NationStates Jolt Archive

Oops, too late (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWRmOTU2YzZlN2RhMzhjNzEwNzQ3MzFiZDE2NjM3NWE=):

Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.

Crouch: That’s right.

Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

Crouch: Good word, good word.

And I thought he couldn't say anything stupider after the travesty that was Expelled (http://www.expelledexposed.com). Seriously, how can anyone say something so unbelievably idiotic? Poll may be forthcoming.

well he did suggest the other week on cbs sunday morning that while spending tax money on the people who were displaced by hurricane katrina is a stupid waste, we SHOULD be spending tax money helping homeless dogs and cats.

Ben Stein is officially an ignorant asshole. How unfortunate that he won't fade into obscurity as long as he makes ridiculous comments like this.

There should be a law that prevents these kind of people from speaking in public.

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/funny-pictures-zombie-kitten-cat.jpg

Wait, Stein has a brain one can win?


Hey! Look Ben! I can play the hyperboble too!


You know what I think of when I think of religion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crusades
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_phelps


Thats where I think religion leads us. But you know, thats just my opinion.

Wait, Stein has a brain one can win?

Sure, he's obviously not using it himself...

Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed …
Good thing Win Ben Stein's Money is canceled, otherwise everyone would win because obviously Ben Stein has become a complete idiot.

This just occured to me...


Ben Steins entire arguement is Godwin's law. Seriously, this guy is the master at using it...

In his honor, I hereby rename Godwin's law Stein's Law.

" 'Do you believe in God?'
'No.'
*boom* Dead.
'Do you believe in God?'
'Yes.'
'Do you believe in MY God?'
'No'
*Boom* Dead.
'My God has a bigger dick than your God!' " -George Carlin

No, Mr. Stein, the last time any of your relatives had scientists telling them what to do was TODAY, when one of them used a computer, a telephone, a television, a radio, when one of them put a bandage or some antibiotic on a cut, when one of them took his or her pills this morning, when one of them looked up something on the internet, drove a car, put on sunscreen before going outside. But hey, Mr. Stein, I'm sure you have no use for any of those things. Scientists are all Nazis. Obviously.

Good thing Win Ben Stein's Money is canceled, otherwise everyone would win because obviously Ben Stein has become a complete idiot.

Awww, and I liked that show too, back when I though he was funny and witty. Now he is just a pathetic has been.

*weeps at death of cool Ben Stein*

Damn...and id always really Respected Ben Stein...this really tarnishes him...

Did he really say that shit about Katrina?

Meh. He's always been an idiot. And in response to YOU KOL, religions serve as a mask, an excuse and nothing more. Which Ben Stein dosen't seem to relieze you could do that with almost EVERYTHING, and that science might not be blameless, neither is religion.

No, Mr. Stein, the last time any of your relatives had scientists telling them what to do was TODAY, when one of them used a computer, a telephone, a television, a radio, when one of them put a bandage or some antibiotic on a cut, when one of them took his or her pills this morning, when one of them looked up something on the internet, drove a car, put on sunscreen before going outside. But hey, Mr. Stein, I'm sure you have no use for any of those things. Scientists are all Nazis. Obviously.

In an interview with the Trinity Broadcasting Network

I wonder how they manage to broadcast. I don't think it's through prayer.

I wonder how they manage to broadcast. I don't think it's through prayer.

God magically makes magic images appear magically on people's TVs, obviously. Nothing to do with those evil scientists.

Meh. He's always been an idiot. And in response to YOU KOL, religions serve as a mask, an excuse and nothing more. Which Ben Stein dosen't seem to relieze you could do that with almost EVERYTHING, and that science might not be blameless, neither is religion.

Science is completely blameless. Science offers no moral imperative; it is a method for obtaining knowledge. When you push somebody off a cliff, gravity isn't to blame for their death, but your actions are.

Religion, however, is full of moral imperatives, and one such imperative that isn't altogether uncommon is that you must convert or kill (or at least discriminate against) unbelievers and "immoral" people (scare quotes because the things they call immoral are usually stupid. Things like homosexuality or eating shellfish or basically doing anything you enjoy). Fortunately, that sort of moral imperative is falling out of favor compared to the imperative to treat others well, but it still is a religious moral idea.

God magically makes magic images appear magically on people's TVs, obviously. Nothing to do with those evil scientists.

it's the little people in my tv...

I'm not sure how they're doing now that I got a flat panel.

Science is completely blameless. Science offers no moral imperative; it is a method for obtaining knowledge. When you push somebody off a cliff, gravity isn't to blame for their death, but your actions are.


And yet, if you push someone off a cliff to test gravity, YOU are still responsible for doing it in the name of science. Or rather claiming to to do it in the name of science when in reality having an ulterior motive. (Or at least be incredibly sadistic)

Religion, however, is full of moral imperatives, and one such imperative that isn't altogether uncommon is that you must convert or kill (or at least discriminate against) unbelievers and "immoral" people (scare quotes because the things they call immoral are usually stupid.

...

Not murdering is stupid? Not cheating on your wife is stupid? Hardly.

And I don't see the imperative to kill or discriminate aganst people in Christianity. It is not religion to blame, but rather, it all too often ends up the scapegoat.

Oops, too late (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWRmOTU2YzZlN2RhMzhjNzEwNzQ3MzFiZDE2NjM3NWE=):



And I thought he couldn't say anything stupider after the travesty that was Expelled (http://www.expelledexposed.com). Seriously, how can anyone say something so unbelievably idiotic? Poll may be forthcoming.

This is one of those times I want to be a smartass and reply with every single word in my post being a link to a different example that counters what is said, but I don't think I have to in this case. (And I'm lazy.)

Seriously, neither science nor religion are automatically violent and/or peaceful by nature. They simple are what they are. It's humanity that uses them for good or ill towards others.

And yet, if you push someone off a cliff to test gravity, YOU are still responsible for doing it in the name of science.

Exactly. YOU did it. Science didn't tell you to. The scientific method did not advise you to push someone off a cliff. Science has no moral value whatsoever and does not tell you how to test.

The bible, on the other hand, does tell you to do some pretty damned awful things.

Seriously, neither science nor religion are automatically violent and/or peaceful by nature. They simple are what they are. It's humanity that uses them for good or ill towards others.
EXACTLY! I wish I could articulate my thoughts that clearly...

Exactly. YOU did it. Science didn't tell you to. The scientific method did not advise you to push someone off a cliff. Science has no moral value whatsoever and does not tell you how to test.

The bible, on the other hand, does tell you to do some pretty damned awful things.
Name a few.

And yet, if you push someone off a cliff to test gravity, YOU are still responsible for doing it in the name of science. Or rather claiming to to do it in the name of science when in reality having an ulterior motive. (Or at least be incredibly sadistic)

But nothing in science doesn't imply that you should do that.


...

Not murdering is stupid? Not cheating on your wife is stupid? Hardly.

No, but "homosexuality is wrong" is stupid. "Consensual premarital sex is wrong" is stupid. "It's only wrong to beat your slaves if they die" is stupid.


And I don't see the imperative to kill or discriminate aganst people in Christianity. It is not religion to blame, but rather, it all too often ends up the scapegoat.

First of all, Christianity is not all religion, now is it?
Secondly, I need only to point you to multiple passages in the Bible that could easily be used to support such negative imperatives.
Indeed, Christianity has been the motive for many atrocities in history. Crusaders killed for it, Inquisitors tortured for it. You can't say that they weren't true or devout Christians. Hell, many of them (especially the Crusaders-- several of the Knightly Orders of the time were practically suicidal) were so devout they were willing to die for it.

Certainly, religion doesn't have to be used that way. But to say that no religions-- or even no sects of Christianity-- command things like that is just plain inaccurate.

Seriously, neither science nor religion are automatically violent and/or peaceful by nature.

Except that's not really true. Science is not violent or peaceful because such concepts are beyond what science deals with. Science is only a method we use to observe, catagorize, and process knowledge. Nothing more, nothing less. it advises no ethical guidelines, it puts forth no moral compass, it merely tells us the best way to collect, verify, catagorize and process knowledge.

Religion, on the other hand is a set of rules that tell you how to live. It is a set of ethics, morals, and guidelines, it does proport to tell you what to do.

Science can not be "violent" or "peaceful" because those concepts don't apply. Religion can, and does. Some sects of buddhism practice very strenuous pacifism. Mayan religion on the other hand practiced bloodsport as ritual.

Name a few.

Well, the passages about when and how to stone people are a rather obvious example.

To be fair, I don't think religion is in any way inherently evil, and there are plenty of very nice things in the Bible, too - but you'd be hard-pressed to argue that there isn't some nasty stuff in there.

Name a few.

homosexual intercourse is punishable by death

premarital sex is a hell worth trespass

slavery is permissible

newborn children deserve to die for the sins of the parents

Need I go on?

Name a few.
Here's a few of the ones that I've got bookmarked in my Bible.

Beating your slaves is okay if they don't die. (Exodus 21:20)

Cursing your parents is a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9)

If a woman is raped within a city, it's her own fault. Kill her! (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

It's okay to rape a virgin girl, as long as you pay her father. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

But nothing in science doesn't imply that you should do that.
I never said it did.
No, but "homosexuality is wrong" is stupid.
I'll agree with that.
"Consensual premarital sex is wrong" is stupid.
Look at how many children are born out of wedlock. Guess how many are missing a parent because he wasn't ready for the responsibility? How many are given up for adoption?
"It's only wrong to beat your slaves if they die" is stupid.

Source for that one please.
First of all, Christianity is not all religion, now is it?

You make some good points...
Indeed, Christianity has been the motive for many atrocities in history. Crusaders killed for it, Inquisitors tortured for it. You can't say that they weren't true or devout Christians. Hell, many of them (especially the Crusaders-- several of the Knightly Orders of the time were practically suicidal) were so devout they were willing to die for it.

Explain the killing, looting, and raping. The crusades were more for political reasons, as religion is ALWAYS involved in politics, those in power don't like to lose it, and the Catholic church had every monarch and peasent in Europe eating out of their hand. Not doing anything about Jerusalem would have been a horrible blow to the medieval catholic church.
Certainly, religion doesn't have to be used that way. But to say that no religions-- or even no sects of Christianity-- command things like that is just plain inaccurate.
...
You ARE good. Your right of course. Certain sects of Christianity DO command things like that. Unfortunatly :(.
newborn children deserve to die for the sins of the parents


Deuteronomy 24:16

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.


Ezekiel 18:20

The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

What was that again?
slavery is permissible

Granted, but slavery was more of a social status then. But you're still right there.
Also, we're only human. Some things in the bible, who's to say they weren't put there for political reasons? The bible is God's word, but I've got ten bucks that says some laws in there were put for political reasons. *puts ten bucks on table*

Once again, see above about politics. Many of the laws in the bible are just that: Laws. Made for political reasons. I've got most of the old testament (Literally) torn out of my bible, and most of the new testament out after the gospels.

Note: I've snipped out things like "hmm, I agree" or "good point" for brevity's sake.

Look at how many children are born out of wedlock. Guess how many are missing a parent because he wasn't ready for the responsibility? How many are given up for adoption?

That's why we need to teach responsible birth control practices instead of "abstinence only" bullshit and make sure that women have good access to it.


Source for that one please.

Try Exodus 21:20


Explain the killing, looting, and raping. The crusades were more for political reasons, as religion is ALWAYS involved in politics, those in power don't like to lose it, and the Catholic church had every monarch and peasent in Europe eating out of their hand. Not doing anything about Jerusalem would have been a horrible blow to the medieval catholic church.

Yeah, it would have been a blow to them... because of religion. People expected them to recover Jerusalem because of religious reasons. They wouldn't have had to do that to hold on to power were it not for people's religious beliefs. Yes, politics played a huge role, but if it weren't for religion, there'd be no Crusades.


What was that again?

Contrast it to Isaiah 14:21, which says to "[m]ake ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants"



Also, we're only human. Some things in the bible, who's to say they weren't put there for political reasons? The bible is God's word, but I've got ten bucks that says some laws in there were put for political reasons. *puts ten bucks on table*
Wait? If it's God's Word, then why would God say things to aid somebody else's politics?

I agree things are in there for political purposes, but then, I don't think the Bible contains God's own words. (Which makes sense because I do not believe he exists.)

EDIT: I forgot to say. Even the things added for political reasons are a part of the religion, at least for most followers. And my original point was to agree that religion isn't blameless, and to contrast it to science which truly can be said to be blameless because it offers no moral imperatives whatsoever.

EDIT 2: cleared up a poorly worded sentence

the Catholic church had every monarch and peasent in Europe eating out of their hand.

Now that's just crazy talk.

Name a few.

From the New American Standard Bible (I don't know why this is still in my truck.)

Leviticus, Chapter 20: (The Lord speaking to Moses)
9 If there is anyone who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or mother, his bloodguiltiness upon him.
10 If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with a friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
11 If there is a man who lies with his father's wife he has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltyness is upon them.
12 If there is a man who lies with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed incest, their bloodguiltyness is upon them.
13 If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltyness is upon them.

Except that's not really true. Science is not violent or peaceful because such concepts are beyond what science deals with. Science is only a method we use to observe, catagorize, and process knowledge. Nothing more, nothing less. it advises no ethical guidelines, it puts forth no moral compass, it merely tells us the best way to collect, verify, catagorize and process knowledge.

Religion, on the other hand is a set of rules that tell you how to live. It is a set of ethics, morals, and guidelines, it does proport to tell you what to do.

Science can not be "violent" or "peaceful" because those concepts don't apply. Religion can, and does. Some sects of buddhism practice very strenuous pacifism. Mayan religion on the other hand practiced bloodsport as ritual.
That's not exactly what I meant. I was speaking more along the lines of the fact that regardless of the teachings of a religion, how it's used is what really matters. One could take the most violent of teachings and apply them for complete pacifism, and vice versa, as is done all the time. Because of that, I'd call religion as a whole neutral.

But obviously that's up for interpretation and opinion.

And I don't see the imperative to kill or discriminate aganst people in Christianity. It is not religion to blame, but rather, it all too often ends up the scapegoat.
Because Christians are all a bunch of half-assed followers. They pick and choose what they follow. The Bible is all about shunning nonbelievers and shit and hating people.

That's why we need to teach responsible birth control practices instead of "abstinence only" bullshit and make sure that women have good access to it.


Except that protection isn't 100% effective. It might be a small chance, but it's a chance nonetheless. And do you think they had birth control back then? EFFECTIVE birht control?

Yeah, it would have been a blow to them... because of religion. People expected them to recover Jerusalem because of religious reasons. They wouldn't have had to do that to hold on to power were it not for people's religious beliefs. Yes, politics played a huge role, but if it weren't for religion, there'd be no Crusades.

If it wasn't for religion, the catholic church wouldn't exist in the first place. The Catholic Chruch at that point was a political institution, with religion being little more then a mask. A pretty convincing mask, at least for back then. Or possibly frightning with all the heretic burnings and all...
Contrast it to Isaiah 14:21, which says to "[m]ake ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants"
Like I said, political reasons. Even now they don't want children or teens (Like myself :D) getting all uppity. Perhaps tthis is more social then political, but the point still stands.
Wait? If it's God's Word, then why would God say things to aid somebody else's politics?

HE didn't. They just decided to put it into the same book to give it credibility.
I don't think it's God's own words. (Which makes sense because I do not believe he exists.)
And here's our main point of disagreement. :p

From the New American Standard Bible (I don't know why this is still in my truck.)

Problem # 1 :p
Leviticus, Chapter 20: (The Lord speaking to Moses)

Problem #2. Leviticus is a bunch of laws put up for political reasons and then made to seem like they came from God to prevent any turmoil.
Because Christians are all a bunch of half-assed followers. They pick and choose what they follow. The Bible is all about shunning nonbelievers and shit and hating people.
And science is all about performing horrible experiments on people to find out about their innards, and torturing to test pyschological results, and gassing people to see how effective it would be on the battlefield, right?:rolleyes:

Because Christians are all a bunch of half-assed followers. They pick and choose what they follow. The Bible is all about shunning nonbelievers and shit and hating people.

To be honest, I'm not going to complain about them not following those parts too seriously.

Problem #2. Leviticus is a bunch of laws put up for political reasons and then made to seem like they came from God to prevent any turmoil.


You cannot deny though, that a significant amount of people see the Bible (inc the OT) as the inerrant word of God.

Which makes those unsavoury bits moral imperatives (to them), regardles of your personal view.

EDIT: I forgot to say. Even the things added for political reasons are a part of the religion, at least for most followers. And my original point was to agree that religion isn't blameless, and to contrast it to science which truly can be said to be blameless because it offers no moral imperatives whatsoever.

I quote myself because I think you were replying when I made the edit and I wanted to make sure you saw it.

You cannot deny though, that a significant amount of people see the Bible (inc the OT) as the inerrant word of God.

Which makes those unsavoury bits moral imperatives (to them), regardles of your personal view.
Agreed. People need to become more skeptical.

Agreed. People need to become more skeptical.

Amen! :p

Agreed. People need to become more skeptical.

Note: I'm sure it says somewhere in the bible that you have to believe all of the bible. But I'm willing to overlook all that, because I'm happy that you're not some Pat Robertson wanna-be.

Note: I'm sure it says somewhere in the bible that you have to believe all of the bible. But I'm willing to overlook all that, because I'm happy that you're not some Pat Robertson wanna-be.

i think the book of revelations says not to fuck with the book of revelations--dont add or subtract so much as one word.

I just don't know when Ben Stein went bats*** insane. It makes me sad.

What was that again?

The name "Noah" ring a bell?

Meh. Religion can be good or bad, depending on how you use it.

As long as people don't go around trying to convert people, I don't care what their beliefs are.