Author Topic: Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists  (Read 18731 times)

Offline Lumpy

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 547
Re: Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists
« Reply #150 on: April 22, 2008, 10:22:45 AM »
Remember Stein isn't being rational.
“I’m an angel. I kill first borns while their mommas watch. I turn cities into salt. I even – when I feel like it – rip the souls from little girls and now until kingdom come the only thing you can count on, in your existence, is never ever understanding why.”

-Archangel Gabriel, The P

Offline lambo31

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 470
Re: Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists
« Reply #151 on: April 22, 2008, 10:22:54 AM »
http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20080418/cm_uc_crbbox/op_235852


Anyone else really interested in seeing this film? It honestly sounds really interesting :D


wikipedia article on the film:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed

at least some one is doing films that counter the michael snores of this world. :aok



I'm very anxious to see it. It's not currently playing in the town I live in and the closest is over an hour and a half away. I may wait for it come out on dvd.


Lambo
Ingame ID: Lambo

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists
« Reply #152 on: April 22, 2008, 10:28:56 AM »
Why are you anxious to see it?
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline SkyRock

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7758
Re: Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists
« Reply #153 on: April 22, 2008, 10:54:22 AM »
Why are you anxious to see it?
He liked "Ferris Bueller's Day Off"!

Triton28 - "...his stats suggest he has a healthy combination of suck and sissy!"

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
Re: Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists
« Reply #154 on: April 22, 2008, 11:55:27 AM »

I'm sorry, but that is not a rebuttal to the irreducible complexity argument. 


Heres a way to look at the funny math associated with the "complexity" argument:

What are the chances of you talking to me on line. Now intuitively we know that they are pretty good since we are talking. But if I were to calculate the odds of you talking to someone named midnight target they would be something like 1 in 64,509,974,703,297,150,976

So it is impossible for us to be talking.

Offline Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
Re: Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists
« Reply #155 on: April 22, 2008, 11:56:21 AM »
Believing in something for which there is no evidence is irrational. But when you examine the very foundation of Christian thinking, for example Proverbs 35-6: "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding." you come to realise that "faith" is just another synonym of "irrationality"; lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence; not governed by or according to reason. Thus trying to appeal to a person's reason when that person's very core being is unreasonable is an exercise in futility.


Wouldn't that be true for Jewish and Muslim faiths also?
See Rule #4

Offline Lumpy

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 547
Re: Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists
« Reply #156 on: April 22, 2008, 12:02:37 PM »
It is true for all belief systems based on "faith" (even some secular ones). I just used Christianity as an example most people here are intimately familiar with.
“I’m an angel. I kill first borns while their mommas watch. I turn cities into salt. I even – when I feel like it – rip the souls from little girls and now until kingdom come the only thing you can count on, in your existence, is never ever understanding why.”

-Archangel Gabriel, The P

Offline myelo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
Re: Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists
« Reply #157 on: April 22, 2008, 12:48:32 PM »
Remember Stein isn't being rational.

If only.

People believe in all sorts of crazy stuff. For example, Lazs believes in ghosts.  Doesn't bother me, it's harmless.

But ID is a calculated political movement in response to Edwards v. Aguillard that seeks political and popular support for teaching  a particular religious belief in public schools. Their strategy involves renaming creationism, otherwise know as putting lipstick on a pig, and scientific-sounding attacks on biologic evolution in an attempt to create controversy on matters that have been long settled on a scientific basis. Stein's movie is just another part of the whole ID political movement.

Personal belief is a personal matter. But when political groups try to push their personal beliefs into the classroom it affects everybody.
myelo
Bastard coated bastard, with a creamy bastard filling

Offline iWalrus

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 114
Re: Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists
« Reply #158 on: April 22, 2008, 01:00:57 PM »

Wouldn't that be true for Jewish and Muslim faiths also?

Yup! Hinduism, Rastafarianism, you name it. Same goes for a stalwart belief that it is impossible for there to be a creator. Just as the inarguable belief that evolution did not occur.
That's all.

WalrusG

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists
« Reply #159 on: April 22, 2008, 01:26:20 PM »
It is arguable.. All there'd need to be is something like a whole eon with no evolution, or something.  Only there's been no such evidence so far.
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline lambo31

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 470
Re: Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists
« Reply #160 on: April 22, 2008, 01:31:56 PM »
Why are you anxious to see it?

I'm a creationist Christian so naturally I would like to see it. But all the fuss it's making with the evolutionist makes it even more interesting.

Lambo
Ingame ID: Lambo

Offline kamilyun

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1467
Re: Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists
« Reply #161 on: April 22, 2008, 01:36:01 PM »
<puts on hip waders>

The following comes with the caveat that science cannot explain "why we are here" or "what came before the big bang" which really are the big questions that everyone is going after.  As much comfort as I'd like to find in the afterlife, I cannot honestly convince myself that there is one.  That said, I can't see any reason why there can't be a creator. 

As for evolution, creationism, ID, etc:

I would humbly suggest that folks who don't believe in evolution head to the library and pick up a copy of a genetics textbook (molecular genetics, genomics, etc.).  The Darwinian version of events is almost not needed once you appreciate the molecular background for life, evolution, regulation of metabolism, etc.  This branch of science only really got going after Watson and Crick gave us the structure of DNA (although Mendel might disagree).  As such, most of this doesn't make it into textbooks until the 80's and after.

To say that evolution cannot occur is to completely dismiss the mechanisms that provide diabetics with insulin, give us the flu shot, yield drug resistant bacteria, cause cancer or give us the latest generation of cancer therapies.  I suppose we could just chalk it up to the devil and god battling it out in our bodies.

In some sense, our genome is the "Bible" of modern science.  It is a recorded history of our ancestry.  We can observe (in real time) the small changes that occur all the time. 

Take it or leave it, science got us to where we are.  You could argue we're no happier, lead no more fulfilling lives and I would not disagree.  The fact is, though, we live 2x as long as we did 200 years ago and have a crapload of toys to play with during our short, miserable lives.  IMO, to cherry pick scientific results to suit your belief system is a bit disingenuous.  We could all just pray that we get better and not go see the doctor.

Offline Donzo

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
      • http://www.bops.us
Re: Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists
« Reply #162 on: April 22, 2008, 01:39:56 PM »
Heres a way to look at the funny math associated with the "complexity" argument:

What are the chances of you talking to me on line. Now intuitively we know that they are pretty good since we are talking. But if I were to calculate the odds of you talking to someone named midnight target they would be something like 1 in 64,509,974,703,297,150,976

So it is impossible for us to be talking.

You're going to have to explain this logic a little better. 

Are you saying that there is a chance that the person I am responding to right now is not you...the person that chose midnight Target as their ID on this message board?  Short of the software running this board not working as intended, the chance that I am responding to someone named midnight Target on this board is 100%.  So I do not understand your logic with the example you gave.

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists
« Reply #163 on: April 22, 2008, 01:46:26 PM »
Lambo anyone who doesn't account for the skewed interview segments is after something else than the truth in their report/apreciation of the movie, christian creationist or not.
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline SirLoin

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5705
Re: Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists
« Reply #164 on: April 22, 2008, 01:53:49 PM »

Personal belief is a personal matter. But when political groups try to push their personal beliefs into the classroom it affects everybody.

Exactly..When a religious person tells me that his belief in God gives him a warm feeling inside and makes him happy,he's usually lying...He's not happy until i believe it too.
**JOKER'S JOKERS**