Duped from Ethics Gradient.
They’ve started advertising the DVD version of that infernal, mendacious, highly offensive, wilfully ignorant and misleading waste of megabytes known as Expelled. Bay of Fundie has scratched the surface of their advertising and revealed some new information.
Now, given that this is the DVD release of Expelled, it makes me wonder what kind of special features they’ll include. Of course no one can know for sure, but I have something of a wish list:
– a complete timeline of all the steps taken & communication entered into to secure the participation of such people as Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers, including a full explanation for the stark deviation from the premise of the original film: it was originally presented to Myers & Dawkins as a documentary named “Crossroads”, detailing the intersection of religion & science, which it clearly did not turn out to be, either by name or nature
– full, uncut, unedited interviews with the above-named
– a full explanation from the film’s producers of PZ Myer’s own expulsion from a screening of Expelled by security staff before he’d entered the theatre, despite the fact that he’d registered to attend under his own name and hadn’t attempted any kind of subterfuge, as was alleged early on by the producers (as well as an explanation of how Richard Dawkins, arguably more recognisable than PZ Myers, was allowed to enter unmolested)
– behind-the-scenes segments showing such things as exactly who comprised the audience in Ben Stein’s opening, paranoid address to college “students”and a clear explanation of Adolf Hitler’s alleged use Darwin’s theory of evolution to justify his horrific experiments
– a demonstration that the producers of this film – and Ben Stein himself – actually understand what the theory of evolution says and, importantly, what it doesn’t say: Stein is on record stating that evolution can’t explain certain astronomical phenomena & processes, apparently ignorant of the fact that evolution only applies to terrestrial biological diversity
– an explanation of how “micro-evolution” differs from “macro-evolution”, followed by an explanation of how a lit match can’t start a bushfire
– an actual clear-cut, definitive definition of the theory of Intelligent Design, the predictions made by this theory and why this theory requires equal time in science classes (see below)
– results of any actual research into & testing of ID’s predictions, including such information as the identity or even intent of the “designer” and the reason for the many, glaring inefficiencies, inconsistencies and illogicalities in biological “designs” from all branches of life. This should be presented by one or a combination of (but not limited to) the following high-profile design proponents: Michael Behe, William Dembski, Casey Luskin, Phillip Johnston & we mustn’t (nor will we ever) forget Ben Stein.
– a full explanation of the “controversy” that Stein & co wish to be taught to children, as it appears that the only controversy regarding the veracity of evolutionary theory is the one Stein & his partners in this endeavour have manufactured
– actual, scientific rebuttals of (or even credible challenges to) any aspect or aspects of the theory of evolution – without resorting to paranoid conspiracy theories or sweeping, unsupportable statements about “Big Science”
– an explanation of Stein’s infamous remark from an interview on a Christian TV programme: “Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.”
– an explanation of how Intelligent Design is not based on (or simply is) Biblical creationism & an explanation of the actions of the obviously religiously motivated members of the Dover, PA school board (and their supporters from the Discovery Institute, authors of the infamous and clearly religiously-based “Wedge Document”) which led to the famous trial of 2004
– a justification for singling out Darwinian evolution for special attention, while other fields such as Newtonian physics and Copernican astronomy each contradict Scripture in various ways but are (for the most part) left unmolested and uncontested by religionists
– one good reason why teaching children their parents’ religion shouldn’t just stay in Scripture classes, Sunday schools, churches and the family home and one good reason why it should be taught as fact alongside evidence-based science when, as is repeated often, religion & belief is a matter of faith, which by definition means “accepting a proposition without evidence”
…
Of course, it’s all wishful thinking on my part. But no more so than Stein & Co’s insistence that “Big Science” persecutes & expels religious professors for dissenting views, that “Darwinism” is a one-way street to concentration camps or, indeed, the insistence of many ID supporters that Big Religion played no part in attempting to usher Bible stories into science classes through the back door in violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution of the United States.
I eagerly await my hopes to be dashed.
You are just upset because your "savior" Dawkins was taken to town by Ben Stein. I know that it hurts to see your guy humiliated.
"Taken to town" must mean "quote mined" to Erik B. Expelled was almost as fair as the works of Michael Moore. That's a pox on both their houses.
Dawkins is no savior to me. He makes some good points, but his hard line approach alienates many potential allies. But maybe the rationalists need a few extremists, to balance the phalanx of religious extremists on the other side.
Who said Richard was the equivalent of god for atheists? He's not my god, I don't worship him. He's a biologist who has effectively written all the different ways that science has eliminated god from the equation.
But he's still a human, humans are fallible. Does that mean that his arguments are invalid? No, it just means that he's exceptional at what he does, despite his faults.
Expelled basically pulled a bait and switch, then it proceeded to slander everyone who disagreed. That's a dirty tactic, and is regarded with contempt in civilized society. I think Bill Mahers 'Religiolous' will have a more unbiased view, although I'm incredulous to that.
Then again, this is a country that nearly deifies those who bomb abortion clinics, and demonizes anything or anyone who says different.
Ah, Mr Brewer, there you are. I was wondering when you'd turn up. A DI comment thread just isn't the same without you. We here at DI would like to offer our sincere thanks and appreciation for all the traffic you create here. Some of us have jobs that get rather dull at times and this is a much-needed diversion.
Fact: "Expelled" and everyone involved in the movie knowingly LIED before the film in order to secure the participation of Dawkins & Myers (& others). First they lied about the title & subject matter of the movie, then they lied in the movie about the alleged "expulsions" of the "dissenting" scientists and, after its release, they lied straight away when explaining PZ Myer's expulsion from the screening.
Richard Dawkins wasn't humiliated – but he was somewhat annoyed by the obvious quote-mining, selectve editing & gross misrepresentation of his views both in the movie and afterwards. While not being humiliated, he probably was acutely embarrassed that he'd been so thoroughly conned by the producers of the flim.
However, the only people who should really be humiliated or embarrassed are that lackwit Stein & the producers of this empty propaganda. Accuracy aside, it was simply a terrible flim: it bombed in theatres, received half-star reviews from all corners of the entertainment (& scientific & general) press (and was basically ignored everywhere but in the US; most of the world hasn't even heard its allegedly vital and world-changing message) and was only ever going to gain sales from the already-converted. Far from changing anyone's minds and bringing in new converts, this has (1) simply reinforced Creationist ignorance and (2) strengthened the resolve of those who fight the standard Creationist tactics of misrepresentation, quote-mining, wilful, persistent, baffling ignorance of established scientific fact, infiltration of public schools under false pretences and in contravention of the US Constitution (just watch PBS/Nova's "Dover" documentary or read Lauri Lebo's "The Devil In Dover") and their constant, flat-out "bearing of false witness".
[cue: assertion from a Creationist that because I agree with the Bible about lying being wrong, I believe in the Bible]
Fact: Stein & co. CHOSE to remain ignorant about what the theory of evolution says (and, importantly, what it doesn't say) and they CHOSE to present two hours of easily-debunked fallacies on screen – knowing full-well that their target audience of Creationists would lap it up without a second thought. They wilfully presented information that is false, not the least of which was the non-existent link between Darwin's theory of evolution and the Nazis. Quick version: Nazi breeding experiments were NOT based on the theory of natural selection, they were purely artificial selection in exactly the same way that farmers & animal breeders cross-breed for specific traits.
What's more, Stein & co didn't even explain what exactly their theory of Intelligent Design IS, what it predicts or how to investigate it: the entire movie is merely a transparent & shameful hit-piece on Darwin & evolution.
Quick science lesson: you simply cannot say "I believe in Theory A but not Theory B; therefore Theory B is false". You have to show not only WHY Theory B is false; more importantly, you have to show evidence FOR Theory A. "Expelled" does neither; it asserts evolution is wrong (without evidence) and barely even touches on the subject of Intelligent Design – the viewer's left wondering what the hell ID says about anything. However, I believe that's deliberate: this film aims to preach to the converted and not to present any compelling evidence either for ID or against evolution.
Fact: I no more worship Richard Dawkins than I worship Dave Gilmour from Pink Floyd or Isaac Asimov, no matter how much I enjoy their work.
Worship of anything or anyone is for those who cannot trust the power of their own minds or the goodness of their own hearts. It is a non-argument to project your personal needs for a saviour and someone to worship on to those who don't share the same needs.
The obvious fact that you require something to worship and someone to save you does not automatically mean that your requirement is shared by anyone else.
[cue scripture lesson & pity for depraved atheists]
http://www.EXPELLEDEXPOSED.com
Hank
How do you define worship? Is it the way that you want to define it? Here is the Biblical definition of worship and how it is seen in our world today.
Worship comes from the Hebrew words "shachah" and "abad". Here is the meaning; to bow down before a superior to give homage, to labor or work for (ie serve someone).
Worship is that which you bow down before, that which you serve. All people serve something. Some serve money (that is what they think about, that is what drives them, that is where they spend most of their time and energy, etc.). Others serve power, material possessions, another person, themselves, science (you for example) etc. I chose to worship God (spend my time getting to know Him and doing what He says). So you see, all people serve/worship something. The question is not if I worship but what/whom do I worship.
Mr Brewer…
*sigh*
I define "worship" the same as most other people – the same as you just have in your own words (so I find it very curious that you're accusing me of re-defining it when we basically agree on its meaning and are using it in the same freaking context): "bow down to; be subservient towards". It also carries these meanings: "love uncritically", "show devotion to a deity", "venerate as a GOD".
I maintain that I do not worship or venerate (or feel the need to do same to) ANYTHING or ANYONE. I used to worship and I know what it entails so do me the honour of not presuming to know my mind.
[cue assertion that I wasn't "worshipping properly"]
I categorically do not worship (venerate as a deity or love uncritically or, ugh, bloody well bow down to) science, money, reason, logic, music, humanitarianism, beagles, Richard Dawkins, Pink Floyd or anything (or anyone) else that I love or that adds to the colour or quality of my life. It is possible to love and appreciate and enjoy a thing or person without elevating it or them to a point of uncritical veneration and subservience.
Now, I think you & I both know the context of the word "worship" in this conversation. To intentionally dilute or deflect its meaning in order to encompass everyone who does anything for any reason is a dishonourable & dishonest tactic. It's also a transparent ploy to shift the conversation off-topic; to move the damn goalposts so you can have yourself a win – however, I'm quite happy to take the ball and run with it, whichever direction you now expect me to kick.
The question here is indeed whether a person worships or not – to simply make a sweeping generalisation that "everyone worships something" is false, without evidence and incorrect. Only after the question "do you worship" is answered "yes" can we get down to the specifics of the object or entity being worshipped. Your attempt to ascribe to everyone the answer "yes" in advance is again moving the goalposts in your own favour. Again, I'm happy to take the ball.
The fact is this: not everyone is like you and not everyone thinks like you do, regardless of whether you like it or whether you agree with it. Denying reality doesn't disprove it. Denying the Emperor's nudity does not clothe the fat naked bastard.
[cue assertion that nonreligious people, in fact, do exactly the same things as religious people; they just do it differently which of course means everyone's actually religious even if they don't know it (but that really just means they won't admit it)]
Hank
So, whatever you devote the most of your time, energy, effort, etc. to doing, that is what you worship. You worship something whether you want to admit it or not. You can deny it day and night but fact is fact. You can blame me for shifting the focus but that is what you are doing. I explained what the word worship means in the Biblical context and how it is seen in day to day life. Again, facts are facts yet you can choose to deny them if you want. That is your choice.
I have never called anyone to think or be like me. I defend the Word of God. I do want people to know the Word of God (study It for themselves leaving out all of their biases) and will give anyone who wants advice on how to study. I will point out the lies that people bring about the Word of God (as I have done on this site).
The Bible says (Jesus Himself) that most will not accept the Word of God and that is their choice. Jesus did not chase after the rich young ruler. He shared the Truth and the man did not like it so he walked away. I expect many more to reject the Truth of the Word of God than accept It. But I continue on for the ones who will accept.
*SIGH* What unbelievable mendacity. What utter nerve. What complete bald-faced, dishonest bone-headedness.
YOU both shifted the focus of this thread to worship and then YOU redefined worship to basically mean "whatever people spend their time on or whatever they like doing". And then you had the gall to accuse me of the exact things you just did.
To clarify the order of events: (1) my post was about the movie Expelled; (2) your first comment was an direct response to my post; (3) my first comment was a direct response to that – then (4) in your second comment YOU injected that tangent about worship (including its Hebrew etymology), which I replied to, including standard English dictionary definitions of "worship" & indicating my non-worshipping status. Now, breathtakingly, you accuse ME of not only changing the freakin subject but also redefining "worship"!
So, you and your team think that "whatever you devote the most of your time, energy, effort, etc. to doing, that is what you worship." That's a redefinition if ever there was one.
I never said you "called people" to be or think like you either. What I observed from reading your comment is that you think everyone's ALREADY like you and ALREADY thinks like you, with your incorrect assumption everyone worships something. Of course, if you were able to comprehend what I write instead of just skimming it and picking out the bits you can get a grip on, you would've realised that.
By the way, what the hell is evangelism if it's not an attempt to bring people around to your way of thinking?
The lack of comprehension, the dishonesty, the hypocrisy, the pure nerve to tar me with your own brush … it's pathetic. Pitiful. Painful! But pretty entertaining, if I'm honest. And it's doing wonders for my typing speed!
Now, if we could get back to Expelled (remember the topic?) that would be great.
[cue more mendacious rambling, pot/kettle analogy-inducing lackwittedness & hypocrisy, all interspersed with yawnful scripture-worship and coma-inducing evangelism, goddam I'm getting sick of this bullshit]
I just read back and it seems I did indeed mention worship in my first response!
However, the few small paragraphs that did mention it made up perhaps one sixth of the entire comment and were on-topic, directly rebutting Mr Brewer's baseless claim of Dawkins' saviourhood amongst the non-religious. To concentrate on that small part of my comment & ignore everything else, while devoting the entire rest of his next comment to worship tells me that Mr Brewer had absolutely nothing to say in response to my main points, which comprised the vast majority of the body of the comment.
Reeks like Standard Creationist Operating Procedure: skim-read, isolate what you can argue against, proceed with all guns blazing against the horrid atheist and all his demands for such worthless, earthly trinkets as facts, evidence, honesty & honour.
[cue giant shovel of bollocks]
"You can deny it day and night but fact is fact."
(Sigh) It's like debating with a Furby.
There's an old saying; I think it comes from Usenet:
"Do not feed the trolls."
I finally figured it out for myself in another thread, and I recommend it highly.
• Hank
You are the one who brought up worship in a derogatory comment so I just corrected your mistake. I explained where you were wrong (you are a worshipper as all people are). Claiming ignorance to what worship (that is what you are doing) does not change the fact. I wish you guys could understand that fact for just one minute in your lives.
You hate the fact that I point out where you are wrong (pride does that to people). I defined how the word worship came about in its original context. People are basically the same everywhere you go (I know because I have been there and met them). They think about the meaning of life, why we are here, and where we go when we die. There is a way that explains all of those answers (God does in His Word). People either listen to God’s explanation or they make up their own (ie man-made religions, or worldviews such as evolution). So people basically think the same. People all over the world battle with sin (because all are born slave to it). It influences their thinking and actions. Also everyone, everywhere worships (serves) something, devoting their time, energy, effort, etc. You can deny facts all you want but they still remain. I read everything that you write my way (at me).
Again, you learn a lot from a person by his language. I have noticed one thing similar among the uneducated (not all of them). The fact that they can all swear really well, so good job Hank of your mastering of profanity. It also reveals what kind of heart that you have.
Evangelism – comes from the Greek word “euaggelion” which is where we get the English word “Gospel”. It literally means “good news”. Evangelism means sharing the “good news” of Jesus Christ so that man can be set free from His slavery to sin and reestablish a relationship with God. I am not here to convince, just share the “good news” but again, I guess you knew all of that from your so called “Christian” days.
There has been no dishonesty on my part. I have noticed that you guys (liberals or free thinkers or atheists) use the same pattern. When loosing the argument you begin to attack the character of the one who is beating you (good tactic, dishonest on your part for trying to shift the focus). Hypocrisy? Look at your own double standard of using the Bible to disprove God and yet telling me I cannot use the Bible to prove God (look in the mirror).
Glad that I could help the typing speed (we can move to the brain speed later).
Giving your comment at the end to intimidate me from writing the facts will not derail me. Good try though!
You wrote “Reeks like Standard Creationist Operating Procedure: skim-read, isolate what you can”
Standard free thinker/liberal/atheist tactic, described by one himself. At least you admit that you are aware of the tactics that you use even if not admitting the use.
See what we have to deal with? Constant goal-post shifting and bold-faced lies, coming from this self-proclaimed herald of the "The Truth".
Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers were lied to, in order to make them look the part of the ranting atheist. That's not a good ethic standpoint for film making, if you're going for informational documentaries.
Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russel, Charles Darwin…All great men, philosophers, scientists, whatever profession they took.
Does that mean that any atheist worth his salt worships them unconditionally, or holds them in high regard, no matter what?
No. I worship no man, woman, god, devil, pile of gold, whatever you'll inevitably say that atheists worship.
No golden statues, no piles of money or flocks of women, no gods, nothing is worth worship. Not even your god, if he exists, is worth worship. Anyone who drowns the world, with the power to just forgive them all, isn't worth a wooden nickel when it comes to worship.
Ahh, but you'll come up with something condescendingly pious to counter, probably a bible verse or two, then click submit, cackling with delight as you yet again 'bring light to these godless, mistaken heathens'. What a crock of shit.
Had this been RD.Net, you would've been banned for preaching, personal attacks, and not bringing anything new to the discussion.
And yes, I would've been warned for the insults tossed your way, but they're warranted, because you really are a conceited little twerp, your lack of humility prevents you from conceding, as you should, and your ideas are pestilent remains from a desert tribe, undeserving of the amount of focus it gets in our country.
Back to Expelled. The movie really was a piece of trash, the information content was laughable, if not a chilling reminder of how far we have to go to change the perceptions of atheism to all those religious fundamentalists.
Hank
As to the religion of evolution, Hitler was applying evolutionary teaching by naming the Arian race as the superior one (through the process of evolution of course). He wanted to speed up evolution though (survival of the fittest) because he had the same problem with evolution that we have today (lack of proof of it happening) so he decided to wipe out the inferior races beginning with the Jews and of course wanting to move to blacks etc. That is what evolution teaches, there is no sanctity in life. That is why the feminists curse Palin for killing animals and curse her for wanting to stop the murder of innocent babies in their mothers’ womb. How could they think like that? Oh yeah, since we all “evolved” then the life of an unborn child in no more valuable than the life of a wolf (how ridiculous). Hitler wanted to silence all his critics (evolution wants no rival). Hitler took away the right to bear arms (democrats want the same, which interestingly enough usually lean toward atheism/liberalism/free thinking).
In “Expelled” we saw how the critiques of evolution (in the science world) are systematically silenced from even questioning evolution (ie testing it to see if it is legit). By the way, Dawkins was destroyed by Stein (like it or not).
I noticed how you skipped the part about exterminating the inferior races and moved on to scientific experiments to make it “seem” as there is no connection between Hitler and evolution. Good try but you were caught.
Evangelism. Personally, I like to spread the good news about PIE, one of my favorites is mixed berry, though sometimes a piece of cake is very tasty as well. No matter the dessert choice anyone makes, I attempt to understand from whence it comes, and work hard not to attack them or feel superior, as the Dessert Wars were one of the most tragic events in human history.
Nothing is worse than encountering what was once a smart, passionate group of people sprawled across a banquet table. Human beings smeared with berry juice and frosting, smelling of tapioca pudding, forks and spoons poking out of unlikely places. They are dead, or dead to the world. The horror. The waste.
Join with me to prevent this from happening again. The therapy bills from the sight I encountered last time almost required a TARP bill.
pie, cake, pudding, ice cream,no matter. We can all get along if we try.
http://www.weebls-stuff.com/wab/pie/
• Mobius 1
I have not changed anything. I have spoken the message from the beginning and will continue to speak the Word of God. It applies to every situation because It exposes all the lies that are brought against God.
Dawkins is a ranting atheists (have you not read what he writes, he was a ranting atheist before the film). So again I say, get your facts straight.
Praise them all you want but the fact is that it is just ignorant to reject God and try to fight against Him (the whole futile/depraved mind argument that we have already had).
All people worship something/someone. I know that you cannot admit it but it is true. Again, whatever you spend the most of your time, energy, money, thoughts, etc. on, that is the thing that you worship. What do you spend the majority of your time, energy, money, thoughts, etc. on? Answer that question and you will know what/whom you worship.
Why did He drown the world? Do you even know? God has the power to forgive but His just characteristic must be satisfied (ie sin must be punished completely). That is why the Gospel is such good news. He, Himself, became the sacrifice. He punished Himself for the sins of the world and justice was served. Now we can come to Him and be freed from our sins without having to pay the price because He has already paid it. Obviously you do not understand how the legal system works. A crime must be punished (there is no simple “forgiveness” and go home). If you are guilty you have to pay. We are all guilty of sin, therefore have to pay the price. God stepped in and paid it for us.
Again, the language of the uneducated is vulgar (either get educated or speak with some dignity). Your words reveal your heart!!!
By the way, you never say anything about the arguments that I give you that destroys your arguments. You just move on to another topic. Why is that? Oh yeah, you cannot accept defeat.
If you will read carefully you will notice that I have been the one who has been attacked personally. I am sure you would like to ban all arguments that disprove your own (Hitler was the same way, Stalin as well).
I hope that you realize that Israel will be here long after you are gone!!!
Erik: Hitler (like Stalin) was a fan of Lamarckian evolution, a theory in competition with Darwin's. Hitler even made speeches against Darwin's ideas. In either case, selective breeding programs predate evolutionary theory by centuries.
And if you want to impress us with your deep knowledge of European history, at least spell "Aryan" correctly.
Lisa, how sadly you have been led astray by false prophets. Tell me, what food has a scientific name that means "food of the gods"? Only one that I am aware of. Away with your false desserts that do not satisfy the soul! The only true dessert is one containing chocolate, the purer the better.
Dan Klarmann
selective breeding is evolution, survival of the fittest. I see you got the idea even if it were misspelled (never miss an opportunity to take a cheap shot, good job).
Vicki, don't think of me as a heretic. Mixed berry PIE is only one of my favorites! Chocolate pie is, perhaps, even more dear to my heart.
And I was right, you would just pass me off as another typical atheist. What condescending foolishness you show with every post.
You bore me, Erik. You offer nothing new to the table, except bible verses we've all known to be tossed our way before.
Lets get back to what you've been saying, and refute them, one by one.
Erik wrote "I have not changed anything. I have spoken the message from the beginning and will continue to speak the Word of God. It applies to every situation because It exposes all the lies that are brought against God."
Your word of god is nothing but an outdated tapestry from an age gone by, thankfully, because if we went by your gods word, we'd still be thinking that witches float because the water rejects them, the planet is flat AND the center of the universe, women are second to men, etc.
Luckily, advances in science gave us medical and technological advances so that we can live in relative comfort, and post on discussion boards through the world wide web.
Here's something to think about: Since your god is all-powerful, all-knowing, and benevolent, why create this grand farce of a life we all lead, only to condemn 90% of the worlds population to a place he created? Wait, I already know your answer: Satan leads everyone astray, and only those who follow the light shall be saved? Does that sum up your answer?
Erik wrote – "Dawkins is a ranting atheists (have you not read what he writes, he was a ranting atheist before the film). So again I say, get your facts straight.
Praise them all you want but the fact is that it is just ignorant to reject God and try to fight against Him (the whole futile/depraved mind argument that we have already had)."
I've read The God Delusion, Blind Watchmaker, and Unweaving the Rainbow. The man is a brilliant biologist, who's accomplishments have yielded many advancements in science. Everyone has their own voice, and his is a bit on the incendiary side. As is mine, but it's hardly ranting, compared to people like you. I see far more christians alone with spit flying from their mouths, calling everyone else a heretic, demanding that they be treated special, and everyone else inferior. What great examples of christian charity.
Praise? I read his books, watch his lectures, listen to his words, but I don't praise unquestioningly. Get it right, for once.
Erik wrote – "All people worship something/someone. I know that you cannot admit it but it is true. Again, whatever you spend the most of your time, energy, money, thoughts, etc. on, that is the thing that you worship. What do you spend the majority of your time, energy, money, thoughts, etc. on? Answer that question and you will know what/whom you worship."
There you go, making generalizations about everyone, making the assumption that everyone needs something to worship. Worshiping has no impact on my life, because praying to the ceiling does nothing. Maybe the voices in your head tell you otherwise, but I don't think you understand psychosis.
I worship nothing. Piles of cash have no feeling, because they're pieces of paper. My girlfriend would be creeped out by me worshiping her. Adoration and affection are one thing, worship is another.
Get that silly idea out of your head, it's poisoning your thought process.
Erik wrote – "Why did He drown the world? Do you even know? God has the power to forgive but His just characteristic must be satisfied (ie sin must be punished completely)."
Gotta say, the flood story is a pretty sad one indeed. Never mind the complete loss of life, including the sterilization of ALL terrestrial plants, the inbreeding aspect of all the animals and humans alone is enough to shatter the flood story.
Ah, but the family spread across the 'globe', reseeding humanity as we see it today? What about the Native and South Americans, who came across the Bering Strait, ten thousand years before the christian faith even said it started going down? Are you just going to write off the rest of the planet just because it doesn't fit your view? Come on, quit being such a baby and concede to facts.
Oh, and this link should enlighten you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bering_Land_Bridge
You're like a kid, hanging onto the Santa Claus story.
Erik Wrote – That is why the Gospel is such good news. He, Himself, became the sacrifice. He punished Himself for the sins of the world and justice was served. Now we can come to Him and be freed from our sins without having to pay the price because He has already paid it. Obviously you do not understand how the legal system works. A crime must be punished (there is no simple “forgiveness” and go home). If you are guilty you have to pay. We are all guilty of sin, therefore have to pay the price. God stepped in and paid it for us."
Don't you see the dilemma in all that? He sacrificed himself…to himself? That's rather inefficient, because a much easier way is for him to come down, plant a nice big chair right on the landscape that would stay for a couple millennium, and basically forgive everyone. To kill himself to satiate himself implies that he enjoys suffering. And, to top it off, Jesus was sinless. An innocent sent to death for the sins of others? Only a truly messed up mind would consider that to be a good way to forgive everyone.
And god was responsible for sin as well, since he created it. By creating an easily accessible tree of knowledge, and allowing Eve to eat of its fruit, implies that he's incompetent, as well as psychotic. Way to go, man.
Erik wrote – "Again, the language of the uneducated is vulgar (either get educated or speak with some dignity). Your words reveal your heart!!!"
My language is part of the frustration I feel whenever your boorish responses fail to counter anyone elses, yet you trudge on, oblivious to the gaping holes in your arguments.
Erik wrote – "By the way, you never say anything about the arguments that I give you that destroys your arguments. You just move on to another topic. Why is that? Oh yeah, you cannot accept defeat. "
I said you'd go for the condescension, and you did. Bravo, you're nothing special. The ignorance that you show only reinforces the appearance that you're nothing, save a fundamentalist with his fingers in his ears.
I've given you links to scientific papers that blow AO out of the water.
I've given you personal testimony that blows your assertions that atheists are evil right out of the sky. As have many others.
I can't accept defeat? Ha! You can't accept facts, just like you can't accept the general feeling here from generally happy and content atheists and freethinking people in general. We sicken you, because we get along without god just fine, if not better, than you expected to see. Get over yourself.
Erik wrote – "If you will read carefully you will notice that I have been the one who has been attacked personally. I am sure you would like to ban all arguments that disprove your own (Hitler was the same way, Stalin as well). I hope that you realize that Israel will be here long after you are gone!!!"
So? You come on here with condescending attitude, bold-faced lies about facts, and consider all of our views wrong, no matter how much evidence is shown. And you expect all of us to respect that? I don't hold ignorance very high on my list of favorable attributes, and you've shown that your pigheadedness is more important that facts. I don't respect that.
And banning all arguments that don't go with my view? Only someone who doesn't understand the true nature of tolerance would accuse someone of that.
Quite frankly, any discussion is fine. Yours, however, is tiresome. I've heard it all before, a hundred times over. We get it, you're right, we're wrong, bible says so, yadda yadda yadda. It's only when someone preaches, is when I think silencing you for a day or two would be better than letting you go and do your thing. And accusing me of wanting to silence other views, when you go around saying we're all wrong…You're quite the hypocritical little shit.
Bring something new to the table, maybe then I'll be more receptive to your arguments. Bible verses and condescending attitudes get you nowhere.
I've evaded nothing. I just choose to ignore your insults. And since that rules out 80% of your posts, I'll just respond as needed.
*yawn*
Thank you, Edgar. No more troll-pellets today and no more Mr Nice Heathen. I could get myself drawn into this pointless vortex of bullshit for days!
I shall instead address the congregation:
As we can see here today, dear colleagues, our latest and most pointlessly prolific specimen, Mr Brewer, is indeed conforming to classical Creationist Arguing Procedure (abbreviated to CrAP for expediency): misrepresent the facts (Hitler followed evolution!); project onto your opponents (you're all worshippers; you're the ones who shift the goalposts!); flat-out lie (evolution is a religion!); portray any atheist with a public persona as "ranting" (or militant or strident); side-track the topic into one he thinks he can win and then shift the goalposts by re-defining the game (worship!); evangelise constantly (whether on-topic or not and regardless of whether anyone's actually paying attention); deny absolutely any & all rebuttals of the aforementioned CrAP; employ guilt by association – throw atheists, liberals & freethinkers together in the same pot with Hitler, Stalin and anyone else who's even done anything bad but who wasn't overtly religious [as if that in anyway disproves the atheist position anyway]); and then the clincher: the Pigeon Chess manouevre. It goes like this: swoop into a game, knock all the pieces over, flap about & coo a bit, knock the pieces over, shit all over the board then fly back to the nest to claim victory.
Of course, that by no means is a comprehensive list, dear friends. But the good news is that most of the standard CrAP elements have been rolled out by our specimen in just this comment thread alone. "But why is that Good News?" I hear you ask.
Well, all we have to do now is get our specimen to reveal his almost certain homophobia (no doubt carrying a disclaimer that he doesn't hate them, he cares for them and worries for their souls as they've turned away from God) and we've got ourselves a FUNDIE BINGO!
[cue the next round of trolling by our pigeon which will no doubt feature coos of "victory is mine", more gooey splashes of CrAP and more generic copy+paste pamphleteering]
Probably a good thing I deleted my page and a half rebuttal, simply because it played into his little game. Hank summed it up nicely.
Hank wrote: "Of course, that by no means is a comprehensive list, dear friends."
Off the top of my head, I'd add wrath (messages changed from simple preaching to outright execration), envy (in its most general sense; "those who commit the sin of envy resent that another person has something they perceive themselves as lacking, and wish the other person to be deprived of it" — Wikipedia), and pride (lots and lots of pride). Three out of seven.
"All people worship something/someone. I know that you cannot admit it but it is true. Again, whatever you spend the most of your time, energy, money, thoughts, etc. on, that is the thing that you worship. What do you spend the majority of your time, energy, money, thoughts, etc. on? Answer that question and you will know what/whom you worship."
OMFG!!!!!111oneoneone
I worship high school marching band. I knew from the moment my kid signed up to play saxophone that it was some kind of cult. Now I'm certain of it. I'm making cookies, sewing flags, hauling instruments and equipment, letting the kids practice at my house, taking minutes at the monthly meetings. . .it goes on and on! Here I thought I was just helping out the kids, enjoying the company of the other parents, showing support for my child, but now I know it for what it truly is!
What the heck am I going to worship after she graduates? Man, that's gonna be tough.
But, Lisa, the thought of you enjoying your sacreligious berry "PIE" means that I can't enjoy my chocolate mousse! In fact, your perverse desire for "mixed" berries undermines the very institution of dessert! 🙂