Ben Stein's "Expelled"

Thats really a shame. If the educated spawned like your average bible thumping numbskull, the world might not be such a bad place.

[quote name='mykevermin']Heh. My wife and I debate on whether we want to have children or not (if we do, it will be at most one since we both believe the world is unsustainable with the population we already have, so we don't want to do anything to increase it) - and one of the more selfish reasons to not have children is so we can travel to far off and exotic places and do things like what you speak of. Of course, we could be talking over each other's heads: I mean traveling to natural places, parks, scenic points, mountains, and things like that; she probably means places to spend money and shop for exotic things.



Nope; for a change of pace, I have no thoughts whatsoever on this.[/quote]
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']You missed his point. Up until the last 120 years, all people were religious whether they knew they were or not, because science and religion were the same thing. So it's unfair to point out that mass murderers have all been doing it in the name of the religious.

But if you just go back in time since your "scientific" thought and total abandonment of religion for science has started to occur in recent history - you see as much, if not more, atheistic mass butchers.

I challenge you to start at about the mid 1800's, tally up all the dictators and geoniciders, total their death counts, and then sort them out according to religious or anti-religious.[/quote]

The distinction isn't between science and religion in the first place, there were nonbelievers before there was science. The point of what I said, which I said plainly at the end, was that religious and non-religious people are the same and so they are equally capable of good and evil acts. Science, nor evolution as an aspect of science, has caused the negatives that are associated with it in this movie and in the ID movement.

The only reason why more people have been killed recently is because of access to technology that makes it easier and the fact that there are more people available to kill, not because of religion or a lack of religion.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I'm not talking about religious extremists I'm talking about almost every human who has lived. Almost every murderer, thief, rapist, and liar has been a person with a religious faith. Those who don't have any religion are few and far between. There are those extremists who do horrible things in the name of their religions and those who do horrible things for other reasons, but neither of those remove the fact that they had religious beliefs, were taught religious morals, probably went to a good number of religious services, etc. I know that religious people are no different from those who are not and that is why I said the end result isn't any different from your beliefs or from someone who accepts evolution as a scientific explanation of the origins of different species. Before Jesus and after Jesus, before evolution and after evolution, people have been the same.[/quote]

See - I just don't agree with what you said - by way of example - "Before Jesus and after Jesus, before evolution and after evolution, people have been the same."

Before Christianity took root, the Ancient Romans believed that mercy was a vice and life was essentially a perpetual struggle with the forces of chaos and disorder. At the same time, wars over religious issues were comparatively rare because the gods were many, and what did it matter adding a few to the Pantheon (however wars were waged against those who refused to recognize the divinity of Roman gods, especially the Emperor).

Monotheistic religion really did change all of this, after Christianity took root compassion and charity were honorable virtues. At the same time, conversion of non-believers became an objective and differences in religious identity (or even interpretation) became a reason to wage war.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Oh I would never argue that either. I just get really sick of the "religion only has ever caused the world suffering" argument. It's really weak.[/quote]
I can handle that, i just hate it when people add on lines like "well ya know, i'm a Christian so..." to statements. I don't know what thats supposed to prove to me.
 
[quote name='SpazX']

EDIT:
I'll admit it - I skim from time to time. Where, when, and by whom was this argument brought up in this thread?[/QUOTE]

Spazx said some things that I initially took that way. But after his response, and re-reading his posts, I guess in a round-about way he wasn't saying that, he was saying evil people that do evil things have always existed, and will always exist, exclusive of religious beliefs. Which I agree with.
 
Because you cannot spell Darwin without win.

dwinhn6.jpg
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Ask the people showing Al Gore's movie in schools ;).[/QUOTE]

Okay I'll bite: show me one single piece of data or fact presented in An Inconvenient Truth, and I'll be impressed. Otherwise, you will have successfully been called out on your bullshit.
 
[quote name='camoor']Did anyone see John Oliver's "Terrifying Times" on Comedy Central?

He has a hilarious bit about evolution/ID.[/quote]

Dammit, I meant to watch that, I'll have to see it on one of it's millions of repeats.
 
You know, after that Creationist stat I read, I was doing a little research into the issue.

Context: The congresswoman is having a debate with a self-avowed Athiest about spending 1 million in state taxes to save Baptist churches.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=___yDV9K6uk&feature=related[/media]

I'm never going to the mid-west.
 
Yeah, I read about that a while ago. She later apologized. I don't remember if it was one of those "I'm sorry if anyone was upset by what I said" apologies or an actual apology - I'll look it up later.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Okay I'll bite: show me one single piece of data or fact presented in An Inconvenient Truth, and I'll be impressed. Otherwise, you will have successfully been called out on your bullshit.[/QUOTE]

There likely isn't any, that's the point.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']There likely isn't any, that's the point.[/quote]The absence of proof is the point? Are you seriously that paranoid?

This is the internet, there are any number of places where everyone can post their findings on any subject they wish. You can't be the only person who doesn't believe in global warming, even some scientists don't, so if they really wanted to publish their proof, they could.

Yet like you said, there probably isn't any, not because some shadow society is keeping the proof down, but because there isn't any.

Now go back to tracking the illuminati or something and leave the real discussion to rational people.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']
This is the internet, there are any number of places where everyone can post their findings on any subject they wish. You can't be the only person who doesn't believe in global warming, even some scientists don't, so if they really wanted to publish their proof, they could.

[/QUOTE]

The issue with global warming isn't whether it's happening or not. It's whether it's mans fault or not. And there is a lot of debate on both sides. You should know this. Just because Al Gore says on 60 minutes that not believing man caused it s like believing the earth is flat, does not make it true. He's a man with a political agenda like all politicians.

Al Gore's movie mostly focused on man causing catastrophe for all. It's fear propaganda about things that likely can't be caused or reversed by man.

I'm only arguing that people that go watch Expelled are not "wasting time on lies", biased opinion, and propaganda any more than those that go watch Inconvenient Truth. And just because you believe one movie and not the other, doesn't mean otherwise.
 
As a Christian I -do- believe that God created everything in seven days. Most all of you will disagree with me, and that's okay.

As for the movie? It didn't really do much for me. Kudos to Ben Stein for making a quality film on his opinion though.
 
[quote name='SteveDaWonder']As a Christian I -do- believe that God created everything in seven days. Most all of you will disagree with me, and that's okay.

As for the movie? It didn't really do much for me. Kudos to Ben Stein for making a quality film on his opinion though.[/QUOTE]

Well, you got that right.

What kind of Christian are you? I was raised Catholic, and was brought up to believe that the Genesis story was allegory, so I don't believe in any 7-days nonsense. Especially given several thousands of years, translations by people of varying education levels, and the contextual changes inherent in those translations. It's very probable that human error seriously fucked up the Bible over millenia like a childhood game of "telephone." So something so improbable, like this, or Job...I consider allegory.

Nevertheless, that isn't the issue. Now you can believe in 7-days of creation, but does that necessarily mean that every creature was (1) existing at this time and (2) perfect in the sense that it is identical to the way it is currently?

Otherwise, I've been led to believe that Boston Terriers have only been around since the early-20th century. Damned liars!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, you got that right.

What kind of Christian are you? I was raised Catholic, and was brought up to believe that the Genesis story was allegory, so I don't believe in any 7-days nonsense. Especially given several thousands of years, translations by people of varying education levels, and the contextual changes inherent in those translations. It's very probable that human error seriously fucked up the Bible over millenia like a childhood game of "telephone." So something so improbable, like this, or Job...I consider allegory.

Nevertheless, that isn't the issue. Now you can believe in 7-days of creation, but does that necessarily mean that every creature was (1) existing at this time and (2) perfect in the sense that it is identical to the way it is currently?

Otherwise, I've been led to believe that Boston Terriers have only been around since the early-20th century. Damned liars![/QUOTE]

I'm only responding to this because this is a rare occurrence of me agreeing with mykevermin.

The bible is fine. And I take no issue with those that find inspiration in it, or use it as a starting point for some history.

But man, if you do even a small study into the origins of how the bible was compiled, and by who, and why. And study what was thrown out, and why. It makes it very difficult to believe the Bible is anything but a small distorted shadow of a much larger record and block of work out there.

I mean, really.... The recent Naghamadi scrolls found predate any known original book of the bible, so shouldn't it's content replace the stories in the bible? For some reason the answer is no.... Which I don't understand.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, you got that right.
[/quote]You sure? He did say quality in there. The bits linking evolution to the Holocaust don't exactly scream "a lot of careful planning and consideration went into this".
 
Alright, fair enough. Then again, the same can be said of the title, since the movie only brings up one person who was "expelled," and doesn't tell you that he wasn't expelled, his contract term as an unpaid research assistant ended and was not renewed.

:lol:
 
Steve: good to see another Christian weighing in here. :)

myke: just curious on what grounds Rome taught you that Genesis 1-3 was allegory. They've never been real great about using the Bible to back up their teachings, but I was just curious how that worked out, and how the explained all the other references in the Bible to a literal 6-day creation.

thrust: I've studied quite a bit about the compilation of the Bible. Insofar as they removed obvious forgeries that contradicted the doctrines contained universally accepted canon, I don't see a problem with that at all. Also, the biblical doctrine of inspiration weighs in here, which is, of course, a matter of faith. But a necessary belief if you're gonna gain much of anything from the Bible. The books of the Bible aren't true because Nicea declared them to be so. They're true of their own accord and content; Nicea simply officially recognized them as such.

Also, I'm not familiar with the Naghamadi scrolls, have a link on that? Note that age alone wouldn't be a real great recognition of what was legit and what isn't.

EDIT: Most of my questions are obviously off-topic from this thread. Feel free to PM me if you'd rather not derail this anymore. :)
 
This is the only good thing to come out of Expelled:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw[/media]

Credits here:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUt7nZdUJIk[/media]
 
[quote name='daroga']Steve: good to see another Christian weighing in here. :)

myke: just curious on what grounds Rome taught you that Genesis 1-3 was allegory. They've never been real great about using the Bible to back up their teachings, but I was just curious how that worked out, and how the explained all the other references in the Bible to a literal 6-day creation.[/quote]

For part of my youth I was taught by the Jesuits. They have a historical perspective and a critical nature, so they're more interested in teaching you how to debate then cramming dogma down your neck.
 
[quote name='daroga']
thrust: I've studied quite a bit about the compilation of the Bible. Insofar as they removed obvious forgeries that contradicted the doctrines contained universally accepted canon, I don't see a problem with that at all. Also, the biblical doctrine of inspiration weighs in here, which is, of course, a matter of faith. But a necessary belief if you're gonna gain much of anything from the Bible. The books of the Bible aren't true because Nicea declared them to be so. They're true of their own accord and content; Nicea simply officially recognized them as such.

[/QUOTE]

I guess it all comes down to believing the people that compiled the Bible were inspired. And they were inspired in tracking down other scriptures, burning them, and destroying entire other Christian sects (gnostics etc) simply because there were too many. I guess you have to believe they picked all the "true" books of scripture and destroyed those that weren't. And I guess you'd have to believe they didn't change any of those scriptures to make the rest seem more consistent.

I believe the bible was created from inspired scripture, but it was done for reasons of control. There were so many different scriptures and sects popping up - that certain leaders felt that they had better solidify one Christian church before it was too late for control. Not to mention that much of the Old Testament is more and more clearly written as Jewish propaganda, based more on agenda than likely historical truth.

It's also hard for me to believe there was much "inspiration" behind Constantine, or the Nicean Council. Especially when it's widely believed that Constantine himself didn't renounce his pagan worship of Aura Mazda/Mithrism and get baptized into the religion he helped found, until his deathbed in 337.

You can find out more about the Nag Hammadi Library here.

The Nag Hammadi Library, a collection of thirteen ancient codices containing over fifty texts, was discovered in upper Egypt in 1945. This immensely important discovery includes a large number of primary Gnostic scriptures -- texts once thought to have been entirely destroyed during the early Christian struggle to define "orthodoxy" -- scriptures such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Truth.
Click to expand...

The Nag Hammadi Library is just one example of ancient scrolls that keep popping up, that predate the compilation of the bible, but contain the same books - with sometimes surprising variations. Older sources, typically > canon...... or should.
 
The people of Nicea weren't inspired; the people who wrote the books of the Bible were inspired so that the very words they wrote were from God (check Peter and Paul on the matter).

The Gnostics weren't persecuted because they were too numerous. Their writings and ideas were rejected because they contradicted the Word of God. And it wasn't a 2nd or 3rd century phenomenon. In the first decades after Christ's ascension you see proto-gnostic teachings being squashed by the apostles (especially John in the late 1st century).

The biblical books were completed before 100 AD (when John wrote Revelation). The Gnostic "scriptures" are later, contradictory books who sought to gain for themselves respect by claiming to be written by famous biblical figures (except, Thomas, Judas, et al. weren't alive in the 200 and 300s); they were rightly rejected. There's no hidden and secret knowledge to Christianity. It's all plain as day in the Bible. But it is offensive to the ear and heart, thus you have heresies like Arius and the Gnostics popping up to make things more palatable, or if nothing else, more mystical and cult-like to attract people that way.

I'd love to see some proof of the changing of the Bible to jive together more. Say what you will about the content of the Bible, but the text itself is rock-solid. The textual evidence we have is the best of any ancient document. The textual questions account for less than 1% of the entire text, and even those never effect a doctrine. When you know Greek and Hebrew and the way the scribe system worked in copying these books (meticulously), the little goofs here and there become vastly accounted for.
 
[quote name='Kayden']How many inquisitions did the Buddhists start?[/QUOTE]

Depends on how you count them. How many do they need?

There's was Toyotomi Hideyoshi's Christian Expulsion Edict, where he waged war against the Christian Japanese clans in the West, after Oda Nobunga's death, and destroyed the church and Catholic school in Kyoto. Then Tokugawa Ieyasu started actually sticking priests on ships and deporting them out of the country. Of course, it was his grandson, Tokugawa Iemitsu, who really kicked it into high-gear, where the local constabulary and priests went door to door, and got the locals to stamp on metal plates bearing the image of Mary and Jesus. If they didn't, they were arrested and given the chance to convert back. If not, they were crucified. Never let it be said feudal Japanese warlords didn't have a sense of humor. So ... what, is that one? Two? Three?

Also consider Sri Lanka/Myanmar in the past two years, where militant Buddhists have been more than doing their share. (http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/slrv.htm)

There's a pretty solid article about religious violence in general at: http://www.abpnews.com/3111.article (never mind that it's from the scary-sounding Associated Baptist Press).

And speaking of Jesuits (which I was, sorta)...

[quote name='camoor']For part of my youth I was taught by the Jesuits. They have a historical perspective and a critical nature, so they're more interested in teaching you how to debate then cramming dogma down your neck.[/QUOTE]

Same here. I always thought it was interesting to note that many of the Jesuits I knew were disciplined, rigorous scientists -- absolutely *not* the type to go in for ID.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Otherwise, I've been led to believe that Boston Terriers have only been around since the early-20th century. Damned liars![/quote]If this explanation isn't enough tell me, I don't have time for a long post. The ark did not need millions of animals on it. Dogs through breeding and such got to the number they are today through breeding. It doesn't require evolution to get breeds of dogs and such. We fully accept that small changes are possible but we cross the line at animals becoming other KINDS of animals. It doesn't work that way.
 
[quote name='lwelyk']If this explanation isn't enough tell me, I don't have time for a long post. The ark did not need millions of animals on it. Dogs through breeding and such got to the number they are today through breeding. It doesn't require evolution to get breeds of dogs and such. We fully accept that small changes are possible but we cross the line at animals becoming other KINDS of animals. It doesn't work that way.[/QUOTE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans

Come on now.
 
[quote name='trq']Depends on how you count them. How many do they need?

There's was Toyotomi Hideyoshi's Christian Expulsion Edict, where he waged war against the Christian Japanese clans in the West, after Oda Nobunga's death, and destroyed the church and Catholic school in Kyoto. Then Tokugawa Ieyasu started actually sticking priests on ships and deporting them out of the country. Of course, it was his grandson, Tokugawa Iemitsu, who really kicked it into high-gear, where the local constabulary and priests went door to door, and got the locals to stamp on metal plates bearing the image of Mary and Jesus. If they didn't, they were arrested and given the chance to convert back. If not, they were crucified. Never let it be said feudal Japanese warlords didn't have a sense of humor. So ... what, is that one? Two? Three?

Also consider Sri Lanka/Myanmar in the past two years, where militant Buddhists have been more than doing their share. (http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/slrv.htm)

There's a pretty solid article about religious violence in general at: http://www.abpnews.com/3111.article (never mind that it's from the scary-sounding Associated Baptist Press).[/quote]

The Japanese leaders you mention were as Shinto as they were Buddhist. The Japanese historical events you list were definitely protectionist, nationalist, and in the Shinto spirit (you can see the Shinto influence right up to WW2 - for example, Kamikaze is Japanese for "wind of the [Shinto] gods")

I don't doubt you can cite a few cases of Buddhists using religious differences as an excuse for violence.

But there's a reason that the Baptist article you quote uses guarded, qualified language when lumping Buddhism in with other religions, to wit:

“Religious extremist violence is a potential in all major religious faiths, including even Buddhism,” said Bruce Knauft, an anthropologist and director of Emory University’s Institute for Comparative and International Studies, which recently hosted some of the world’s top religion scholars for a conference on extremism.
Click to expand...
But, Walker added: “Christian fundamentalists are not more prone to violence than other faiths. It is possible in any faith community.” He cited fundamentalist Hindu rioters in India who have killed Muslims in recent years and the quasi-Buddhist sect Aum Shinrikyo, an apocalyptic cult that committed the 1995 sarin gas attack in Tokyo’s subway that killed 12.
Click to expand...

Including even? Quasi-Buddhist? And beyond that, does the violence done in the name of Quasi-Buddhism approach the violence done in the name of passages taken from canon, mainstream Abrahamic religious texts?
 
It's amazing that Jurassic Park did so well in the theaters. I mean, is that movie enjoyable if you don't believe in evolution? Doesn't it just become a dumb monster movie?
 
[quote name='camoor']Including even? Quasi-Buddhist? And beyond that, does the violence done in the name of Quasi-Buddhism approach the violence done in the name of passages taken from canon, mainstream Abrahamic religious texts?[/QUOTE]

The "quasi" approach here is just imposing one standard on another.

I hate to say it, but Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church have as much claim to "Christianity" as I do. I don't think they're right at all, and I think they're terrible people. But the moment I claim to be more "Christian" than they are, I'm making a presumption about the objective foundation of religion that's totally false.

Of course, there are clear boundaries. Not believing in the divinity of Christ makes it impossible to call oneself "Christian." But amongst those with the basics down (Jesus is the son of God, born to earth to die for our sins, yadda yadda yadda), then the schisms ma be huge beyond that - but the foundation is the crucial part.

So, long story short, what makes Aum Shinrikyo "quasi-buddhist"?

[quote name='camoor']It's amazing that Jurassic Park did so well in the theaters. I mean, is that movie enjoyable if you don't believe in evolution? Doesn't it just become a dumb monster movie?[/QUOTE]

Are you drunk?
 
[quote name='lwelyk']If this explanation isn't enough tell me, I don't have time for a long post. The ark did not need millions of animals on it. Dogs through breeding and such got to the number they are today through breeding. It doesn't require evolution to get breeds of dogs and such. We fully accept that small changes are possible but we cross the line at animals becoming other KINDS of animals. It doesn't work that way.[/QUOTE]

And where is this line. Genetics has found no evidence of such a line. No mechanism to prevent change from beyond a certain point. And while we're at it, dog breeds are a perfect example of many evolutionary mechanisms in action.

Good grief. Please, do try to do some minimal research on your claims about evolution. This stuff isn't exactly top secret.
 
[quote name='camoor']The Japanese leaders you mention were as Shinto as they were Buddhist.[/QUOTE]

Eh ... sorta. All those things were a factor, including the Shinto element. But to hide their religion, Japanese Christians disguised their statues of Mary as Kwannon, the Buddhist goddess of mercy. The Shogun's orders were to attend Buddhist temples, not Shinto shrines. And when they were given the chance to convert to save themselves from crucifixion, it wasn't to Shintosim -- it was to Buddhism.

[quote name='camoor']I don't doubt you can cite a few cases of Buddhists using religious differences as an excuse for violence.[/QUOTE]

I should hope not -- I just did that, so doubting it would be kinda silly. ;)

[quote name='camoor']But there's a reason that the Baptist article you quote uses guarded, qualified language when lumping Buddhism in with other religions, to wit:[/QUOTE]

Yes, and that's because the reality (Buddhists are no more and no less prone to violence than any other group of people) doesn't match the perception (Buddhists are all basically the Dalai Lama), and the article broaches that subject knowing full well what its audience's preconceptions will be.

[quote name='camoor']And beyond that, does the violence done in the name of Quasi-Buddhism approach the violence done in the name of passages taken from canon, mainstream Abrahamic religious texts?[/QUOTE]

Sorry dude -- my point was just that there are such things as "positive sterotypes," but they're not any more true than the negative ones. There are no "good" religions and there are no "bad" religions, and thinking there are is foolish. Perhaps someone else will take you up on the pissing contest. Anyway, a cursory look at much of Asian history will answer your question for you -- the people who invented kung fu were Buddhists, and they sure as hell didn't make it because they believed in passive resistance.

/threadjack now, yes?
 
[quote name='StealthNinjaScyther']And where is this line. Genetics has found no evidence of such a line. No mechanism to prevent change from beyond a certain point. And while we're at it, dog breeds are a perfect example of many evolutionary mechanisms in action.

Good grief. Please, do try to do some minimal research on your claims about evolution. This stuff isn't exactly top secret.[/quote]I think the burden of proof lies with you, actually. From our observable information (isn't that a vital part of science? Being able to test what you come up with?), species don't turn into other species. Dogs can mate with dogs regardless of breed (although, when there's a great size difference, that can be a trick!). But dogs don't mate with cats, nor are their mutations in a litter of puppies that turn one of them into some new creature.

His point was that there are small changes within species, evolution on a micro scale. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a real creationist that would deny that. It when we start saying that those tiny changes at one point were HUGE changes (without any way to test that theory) that people should be a bit more hesitant to swallow that dogmatic scientific pill.
 
[quote name='daroga']I think the burden of proof lies with you, actually. From our observable information (isn't that a vital part of science? Being able to test what you come up with?), species don't turn into other species. Dogs can mate with dogs regardless of breed (although, when there's a great size difference, that can be a trick!). But dogs don't mate with cats, nor are their mutations in a litter of puppies that turn one of them into some new creature.

His point was that there are small changes within species, evolution on a micro scale. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a real creationist that would deny that. It when we start saying that those tiny changes at one point were HUGE changes (without any way to test that theory) that people should be a bit more hesitant to swallow that dogmatic scientific pill.[/quote]

Species are often defined as different because they can't mate, so of course they can't mate.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Plants and animals with short lifespans are the only way you're going to directly observe speciation. If you had to directly observe everything in science there wouldn't be much science about the past, you have to do the best you can with what's available, that doesn't make it invalid.
 
[quote name='daroga']I think the burden of proof lies with you, actually. From our observable information (isn't that a vital part of science? Being able to test what you come up with?), species don't turn into other species. Dogs can mate with dogs regardless of breed (although, when there's a great size difference, that can be a trick!). But dogs don't mate with cats, nor are their mutations in a litter of puppies that turn one of them into some new creature.

His point was that there are small changes within species, evolution on a micro scale. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a real creationist that would deny that. It when we start saying that those tiny changes at one point were HUGE changes (without any way to test that theory) that people should be a bit more hesitant to swallow that dogmatic scientific pill.[/QUOTE]

Did you read the link I provided? If you did were you capable of understanding it?
 
[quote name='SpazX']Plants and animals with short lifespans are the only way you're going to directly observe speciation. If you had to directly observe everything in science there wouldn't be much science about the past, you have to do the best you can with what's available, that doesn't make it invalid.[/quote]No, it doesn't make it invalid, but it's also not a slam-dunk certainty either. It's far more speculation than science, if we're going define "science" as "able to use the scientific method," which these wild extrapolations are not able to do.
 
[quote name='daroga']No, it doesn't make it invalid, but it's also not a slam-dunk certainty either. It's far more speculation than science, if we're going define "science" as "able to use the scientific method," which these wild extrapolations are not able to do.[/QUOTE]

I think that calling you a third rate sophist was being far too kind on my part.
 
Thrust, I'm still waiting for you to disprove one single fact or piece of data presented in An Inconvenient Truth, are you still playing? If so, cough it up, otherwise you will have successfully been called out on your bullshit. The ball is (still) in your court champ.

Lets see these "lies."
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The "quasi" approach here is just imposing one standard on another.

I hate to say it, but Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church have as much claim to "Christianity" as I do. I don't think they're right at all, and I think they're terrible people. But the moment I claim to be more "Christian" than they are, I'm making a presumption about the objective foundation of religion that's totally false.

Of course, there are clear boundaries. Not believing in the divinity of Christ makes it impossible to call oneself "Christian." But amongst those with the basics down (Jesus is the son of God, born to earth to die for our sins, yadda yadda yadda), then the schisms ma be huge beyond that - but the foundation is the crucial part.

So, long story short, what makes Aum Shinrikyo "quasi-buddhist"?[/quote]

I was just quoting the article, but I would argue that Aum Shinrikyo is as Buddhist as Fred Phelps is Christian. Both are off the scales in how much their actions differ from the tenets set down by their respective religions, no matter how much they claim to believe the core principles.

I'm not really interested in the fringe whackos though, let's talk about the people with a real following (you know, the Pat Robertson types)
 
[quote name='trq']Eh ... sorta. All those things were a factor, including the Shinto element. But to hide their religion, Japanese Christians disguised their statues of Mary as Kwannon, the Buddhist goddess of mercy. The Shogun's orders were to attend Buddhist temples, not Shinto shrines. And when they were given the chance to convert to save themselves from crucifixion, it wasn't to Shintosim -- it was to Buddhism.[/quote]

The secret Mary statues were not just Kwannon, they were also modeled after Shinto gods and goddesses. The Kakure Kirishitan (hidden Christians) modified their hymns to sound like both Buddhist and Shinto prayers.

In Japan, Shintoism is intertwined with Buddhism. Furthermore Shintoism is fiercely nationalistic and extremely political. It's almost impossible to objectively prove which religion was most likely the cause of the atrocities against Japanese Christians and missionaries, but my logical, cynical mind is forced to conclude that a nationalistic, political religion is more apt to be the culprit then a religion designed to lay out the path towards elimination of suffering.

[quote name='trq']Yes, and that's because the reality (Buddhists are no more and no less prone to violence than any other group of people) doesn't match the perception (Buddhists are all basically the Dalai Lama), and the article broaches that subject knowing full well what its audience's preconceptions will be.



Sorry dude -- my point was just that there are such things as "positive sterotypes," but they're not any more true than the negative ones. There are no "good" religions and there are no "bad" religions, and thinking there are is foolish. Perhaps someone else will take you up on the pissing contest. Anyway, a cursory look at much of Asian history will answer your question for you -- the people who invented kung fu were Buddhists, and they sure as hell didn't make it because they believed in passive resistance.

/threadjack now, yes?[/quote]

You have a very morally relativistic viewpoint (IE all religions are the same in terms of goodness or badness and therefore cannot be judged) I don't share that viewpoint and I feel that world history is on my side.

As far as negative stereotypes - you're employing them when you talk about Kung Fu as the product of a violent mindset. If you believe Kung Fu is what you see in Jackie Chan movies or what the Wu Tang clan raps about then you should get educated.

It is like a finger pointing away to the moon. Do not concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory. ;)
 
[quote name='daroga']I think the burden of proof lies with you, actually. From our observable information (isn't that a vital part of science? Being able to test what you come up with?), species don't turn into other species. Dogs can mate with dogs regardless of breed (although, when there's a great size difference, that can be a trick!). But dogs don't mate with cats, nor are their mutations in a litter of puppies that turn one of them into some new creature.

His point was that there are small changes within species, evolution on a micro scale. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a real creationist that would deny that. It when we start saying that those tiny changes at one point were HUGE changes (without any way to test that theory) that people should be a bit more hesitant to swallow that dogmatic scientific pill.[/QUOTE]

How many times do people have to correct your misconceptions about evolution? Species do change over time. We have observed this. Over long periods these changes can be rather significant. The fossil record also confirms this. The burden of proof for this lies on your end. There is no evidence to suggest that the processes that produce the small changes we observe today are insufficient to produce the variation of species that have existed throughout time.

Again, the dog mating with cats thing. What does that have to do with evolution? Evolution does not state that mutations will turn one species "into some new creature." Please, do try to learn what evolution actually is. These straw-man arguments will get you nowhere.

There is nothing dogmatic behind the science of evolution. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. You need to remember that the theory of evolution is an explanation for an observed process. Do we really need to go over the scientific definition of a theory again?
 
Doroga just needs to remember that all evolution does is explain that species can adapt and change over time. That's really it, not much more.

Evolutionists sometimes hypothesize (read:guess) that man "evolved" from apes based on similarity and a sketchy fossil record full of huge gaps. But that isn't proof.

And because of that, it's really not that contrary to creationism or ID.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Doroga just needs to remember that all evolution does is explain that species can adapt and change over time. That's really it, not much more.

Evolutionists sometimes hypothesize (read:guess) that man "evolved" from apes based on similarity and a sketchy fossil record full of huge gaps. But that isn't proof.

And because of that, it's really not that contrary to creationism or ID.[/quote]I'm not so sure that's true, thrust. I can see "evolution" excluding the origins of life and matter that science has no idea about, but I think "evolution" generally encompasses the ideas of single cell->mankind and everything in between.

Of course if it was defined as you stated, and thus if we stayed in the realm of the testable, observable stuff, that'd be awesome. You know, the scientific method. It's the speculation that runs rampant and is passed off as fact when it is, as you say, just guesses (and poorly contrived ones at that) that the problems come.

Creation and micro-evolution fit just fine together. I love studying it, as well, to get an idea of how awesomely God made this world and it's creatures to adapt and change as need be.
 
[quote name='daroga']No, it doesn't make it invalid, but it's also not a slam-dunk certainty either. It's far more speculation than science, if we're going define "science" as "able to use the scientific method," which these wild extrapolations are not able to do.[/quote]

They're not wild extrapolations. There's no reason to believe that what works in plants and insects doesn't relate to what happens to larger animals with longer lifespans. There are millions (if not billions, hell if I know) of different species of insects with very little difference between them. Larger animal families are less varied because of their longer lifespans and fewer niches and these are the animals we see the most, making it less intuitive to think that there can be a build-up of little differences to make very different species.

You test a theory by testing its predictions. A theory is nothing if it doesn't predict things, that's the point of a theory (which is one reason why ID isn't one, it makes no testable predictions). Evolution makes specific predictions about what you would expect in genetics, physiology, fossils, etc. if evolution took place. The findings in those areas are what you would expect if evolution took place. That is how evolution is scientifically tested even though you cannot necessarily directly observe speciation happening in every modern species.

EDIT: To add to that, we cannot directly observe atoms, nor protons or electrons, or any other small particles such as that in physics. They are inferred by the effects that are observed that would be expected if they existed. Does that mean that it's not science? Afterall, we've made atomic bombs based on those theories, which worked as expected. People rarely contest this as ID contests evolution since they have no moral, emotional, religous, etc. investment in the existence of electrons.
 
Okay, /threadjack, sorry.

[quote name='camoor']You have a very morally relativistic viewpoint (IE all religions are the same in terms of goodness or badness and therefore cannot be judged) I don't share that viewpoint and I feel that world history is on my side.[/QUOTE]

Actually, I'm anything but relativistic. I'm really just a stickler for consistency; in this case, viewing every religion with the same critical eye. From your desire to exonerate Buddhism of any history of violence, while not extending the same leniency to, say, Abrahamic religions, it's clear you're not willing to do that.

[quote name='camoor']As far as negative stereotypes - you're employing them when you talk about Kung Fu as the product of a violent mindset. If you believe Kung Fu is what you see in Jackie Chan movies or what the Wu Tang clan raps about then you should get educated.[/QUOTE]

None of the kung fu instructors I know would even consider the idea that kung fu is meant for combat to be negative. So what, exactly, is kung fu intended for, if not fighting? Because I'm pretty sure most people would consider eye gouges, throat punches, and knee breaks "violent."

[quote name='camoor']It is like a finger pointing away to the moon. Do not concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory. ;)[/QUOTE]

Heh. Great movie, though I prefer: "Why doesn't somebody pull out a .45 and -- bang -- settle it?" Bruce was eminently practical. :)

[quote name='camoor']How about that lion that mated with a tiger

liger.JPG


http://thelongestlistofthelongeststuffatthelongestdomainnameatlonglast.com/animals25.html[/QUOTE]

Piffle. You don't need "evolution" for that. That's just some good, old-fashioned "begetting."

ligr1.jpg


And besides, I think you mean:

liger.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top