious nuts going to want to sit and research theories which go against their religion? - No.
I'm stereotyping quite a bit - but this diversity is actually what makes America great - yeah I know it is a pain in the ass when religious or computer zealots tell you to listen to __their__ version of the world. But tell you what, the computer geeks know howto get porn for free and those religious nuts have hot, repressed daughters who love worshipping the cock. Try to make the best of both worlds, and remember, if you don't like what someone is saying you can politely ask them to stop the conversation, or just walk away.
And on the seventh day God rested... which, with a day equal to a few billions years, means he's still taking a break...
Therefore you have respect for others the same way.
But there is a reason that people use the scientific method (it works) and it is not by definition based on pure emotion without any reality connection. In contradiction to faith, which was discussed.
To make your point while failing to mentioning that distinction, makes me doubt your intellectual integrity.
There is a distinction and you well know it, if you try being honest with yourself.
Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
You may be treated like that in the south, but we're treated like that everywhere else!
Really? Interesting. I didn't realize that me and the other fifteen atheists in the United States were making it so hard on you hundred million or so religious folks. We'll try harder not to use our massive majority to oppress you.
I have no issue watching documentaries about other religions, or lack thereof (though, of course, it raises an interesting view..if you lack a religion..doesn't that become your religion? If you refuse to believe or acknowledge God, aren't you following a belief system?)
Wow, nice. You managed to come up with a really original argument that no atheist has ever rebutted. Please feel free to read more about atheism before you start redefining it on your own terms.
You complain about people acting that way, while you yourself seem to feel free to bash the other side in the manner you just mentioned offended you!
Erm... I thought we were complaining about religious wackos who think that evolution is evil and wrong influencing stupid businesses to avoid showing films that might offend their fairytale worldview, but I guess you're right, we're just 'bashing' religion with no justification. I mean, the destruction of science is no reason to complain, right?
"..if you lack a religion..doesn't that become your religion? If you refuse to believe or acknowledge God, aren't you following a belief system?" basically, no. that i dont think its plausible to postulate a higher existence who is guarding/watching us is not consisting a belief system. same as its not a belief system that you are not postulating that the world is flat and every person who should know better is part of the conspiracy..... its possible but its not plausible enough to form a hypothesis.
When exactly did the above poster say he hated God? He merely said he did not like certain religous people. Now you may think that not liking certain religous people is a bad thing ... but then again you probably don't because I just had a look at your blog and found about 5 screen lengths of Catholic bashing. Just in time for Lent, I see.
Is that so hard to believe?
99.9% of the population would run screaming if one would start talking to them about the difference between the Ceremonial Golden Dawn invocation of the Arch-Angels for the four quarter blessing and the Wiccan invocation of the four quarters by calling on the elemental attributes of the four Arch-Angels (or where they Seraphins? I forget.
You sir would be in the tiny minority
You can be sure that at least one of the least religious countries in the world will not go down that path: France.
I'm not American however I did a spell in the bible belt a few years ago. I'm an atheist - thank God. Just kidding. No seriously, my religion is simply personal. Anyways, I had a tendency to wind a few people up when they asked/demanded I join them at church and stuff for the umpteenth time.
Questions like: "So, you believe in Adam and Eve right? And like, Adam looked like me right, generally speaking (I'm a guy, if that needed to be spelt out)?"
They responded "Yes, you're correct, however he was more pure."
"Okay. Cool. So why did Adam have nipples? Did he have a belly button also? What for do ya reckon?"
They loved that shit.
And then there's the topic of incest between Adam and Eve, 'cause where else did everyone on the planet come from?
"Well Adam and Eve were very pure, not like the people of today."
Well, there you have it. I'm sure they took the piss out of me ("heathen with a strange accent") once my back was turned, but hey, it's all in good faith right?
Hey! - was that my karma spontaneously combusting?
Then perhaps it's the Fundies who have a big, unhappy surprise in store for themselves when they die.
Would that be irony, or poetic justice?
Meanwhile this kind of stupidity causes our once-great nation to die a little more each day.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
This is flaim bait. Freedom of religion is alive and well in CA. I've never heard of anyone being stopped from praying in public here. Unless it's when you're forcing it on a captive audience or other people's children.
End Communication.
"And I suppose there is a little difference between praying aloud in a group, and everyone getting out a prayer rug and becoming an obstruction to traffic (people, cars, customers, what have you)"
If you have gathered in a circle at the local starbucks and are praying loud enough for other people to hear (even if barely) then there is no appreciable difference between that and opening up a prayer rug in the local starbucks and starting to genuflect.
"Loosely, any specific system of code of ethics, values, and belief." and "A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." (google Definitions of religion on the Web)"
If that's a definition of religion then libeterianism is a religion, basketball is a religion, weightlifting is a religion, ebay is a religion. All of those are a cause, principle or an activity that is pursued with seal or conscientious devotion.
"And Homosexuality, if I remember correctly, is a value system and life style choice..."
So is christianity or islam. All religions are lifestyle choices.
"And I didn't mention that the isms are automatically Religions. Though, one could make it his/her/it's religion."
Ok then. Athesims is not a religion. It's just another ism.
Here is the thing that really gets my goat though. Atheism, homosexuality, liberterianism, scientology, and christianity are all lifestyle choices and yet of those only scientology and christianity get constitutional protection. I think that's wrong. If homosexuality as you say could be made somebodies religion then it should have the exact same constitutional protection as christianity does. And yet it doesn't. Could you imagine what would happen if your state passed a law saying christians can't get married or serve in the military?
evil is as evil does
First, a quick google pointed to an interesting figure on the total number of atheists (I hadn't had a reason ever to google it before) 12% of adults nationwide. Just a little more than sixteen total? :-)
Interesting that you expect me to have read a random webpage about atheism. I am no doctorate, just a layman. But, for kicks and giggles, I'm going to read your webpage. Okay? Now, will you do me the favor of reading mine?
And just for the record..Evolution is a theory. Not fact. Least, last I checked...anyone got any links that prove evolution as a FACT? I know, I know..stirred the hornet's nest again...Troll probably..but I am curious..
Actually it's not. Believe it or not, I care little. I'm just speaking from my own experiances. And it doesn't happen every day. But it has happened multiple times in my realitivly short life.
"I can't say for sure because I am biased as well, but I would wager that our belief in science's superiority has more to do with our preconceptions than anything else."
Well I of course think you are way wrong. If I had to bet I would bet on science, if I was betting against you I would win most of the time.
But hey it's a free country, you can believe in anything you want.
evil is as evil does
they dosen't need to ignore evolution since they are the proff that evolution is wrong, we're devolving
What the IMAX theaters are doing? It's called free speech.
Read my blog: HansMast.com
Many Europeans have called America a "third world country with the exception of having very large cars".
If the shoe fits...
You know in this day and age I never thought we would even be having this conversation.
It seems like mankind never really makes forward progress when it comes to culture. The same old battles being fought all throughout history. How long has the war between christianity and science been going on now? Two thousand years without let up.
evil is as evil does
"Down" is undefined in space.
Alchemy was quite common pre-chemistry. The assumptions of alchemy were wrong, but chemistry would probably never have been discovered if alchemy had not been dabbled with.
I say that Newton would be a creationist because he was extremely religious, and rather significantly conservative. Creationism would appeal to him significantly. (Among other things, I've read that Newton was very proud, on his deathbed, to have died a virgin.)
Twist my words once..
No, we are not silly enough to gather in a large circle inside of starbucks..we go outside where there is room, and most certainly not in the doorway. We try and be considerate. But your point is valid. if we all held hands and sung songs inside starbucks, lining the inside, then yes..I would be shoving my religion down your throat. But we don't, so it's a moot point.
Homosexual or not..those are two choices...you either are, or aren't (unless your bi..but thats another issue. For the sake of argument..) Anywho, the primary difference between Atheism, and say..Liberalism..is that one is on beliefs or lack there of..and one is on political/social/personal reform. Apples and Oranges.
And Christianity is not a lifestyle. It is a belief system. here
Every person in the world is expected to respect other peoples religions and beliefs, no matter what they are, and that they shouldn't be interferred with. So shouldn't religious people start respecting those who choose to believe in science and stop fussing and whining if something scientific is "contravertial". If they find it so damn offensive, don't go and see it! After all, science has hard, material evidence, religion just has untracable texts and ambiguous artifacts.
Fat people are hard to kidnap
On my way into the Physics dept. building I was offered a pocket-sized New Testament and Psalms. "Have you accepted Jesus?"
I told them I'd accept the bible if they'd accept the wave equation. The trouble is, anybody can put a bible in their hip pocket. Not everybody can get the wave equation. Its not just how *open* their mind is, its also how well it works. (I took the bible, and still have it.)
In this place of "open-minded" geeks, you'll get modded to the sky for bashing anything religious. Feel free to continue your religion hating
The only religious view of open-minded people is Agnosticism.
And by showing such knowledge about such a minor (at least in followers) religion, so would you. :-) So I guess we're both in the minority, eh?
Basketball, Ebay, and homosexuality can be religious if a person treats it as such. I think what you're getting hung up on is the difference between the dictionary definition of religion and the common usage, which implies religion related to belief of a higher being. Also, I may be wrong, but I believe that atheism does get constitutional protection as a religion.
As for the prayer questions and responses, I agree with the original responses. I'd clarify from my own perspective by saying that I have every right to pray whereever I want just like you have the right to stand next to me worshiping Satan if you desired to. I think it's still important for people to try having respect for others, though. That's why when I (silently) pray before eating, I don't make everyone else wait until I'm done. If they want to out of respect, that's great. If they don't, it really doesn't bother me.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
Two thousand years? I see you flunked history. While there have been episodes of a particular church in conflict with science, remember that the renaissance and reformation arrived on the scene simultaneously. Science was briefly persecuted because one church was authoritarian. Freedom and science flourished once that church's monopoly on religion was broken. It was protestantism (not atheism) that stopped knowledge from being horded in dank dark monasteries.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Agreed. I grew up an hour north of SF (we consider ourselves both Bay Area and Redwood Empire) and my High School had a Religious Fellowship Club. We met and read our bibles, and prayed, and worshiped. The only legal requirement we had to meet was that we accepted *everyone*: Christian (any and all demoninations), Jew, Muslim, Wiccian, whatever. I've lived in Austin, TX. I'm attending school in the midwest. Big difference in tolerance. It is a recent occurance that I'd rather find out that my neighbors are not Christian, than Christian. In the midwest, the averages at least seem to indicate thats the way to find the better sort of people. Very sad.
in the Middle Ages. With judge Scalia as Grand Inquisitor.
My point is that religion & science are two of a kind, not parts of a whole. They each aim to completely describe the universe in their own way. In this regard, I find them both lacking.
Religion is lacking because of any kind of facts or evidence to back up its claims. Science is lacking because it fails to even begin to explain some of the most basic and important things in our universe.
You might say that science will be able to explain those things given enough time, but isn't that really just another belief? What if it can't? How many times in history have scientific explanations been proven to be totally untrue? How long will it take for currently held scientific explanations to be proven untrue?
Do you get what I'm trying to say?
Given what I have said, is religious belief any better or worse than scientific belief? Is it any wonder that there is so much conflict between the two?
Dom
The article said that the Volcanoes film did not score well on other
criteria, such as narration and music. It sounds like this is just a
mediocre film that failed a test market, and Christians are being blamed.
I really don't see why a science film about underwater volcanoes needs
to offend people. Some people apparently thought it had a blasphemous
presentation of human existence. And then the producer stubbornly
refuses to make any changes. Why? If the film stuck to scientific
facts about underwater life, I doubt that anyone would be offended.
If it launched into wild speculation, then a scientific film should
recognize that there are alternate views that are widely held.
No, I am not a creationist, but I do get annoyed when scientists
unnecessarily pick fights with Christians, and then pretend that they
have some sort of right to present offensive speculations. Yes, they
have a right to make the film, but no one has to buy it.
So someone reciting a statanic prayer would cause you to move even though they weren't preaching to you? Are you still wondering how your audible praying was forcing religion on other people?
http://sinfest.net/d/20030312.html
What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
It is not does to make God hear you, it is done to change your own frame of mind - prayer is mostly done for its affect on you (to make you more open to God), not its affect on God.
So I guess we're both in the minority, eh?
pretty much!
have yourself a good night
Problem is, their definition of "innocent" doesn't match ours. Watch them cheer whenever an abortion clinic gets bombed, or whenever a doctor performing abortions gets murdered. And, to get back on topic (possibly dangerous religious leanings of GWB), a lot of people are unhappy about the fact that their country is ruled by someone from the "the end is near, christ is coming" end of the christian spectrum.
Not to mention the rest of the world .. No-one feels safe when the worlds biggest nuclear arsenal is in the hands of a feeble-minded kook who sees himself leading the Legions of God against the Forces of Satan and is actually yearning for The Last Battle to begin ...
Including the Buddhists who burned down a chirch near where I live (twice in two years), along with several hundred others in this coutnry?
Why the hell are we debating this? Imax's only roadblock is it's interest in it's bottom line. Law nor legislation is behind their decision.
It isn't a violation of free speech, it's a lack of balls to excercise it.
First, let me say that I am a Christian, but I am also a firm believer in science, reason, and logic.
The argument about a 4000 year old universe having objects billions of light years away is going on the assumption that the universe started out as a point. This is omething not everyone accepts and, as far as I can see, there is no simple explanation understandable by a non-scientist (note: I'm not sure I go for this - the big bang seems plausible to me - but there are those who do).
I also find it disturbing that you are willing to sacarifice logic in order to take a jab at a particular group: "Thou shalt not kill" is a commandment in the Old Testament; "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" refers to a horrific dogma adopted by a particular historical group who happened to call themselves Christians. This is a classic fallacy: using the actions of believers in a doctrine to condemn the doctrine itself. I think (and hope) that almost all Christians would thoroughly condemn witch hunts, crusades, crucifictions, and any number of other atrocities committed by 'Christians' in the past (and present).
Nor is this really about "controversy". Nobody's picketting theaters accusing them of being part of some pro-evolution brainwashing conspiracy. What is happening is that a tiny number of theater owners have fallen victim to the great weapon of mediocrity -- the "test audience" AKA the "focus group". People who don't know how to make decisions grab a bunch bozos off the street with nothing better to do, and use them to write meaningless reports that justify their own ineptitude. It's an old story.
The only thing I find seriously sad is that a reporter can be dumb enough to see a story in something as lame and un-new as this.
If you refuse to believe or acknowledge God, aren't you following a belief system? - that's a logical fallacy. Refusal to believe in existance of any entity until there is scientific proof or at least strong imperical evidence is not a religion of any kind. It is common sense. I am an atheist, but at the very moment you come up with a provable proof of existance of god that will withstand peer review, I will accept god as a fact.
You can't handle the truth.
You fail to understand. It's not that their forcing their religion on me. It's that, in the example, it's satanic relgion..the exact opposite of what I believe. Our two religions are in war...I guess that would be the word I would choose..So yes I would move away. So sorry. I am not perfect, nor do I profess to be..
And just for the record..Evolution is a theory. Not fact. Least, last I checked...anyone got any links that prove evolution as a FACT? I know, I know..stirred the hornet's nest again...Troll probably..but I am curious..
You have been tricked by creationist propaganda. A scientific theory can be a fact. In fact, every scientific theory you are aware of is probably a fact. The theory of special relativity is a fact. It is a fact that you cannot go faster than the speed of light. The theory of evolution is a fact. Don't trust me, walk right up to the University and ask every biologist there. Or even easier, do a search on the Internet, but pay close attention to the sources. Talkorigins.org is a good place to start.
And yes you do sound like a troll. It is hard to distinguish between a person that is poorly informed by his environment, and a person that regects truth outright.
The infidelguy link was obviously an attempt to educate you about atheists, because so much disinformation is comming out of your mouth. Infidelguy is well known in atheist and some theist circles. His familiy is going to appear on a future episode of "Wife Swap".
Maybe Christian fundamentalists are just trying to be good liberals like those who protested The Passion of the Christ. Or the ones who are trying to oust the Harvard president for saying there are intrinsic difference between men and women.
We'd be further along for sure... but I think one of the things that also would have held them back was the population at the time. A smaller population will have less or slower innovation in general. The Black Plague is probably as much to blame.
Rubbish. I have been to Gay Pride rallies where fundamentalist idiots were allowed to use bullhorns to say we're going to hell, and when I protested the policeman said it was their First Amendment right. With a bullhorn? At our parade? Do you think I would be able to propagandize with a bullhorn against the fundamentalists at one of their rallies - even in California?
On the other hand, we're supposed to be quiet on the near-to-last section of a very short parade route (San José) because it's passing by a church.
You may be treated like that in the south, but we're treated like that everywhere else.
Utter nonsense. We're living in a country where all national politicians and almost all local politicians claim to be religious, where almost none dare admit to scepticism, where creationism is taken seriously by central government and science publishers, and where a majority (IIRC) of the voters in serveys say they won't vote for someone who doesn't claim to at least some kind of religious faith.
The persecution complex and gall of these people is incredible.
Yeah, ox-morons are full of bullshit.
You have to realize, it could very well have been seven days AND billions of years or perhaps less than an instant, time isn't the constant we often think it is.
:-)
Any religious person who "proves" science is bunk using timelines can be proven to be a heathen who thinks that some how, time has authority over God.
Doing so is fun for awhile, but arguing with the religious is rather boring and pointless. If the current trends follow, suggesting the world may be round will soon get you killed in boiling oil for the act of heresy. Ever wanted to live way back in the days before computers, but still retain your knowledge? nows your chance! what an opportunity I guess.
Alrightly, I'll bite. Evolution, in certain reguards, is fact. But it does not accurately prove how many started. No "missing" link has been found, no concrete evidence. True? Seems that even several scientists have made up the "missing" link to make themselves famous..only to be found out as a hoax. True? The Strong eat the weak, and a species does adapt and evolve to it's environment. But my family cannot simply make up our minds and go..."I want to be a bird!" and over the course of several generations become birds. It doesn't work to that level. Now, about spontainious evoultion, or whatever the proper term for it is. If that were the case, why have we not seen it happen yet? You are right. Evoultion is a Fact. It is also very, very much a theory.
In the grand scheme of things, I suppose I should remain positive since we, as humans on this planet, have come a really long way. We have ceased to believe the Earth is the center of the universe and we have ceased to believe that it is flat. It's progress.
One day people will sit up and realize that disbelieving in multiple gods such as Greek or Roman is pretty much the same thing as disbelieving in a single god and that for the same reasons they disbelieve in those multiples is the same reason for disbelieving in their one.
Many people have realized this, individually, yet so many won't admit to it... and the culture of belief persists. It frightens me that believers exist today -- it truly does.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345409469/ 104-0283701-5130309
earth is not flat : it is probably an illusion, images are fake ! I'm sure ! the Bible never said it was a sphere. People get burned for that nowadays you know ?
For what it's worth, I consider myself a Christian. I'm happy with my faith, and I can easily see how the study of science fits in nicely with the faith.
I love to see documentaries about science. Learning about the universe that God created fills me with wonder, and the more I see how absolutly amazing the universe is, the more I appreciate what He has given us.
Now, there are those out there who feel that only their understanding of the Bible is correct, and chose to turn their back on any course of study which reveals how truly fantastic creation really is. I have a name for those people: Wackjobs.
It's hard for me to even give those sorts the consideration of being misguided but well intentioned. These people come off as mean-spirited individuals who aren't interested in discovering the truth. God is truth, and turning your back on what is the truth, both spiritually and scientifically is akin to turning your back on God. The way I see it, there's only one way to deal with those types of people: Ignore them.
The only way these people get power is to take their demands seriously. If Imax theaters refuse to show scientific films because they are afraid of offending this very small, but very vocal minority (or in this case, because a few nutjobs said they thought it might be "blasphemous" in one of those inane focus groups), they are doing a disservice to the public in refusing to educating them.
We live in a secular country. We should all be able to celebrate our faith, regardless of what it is. But we shouldn't allow our faith to get in the way of an objective, secular science. Nor should we allow fundamentalism to ruin the education of the population as a whole.
Now, that having been said, it would be nice if the scientific community stopped presenting evolution as the "truth", and touted it for what it is: The best scientific explanation we have right now that outlines the origins and development of life. I only say this because I sometimes think that science, in difference to religion, can be guilty of the same closed mindedness that plagues the fundamentalist movements. When something like "Intelligent Design" comes around, it's immediately dismissed as religious pseudoscience, despite the fact that there might be something to it.
Sure, as far as our current understanding goes, evolution still makes more scientific sense, but let's not sit on our laurels and ignore studying any other ideas. In the same way, let's not succumb to the crazy idea that trying to tell the story of evolution, or of the big bang is somehow an affront to God. Or, more accurately, let's not listen to the vocal minority who wants to stymie any understanding of science which they see as a threat to their faith.
We're fighting a global war on terrorism right now. A good number of those who are out to harm us are motivated by closed minded fundamentalism. Let's try and not give an ear to those within our own country who are motivated by the same thing.
The Internet is generally stupid
the Plague caused a steep decline in available labour this created huge raise in wages and a large percentage of land was given to the people who were left. this pretty much created what we would now call the middle class and created a huge demand for products which pretty much kick started western wuropes economy unto and including the industrial age
My 4th grade schoolteacher asked me personally (he was the father of one of my friends, so we talked often outside school): "Do you really believe that we, humans, descend from such an ugly animal, an ape ?"
I explained him (a 10 year old, to a schoolteacher, no less) that no, we humans do not directly descend from the apes that are currently living, but that, according to current and widely accepted current scientific theories, humans and apes do share a common ancestor.
The repercussions made me lose all respect for authority.
Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
It's that same reverse-discrimination story all over again.
Don't you realize that straight white rich christian men are the REAL victims in america? where are their equal rights? they got it so tough.
"You have to realize, it could very well have been seven days AND billions of years or perhaps less than an instant, time isn't the constant we often think it is."
Another way to think of it is in the time that "god created the Earth", the days were far far longer. For example, a day on some planets is far longer than that of a day on our modern-day Earth.
Personally, I don't really buy the creation theories. I like proof, and lack of proof is not proof either. At the moment evolution wins because I can see it every day (resemblance in family members), and a devine being or beings creating everything just doesn't work in my mind.
SSdtIGFzIGJvcmVkIGFzIHlvdSBhcmUK
The Fort Worth Museum of Science and History, which supposedly didn't want to show "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea", is showing Aliens of the Deep.
The Charleston Science Museum is also showing Aliens of the Deep.
"Cosmic Voyage" is from 1996. It's perhaps the biggest zoom shot of all time, starting from the quark level and zooming out to the entire universe over 35 minutes. It wasn't controversial at the time, and it doesn't seem to be that controversial now. Just dated. It's basically a remake of Powers of Ten, by Charles and Ray Eames.
Galapagos is playing at the IMAX in Fort Lauderdale, FL, along with two other IMAX theaters in the US. It's from 1999. Nobody seems to be that wound up about it.
It looks like some casual comment by the marketing guy for the museum in Fort Worth has been blown up out of proportion.
The big problem with "Volcanoes of the Deep Ocean" may be that it's "too educational". There's a teacher's guide, with quizzes and homework assignments. And really, there's a glut of undersea IMAX movies.
I know that i am probably throwing myselfe to the lions. but what about PETA, vegans Feminatzies and the like, how many politically correct liberals have banned or stopped something because they thought it was offensive, i guess its ok when they do it but when cristians try to ban something thats offensive to them its a horrible travesty of those religios zealots. i think that this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. /. rally around this and say that all professors and scientist are like this and he is a primary example of academia, no we recognised him for what he was, a loony with a peice of paper from some institution. cristians are humans too and there are loony critians also. my wife is a critian and i have become one with her. i am reading the bible and studying cristianity. i used to believe that all cristians were gay bashing anti abortionists. but as i study christiany i find that the tru premise of it is loving and helping your fellow man. at one time i lived in a bhudist monastery and i was in the process of becomming ordained. i do not take religion lightly and i see the true power in it. but as i study cristianity i learn more and more it is about becoming that which god wants us to become, people who truely love and care for each other and people who want to do the right thing. anyone who judges another violates a primary cristian tennant. as a cristian i dont think that it is neccesary to force my beliefs on other people. I know from the people i have met that this is how many cristians are. please do not judge all of cristianity by a few nut jobs.
I believe in the bible it specifically states that cristians are not sopose to ban knowlege, or that we can condem or judge anyone else. i will be breking that rule when i say that these people are not cristians, Remember that professor that said that all of the people who died in 911 were little eickmans. did
Since when does a backward minority get to call the rules? Since democracy! And it s*cks big time! ... DO Not Watch. I do not like them hospital programs where they show the blood and gore of the operating theatre, AND I DO NOT WATCH IT! Its called freedom of CHOICE. So when do them morons get their head out of their *ss and realize that they do not rule, but will get hit by the ruler! spank! bad boy!
If they are offended by the content or even the title of the film
Free ?! Does that mean I can't get a Discount ?!
This message was
Seriously.
The cheapest way for China to decimate the economic power of the USA is to covertly fund Christian fundamentalists and neo-conservatives.
It's not too likely that Christian fundamentalist groups will be labeled terrorist the way their exact counterparts on the Muslim side of the aisle are labeled.
Hell even Roger Ebert knows what a theory is...
"A theory is a scientific hypothesis that is consistent with observed and experimental data, and the observations and experiments must be able to be repeated. Darwin passes that test. His rival, creationism, is not a theory, but a belief. There is a big difference." -Roger Ebert
If we went about things in an effectively unscientific manner,the world would be a better place to live in.Believe in God .. Leave the Atom alone.
Moderators:
A gentle reminder: You're supposed to mod up posts that are actually, you know, *informative* or *insightful*.
Just trying to help,
- Alaska Jack
If someone is agnostic, they are so open-minded they have no ability to think critically anymore.
:)
I despise self-proclaimed agnostics even more than I despise religious people. If you're agnostic, you have to accept each and every type of "God" that people can come up with.
So here's a few for you to add to your list of things to be open minded about:
God is a giant lemming that invented the world two minutes ago out of a rubber ball, and his dirty handkerchief. We all exist as fifteenth-dimensional shadows of his uncountable fingernails.
The Universe was brought into being by an invisible pink unicorn that circles Uranus, granting wishes to all who dance like platypuses for every fifth full moon of the year.
And so on... one of these days you will have to put your foot down and say some of these ideas are ridiculous. Then you'll have to think about why these ideas are ridiculous, but others apparently aren't.
Then you'll have to deal with the ideas of critical thought, the psychology of communities and belief systems, the evolution of the religious belief system as a sociological construct AND as a construct of our higher order brain function.
Then you'll start to realise why agnosticism is really a crock, and you'll finally become an atheist and won't be afraid to hurt religious people's feelings by telling them they are wrong
Says who? Her mother? There is actually a name for her problem: Munchhausen syndrome by proxy:
It gives me the creeps seeing that woman rave on TV about "saving her baby". This isn't about losing her daughter (who has been in a vegetative state for 15 years, ask the doctors!), but about losing her self-aggrandizing role as her protector.
There is no need for new laws to settle this case. Just use the existing ones that are pertinent to "Desecration of corpses" and "Necrophilia".
This comment is spot on. What is more valuable to your country, informed people who make decisions for themselves and are inclined toward progress, or faithful people who accept the will of higher authority for better or worse, and basically go from generation to generation with the same core beliefs?
It seems that informed, intelligent masses are becoming more and more useless as technology becomes more esoteric. People are not expected to be exceptional at one job any more, they are expected to be where the demand for work is. Most workers are now a commodity, not a resource. Intelligence and ability is not especially valuable in this situation, but ability to follow orders and stick to policy is quite valuable.
Most other countries are not as far along this path as the US, but it seems to be the trend. Does this mean that we as the skeptical intelligent portion of society are a hindrance rather than a help? Will people like us exist in two hundred years' time? I'd really like to hear from anyone who has any thoughts on this.
sorry
I have some serious trouble in believing that a documentary about the Galapagos could be considered contreversial. I mean, what is this? The Middle Ages? No, I would say the US Dark Ages. It's just incredible the level of religious integrism that country has reached. Even the Vatican is open to things like evolution and the likes as it doesn't negate the existence of God.
"You superiour intellect is no match for our puny weapons" - The Simpsons
So I guess if this baseless Iraq war doesn't boost the American economy, George W. Bush's next plan should be to introduce a plague among the populace?
Even if what you say about the "missing link" is accurate, there's no evidence to support where your train of thought is headed, which seems to be Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design has no basis in science, rather it's rooted in your desire to believe that God created man.
As for spontaneous evolution, why do you think you need a new flu shot every year? Ever look at the fine print on a can of Raid! and see where it says "Formula 7 change 2?" There are strains of Hepatitis and other diseases which are now almost completely immune to antibiotics -- the same antibiotics against which they stood no chance 50 years ago.
The evidence is right in front of your face, you just don't want to see it.
We've had our stock market crash, maybe a little prohibition, before we re-invent bank robbing and suffer the devistation of another great depression. Even the Savings and loan scandle, where the president's brother lost 2 billion dollars (I should be so fortunate as to be able to misplace so much wealth), has a turn of the century analogue. It's not a coincidence. This destruction and corruption are the wages of so much wealth built up by the efficent economy lubricated by a surplus of integrity. What's interesting is the robber barons of old felt compeled to leave a legacy of sorts. A lasting impression on the infrastructure of the communities, and nation that made them so rich. That is very different today.
Honestly, buy assulat weapons, Barett sniper rifles, bodyarmor. Those guys who staged the Loma Prieta bank robbery were about 10 years ahead of their time.
But for out next war to get us out of the depression, I'd attack Mexico, then Canada.
That would certainly explain Reverend Sung Yung Moon... ...not to mention the enourmous amount of our national debt owed to the chinese.
As a European, it really worries me to hear so many people having no problem in declaring themselves as "fundamentalist". It really strikes me that (in USA at least) it became a socially acceptable thing; a belief like another.
In Europe, too, fundamentalists are growing, but it seems to me they are still ashamed of declaring themselves as such. You don't hear anybody introducing himself saying "Hello, I'm evil" like if being evil or not were just a matter of preferences. The same goes for fundamentalism: we are not ready to put it on the same level with tolerance (its real opposite).
In my opinion, the much abused and much derided "Politically Correctness" (an US specialty) should be a widely accepted behaviour if, instead of focusing on superficial and sometimes hypocritical aspects, it involved a common perception of what is accepted and what not. Hurting someone's rights (i.e. by preventing them to receive a complete scientific information, like in this case) can't be considered a right itself. You often hear fundamentalists crying over anti-christian persecution (in Italy it happens a lot), when what they really want to protect is their "right" to hamper other people's rights: believing in no God, having sons outside of a "traditional" family structure, reading some books, speaking freely, etc.
If Islamic fundamentalists are succeeding in anything, it is in making Western societies more like theirs. Or maybe I'm wrong, and we are doing it all by ourselves. How sad.
Nuffsaid
________
Don't know about his cat, but Schroedinger is definitely dead.
Buddhists can be, and many are, just as backward as any other religious people.
They, as the womble pointed out, have committed atrocities. They have tried to retard knowledge.
Some versions are violently anti-other religions.
The truth is that no religion is good. Not even a spiritual philosophy like Buddhism.
[Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq] We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
[Secretary of State Madeleine Albright] I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
--60 Minutes (5/12/96)
Seems to me you are deluding yourself with the good old "we-are-the-good-guys" rethorics. About the Iran-Iraq war, it was started by Saddam Hussein (guess who backed him), not by the fundamentalists. And no, you won't find a (reasonable) islamic minister that cheers at the sight of gruesome civilian deaths either, but it's the unreasonable ones that make it into the news.
The current morale that forbids religious leaders from cheering to the sight of dead enemies is only recent, and maybe temporary. Only few decades ago, it was common for religious leaders to support racial segregation, discrimination and persecution; many WW2 criminals fled to South America with the help of the Vatican, and even current high-ranking cardinals have been in good terms with bloody dictators as Pinochet of Chile or Videla of Argentina. The Vatican excommunicated communists, but I never heard such a staunch opposition of South African apartheid.
In short, you seem to look only at what reassures you that "we are the good guys". I say that no matter what religion you pick, it's always an Inherently Evil Thing(tm) to ideologically assume that proposition X is true.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
Oh get off it. What is the matter with you people? I live in California and see no such thing. Name a place where you can document that you or anyone else were told to cease and desist speaking about God.
No, not having a religion is not a religion. You're not that stupid are you? Does not having a car become your vehicle? Does not having a house become your home? Think about what you say for a minute before you say it.
"If you refuse to believe or acknowledge God" is a belief system? You say that like the idea of God is a fact and that I stubbornly refuse to accept it. You start your post off whining that you are a poor persecuted Christian, and then you say things like this and want people to take you seriously? You can't possibly be that stupid.
Every point of view in the world is not correct and does not deserve equal time. Sorry that you don't like that. You know, while the religious right is so excited to run around talking about how evolution and the big bang theory are just theories with gaps in the evidence, they seem to forget that their theories have NO evidence behind them at all.
I just want to say, I'm an atheist and I oppose stem cell research. I hope this post has made someone ver, very confused.
Atheists don't fly airplanes into buildings in the name of God.
1. I'm no fundamentalist
/. discussion I've ever read. Stupid little rants and gratuitous religion-bashing are being modded as "insightful" and even "informative." Come on, moderators: The system doesn't exist so you can go "Right on dude! Religion sucks!" and click "insightful."
/. users, because they confirm their pre-set worldviews. The fundies are taking over! BusHitler! TalibafghanistCreationis GACK!!
2. This is perhaps the worst-modded
3. If this story is legit -- and I'm not at all sure that it is -- the villains aren't the fundies. The villains are the theater managers. TFA doesn't mention any actual protests -- just the *fear* of protests.
4. Like a few other brave souls in this discussion, I find the story pretty fishy. It reads like a pretty typical liberal alarmist, NYT view of what they *think* all those red-state yokels are like. A few of the things that raise warning flags:
* Everyone interviewed had the same point of view (there doesn't seem to be even an attempt to get a quote from "the other side");
* There is no quantification at all (how many people of the 137 in Ft Worth complained? The NYT, oddly, doesn't tell us.)
*The story notes, about the film "Volcanoes": "On other criteria, like narration and music, the film did not score as well as other films, Ms. Murray said, and over all, it did not receive high marks, so she recommended that the museum pass." So that raises the question -- if it WAS good, then would she have run it? And if so, doesn't that make the whole religious angle moot?
Etc. I agree with an earlier poster -- these stories just ring true to a certain subset of
- Alaska Jack
Your grasp of history is sadly lacking. The Dark Ages were not caused by the Catholic Church putting scientists to death. If for no other reason than that the Dark Ages began in the 5th century AD, and the Catholic Church did not have all that much power until 1000 AD or so.
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
The persecution complex and gall of these people is incredible.
Makes me want to get out there and make their wishes come true.
I didn't know Thor read Slashdot.
There's plenty of good movie material in the Bible. I suppose the problem is there just aren't enough Christian directors.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Christian fundamentalism will be the death of America.
As an European, this might not be a bad thing if I were not affected. What I worry about is that they take the rest of te world down with them. The US does have the power and nobody able to stop them.
I hope that when it finaly does come to that that the Amercan public realize why they have a second amendment. Especially the part for the comma.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
That must be why the movie lineups country wide are so in line with christian values. Ha HA Hardy-Har Har. MS aint the only ones spreading FUD.
Sometimes at night I imagine the darkness is filled with horrible things with too many teeth, like Julia Roberts.
I've seen "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea," and it's just pretty fish swimming around. Nothing too serious and I'm suprised people are up in arms about it.
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
"Perhaps a dozen or fewer?" Uh huh. How many is that? I mean, zero is fewer than a dozen. And out of 108 theaters?
Yeah, I'm really worried now. If you'll excuse me, I have to go bury my copy Origin of Species in the back yard, before the fundamentalist Gestapo knocks at my door...
Yeah but look at all the prejudice against white Christians. White Christians get ripped off by their Latino maids or gardeners far more often than Latinos get ripped off by their white maids and gardeners.
I know 100% that God exists. Do I know if evolution exists: maybe. If it does exist, it still doesn't disprove the bible. Science and Religion shouldn't be at odds. This isn't cool. I wonder if some religious people realize they turn more people away from the faith with such acts than they shield. Its really a major issue when you're trying to help with your fellow man's eternal salvation! So I can understand why people try everything they can... It'd be better if people knew which battles to pick. I'm not even saying I know which battles are right, but I'm trying my best. I feel a great responsibility toward God since he spoke to me. I can't see defending people who seek to ban some science films at IMAX. I think that if you really wanted to rock the scientific community, more research should be done on the flood over the geologic column. The Smithsonian museum of Natural history has dinosaurs and talks about the world's age in billions of years. Maybe the world is only 6000 years old made to look billions, or maybe the earth is billions of years old. I can't tell you, I'm only mortal, but I do know God exists 100% I guess what I'm saying is that religious advocates maybe should be using science to debunk science. If you bring religion in to discredit science, you may be wrong(see Galileo) and instead apparently be discrediting religion.
God spoke to me.
and who thinks film ratings in general should be: For Children, For Anyone, For Adults.
Even in a world where we give NC-17s for violence it wasn't the worst of the R's. It was violent, to the point of missing the message and then some, no doubt. But, there are worse R movies.
That said, on average the Christian dogma people are presented with is, "We're the chosen Americans. You unbelivers are second class citizens, and you can convert or be happy with your lot." And then they complain when people take umbrage? The fact is the bible is an agrement by what amounts to a group of highly political, superstitious, tragically ignorant, savages. They collected some of the stories surrounding Christ essentially centuries after the fact, decided what they didn't like based on who they didn't like, and who wielded power. Then they blended them together so there could be a coherent founding document. It's not the word of God through the pen of man. It's the word of God's Son as recalled decades after the fact written down centuries after fact, filtered by a committee of grasping craven highly fallible men with a heaping helping of bullshit from pretenders desperately seeking validation. And faith is one thing. Not having any to speak of in a spiritual sence, I must say I'm a little in awe of it, and only dimly appreciate it's value. But mindlessly following dogma because one is too ignorant of and lazy to pursue the truth, I'm not so much in awe of that.
In fact, it's been my experience the most obnoxious fundementalists don't have any faith. They cling to their ignorance and their illusion of knowledge, because real faith is scary. And they're just not ready to trust God that much. It's something you can see in their real ideals. Their right, the framers of the republic I believe in were Christians. But they were REAL Christians. They knew that they might never understand the infinite and glorious big picutre, and that ultimately, while desirable, it was unimportant. They could only do their very best in the life they had, and leave something meaningful for those who came after them to build on. It wasn't an excuse to eschew responsibility, or an invitation to dominate the lives of others, it was a challenge to do better. In that there is certainly the promis of glory, and who am I to deny the possibility of a spark of the divine.
A nation that fears only god....with nuclear weapons.
"Flags are bits of colored cloth that governments use first to shrink-wrap people's brains..."
"I think you were put on earth to test MY faith, dude."
God gave us us free will. God wants us to love him. Why would he want people to Jihad for him? Any religion with a Jihad can't claim its God is of love for this reason: How can you tell if someone's truly worshiping from their heart? You hold a gun to someone's head and tell him to bow to Allah. Did you suddenly get a convert to your religion? Or did you just force someone against their will to do something that doesn't even resemble worship other than in externalities? Now what if you're not holding a gun to someone's head, but instead put people under an umbrella of fear of guns. Everyone under that umbrella looks like they're great worshipers, bowing to Mecca, and chanting. Maybe some of those worshipers are for real, but I bet most do it just because their neighbor does it, and do it for show to fit in with society. Its just like totalitarian governments.
God spoke to me.
Strange though how it took 359 years for the Inquisition's edict against Galileo to be lifted - it was only in 1992 that Pope John Paul II issued an apology and admitted that Galileo had been right all along to say that the Earth goes round the Sun. Maybe they have "special" telescopes in the Vatican Observatory that show the universe in a different light...
Why not create a 'God created this Universe Film' -it would be awesome, and the Flanders sort would see it again and again. Much of the footage, sxf and pictures would be the same.
Hollywood as proven there is more money in fiction than fact - and if thats the demand, then go with the flow. We are only talking about a quick voiceover. Basically both market segments need to catered to.
I am not surprised to read about that kind of shit from the country where all the religius zealots and other whacky believe rejects from europe ended up.
I am absolutely disgusted by religion. It's an anathema to progress. It holds back society...are we before a new Dark Ages?
(I am also deeply sad about the turn the American society has taken. As a European, what once was the bright light for all humanity is now something to think about, if not totally avoid.)
There is no doubt that the creation of child porn is illegal, (although some could argue 18 is a bit harsh. Not even a century ago women started having sex when they started having periods.) but I don't see what watching it does to harm anyone but yourself.
It's yet another time our society is treating the symptoms of a problem instead of the problem.
We understand Quantum Electrodynamics to 1 part in better than 10 billion. It's at the point where believing that the universe isn't 15 billion years old is equivalent into not believing in the existance of light. Now you are certainly free to cling to ignorance in an effort to shore up an inability to trust in God, but I'm free to ridicule that for what it is. And it's not faith. In fact it points to a shocking ignorance of your own religion, it's evolution, and it's foundings. Particularly those things pertaining to the creation of the founding document. Now any modestly educated member of the clergy would have an understanding of these things. That they don't feel it's possible to impart this understanding to you, says a little something of the small respect they have for you.
Creationsism, as in the story of how the earth was made 6000 some odd years ago, has been proven false so many times and ways by so many people, that it's literally impossible to catalogue all the evidence.
Your ignorance is a pitiable crutch for your lack of faith. You may be religious, but you're not faithful. And last time I checked the pot luck that is your sacred text, it was faith not unreasoning adherence to dogma that was the litmus test. So good luck with that.
Science tries to fit it into its mechanical view of the world, and it believes that it will someday unlock its secrets through employing scientific method, and if you don't believe in its belief, you are some kind of fundamentalist nut.
AFAIK there is no established scientific definition for consciousness. As such, it is very difficult to talk about something you can't describe properly. I have been following this specific topic out of personal interest over many years and so far as I know, no scientist studying this has ever called anyone a fundamentalist nut. On the contrary, researchers are actively welcoming interest and effort from other disciplines because they are acutely aware of the deficiencies of traditional methods in science. But being creative in applying science is not the same as relaxing scientific vigor. No self-respecting researcher would willingly embrace unorthodox methods if it meant compromising scientific integrity.
My point is that religion & science are two of a kind, not parts of a whole. They each aim to completely describe the universe in their own way. In this regard, I find them both lacking.
I don't think it is particularly productive to cast the character of science or religion in stone like this. You have to keep in mind that ideas like these are intellectual tools. As human beings, we are the tool users who are completely within our potential to fashion better tools by improving the ones we have or choosing a different one altogether. True, neither science nor religion is complete, but why do they need to be? In the words of Stephen Jay Gould, "religion tells us how to go to heaven, science tells us how the heaven goes." One need not usurpe the role of the other.
Science is lacking because it fails to even begin to explain some of the most basic and important things in our universe.
That is because we as tool users are not yet proficient enough to use the tools of science successfully. Don't blame the instrument for the fault of the craftsman. More than a hundred years ago, stuffy european scientists, drunk over the success of classical mechanics were worried we might have figured out everything there is to know. We might never have enough tools and/or knowledge to figure out all the answers to all the questions worth asking, but that shouldn't stop us from attempting to build new tools and seek more knowledge.
You might say that science will be able to explain those things given enough time, but isn't that really just another belief? What if it can't? How many times in history have scientific explanations been proven to be totally untrue? How long will it take for currently held scientific explanations to be proven untrue?
The way, you've framed these questions begs a question of my own. How useful is it for science to be true? See, science is self correcting. If a scientific idea isn't true, it is usually for a critical reason that can be used to pursue a "truer" idea. The power of science is not it's uncanny ability to be "true", but the opportunity it offers to move forward toward a more accurate understanding of a particular subject or problem. The history of science is replete with examples of how better, more acurate understanding of phenomenons or ideas has been built upon examinations of how previous attempts at understanding something has failed. In diciplines such as microbiology and atomic physics during the previous century, improved understanding of previously flawed explanations has been the foundation of technologies that are now heavily integrated parts of our modern society. As learning continue to expand and grow, we will likewise continue to be changed by the technology it spawns. The result of science being challenged and criticized is better science. Now, let us look at religion. What is the result of religion being challenced and criticized for being wrong? Countless innocents being persecuted through the ages. wars. crusades. intolo
Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
Show the universe in a different light you said.
:-)
Well it is for that purpose that thye did. The blow that Galileo did to them and their primitive cosmoligy urged them to take the other path... Scientifical research. That way if a new bombshell like the copernician view was to explode, they would have time to control it and assimilate it. So they hired the best. Who must have felt a bit nervous I suppose. Galileo had it easy compared to Giordano Bruno. At least they didn't destroy his work nor burned him.
This "different light" joke is actualy founded on the fact that spectroscopy was found by the chief astronomer of the Vatican and this allowed him to document the fact that the sun was riddled with spots and irregularities. Would this have been found by a lose "civilian" it would also have been an other bobmshell. All the arguments about the sun being pure, god's creation being 100% perfect could be them swept away nicely under a rug with it the discovery to start another public crisis.
So yes, they did it to prevent an other Galileo problem. But doing so they did fund research. They did learn a lot for their mistakes.
They are a crafty lot...
I suppose I don't know enough about the 17-18th century's politics to orient him. It's always disorienting to deal with politics in the past, since the issues have changed.
I guess they must have been using Permasilk....
Biology students work evolution all the time. With fruit flies.
If science is so 'bad', and against 'god', why do all these people get medical help? Surely medicine and the theories behind it must be evil because God didn't put medicine on this planet for us to use. They all die away slowly.
You're kidding, right? Slashdot is swarming with Christian fundamentalists. It's the only blog I read where creationists seem to get the lion's share up positively moderated posts. It's quite disturbing.
I once read an article about some researchers who had found a correlation between religious fundamentalism and computing aptitude. I was skeptical at first but Slashdot convinced me otherwise.
The Angelicans for blaming the decline of marrige on gay people. How about a hand for the people who imported divorce into Christianity, and all but perfected irony. Besides, with community property laws being what they are, it might not be so bad if we just went back to killing our wives.
But as to your post. Their beliefs vary widely only in a context in which that which they have in common is excluded. They have so much in common with each other as compared to the non-Christian world, as to be all but indistinguishable to the outsiders looking in. Only a few elements of the extreme fringe (Serpent handlers, Polygamists) manage to set themselves apart.
If these people are offended by science films, are they happy to see 'God' at work on the news when for example a tsunami kills a couple of hundred thousand people in Asia?
Personally, I'd like him to get down here and explain himself, then maybe I could kick his ass.
In Europe, we have the same growing right-wing as in the US, but it has not been incorporated by religious factions.
So were does the difference come from? The parent post explanation is way off, at least in Western Europe religions are struggling massively just to get people into the churches - most people just don't believe in churches as institutions anymore, that try to prescribe how people should live. So it's not about the content of the religion, it's about the institution that looses acceptance.
And this is a phenomenon that goes beyond religion; trade unions or any other institutions loose grip on people's lives. We live in the era of the individualist, people make their own choices for their own lives. And they assemble their own 'belief' from religions and non-religous streamings like Buddhism.
NB: European countries don't have state religions
"It's going to be hard for our filmmakers to continue to make unfettered documentaries when they know going in that 10 percent of the market" will reject them
Last I checked you're not forced to go see a movie if you don't want too. They will potentially loose the 10% regardless if the movie is shown there or not. The theatre/museum knows it's market and their 10% is probably more like 90% of the money they make. It's a no brainer.
Oh never mind I forgot. If you disagree with something your still suppose to support it with your hard earned money. I'm sure people will line up.
"The day-age (progressive) creation account is non-literal and contradicts the clear teaching of Genesis." I hear or see this complaint quite often, although the statement is incorrect regarding both accusations. I take all of the biblical creation accounts literally. Nothing is symbolic. The Hebrew word yom has three literal meanings - a 12-hour period of time (sunrise to sunset), a 24-hour period of time from sunset to sunset (the Hebrew day), and an indefinite period of time . The day-age interpretation of Genesis does not require the use of symbolism to explain the creation account.
My emphasis. Full article here
Justin.
Incidentally atheist, but above all scientist
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
well it couldn't hurt (apart from the agonising pain and exploding boils)
Not to say that buddhism is super duper or anything, but one thing about buddhism is it's extremists are few and far between. The only buddhist extremist i've ever seen is a monk on tv who took some reporters hostage. He was easily the most frightened person there, and one of his hostages disarmed him with ease. The whole thing was rather comical really.
Just like you don't like people associating christianity with burning down abortion clinics and burning ancient Great Libraries, most buddhists would propably object to you doing the same with them.
sorry
Sorry but I feel an overwhelming urge to point this out. All your answers are at best, vague, generalist and un-factual. Which sadly dosent supprise me, but unfortunatly makes for a poor debate and dose nothing to futher anyones understanding of the topic being debated. On the flipside, it is interesting material from which various behavioural trats which you exhibit can be observed. Anyway, just thought id point out how usless these responces are. Religion can be a usful tool to carry moral, and ethical principles, as well as providing a means of excape for times that may prove too hard for one to endure. But it matters little how long or hard a religious person prays or believes, without the ability to percieve reality for what it is, and the will to carry the appropiate action to yield the desired result, religious nutters are only going to be more deadweight on society.
I would have to agree, those people do exist.
but some of them wouldn't want to be called 'christian' in today's sense of the word because the churches today are *so* off.
Everything you're describing sounds exactly like the atheist fundies that I've debated with. I'm extremely interested in their ideas, but they don't care at all about mine.
Also you said "my truth" - how can there possibly be multiple "truths"? Does 1+1 equal both 2 and 3?
The other posts sure show a lot of hot air coming from Slashdot today...
-eventhorizon
#Secret Windows Source Code, in MS C% - if (uptime >= "24 hours") then bsod() else print "Windows License Violation!"
andy=any
must pay attention in future.
hehe
I forgot his name, but once I heard an excellent comment about the REAL progress in science: "New theories do not get accepted because other scientists admit that the current ones are flawed. They get accepted because the scientists opposed to the new theories die out after a while, and the current theories with them."
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
As evidenced by the fact that it's posted as a YRO article rather than science. What the fuck does iMAX's selection of flicks to show have to do with my rights? Privileges maybe, but not rights.
"Play is the only way the highest intelligence of humankind can unfold." -- Joseph Chilton Pearce
Informative? Informing us exactly of what?
Reminds me of Voltaire who declared that within 100 years the Bible would cease to exist. By then the Geneva Bible Society was using Voltaire's house to print bibles.
Look back to the Soviet Union for an example of a society that tried to extinguish God. Not one I'd like to live in. If God really is dead, God (or someone) help us.
Great Windows SFTP Server!
I love how /.'ers claim to be libertarian then complain about this kind of stuff.
Clear, Dark Skies
You're full of taurine excrements.
I'm fed up with this bullshit about evolution being "not proven". It is proven and is solid like a T-34 shell. As in every branch of science it's a large patchwork, it may require refining, adjustments, interpretations, contributions, but there is no way the world was created from a space fart by some nutty long-bearded prick. Dammit, genetic algorithms are regularly used in mathematics! What other proof do you morons need to understand that it works?
And I'm puzzled why the creationist nuts don't use the most obvious argument against evolution: Americans are getting dumber and dumber.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
who can't even spell "controversial".
Science will be doomed by inattention to details long before it will be done in by a small minorities' feelings about a single issue.
Clear, Dark Skies
I love science. I always have. I spent most of my life as an atheist who loved science. Now I spend my life as a Christian who loves science. I believe the Bible's account of creation. Do I understand it? No. Do I accept it? Yes. I do not have to understand something to accept it. I do not fully understand Einstein's theory of relativity, but I accept it on his authority. I do not fully understand Darwin or his theory, but I reject it because it directly conflicts with the account of an authority which I hold higher than Darwin. There are alot of Christian who do not understand or accept science as I do, it's alien to them, and they fight it. Of course, there are many of my athiest friends who do not know Jesus the Christ as I do, He is completely alien to them, and they fight him just as unlearned Christians fight science. One planet, One Truth, One God, billions of free minded people. Hold on kids, this is gonna get messy!
" Also you said "my truth" - how can there possibly be multiple "truths"? Does 1+1 equal both 2 and 3? "
because you apparently only see black and white.
I also didn't know George Bush was personally in the field, "murdering" civilians. If you're going to provide links and statistics for the terrorist-related death toll, why don't you provide statistics for the GW Bush-related death toll you claim? Be thorough... otherwise I just think you're an ignorant troll. Rating this trolling garbage "5, Insightful" is just a sign of how easily people can fall for messages that simply appeal to the pop ideologies...
Call me crazy, but the way you've phrased your comment brings to mind a morbid image of scientists literally having their mortal lives being snuffed out to make room for a new generation of ideas and investigators. I need to get some sleep and dream of more pleasant things.
Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
In my view, the reason there is now a God-shaped hole in the European person is the two world wars fought there. Something about the deaths of tens of millions happening twice in the span of 30 years might make any group question its belief in a loving, protective God. It doesn't help when the churches during those wars have stepped in and declared that God is on one side (or the other's).
As for me personally, the rapid advance of technology has had zero impact on my belief in God. Since I have never been one of these "Young Earth Creationists" (Earth is about 6,000 years, old according to them), science has not displaced any of my religous views.
As for all those people who view themselves as too intelligent and knowledgeable to believe in God, I will attempt to quote from C.S. Lewis book Mere Chrisitanity. A very smart acquaintance of Mr. Lewis asked him, "How can you be so smart and still believe in God?" Mr. Lewis replied, "How can YOU be so smart and NOT believe in God?" Do all the smart people out there really think that science has all the answers, or ever will? Do they really think we will end up mastering all that we survey as depicted in Gene Roddenberry's Utopian future? It would sure be nice, but my faith in Man's capacity for such wonders has been severely diminished by centuries of butchery and waste. Only fifteen years ago, the USA and USSR were still poised on the brink of annihilating the human race. Why do so many still still subscribe to the religion of the perfectability of Man? It is not right for either the believers in God or the believers in Man to take up arms against one another. The true believers should let the chips fall where they may, similar to the tests Moses was subjected to by the Egyptian priests.
In principio erat Verbum.
Why are religious people so insecure that they can't believe in what they think is right, and not have to force it on everybody else? Do you really believe in democracy and freedom or not?
It's amazing how people can be so adamant about things they can't possibly hope to prove.
That's what's good about science - every so often, parts of it are completely turned upside down as new evidence is discovered, and a new theory exists. It has a built-in method of continuous improvement.
Although personal beliefs are important, because science has limits at any point in time. We can't hope to truly understand the _complete_ impact of dumping a litre of nuclear waste into a drinking supply, but we can be pretty confident it's not a good idea.
And personally, if there is a God, and when I die he gives me grief about not believing the words of one group of people and instead believing in different people's words, without coming and telling me directly, then he's not a God I want to worship anyway.
Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."
Note that the term "servant" in the King James Version of the Bible refers to slaves, not employees like a butler, cook, or maid.
Yet, slavery was defeated in the USA, or that's what rational Americans think today.
A great reference about this is: What the Bible says about slavery
Makes you wonder what's behind the apparent rise in America of fundamentalism and the belief that the Bible is inerrant. Some people (some, not most) are still trying to fight the civil war, it appears.
I will make this REALLY simple for you...
... "hey they do what they want to and I do what I want..." The only time it rankles us is when you freaking religious NUT JOBS try and IMPOSE your SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS on us...
The FACT that "religious" zealots are TRYING to PREVENT others from seeing these films...
IS CLOSED MINDEDNESS!!!!!
The comments by the "non religious" (or rather non-christian-religious) groups are trying to point this out, but ONCE AGAIN, the religious zealots are the ones who only listen to PART of what they want to hear...
More proof that the "non-christian-religious" types are more open-minded is in their inaction. It has nothing to do with LAZINESS. It is simply accepting
IT's a MOVIE!!!! DON'T WATCH IT!!!! I refused to see the stupid "Passion of Christ" movie... I didn't go... OH NO!!!! The religious RIGHT is SHOUVING their theological beliefs down my throat!!!!!!! Nope... Didn't do that... But maybe I should from now on... But hey that would make me LIKE YOU!!!
You people are probably the same ones that don't have a problem with VIOLENCE on TV... Where if the almighty NIPPLE should appear... it's, it's... OBSCENE!!!!
Just more examples of the RED STATES taking our country to the level of the middle east... (only from the completely OPPOSITE vector, but doesn't that make them the same? Sure does.)
Ever hear of LEAD by EXAMPLE!??!?! Probably not, cause you are TOO impatient to wait for the fruits of your labor.
You (or more accurately, THEY) can't equate religious films with scientific ones - especially in science museums! Religious beliefs are NOT scientific theories, and to pretend otherwise is dishonest. "You shall not bear false witness" seems to be passe. I don't mind people having religious beliefs but when they try to sneak them into scientific discussion their goal is invariably nefarious - to try and force their proselytizing on others under the guise of scientific education.
Freedom: "I won't!"
If this move by Imax is foolish, they will lose money. I tend to beleive that they have numbers somewhere that suggest they will benefit from this by an increase in traffic by the members of that "handful of religious fundamentalists". They may be looking at the same "handful of religious fundamentalists" that went to see "The Passion", which turned out to be far more than a handful.
He rested on the seventh, remember? Anyway, "when saying the earth orbited the sun instead of the other way around was declared heresy, and punishable by torture and death." First, this punishment was meted out by at least the Catholic Church, which as history has shown, and continues to show, has no particular regard for Bible standards, particularly as regards idolatry, bloodshed and sexual immorality. They have hardly made an issue of upholding the Bible unless it is a pretence for furthering their own desires. Second, astronomers to this day talk of a star or even the sun for that matter, rising or setting at a certain time, yet they know full well it is only an illusion to an earthbound observer. This is simply the way the Bible states it too.
I think it was by Asterix, but I could be wrong, it might have been Obelix. I think they were preparing for battle with an army which specialised in pouring boiling oil on their foes. Whilst warming up the oil they dropped in some veggies and Gaul Fries were invented.
I'm sorry but until we frame this discussion in terms of reverse discrimination, the fundies are going to win every time.
Why is it acceptable to be anti-gay in the US? 1984 is more than anything about thought control by use of language and concepts, and it has to be said that 2005 USA is getting very, very strange. "Activist judges are advancing the homosexual agenda" is just another way of saying that the judiciary are continuing to redress bigotry and discrimination that would be totally unacceptable if the person's "difference" happened to be that they were black. The arguments against 'gay marriage' are just recycled from the 1950s when interracial marriage was taboo. "Liberal" is the new "commie". "Academia is a bastion of liberalism" is another way of saying "all these really smart people seem to prefer one ideology over another, wonder why?". Sorry, had to rant. It makes me sick, as a bisexual man, to think that if I lived in the US I'd be considered immoral or degenerate. "America, Fuck Yeah!"? America, fuck you.
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
Flamebait...
It's pretty clear from recent historical and political events in the USA, that in this location the "R" strategists have outbred the "K" strategists.
The reason there is closed mindedness is because the FACT that your religion is a manifestation of a mental illness that you carry. You can't help it. You need treatment, but unfortunately your type shouts down those who would provide you the correct treatment.
You can take comfort in your illness if you want, like schizophrenics might wish to too, but don't expect society to want to do anything else but eradicate the illness you carry. Working against that is illogical and simply perpetuates the illness.
And that CANNOT be tolerated, just as tuberculosis, AIDS, schizephrenia, ebola, child molestation, typhoid and other physical and mental diseases cannot be tolerated in a civilised society. They must be cured.
Facts combat religious illness.
RST
Good refutation of Pascal's bizarre wager.
... "Non Serviam" in which a computer scientist creates a virtual universe and populates it with simulated intelligences.
BTW Stanislaw Lem wrote an excellent short story (purportedly a book review) along the same lines
Truth: All Arabs are not terrorists.
Truth: Damn near all terrorists are Arabs.
What's the best way to deal with this? Maybe, perhaps, getting rid of brutal regimes in the Arab world that support anti-Israel and anti-American terrorism to divert attention from their own brutality and greed?
I'd actually love to see more documentaries about OTHER creation myths.
Just about every culture across the world has their own great flood myth. There is some scientific evidence that there was a sudden flood in the Mediterranean region
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
I am a Christian. I am a decon in my church. We take communion every week. I also believe in science. So many of the religious right in the US are focused HOW things happened, when they're forgetting that the important thing is WHO did it all.
Hey, I didn't mean it this way. But look at the real process of accepting new ideas. The theory of self-correction often does not work, because some influential scientists with an ego bigger than Jupiter refuse to admit that their theories were wrong. Of course, there is no point in accepting everything that claims to be The Next Big Thing, but there are so many papers being killed because of several ultraconservative scientists. So, the only way to get rid of them is to wait until they die. It is morbid, you are right.
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
That slashdotters are even commenting on religion. It is obvious that 99% of the posters haven't a clue.
.... unlike others trying to sound balanced without presenting a single argument.
Your definition of intelligence clearly does not match mine, I don't consider people that defend the "wisdom" passed to us by ignorant shepperds, religious zealots or camel herders, intelligent.
If you do all the power to you, I just hope people fighting evolutionary theory would be consistent and reject any benefits to their lifes arised for its day to day application in medicine, biology, etc. Then those people may earn some respect although I would still roll my eyes in disbelief.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Of course, you have already begun by playing their stupid game, when you talk about "their truth" and "your truth" as if reason didn't apply in either case.
The word is "beliefs" and, unlike truths, they aren't always... um... true.
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
... the people that left their brain at the door have hijacked the represntation of the ones that did not, and people outside the ultra conservative religious communities see precious little in the way of spousing modern democratic enlightened values.
You are the exception that confirms the rule if we believe what you are saying at face value.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Where? I lived in California for a while, and the only time I can imagine someone getting bitched at for praying would be standing in the line to get on the train or something. Just like anywhere else. So what are you talking about?
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
In short, you'll find a *very* wide range of prayer-styles among christians. On one end, you'll have more formal, more liturgical christians that will only pray pre-established, corporate prayers out loud on Sunday. That's what you seem to be most familiar with, and that is very common.
On the other end, you'll find fundamental or evangelical christians that refer to Paul's instruction to 'be joyful, pray continually'. So, while I walked out to my office this morning, I thought about thanks to God for a new day and asked Him to be with me. I try to live my life aware of God at all times, to me, that's prayer. You could have walked next to me and not even known about it -- it's a God and me thing.
Thanks for asking politely.
back to the closet with you, false Christian:
Read and profit, infidel, from the Great Book (Matthew 6:5-6):
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. seen Matt 6:1, Matt 6:16, Matt 23:5 6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
religion science words of inescapable subjectivity. imagine a universe in which they never separated
Aside from the numerous religious discussions I know that the IMAX near me is just using this as an excuse. They show the "artsy-fartsy" films from time to time, but then they also show the action blockbusters as well. Guess which one draws more money???
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
... I wonder when they will start to declard wars against other countries because of religious reasons...
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
just like every atheist isn't going to shove their moral's down your throat through legislation.
Name one instance in which an Atheist has shoved morals down anyone's throat via legislation. Just off the top of my head I can think of one going the opposite way right off the top of my head. Blue laws. There is absolutely no reason to prohibit the sale of alcohol on Sunday aside from religious reasons. There are more, but I'll let that one stand as an obvious example.
(though, of course, it raises an interesting view..if you lack a religion..doesn't that become your religion? If you refuse to believe or acknowledge God, aren't you following a belief system?)
No. A lack of religion does NOT constitute religion. By definition. It's not like Atheists (in general) actively disbelieve God in the face of any evidence. On the contrary, the resounding lack of evidence is what drives us to the conclusion that there is no God. On the other hand, if God were to appear tomorrow in a manner that was indisputable, we'd (again, most of us) be instant converts. A religion implies a faith. And faith requires that one believes in something absent evidence. Given evidence, faith is no longer required.
And Christianity is not a lifestyle. It is a belief system.
hmmm... what I was taught was that Christianity was a lifestyle. You are supposed to give your life over to Christ, and worship him through your thoughts and your deeds.
Actually, based on my reading of the Bible, most of what Christians do is fairly un-Christian. First of all, most of the fundamentalists I've spoken to seem to give an awful lot of weight to the Old Testament... but didn't Christ say he had come to create a "new Covenant", to take the place of the old? And didn't he preach against the hypocrites and their shows of religion, saying "Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven."? Of course now someone will say something about how even the Devil can quote scripture if it suits his purpose.
Maybe these movies are not being shown, not because any fundamentalists find it controversial, but because the movies suck.
Oliver Stone was complaining that people didn't go see the movie Alexander because the main character's bi-sexuality was too controversial. Uh, no Mr. Stone, they didn't see it because it was lame, panned by critics, and most of your movies nowadays suck.
Michael Moore complained that F9/11 didn't do well because of censorship, people threatening boycotts, etc... Except that the movie was one of the best selling documentaries of all time and was show everywhere across the United States. If it didn't do as well as Jurassic Park, it is because people don't usually go to the theaters to see documentaries.
I find it far more realistic that people just rather see "Disney's Goofy 3D" or something on the IMAX, rather than underwater fish. And the people who show these movies can deflect blame by blaming religious zealots who don't exists.
Several Imax theaters, including some in science museums, are refusing to show movies ... fearing protests from people who object to films that contradict biblical descriptions of the origin of Earth and its creatures.
My own first reaction was that this is a much larger First Amendment issue than the Apple lawsuits, and many posters are expressing fear of a growing "American Taliban" and such.
But, on closer examination, the suppression is self-imposed. That first paragraph is the last mention of the word "protest" in the article; I found no mention of organized protests or a movement to suppress the films. The only specific comments anyone cites are those solicited in a survey after a test screening, and the comments are not of the foaming-at-the-mouth, book-burning variety. In fact, they're a darn sight tamer than most comments about anything here on /.
Quoting the article again:
"It's going to be hard for our filmmakers to continue to make unfettered documentaries when they know going in that 10 percent of the market" will reject them.
Others who follow the issue say many institutions are not able to resist such pressure.
Pressure? So now a small minority opting not to pay to see a documentary, however silly we may consider their reasons, constitutes a threat to free expression? The alarmism in that correlation is, IMHO, more inflammatory and manipulative than the "pressure" cited in the article.
Look, I abhor the movement to elevate "creationism" to the level of science in school curricula, and I know that the organized movement to do so is in the minds of those expressing their fears in the article. I'll be the one of the first to fight the movement before my local school committee if it comes to that, which I doubt.
But I don't see anything to react to here, other than to be a little more proactive about voting with my feet and wallet to offset the silliness of others.
I recently saw "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea", and their probably were two points brought up in the movie that religious fundamentalists could see as being "biased".
I believe the first point brought up is they made an estimate as to when the earth was created (I'm can't remember exactly, but I'll assume that they went with the standard 6 billion years old), and they also said how life was probably created in the water, they did a little spiel about ameobas (sp?) and how it is impossible to find fossils or do any dating of ameobas or their non-existant fossils (All of which probably isn't/shouldn't be looked on as a negative thing by the religious fundamentalists).
YOU'RE WINNER !
Another lame blog
idiots, plain and simple.
To lean on your religion in this way is to use it as a crutch for your inability to understand anything past your nose, plain and simple.
I know plenty of people who are very scientific, very well educated, very intelligent, and very religious.
Do they feel that their beliefs mean they can't follow science? Of course not.
What's wrong with feeling that God put the universe there for you to figure out yourself? You can still look at creation and say "It's all part of God's plan". If what you see doesn't match what's in your particular translation of the holy book, your responsibility is to find out WHY it doens't match. Translation error? Historical error? Plain old human error? Science experiment is wrong?
But stuffing your head in the sand and saying "how DARE they teach science" is absurd.
Take a page from the BBC's book - when they wanted to show Jerry Springer the Opera uncut (gay Jesus, lots of swearing etc), the hardcore Christians went absolutely ape shit - 50,000 complaints before the program even aired and demonstrations outside "British Blasphemy Corporation". The BBC stuck through it and showed it because their job is to provide programs for everyones tastes at different times, not dumb down all progams into one PC mush of shit.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
What's laughable to me is that people ridicule my faith in accepting that the universe was created in 6 literal days, about 6,600 years ago but those same people are not even willing to accept the notion that their belief in evolution is based on no less faith then I have. Evolution is bad science, simple fact. The problem, though, is that the community of crazies will do anything to protect their "religion" and so the truth never really gets out. There are so many fallacies and outright lies in text books about evolution, many of which have been proven wrong as long as a hundred years ago, yet the establishment is hesitant to remove them because they have nothing to replace it with. One of the best examples of this is Ernst Haekel's drawings of embryos. Kids are told on one page that fossils are dated by the rocks they are found in, and then on the next page that the rocks are dated by the fossils that they're found in - and we wonder why kids today are confused. As to other lies that have been used to promote evolution at one time or another, we have Java Man, Piltdown Man, Lucy, the beaks of finches, and the colour of moths, and beneficial mutation, which has never been observed. I have no problem with evolutionary theory being taught to my children in school. The problem that I have is that it is presented as proven fact, which it is not, and there is a substantial group of the scientific (and non-religious) community who believe the same, but no one is willing to even entertain an alternate theory because all their credibility is tied up into evolution. You want me to believe that somehow I've 'evolved' from a puddle of goo where life spontaneously came into existence and that that through the miracle of evolution that one cell has eventually changed into every life form on the planet. And somehow, you say you're based on science and I'm the one of us who is full of faith.
The article mentions "several" theaters in the second paragraph, says "the number of theaters rejecting such films is small, people in the industry say - perhaps a dozen or fewer" in the third paragraph, indicates that most of these theaters are in the south, and that most IMAX theaters don't routinely show science documentaries anyway.
So at most, we're discussing twelve businesses, most of which don't normally show science movies in the first place, in areas where the people have a predilection for creationism, deciding that they'd lose business if they chose to show films that offended sensibilities of their audiences. Geeze, people complain about the newsworthiness of postings on Slashdot -- they New York Times thinks this is news? FLASH: People decide to make their own business choices, film at eleven!
Over whom shall we assert a collective mandate and override their rights to chose? The businesses whose managers have decided it isn't in their financial interests to show it? The creationists who would rather not be force-fed what they don't believe in? There are 240 IMAX theaters, do they all have to show science documentaries? I would prefer that they do, but I also know that I don't want to live in a country that makes such a requirement.
These aren't public schools. They are businesses. They are responding to the local demands of their audiences -- the only demand to which they should be held accountable. And at that, we're talking about twelve (at the most!) out of 240 that have made this decision.
Big deal.
When I look at the madness that infests the USA, I feel the deepest despair. I earnestly endeavor to be 'tolerant' in my own life, and I am mostly successful in this respect. I live modestly, one could even say conservatively (in the non-political sense) and I happily manage, as ever, in getting by with less than what my income could easily allow me to acquire. I believe in science. I was raised in a devout Protestant Christian home, we went to church every Sunday. I do not now believe in any god or gods. Again, I believe in science. (I have been confronted with this argument many times: "Oh, so you believe in science, then who or what created science?" My response: "And God said, I am that I am" [Exodus 3:14])
I am so bloody well sick and tired of these false prophets in these so-called fundamentalist religions. If Jesus is coming soon, as some/many Christian nutcases believe, or if there is a Heaven and Hell, then the Falwells and the George W. Bushes (et alia) of this world are in for one helluva surprise. One can only hope that in some way these despicable charlatans will get paid back, in spades. OK, I guess you could say that I am intolerant of those who espouse intolerance.
"It was my first clue that atheists are my brothers and sisters of a different faith, and every word they speak speaks of faith. Like me, they go as far as the legs of reason will carry them -- and then they leap."
- Life of Pi
In the case of creationism (or its in-sheep's-clothing surrogate du jour, "intelligent design") the two "developed" nations that have any significant public sentiment backing the active suppression of modern biology are the U.S. of A. and Australia. Both are former colonies of Great Britain, obviously, and both of them have a colonial history of explaining the death and displacement of native people in terms of God's will... There seem to be some cultural traits in common, generally. Hard to make that list up in any clean way, but the similarities are there.
Sometimes I have the feeling that it's a stubbornly self-deluding denial of history that somehow eventually causes these ideological perversions of thought. For example: a huge share of the American south seriously hasn't come to terms with the Civil War and "reconstruction," not for what they really were. Reconstruction ended because of plain terrorism: political terrorists fighting for their "lost cause" killed and threatened anyone who disagreed with them, including ordinary people and political figures. That's what the KKK is all about. That's how it came to run entire state legislatures in the early 1900s. Ask my Oklahoma relatives about reconstruction, though, and they'll tell you that black people were just incapable of taking part in government. Blaming the failure of reconstruction on black people is, essentially, an insane argument. It's completely inadequate and incoherent when you hold it up next to the record and try to explain events with it.
At some point, if you're making yourself believe completely bogus history in order to pretend your "side" was noble, when it wasn't... Well, maybe that's going to twist your conscience, and your ability to see straight, and make you willing to tell yourself more lies in order to cover up the primary ones. My OK relatives find all sorts of amazingly backward ways to take the Bible. To hear them read it, it's all about not allowing anyone who doesn't believe exactly what they believe into their church. So much for Christ's inclusive message.
What would the historical denial be in the case of Australia? I wonder how bizarrely Australian schoolbooks treat that "Fatal Shore" colony-of-convicts thing. Treatment of the aborigines? There are a few undercurrents of history there. Maybe that's it.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
My Karma runs over your Dogma.
But my dogma runs AWAY from your karma!
It is your Most Sacred and Holy duty to fuck the world up as much as you can to speed on The Rapture(sic).
Ah and the Rapture Index, tracking such milestones in the breakdown of social morality as:
1968
U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Epperson v. Arkansas:
State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions
Insert Signature Here
Joachim
People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]
But my dogma runs AWAY from your karma!
Even after all the mods on his karma?
Sorry... I couldn't resist.
...I'd clarify from my own perspective by saying that I have every right to pray whereever I want...
So, basically you're not a Christian then. Go read Mathew 6 again because you missed a bit. According to Jesus you're supposed to pray in the privacy of your room, with the door closed. Without using fancy words because it's between you and God and not meant to show how religious you are.
I almost don't want to reply to this topic because of the typically intense and misinformed vitriol towards literal Bible-believing Christians spilling out on this site, (seriously, that is not the way to present an argument) but I feel that I should serve as one representative literal Bible-believer, maybe it will help some who are open-minded understand our position.
I personally love IMAX movies and I love science. However, I am not afraid to think that there is a power greater than myself in this universe who created everything in 6 literal days, 6-10000 years ago. I also believe that true science supports this position much more strongly than it supports complete evolution. So, it rankles me when the IMAX films spout off evolutionary claims as though they are fact. You don't even need to have a contrary belief to determine that those claims aren't fact, they change on their own every couple of months/years! I would even be happy if they admitted that "it is currently hypothesized that...". So, if a large number of people are offended by those dogmatic claims in certain areas and the theaters have decided that it is counterproductive to show those films, so be it, perhaps the producers will be a little bit more honest in the future!
Very few 'legitimate' historians have an opinion on this because the historicity of Jesus is not terribly relevant, other than as an article of faith for certain religions. What does matter historically is the development of the myth/cult/story/religion as a social and political phenomenon.
If you're interested, there isn't very much evidence for Jesus as a historical figure. No genuine early (1st cent. AD) sources other than the synoptic gospels refer to events of his life - and even they are surprisingly contradictory. So for historians, the evidence would equally support the view that the figure of Jesus (and the events of his life supposedly narrated in the New Testament) actually emerged from a semi-coherent set of parables and stories about a mythical religious figure. There are parallels with the legends of King Arthur or Robin Hood, for example.
If you make the assumption that these films present objective truth, then it's reasonable to object to what appears to be censorship.
.02
This assumption is unreasonable. After all, we all have a bias - whether we are conservative, liberal, religious, atheist, etc. Is it possible to maintain a sense of detachment when making a film? I'd assert that it is not.
My objection, as a religious fundamentalist, is not that the films are 'science' but rather where the films depart from science and insert their makers' worldview that is NOT science.
For example, when the filmmakers present information about the origin of the universe as fact rather than theory. Frankly no one can demonstrate with science about origins.
Also, many times scientific theories (not just evolution, but theories about cosmology, biology, etc) are presented as if they are fact rather than hypothesis.
Where the movies show science, let them play. Where they are a polemic for the maker's bias, let the market decide.
If the market does not want those polemics - Farenheit 911, anyone? - it makes sense for the IMAX theaters to skip them.
Just my
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Truth: Damn near all terrorists are Arabs.
Yes, from the Arabs who blew up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, to the Arabs who plant all the car bombs in Belfast, to the many Arab revolutionary movements in South America, to the Arabs who bomb abortion clinics, to the Arabs who spray Sarin gas in Japanese subways. Nothin' but freakin' a-rabs.
I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
It wasn't religious fundamentalists who protested Mel Gibson's film before they saw it.
No, but it was religious fundamentalists who protested Scorsese's film before they saw it.
I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
"And Homosexuality, if I remember correctly, is a value system and life style choice..."
Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, it is neither a value system nor a life style choice. Homosexuals do not choose to be homosexuals any more than heterosexuals choose to be heterosexuals. Homosexual people have value systems and life styles as diverse and as varied as heterosexual people. If you are considering that many homosexuals want to live their lives with partners who are of the same sex as being a life style choice; then being heterosexual is also a life style choice. Atheism, liberterianism, scientology, and christianity are all lifestyle choices; homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, is is a sexual orientation. Could you imagine what would happen if the government passed laws that said that heterosexuals couldn't marry or that heterosexuals couldn't both be honest and be in the military?
and an inability to parse simple declarative sentences.
Clear, Dark Skies
You are confusing atheism with agnosticism.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
I know you're not arguing for this POV, but still..
Another way to think of it is in the time that "god created the Earth", the days were far far longer. For example, a day on some planets is far longer than that of a day on our modern-day Earth.
"Y'see, when it says DAYS it actually means millennia..."
Thou shalt not kill
"Y'see, when it says KILL it actually means 'partake of hotdog buns on a Thursday'...
Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
It's really quite disappointing when fundamentalists on any topic can convince what should be an independent entity to silence another fundamentalist's viewpoint. How many pickets can you recall by people with other religious views such as muslims and athiests when the "Passion of the Christ" movie first aired? None. How many Christian fundamentalist pickets are there whenever one of these factual science-based flicks airs? Dozens. The door should swing both ways, should it not? It seems only fair to me.
most IMAX films frankly stink and don't take advantage of the medium. Show cool stuff on a big screen. Not hard.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Mormons who believe a non-SF story
It's not like they haven't contributed .
Records refer to an individual named James, brother of 'Jesus called Christ'. The GP was correct about few legit historians questioning the existance of a man named Jesus around 30AD-ish.
Attacking the fact that Jesus actually existed and walked the earth is a very direct way of trying to destroy the entire belief system of those that claim to follow Jesus and his teachings.
Contradictions in the synoptic gospels? Rubbish.
Evolution gets the brunt of the contoversy, but modern astronomy, cosmology, physics, and geology are no more consistent with the prevailing theology than is the science of biology (as Galileo Galilei unfortunately discovered back in the 17th century). I doubt any field is safe that finds itself in contradiction with what was known and believed 2000 years ago. Is our Age of Reason once again in twilight?
I'm a religous conservative, probably qualifying as "rediculous", and "fundie" and whatever other labels show up in this /. thread.
/. thread is the overall dumping on religously oriented people. Tolerance has made America a refuge for the world, but, the rise of IN-Tolerance towards Americans of faith is plainly wrong.
Yeah, I'm one of those guys who takes the Bible 'literally', and I'm one of 'those' kind of guys who finds The Theory of Evolution to be an amusing story.
Do I find these IMAX films 'offensive' ? Let me put down my pitchfork a moment, hold on while I turn down the boiling pot of pitch... No, the majority of 'us' "fundie" types find it to be mindless boredom with really awesome eye candy. Frankly, thats how nearly EVERYONE finds the IMAX films, the statement of 'fearing from a backlash of religous conservatives' belies the truth that the films are boring and simply not going to draw a crowd. What should the poor imax manager do? "Hmmm, lets employ the fundies to make a non-existant controversy...it might work..."
What really annoys me with this
The only PT Boat Journal on the web: http://www.PT171.org
The whole topic is nothing but flamebait, the editor in question should be sacked!
I have yet to see one (reasonable) Imam cheer murder in any form, and I read International news.
Wacko fundamentalism is wrong, but don't let Urban Legend prejudice your mind into believing that Christianity has any moral highground over any other faith.
Trivia: Largest fundametalist murderer of all time: Adolph Hitler , death total 3.2 to 3.8 million over 1933-1945.
Not to mention the Arab terrorists who carpet bomb countries and torch down villages.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
For whatever reason, these people have become baffled by the world they live in, and the bible, or koran, or L Ron Hubbard, or whatever, provide something which claims to know all the answers. Never mind that it is inconsistent as hell; "God moves in mysterious ways". They no longer need to think about the big questions, as someone else put it, of Who What Why When Where How. They just put their lives in God's hands and stop thinking. Life is ever so much more comfortable when you don't think.
Infuriate left and right
If some movie about science is all it takes to get the christians feeling threatened, then no wonder islam is growing faster than christianity.
Cosmic Voyage I believe was at the Smithsonian, along with Flight (corroboration anyone?) for a long time through the 70s-90s at least.
It may be a little dated in the few seconds spent on the visible human world, but had the most impact on me as a child in understanding the universe, its scale, self similarity, and beauty. (In addition to exponential notation and a cool "trip"!) Arguably it could be the absolutely best film in the world for teaching science.
Not using it for the reasons mentioned in the post ought to be the subject of a lawsuit. walk the plank! arrr.
Fundies as you've put them are not necessarily the bible thumping variety. They simply believe in the "fundamentals" of the faith.
Having said that it's also true that many of the earliest and most important scientists were basically fundamental Christians who based on their knowledge of God sought to learn more about Him by understanding His world.
Don't make the biggoted mistake of saying that "all those fundies" dont have an interest in science. The truth is they do very much - ie. many are engineers, doctors, etc.
Parent is correct. Almost all forms of prayer or meditation have a physical aspect regardless of belief wether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Budist, Shiek, or Hindu. Some physical forms are very overt such as the many forms of dance. Some forms are subtle such as a simple crossing of the chest, or use of prayer beeds. In all cases the goals are the same: to unite the body and mind in prayer or meditation.
Christianity is a belief system. Plain and simple. Like was said elsewhere in this discussion, you can adopt it as a lifestyle, but it's not necessary. You are expected to, but if you're saved, you're saved. Think of the theif on the cross, all he had was belief in God, and he was told he would be in heaven that day. He had no lifestyle that would be considered Christian.
placing weight on the OT is bad? o.O Christ also said he wasn't here to destroy the old laws, but rather to amend them. And yes, he was the New Covenant. (let me briefly explain)Before Christ, in order to be forgiven for sins a sacrifice was needed. When Christ died on the cross, he became an eternal sacrifice for all man-kind. Thus the Old Covenant of Animal Sacrifice was done away with, while Christ took his place as the lamb of God.
And he did preach against the hypocrites who wore massive robes, struted down the street, had fan-fair blown in public places to announce they were praying. Against those who took the bible and twisted it for their own profit, and used the bible to oppress the common folk. Christ was a carpenter. He was a common man, a sacrifice for the every day person. He did not make his appearance as a Glorious King leading his Army (though He could have, and Will) And you are right on the fact the Devil can quote Scripture. But so can believers.
Get an HD tv set, Get a service that offers http://www.inhd.com/matrix/matrix.jsp This is all i watch now. Nature shows and IMAX films in HD are impressive. There is no more time for other shows now.
Sorry but the Bible is a loose collection of Jewish fairy stories mixed in with a whole mish mash of "hidden" Qabalistic symbolism plus much standard Sanskrit/Buddhist doctrine.
Quite how anyone thinks it has any relevance to them in this day and age (other than as an archeological curiosity) is simply beyond me.
"And Shalbot begat Sholam who begat Rachel who begat Esau". Enough begatting already, who fucking cares ? It's not like there's any good tapes of early begatting action for us to lust over now is it ?
This really does show how fucking dumb America has become. American fundmentalists are thick as fucking pigshit. I just wish there was a spare island then we could put these morons plus the Taliban etc. on it and at least we could get a good game show out of it.
Then again at the rate they're going in 50 years time they'll all be cleaning their Chinese overlords toilets. Serves them right too.
Nono...they just try and destroy the standing military and kill millions of tissue samples each year..But hey! At least they didn't fly those planes!
"religious fundamentalists" is not PC...
/me wonders why people still believe the earth is the center of the universe (sadly some "fundamentalists" do believe it is, as they feel the bible hints at that).
they perfer to be called the scientifically ignorant.
So the Flu is going to suddenly evolve into a bird?? o.O O.o You seem confused my friend, with adaptation for survival, even if it's fast adaptation, and spontaneous evolution (I know there is a proper term for it, but I can't find it). Even humans can radically adapt to harsh environments given a certain amount of time. Our body adapts, the temperatures don't seem as cold/hot, and we start to notice the blistering wind less. We even become~gasp~immune to certain viruses.
The Evidence of Creation is right infront of YOUR face. You just don't want to see it.
What is a day to a god?
First off, it says "commit murder", which is distinctly not the same thing as "kill". There are valid reasons to kill someone, but not to murder them. Secondly, the word murder has a clear before and after state, and a frame of mind involved.Time is not necessarily a constant to a god. We consider a day the time it takes for the earth to rotate. But the use of the word "days" occurs before the earth actually existed, according to the myth, so what is a "day" in that context?
as my choosing to write with my right hand.
wants to be the first monkey to touch the monolith
Man will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.
Actually the biggest problem I have with fundies is their missionary zeal, the ones that use their lean or not so lean takings and go to third world countries, where they live like lords and convert poor, starving, and awed masses to whatever fucked-up faction they represent. Every time I'm in south east asia and see one of those sweaty, moustachioed swine, I just see the nightmares they are seeding for the rest of the world in 50 or a hundred years time.
Oh yeah, and they haven't taken any vows of celibacy either, if you get my meaning.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
'Fundamentalist christians' is not a nebulous term, it means that they believe the Bible IS the final authority to every question. Should your faith include a belief that statements in the Bible are not necessarily literal truth, you ARE NOT a fundamentalist. There are issues between some fundie groups, but in general, the rule is: if it's not stated in the Bible, it is;
A)an atheistically inspired lie
B)evidence that Satan is about to take down TMU, or taint 'the body of Christ (as a congregation)' even though they 'know' that their God is all-powerful.
C)'only a theory', no matter the body of evidence that supports it.
I don't understand why they believe that God would hide the truth from his people, or let Satan's lies overshadow his truth.
The fact that you posted here is almost absolute evidence that you use a non-standard definition of 'fundamentalist' that is not what is understood by most fundies.
Many consider it acceptable to be prejudiced against gays.
When he said "acceptable," he meant by the mainstream public in general. The fact that you can come up with an example of a bigotry that a small pocket of people "accept" does not mean that it is "acceptable." It's moot anyway, as both of you are wrong. There are many prejudices that remain acceptable by the general public. For example, prejudice against smokers, fat people, and white males are all still widely accepted in today's society. Your feeble, twisted logic would conclude that even blatant racism is "acceptable," since the KKK exists somewhere.
In many nations, women are repressed. Even in the US they often have to overcome rediculous and antiquated notions.
Gender equality is virtually universal in North America. There are no longer "rediculous [sic]" obstacles to them achieving equal rights and priveleges.
People executed in the US are disproportinately black.
Demonstrably false. More whites are executed in the US than blacks. Count 'em yourself: here's Texas' list. Since Jan 1, 2000, Texas has executed 73 whites, 52 blacks, and 17 hispanics. The irony is that you began your post with:
Whoa, buddy. You just spouted some grade-A bullshit.
I humbly suggest that you've done the same.
Arab-Americans are more likely to be stopped at airports.
Do you have any evidence to support this claim, or are you just pulling wild accusations out of your ass, like you did with the "more blacks are executed than whites" baloney?
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
...the courts are taking down any symbolism that might be deemed even remotely "Christian" from public property because apparently the handfull of atheists in the country go into a swoon when they see any of them...
http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly041229.htm
[Literalists] are baffled and confused by current society moving too fast for them; not just the pace, but also the pace of change.
This still leaves the problem of why the USA has been the only (supposedly:-)) developed country where this has happened.
Europe got the hard-core green "environmentalist" movement instead. If someone in Europe is against science and looking back to a fictional golden age when everything was stable and pure than they're probably a 'green'. They even try to cast thier anti-science/anti-technology views in 'moral' terms.
I'm not talking about people who give a damn about the environment (in the same way that most people who are christian or musilm aren't fundamentalist christian or muslim) - I'm talking about the very small yet very vocal minority who hate modern society and the science and technology behind it.
I often question just how much these so called greens really care about the environment. When forced to choose between supporting something that would be good for the environment but involve science/technology and something that's actually worse for the environment but not involve sci/tech (or even better eliminate sci/tech) they'll usually go for the latter.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
... if you have the right fundamentals.
An example of what should be fundamental to a Christian is as follows:
"The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against these things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and wants. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other." (Galatians)
The problem with Bible-thumping Christians is that they love to get fired up over the Bible's condemnations of evil, such as
"Every morning I will put to silence all the wicked in the land; I will cut off every evildoer from the city of the Lord" (Psalms)
without studying the Bible to understand how it defines evil. They'll cling to a verse like that, and go fight against not the true evils of the world, like greed and imcompassion, but they war against some superficial "evils" that are usually just cultural impasses.
A great example of Christians missing the point: you know that the Bible doesn't feature the sin of Sodom and Gommorah as having anything to do with homosexuality? Here's what it says:
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did destable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." (Ezekial 16)
If Christians believe in the Bible, then maybe they should read all of it, and think on it, instead of lingering all their life on John 3:16 and the 10 Commandments.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
This "Political Correctness" is complete bullshit. Why is it that free thought has to suffer, I hear that in schools now they can not teach about Darwin's theories of evolution.
Sound like our kids are bieng programmed. I am not by any stretch of the imagination a religious person. I was raised in a Baptist household, and have studied the bible and several other religious teachings. The evidence of evolution is as real as the sun. There is a ton more evidence to support the fact that life evolved from single celled creatures, than to support the Adam and Eve teachings of the bible.
The main argument bieng, if Adam and Eve were the first people, then how over time did we avoid genetic defects from inbreeding, which is a proven fact of nature.
I realize it all comes down to faith, but are we all not so intelligent and open minded to teach all philosophies and let people make up their own minds?
I want my daughter to know what is out there, and let her make her own informed and educated decision as to what she believes is truth.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
I live in a blue state, and I'll have you know that we have yokels too. Our yokels are every bit as clueless and loud as your yokels!
So there.
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
Hmmm, Freudian slip or typo? Or ... both?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Ahh, the old good fundies vs. bad fundies story! I know this one. It was in a movie I saw where the good fundie helped a little child and wondered about whether it was really right to take on the burden of leading Europe out from under the yoke of the Jewish communist banking conspiracy. He had seen the problem first-hand, but still wondered if the Final Solution was maybe somehow wrong.
The bad fundie, by contrast, had a terrible vertical scar on his cheek and a monocle. He kicked a puppy. I just knew not to cheer for him. In fact, watching him was how I knew the Final Solution was bad, because I can't really tell whether smiting your enemies is justified. Sure, I like reduced oil prices, but each time an enemy gets smited, well, I just don't know how many millions should be wiped out as God's will.
If only an Indiana Jones movie would come out and help me figure out which side to take in conflicts more recent than 1945!
If someone is agnostic, they are so open-minded they have no ability to think critically anymore.
:)
No, it means that they can. The only rational observation is that there are no credible facts with which to form knowledge.
I despise self-proclaimed agnostics even more than I despise religious people. If you're agnostic, you have to accept each and every type of "God" that people can come up with.
Somebody seems a little grumpy after having his religious dogma stepped upon.
God is a giant lemming that invented the world two minutes ago out of a rubber ball, and his dirty handkerchief.
Could be... unlikely.
We all exist as fifteenth-dimensional shadows of his uncountable fingernails.
Could be... unlikely.
Then you'll start to realise why agnosticism is really a crock, and you'll finally become an atheist and won't be afraid to hurt religious people's feelings by telling them they are wrong
It's okay to be skeptical about the existence of God, but I think you need to relize that Atheism is an absolute belief about things we have no credible way to know. I piss off lots of Christians, too, by telling them that they are gullible fools, since thier absolute faith is so contrived and unlikely. They deserve to be pissed off.
They do sound interesting. I wouldn't mind seeing any of those, either, nor would I mind exposing my kids to them, so long as the programs don't outright mock what I believe. I would view it as an opportunity to discuss with my kids what I believe and why I believe it. Ultimately, my kids have to decide for themselves what they believe about the world around them.
I don't think that evangelical Christians, by and large, are afraid of the marketplace of ideas. They are used to being the underdog in an ideological war.
If you look at the public struggles between creationists and evolutionists, the creationists who represent the mainstream Evangelical thought are not trying to remove evolution, they would just like the teaching of evolution to acknowledge that it is not a proven fact, and that there are other schools of thought, an in particular, the possibility of intelligent design.
As a creationist, I do *not* want the teaching of religion in the public school classroom. Public school teachers have a wide variety of religious beliefs, so what would be the guarantee that they would represent the Christian belief? I rather not even go there.
so that the fundies actually have something interesting to complain about!
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
"Is our Age of Reason once again in twilight?"
Well how else would you interpret the timely appearance of... Satan's Turtle!
Um.. murder means killings another person. It's a synonym of homicide. In American law, murder in the FIRST degree is the murder you describe. Planned, and committed to. Second degree murder is done without thinking, but still using a similar technique. Such as a gunshot to the head. Manslaughter is murder by accident, which is usually what people with second degree murder plead down to. It carries a much light sentence, usually less than a decade.
Er, no. People in dirt poor environments will
get bible-based education, and remain dirt poor.
Meanwhile, Ivy-League parents will put their
children through Ivy League universities, where
religious nonsense doesn't get much of a look
in. End result: the rich stay rich, the poor
slit their own wrists.
But as a European, I'm quite keen on this.
Fucking up the productivity in the 21st century
of a good proportion of the US population can
only be a good thing for my children.
ian
wants to be the first monkey to touch the monolith
The headlines you've been reading about the death penalty being racist? If you would RTFA, you would find that the number of blacks executed is not dispproportionately high. How is it racist, then? I'm glad you asked. If you check the statistics, you will find that the murder victims are disproportionately white. That is, when the study is controlled for all kinds of factors, it is the inescapable conclusion that you are VASTLY more likely to be executed for killing a white victim than a black victim. This is found throughout the USA after you control for ratio of white victims to blacks, etc. In other words, the death penalty is intended as a mechanism to protect whites, not blacks.
It is easier to fight against racism if you understand how it operates. It's harder to fight against racism if you just read the headline, make incorrect inferences, and start spouting your drivel.
For instance, given limited resources, protesters against against capital punishment on racist grounds should focus on cases where the vicim was white, since it is already very likely that someone who kills a black victim will avoid the death penalty. There are parallel cases to the fertilizer salesman in California where no one is even investigated
I'm not the one going to hell.
Why is that every time I read one of these stories I am reminded of Kornbluth's wonderful story The Marching Morons?
If this continues, Kornbluth will be revealed as a prophet and the idiots will indeed be running America. Maybe they already are?
In Government (aka public) schools, you can't even talk about the differences or controversies within evolution, nor the various hoaxes (the peppered moths, ontogony recapitulates phylogeny, piltdown man, etc.) since the grand inquisitor (or if you prefer, secular humanist mullahs) of the ACLU will come in and shut you down for heresy.
Were there even a discussion about intelligent design (even one that said nothing about the nature of the designer), I think people would be more open minded.
But war breeds war. If we cannot even discuss evolution except as dogmatic truth in any governmental forum (and the courts and congress expand the definition of "government" daily), why should you expect people to respect the opinions on those who are on the side of the oppressors.
Evolution is true? Then debate it. Present both sides and those who have to make up things or evade or mindlessly cite authority texts will look silly.
But then we would have to have a truly open society.
Kicking the Puritans out of their country was the best decision Britain ever made...
All of the examples you cite are indeed forms of murder. The taking of innocent life. However, killing your opponent in time of war is not murder (depending on the conditions of the war), and the death penalty is not murder, at least biblically.
I suppose the reason why praying is a common denominator in a lot of religions has to do with getting your thoughts and feelings out in a structured fashion, like talking to a mirror.
Talking about your thoughts, fears, feelings, etc. helps with making up your mind or clearing up internal conflicts you may not have been conciously aware of. (Writing is even better for this.)
The whole part where any potential benefit of this is then attributed to some deity is IMHO self-deception.
Keeping a journal or praying to the Almighty Zuul is not that different. (I can imagine some people's diaries can be just as bloodthirsty^H^H^H^H^H^H^H therapeutic.)
No, a thinking atheist. I am not saying maybe there is god or maybe there is no god. I am saying there is no god until it's proven it/he/she exists.
You can't handle the truth.
You forgot the Arabs who took all those kids hostage in that elementary school in Beslan, south of Russia, or the Arabs who beseiged the theater in Moscow in 2002.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
If "God hates fags" so much... why does he keep making them?
A group of people who worship and claim obedience to something that they cannot see and talk with are trying to stop showing movies that show things that are definitely real, definitely there, and definitely have a scientific explanation that can be said.
Once again, the idea of something you cannot see is trumping something that is there and you can see.
HILARIOUS!
I'm a Fundie. A "young-earth" Fundie, even. Here's the thing - the /. crowd quickly criticizes the Creationists / Creation Scientists / Intelligent Design folks for ignoring or wishing away a raft of science. Here's my reasoning why I don't feel this is a Big Deal.
I believe that a while ago a guy died, stayed dead for three days, came back to life, hung out for a month, and then ascended off the planet. All of our best science says that people don't spontaneously resurrect from the dead. Science also says people can't fly - especially while wearing a biblical era tunic.
I value science, as most or all of my Fundie buddies do. We just challenge some basic assumptions. One assumption we challenge is that God must operate within the bounds of science - in other words, that God cannot perform "miracles".
I believe the resurrection story. Why? Because I've become convinced that God can and did do something special - different that what we normally observe in science.
So here's my question back to the non-creationists. If it's socially acceptable (at least for now) to believe that Jesus died and was resurrected, against the logic of all available science, why is it so socially unacceptable to be convinced that God did something special at the beginning of time? Given that I already believe God exists and that he performed a miracle with Jesus, what's the big difference in believing that God performed a miracle a few thousand years ago?
I believe the answer to this question is that many who would seek to discredit the creation story in the bible hold a position predicated on the belief that God doesn't exist - a position that the same modern science rightly does not take.
Living in California, if I so much as breathe a single word about God, I am immeadiately told to cease and desist.
You could aways say that you are excerising your first admendment right to say anything that you would want. You then say that they don't have to listen.
I had to go through public school in Arkansas. I've always wanted to shout at any idiot that says there is no religion in public schools. It was a daily lunch time occurance of trying to hide from those that attempt to witness to you. My best advice is to be quiet, nod your head every now and then, and never, ever argue or agree. On a side note, that skill got me through several not quiet sane college professors and advisors.
Actually, modern astronomy, physics, and geology don't conflict with prevailing theology as much as you may be lead to believe (or the science-inclined masses may be lead to believe). As for the theory of evolution ... it has so many problems that anyone trying to use it as a basis for an argument is akin to religious fundies anyhow. I'm not saying that evolution won't be proven in the future ... but in it's current state it is nothing more than a fringe idea with a cult-like following.
I've always been leery of taking a translational issue and using it as a justification to end life. Actually, leery is too weak a word. When the religeous start playing lawyerball with the ten commandments, I usually take that as an opportunity to leave the conversation. It scares me.
Pax -- Ob
"I think what you're getting hung up on is the difference between the dictionary definition of religion and the common usage, which implies religion related to belief of a higher being."
No. What I am getting hung up on is why one set of beliefs deserves constitutional protection and while another does not.
"Also, I may be wrong, but I believe that atheism does get constitutional protection as a religion."
Not really. It's legal to discriminate against atheists if you are a church but it's not legal to discriminate against christians if you are business run by an atheist.
" I'd clarify from my own perspective by saying that I have every right to pray whereever"
Nobody is disputing that. I am simply pointing out that it may be disruptive depending on the gyrations you make while praying.
"right to stand next to me worshiping Satan if you desired to."
Again depends on the rituals. I don't think starbucks would appreciate me sacrificing a small animal in the coffee shop.
evil is as evil does
I appreciate the nitpick but really none of what you say contradicts me. We are still having this war.
evil is as evil does
your a closed minded fool that doesnt deserve to breathe air.
Nice.
I have no issue with people arguing that the taking of human life in any case is wrong, but the arguments have to have a valid basis. An incorrect translation of a 2000 year old book is not a basis I consider valid.
Sorry, Just Some Guy. Havne't you been here long enough to realize we don't tolerate logical posts from Christians?
Actually I'm still waiting for some explanation of why people think the days in Gen 1 have any literal connection with the events described. The text doesn't support such an interpretation in any translation I can recall. It never says, "God did X, spending a day doing so." There's no more linkage actually asserted than there is in "my cat upchucked a hairball. And there was an evening and a morning, the first day." Both statements may be true, but what exactly do they have to do with each other?
Assuming that the days *are* literal, I've also been heard to wonder why everything took so *long*. Did it take hours and hours for the stars to get The Word that they were supposed to begin existing, or something? Maybe the firmament had been out partying all night and had trouble waking up.
its all the freakin Masons dood!! they are in control of everything!!
never trust a secret society..
- Hi I'm Linus Torvalds and I pronounce Linux, Lih-nix..
I am pretty sure that if you understand the Bible's evocative use of metaphor, it actually supports string theory.
- Businessmen are turning down metric tons of cash for fear of upsetting a tiny minority. (And we know how ethical people get when money gets involved)
- Most IMAX theaters are located in science museums. When questioned why they were showing fewer science movies and more "Brittney Spears! Live!", they panicked. Instead of explaining that Brittney makes them about 10x more money, they decided the easy way to avert this controversy was to blame it on religious fanatics.
Call me a cynic, but I'm inclined to think option #2 is closer to reality.This is a non-issue.
Certain IMAX theatres are responding to perceived morals of potential clients by not showing certain educational films.
Obviously, these certain theatres and their clients belong to the low-brow, buckwheat-chewing, tobacco spittin', cousin-humpin' citizens of the mid-West Red states.
End-of-story.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
I'm pretty sure I heard on the teevee that McVeigh was financially supported by Saddam Hussein.
Now, if only we could convince the world of the obvious fact that the world is flat . . .
I just think it's absurd that a scientific institution will censor science in the interest of not insulting anti-scientific people. It's like the NAACP not holding events because they don't want to offend the KKK. Creationists don't get worried about offending people who believe in evolution.
I mean, there ARE opposing viewpoints. Creationists don't hold back. It's been the same way politically with right vs. left. The left pulls all their punches because they want to please everyone, and all that happens is they end up looking like weasely liars.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
If the above comments/stereotypes were made against any group other than Christians this would have been -1 Flaimbait, instead it is currently +5 insightful.
Which says more about Christians than Slashdot.
Seriously, go look it up.
Faster!
Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
Maybe it is because the film review described it as "hot and wet and in the dark?"
Sigh... This was going to be a long response, but I think I'll go talk to my dog instead...
.... in order, amongst other things, to pay my respect to the victims of the terrorist attacks.
But if the price is to be treated like a criminal on arrival and to start building a "record" on file in the US, then I will pass and will boycott the US as a touristic destination (and even as an stopover, better fly to Paris, Amsterdam or Madrid, were as a Mexican I am treated with dignity and fly from there to my own country, without been hindered by idiotic US immigration regulations and crass attitudes).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And rightly soo.
People that refuse to believe in falacies based on the "insights" of camel herders, shepperds or. er, provincial carpenters frankly deserve only contempt.
Specially since they twitch the teaching of their "prophets" to suit their needs. I just can imagine Jesus reaction in learning what you and your murderous President had done while invoking the name of God in vane so many times.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Even in the US most act of terrorism are done by white bread Americans.
Actually, modern astronomy, physics, and geology don't conflict with prevailing theology as much as you may be lead to believe
Sure they do. They all conflict with the 6000-year-old Earth teaching that is very much alive and well in American Christianity.
Oh, c'mon! The scientific community thrives on open discussion and debate. The religious community (at least the religious community discussed in this story) thrives by shutting down any debate!
:-) A high ranking official at Harvard was nearly thrown out because he suggested that the theory that women have a lesser predisposition towards scientific careers than men might warrant further study. He did not say he believed this to be true but merely thought it was something worth investigating. He was treated as a heretic and nearly thrown out for merely suggesting a line of investigation. Yeah, science is open minded. You confuse the ideal of science with the reality of the world, politics screws up science just like it screws up relgion.
Could it be that these people are very much afraid of any rational discussion about their beliefs?
You must not read the papers, or web news other than slashdot.
As to praying in public, no one should tell you to stop because you're 'forcing' your religion on them. However, I would inquire if a Starbucks is necessarily the best place for prayer, being that it is an entirely profane place. To each his own.
Religion itself isn't the problem, but religions of various sorts have been at the heart of almost every instance of violent and ordorous repression: its justification and its mechanism. Once you understand that, you can understand that as this society continues to transition towards private, individual religion, a public group prayer would seem to be dangerous and backwards-minded. You must also realize that fellow Christians, fundamentalists who decry this society as 'evil' and spout all kinds of hatred and idiocy also make public prayer circles. The fundamentalists have climbed into your bed and mainstream Christianity has allowed these fleas to fester and bite. When someone tells you to stop, tell them you are sorry to offend, but it is your right to pray.
Personally, I think prayer is a private, individual act, a quiet moment of introspection with God himself and no other ancillaries, but I would defend your right to pray even in Starbucks, just don't hog up all the tables, I need my coffee and my wireless.
Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
The Times article ends: "When the movie ended, a little girl stood in the audience to challenge Mr. Low on the film's suggestion that Earth might have formed billions of years ago in the explosion of a star. "I thought God created the Earth," she said. He replied, "Maybe that's how God did it."" Why is this idea so hard for the fundamentalist Christians to grasp? We should pay more attention to the word fundamentalist itself. Look up the meaning of it's root, "fundament".
A church functioning as a political organization cannot be compared to one functioning as a church. Politics corrupts, both religion and science. Witness the recent furor at Harvard when it was suggested that someone should investigate whether or not women have a predisposition against scientific careers. He was treated as a heretic for the suggestion.
As an atheist I have always wondered about prayer. The muslims go though an elobarate ritual of genuflecting and kneeling, the christians seem to think kneeling or bowing the head is enough. The thing I wonder is this. If your god is omnipresent and omnicient why do you have to go through physicals gyrations in order to be heard by god? Most christians pray out loud why is that? It is to show respect and to show a specific ritual act that constitutes part of a conversation. Just as you would say hello even at the beginning of a phone conversation and look someone in the eyes in person, you speak aloud to god and kneel. If you look at religions this is very typical behavior, the specific act, always aloud, of praying always includeds kneeling and bowing: Buddhists to Aztecs, Shintoists to Shi'ites.
Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
What was the motive and reason for posting this article, especially under the heading of "Your Rights Online"? What does this have to do with the internet or our rights online?
A portion of the article discusses people not liking individual lines, or certain concepts put forth in the movies (as if removing them will bring back that segment of the population.)
It's going to be hard for our filmmakers to continue to make unfettered documentaries when they know going in that 10 percent of the market" will reject them.
That's wonderful. So, if these Creationists really want to avoid things which injure their sensitive sensibilities about the beginnings of the world -- why would they watch these films in the first place?
The arguments that the film should be passed purely because it's going to bruise the sensitivity of a segment of the population is understandable to me; this is a capitalist effort and must make money. Demographics is going to pull any media around like a ball on a string when it's all about making money. IMAX isn't a museum created for the public good.
Now if a museum had made this sort of decision, I would have a much bigger gripe about it.
I especially loved the ending of the article where it is suggested that the science of a film is not in opposition to Creation but instead suggests the "how it was done." Sure, a god could have created the Earth, but what says it didn't do it using the mechanisms that we've uncovered with science?
Mill Avenue Vexations
That it starts with the word "stew" is suspicious, in my opinion.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I would argue that war does not always equate to evil. Just because you hate Bush, Republicans, and religion does not mean they are wrong.
Next up, not all religious people are Bush supporters, as you seem to imply. Frankly, I'm indifferent to politics because politicians almost always are self-serving, regardless of their party association.
Finally, invoking the name of God in vain, well, my guess (I could be wrong) is that you don't have the full understanding of what that means. Please read my blog post that touches on the name of God, and what it means to "take it in vain".
What I dislike about these sorts of all-out, unbridled attacks on religion is that everything is generalized to the point of fallacies. This very thread is based on an article written by a leftist (and therfore, anti-Bush, probably anti-religious) newspaper, the New York Times, in an attempt to slander religious people, and by associaion, the NYT's political enemy, George Bush. Because of hate-filled posts like those found in this thread, all we religious can do is defend ourselves from peanut gallery onslaughts like this one.
I choose to believe that a God has existed throughout history and still does. You don't have to believe that and I won't force my opinions on you. I just wish you would do the same and not force your hatred and your world views on me.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
They all conflict with the 6000-year-old Earth teaching that is very much alive and well in American Christianity.
Actually, they don't. Not in all circles. There is a common belief that there is a gap between Genesis 1:1, when the heavens and earth were created, and Genesis 1:2, when the seven days of creation began. The "6000-year-old Earth teaching" you refer to is actually a teaching that it was 6000 years since life was created. There is room in the teaching for the Earth and Universe to be older by an indeterminate amount of time.
Find coupons in Greeley
Actually the 6000 year old Earth started out as a gross misunderstanding among a few prominent christian figureheads. It spread out from there. If you consult analytical christians, they agree that the 6000 year old idea is a misunderstanding.
This lets us know where Sony's priorities are.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
In terms of the abscense of a religion becoming a religion I must disagree. Religion is a belief system and by that I mean you have to take certain things on faith. Science is not a belief system, it is a proveable system. When science says something is proveable it is proveable in a controlled system 100% of the time. That is the point of all those high school science classes, you play with acid and it will always act like acid, never a base. The fuzzier part is where people tend to believe science is like religion is the theoretical part of science. Faith is belief without any proveable system or empirical evidence. Religion has the constant problem of not being backed up by proof (or the strength of not being backed up by proof, however you want to look at it). Religion generally relies of personal belief and ancient religious texts. Theories by their very definition imply that the truth is not known. Sets of hypotheses back up a theory. You use what you know to extrapolate what could be. Then you test, and test, and test. Science does not abrogate the existence of deities but given what we can prove there is no evidence of their existence. The reason why we teach children the scientific theory over religious doctrine is that religion can not be proven by any sort of repeatable test and it is generally backed up by oral history, religious texts, and other cultural hold-overs while science can up with all sorts of other evidence that makes theory the most probable idea.
testing out my trending skills
I'm convinced that there are creationists and right-wingers out there who simply patrol the internet and either shout down dissenters, or, in the case of user-moderated sites like Slashdot, mod up like-minded beliefs. It is horrible. Surely the general Slashdot population is not dumb enough to support the ideas of "creation science" (for example) as the moderations would suggest.
It's because of the brainwashing by the US media. The funny part is they don't trust it when it's bad and about their political party. Yet, they, the majority, lap it up like it's the absolute truth otherwise.
i didnt read your comment but i think you forgot to double space your comment and use 18pt font
> If the above comments/stereotypes were made against any group other than Christians this would have been -1 Flaimbait, instead it is currently +5 insightful.
Oh? I can think of a few people in the Pacific Northwest or Utah forwhich this would've recieved a "+5 Insightful". Sorry, there's another religion which already has cornered the persecution market.
And just to be clear: Overgeneralizations are generally wrong.
Far better than that "gap theory" is the "day age" theory. The Hebrew word translated to "day" in Genesis 1 is the ONLY ancient Hebrew word that COULD have been used to describe a long but finite period of time.
In that context, with days being eons, Genesis 1 fits quite nicely into modern cosmology and geology. I could explain further, but no time right now.
It's spelled "voilà", you oversized two ton language bastardizing pig raping motherfucker.
If you consult analytical christians, they agree that the 6000 year old idea is a misunderstanding.
Well I sure wish millions of Christians here in America would consult them, so they'd stop spewing this 6000-year nonsense.
A rabbi friend of mine (I still find it weird to know rabbis my own age) gave a very good talk on the creation story. He talked about the moral teachings of the story, and the distinction it draws between G-d's influence and human influence on the world. His point was that the intent behind the story was moral, not historical.
The insistence on a literal reading the creation story (including attempts to reconcile it with current science by, for example, reinterpreting what a "day" might mean) seems to be a christian preoccupation, in my personal experience. The religious Jews I know don't seem to worry about it very much.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
And when they start burning books, people are next.
Ah, so evolution is just a theory! Oops, I just violated the first amendment...
There's an old saying that says pretty much whatever you want it to.
some influential scientists with an ego bigger than Jupiter refuse to admit that their theories were wrong.
This isn't science. This is personality and politics. It is a part of every human endeavor, not just academia.
but there are so many papers being killed because of several ultraconservative scientists.
Not to be a troll, but could you name them? I genuinely would like to know. For what it is worth, I'd like to point out that it is just as important to do good science as it is to explain good science. If you've done briliant research but has been terrible at communicating it, what good is it for your discoveries and/or insights to be misunderstood or underepresented? Relativity didn't miraculously come into being because Einstein dreamt it up. Gravity and light has always behaved the way they do, but that behaviour became important to us once a very smart man had the insight to articulate it and describe that behaviour. No self respecting scientists would ignore the supperior descriptive and/or predictive power of a newer idea simply out of loyalty to an established idea. Raising criticism and attacking new ideas is an important process in helping them develope and mature. It is what real science is about.
Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
The Christmas Star Noble Planetarium November 25 - December 23, 2005 Explore legend and fact surrounding the Star of Bethlehem, as well as holiday customs of different cultures.
All sigs should be as funny as possible, but no funnier.
Epidemiological genetic studies have clearly shown the linkages between species both extinct and existing. When combined with our understanding of the effects of time on the genetic code, it paints a clear picture of evolution.
Unfortunately the best evidence in support of evolution exists in such studies, which because of the complex biochemistry and mathematics involved, are very difficult for those outside the field of study to understand.
Your challenge as phrased above reflects the state of understanding of evolution that existed 20 years ago. Genotype, not phenotype, presents the strongest evidence in support of evolution.
Actually, hot dog buns are forbidden on every day of the week.
I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian Heritage
It is also not true that the word "days" occurs in any original text of the Old Testament. If you happen to know Hebrew, I'd love to know the *actual* word used, as well as a close approximation of its meaning. I, personally, have little to no faith that any word in an English (read, King James) Bible has an inescapeable relation to the original text it is based on.
Christianity is a belief system. Plain and simple. Like was said elsewhere in this discussion, you can adopt it as a lifestyle, but it's not necessary. You are expected to, but if you're saved, you're saved. Think of the theif on the cross, all he had was belief in God, and he was told he would be in heaven that day. He had no lifestyle that would be considered Christian.
And how does one become saved? The thief on the cross did not live a Christian lifestyle before he was saved, but was saved when he repented and accepted the teachings of Christ. Had he not died immediately thereafter, he would have then needed to renew his pledge to Christ by living a Christian lifestyle. If you don't live your life according to Christ, you are in effect rejecting him every time you stray. Fortunately, the Christian God is a God of forgiveness, so even though you may stray from the paths of righteousness, you can still be saved if you repent. Then again, I was raised Catholic, so I don't know what the Protestants think about that... my understanding of some of the sects is just what you said, once you're saved, you have a get out of jail free card and can pretty much do whatever you want. Of course, I've heard that the Protestants feel the same way about the Catholics:)
placing weight on the OT is bad? o.O Christ also said he wasn't here to destroy the old laws, but rather to amend them.
What is wrong is placing an emphasis on the OT over the teachings of Christ. When Christ came to amend the old laws, he did so by teaching that God is a God of Love, not Vengeance. While I agree that the OT is important as a way of explaining much of what Christ says, it is His teachings that should carry the most weight.
And he did preach against the hypocrites who wore massive robes, struted down the street, had fan-fair blown in public places to announce they were praying. Against those who took the bible and twisted it for their own profit, and used the bible to oppress the common folk.
You mean like fundamentalist Christians who profess their faith on TV, and try to push their agenda onto others? Whereas Christ said "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." Again, most modern Christians fail to convince me that they are truly doing the work of Christ.
One more thought. You claim old ideas die because the old guard who support them grow old and die. You have to wonder why no young blood would bother picking up the torch unless there was something seriously lacking when compared with alternatives. Science isn't like modern consumer culture where everyone cluelessly flocks to the newest fashionable thing without thinking about it's merits. It takes intelligence, rationality, and integrity to do science among today's peer group (*most* of whom are mature and mutually supportive).
Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
not much different I guess...you will all please start driving in the extreme right lane:(
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
...to bomb the Southern states and kill all southerners. They are a drain on the U.S. They have ruined our political system by choosing to elect the wrong man. They routinely make stupid choices regarding evolution, gay rights, women's rights, and racial equality. They have no respect for intelligence and instead crave the almighty dollar at any cost. Now they are standing in the way of proper education. These people want to live in the stone age? Then let's fucking bomb them into the stone age. (paraphrasing their favorite president) The south and about 95% of the people there are complete and total moronic idiots. It's time to finally get this shit over with and kill them all. As a proud northerner who voted against Bush in 2004, I am willing to push the button and get it over with.
First of all, IMAX made a bad business move: there is no such thing as bad publicity in business. Instead of being different, the company fell into the same hole as other businesses, like Wal-Mart, that try to generalize themselves and appeal to almost everybody from rich hippies to poor vegitarians. I remember reading an article published by a seasoned angel investor and he mentioned that fear of not being accepted by a group of customers (people) is one of the worst feeling to have when you run a business. You need to define a product and sell it to a group of people who are interested in this product. Do not make your goods nice and fuzzy show they appeal to everybody. Make goods that your target customers crave and you will succeed. For example, when making a hunting rifle, make sure that the hunting rifle appeals to hunters and their needs. Do not try to make it look good in the eyes of animal lovers. IMAX should do the same thing: churches are for god-fearing people, scientific movies are for geeks. Cater to geeks and other interested individuals (as always) and forget about the haters. Look at what happened to "Desperate Housewives." Despite an outcry for the religious right, the show's still on and getting more viewers (who'd want to miss watching several milfs getting it on?).
The second issue is a much broader issue for it deals with everyday life in the United States: political corectness. There is so much of this shit that it makes me wanna puke everytime when I hear how miserable Americans have become. We generalize ourselves so much that at the end we'll have only one belief, one color and one taste. You can't raise a radical idea anymore. Whoever does something controversial is going to get it from freaks who call themselves "fundamentalists." We are so fucking caught up in doing what is morally right that we almost forget that human beings are imperfect. Nobody wants to live freely anymore. All we want to do is to make up stupid rules and have everbody obey them. Our kids can't learn anything interesting in school because people object anything that falls outside the "normal" margins. Chemistry teachers can't make a simple explosive just for the sake of an experiment, biology teachers have to be careful when teaching evolution and I will not be surprised that soon physics teachers will get jammed for teaching basics of quantinum mechanics and how gravity can bend light. Our judges tell women how to deal with abortions, two loving people of the same gender can't form a family and weed is still illegal despite the fact that it is okay to drink 5 cups of coffee per day. I can only imagine what being a gay pot-smoking scientist feels like.... Anti-American?
Enjoy~
Death of the Dinosaurs - June 3 - Nov 23, 2005 They ruled the earth. Then suddenly
Yes, it could happen again if the dinosaurs returned (because God resurrected them, cloning DNA would be too controversial, like evolution).
Presumably the dinosaurs die off due to drowning in great floods because they're too big to fit through the door in an Ark.
All sigs should be as funny as possible, but no funnier.
why Dick and Jane can't do math or physics or even balance their checkbooks.
One of the great values the Pilgrims brought over with them was the idea of public education for all and the value of natural philosophy (now science) in that education. And their successors want us to establish a fundamentalist church, when that is exactly what the colonists had to flee (the Anglican church) in England.
God bless us all, no one else will.
We are the 198 proof..
Given we date the birth of zorostrum at 8000 years ago and chinese history goes back a shad past 7000 I'd say it's been fairly well discredited.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
It's just that the other 51% are either ignorant, selfish, scared, angry, self-righteous, narrow minded, or watching TV.
I always thought the number was higher than that, so maybe there's hope.
Ned: Well, children, it's Saturday night. So, what say we let our hair down and play "Bombardment"?
Bart+Lisa: Yay!
Ned: Of Bible questions?
Rod+Todd: Yay!
Ned: Which version shall it be?
Todd: St. James!
Rod: The Vulgate of St. Jerome!
[Ned looks through the Bible bookcase]
Ned: "Vulgate" it is.
Todd: [disappointed] Aw.
"I call a baby goat a 'goatse.'" -- my non-Internet-savvy 6-year-old stepdaughter
Call me a cynic, but I'm inclined to think option #2 is closer to reality.
Either way, we're doomed.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
soo.. what does that make me, a person who is:
- No to capital punishment
- No to war (except in self defense(*) )
- No to abortion
- No to euthanasia
A good Catholic!
The Jesus who refused to condemn the adulteress was the same Jesus who threw the money changers out of the temple, who said that one of those who hung out with the apostles was evil, and who said "if the light in you is darkness, how great is that darkness."
Jesus did accept people, but He challenged them to be more than what they were. He forgave others, but demanded that they repent.
What Jesus did NOT say was "Do whatever you want. Everybody goes to Heaven anyway."
Within these four steps fit the entire Universe, yet it is not quite large enough for the idiocy of little minds, and will never include Magic.
"A good quote" it is not.
The "facts" are much too loosely defined and some are based on assumptions (cannot be true facts).
Microevolution (evolution within a species) is an observable fact. Macroevolution is not fact, but a logical construct based on microevolution, requiring a step of logic (that is debated, though there are facts that all the genetic steps required for macroevolution can occur).
The age of the earth can never be a fact, unless a living being older than the earth, still alive, can prove its age by observation. All other "ages" are based on inferences of facts. (A good inference for a young earth is based on the fact of the degradation of the magnetic poles of the earth. Though the rate of decay has only been documented within the last hundred years, even the most gentle equations based on this have shown that the magnetic poles, back a few million years, would have been strong enough to yank iron, and other magnetic metals, out of the ground.)
As with the age of the earth, the span that life inhabited it is based on inferences of facts. Fact: radioactive isotopes (RI, from here on) decay at a certain rate. Fact: living beings absorb RI while taking in nutirents during their life. Fact: we can measure the amount of RI in dead and even fossilized beings. Fact: within the realm of written history, we have documented dates of when certain living beings ceased their intake of RI (when they died), and we have dates of plants, seeds, and microbes that were buried along with the recorded deaths of living beings (this borderlines on inference: one must be certain that the plants, seeds, and microbes did not come later i.e. a tomb was opened and newer specimens were added). Inference: we can use the relative RI of different living beings, at different times of death to date their approximate death. This last part cannot be fact, and requires many assumptions, especially outside the span of written history. Though it is ingenious, it is far from fool-proof. There are many factors that can totally destroy any accuracy: i.e. different localities have varying amounts of RI, different time periods have different RI, even organisms in the same species, at the same time, at the same time period could have ingested different levels of RI. Assumptions on the level of RI in the environment at the time of the life of the organism must be made. Even the forms to submit a fossil for RI dating ask for an estimate of the age to determine if the tests were in error.
The rest of the dates hinge on the above facts and inferences. The rest of the facts are true facts with the exception of the ones with dates and the one that states that all living forms come from previous living forms (this is not a fact, as we would have to observe all living forms, past and present (in reality, all future forms as well), to prove they came from other living forms). All is very big indeed.
I believe the controversies about evolution lie in its very fabric of "proofs" and "facts."
Current debates and many essays by the masses regurgitate "facts" that are passed on and believed without really delving into the meat of the "facts."
A similar situation played out several hundred years ago: in the old Catholic Church, only the priests were allowed to read the Bible and deliver messages from it, resulting in second-hand, regurgitated information and beliefs. This led to the perversion, out-right lies, and abuses for money as to the truth of God's plan in the Bible. Through the work of such people as Martin Luther, people realized the fallacies that they had been taught, and could even read and learn for themselves in a Bible of their own language.
Today things are much worse in regards to science. Never before have the masses been able to easily access original documents and information. Far too often, the masses get their information at best second-handed (many times shortened and repackaged for profit) without any critical and/or sound thinking involved, and worse still, pass it
I could try to make other points, but what's the use? Looks like a troll, plain and simple.
You say "If you refuse to believe or acknowledge God, aren't you following a belief system?"
The simple answer is NO!!!
To acknowledge god is the same as belief.
I don't do belief. I either know, or don't know.
God is an invention of man's ego. If you place this tiny planet and its inhabitants in context with the vastness and chaos of the universe, you see that a god is not needed.
If you want to call totality 'god', go ahead, but please don't ascribe any conscious nature to it.
Easy: These observations are for your benefit, not God's. As in: Stop smoking, set down that beer, turn of the TV, free your mind of distractions, focus on the dialog with your deity. Make it a ritual, so that it comes easier with repetition.
chl
"The mice were furious."
"The mice were furious?"
"Oh yes," said the old man mildly.
"Yes well so I expect were the dogs and cats and duckbilled platypuses, but ..."
"Ah, but they hadn't paid for it you see, had they?"
"Look," said Arthur, "would it save you a lot of time if I just gave up and went mad now?"
... the Arab terrorists who carpet bomb countries and torch down villages.
Funny thing: If you've been paying close attention to news from Iraq, you've noticed a lot of Arabic names among the American military people. This shouldn't be a surprise. The military badly needs people who can speak Arabic and have some understanding of the culture. They have language training, of course, but there's an obvious fast path for someone who joins already speaking the local language.
The common estimate is that there are around 6 million Arab-Americans, with all the usual qualifications about such numbers. A lot of them have volunteered. Why is no mystery. One might wonder about their sanity, but their motivation is fairly obvious.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Nice try, but ancient Hebrew also had words for week, month and year.
Also, we know very little about ancient Hebrew except for what is found in the Bible. For all we know, they did have terms for longer periods of time, but they weren't used in the Bible so they were lost.
A man came to life after 3 days?
- probably be on TV.
- someone would call him a spawn of the devil
- others would call him god.
What is too good to be true, usually is!
And I've seen a man fly. Magicians can do things, and even when they say it's a magic tricks, people still think they are real.
Whose to say Jeusu was not the greatest trickster in the old world
Life being only 6,000 years old is contradicted by much of geology, and paleontology, and the simple chemical and physical processes that support them.
You can't fiddle with fundamental constants to get out of this: Oklo disproves that.
The day-age hypothesis doesn't last very long when tested against the evidence. It gets too many things in the wrong order (flowering plants before fish and other sea life, for example)
... and yet we observe it happening. Do you know that the evolution of life and stars are the only two situations in which chaos produces higher organization? Miraculous.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
If you dont like a movie, dont watch it. If your a religious fanatic and feel the movie is "oppressing" your views, then tell how this movie is in fact not truthful. The reason scientists work is to change the phrase "because God wanted it that way" to a reasonable explaination. This can prove evolution right here, some people move on and adapt ideas while the rest stick to their "morals" and die off.
I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. - Catcher in the Rye
Um, I am a relgious fundamentalist and I'm having a hard time seeing how this particular film would be controversial... Please don't tell me it's supposed to have anything to do with Hell.
Macintosh humor! MacComedy.com
I'd just like to congratulate everyone on the successful discussion thread.
It's just that the most rigid and obnoxious ones get all the air-time on TV.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
On behalf of all true Christians, I must apologize for the actions of those who claim to be Christian. Our way is that of peace and understanding, not of forcing our opinions and beliefs down other people's throats. (While we would like to convert people, we can't, and shouldn't, force anything upon them that they do not want.)
Secondly, I wish to say that, as a Christian, these films would still be of interest to me. It is important first of all, to see both sides of every argument, no matter how much you agree or disagree with it. Second, I have no way of disproving evolution. Non-Christians have no way of disproving creation. Niether group has any way of proving that one or the other happened. All we have to work with is theories. (Yes, as a Christian, I still must call creation a theory, as I have no scientific basis to prove it true or false - same with evolution. All we have are hints as to what may have happened.) Finally, I believe that creation and evolution could have co-existed. The Bible says that God created everything, it doesn't mention the details on exactly how it was created. I believe that it was perfectly possible, that when God said "Let there be light.", a huge bang happened from out of nowhere. (etc...)
In conclusion, I am sorry that people claiming to be Christian are wanting, or forcing, these films out of the theaters. We aren't all bad, I promise!
...Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in terror, and you would not have been informed.
" Also you said "my truth" - how can there possibly be multiple "truths"? Does 1+1 equal both 2 and 3? "
>because you apparently only see black and white.
I was implying that the idea of "multiple truths" is moral relativism. Also, I guess 1+1 does equal both 2 and 3 according to you.
-eventhorizon
#Secret Windows Source Code, in MS C% - if (uptime >= "24 hours") then bsod() else print "Windows License Violation!"
Forgot something -
The "my truth" and "your truth" should really be "my opinion" and "your opinion"; opinions vary, but truth doesn't, unless you think that both statements "the earth is round" and the "earth is flat" are both equally true somehow, with the second one not being simply an unproved opinion.
-eventhorizon
#Secret Windows Source Code, in MS C% - if (uptime >= "24 hours") then bsod() else print "Windows License Violation!"
The literary structure indicates that the creation of the world was deliberate and calculated. The first three days were preparation for what was created later. If (as most Bible scholars believe) this was written during the Babylonian captivity, it is likely that it was written with the Babylonian creation story in mind. In the Babylonian story (the Enuma Elish) the world is created as an afterthought using the body of Tiamat (chaos), slain by the hero god Marduk. In contrast, the Hebrew story claims that the creation of the world was premeditated, and that when the creation was finished, it was "very good" (Gen 1.31).
Though there will always be variations in interpretation, the more we know about the original context, the better we are likely to understand the meaning.
He who reflects on another man`s want of breeding, shows he wants it as much himself --Julius Caesar, per Plutarch
(though, of course, it raises an interesting view..if you lack a religion..doesn't that become your religion? If you refuse to believe or acknowledge God, aren't you following a belief system?)
Look, I'll try not to be too rude about this, but it really pisses me off that people continue to repeat this completely idiotic tripe when a few moments thought would demonstrate how completely stupid it is.
So, to answer your question:
Of course not.
There is no similarity whatsoever.
What you are doing is assuming that your religion is correct. Were that true, then you would have a point.
It is a simple logical fallacy where you assume what you try to demonstrate.
So let me explain how it really works.
Everybody in the entire world is born an atheist.
This includes you, me, the pope, GWB and Osama bin Laden.
Many people at some point in their life decide to accept some particular religious belief as truth. They do this with no credible evidence which could be used to convince others in a reasoned rational manner.
That is essentially what religion is.
Now, some people are unconvinced by this.
They do not choose to blindly follow some belief system which to them just sounds like a bunch of inconsistent nonsense.
The very wording you use demonstrates your incredible bias in favor of some god or other.
If you refuse to believe
It's not a question of refusing. That presupposes that there is some reason to do so in the first place.
How about you provide some legitimate evidence demonstrating the existence of your particular god?
Until you can do that, then you are the one who has a religion.
Do you now understand the fundamental difference between the 2 things?
Isn't it very clear and simple with a little basic thought?
And we call them fundamentalist miliant Islamics.
we are called? the right?
Really, no need to be such a rude little person.
I'm not a devote christian. I grew up in a Catholic family that didn't make it to Church every Sunday. But I do feel as though I learned many good lessons of life from church and CCD.
Do I consider myself a Roman Cathloc anymore? Probably not. As a person that works with technology and uses logic as a part of my every day life, I can't resonably take the bible literally. But does that completely disqualify me from being a Catholic? Where's the rule book that says you must take the bible literally?
"Almighty being? Grow up."
Did I say I believed this? I think you just browsed my post, picked up the points you wanted to bitch about, and slapped down some crap. Good job! My point was that I don't understand how *some people* (read: the religious fundamentalists we're talking about) can believe the bible word for word but can't believe that evolution was the method god used?
"And that crap HASN'T been going on for thousands of years?"
But weren't things starting to look like they might improve? Why accept this?
Why do I bother - no way to win a arguement with an ignorant man.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
It wasn't made against "Christians", it was made against "creationists who protest against evolution and have indirectly caused films to stop showing". There are surely plenty of negative comments on Slashdot made against non-Christians which also get modded up.
Do all the smart people out there really think that science has all the answers, or ever will?
"I tried faith healing. I tried prayer. I tried mortification of the flesh. I tried appeals to God's priests. Nothing worked.
Then I went to the hospital, and the doctors cured me."
This is the essence of faith in a nutshell: it doesn't work.
Science may not have all the answers, but it can cure the Black Death. God couldn't. It can ward off lightning strikes; God can't. It can cure cataracts, provide laser surgery, and otherwise cure the blind. No Christian today can do that.
Some of them do lie, and claim they can. When investigated, they fall flat. In point of fact, Christian "faith healers" can't heal; their miracle workers don't work miracles; their devout priests wring their hands and pray, while the ER trauma team moves in, and brings the "dead man" back to life.
Science helps people live better lives today. Christianity says it can; but can't deliver. Scientists cut a tunnel under the English channel; but despite 2,000 years of Christian faith, not a single mountain has even shifted in place. Science works; faith falls flat.
Why do so many still still subscribe to the religion of the perfectability of Man?
1) It doesn't make us slaves to The Church, like our peasant ancestors were. It took centuries to throw off the yoke of Christianity; should we take it up again without a fight?
2) Science and democracy works better than anything else we've tried, in terms of standard of living, social equality, and general quality of life issues. A theocracy "just doesn't work" (TM).
3) Scientific advances are a rational goal; not some religion. Get your terms straight.
It is not right for either the believers in God or the believers in Man to take up arms against one another.
Given the bloody history of the Church, I'd say the Christians didn't learn that lesson very quickly, or very well. I'm not convinced they've learned it yet; their Holy Bible still claims that unbelievers should be tossed into a lake of fire, and that Abraham was a good and godly man for trying to kill his son on a stone altar.
In short, the followers of God started it. I don't want to leave them room to start up again; if they do, the Second Dark Ages will be upon us.
--
AC
The chinese are lying because god allows satan to deceive them and harden their hearts.
He does this because there are LOT of chinese people, and it would really suck for the faithful white american christians for them to find out they're an insignificant minority when they get to heaven.
Thier "persecution" is complex. It stems from our society being focused on science and technology (in general), existance of scholars and intellectuals that study and think about things that aren't Jesus oriented, the imigration and willing convertion of other faiths. With more focus on science, free thought, and people leaving the Jesus faith for other faiths, they feel as though they are being persecuted since less people agree with them.
If Christians don't have enough people that agree with them, they realize they could be wrong.
Change the number base from 10 to 2 or so and it wil be changed by comparison.
Look at it this way, all religions are right (play well with others) and wrong (the little details like god's appearance, how universe came to be, etc). So all truths are right and wrong in religion. It's a matter of understanding and less of faith.
I think the days could have had some overlap. They are finite periods of time, but with no super-well-defined beginning or end.
The Genesis account also is not comprehensive, describing ALL life.
Also, although most translations say of the various days "evening and morning, the nth day," a more accurate translation is "evening and morning, a nth day." That is the meaning of the text, and also can give some license to make them overlap.
The general flow of the Genesis account is quite good, though. It tell us the universe had a beginning, whereas the people of the day probably would have thought it existed forever. It tells us the early earth was void, certainly true in the Hadean era. It then tells us the Spirit was moving upon the waters, which I believe is when He first created life.
It also implies the early earth was dark, which can be verified with science. The collision that produced the Moon created a thick atmosphere around the earth for some time. When God says "let there be light," it is referring to that thick atmosphere starting to dissapate. See also Job 38:9, which talks about the earth being covered with thick clouds.
Then you have the formation of a stable water cycle and plate tectonics forming the continents (days 2 and 3 of Creation).
Then God creates more advanced life, both on the continents and the oceans.
The 4th day still causes confusion. It says God made the sun, moon, and stars. Obviously, the most obvious interpretation would contradict science. However, the word "made" is originally in an imperfect tense, implying that these bodies were a done deal possibly before Day 4. In fact, Genesis 1:1 tells us they were made "in the beginning." On Day 4, the atmosphere was completely cleared out so an observer on the earth could have a good view. They became useful for marking seasons.
It's about arcane knowledge, authority of the indoctrinated, special powers over man and nature, and intimidation of the ignorant.
This is an upstart religion, and it competes with established religion.
Not what you put in front of the public if you want to keep your contributions flowing.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
You are right. I apologise for my broad painting of US citizens, but couldn't resist. Whereas -- even if it is not PC -- I admit that I see some insights in folk opinions of social realities, conveyed through common prejudices. It is as true in opinions about US, as it is about Germany, my home country.
Joachim
People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]
So after reading this headline today I started thinking... What is the purpose of the IMAX theaters? Isn't IMAX supposed to bring the viewers closer to the action in the film? Didn't this technology start someplace like Disney Land's Epcot Center? How many religious groups voice their displeasure about that place? The people that run the IMAX should be ASHAMED of their utterly gutless folding against such MINOR and POINTLESS OPINIONS. If they want to pull good movies with a great theme then they might as well stop playing ANY movie at all. They'll all burn in sheol for showing Lois and Clark. I'm a God believing man, but if someone starts drawing a line here between "Atheistic Science" and "Bible Thumping Christians" you can call me an atheist and I'll be proud of it!!! Add all english, french, german, italian, and every other languages explicitives here, ".... OFF"
your overwrought and hysterical opinion, then.
Clear, Dark Skies
So the Flu is going to suddenly evolve into a bird??
Over the course of A BILLION YEARS, maybe. Do you have any sense of proportion? Do you know what the passage of time is?
The Evidence of Creation is right infront of YOUR face. You just don't want to see it.
Oh, what evidence is that, exactly? Oh right, there is none whatsoever. Please don't breed, ever.
I'm going to school at Berkeley too, and there's a massive Christian presence. You walk through Sproul plaza at lunch and everybody's handing you stuff and asking you to hang out with them at their fun events (fellowship).
I've lived in the Bay Area all my life, and have both Christian and atheist friends. (Heck, most of my friends are hardcore Christian, and a few went to Biola.) Everyone gets along, as far as I can tell. Diversity breeds tolerance.
The Central Valley is another matter...that's still California, but from the election results it's basically another red state. Yet your comments seem to suggest otherwise. Where exactly do you live?
National Geographic had an article in November 2004 discussing many of the good points you have raised.
Was Darwin Wrong?
Short answer: No.
Choice quote:
That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence.
Nono...they just try and destroy the standing military
Name some.
kill millions of tissue samples each year
They're samples...of tissues. You need to stock up on prunes and prozak so you can lighten up and get a grip on reality.
We've got the guy that sues every walmart
Good.
heard the guy trying to get the pledge of Alliegence lives near here.
If you're referring to Nedow, it wasn't the pledge, it was the words inserted into the pledge in 1953, IIRC. And if the Supreme Court had some balls, it would have been an open and shut case in favor of Nedow.
There are other things that I can look up, but my mind is fried.
There's an understatment.
If you are going to call them idiots, you have to wait until they have proven it to everyone who is listening or reading, or who even might be listening or reaing in the future. And even then they will quote you out of context to show how unfairly you treated them!
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
- The highly-oxygenated atmosphere reduces the number of places where proto-organic substances can survive without being degraded.
- The presence of competitive lifeforms means that the raw substances from which new life could arise are likely to be eaten before they get the chance.
- If they did, they'd have to compete against organisms with billions of years of evolutionary advances.
So no, I don't think that it's still happening. But the it's like the reason the starter on your engine is only energized until it fires.Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
It would be trivial to falsify evolution, if it was wrong. One rabbit fossil in the same strata as dinosaurs would do it. One bird with the ammonites. One bony fish with wiwaxia.
Scientists are confident in evolution because nothing even remotely like this has ever been found.
It's "reproduced" every time new data is dug up, and it confirms the same patterns. It is also reproduced in the laboratory, where short-lived specimens are observed to evolve (and even speciate) within the scale of individual researcher's careers.Note that astrophysics is not "reproducible" in the second sense, yet I don't see you attacking it as non-science!
You're using the term rather vaguely. What does "reproducing evolution" mean in this context? Speciation has been observed, to list one part of evolution. You might also want to look at the evidence for common descent before going further. Oddly, anti-evolutionists claim that every discovery of an intermediate form makes TWO "unexplained gaps" in the fossil record where there was only one; their objections appear increasingly dishonest and desperate. (Though that doesn't even scrape the surface of anti-evolutionist dishonesty.) Oh, that's easy. It doesn't postulate any unknown and unknowable mechanisms which implicitly state "There Is Nothing More That You Can Know Here". It also lets paleontology be a science, where things are expected to operate by consistent and knowable principles rather than the whims of some omnipotent entity; if the creationists were right, paleontology would instead be a type of art history.Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Seriously, the only time you can call these people idiots without going through the preliminary motions is when your audience already has a clue; otherwise, you will suffer loss of credibility yourself. Most of the American public is poorly educated (just look at Slashdot!) and takes anything that looks like bluster from self-appointed authorities very poorly, unless that authority is their religion. To damage the creationists in the eyes of others, you need to trap them in a contradiction or otherwise make them look like the BS artists that they are. Unfortunately, this takes work.
Yes, it sucks. No, I'm not good at it either. Life isn't fair.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
The answer to this is no. In the same way that not having a porche does not mean you have a porche or not having an ulcer does not mean you have ulcer.
"Chrisitanity: it's kind of like a Porsche, kind of like an ulcer, but not."
I've yet to see any evidence of Creation. Care to provide some examples?
Whenever fundie Christians get in my face about creationism and how evolution is a joke, I just hit em this simple question: Do you believe in Dogs? They are at first puzzled by this, and think about it for a few moments in case it is a trick question. "Uh, yeah, sure. I believe in dogs. GOD made dogs." "Yes, yes," answers I. "Im sure he did." But lets look at dogs, shall we. There are big ones, small ones, smart ones and dumb ones. Most of the dogs we keep as pets could not survive very well in the wild. These traits in our furry four-legged friends were bred into them, by man no less. Not God. So lets take, for example, ten greyhounds, ten bullgogs, ten yellow labs, and ten terriers. Stick all those critters on an island with nothing to eat on it but rabbits. Come back in 100 years to check up on them. I bet you five bucks the dogs on that island will end up looking NOTHING like the original breeds. And you can bet none of them will look anything like the bullgogs or terriers, because they would have died out/been unable to breed beacuse their stubby legs where not swift enough to catch the rabbits. The Fundie cannot refute this of course. I ask said fudie: "Do you take what I just said as true?" Still thinking this is a trick, he thinks a bit, checks his bible for scripture concerning dogs, and gives in. "Yes" he answers. "Aha!" says I. What our fine fundamentalist friend has just agreed to is the underlying premise of evolution! Survival of the fittest. You see, most fundies who try to refute evolution do not, in fact, know what the word means. They have been too busy clamping theirs hands over their ears to learn this. But in the end it does not matter. The fundie has made up his made long ago. To argue is moot. The best thing for the free thinking American to do is to do what I did... Move to Japan.
If you need a universe without God you need evolution to be the underpinnings of your paradigm. You are offended at anyone saying otherwise and you use every argument, criticism, mockery, political pressure, etc. to shut out any other paradigm.
If you need a universe with God (and in respect to him, having experienced him, I have to say I do!) you want to put forward, and see put forward a different interpretation of the facts.
In my considered opinion, Evolution was manufactured with a view to supporting a God-less universe, a truly mythical idea, and it pains me to think of people who won't enjoy what I enjoy, because of publicly supported paradigm (read "state religion") which is imposed on them from on high. If some people have been able to have a real voice as to what is played, good on them!! The offense that is expressed by people that don't like it, merely identifies them as members of another religion defending their own religious turf. Go ahead, be offended. It's your right. It's the same right that's being exercised by these people that you mock as 'fundies.'
Jedis are stupid. If they were so powerful, why couldn't they handle counseling for a kid who missed his mom?
Of course scientific theories are not necessairly half-baked ideas. Let's talk about this for a moment.
I watched a "Modern Marvels" program this week where a NASA scientist talked about how the earth is running out of food due to overpopulation and how it would be necessary for us to move to other planets to survive. This is clearly an opinion which may or may not be supported by facts. This is a theory which I would not call scientific, but this man presented it as if it was objective fact. This is what makes me (as a fundamentalist) crazy. Real science is good. "I've got a political philosophy so I need to present my ideas as absolute truth in the guise of science" is propaganda of the worst sort, and too many times this is what occurs in "science" media.
This so-called scientist went on to opine about fleets of Mars-based vehicles that would pick up Martian soil and use that as fuel to emit carbon dioxide. This carbon-dioxide would then be used to warm the planet and make way for plant life that could emit oxygen in preparation for human life.
Look at the furor on this planet about greenhouse gas emissions! Imagine the impact of intentionally modifying an entire planet to meet our desires. This was presented as a realistic option. He DID mention in passing that no one knew how to convert Martian dirt to carbon dioxide. This program talked about this as if it was a planned thing. What ROT. This is the kind of pseudo-science that causes people like me to shun so-called scientific films.
In my opinion, "scientists" make themselves propagandists rather than seekers of knowledge when they employ practices like this.
To those who think that 'fundies' are closed-minded dolts, please open your mind to consider that perhaps we are sentient beings who have given these issues some thought.
Just because someone has a PhD or is engaged in "research," that does not make him/her objective, or a good scientist.
In terms of media literacy, I like to ask "why did the filmmaker make this film?" What is the story being told? Is there an agenda that should be exposed? All too often there is a "wholistic naturalism" agenda being advanced.
Naturalism is a good description of what we observe in the physical realm, but it is inadequate to model the human experience of the natural world.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Converts are usually the most enthusiastic members of any faith. They often try the hardest to share what they now have with others. But you'll have to look a long, long time before you find another faith which motivates its converts to try to blow up airliners.
You'll find plenty more examples here, including examples of broad support for terrorism among Muslims even in the west. Also see The Middle East Media Research Institute.
It would be nearly trivial to quash that if there weren't facts behind it. Further, uncritical defense of the religion regardless of the crimes committed in its name or the actual attitudes of its adherents reinforces - justifiably - the very attitudes you're condemning.Defending the indefensible is great training for second-class citizenship under Islam (dhimmi status; also see here).
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
"This is our way of finding God," said Consolmagno, author of Brother Astronomer: Adventures of a Vatican Scientist, published in February by McGraw-Hill.
You mean God is a space-alien? Cool!
--
AC
Actually many of the founders were Deists and were wary of Christianity as they should. Some were atheists as well. Saying America is founded by Christians wouldn't make sense considering how Christians tend to destroy any society they control .
With fundies acting like idiots, they wonder why people hate them. Nuke the place till rocks glow? Shit, Hitler had a better method.
Religion was originally a method to uncover spiritualy truths. Over time it become an organization which thought it had all the answers. Now we are dealing with that ignorance that any group has ALL the answers. Too bad we can't convince them that religion is for spiritual reality (all of them) and science is for material truths.
"Civil War 2: Revenge of the Inbred"
"Exodus 2: Fleeing Intelligence"
"I'm OK, You're A Godless Liberal"
and
"The Greatest Story Ever Told 2: This Time It's Personal"
Works with many other groups.
....
Try making the same comments against Indian engineers, Islamic fundamentalists, EMACS users, Apple users, BSD users, Matrix fanboys
and watch your Karma soar.
Which is why creationists recognise that you need both. As Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."
Or to put it another way, the 1915 Nobel Prize winner for physics (William Henry Bragg) said, "Sometimes people ask if religion and science are opposed to each other. They are - in the sense that the thumb and fingers of my hand are opposed to each other. It is an opposition by means of which anything can be grasped."
Can't find examples of evolution? No matter, neither could Dawkins
this is exactly why fundamentalism has to be fought and fought hard. I'm talking in your face toe to toe with them at every turn.
I know the Imax/Omnimax medium very well. The irony of this posting is that the movie that catapulted this medium from a few specialized theater to a worldwide network of Imax/Omnimax theaters was the movie "Genesis" produced by the Science Museum of Minnesota it was a stunning visual film on plate tectonics. It premiered in 1978 in Saint Paul MN. I knew the producer and conflicts between science and religion were not a concern then. He was concerned that there may be some confusion between the film and a male magazine also named "Genesis" that was being published back then. A bit more irony I suppose. Dennis Jennings http://celestial-image.com
I see the creationists got to you before your BS detector was working.
It would be trivial to falsify evolution, if it was wrong.
My take is that you have been indoctrinated in evolutionist boot camp? If any other scientific theory was under as much controversy and disagreement as evolution, it would hardly be considered a scientific "fact". One of the major reasons for acceptance of Darwinian evolution is branching away from religion, which interfered with science on more than just numerous occasions.
Scientists are confident in evolution because nothing even remotely like this has ever been found.
I do not think I understand your sentence, but scientists are confident in evolution (mind you, only a certain percentage of scientists believe in evolution, and only a fraction of that are confident) because this is the only explanation for intelligent life outside of religious creation stories.
It's "reproduced" every time new data is dug up, and it confirms the same patterns. It is also reproduced in the laboratory, where short-lived specimens are observed to evolve (and even speciate) within the scale of individual researcher's careers.
What data? If evolution were a fact, surely in all of fossil record there should be ample evidence of one kind of living thing evolving into another kind. Darwin himself was embarassed by the fossil record because it did not prove to be what he predicted. With time, the more abundant fossil evidence shows that some of the examples that were once used to support evolution now are seen not to do so at all. Eohippus, Archaeopteryx, Lungfish are just some examples of animal life thought to exist, but proven false. I will reiterate, the only data that is dug up supports sudden life forms according to their kinds, not gradual, and no transitional forms.
Moreover, genes are qutie a powerful stabilizing mechanism, the function of which is to prevent new forms evolving. And mutations, while they exist, cannot explain the growing complexity of living organisms.
Oddly, anti-evolutionists claim that every discovery of an intermediate form makes TWO "unexplained gaps" in the fossil record where there was only one; their objections appear increasingly dishonest and desperate.
I just one to make one thing clear, and that is that I do not support dishonest fabrication of one kind or another. I am no less displeased about the fundamentalists who fabricate evidence in support of creation than with the scientific fundamentalists who fabricate evidence to support evolution.
One rabbit fossil in the same strata as dinosaurs would do it. One bird with the ammonites. One bony fish with wiwaxia. Yes, but that would support neither evolution nor creation. The pattern of intelligent design speaks of sea life appearing in one era, bird life in another, land life in yet another. It anticipated a fossil record that contains:
1. Complex life forms suddenly appearing.
2. Complex life forms multiplying after their kinds (biological families).
3. No transitional links between biological families.
4. No partial body features, all parts complete.
If evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things, such as developing arms, legs, lungs, other bones and organs. Even looking early in the Cambrian period, fossils of the major groups of invertebrates appear in an explosion of living things, unconnected to any evolutionary ancestors.
This is a huge gap, this is a hole. You simply cannot ignore this, and give excuses that "creationists" stick to this like a barnacle as if it's their only desparate last hope. It's like attempting to treat acne in a person with skin cancer. Cancer is still there, and there is no circumventing it.
The bottom line is that the fossil record is much stronger in support of intelligent design than in random, chance-based evolution.
"If it's not going to draw a crowd and it is going to create controversy," she said, "from a marketing standpoint I cannot make a recommendation" to show it.
Since when has controversy EVER been bad, from a marketing standpoint? If anything, controversy has historically boosted the interest in otherwise mediocre films.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Life being only 6,000 years old is contradicted by much of geology, and paleontology, and the simple chemical and physical processes that support them.
True, but the people who believe this silliness know absolutely nothing about science. Their preacher says it's 6000 years, so that's what they believe. There's a LOT of such people here in America, where science is viewed with suspicion just like in the Dark Ages.
Quite wrong. I grew up with regular training, and my then-church tried to indoctrinate me into being a book-burning fundie (literally!). I had no training in reason (and by extension, the scientific method) as the best way of understanding the world; I came to that conclusion by myself in an environment where this was, if not anathema, seriously frowned upon.
I don't go with the crowd, I believe and do what's right.
You are saying that a political/religious controversy casts doubt upon the science? You are quite wrong. Theologians and the public can be completely full of crap; all that counts is the facts in the form of the evidence and the scientific theories (falsifiable models) which are consistent with them.
I've never encountered a person with your views who knows much about either the history of science or the history of the laughable errors of biblical exegesis, so I'll fill you in on one of the latter that I was chuckling over earlier today.
It's long been known that the Earth is a spheroid; the shadow cast on the Moon during lunar eclipses is a circular arc regardless of the position of the Moon in the sky, and the only shape which has the cross-section of a circle from all angles is a sphere, QED. One geometer even calculated the circumference to a good approximation, based on sun angles. Yet there were people using the New Testament to claim that, since Satan could not have shown Jesus all the kingdoms of Earth from one mountaintop had it been convex, that the Earth was flat! Later, other theologians claimed that there was only one inhabited side of the Earth, based again on Scripture:
Full text here.
There's a surprise.
You've managed to make several gross errors in one sentence:
In truth, the fraction of scientists who are
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
> killing your opponent in time of war is not murder (depending on the conditions of the war), and the death penalty is not murder, at least biblically.
Well, if you want to talk biblically killing your own son no an altar and offering him up to God is not murder either. In reality, you better get thrown in jail/psych ward for the rest of your life.
Ah, but only until you read the commandment. At that point, you are no long allowed to believe it, since you have just read it, ala Commandment V.
It's already happening. This article is about a new law in Florida which has been passed by committee. That law, if put into effect, would allow students in Florida universities sue their professors if their professors teach things that the student doesn't believe in.
This quote from the article quotes Representative Baxley, the sponsor of the bill.
Other select quotes :
The way things seem to be going, religious nutcases will be the end of the US, one way or another.
quite true, but since the discussion stems from a biblical (or more specifically commandment) translation, what should, in modern society, happen is not necessarily relevant.
"Even looking early in the Cambrian period, fossils of the major groups of invertebrates appear in an explosion of living things, unconnected to any evolutionary ancestors."
Bilateran fossils discovered from 40-55 million years before the Cambrian.
History of the search for precambrian life
They just might not be so externally obvious as the ones in the US.
There was an interesting, albeit cursory, article touching on this recently in the free mag Metropolis that's worth a look. Let's not forget Aum Shinrikyo and the Tokyo subway gas attack. And it's also worth mentioning that pseudo/quasi-religious groups like the Raelians have a visible presence here. The big difference between here and the US seems to be that the more problematic religious groups in Japan are all relatively new.
There has also been a lot written about how quickly Japan has changed and the dizzying effects of history being lost so quickly -- the tangible history of family heirlooms, old houses, even mountains and rivers, literally disappearing before your very eyes. Most of this writing has been in Japanese, naturally, as it's part of the dialog here internal to the country and its culture, but there has been some in English. The only title I currently have to mind is Dogs and Demons by Alex Kerr, admittedly a honky, but one that grew up here. If it's any indication of his credentials in terms of Japanese society, he is the first non-citizen to win Japan's Shincho literary prize for works written in Japanese, so I take his writings on the country with a smaller grain of salt than for most other gaijin authors.
However, I will certainly grant you that the US is undergoing its own peculiar reaction to so much change. I've often found myself thinking along lines similar to clive_p's comment, that part of the religious character of the US is built atop a set of beliefs and creeds that proved too extreme and inflexible for Europe. Though religious refugees certainly don't account for all US immigration by any means, I wonder how much this might have to do with the current kerfuffle?
Just my ¥2 to add to this discussion...
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
I've written a polemic about this issue.
http://orwelliantremors.blogspot.com/2005/03/on-im ax-corps-response-to-concerns.html
In it I argue that although the IMAX corporation is not technically responsible for the programming decisions its operators make, their brand still rightfully takes a hit when a theatre chooses to enforce Creationist censorship.
I advocate that every secularist concerned about this issue should write to their local IMAX theatre operator and ask to know whether the operator's programming policy strongly resists attempts to censor film with Darwinist content. If not, consider whether your science-entertainment dollar might be better spent elsewhere.
You have to do this at the local theatre level because the IMAX corporation has no stated committment to endeavour protect its science-based brand from the encroachments of Christian fundamentalists
Don't let the fundamentalists win the consumer boycott war - hold the IMAX brand to account!
This statement I agree with (it is opinion) but religion is NOT about "truth". Without, empirical, FACTUAL, PROOF, it is at BEST an ideology, a belief, something you have to have faith in.
There are some "truisms" like, "Thou shall not KILL." But everyone in the "Judeo/Christian/Islamic" religions COMPLETELY forgets that one. "If it's killing in Gods name, it's OK!!!" Christians have done it and continue to do it... Jews, have done it and in the Middle East still do. Obviously, Muslims are killing today and have in the past.
I was brought up under a Christian "theology", I was taught to turn the other cheek as Jesus did. I was taught to NOT kill, honor thy father and mother, truisms that hold with me to this day. Though I don't believe in the (or ANY for that matter) Christian Religion I was brought up under, (the theocracy that controls the different "sects" of the Christian religions), I believe in following the teachings of Jesus, other prophets and truisms from a variety of theologies whom taught the RIGHT thing...
BUT most "religious" people these days take their theocracy as the ONLY THING POSSIBLE and THEREFORE they are "TRUTHS".
What a bunch of bunk.
> I would argue that war does not always equate to evil.
:)
:) I am no scholar, but this is my understanding.
It may not be explicitly called "evil," but it seems that it is 100% "against God's wishes." Regardless which version of the 10 commandments you like to use, "thou shalt not kill" is worded exactly the same every time. It does not say "murder," it does not say "except when your life is threatened." OK, so Bush himself did not kill anyone (I assume). Is it as bad for someone to incite, or in the case of war, force others to commit forbidden actions? I don't know, and it's not my place to say, but it's a hard argument to win.
> all we religious can do is defend ourselves from peanut gallery onslaughts like this one.
That may be all you do, but please do not pretend that the religious "side" does not use the same dumb, fallacious tactics the heathens do. (That was a subtle one on my part
> my guess [...] is that you don't have the full understanding of what [Taking the Lord's name in vain] means
I was under the belief that "taking his name in vain" does not mean just saying it, but saying that you are doing something in his name, when you are really doing it for personal gain or some other nonreligious reason.
Like if I went on TV and said "God wants me to tell you to send me money and elect me dictator of the world." That would be using his name in vain, but just saying "oh, God" in disbelief is not. Personally, I try not to do either one.
> If you refuse to believe or acknowledge God, aren't you following a belief system?
:)
Umm, no. A religion is a belief in something supernatural that usually cannot be described or comprehended. Atheism is the default point of view, where WYSIWYG. You have to be taught about religion Otherwise, it just wouldn't occur to you that there's an incomprehendable being watching over us.
> I'm sick of being slammed for this
It's WAAAAY far from fair and certainly not nice, but you know the kind of people that post here. Unfortunately, many of them attack based on principal (really, a desire to feel better than others) instead of points. I will freely admit that I am one of those who would occasionally start spouting off stuff I hardly understand in an effort to look smart. You just caught me on a good day.
> still wondering how your audible praying was forcing religion on other people?
The point is that if they were so pissed off about it, they could have moved themselves. If I hear you talking about Linux (could be considered preaching, considering some linux advocates), do I have the right to say "stop forcing your OS on me?" Why is it just religion?
I'm a god-hating atheist, but I try to be reasonable once in a while.
I cannot speak to the specifics here, since I was not there... HOWEVER, I have witnessed some occasions where some religious jerks, usually "reborn" teenagers thinking they are cool, will pray as loudly and obnoxiously (to me, at least) as possible to try to gain attention or to make others nearby uncomfortable. Makes me want to slap god's cock outta' their mouths.
Uh oh, starting to get offensive. Time to hit "submit."
Right now, there are a lot more Christians than Muslims. However, there are more Muslims than there are Roman Catholics. Roman Catholics are just one sect.
Please see this, one of many references. I am not mentioning this to say that one is better than the other, but to correct a demographic statement that was not true.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Is it your belief now that the Jesuits are not Roman Catholic?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
All of your arguments are against strawmen.
To be more specific, do you really consider "bird life" to be disconnected from "land life"? Funny how chickens look so similar to the other vertebrates. How do you distinguish bats from "bird life"? Do you really consider "land life" to be separate from "sea life"? What about whales and dolphins? Funny how whales have legs as part of their skeletal structure, and that fossil relatives of whales lived on land. And, in the other direction, it's amazing how similar the land vertebrates are to the fishes. Do ostriches count as "bird life" or "land life"?
You don't believe Archaeopteryx is a transistional form between earlier dinosaurs and birds? You don't believe that lungfishes represent a transistional phase between aquatic fishes and more terrestrial amphibians?
You don't believe that the transition between jaw bones in reptiles to the ear bones in mammals is evidence of the "beginning of new structures" and "transitional forms"? Do you think the presence of gill slits and tails in human embryos is because human adults have "all parts complete"? Do you believe whales have "complete" legs? Or no legs? Certainly not "partial" legs, right? Are ostrich and penguin wings "complete"? Because they sure don't work for flight. Guess that's because penguins are "sea life." And ostriches are "land life."
Funny also how your "intelligent design" argument doesn't particularly emphasize the "intelligent" or the "design" aspect. Instead, it sounds like "simplistic history" in that it makes broad, sweeping, but arbitrary distinctions. "Land life", "sea life" you really think that these are precise scientific terms? Do you really think a detailed examination of the fossil record really falls neatly into the categories you mention? Or a classification of modern forms using DNA sequencing?
In fact, your historical analysis seems to have a deliberate resemblance to the account of Genesis than anything else. Hmmm. Why could that be?