New Charles Darwin film is 'too controversial' for religious American audiences [Archive]

Fish

09-13-09, 04:50 PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1212966/New-Charles-Darwin-film-controversial-American-audiences.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6173399/Charles-Darwin-film-too-controversial-for-religious-America.html

Creation, starring Paul Bettany, details Darwin's "struggle between faith and reason" as he wrote On The Origin of Species. It depicts him as a man who loses faith in God following the death of his beloved 10-year-old daughter, Annie.
The film was chosen to open the Toronto Film Festival and has its British premiere on Sunday. It has been sold in almost every territory around the world, from Australia to Scandinavia.

However, US distributors have resolutely passed on a film which will prove hugely divisive in a country where, according to a Gallup poll conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.

Shearwater

09-13-09, 04:58 PM

On the whole, it still amazes me (to put it mildly) why so many people are so viciously opposed to a 19th century theory that is in no way contradictory to religious writing. These people simply want to argue.
It's not about 'God'. It's all about people.

Thank something or somebody I simply can make no statement about that I'm an agnostic.

CastleBravo

09-13-09, 05:00 PM

August

09-13-09, 05:04 PM

The only stink about the movie is what I read here. If one looks hard enough they'll find somebody that objects to anything, but how much of this reflects true American sentiment and how much is the producers trying to generate controversy in order to sell the movie.

Rilder

09-13-09, 05:09 PM

Bloody fanatics, its just a movie, if you don't want to watch it don't, don't force people not to watch it.

Shearwater

09-13-09, 05:15 PM

I guess we all have the 20th century at the back of our minds with all the devastating effects of social Darwinism. That's nothing to blame the man for. We have to make a clear distinction between Darwin's idea and social Darwinism, despite the name. The latter one is what people made of it. People will always make stupid and grossly simplified deductions of great ideas and then confuse their own ideas with the original thought. In other words: They read something into these ideas that was never there. It has happened to Christianity, it has happened to Darwinism. The consequences have always been deplorable.

antikristuseke

09-13-09, 05:32 PM

Perhaps its the title of Darwins original book which gives people in the US pause.

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

I guess the supporters of Darwin think themselves 'favoured'. The book is racist if applied to Human Beings, no?

Castlebravo, you are being a right **** posting this tired old pratt. In the context in which races is used in that books title it means the same as species. Language usage has just changed over the years allso, you should read the damned thing so you would'nt come off quite so ignorant making claims about Darwins supposed racism. In short, I am tired of creationists and other dimwits pulling this **** trying to badmouth a naturist, because a)It is just such a cheap and low tactic and b)Even if the man was a racist it has no bearing on his theories validity. Evolution is real, the Earth is older than 10,000 years, we are in orbit around the Sun, the Earth is not flat and storks do not deliver babies. The bible/koran/torah/any other holy book is mistaken, get over it you ignorant ****s.

Rant brought to you by annoyance of blinding stupidity and slight hangover.

Tribesman

09-13-09, 05:39 PM

Perhaps its the title of Darwins original book which gives people in the US pause.

Only if they are really thick.
Its a book about biology, in biology race is a specific term in use at the time for taxonomic classification
Perhaps the same people who it would give pause to would read an article about zoology that used the word Legion and think it was either something to do with the Roman Army or the Demon of Gadarene

CastleBravo

09-13-09, 05:59 PM

Not one answer to the question...

I guess the supporters of Darwin think themselves 'favoured'. The book is racist if applied to Human Beings, no?

antikristuseke

09-13-09, 06:00 PM

Yes we did, you just ignored it because it does not fit your twisted agenda.

I will try to keep this simple.

Short answer: No
Long answer: ******* No

CastleBravo

09-13-09, 06:06 PM

Yes we did, you just ignored it because it does not fit your twisted agenda.

I will try to keep this simple.

Short answer: No
Long answer: ******* No

So the book isn't racist when applied to Human Beings? Is that what you mean by no?

antikristuseke

09-13-09, 06:08 PM

Look at my first post in this thread, read it and try to prove my condescending attitude wrong by bloody comprehending it.

Tribesman

09-13-09, 06:10 PM

Not one answer to the question...

:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:
Sorry to break it to ya, but there is only one human race.
While cretinists might have impaired cerebal functions they are still the same race.

CastleBravo

09-13-09, 06:17 PM

:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:
Sorry to break it to ya, but there is only one human race.
While cretinists might have impaired cerebal functions they are still the same race.

Then when a person is called a racist it should be taken as a compliment?

And by Darwin's standard, as defined by you, the 'human race' should......

Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the
air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

CastleBravo

09-13-09, 06:20 PM

Look at my first post in this thread, read it and try to prove my condescending attitude wrong by bloody comprehending it.

Ya got yourself into a mess. You know it, and are thus pwned.

Dowly

09-13-09, 06:25 PM

And by Darwin's standard, as defined by you, the 'human race' should......

Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the
air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Umm... arent we kinda doing that already? :hmmm:

antikristuseke

09-13-09, 06:27 PM

Ya got yourself into a mess. You know it, and are thus pwned.

Jesus ****ing chrst. What are you on about now?

Lets go over this **** again then, shall we?
Te title of darwins book is not racist when applied to humans in any way, shape or form unless you remove the context of the title. *******s supporting social darwinism have done so and you are walking down the same superficial path, albeit for different, yet equally silly reasons. The preservation of preferred races in context is nothing more than a way to describe natural selection in different terms. And it has already been mentioned that humanity as a whole is the same race or species. Then for some bloody reason you pull a completely irrelevant bible quote out of the air and just because you were either unable or unwilling to comprehend me claim to have pwned anyone. No, the only person pwned here is you, by your own ignorance and superficiality.

I will get back to this thread after I either get some sleep or my hangover subsides. Till that time, try to read Darwins book and see for yourself if the man was racist or not, But to be completely frank you probably will not do so, heavens forbid, you might actually learn something.

Thomen

09-13-09, 06:29 PM

Well.. that didn't take long..

http://www.fallen-legion.eu/news/data/upimages/DoubleFacePalm.jpg

Tribesman

09-13-09, 06:44 PM

Then when a person is called a racist it should be taken as a compliment?

Wow you really have problems with the English language don't you.
Race as a term of taxonomic identification is clearly defined ,
on the other hand a racist is best defined as an idiot.
People who are unable to differentiate between two words with different meanings can also fit one of those definitions.

And by Darwin's standard, as defined by you, the 'human race' should......

Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the
air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Errrrr....no, perhaps you could do better if you had the faintest idea what you were talking about instead of recycling garbage from a badly translated, heavily edited fragment of ancient mythology.

CastleBravo

09-13-09, 06:44 PM

Umm... arent we kinda doing that already? :hmmm:

Absolutely. But that was given long before Darwin advocated it. Hold no misgivings, that is exactly what Darwin is saying in his book.

Task Force

09-13-09, 06:54 PM

lol... people wineing about a scientific movie... :lol: some people are nuts...

what are they gonna say next... lol a new Astornomy movie is un religious...

AVGWarhawk

09-13-09, 06:55 PM

This is the reason I only watch the Wiggles. No arguments at all :D

http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/the-wiggles.jpg

Task Force

09-13-09, 06:56 PM

This is the reason I only watch the Wiggles. No arguments at all :D

http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/the-wiggles.jpg

and thats the reason I dont watch tv.

Tribesman

09-13-09, 06:58 PM

Hold no misgivings, that is exactly what Darwin is saying in his book.
:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:
Hold no misgivings , you demonstrate that you havn't read the book and havn't got the faintest idea what it says:down:

Skybird

09-13-09, 06:59 PM

There is a difference between knowledge and belief. And when people just believe, but claim that what they believe in is knowledge - then the troubles begin.

The theory of Darwin - is a theory, it is being used because the overwhelming majority of scientists consider it to make more sense and cooperating better with the current scientific paradigms then any other theory dealing with the developement of life and species. Maybe one day it will be replaced, when our understanding of things and life widens, or we start to see more contradiction than pragmatic value in it. Maybe not. Different to religions' always un checked and alwqays unprovable claims, theories in science can be examined, tested, changed, corrected, supplemented, precised or replaced.

Religion needs the self-limitation and lacking education and dogmatism of people in order to be what it is, a religion. It needs the weakness of people in order to be powerful itself.

Scientific theories are not to be believed in. They are being used, as long as it makes pragmatic sense and is seen to match reason. Reason is religions's arch-enemy. Reason and logic unveil all the decpetion and superifical believing in relgion, and rips the mask off it'S face. In this opposition to education and reason, all religions are the same and are natural allies. Not just one special religion is an educated, reasonable man's enemy - but all.

The more a man knows about individual objects, the more he knows about God. Translating Spinoza's language into ours, we can say: The more a man knows about himself in relation to every kind of experience, the greater his chance of suddenly, one fine morning, realizing who in fact he is---or rather Who in Fact "He" Is.

St. John was right. In a blessedly speechless universe, the Word was not only with God; it was God. As a something to be believed in. God is a projected symbol, a reified name. God = "God."

Faith is something very different from belief. Belief is the systematic taking of unanalyzed words much too seriously. Paul's words, Mohammed's words, Marx's words, Hitler's words---people take them too seriously, and what happens? What happens is the senseless ambivalence of history---sadism versus duty, or (incomparably worse) sadism as duty; devotion counterbalanced by organized paranoia; sisters of charity selflessly tending the victims of their own church's inquisitors and crusaders. Faith, on the contrary, can never be taken too seriously. For Faith is the empirically justified confidence in our capacity to know who in fact we are, to forget the belief-intoxicated Manichee in Good Being. Give us this day our daily Faith, but deliver us, dear God, from Belief.

All words about religion, all religious teachings necessarily must be untrue and wrong, for the one reality that just is, is so much bigger than terms and labels, but terms and labels are just a small, an arbitrary part of the uoltimate reality, and so a reality in which the words we use actually have a meaning that we can understand by the rules of the language we use, necessarily must be a most uncomplete one. A thought god is our thought only, and dies when our brain activity comes to a standstill. the divinity of the university cannot be understood, embraced, described or adressed in names. "The name of God cannot be pronounced".

So why is there talking in the name of religions, and why is there religious argument, when the mere fact that it is being given is evidence that what it says is and must be untrue?

All religious books should be burned immediately. They are just a terrible confusion bringing out the worst in man again and again and again, causing intolerance, mental self-mutiliation and self-righteous elitism.

CastleBravo

09-13-09, 06:59 PM

Wow you really have problems with the English language don't you.
Race as a term of taxonomic identification is clearly defined ,
on the other hand a racist is best defined as an idiot.
People who are unable to differentiate between two words with different meanings can also fit one of those definitions.

Errrrr....no, perhaps you could do better if you had the faintest idea what you were talking about instead of recycling garbage from a badly translated, heavily edited fragment of ancient mythology.

Darwin's work is theory, yes? That means proof is necessary. I haven't seen any, but I love when my posts are argued.:yeah: Yet the Bible is believed by multidudes, including those who have read Darwin.

Come onboard and Christ will save you!

Task Force

09-13-09, 07:02 PM

Darwin's work is theory, yes? That means proof is necessary. I haven't seen any, but I love when my posts are argued.:yeah: Yet the Bible is believed by multidudes, including those who have read Darwin.

Come onboard and Christ will save you!

... LOL... this reminds me of the greeks... useing gods to explain things...:rotfl2:

Rilder

09-13-09, 07:03 PM

Come onboard and Christ will save you!

Become a Hellen and Zeus might shag your daughters! :arrgh!:

... LOL... this reminds me of the greeks... useing gods to explain everything...:rotfl2:

We use Gods to explain stuff we haven't found an explanation too yet. :88)

CastleBravo

09-13-09, 07:04 PM

... LOL... this reminds me of the greeks... useing gods to explain everything...:rotfl2:

... LOL... this reminds me of the communists... using science to explain everything...:rotfl2:

antikristuseke

09-13-09, 07:10 PM

Darwin's work is theory, yes? That means proof is necessary. I haven't seen any, but I love when my posts are argued.:yeah: Yet the Bible is believed by multidudes, including those who have read Darwin.

Come onboard and Christ will save you!

Evidence here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Read and learn, ignorance is not a badge of honor. And before you pull the good old "Science does not know everything" BS, science knows it does not know everything, if it did, it would stop. Trying to explain things you do not understand with goddunit does nothing but let minds rot away in make believe.

CastleBravo

09-13-09, 07:18 PM

Belief is indeed an interesting thing........isn't it? I make no claim to knowing God's wishes or Darwin's. I guess I'd rather believe in God, than in a man who undoubtly spent so much time masturbating on long ocean voyages.

antikristuseke

09-13-09, 07:20 PM

I don't believe either, just follow the evidence.

mookiemookie

09-13-09, 07:21 PM

Darwin's work is theory, yes?
Gravity is just a theory, too.

Task Force

09-13-09, 07:23 PM

what proof is there that the bible is true... (and dont say the book.)

antikristuseke

09-13-09, 07:25 PM

http://mattcbr.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/break-the-cycle.jpg

CastleBravo

09-13-09, 07:25 PM

Gravity is just a theory, too.

So says Neal Steven's special person.

Skybird

09-13-09, 07:26 PM

Darwin's work is theory, yes? That means proof is necessary.

Not exactly, but testing is necessary (to which religions are totally hostile, they are not to be tested or being asked questions about: they are just to be believed). Theories however do not stay unchanged forever, they are being tested, and checked for the validity of predictions they may make, and if they are in contradiction to other results of the scientific process. Science is in constant shifting, it changes constantly. But it does not give you the ultimate answers to the universe, just temporary assumptions that fit better into the canon of observations made so far than other assumptions or hallucinations from your last night being drunk in the pub, and creating lesser contradiction with other observations. Science in principal is nothing else than putting observations into an arbitrary order like miniatures are being put on the shelve accoridng to the will of the collector, where this order occasionally gets corrected due to the latest observations, and defining also the methodology by which we try to win new observation results. Science is totally different than religion, because religions just claims something, never makes its claims object of testing or analysis, and rule that these claims should have everlasting validity. religion does all the time what it (wrongly) accuses science of.

As astrophysicist Timothy Ferris put it: "We are not dealing with the universe 'in front of us', which will remain an eternal mystery for us, but we deal with a model of the universethat we can create inside our heads as we like. For all of us, not cosmos itself is the object of our examination, but it's dance with our mind." (translated from the German translation).

Yet the Bible is believed by multidudes, including those who have read Darwin.
That is not evidence either! Hear-say and rumours, and that many people mumble and believe something, is no argument. It says nothing about that what they believe is right or wrong. It just means that they beolieve something and mistake believing with knowing.

CastleBravo

09-13-09, 07:33 PM

antikristuseke

09-13-09, 07:35 PM

Having read your post Skybird, the question arises............why hasn't science investigated the Bible? Oh, they have, and cannot disprove it as an ecumenical document. The difference is I'm not trying to convert you to christanity, yet many tell me my faith is flawed. How far does one think that will go in convincing me?

And this is where you fail, the burden of proof is on the maker of the claim. You and other religious people claim there is a god, you provide the evidence for its existance, without evidence it is atural to return to the null hypothesis, which in this case is no belief in god.

CastleBravo

09-13-09, 07:44 PM

And this is where you fail, the burden of proof is on the maker of the claim. You and other religious people claim there is a god, you provide the evidence for its existance, without evidence it is atural to return to the null hypothesis, which in this case is no belief in god.

But I make no claim. You have read too much into the posts. You have claimed their isn't a God, I haven't said there wasn't a Darwin or that his theory doesn't exist. On the contrary, I ask you to explain away the existance of what you don't know. Not being able to explain something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, does it? That is the basis of science, is it not?

antikristuseke

09-13-09, 07:47 PM

But I make no claim. You have read too much into the posts. You have claimed their isn't a God, I haven't said there wasn't a Darwin or that his theory doesn't exist. On the contrary, I ask you to explain away the existance of what you don't know. Not being able to explain something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, does it? That is the basis of science, is it not?

No I have not, I make no such claim, I just don't believe in a god and don't think it to be rational to believe in a god because of lack of evidence. I dont claim that there is no god but do claim there is no reason to belive in the existance of such an entity.

Tribesman

09-13-09, 07:51 PM

Darwin's work is theory, yes? That means proof is necessary
You don't understand the word theory do you.
I haven't seen any
Thats not surprising since you havn't read the book you are talking about and don't seem to understand science at all.

I love when my posts are argued.
You are having language problems again, your posts are being ridiculed, that is something different from argued.

why hasn't science investigated the Bible?
They have, that is why it is irrefutably a collection of badly translated heavily edited fragments that were cobbled together over a long period of time with lots of abitary omissions and embellishments which have rendered it practically meaningless as an accurate rendition.
So you know as much about theology as you do about science , well done you manage to surpass your inabilities with the English language into several fields.

Skybird

09-13-09, 07:55 PM

Having read your post Skybird, the question arises............why hasn't science investigated the Bible? Oh, they have, and cannot disprove it as an ecumenical document.

That it is an ecumenical, document, means it is an ecumenical deocument. It proves nothing pro or contra the content of thr bible, but is just stating ther obvious: that the existence of this document is a historic fact.

Actually, science does check historic grounds of the bible's forming up, and also it's historic data. but to scientifically discuss it'S statements on miracles and divi8one entities by content is not being done for the same reason you do not scientifically argue with just anybody picking some random claim from the sky and demands you to prove that he is wrong.

You add the bible to the world that before was just the world, without bible? You say it is true? Fine, then prove it. The burden of evidence is with you, since you claim to explain reality via the bible. You make the claim, you prove it. It is the often used trick of religious sectarians to reverse the burden of evidence and to claim they are right as long as you cannot prove they are wrong, but that is nonsense. But all that you get from them is just an endless lament on what they just believe. you get no methodology, no structure in reason and logic, no critical self-analysis, no cross-comparison with information raised from other sources, in fact you see them not raising new info by themselves, for they do not see a need in for that, since they are completely happy to just stay with unchecked claism and statements from centuioes and millenias ago.

BTW, science has adressed many claims of the bible, and gave substantial explanations that acutally make more sense for us than to refer to them as just divine intervention, or labelling them "miracles", from each of the ten plagues up to Moses dividing the waters or whatever you may have on mind.

the following has been repeatedly quoted by me over the years, I do not want to appear as dogmatic, but in fact this probably is the most precious piece of wisdom I have ever stumbled over in my life, from the Kalamas-Sutra, and 100% culture-free ;) :

"
Do not put faith in traditions, even though they
have been accepted for long generations and
in many countries. Do not believe a thing because
many repeat it. Do not accept a thing on
the authority of one or another of the sages of
old, nor on the ground of statements as found
in the books. Never believe anything because
probability is in its favour. Do not believe in
that which you yourselves have imagined,
thinking that a god has inspired it. Believe
nothing merely on the authority of the teachers
or the priests. After examination, believe that
which you have tested for yourself and found
reasonable, which is in conformity with your
well being and that of others.
"

The difference is I'm not trying to convert you to christanity, yet many tell me my faith is flawed. How far does one think that will go in convincing me?

As I always say, keep your religion to thyselve. As long as people like me must not care for the wallpaper you use in your flat, we do not care and won't tell you to stop demanding us that we should use it, too. I personally do not care for what you believe, nor do I respect the object of your belief if you actaully have a belief. the point is that I will not approach you on this issue as long as I you do not approach me. but if you make your religious claims public, you have to accept other people reacting to it, and not necessarily supportive only. If I listen to music, it'S nobody'S business, but if I do it so loud that others need to listen to it, too, then I have gotten myself into trouble, and it is up to me to turn down the volume.

MothBalls

09-13-09, 07:58 PM

There is a difference between knowledge and belief. And when people just believe, but claim that what they believe in is knowledge - then the troubles begin.

That was an impressive statement. In fact, probably one of the most intelligent things I've ever read in in this forum. I take back almost all of the bad things I ever said about you Skybird. :)

CastleBravo

09-13-09, 08:05 PM

Why is it that so many folks are threatened by the possibility of God that they are willing to give up their principals to attack someone who does?

I haven't ever attacked anyone for their faith. America allows all faiths, Perhaps that is the difference. If your faith is science, be assured it will change. In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue.

Tribesman

09-13-09, 08:07 PM

Lets go back in time to one of the fellows that cobbled together a version of the bible .
To paraphrase , it is ruinous for a christian to speak as an idiot about science when reason and experience clearly show their logic to be completely flawed.

Now quite a few times throughout history idiots have forgotten that lesson and attempted to prove science wrong because it contradicted their literal interpretations of scripture, but idiots never learn the lesson do they.

antikristuseke

09-13-09, 08:10 PM

Get off your high horse CB. We have religious freedom here, more than in the states probably yet people are less religious. Science, btw, as if you allready did not know this, science is not a fatih and its changing nature is a stregth while the unwillingness for change (suposedly, actualy all religions have "evolved" over time) is religions failing. The more we learn the more accurate science is and more out of touch with reality religion grows.

Oh and if i am attacking anything it is ignorance because it pisses me off.

CastleBravo

09-13-09, 08:13 PM

Tribesman

09-13-09, 08:18 PM

Faith is an intregal part of humanity, without it science would not exist.
:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:
Faith : not resting on logical proof or material evidence.
Language problems again:down:

antikristuseke

09-13-09, 08:19 PM

Did I say science was wrong? Nope. I did imply, and will say now; science doesn't hold all the answers. Faith is an intregal part of humanity, without it science would not exist.

Science knows that it does not hold all the answers, if it did, it would stop. Faith on the other hand is does nothing but hold us back because questions we should seek answers to are arbitraily answered with goddunit. Faith has nothing to do with science, they are nothing alike.

Skybird

09-13-09, 08:20 PM

Why is it that so many folks are threatened by the possibility of God
The idea of a god is not threatening to me - I just do not need this concept of a god to make sense of life and existence, nor do I see the explanations why somebody believes in a god as convincing. I am realist, so I take note of the fact that some people do believe in a god. But that is no explanation in itself for why they believe that.

What is threatening, though, is when people on behalf of their religious claims and beliefs want to change secularism and society in general, and demand respect their conceptions have never earned and demand special rights and priviliges for no other reasons than that it is according to their religion.

Not necessarily counting you into this missionising and campaigning category. ;)

that they are willing to give up their principals to attack someone who does?
Fundemantal laws of physics: action causes reaction, force you inflict inevitably returns. I often see religious campaigners going into offensive, and when others dare to raise reistenace to them they get accused of being "aggressive" or intolerant.

I haven't ever attacked anyone for their faith. America allows all faiths, Perhaps that is the difference. If your faith is science, be assured it will change. In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue.

No, you haven'T attacked anybody'S faith here, nor do I feel attacked by you. But the thread was psited, the issue was that movie, the talking began - and you have to live with the fact that you ran into some guys who do not agree with you. I can only speak for myself, of course, but I am not attacking you in the meaning of the word - I just answer in public to some statements you made, also in public, and I make it clear that I oppose your view, and why.

BTW, science is no faith. It is just a method that is being used because it has proven to be of higher pragmatic use to human civilisation than any other methodology. The injection by the dentist certainly is not given because the doctor just believes or hopes it would help, but because we both know by experience that it will help to ease the pain.

You might be surprised, but I am convinced that the human mind has potentials for self-healing and activities that classic science so far has just started to become aware of. Subscribing to science, opposing relgions and seeing a context- and person-dependant value in activities of a shaman, is no contradiction for me. Different to religions that claim to have found and given all answers ever needed, I am aware that science is in a process of constant learning and changing. where it refuses to do so, it ends like religion: in dead dogmatism, and hurting the world and hurting the individual.

One must admit that much of the orthodox academic business is running like this.

Freiwillige

09-13-09, 08:21 PM

just some things to point out.

Christianity just like most religions has evolved, It is not static. Its designs and ideas constantly change so as to not offend the cultural norms. Therefore in theory evolution is proven.

And another point is that the argument being disputed is really an argument over two books....Both written by man.

CastleBravo

09-13-09, 08:23 PM

:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:
Faith : not resting on logical proof or material evidence.
Language problems again:down:

As humorous as you may think it......... science began with people of faith. Those illogical folks,:D

Task Force

09-13-09, 08:26 PM

I thought science began with people wondering what the truth is. not what faith tells them...

CastleBravo

09-13-09, 08:38 PM

I thought science began with people wondering what the truth is. not what faith tells them...

Absolutely correct. But it didn't tell them having faith in God was wrong. Did it?

Mush Martin

09-13-09, 09:40 PM

Absolutely correct. But it didn't tell them having faith in God was wrong. Did it?

also absolutely correct.

Everything evolves creatures plants organisms but far more than
that rocks shopping malls tools systems ever evolve. Evolution is
a process with no final product it is a continuing adaptation to an
ever changing environment and what works works. Crap even stars
evolve. Everything in the presence of time does period no exceptions.
the only difference is that in my M Theory universe God or Ed Whitton
is probably smart enough to have invented evolution.

Man is not Perfect Man is adaptable.

In closing I will say this much.

If I was a deity sitting around the multiverse one day trying to dream
up a chosen people I think I could dream up a chosen race that was
capable of crossing the road in good order unsupervised.

look around you.

M

AngusJS

09-14-09, 12:02 AM

Darwin's work is theory, yes? That means proof is necessary. I haven't seen any

Proof abounds, you just refuse to see it.

Reproduction produces variable traits in offspring. If a trait is advantageous to an organism, making it more likely for the organism to survive to adulthood and reproduce, then that trait will have a greater chance of being passed on, which over time can lead to speciation. Evolution is so simple and obvious, it'd be amazing if it didn't happen, and it should be completely non-controversial. That is, if it didn't contradict an ancient compilation of books written over hundreds of years by dozens of tremendously ignorant people who couldn't agree on much of anything.

why hasn't science investigated the Bible? Oh, they have, and cannot disprove it as an ecumenical document.The miracles refute themselves. I know archaeology has shown that there's very little evidence for Exodus.

If your faith is science, be assured it will change. In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue.If god said in the bible that the Old World continents were the only land masses on the planet, there would be millions of American Christians today inisting that North America was in fact Asia, or that it was created by the devil to fool us, or that the original passage was true but only in a metaphorical sense, etc. Anything but accept the fact that what their religion told them was wrong. Fortunately, science doesn't work that way.

Come onboard and Christ will save you! If the only way to the father is through Jesus, why would he appear in 1st century Palestine and nowhere else? Did god think all the Asians, Africans, Australians and Americans should wait 1500 years for even a chance at salvation?

And how's that apocalypse coming along? Jesus spoke about it as if it was just around the corner. Strange that it's 2000 years later and it still hasn't arrived. :DL

Rilder

09-14-09, 12:18 AM

And how's that apocalypse coming along? Jesus spoke about it as if it was just around the corner. Strange that it's 2000 years later and it still hasn't arrived. :DL

He's held up in traffic coming back from the Andromeda Galaxy, clearly. :rotfl2:

Either that or Heracles beat the **** out of him and left him for dead. :arrgh!:

Task Force

09-14-09, 12:49 AM

He's held up in traffic coming back from the Andromeda Galaxy, clearly. :rotfl2:

Either that or Heracles beat the **** out of him and left him for dead. :arrgh!:

lol...or he took a rong turn...:lol:

Thomen

09-14-09, 12:53 AM

lol...or he took a rong turn...:lol:

My money is on: The Apocalypse is hold hostage by Xenu. :03:

Morts

09-14-09, 01:25 AM

Tribesman

09-14-09, 03:11 AM

He's held up in traffic coming back from the Andromeda Galaxy, clearly.
But since the Andromeda Galaxy is only in the bowl that covers the earth he should have made it by now, after all a galaxy is just some of the lights god placed inside the dome so it can't be far away.

clive bradbury

09-14-09, 08:36 AM

Absolutely correct. But it didn't tell them having faith in God was wrong. Did it?

Actually that is exactly what it did, and continues to do, hence the ongoing increase in agnosticism and atheism. Funny what happens when humans begin to think for themselves and no longer cease to believe everything people tell them...

Torvald Von Mansee

09-14-09, 09:01 AM

Task Force

09-14-09, 09:09 AM

NeonSamurai

09-14-09, 09:46 AM

If I was a deity sitting around the multiverse one day trying to dream
up a chosen people I think I could dream up a chosen race that was
capable of crossing the road in good order unsupervised.

look around you.

This made my morning :DL

I have to say I've always had big issues with most of the world's religions. This is not to say that they have not done some good too, for many offer useful moral instruction on how to be better then what we are. The problem though is many forget that those moral instructions are meant to be applied to all and not just the favored group. Then further add to that the belief that their religion is the one and only "true" religion, and therefore all others must be wrong.

The concept of there being one "true" religion is utterly absurd. Through out human history there have been countless religions that have come in and out of existence. All with followers equally ardent in their belief that theirs is the "right" religion as Christians, Muslims, etc do today. Their god(s) also told them they were right in their belief. They then further went on to the conclusion that if all other religions are wrong, then these people must be shown the "light" or killed.

I think of my aunt and uncle who are deeply Christian (Anglican), they are good and kind people, and they believe absolutely. For my entire life they have tried repeatedly to show me the "light" and the "error of my ways". We have often gotten into arguments over it, and those arguments always end in them proclaiming that they are right absolutely with absolutely nothing to back up such a claim. They believe and stick their fingers in their ears and yell loudly when anything contrary comes along.

However one could attack science as well, or rather attack the believers in science. Science for many has become a religious system. Most people do not understand the workings of science, they accept what is preached to them by the higher authorities with out examination or critical thinking. One of the keys to being a good scientist is to be skeptical of everything, from the most iron clad theories, to your own results. There is an incredible amount of bad science going on in research. Bias (personal agendas) being the biggest cause of bad science; Bias due to financial reasons, career reasons, etc which cause results to be skewed or even fabricated. These results then get preached to the masses, and believed "true" by them.

I can't count how many scientific peer reviewed papers/journals I have personally read that were completely compromised, or how many 'scientists' I have met who are so blinded by their own egos that they cannot possibly see how their theories could be false. Then there are the corporations and groups intentionally creating false research/studies to sell their products. The scientific community is swamped with this rubbish.

The biggest problem with science as a religion though, is that it offers no moral compass or guidance. Science does not elevate us as a species or make us better then we were. It only offers a possible explanation to things. This is not to say that one needs to be religious to be moral, for I am moral and I do not have a religion. But religion has often helped push people into being more moral. We are seeing with our own society, what happens when a society does not have a solid moral foundation.

Oh and by moral I mean the basics: treat others as you would like to be treated, be good to your neighbor, don't lie steal cheat, don't cause harm, don't be too greedy, etc.

Skybird

09-14-09, 10:36 AM

I agree with your criticism of science business today, it's what I meant went criticising the academic routine of science. scientists make a living of their profession, they are not only polishing their narcissistic egos, but also are under pressure to come up with some reuslts and so and so many publications if they want to keep that job as professor, and with most, I think, it is like the latter. That such factors do not help the quality of academic work and scientific reasearch, must not be explained, then. Even more so when considering that universities are under immense pressure by interest groups from both the economy and politics to not approach a theme unbiased, but to produce the wanted confirmation for a wanted thesis, or results that already are packed and advertised and just need to be put on the shelves for sale and making profit from them as fast as possible.

Science must approach it's chosen objects unbiased and open-minded, and it must constantly counter-check and compare it's findings. Theories are no final words on the issue, but temporary working thesis that are constantly worked on. Scepticism here means not to take anything for granted, and not to prematurely ruling out things one cannot (or does not want!) to imagine. In the end, the attitude in which a scientist should approach nature is that of a child, that gets lost in contemplation for reasons of pure curiosity, and this curiosity is the basic drive. Knowledge may lead to technical innovations and new products, yes, but it has no obligation to exclusively focus on that, for knowledge is a value in itself. The systematic effort in the scientific work process just comes as a needed part of doing the job well.

Ultimate answers that will last for the rest of eternity I do not expect from sciences. What science gives us is to see the everchanging nature of our perception of what we call a universe, and to understand that we cannot differ between it and us but that we are a part of it that feeds back on it and gets influenced by it, and that the relation between "it" and "us" is ever-changing.

And that is almost in every aspect the complete antithesis to institutionalised religions.

August

09-14-09, 10:37 AM

Sigh. Something I want foreigners to understand about Americans: we're not all obese, white, monolingual Bible thumpers who think Sarah Palin is a credible candidate for national political office!!! Some of us believe in science, logic, etc., and possess some level of education.

Yeah and another thing I'd like foreigners to understand about Americans is that we're not all religion hating socialist jerks who think that Obama is some sort of political demigod whose worship demands we all surrender our freedom to the greater glory of the Party!

Some of us actually believe in liberty, self reliance and that charity is something one gives voluntarily instead of being forced by some faceless bureaucrat who has exempted himself from the process, and that we're just as logical and educated as the elitists who would tell you that we aren't.

antikristuseke

09-14-09, 10:44 AM

Sigh. Something I want foreigners to understand about Americans: we're not all obese, white, monolingual Bible thumpers who think Sarah Palin is a credible candidate for national political office!!!

Anyone who thinks this is how things are in the states is an *******.

Yeah and another thing I'd like foreigners to understand about Americans is that we're not all religion hating socialist jerks who think that Obama is some sort of political demigod whose worship demands we all surrender our freedom to the greater glory of the Party!

Anyone who thinks this is how things are in the states is also an *******.

Wingnuts on both sides are *******s.

August

09-14-09, 10:47 AM

Wingnuts on both sides are *******s.

Exactly my point.

FYI though "Wingnut" is a republican idiot. "Moonbat" is the Democrat version.

OneToughHerring

09-14-09, 11:32 AM

Some of us actually believe in liberty...

...to kill native Americans.

conus00

09-14-09, 11:32 AM

... LOL... this reminds me of the communists... using science to explain everything...:rotfl2:

I usually stay out of faith vs. science threads, but I have to react on this quote.
CastleBravo, your ignorance is just something. I suggest that you get you facts straight. I am in no way trying to defend communist/socialism but there is one problem with your statement: Communists didn't use science to explain anything! They used sheer ideology and brainwashing since people were toddlers.

I have lived under communists for almost 17 years so I KNOW. You are just throwing "fact" out there to support your derailed theory.

How long did YOU live under communists that you can make such a enlightened statement?

Kloef

09-14-09, 11:45 AM

Sick and tired of people feeling 'hurt' by what other people do,and they are allways religious fanatics.....

God has no 'believer of the month' contest..

By protesting you can show your disgust or whatever to the makers of for instance this new film,by forbidding it you force other people into submission,believers dont have the monopoly on truth,but they think they do.

The 'hurt' are the ones to watch,for they are sheep speaking in the name of the shephard...

Morts

09-14-09, 11:53 AM

So says Neal Steven's special person.

way to dodge the question

Biggles

09-14-09, 02:22 PM

Yeah and another thing I'd like foreigners to understand about Americans is that we're not all religion hating socialist jerks who think that Obama is some sort of political demigod whose worship demands we all surrender our freedom to the greater glory of the Party!

I'm having a hard time to find any american that actually likes Obama, at least on the internet. Maybe the opposition is just noisier? I don't know...

[/QUOTE]
Some of us actually believe in liberty, self reliance and that charity is something one gives voluntarily instead of being forced by some faceless bureaucrat who has exempted himself from the process, and that we're just as logical and educated as the elitists who would tell you that we aren't.[/QUOTE]

And yet some of you (maybe even the same people as the ones mentioned above) refuse to show a movie in your own country that doesn't challenge liberty, self reliance or charity?

Thomen

09-14-09, 02:24 PM

I'm having a hard time to find any american that actually likes Obama, at least on the internet. Maybe the opposition is just nosier? I don't know...

Try DailyKos.. ;)

SteamWake

09-14-09, 02:31 PM

Try DailyKos.. ;)

Or CNN or MSNBC or ABC or CBS for that matter. :haha:

But uhh what does that have to do with the topic at hand?

August

09-14-09, 02:35 PM

And yet you refuse to show a movie in your own country that doesn't challenge liberty, self reliance or charity?

But i'm not refusing to show any movie nor are the American people. Did you think we took a vote on it or something?

All the article says is that some unnamed distributors have refused to distribute the movie. It implies that anti-darwin sentiment is the reason why but I see no proof of that. For all I know the movie could be a piece of crap and they don't want to loose money distributing a movie that nobody will watch.

As I alluded to earlier it could also be a marketing ploy. Nothing makes Americans want to do something more than being told they can't do it.

Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banned_in_Boston

Commercial distributors were often pleased when their works were banned in Boston—it gave them more appeal elsewhere. Some falsely claimed that their works were banned in Boston to promote them.

Prominent literary figure H. L. Mencken was arrested in Boston in 1926 after purposefully selling a banned issue of his magazine, The American Mercury. Though his case was dismissed by a local judge, and he later won a lawsuit against the Watch and Ward Society for illegal restraint of trade, the effort did little to affect censorship in Boston. Strange Fruit was also banned by the Watch and Ward Society.

Biggles

09-14-09, 02:38 PM

[QUOTE=August;1171978]But i'm not refusing to show any movie nor are the American people. Did you think we took a vote on it or something?

I rephrased my sentence to "some of you (maybe even the same people as the ones mentioned above)", but probably while you were writing your answer. I did not have the intention to accuse you of said act. I apologize, and stand corrected.

SteamWake

09-14-09, 02:57 PM

Speaking of socio political films Michael Moores latest flop gets dissed at a film festival

Moore's pic did receive the Leoncino d'oro Award from 26 local youths selected by the festival, but nothing from the official jury -- even though he personally came to Venice to premiere his documentary (see trailer here (http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/more-of-michael-moores-anti-wall-street-docu/)).

Thats like one of those 'everybody wins' trophys ! :rotfl2:

http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/michael-moore-and-harvey-weinstein-shut-out-at-venice-film-festival-israeli-war-film-lebanon-u-s-director-todd-solondz-win/

jumpy

09-14-09, 03:07 PM

I guess I'd rather believe in God, than in a man who undoubtly spent so much time masturbating on long ocean voyages.

Takes one to know one I guess :yawn:
You might as well say you believe in meatballs over an individual who spent so much time engaged in self abuse - though how you can know this is certainly questionable, unless you are some kind of magic using heretic? Perhaps you have more in common with Darwin than you might think in that case :03:

On a personal note, I cannot believe I just wasted a half hour of my life reading some of the drivel in this thread.

A point that no one seems to have made yet: Darwin believed in god, and his 'origin of species' was never intended as a means to refute the existence of same, more an exploration of the wonder of creation and natural evolution of plants and animals, which he saw as divine in itself.
Those who see it as lies to be discredited in the eyes of the church are missing the point, largely due to their stubborn adherence to doctrine; and the tiresome debate of semantics to shore up the status quo of not being related to monkeys - pretty much.

[mrs garrison] oooh, yeah! I'm a monkey! pound my monkey-hole richard! [/mrs garrison]

SteamWake

09-14-09, 03:16 PM

Try DailyKos.. ;)

LMAO I just went to DailyKos to see what was up with them and guess who the primary sponser is :rotfl2:

http://www.seiu.org/splash/

You cant make this stuff up.

August

09-14-09, 03:17 PM

I rephrased my sentence to "some of you (maybe even the same people as the ones mentioned above)", but probably while you were writing your answer. I did not have the intention to accuse you of said act. I apologize, and stand corrected.

Not important but thank you for the correction.

Did you check out the link though? Claiming that someone is preventing free expression is a time tested way of increasing somethings popularity.

"There is no such thing as bad publicity". I suspect that something similar is at work here.

Shearwater

09-14-09, 03:19 PM

Fish, looks like you've really stirred up a hornet's nest with this thread :DL

As a sidenote, I guess that there's more people who refuse scientific explanations in Europe than we're probably aware of.

Something I was wondering about: Some time ago, I was reading about the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925.
My question is: Does my impression fail me, or has it since ceased to be an issue since then, only to be put back on the agenda since recently? I'm not from the US, but I don't think that it has really been that much of an issue there between, say, the 30s and the 80s. Has it something to do with the rise of the religious right, or has it always been around but has never received much public attention?
From a European perspective, it's somewhat hard to tell ...

XabbaRus

09-14-09, 03:32 PM

Just keeping an eye out....

This thread seems to have potential to go in the wrong direction, just about hanging in there and much appreciated.

AVGWarhawk

09-14-09, 03:44 PM

Torvald Von Mansee

09-14-09, 04:11 PM

This seems to have some relevance, since we''ve been talking about American vs. everyone else's acceptence of evolution:

http://www.laurafreberg.com/blog/Images/evolution.jpg

porphy

09-14-09, 04:28 PM

Takes one to know one I guess :yawn:

A point that no one seems to have made yet: Darwin believed in god, and his 'origin of species' was never intended as a means to refute the existence of same, more an exploration of the wonder of creation and natural evolution of plants and animals, which he saw as divine in itself.

That is not exactly correct about Darwin, at least not if we trust his own words in his autobiography. Darwin describes how his belief in god withered away during the years of scientific work, and his waning belief in god was also much affected by the death of his young daughter. His notebooks show evidence of a rather blunt materialism, although Darwin himself admitted he was no philosopher.

The last page of Origin of Species contains the famous line were Darwin says "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." The talk of life being blown into one or a few forms was a concession to his times, and left a way out for the combination of religion and Darwinism for many of his readers.

Darwin himself didn't show much enthusiasm for such a marriage, but a lot of scientist from this time did. The iconic work, although not by a scientist, was the earlier book by Robert Chambers, Vestiges of the natural history of Creation (1844) which put forward a general view of cosmos, nature and living things as divine and the result of divine laws of transmutation, which finally brought man into existence. The Divine author was supposed to be behind it all. (This is basically the modern day intelligent design movement in its original nineteenth century form.) Darwin specifically rejects this view and Chambers work in the first pages of Origin of Species in 1859. Chambers book took some heavy scientific flak after its publication, although it remained highly popular throughout many years. It is well written and presents a view, where everything fits neatly into place, which of course is what the idea of a Divine Author calls for from the very start... :yep:

cheers porphy

antikristuseke

09-14-09, 04:44 PM

I always wondered where the missing link was for man? In theory there should be a link correct? Monkey? The link is to far apart from the looks of it. Certainly the mythical bigfoot is not my missing link. :hmmm:

The missing link thing is sort of a pratt, really, since the change is so gradual that the so called missing link would be nearly indestinguishable from modern humans. Also given that fossilization is the exception rather than the rule, then the collection of hominid fossils we have is rather impressive in its own right. Some of which are listed here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html).
That being said, fossils are not even close to being our only, or even the best, lines of evidence for the evolution of man, endogenous retroviruses get that place in my book. more information here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses).
Then there is DNA sequencing, which has been very successfully used to show the migratory paths of early man out of Africa through both the X and Y chromosomes. A little on that here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html).

These are just three off the top of my head, there is a lot more there, most of which I am less familiar with than I would like, but there is only so much time between beer to read:O:

Fish

09-14-09, 04:53 PM

I'd rather believe in God, than in a man who undoubtly spent so much time masturbating on long ocean voyages.
So far, the christian mind set. :yep:

jumpy

09-14-09, 05:01 PM

Aramike

09-14-09, 05:02 PM

I always wondered where the missing link was for man? In theory there should be a link correct? Monkey? The link is to far apart from the looks of it. Certainly the mythical bigfoot is not my missing link. :hmmm:According to some theories, there may not be a real dsitinguishable link at all. Remember, evolution is nothing more than genetic variations favoring those variations that enhance survivability. In essense this means that perhaps one day a "freak" ape was born. That ape may have been what is known as the Mitochondrial Eve.

A lot of people mistake "survival of the fittest" to mean as though there's some kind of plan to it. There really isn't. In fact, it is nothing more than a genetic accident that happens to have a favorable net result on survivability. And because of that favorable result, the mutated genes are typically passed along.

Fish

09-14-09, 05:03 PM

Having read your post Skybird, the question arises............why hasn't science investigated the Bible? Oh, they have, and cannot disprove it as an ecumenical document. The difference is I'm not trying to convert you to christanity, yet many tell me my faith is flawed. How far does one think that will go in convincing me?

They did, read it .

http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Vision-Ancient/dp/0684869136

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Trt1ZWR5PqQ

Skybird

09-14-09, 05:33 PM

Intelligent Design is becoming very popular in conservative Christian countries like Poland, and throughout eastern Europe, as well as in islamic countries, namely Turkey. An islamic version of creationism has been invented by a relatively small handful of authors that masisvely spread their enlightend concepts via internet, having copied them from the american model of creationism and adapted it's details to the cultural specifics of Islam.

In Germany the "Forum Deutscher Katholiken", that is especially loyal to an orthodox understanding of the institution of the pope, jujst days ago has released an official declaration where the organisation expresses that Catholics feel as natural allies of Islam, and therefore help Islam to grab hold in the Western society, since it wants the same what the Catholic church should want: the prevention of misled freedom and amoral scepticism regarding the God-Allah, and an influencing of the population so that it should return into the obedient submission under the authority of religious institutions. their latest congress with one thousand delegates also said that they must explicitly protect and support the religious practicing of other religions and namely Muslims, no matter what the belief is, and even if this other belief does not return this tolerance and does not respect in return the free practicing of christian religion.

If you think these two things describe strange company and odd allies, think twice. It is not strange, but almost logical. In the end the Christian church accepts even the spreading of Islam since it thinks that even Islam is better than having no religious dominance at all.

Bescheuert. Total balla-balla. Meschugge. Plem-plem. Ga-ga.

We had totalitarianism several times in this place. The religious tyranny of the medieval. The era of the thirty-years-war. The Nazis. The Soviets in Eastgermany. - Don't want any of that stuff back, it's all offsprings of the same inhumane mind.

porphy

09-14-09, 05:53 PM

@ porphy

interesting, not read the biography thing tbh, mayhap I ought to have mentioned the comment as being specific to his studies as a young man. I'm pretty sure (from what I remember anyway) that he was not so dispirited with faith as he was beginning his career as a naturalist; this only came later, and as the subject of much debate he chose to not get too side-tracked with?
It's not something I've studied in quite some time, but I remember the other guy, Chambers, and his view preceding Darwin. Was this not, initially, a basis that Darwin himself began with, at least in spirit if not in word and belief?

Yes, his early years might very well include a more spirited view on natural life. After all he was a child of his time as everyone else, and he did start a half-hearted attempt to go through education to be a priest, but that was mostly by initiative from his father who wanted his butterfly-catching and bird-hunting son to get somewhere in life, if I remember correctly. Also, being a priest was often combined with the chance to continue work along naturalist interests. This was after his failed medicine studies in Edinburgh. I'm not really sure about his younger days and his thoughts about religion and science from then. But it is certainly true that he most of his life shunned public debates on topics like that.

A physico-theological view of nature was the standard outlook among many British scientist at that time. Ideas of natural transmutation was not that uncommon in Darwins times, although often controversial and associated with materialism and revolutionary politics. Darwin had plenty of inspiration around for some kind of evolutionary concept, and Chambers was certainly one of the possible sources. There are loads and loads of investigations into Darwin and how he reached his theory, going through his letters, contemporary publishing, his personal libraray and notebooks. It really is a complex thing to track down, I doubt Darwin could do it himself at the end of his life!

As I see it, Darwins really big breakthrough was that the managed to see struggle for existence as something that has a part in producing positive adaptation and change through natural selection, and not only as means of explaining how species could go extinct or why individuals perished.

This conclusion and combination was entirely new, although all the pieces of the puzzle were recognised well before. Transmutation, struggle for existence, extinction of species, and artificial selection etc. were all in place, but it took Darwin some 20 years to put all the pieces together and combine them with all the examples from nature that he do discuss in Origin of Species.

That was quite a feat, although Alfred Russell Wallace came up with very much the same idea, himself claiming that all the bits and pieces came together during a tropical fever! :)

cheers porphy