NationStates Jolt Archive

You know how sometimes you can come across a story or an article during some random surfing and it just makes your day?

Sometimes I read things about the Creationism/ID 'debate' and I don't know whether to be amused by them, angry at them, or just apathetic, but this, this made me laugh (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php)... With it being Easter and all, I just find that there's a certain deliciousness about it that I just had to share somewhere.

So, does it amuse anyone else?

would you trust Richard Dawkins with your wife and daughter? :p

In addition to his biological work, Dawkins is well-known for his views on religion. He is an outspoken antireligionist and atheist;

Wow.

Strange.

Also, the director gives Christians a good name, dosen't he? A real supportor of questions and skepticism. Must think that by banning him from the movie theator he won't see it sometime later, or get it on DVD.

"You're not allowed to see this movie!" "Why not?" "The director thinks you might critisize this movie! Only teh ebil athesists would critcize Christian music, books, or movies" "Point being?..." "GET OUT!"
Worst part is my mother would probably agree with the 3rd statement.

I was amused, until I read the part about Richard Dawkins.

Then I lol'ed for real.

I was amused, until I read the part about Richard Dawkins.

Then I lol'ed for real.
Yeah, that's pretty much how it went for me, too. Until I got to the end, and read the final couple of lines, the sabot analogy was making no sense to me, but it all came good in the end. :p

i read it earlier when DCD posted the same. but i only just got the sabot reference. it's the trouble with a shitty short term memory, i'd forgotten it being mentioned by the time i got to the bit about dawkins. made it more loly though.

I wonder what axis they're extrapolating PZ and Dawkins' relative levels of evil along.

*sigh*

Who knows PZ Myers' face but not Dawkins'????

Who and who? :confused:

Also, after following a few links, this made me lol even harder: Weeeeird post. (http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showpost.php?p=162393&postcount=7)

Anyway, while the post itself isn't so funny, the signature is. Citizens United Not Timid. lul... cunts <.<

Well, the group is an anti-Hillary group, so it figures they would try and use the best arguments against her...

For the first time in a few weeks I can say with complete honesty and no exaggeration:

lol.

Oh. Someone elses. GOD!

I can safely say that that is the funniest thing I have, and am likely to, hear all year!

I think I broke my funny bone from laughing so hard...And Richard Dawkins...hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Hilarious.

I missed the whole thing by a day. My lovely sweetness and I arrived at the Holiday Inn Select at the Mall of America (or, as I call it, Capitalist Mecca -- this is the haj I'm taking to fulfill my sacred duty as a devout American...plus it gets me out of Bismarck and it's only 6.5 hours away) yesterday, March 21st. I wish I'd been at the MoA to see the event. I'd recognize Dawkins, but I've never seen or even heard of PZ (good for him for being so recognizable, I guess).

Lol

Weeeeird post. (http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showpost.php?p=162393&postcount=7)

*begins to weep wretchedly*

WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYY?!

omfg thats amazing. rofl hahahahaha! no exaggeration that was the funniest thing I've read in a month.

Heh, heh, the decoy worked. :p

Okay, this (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php) has just made me laugh.

There is a rich, deep kind of irony that must be shared. I'm blogging this from the Apple store in the Mall of America, because I'm too amused to want to wait until I get back to my hotel room.

I went to attend a screening of the creationist propaganda movie, Expelled, a few minutes ago. Well, I tried … but I was Expelled! It was kind of weird — I was standing in line, hadn't even gotten to the point where I had to sign in and show ID, and a policeman pulled me out of line and told me I could not go in. I asked why, of course, and he said that a producer of the film had specifically instructed him that I was not to be allowed to attend. The officer also told me that if I tried to go in, I would be arrested. I assured him that I wasn't going to cause any trouble.

I went back to my family and talked with them for a while, and then the officer came back with a theater manager, and I was told that not only wasn't I allowed in, but I had to leave the premises immediately. Like right that instant.

I complied.

I'm still laughing though. You don't know how hilarious this is. Not only is it the extreme hypocrisy of being expelled from their Expelled movie, but there's another layer of amusement. Deep, belly laugh funny. Yeah, I'd be rolling around on the floor right now, if I weren't so dang dignified.

You see … well, have you ever heard of a sabot? It's a kind of sleeve or lightweight carrier used to surround a piece of munition fired from a gun. It isn't the actually load intended to strike the target, but may even be discarded as it leaves the barrel.

I'm a kind of sabot right now.

They singled me out and evicted me, but they didn't notice my guest. They let him go in escorted by my wife and daughter. I guess they didn't recognize him. My guest was …

Richard Dawkins.

He's in the theater right now, watching their movie.

Tell me, are you laughing as hard as I am?

It's brilliant. ID proponents can't even keep the godless heathens out properly.

Also, it seems a bit odd to me that they ordered a police officer to kick him out. I mean, that's not exactly their job, is it?

I am speechless, fortunately though, I'm not typeless. I'm intrigued by that movie (same sort of intrigue provided by Jesus Camp, of course). To the IMDB!

UBERLOLZ! That's hilarious.

Wait, if biologists are all frauds and Creationist evidence decisively proves it, why do they expel people they should be converting?

Wait, if biologists are all frauds and Creationist evidence decisively proves it, why do they expel people they should be converting?

It's the same reason the Chinese are saying everything in Tibet is all peachy.

LOL! That's awful!

I have a very good argument for why this is exactly what the police ought to be doing. It is so good that I can't allow you to know what it is so you'll have to be convinced by my secret argument without having access to it.

What I can reveal is that this movie's full title "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" seems to explain why evolutionists are not allowed in.:p

I think it speaks volumes that their precious little mockumentary has a 'no fly' list.

Already posted in YMMV thread ;)

ROFLMAO!!!

That is just pure awesomeness.

See this thread.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=552361

I wonder what axis they're extrapolating PZ and Dawkins' relative levels of evil along.

the cephalopod axis.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" is the title of a fresh new propaganda film produced by creationists, featuring (among others) Ben Stein.

The thesis of the film is that educators and scientists are persecuted for their belief in Creationism. In other words, they are unjustly "Expelled" by the scientific/intellectual community because they hold particular opinions.

Funny stuff already, right? Wait. It gets better.

On March 20th, there was a screening of the movie at the Mall of America in Minnesota. Two of the scientists who had been featured in the film, Dr. PZ Myers and Dr. Richard Dawkins, decided to attend.

Dr. PZ Myers got expelled from the screening. Literally.

Here's his blog entry on what happened:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php

The short version is that while standing in line for the movie, he was told by a security guard that a producer had seen Myers and said that Myers would have to leave. Myers had done nothing other than stand in line with his family. The producer has since admitted that he simply didn't want Myers to get to see the movie without paying, despite the fact that Myers is featured prominently in the movie.

The screening had no admission charge; seats were reserved ahead of time, and viewers were required to sign a promise that they wouldn't record the movie during the showing. Myers (and his whole family) had reserved seats in their own names.

I just felt like sharing this because the whole thing made me laugh out loud. "Expelled from Expelled" should be the title of a rebuttal documentary, on the reflexive dishonestly and thick-headedness of the Creationist movement. :D

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=552361

"Expelled from Expelled" was used as a title. At least you'd know that if you use digg (http://www.digg.com).

I also read the article. It's funny. The creationists don't want their feelings hurt. It's funny. They are afraid of the truth. They're stuck in their own little world. Too bad that world is somehow still connected to ours...

As for why Dawkins got in but not Myers. From the article, I gathered that because no names were required for the guests that only Myers was identifiable because he had given his name, whereas Dawkins was his guest and no such name was given because the guests didn't have to register on the list.

That actually caused quite a stir because some are now claiming that Dawkins is a gate-crasher! :D I love it when people who don't know a hole in a doughnut from a hole in their ass.

"Expelled from Expelled" was used as a title. At least you'd know that if you use digg (http://www.digg.com).

I also read the article. It's funny. The creationists don't want their feelings hurt. It's funny. They are afraid of the truth. They're stuck in their own little world. Too bad that world is somehow still connected to ours...

As for why Dawkins got in but not Myers. From the article, I gathered that because no names were required for the guests that only Myers was identifiable because he had given his name, whereas Dawkins was his guest and no such name was given because the guests didn't have to register on the list.

That actually caused quite a stir because some are now claiming that Dawkins is a gate-crasher! :D I love it when people who don't know a hole in a doughnut from a hole in their ass.

They were required to show ID at the door. Dr. Dawkins claims he got in partly because of the fact that his passport says Clinton Richard Dawkins (his full name) and partly because they seemed focused on Dr. Meyers.

Edit: for clarity.

Poor Christians are oppressed and persecuted in America.:rolleyes:



Frankly, if you are a scientist and believe in creationism, you are not a real scientist, and your intellectual credentials SHOULD be slandered.


And Im not suprised about Myers getting kicked out.

Sometimes I wonder if this whole film is meant as a joke: surely nobody could really be this utterly and persistently stupid.

Ah well, I guess the CDesign Proponentists have had plenty of practice.

KoL, if you do believe in Ceationism, then you are wrong, but there's no need to go over the top. They'll figure things out.

I looked up Expelled and I watched the trailer for it. I like Ben Stein and I still do, despite my complete disagreement for almost everything he considers important. :p Anyhoo, after the trailer I spend a couple hours on Wikipedia and some of the referenced sites such as the Discovery Institute (http://www.discovery.org/).

Speaking as a student of science and as a christian, Intelligent Design isn't science. THese poor 'persecuted' scientists know that Intelligent Design isn't science. They seek to alter the established scientific method in order to fit the concept of 'theistic realism' into the mainstream in order to justify beginning from a conclusion(the existence of God), allowing that hypothesis to stand despite the inability to test that hypothesis and thus chalk all variances from observed phenomena to the 'supernatural'. In short, to make Intelligent Design appear to be science, they desire to rewrite the rules of science to contradict themselves.

Now why on Earth would 'reputable' scientists that wish to forego the rules of science possibly feel persecuted by the rest of the scientific community? :rolleyes:

It's a popular story. No surprise this is the third thread on it :p

I can't help but think of this song when threads like this come up: http://www.solopassion.com/audio/by/title/mc_hawking_fuck_the_creationists

It's a popular story. No surprise this is the third thread on it :p

In the defense of the other two threads though, that original thread didn't really clue you in well what it was about from the title. It's pretty easily overlooked.

I once didn't get expelled from Expulsion School. I was so ashamed.

Anyway, these guys are making idiots out of Intelligent Design. Science and ID don't contradict, since all ID requires is that an intelligent being started or made the process. This process is not mutually exclusive from evolution and other well documented theories on creation.

I can't help but think of this song when threads like this come up: http://www.solopassion.com/audio/by/title/mc_hawking_fuck_the_creationists

Yay! :D

I once didn't get expelled from Expulsion School. I was so ashamed.

Anyway, these guys are making idiots out of Intelligent Design. Science and ID don't contradict, since all ID requires is that an intelligent being started or made the process. This process is not mutually exclusive from evolution and other well documented theories on creation.

Science and ID do contradict. Intelligent Design is speculative fiction masquerading as a 'theory'. As such, it contradicts because it's not scienctific and in fact to be considered scientific requires a redefinition of science. Now Science and God aren't contradictory. Perhaps you even meant that. If so, have a taco. *hands you a taco* :)

In the defense of the other two threads though, that original thread didn't really clue you in well what it was about from the title. It's pretty easily overlooked.

I agree completely. :)


On topic, reading about the movie on Wikipedia is kinda scary...

Science and ID do contradict. Intelligent Design is speculative fiction masquerading as a 'theory'. As such, it contradicts because it's not scienctific and in fact to be considered scientific requires a redefinition of science. Now Science and God aren't contradictory. Perhaps you even meant that. If so, have a taco. *hands you a taco* :)

*is having tacos for lunch*

Anyway, these guys are making idiots out of Intelligent Design. Science and ID don't contradict, since all ID requires is that an intelligent being started or made the process. This process is not mutually exclusive from evolution and other well documented theories on creation.
...

Intelligent Design isn't even Bad Science. It's SIUNS!, the cheap knock-off of real science one would find down at the Wal-Mart for like $3.50 when Science was cool again.

Science and ID do contradict. Intelligent Design is speculative fiction masquerading as a 'theory'. As such, it contradicts because it's not scienctific and in fact to be considered scientific requires a redefinition of science. Now Science and God aren't contradictory. Perhaps you even meant that. If so, have a taco. *hands you a taco* :)
*graciously accepts taco*

Let me expand upon my point: Yes, it is UNscientific to propose that God created the universe intelligently because it is an untestable hypothesis, but it does not contradict with the current theories backed by evidence such as evolution since all ID requires is that "God started it." Evolution still remains the same, except that instead of chance it was guided.

Am I clear?

If so, could I have a taco with gauc?

*graciously accepts taco*

Let me expand upon my point: Yes, it is UNscientific to propose that God created the universe intelligently because it is an untestable hypothesis, but it does not contradict with the current theories backed by evidence such as evolution since all ID requires is that "God started it." Evolution still remains the same, except that instead of chance it was guided.

Am I clear?

If so, could I have a taco with gauc?

You're confusing theistic evolution with Intelligent Design.

*graciously accepts taco*

Let me expand upon my point: Yes, it is UNscientific to propose that God created the universe intelligently because it is an untestable hypothesis, but it does not contradict with the current theories backed by evidence such as evolution since all ID requires is that "God started it." Evolution still remains the same, except that instead of chance it was guided.


This is not particularly connected to the major ID movements in the USA, who believe in irreducible complexity and thus refuse to accept macro evolution at all.

*graciously accepts taco*

Let me expand upon my point: Yes, it is UNscientific to propose that God created the universe intelligently because it is an untestable hypothesis, but it does not contradict with the current theories backed by evidence such as evolution since all ID requires is that "God started it." Evolution still remains the same, except that instead of chance it was guided.

Am I clear?

If so, could I have a taco with gauc?

*hands you some guacamole*

*is having tacos for lunch*

It's actually been better than a week since I've had tacos. I'm fiending for them. :(

*hands you some guacamole*

You might be interested to hear that a friend of mine recently looked up the nutritional information for various taco bell items.

It turns out that, in terms of calories/fat. cal.'s, a Nacho Cheese item (Nacho Cheese Gordita, Nacho Cheese Chalupa) actually contains LESS fat than their normal counterparts.

The reason? Sour cream.

*hands you some guacamole*
*nom nom nom* Delicious! :D

You're confusing theistic evolution with Intelligent Design.
Having not heard the term theistic evolution ever before, I don't see how it is possible for me to be capable of confusion of those terms. And also, I was using evolution as a mere example; the big bang could have also been in the design or plan of God, as well as the formation of Earth, or the Sun, and so on.

It's actually been better than a week since I've had tacos. I'm fiending for them. :(

I haven't had them since the break started, so I know how you feel. My boss mentioned he was heading to get some tacos from the cafeteria and I practically ran through the door to go get some too. Almost left a Deus-shaped hole in the door.

*nom nom nom* Delicious! :D


Having not heard the term theistic evolution ever before, I don't see how it is possible for me to be capable of confusion of those terms. And also, I was using evolution as a mere example; the big bang could have also been in the design or plan of God, as well as the formation of Earth, or the Sun, and so on.

Right, but that's my point.
Theistic evolution is a school of thought that accepts all of modern science but sticks a "goddidit" at the beginning of it all.

Intelligent Design, on the other hand, actively rejects evolution and other naturalistic, scientific theories in favor of the few that everything was created as is by a designer.

You might be interested to hear that a friend of mine recently looked up the nutritional information for various taco bell items.

It turns out that, in terms of calories/fat. cal.'s, a Nacho Cheese item (Nacho Cheese Gordita, Nacho Cheese Chalupa) actually contains LESS fat than their normal counterparts.

The reason? Sour cream.

Yep. Sour cream has to go when you're counting calories. Fat free sour cream sucks too. But a good salsa or some guacamole(high in fat but much healthier) substitutes nicely.

Yep. Sour cream has to go when you're counting calories. Fat free sour cream sucks too. But a good salsa or some guacamole(high in fat but much healthier) substitutes nicely.

Yup. I was just amazed when I first heard it. Of course, that nasty melted cheese they use isn't particularly healthy either, but it was just kinda crazy that it was more healthy than sour cream.

I haven't had them since the break started, so I know how you feel. My boss mentioned he was heading to get some tacos from the cafeteria and I practically ran through the door to go get some too. Almost left a Deus-shaped hole in the door.

Well, I'm dropping the winter insulation if you catch my meaning and I've been cutting back on a lot of favorites this month. I rely on a high level of activity rather than diet to keep fit but the last few years, I've noticed that jumpstarting the system in the spring has been getting harder. So the month of March has become my own personal Lent. No chocolate, no caffeine, no sodas, no more than 15% of my caloric intake derived from fats and more unprocessed foods. I've shed 18 lbs in 24 days. :)

Well, I'm dropping the winter insulation if you catch my meaning and I've been cutting back on a lot of favorites this month. I rely on a high level of activity rather than diet to keep fit but the last few years, I've noticed that jumpstarting the system in the spring has been getting harder. So the month of March has become my own personal Lent. No chocolate, no caffeine, no sodas, no more than 15% of my caloric intake derived from fats and more unprocessed foods. I've shed 18 lbs in 24 days. :)

I don't know how you do it. I can't bring myself to give up soda and caffeine. The lack tends to turn me into a zombie.

I don't know how you do it. I can't bring myself to give up soda and caffeine. The lack tends to turn me into a zombie.

Variety is how. I love variety. So I've been sampling all the new juices and health waters and teas on the market. The hardest hit is the chocolate. I'm so used to having some form of chocolate present to munch on that it's absence is stark. I like swedish fish, but they're just no substitute. :(

Variety is how. I love variety. So I've been sampling all the new juices and health waters and teas on the market. The hardest hit is the chocolate. I'm so used to having some form of chocolate present to munch on that it's absence is stark. I like swedish fish, but they're just no substitute. :(

Hmm...I'll have to get into the teas. I've had a large selection of tea available that I've avoided in favor of sugary coffee and soft drinks.

Chocolate's going to be hard. I can't survive for long without Reese's.

Chocolate's going to be hard. I can't survive for long without Reese's.

And imagine how it would be if you had to give up really tasty chocolate! :eek:


:p


Mmmm... Chocolate :fluffle:

And imagine how it would be if you had to give up really tasty chocolate! :eek:


:p


Mmmm... Chocolate :fluffle:

Grrrr. :mad:

You take that back.

Anyway, these guys are making idiots out of Intelligent Design. Science and ID don't contradict,

Nope. ID is not science, at least, not the way it's presented. It's not science because it does not use the scientific method; it starts out with a hypothesis (All life in the universe was created either with the guidance of or directly by a Supreme Being), then skips all the standard steps of observation, experimentation, collecting data, analysis, et cetera to go right to the conclusion at which they reaffirm the hypothesis. The only "evidence" they provide (life is too complex to have evolved on its own / individual systems are symbiotically dependent on other systems, so neither could have evolved first) is not only still part of the hypothesis, but is also largely incorrect.

For ID to be a "science", its proponents should be actually attempting to prove the existence of a Supreme Creator, or at minimum find evidence that evolution is wrong. Otherwise they're little better off than the string theorists.

Grrrr. :mad:

You take that back.

I can take the chocolate instead ;)

*Steals chocolate*

*Flees*

It's a popular story. No surprise this is the third thread on it :p

And the second thread on the subject that has a title that tells you what the thread is about. Mods, if you merge the threads again could you please keep Bottles more accurate title so this stops happening?

Nope. ID is not science,

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13552186&postcount=16
Let me expand upon my point: Yes, it is UNscientific to propose that God created the universe intelligently because it is an untestable hypothesis,

Preachin' to the choir, bud.

Anti-science and anti-intellectualism is becoming increasingly prevalent in the US as the fundamentalists tout opinions as truth and faith as fact. I have no problem with someone believing in a deity. My problem comes when these "pi=3" buffoons try to base their opinions on other opinions combined with wishful thinking and pass it off as "scientific" fact all while clearly demonstrating that they have absolutely no understanding of what a scientific theory actually is.

If this continues, I despair for this country.

...

Intelligent Design isn't even Bad Science. It's SIUNS!, the cheap knock-off of real science one would find down at the Wal-Mart for like $3.50 when Science was cool again.

It's good if you want to buy a lot of science-based substance in bulk. :)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the real reason Myers was kept out of the theater, and Dawkins was supposed to be kept out. It's because Expelled contains the real argument for creationism. You thought that stuff about micro-evolution and missing links was true? Don't be crazy. No, the real reason, which is actually very convincing and scientific, is a closely guarded secret that only the Flock knows. Letting a man like Richard Dawkins learn it would be like allowing a noviate read about Theta-IV secrets: it would blow his mind.

Uhg, I watched the trailer, what a stupid movie.

What I find most amusing is that the movie producers are all claiming that their side is "persecuted" and "shunned" yet when movie critics (like Roger Moore or Dan Whipple) or anti-creationists (PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins) try to see the movie, they're either told they can't come (Myers), charged as a "gatecrasher" (Dawkins) or told to sign "non-disclosure agreements" (Moore and Whipple, the former of which was accused of "dressing up as a minister just to gain entry"). So, I ask, who's persecuting who?

What I find most amusing is that the movie producers are all claiming that their side is "persecuted" and "shunned" yet when movie critics (like Roger Moore or Dan Whipple) or anti-creationists (PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins) try to see the movie, they're either told they can't come (Myers), charged as a "gatecrasher" (Dawkins) or told to sign "non-disclosure agreements" (Moore and Whipple, the former of which was accused of "dressing up as a minister just to gain entry"). So, I ask, who's persecuting who?

Thaaat's a little creepy. Actually, it's more than a little, it is very creepy.
For some reason it made me think of this (http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3037306624/tt0048424). Maybe it's the movie quote thread.

Right, but that's my point.
Theistic evolution is a school of thought that accepts all of modern science but sticks a "goddidit" at the beginning of it all.

That's always been my view. I mean, God lies outside of the scientific method right? So science has always been kinda of a "Goddiditthisishow" kinda thing, which I've always thought was really cool.

That's always been my view. I mean, God lies outside of the scientific method right? So science has always been kinda of a "Goddiditthisishow" kinda thing, which I've always thought was really cool.

Not really. Science has been more of a "This is how it works. This is why it works. This is how it happened. If you want to attach an invisible, supernatural source to it all, be our guest, as long as you keep the rest of it straight."
Science is, by its nature, agnostic on the supernatural.

Science is, by its nature, agnostic on the supernatural.
I wouldn't even go that far. For science to be agnostic would imply that it doesn't think there is anyway to prove the existence or nonexistence of God. Science doesn't even mention God. It is to the supernatural as my toaster is to post-structuralism. No overlap.

Thaaat's a little creepy. Actually, it's more than a little, it is very creepy.
For some reason it made me think of this (http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3037306624/tt0048424). Maybe it's the movie quote thread.

They said it not me.

*is only the messenger*

I wouldn't even go that far. For science to be agnostic would imply that it doesn't think there is anyway to prove the existence or nonexistence of God. Science doesn't even mention God. It is to the supernatural as my toaster is to post-structuralism. No overlap.

I have always argued that the scientific method is inherently atheistic (not just agnostic). Simply put, you can't run an experiment or make a conclusion thinking there is a deity. Otherwise, you just get the "god of the gaps" fallacy.

This isn't to say that God cannot figure into science in general but when you're using the method you have to take God out of the equation, if only because God is supernatural and the method is just there to explain the natural.

They said it not me.

*is only the messenger*

*kills the messenger*

I have always argued that the scientific method is inherently atheistic (not just agnostic). Simply put, you can't run an experiment or make a conclusion thinking there is a deity. Otherwise, you just get the "god of the gaps" fallacy.

This isn't to say that God cannot figure into science in general but when you're using the method you have to take God out of the equation, if only because God is supernatural and the method is just there to explain the natural.

Hmm. This makes sense.

Ok, I was wrong.

I have always argued that the scientific method is inherently atheistic (not just agnostic). Simply put, you can't run an experiment or make a conclusion thinking there is a deity. Otherwise, you just get the "god of the gaps" fallacy.

This isn't to say that God cannot figure into science in general but when you're using the method you have to take God out of the equation, if only because God is supernatural and the method is just there to explain the natural.

I'd say secular. Atheistic would mean science thought about it and concluded God did not exist. Secular would mean you could ask science and it would say, "God? God? What is this 'God' you speak of?"

I'd say secular. Atheistic would mean science thought about it and concluded God did not exist. Secular would mean you could ask science and it would say, "God? God? What is this 'God' you speak of?"

My only problem with that (bear in mind I said "the scientific method is atheistic", not science in general) is that "secular" still allows someone to do an experiment and make the conclusion, "I can't figure it out- God did it"; and we can't have that in a scientific experiment. It's a bit further than not acknowledging God's existence- the scientist, when they run their experiment, must not only reject the idea of a deity but also completely refuse to factor it in (as if it did not exist). It doesn't mean that the scientist has to be an atheist- since science doesn't (essentially) cover philosophy the scientist could very well conclude in their own beliefs that God is the driving force behind everything (which is what I believe) but when you're doing the experiment, God must be completely forgotten.

Not really. Science has been more of a "This is how it works. This is why it works. This is how it happened. If you want to attach an invisible, supernatural source to it all, be our guest, as long as you keep the rest of it straight."
Science is, by its nature, agnostic on the supernatural.

Naturally, that's just how Science ties into my worldview and my faith. It's sort of like how fundies like to adjust science to fit their interpretation of their faith, only the other way 'round.

My only problem with that (bear in mind I said "the scientific method is atheistic", not science in general) is that "secular" still allows someone to do an experiment and make the conclusion, "I can't figure it out- God did it"; and we can't have that in a scientific experiment. It's a bit further than not acknowledging God's existence- the scientist, when they run their experiment, must not only reject the idea of a deity but also completely refuse to factor it in (as if it did not exist). It doesn't mean that the scientist has to be an atheist- since science doesn't (essentially) cover philosophy the scientist could very well conclude in their own beliefs that God is the driving force behind everything (which is what I believe) but when you're doing the experiment, God must be completely forgotten.

I think I understand. I would still call that "secular," but I know what you're talking about now.

*kills the messenger*

"DORIS: But he's only the messenger. You can't have him torn apart by wild horses. You usually roast them over a slow fire.

KING: Too good for this scum!

DIABETES: When the weatherman predicts rain, do you kill the weatherman?

KING: Yes.

DIABETES: I see. Well. I'm dealing with a schizophrenic."

Taken from Woody Allen's "God". Seems appropriate for this thread...:D (my Catholic high school actually put on a "clean" version of the play, believe it or not).

I think I understand. I would still call that "secular," but I know what you're talking about now.

How come?

How come?

I don't think of non-people being atheistic. It's probably just the connotation I, and many other people, have with the word. Secular has a similar meaning, but I hear it more often applied to processes, institutions, etc. It's just a stylistic thing on my part.

I don't think of non-people being atheistic. It's probably just the connotation I, and many other people, have with the word. Secular has a similar meaning, but I hear it more often applied to processes, institutions, etc. It's just a stylistic thing on my part.

Ah, so "atheism" only applies to people and you're not one for anthropomorphizing.

Ah, so "atheism" only applies to people and you're not one for anthropomorphizing.

I don't actually know if it only applies to people, but that's what I think of when I hear the word. If you said "science is an atheistic process," I would think of scientists of atheists. Because you've explained it I don't now, but it's what springs in the back of my mind. It may just be a misunderstanding of the word on my part, but it's a misunderstanding that is ingrained in my head.

I don't actually know if it only applies to people, but that's what I think of when I hear the word. If you said "science is an atheistic process," I would think of scientists of atheists. Because you've explained it I don't now, but it's what springs in the back of my mind. It may just be a misunderstanding of the word on my part, but it's a misunderstanding that is ingrained in my head.

"Anthropomorphous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphous)" is to apply human characteristics to non-human things (such as the scientific method). Felt like clarifying that since I wasn't sure you understood it when I first used it ("big words" come naturally to me and I didn't know what else to use there so I used that word). If you did, my mistake.

Perhaps it's more a train of thought for myself- I do try to look at things from different angles (including the unconventional ones) and I would agree that "atheism" (being a philosophy) is inherently human. Of course, judging that the scientific method was created by humans I figured that if it was a human the scientific method would probably be atheist, since that's the closest thing that makes sense to me looking at the method. I presume I might be one of the few to look at the method in this way, so I figure it's just a quirk about how I look at things.

I'd say secular. Atheistic would mean science thought about it and concluded God did not exist. Secular would mean you could ask science and it would say, "God? God? What is this 'God' you speak of?"

Your first example would be antitheistic. Your second example would be atheistic.

The best way would be to state that science is fundamentally a naturalistic endeavor, and using a supernatural explanation in a scientific guise is ridiculous.

One thing to remember is the inability to make concrete predictions isn't a complete death sentence for a scientific theory.... There are several legitimate theories that cant make predictions because they are about past events that wont be replicated. What makes a theory like intelligent design completely unscientific is the fact that intelligent design is not falsifiable. There is no conceivable evidence, short of the creator himself coming down and yelling "I didn't do it!" that could possibly change the minds of any of these "scientists." I could say that I have a hypothesis that a giant fire-breathing unicorn named Fred created the universe, and logically it would be as impervious as the ID claims. It would also be about as scientific.

Another big thing that should often be mentioned is that the theory of evolution is distinctly separate from the theories of abiogenesis. There are many legitimate biologists that consider evolution to be completely true but find the current theories of abiogenesis to be lacking. That is perfectly normal, as there is no concrete evidence for many of them, and a good portion of what we know about how the FIRST life may have arisen is conjecture. Notice how even doubtful biologists dont just wave away all of the conjecture and offer an explanation that can lead to no further inquiry such as "God did it." Science must always work within naturalistic boundaries, which means that the fields of inquiry have to be kept open, not shut down with a theory that cannot ever be falsified.

In the defense of the other two threads though, that original thread didn't really clue you in well what it was about from the title. It's pretty easily overlooked.
I agree completely. :)
Yeah, sorry about that. I'll try to come up with more informative titles in future. My bad, as they say.

Who and who? :confused:

Also, after following a few links, this made me lol even harder: Weeeeird post. (http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showpost.php?p=162393&postcount=7)

Anyway, while the post itself isn't so funny, the signature is. Citizens United Not Timid. lul... cunts <.<

Bwahahahahahah! Shit that's funny.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=c39jYgsvUOY

Who and who? :confused:

Also, after following a few links, this made me lol even harder: Weeeeird post. (http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showpost.php?p=162393&postcount=7)

Anyway, while the post itself isn't so funny, the signature is. Citizens United Not Timid. lul... cunts <.<

Could you please provide a transcription.
Looks like the whole of Czech Republic has been Expelled from that thread.

vBulletin Message
Sorry. The administrator has banned your IP address. To contact the administrator click here
The information presented here is Biblically accurate. Opinions concerning the technical difficulties, fitness requirements, safety, and ratings of self-crucifixion, flagellation, stoning, destroying enemies of GOD utterly, without mercy, and other activities inherent in Christianity are subjective and may differ from yours or others' opinions; therefore be warned that you must exercise your own judgment as to the difficulty and your ability to safely protect yourself from the inherent risks and dangers. Do not use the information provided on this site unless you are a True Christian ™ who understands and accepts the risks of participating in these activities. Landover Baptist Church makes reasonable efforts to include accurate and up to date information on this website, errors or omissions sometimes occur, therefore the information contained on here is provided "as is" and without warranties of any kind either expressed or implied. Viewing, reading, or any other use of the information contained within this web site is purely the voluntary will of the viewer or user. You, 'the viewer' or 'user' shall not hold the publisher, owner, authors or other contributors of The Jesus Experience responsible for any incidents related directly or indirectly to the Experience. Landover Baptist Church, et. al., assumes no liability or responsibility for your actions.

WTF?!?! Who are these guys???
Fitness requirements, safety, and ratings of self-crucifixion???

Could you please provide a transcription.
Looks like the whole of Czech Republic has been Expelled from that thread.



WTF?!?! Who are these guys???
Fitness requirements, safety, and ratings of self-crucifixion???

I'm just jumping in here, but Landover Baptist Church is a parody AFAIK. Not so sure about the forums though...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=c39jYgsvUOY

Thanks for posting that video clip of Dawkins and that other guy talking about 'Expelled'. :)

You welcome LG.

I'm reading the wiki entry on the movie, now.

Mathis stated that it was unfair that 90% of the American public believes that there is design in nature but in Academia, the opposite is true

:(
:'(

Edit:
What was so damning about this article? Nothing as far as I could tell.
You aren't qualified to tell, as you are a writer, public speaker, social activist, game show host, even a speech writer for presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. You are not a scientist, so your opinion IS DISMISSED!

Sorry about the rant, i couldn't resist.

What i cannot understand is:
Darwinists are bad because they believe we are made from mud and lightning.
What is wrong with it?
Creationists say we are made from mud and divine spittle!
I'd rather the lightning, at least Thor is a god with some balls!!! (And a comix to boot!)

One thing to remember is the inability to make concrete predictions isn't a complete death sentence for a scientific theory.... There are several legitimate theories that cant make predictions because they are about past events that wont be replicated.

A theory about past events can still yield testable predictions; please can you give an example of a legitimate theory which can't make predictions.

Richard Dawkins: Darwin was right about some.

Yeah, sorry about that. I'll try to come up with more informative titles in future. My bad, as they say.

Don't worry, just keep making threads on popular topics you rapscallion you ;)