Imax Theaters Demur On Controversial Science Films 2242
circletimessquare writes "The New York Times is reporting that a number of Imax theatres are passing on science-themed films that might provoke controversy among a handful of religious fundamentalists. Films that are having their distribution impacted include '"Cosmic Voyage," which depicts the universe in dimensions running from the scale of subatomic particles to clusters of galaxies; "Galápagos," about the islands where Darwin theorized about evolution; and "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea," an underwater epic about the bizarre creatures that flourish in the hot, sulfurous emanations from vents in the ocean floor.'"
Science (Score:5, Interesting)
Time to start gassing Christians (Score:0, Interesting)
That's just how it is sometimes.
Re:it's sad (Score:5, Interesting)
They might look like Arabs though
Powers of 10 (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:I don't see a problem. (Score:2, Interesting)
No one has the right or should have the right to attack these documentaries when there is such "crap" (excuse me) on TV that goes on without a fuss. How can people even think about banning documentaries, its just hypocrisy. These are probably the same people who tune in every night to catch a glimpse of preacher O'Reilly.
Re:Science (Score:2, Interesting)
When this happens a person can either accept that they were wrong in the past and believe what has been proven, or they can refuse to accept the real truth and blindly continue on their way. Unfortunately all too often people choose the latter.
Why do people find it so difficult to admit that they were wrong?
Shitdrummer
Re:this is why I dont like these kind of people... (Score:3, Interesting)
On Slashdot? Are you joking?! In this place of "open-minded" geeks, you'll get modded to the sky for bashing anything religious. Feel free to continue your religion hating, and enjoy the wave of mod points endowed to you by those that hate God, hate the idea of a god, hate those that believe in god, and refuse to believe -- in their open-mindedness -- that a god could even exist.
Re:I don't know what's sadder... (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess some religious parents might object to their young children being exposed to evolutionary thought, which is my guess as to what they are objecting to. (I didn't say it was a great argument, just my guess as to what it is)
Why are we NOT harassing IMAX? (Score:3, Interesting)
Bashing them further is also pointless.
Let _IMAX_ know thy wrath.
I would expect a much larger percentage of their core audience actually has more than two neurons to rub together, and can actually at least handle the concept that that a 3000>500 (including heavy editing over the millenia) year old book might have some factual errors, and perhaps even some typos.
Re:I don't know what's sadder... (Score:5, Interesting)
The frustrating thing is that when we get complaints, we still have to be *civil* to our customers, not call them idiots, respect their beliefs, and somehow still defend your decision to run such programming. And it's hard explain your side of the argument while the guy making the complaint just keeps walking out the door with the rest of the audience. It might be natural for us in the science museum profession to want to hide away from the controversy and hope it goes away, but that won't make it get any better. This is a really, sad and frightening trend.
Re:religious fundamentalists (Score:5, Interesting)
(of course the same argument could be used to say that "some thought it was well done" could mean as few as two also. I'm just saying that Murray's spin on the numbers feels smarmy and manipulative to me).
Re:this is why I dont like these kind of people... (Score:4, Interesting)
"one of these people"
"This is how these people are"
If the above comments/stereotypes were made against any group other than Christians this would have been -1 Flaimbait, instead it is currently +5 insightful.
Re:religious fundamentalists (Score:3, Interesting)
The difference is that people are fundamentalists because they hold certain beliefs that they can change, and it is precisely these views that are objectionable. If you're black, however, you cannot change that (unless you're Micheal Jackson), and moreover it has nothing to do with the views you might hold or any other important qualities you might have.
Re:it's sad (Score:3, Interesting)
Secondly, just to correct you in a I-have-to-go-to-bed-and-can't-post-anymore kind of way, The Dark Ages actually refers to the early Middle ages, from the weakening and collapse of the Roman Empire to perhaps 900. The immediate cause of the Dark ages was the collapse of the Roman Empire, not religious fundamentalism, and life was miserable because of barbarian hordes and no centralized power, not religious fundamentalism.
Re:it's sad (Score:1, Interesting)
In 1981, Abol-Hassan Bani-Sadr, the first president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, announced that "scientific research had shown that women's hair emitted rays that drove men insane." To protect the public, the new Islamist regime passed a law in 1982 making the hijab mandatory for females aged above six, regardless of religious faith. Violating the hijab code was made punishable by 100 lashes of the cane and six months imprisonment.
Re:religious fundamentalists (Score:1, Interesting)
I have to say that it's not often when a bunch of athiests get out and protest a church or religious film. We kinda' share that live and let live philosophy. Only when the material is particularly threatening or hateful will people be rallied, and then probably not as much as it warranted...
Yet, there's sure to be a horde of fundo-fanatic-christians upset when some trivial part of their belief system is crossed (whether tangibly or not.) It is rediclious, and it's gotten out of hand.
Should they have their say? Sure, fine. Whatever. But do it in a picket line, hand out letters, and don't fucking pipe-bomb the curator of the museum for hanging up som dinosaur bones.
Re:I don't know what's sadder... (Score:4, Interesting)
By and large Imax films are those which are meant to appeal visually. On a personal note, some guy telling me he believes, that settles it and I (for not agreeing) am going to hell probably won't make for stimulating Imax viewing.
Re:Extreme fundamentalists are ridiculous. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Stupid is as stupid does. God is dead. (Score:3, Interesting)
Thats the only Philosophy/religion that retards the growth of 'fundamentalists' and their ilk.
Re:Scientific Theory (Score:3, Interesting)
And that's where you've made your first mistake. You've demonstrated that the principle you describe as gravity causes something to happen under a single set of conditions. This isn't a proof, there is no set of deductions from knowledge, and you don't even have enough points for an inductive conclusion (which isn't proof either)
And yet noone with a grasp of scientific history should go around crowing that we 'know' it works. People are inventing invisible matter and energy to try and overcome places where it doesn't work, and you think that's fine? You can't say what 'this sort of thing' is, definitively, but you insist that anyone who denies it is insane?
And after Newton we had 'things belong together', which the 'down' is merely a special case of, due to perspective. Newton himself was quite candid about his inability to explain any of his findings.
Take Newton's Laws of Motion. They're wrong. Oops. What do we do now? What happened to those 'Laws'?
Unfortunately, this is where you're wrong. Because evolution is all about rationalising what hs already happened, we are completely unable to perform (in reasonable time) controlled experiments to check any of it. Ergo, the ability for it to make falsifiable predictions is limited making it really only borderline scientific.
Yes, it's a useful perspective, yes, the Linnean classificationists get warm fuzzies, but 'scientific' might be a touch strong.
Cosmic Voyages is awesome! (Score:5, Interesting)
Flabbergasted.
Re:Vatican Observatory (Score:5, Interesting)
The offended fundamentalists probably should be called idiots, often, loudly, where lots of people can here. This isn't a matter of respecting beliefs. This is a matter of setting things straight where it comes to lies and delusions.
Re:this is why I dont like these kind of people... (Score:3, Interesting)
Funny. I live in the Bay Area (one of the most liberal areas in California), and my high school had regular AGAPE Christian groups singing and praying around the flagpost during lunch/brunch/after-school. I also attend Berkeley, probably THE most liberal/secular campus in the United States - no argument there. However, there are people handing out bibles, fliers for student prayer/bible study groups, and a guy who calls himself Joshua with a huge wooden sign that says "REPENT" and yells at random students who pass by to "remember Jesus"...not a single one of these people get harassed or "Cease and Desisted."
Sorry but if people can do this in possibly the most liberal campus in the most liberal part of California, you're making stuff up.
Also, I don't recall a law being passed that says that Christians can't marry/pray in public. How about the numerous southern states that now ban consentual relationships between two adults? It seems like many Evangelical Republicans have forgotten the "limited government" part of their party.
Now the imbalance in the Palestinian/Israeli viewpoints at Berkeley is another story entirely...but I digress.
Re:Secularists: it's our fault. (Score:1, Interesting)
As far as the chilling effect these wackos (my apologies for the flame bait, but after two years in the midwest I must insist: yes wackos, a thousand times wackos, forever wackos) have on science, is it really such a bad thing? It doesn't take much looking to determine the regressive, regretable natures of theologically driven societies (heck, even the USSR, with their drive towards a lack of theology.) Frankly, I don't think it's such a bad thing that the more fundamentalist the US gets, the farther behind we're likely to get in science and technology.
The less we have, the less harm we can do to ourselves and others. I mean, let us be honest; there's a reason that ALL of the states which list themselves as the most religious are also all of the states with the cruelest, most regressive government policies. This despite a Bible just filled with instructions to love thy neighbor and help him out and so on.
It's someone else's line, but I love it: I love Jesus, it's his followers who scare the hell out of me.
Re:Yeah, I knew it. (Score:3, Interesting)
Question: "If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be a 'X' would you vote for that person?"
Factor 1937 1959 1978 1999
Atheist Not asked 22% 40% 49%
Baptist Not asked 94 Not asked 94
Black 37 49 77 95
Catholic 60 70 91 94
Homosexual Not asked Not asked 26 59
Jewish 46 72 82 92
Mormon Not asked Not asked 99
Woman 33 57 76 92
So basically, as of '99, 51% would not vote for an athiest, and 41 would not vote for a homosexual.
The same article has some interesting stats to dispute the Scientology claim that only 2% of the population doesn't like them.
Also surprising that 8% still wouldn't vote for a woman.
Re:Interesting thoughts (Score:2, Interesting)
Sure, if they're being restricted to 'On Earth'. What about people who think that the Earth is a special case, such as any hypothetical space-dwelling humans? Lots of scientific stupidy comes about because people don't realise they're restricting their thinking to some strictly limited part of reality.
If you look at the new equations, you'll see that 'corrected' is a much more helpful term than 'replaced'. It isn't as much a condition of 'accuracy' as one of 'when the essential assumptions are violated'. Gravitational gradients, high velocities and so forth.
As far as Newton's other works, his Optics was, for the large part, very significant, but it was primarily his alchemy that people regard with scorn today. Perhaps you might want to remind yourslef that he didn't invent alchemy out of nothing becuase he was insane, instead he merely failed to break away from the preexisting philosophical frameworks that had existed for (1.8ish) millennia. In all fairness, there was little in Newton's world of observation and experiment that would have prompted him to break away and take a new approach to chemistry. It was several centuries before any significant progress was made towards modern Chemistry.
This is extremely unfair. Newton is more widely regarded as one of those who were most involved in the distinction between science method of seeking knowledge, and science as a branch of theological phenomenon. The father of the approach 'This is how it works. We don't know why and we don't care why, but we can show it works like this.' In the past, it was unthinkable to have mysterious action at a distance and so forth.
What you're saying is 90% true (Score:1, Interesting)
Furthermore while I agree that her worldview comes from the Bible, she undoubtably has been exposed to Creationist literature that looks to the casual observer like the result of something resembling the scientific process. If the two of them got into an argument, she could well turn out to know more about the debate than he does.
Of course this 10% is readily fixed with a little education. While her missing 90% can't ever be fixed. But still it is worth admitting that shortcoming.
Re:this is why I dont like these kind of people... (Score:3, Interesting)
Really? Interesting. I didn't realize that me and the other fifteen atheists in the United States were making it so hard on you hundred million or so religious folks. We'll try harder not to use our massive majority to oppress you.
I have no issue watching documentaries about other religions, or lack thereof (though, of course, it raises an interesting view..if you lack a religion..doesn't that become your religion? If you refuse to believe or acknowledge God, aren't you following a belief system?)
Wow, nice. You managed to come up with a really original argument that no atheist has ever rebutted. Please feel free to read more [infidels.org] about atheism before you start redefining it on your own terms.
You complain about people acting that way, while you yourself seem to feel free to bash the other side in the manner you just mentioned offended you!
Erm... I thought we were complaining about religious wackos who think that evolution is evil and wrong influencing stupid businesses to avoid showing films that might offend their fairytale worldview, but I guess you're right, we're just 'bashing' religion with no justification. I mean, the destruction of science is no reason to complain, right?
Re:No Animals? (Score:3, Interesting)
The Holy Bible
Warning : contains scenes of extreme violence and nudity. All theories depicted herein are ontological by nature and represent only the writer's (whoever may He be) opinion.
That's Freedom, baby ! Everybody desserves a warning.
Re:Here's my reasoning (Score:5, Interesting)
This still leaves the problem of why the USA has been the only (supposedly:-)) developed country where this has happened. There must be some factor producing this particular symptom of future shock. I don't think Japan, which has had at least as big a shake up as the US, has seen the rise of a large religiously motivated subculture. In Europe the rapid changes over the past couple of centuries have undermined religiosity in the mass of people, rather than boosting it.
Re:Extreme fundamentalists are ridiculous. (Score:2, Interesting)
Haha, that's a very interesting way of looking at it
but I also don't see how the earth could have been crapped out by a passing space turtle Evidently you have not read Terry Pratchet...
Childhood anecdote (Score:5, Interesting)
I explained him (a 10 year old, to a schoolteacher, no less) that no, we humans do not directly descend from the apes that are currently living, but that, according to current and widely accepted current scientific theories, humans and apes do share a common ancestor.
The repercussions made me lose all respect for authority.
Re:Scientific Theory (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think you know what you're talking about. Speciation has been observed many times in the laboratory. Look up "Drosophila melanogaster." Its a kind of fruitfly that has been observed undergoing speciation during controlled experiments. Even if tons of experiments hadn't been done, your "falsification" criteria is met every time geologists study a new part of the geologic record. We find new fossils, we compare these with known theories, and those theories are either falsified or they aren't, and we continue the process.
Re:Extreme fundamentalists are ridiculous. (Score:2, Interesting)
I have to disagree on the tolerance point, or at least modify that to "many early Christians". To me at least, it seemed like there was a huge amount of conflict between different Christian groups fighting with each other for dominance and declaring each other heretics. And even at the point where the modern roots of Christianity really took hold, trying to remove the existence of the other Christian philosophies became an even more significant and workable priority.
Re:Scientific Theory (Score:1, Interesting)
by now, i think we have enough experiments that support the theory of gravity on human scale. so, i guess we can assume that theory is the truth, can't we? or do you have evidence contradicting it?
newton's laws aren't "wrong". but their validity has its limits. for most practical situations we can assume their correct though. That's called engineering: go with the simplest model until you notice it isn't well enough. In science, people do it all the time. Otherwise you get stuck with an exponential explosion of complexity which no one can grasp.
Doing experiments with evolution is a bit tricky isn't it? However, that doesn't have to be a real problem. The experiment is already going on for many years, and it will be for many years to come (i hope). It's up to the scientist to capture its results. It's not controlled, true. The ability to make falsifiable predictions is limited, true. But yet, it is possible. You can make falsifiable predictions and check it with the results of the experiment because omeone can come up with results that falsify your prediction.
Doing experiments in astronomy is a bit tricky, isn't it? Creating stars and galaxies in a controlled experiment is a bit unpossible, isn't it? the ability to make falsifiable predictions is a bit limited, isn't it? That makes astronomy a borderline science, I pressume? Guess not.
Tristan
It frightens me (Score:1, Interesting)
In Europe, too, fundamentalists are growing, but it seems to me they are still ashamed of declaring themselves as such. You don't hear anybody introducing himself saying "Hello, I'm evil" like if being evil or not were just a matter of preferences. The same goes for fundamentalism: we are not ready to put it on the same level with tolerance (its real opposite).
In my opinion, the much abused and much derided "Politically Correctness" (an US specialty) should be a widely accepted behaviour if, instead of focusing on superficial and sometimes hypocritical aspects, it involved a common perception of what is accepted and what not. Hurting someone's rights (i.e. by preventing them to receive a complete scientific information, like in this case) can't be considered a right itself. You often hear fundamentalists crying over anti-christian persecution (in Italy it happens a lot), when what they really want to protect is their "right" to hamper other people's rights: believing in no God, having sons outside of a "traditional" family structure, reading some books, speaking freely, etc.
If Islamic fundamentalists are succeeding in anything, it is in making Western societies more like theirs. Or maybe I'm wrong, and we are doing it all by ourselves. How sad.
Re:Worrying development (Score:2, Interesting)
What do you mean, falling behind in key sciences? Military spending is up, is there any science more important then that? After all, any historian will tell you that war has been a driving factor for all major technological advances! The spear? The musket? Artillery?
So where are all the Christian IMAX films? (Score:3, Interesting)
There's plenty of good movie material in the Bible. I suppose the problem is there just aren't enough Christian directors.
Re:Extreme fundamentalists are ridiculous. (Score:5, Interesting)
That's truer in America than it is other places because of our high number of Fundementalist and Evangelical Christians. Neither the Catholic Church nor any of the major liberal Protestant denominations believe in inerrancy -- the idea that the Bible is perfectly and literally true.
The bible in it's basic form probably pre-dates religion, it was only later that people began to see it as something more and worship it, like present day people do with Star Wars, Star Trek, LOTRs.
Not really. Much of the Hebrew Bible dates from around or after the destruction of the first Temple, so it was absolutely composed for religious purposes. It contains traditions that are centuries older which certainly pre-date the understanding of religion that its writers had, but even those stories began as a part of religion. To call the Bible a collection of fables and stories created only for the purpose of morality is a gross distortion of the Bible's very complex literary history.
[Ok. Time to get back to writing thesis]
WTF (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Here's my reasoning (Score:4, Interesting)
Religious Studies people and Sociologists generally attribute this to the fact that America has no state support of religion. In European countries one church is usually given a monopoly of sorts; it is state funded and presumes to count all members of the dominant ethnic group as members. Because it has this safety net, the church is protected from having to keep up with the religious needs of the populace and as a result religion in general wanes in social importance.
In America, to the contrary, there is a thriving marketplace of religious institutions which have to keep up with the needs of their congregants. The result has been a recent wave of populist religious movements, including the so-called non-denominational "Super-Churches," Televangelists, and many Evangelical and Fundementalist denominations.
Re:Scientific Theory (Score:2, Interesting)
1) DNA sequence (genotype) has no role in determining phenotype.
2) DNA is not replicated during reproduction of organisms.
3) When DNA is replicated, it is with perfect fidelity.
4) All phenotypes are equally likely to survive.
5) All genotypes (DNA strings) are possible.
All of these are falsifiable by experiment. Some of these experiments are routine operations, happening thousands, maybe millions of times a day.
1) Simple counter example, sickle cell anemia is caused a singel letter ("base") change in DNA.
2) See the first experiments regarding semi-conservative replication. Watch mitosis under a microscope.
3) Can be detected a number of ways: sequencinq, probes, restriction enzyme digestion etc.
4) Consider drug resistent pathogens, differential survival can be traced back to different phenotypes.
5) Number of possibilites grows exponentially, "more than the number of atoms in the universe" kind of problem.
If you consider all these together it should be possible to see why life evolves.
I suggest some experiments that could go towards falsifying evolution:
Demonstrate a living organism that completely lacks DNA/RNA or any information bearing structure that could fit into 1-5 above. eg, an elephant with no nucleus (still would have mitochondrial DNA, but would raise serious questions nonetheless).
Capture the spontaneous incarnation of a fully grown elephant on film, under sufficiently rigorous conditions (A big glass cage, in public view, James Randi watching out for flummery etc).
It is no longer necessary to prove evolution. Given all of the above it is the task of creationists to prove how there cannot be evolution.
Re:Cosmic Voyages is awesome! (Score:2, Interesting)
In this specific case, the ignorant fundamentalist that said that he would boycott the movie was directly attempting to control what other people see. He could have just said: "I don't like it...not my style". Instead, it's "don't show this to anybody else (even if they agree with it) or I'll boycott" Obviously, IMAX is to blame for not calling his pathetic bluff. At least censorship is blatantly evil, this stuff is evil disguised as purity.
Child Pornography (Score:3, Interesting)
There is no doubt that the creation of child porn is illegal, (although some could argue 18 is a bit harsh. Not even a century ago women started having sex when they started having periods.) but I don't see what watching it does to harm anyone but yourself.
It's yet another time our society is treating the symptoms of a problem instead of the problem.
Re:I don't know what's sadder... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Here's my reasoning (Score:2, Interesting)
Which European countries are you talking about? In Germany e.g. the two big christian confessions (Roman Catholic and Lutherian Protestants) are connected to the state in so far, as the money you pay as a member is collected together with your usual taxes. But this is about it. There is no monopoly, and especially if you leave the church you are definetely not counted as a member anymore - and the church gets less money.
In other countries some confessions may be predominant, but I am sure, all countries, like Germany, have it in their constitution, that church and state are separate.
Re:Vatican Observatory (Score:3, Interesting)
Only a religion which asserted nothing about the natural world whatever would be fundamentally compatible with science, and this sort of religion does indeed seem to be emerging today. But that is no traditional religion, and not what people are talking about when they say religion is incompatible with science. It does not take any sort of lunacy to make that conclusion.
Re:Here's my reasoning (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I can answer you about Muslims and Jihad (Score:3, Interesting)
The bible is a political book. In it's present form it was originally written in Roman Europe under orders from Constantine. He wanted certain things expressed and certain things missed out. Hence why a lot of the gospels found in the Dead Sea Scrolls didn't make it in there - political reasons. The whole thing was a bunch of Roman propaganda to help keep the Emperor's subjects in check.
Since then it's been added to, re-written (King James version for example), deleted from, on the orders of other leaders for their own political gain.
If it really is the word of God, then the Dead Sea Scrolls must also be the word of God (the original Hebrew and Aramaic texts were written down by the same group of scribes), so why is it that some of God's words are deemed fit to go in the bible and some not?
Bob
Re:Here's my reasoning (Score:5, Interesting)
Liberals:
- no to capital Punishment
- no to war
- yes to abortion
- yes to euthanasia
Conservatives (bible thumpers):
- yes to capital Punishment
- yes to war
- no to abortion
- no to euthanasia
Both may be the opposite ends of the scale, but they both believe that sometimes its ok to kill, and sometimes its not ok to kill.
soo.. what does that make me, a person who is:
- No to capital punishment
- No to war (except in self defense(*) )
- No to abortion
- No to euthanasia
does this make me "center", as opposed to left or right wing?? Intresting...
(*) Self defense meaning, protect myself and my family from attack, as opposed to bombing the crap out of iraq.
What a load of crap. (Score:2, Interesting)
I am a Christian. I am a decon in my church. We take communion every week. I also believe in science. So many of the religious right in the US are focused HOW things happened, when they're forgetting that the important thing is WHO did it all.
Re:I don't know what's sadder... (Score:3, Interesting)
The biblical creation myth has incest, it's just implied rather than directly stated. After Abel is killed, Cain has a child with his "wife." So either Cain's wife is his mother, or a sister which isn't specifically mentioned, as women often weren't.
Re:Extreme fundamentalists are ridiculous. (Score:2, Interesting)
Not to mention a patent falsehood. Sure, much of the Bible can be considered fable and myth. But even a casual flick through shows works of poetry, philosophy, prophecy etc. which are clearly not stories in any sense.
As an athiest, it always surprises me how other atheists seem to form strong opinions on the Bible and its contents without so much as glancing at the thing.
Re:Here's my reasoning (Score:2, Interesting)
You have a middle class playground, with little real hardship for most, who are encouraged to believe in american infallibility.
The same memes that foster neocon Manifest Destiny are the ones that are utilized to create fundies.
Youve got to turn your TVs off and engage in some self-criticism. Until you do, your going to see this behaviour blossom.
Wait a minute... (Score:3, Interesting)
Several Imax theaters, including some in science museums, are refusing to show movies ... fearing protests from people who object to films that contradict biblical descriptions of the origin of Earth and its creatures.
My own first reaction was that this is a much larger First Amendment issue than the Apple lawsuits, and many posters are expressing fear of a growing "American Taliban" and such.
But, on closer examination, the suppression is self-imposed. That first paragraph is the last mention of the word "protest" in the article; I found no mention of organized protests or a movement to suppress the films. The only specific comments anyone cites are those solicited in a survey after a test screening, and the comments are not of the foaming-at-the-mouth, book-burning variety. In fact, they're a darn sight tamer than most comments about anything here on /.
Quoting the article again:
"It's going to be hard for our filmmakers to continue to make unfettered documentaries when they know going in that 10 percent of the market" will reject them.
Others who follow the issue say many institutions are not able to resist such pressure.
Pressure? So now a small minority opting not to pay to see a documentary, however silly we may consider their reasons, constitutes a threat to free expression? The alarmism in that correlation is, IMHO, more inflammatory and manipulative than the "pressure" cited in the article.
Look, I abhor the movement to elevate "creationism" to the level of science in school curricula, and I know that the organized movement to do so is in the minds of those expressing their fears in the article. I'll be the one of the first to fight the movement before my local school committee if it comes to that, which I doubt.
But I don't see anything to react to here, other than to be a little more proactive about voting with my feet and wallet to offset the silliness of others.
Re:Bigotru (Score:2, Interesting)
First, "Why is it acceptable to be anti-gay in the US?". It's the entire basis for freedom of speech - you don't have to like what you are hearing, but you do have the right to say it. So, it's acceptable to be anti-gay in the US because it's acceptable to be PRO-gay. It's one of those "freedoms"... we get to choose how we feel on the topics that are important to our lives.
Second, It makes me sick, as a bisexual man, to think that if I lived in the US I'd be considered immoral or degenerate.. I hate to tell you, but chances are - wherever you live - someone thinks you are immoral or degenerate for living the life that you do. It may not be out in the open, but I'm sure that is the case. It's not like the American Population has the market cornered on anti-gay feelings. Here in the US, while you may be considered immoral / sinner / what have you by some groups, there are an equal number of groups that support your choices of lifestyle.
Frankly, I don't care if someone is gay / bi / straight. You are who you are, and if you treat me with respect is all I care about. Again, I understand what you are saying, but I think you have way over generalized this case.
Glad I'm old... (Score:1, Interesting)
I am so bloody well sick and tired of these false prophets in these so-called fundamentalist religions. If Jesus is coming soon, as some/many Christian nutcases believe, or if there is a Heaven and Hell, then the Falwells and the George W. Bushes (et alia) of this world are in for one helluva surprise. One can only hope that in some way these despicable charlatans will get paid back, in spades. OK, I guess you could say that I am intolerant of those who espouse intolerance.
Re:Here's my reasoning (Score:3, Interesting)
It's funny. I'm an aetheist yet find myself constantly defending religion. I am also open-minded. I can fully accept that I may be wrong and I am confortable with that (I still think I'm right though...).
I've also drank too much beer this evening and should stop.
Re:I don't know what's sadder... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:About "time" (Score:3, Interesting)
Another way to think of it is in the time that "god created the Earth", the days were far far longer. For example, a day on some planets is far longer than that of a day on our modern-day Earth.
"Y'see, when it says DAYS it actually means millennia..."
Thou shalt not kill
"Y'see, when it says KILL it actually means 'partake of hotdog buns on a Thursday'...
Re:I don't know what's sadder... (Score:3, Interesting)
Christ did advocate social reform, but at the same time He did condemn. He condemned the Jewish establishment for raising the Law up into an idol, such as in refusing to heal on the Sabbath. He condemned obeying the letter of the law without understanding the spirit of the law. Christ, through His Divinity, was fit to judge. We, in our humanity, are not. As such, we encounter a dialectic in the Bible: the divine transcendence that allows Christ to be judge, and our own fallen nature that mandates that we "love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another" (John 13:34) and "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you" (Matthew 7:1,2). Was not the primal sin eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Do we have the pride to think that we can become gods and judge?
As I make note of in another post, "sin" means, literally, "missing the mark." The character of humanity in the context of the Fall is that we are always missing the mark! If we were perfect, then the Church would no longer be needed to guide us with its tools, and we would be deified. But that isn't the case. The matter is that we do constantly judge, we do constantly fail to love one another, we do constantly try to play god. A young monk was once asked, "What do you do all day in the monastery?" He replied, "We fall and rise, fall and rise." As Yannaras writes: "what God really asks of man is neither individual feats nor works of merit, but a cry of trust and love from the depths." And we are called to love and forgive one another, as the father forgave his prodigal son, as we all continually miss the mark. This is not to excuse us from responsibility: we must also notch another arrow and fire again! And if our arrow should hit another, we must repent and ask for forgiveness. But yes, to look for a true Christian... you will find only sinners! That is the point of Christianity, indeed.
Re:Extreme fundamentalists are ridiculous. (Score:4, Interesting)
This context does not exist for the new testament. Between various forms of the Catholic church demanding mindless obedience and Islamic invasions, that cultural context was pretty effectively wiped out.
Re:this is why I dont like these kind of people... (Score:2, Interesting)
placing weight on the OT is bad? o.O Christ also said he wasn't here to destroy the old laws, but rather to amend them. And yes, he was the New Covenant. (let me briefly explain)Before Christ, in order to be forgiven for sins a sacrifice was needed. When Christ died on the cross, he became an eternal sacrifice for all man-kind. Thus the Old Covenant of Animal Sacrifice was done away with, while Christ took his place as the lamb of God.
And he did preach against the hypocrites who wore massive robes, struted down the street, had fan-fair blown in public places to announce they were praying. Against those who took the bible and twisted it for their own profit, and used the bible to oppress the common folk. Christ was a carpenter. He was a common man, a sacrifice for the every day person. He did not make his appearance as a Glorious King leading his Army (though He could have, and Will) And you are right on the fact the Devil can quote Scripture. But so can believers.
Re:A matter of faith (Score:3, Interesting)
And you're right, this isn't a dinosaur thread, this is about the intentional ignorance on matters of science that pervades evangalical American culture right now. People like you who are content to blow off mountains of evidence because you prefer to believe something else, and who judge that evidence based on whether it supports your pet hypothesis or not. You're just like those people who preferred to believe that the Earth was the center of the galaxy, or those who preferred to believe that cigarettes were healthful, or those who preferred to believe that slaves were stupid and happy. I wouldn't care about your willingness to wallow in intentional ignorance, if people like you didn't constantly throw it in everyone's faces.
"countless frauds"? Neither Piltdown Man nor Java Man (which were both intended as money-making frauds, not to prove evolution, which by that point was already well-established and needed no such proof) is used as evidence for evolution. Nothing is changed by them being false (in fact, there would be many more problems if they'd proved true). Yes, dodgy things come up and are proven wrong -- that's how science works, and it was a group of evolutionists who proved that those two things were frauds. It's called intellectual honesty, and I seriously doubt you'd have enough intellectual honesty to recognise evidence that casts doubt on your belief.
And sure, creationists never fabricate evidence -- how can you if you don't ever offer any?
Re:Here's my reasoning (Score:5, Interesting)
Thus, if you want to break it down over lines of whether or not it is ok to kill, then yes, both sides apear to demonstrate hipocrisy. But there is a real and possibly valid line which divides the two camps.
Re:Satan's Turtle! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:this is why I dont like these kind of people... (Score:3, Interesting)
You could aways say that you are excerising your first admendment right to say anything that you would want. You then say that they don't have to listen.
I had to go through public school in Arkansas. I've always wanted to shout at any idiot that says there is no religion in public schools. It was a daily lunch time occurance of trying to hide from those that attempt to witness to you. My best advice is to be quiet, nod your head every now and then, and never, ever argue or agree. On a side note, that skill got me through several not quiet sane college professors and advisors.
Re:As an evangelical Christian and creationist... (Score:3, Interesting)
Wuh the zuh? Christianity has been the dominant religion in Western culture for the past thousand years or so.
Christians, in my experiences, do seem to be a lot more likely to play the persecution card, so perhaps there's a PERCEPTION that they are ideological underdogs, but in my opinion that's not true.
they would just like the teaching of evolution to acknowledge that it is not a proven fact, and that there are other schools of thought, an in particular, the possibility of intelligent design.
Let's not confuse the issues here. On the one hand we have ideas about the origin of life. The preeminent hypothesis of the scientific community is lightning and primordial soup and microbiology begetting macrobiology. There's not much proof that this is how it happened, but there's not much proof that it couldn't have happened that way, either. In that respect it is on roughly equal footing with the idea of intelligent design, which also cannot be proven or disproven.
The scientific theory of evolution addresses a related, but separate matter: have lifeforms changed since the beginning of time, and if so how and why? The observational record suggests that living things most certainly HAVE changed over time, and there is so much supporting evidence and so little contradictory evidence, that Darwin's theories (in slightly modified form) have become generally accepted among the scientific community.
With all due respect, arguing that Evolution is "just a theory" is kind of like arguing that the sky is actually green -- how do we know that the color represented by 475nm-wavelength light isn't REALLY called "blue"?
Re:As an evangelical Christian and creationist... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah; remember those biology-book stickers in Georgia about evolution being "a theory, not a fact" that should be "approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered"? One thing I liked about the fuss was the suggestions, mostly from scientists, that such stickers should be put on all textbooks. After all, this is not just a good suggestion when dealing with evolutionary theory; it's a good idea when dealing with anything in any textbook. It would be especially useful if applied to religion. But I suspect this isn't what the religious folks want.
I do remember an interesting unintentional use of Darwinism, in a Sunday-school lesson back when I was in junior high and was being sent to a nearby Southern Baptist church. There were the usual railings about Darwinism and similar secularities. Then one day the teacher illustrated some point (just which one I've forgotten) with an anecdote about a farmer picking out his largest potatoes for sale, and keeping the small ones for planting. Needless to say, after a few years, the farmer's fields were producing only small potatoes.
I was shocked. This was Darwinism in its pure form. And it was being taught by a Southern Baptist sunday-school teacher. Was he secretly a scientist on a mission to subvert Baptist teachings? I kept quiet, but started asking question to try to ferret out the man's actual beliefs. He was honestly against Darwinism, and was one of the local campaigners against such things in the biology texts. He honestly didn't understand that his potato example was exactly what Darwin was writing about. The farmer wasn't consciously selecting for small potatoes; his selection of the larger for sale had an inadvertent side effect of leaving the smaller to produce the next generation. This wasn't intentional, so it was "natural selection" (by what the potatoes would consider a predator). The result was what Darwin's theory predicted.
This was a good lesson in the depth of understanding among some of the religious people. They can and do argue against something and then turn around and use it for their own purposes. But I couldn't call it hypocrisy. It was really just pure ignorance. They had no concept about what Darwinism was all about; they just knew the name and knew that it was heretical.
Re:As an evangelical Christian and creationist... (Score:3, Interesting)
Putting your faith in the naturalistic model is not a bigger stretch than believing in the God of The Bible, because while nature can be observed, comprehended, and modeled, with the results used to make predictions which actually do come true, and thus the universe can be at least partially apprehended, God by definition is not apprehendable, nor are his motives. Job's answer as to why bad things were happening to him was that God was the one who made the whole thing, so STFU and get on with praising me for my creation. It's a deliberate non-explanation. The Bible as much as says that you can't understand God. As humans we are curious and seek understanding. It's a much bigger leap to believe that a non-understandable entity in a place which we cannot reach except by accepting that his son died for our sins. (If we are all children of God, why is Jesus God's only son?)
Religion is self-perpetuating. It began before the invention of science and people who benefited from it sought to perpetuate it in order to maintain their power over "lesser" men - whether they intended this for good reasons or ill is irrelevant. It is a system of control, even if every contradictory word of doctrine could somehow be true. This is the reason why some people, like yourself, find that it's a larger leap not to believe in God - indoctrination. Religious messages are all around us, as ubiquitous as any other form of advertising.
Anyway blah blah blah we could of course get into a big argument but which is really more of a stretch if you start with no preconceptions? That the universe has a mechanistic nature, or that someone we cannot comprehend is responsible for its entire workings?
Re:I don't know what's sadder... (Score:2, Interesting)