Expelled breaks weekend top 10/documentary top 25
From The Raw Story, April 20:
….Monday’s media reports pegged the Stein documentary as a modest hit.
The Guardian observed that “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” surprisingly gate-crashed the top 10, opening in ninth place with $3.1m.”
“In a bit of a surprise, Ben Stein’s conservative documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed did reasonably good business in its debut ($3.1M),” LAist noted.
MTV pointed out that a documentary coming from what could be construed as the other side did even worse: “Among other new releases, intelligent-design-supporting, Ben Stein-starring documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed created $3.1 million out of thin air for a ninth-place finish. And the terrorist-hunting, Morgan Spurlock-starring documentary Where in the World Is Osama Bin Laden? tanked, earning just $143,000 in 102 theaters.”…
According to the website Box Office Mojo, Exp[elled] already has earned enough money to garner it #26 on the list of all-time top grossing documentaries in the United States. With its weekend earnings of $3,153,000 which puts it $25,000 behind #25 on the list, Expelled is poised to pass the critically acclaimed Grizzly Man sometime today [JLS note: Expelled is now at #25 according to Mojo.]
The documentary almost certainly will reach the top 15 bracket, but probably will fade before reaching the top ten….
We’ll see.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
You know, Ben Stein is a really smart guy. Surprising that he’d be involved with it.
ROFL. Didn’t quite hit that Fahrenheit 9/11 $23M mark that was predicted last week, huh?
Doug, I think that whether Ben Stein is actually a smart guy is currently up for debate.
Expelled is poised to pass the critically acclaimed Grizzly Man sometime today
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It’s been a bad week for grizzly men.
“Hi Laura.”
The New York Times:
This is not argument, it
Ben Stein simply asked questions.
The idiot non-believer, charlatan scientists answered them exposing their ignorance and foolishness.
I mean, Dawkins said that he believed aliens deposited life here on earth.
Where’s your elitist comments on that piece of “scientific explanation” NY Times, you joke of a journalistic rag?
“Where’s your elitist comments on that piece of “scientific explanation” NY Times, you joke of a journalistic rag?”
LOL.
Where’s your elitist comments on that piece of “scientific explanation” NY Times, you joke of a journalistic rag?
I have to admit, that got a chuckle out of me, even if I don’t agree with your assessment of the NY Times.
FYI: NY Post is even more blatantly liberal. You should have seen this week’s issue. The feature article was bashing conservative bloggers. I was sad not to see Jill featured, though I think it was more about politics and abortion may have been too narrow a topic.
I mean, Dawkins said that he believed aliens deposited life here on earth.
Um, no he didn’t say that. Ben Stein asked Dawkins to imagine a circumstance under which “intelligent design” of life on earth could have occurred. Dawkins answered his question by discussing a theory called “directed Panspermia”, which is an idea that was proposed by other people. Dawkins did not say that he believed in it.
Ben Stein is an idiot.
However, no matter how much acclaim he got, “Grizzly Man” is still a bigger idiot. Because he went to try and live with grizzly bears and then everyone treated it like a huge tragedy when they ATE HIM.
They’re BEARS, for goodness sake. What the blazes do you expect?
Hi Erin!!
How are you? Is there light at the end of the tunnel in school?
@Erin: Plus…bears are the number 1 threat to America. DUH!
In today’s news:
Showbiz grizzly bear kills trainer-stuntman
A 700-pound grizzly bear attacked and killed a Canyon Country man at a compound near Big Bear Lake that trains wild animals for movies and television work.
Times staff writer Paul Pringle reports:
For unknown reasons, the bear lunged at 39-year-old Stephan Miller, a trainer at Randy Miller’s Predators in Action, about 3 p.m. Tuesday and bit him in the neck, said sheriff’s spokeswoman Cindy Beavers. Miller was pronunced dead at the scene.
Miller was a trainer at Predators in Action, a business whose website says the bear appeared in the recent Will Ferrell movie “Semi-Pro.” The website also says it has “the best-trained grizzly bears in the business today.”
Photo: Christina Bush/Associated Press
Oh, man, Carla, this is killing me. I don’t get a summer vacation! We run on a quarter system so at some point I’ll get 10 days off, but I’m also somehow managing to work 40hr a week at the restaurant. I’m going to work myself to death like this!
Oh Erin I’m sorry you’re busy. You can always become a good natured hobo though. = )
Laura, yeah – and now I know why you said it was a tough day for grizzly men.
I saw “Grizzly Man” on TV a while back…I thought.
The all-conquering “Bart,” below, now gone almost 8 years.
OMG! Everyone panic there’s a bear on this site! Quick we have to soil ourselves!!!!
*runs and hides*
“OMG! Everyone panic there’s a bear on this site! Quick we have to soil ourselves!!!!”
Way ahead of you, Jess.
Lol…Bobby, at this point, Gianna should really be the only one at your house that soils herself regularly.
Hey Doug-
The guy who owned Bart still raises orphaned bears. There was an Animal Planet documentary about his bear haven that was hosted by Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anniston.
I like that guy because he states over and over and over again that these animals aren’t PETS!
“Lol…Bobby, at this point, Gianna should really be the only one at your house that soils herself regularly.”
Haha, you’d think so Erin… yet here we are…
Ah, I’m just being a goof ball. Been quite a long time since I’ve soiled myself, I believe…
There was an Animal Planet documentary about his bear haven that was hosted by Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anniston.
I like that guy because he states over and over and over again that these animals aren’t PETS!
Are you telling me that he had to tell Jennifer and Brad more than once that these aren’t pets? Sheesh, I knew they weren’t that bright, but….
Erin,
You sound like you could use some R & R!! Was hoping you were wrapping up finals and heading off to a beach somewhere with friends……:)
I’ve got my period. I’m not going outside for a run cause the scent of my blood will atract bears.
This is why we can’t have a female president. Bears will be in thw White House
So many spelling errors.
TMI Jess, TMI.
Btw, Jill, was this supposed to be titled “Expelled breaks weekend top documentary”? Because it says Exposed instead…and every time I look at the tab I SWEAR it says “exposed breasts” and not “exposed breaks”
Jess,
lol
Erin,
lol
Well Carla, at least I’m not doing a performance art piece on it =)
Yes, Jess! Good thing.
seems like a good movie! I’m dying to see it.
I mean, Dawkins said that he believed aliens deposited life here on earth.
In addition to Hieronymous’s excellent riposte to this statement of yours, HisMan, I submit this question to you: is the idea that aliens deposited life on earth really any less fantastical than the idea that some old God dude with white hair and a beard floating in the sky, but whom nobody can see, created the earth and every living thing on it in seven days, and capped it off by making Eve from Adam’s rib? I don’t necessarily believe it, but the alien thing seems a lot more plausible to me.
Ray, 7:12:
If aliens started things going on earth who started the prior aliens? More aliens?
God is the simplest answer. You don’t have to explain where God came from. He always was.
Why is that so tough to swallow?
“If aliens started things going on earth who started the prior aliens? More aliens?”
That was the point of Dawkin’s explanation. In the end the aliens would have had to evolve.
Janet said: “If aliens started things going on earth who started the prior aliens? More aliens?”
PIP said:That was the point of Dawkin’s explanation. In the end the aliens would have had to evolve.
The aliens would have had to evolve from what? We’re back to square one. Then Dawkins didn’t really answer the question, did he? He still has no idea of how life for the aliens began.
Janet,
evolution says nothing at all about how life began.
PIP:
I haven’t been following all the arguments, I’m only commenting on the movie, Expelled, so I plead ignorant. Sorry!
Some old God dude? LOL Right. Funny how that’s only in CARTOONS and not anywhere in my Bible. hmmm…
What was said in this movie was correct, in my opinion–I believe that people start with a worldview and then interpret the evidence in accordance with their own personal worldview. To say that any one of us is “impartial” is a complete LIE.
Richard Dawkins is EXTREMELY against religious people and religion of any kind. He made that clear in the movie and he’s made it clear in his writings. For him, atheism IS his religion, and he’s proselytizing it. I don’t get how people don’t see that.
He said in this movie that when he saw the “evidence” for evolution, that was the beginning of his crisis of faith, which eventually led him to be “anti-God.” What evidence? I’ve been in high school and college biology classes and I’ve never seen it. I’ve seen some pretty creative illustrations, though. And artist renderings do not equal Truth.
I had a biology teacher explain once that she saw “no good reason” why people couldn’t believe the Bible AND evolution (though apparently Mr. Dawkins saw good reason for it, in his own mind). I’ve had people tell me before that they feel they can believe in Jesus, but they don’t have to believe in Genesis. I find that astonishing.
Evolution would necessitate millions of DEATHS taking place before the FALL OF MAN, as written in Scripture, when what Scripture states is that man’s sin brought death and decay upon the earth. So, if you say that man’s sin did not occur or did NOT bring death, then you negate our need for a Savior, therefore negating the work of Christ on the cross…thereby relegating Christianity to…well, pointless. (One look at the world around you should tell you that man’s sin causes a great deal of destruction.)
What I saw in this film were a bunch of highly educated (and proud of it) people MOCKING anyone who holds any sort of religious views other than atheism. And you think this has nothing to do with FAITH? That it’s only a question of science here? That there’s nothing at all dogmatic about these secular scientists??
Think again.
Janet-
No worries!
Some old God dude? LOL Right. Funny how that’s only in CARTOONS and not anywhere in my Bible. hmmm…
If, as you and the bible allege, man was created in God the Father’s image, how else do you posit he might look?
The rest of your screed reveals a complete lack of understanding of science and scientific methods of research. If there was any, ANY evidence out there that pointed to the hand of a creator, or designer, as you folks now want to call him, then the idea of creation or intelligent design would be taken seriously. But there isn’t any. NONE.
So you can believe anything you want. You can believe in Genesis, or you can believe in the Flying Spaghetti monster. But until there is evidence, your belief is a religion, and it has no business in a science classroom.
Ray, I think I’ll choose NOT to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. After all, I’ve seen no evidence of a trail of meatballs anywhwere. ;)
I’ve studied biology and actually hold a teaching degree. I find it a little insulting that my opinion is viewed as nothing more than a rant to you. So be it. I couldn’t possibly be informed, since I have an opposing viewpoint, right?
Ray, I look at the world and see evidence of global flooding, order and design down to the simplest of cells, and even a sort of “intelligence” in the way a virus can adapt and mutate. How did that all get programmed in there?
We don’t look at a Swiss watch, for goodness’ sake, and deduce that it just “happened by chance and random parts being stuck together over millions of years eventually producing a time-keeping instrument.” Do we?
Therefore, by using simple logic, I can assert that the human body, more complex than anything technology has ever designed, did not occur by an incredible random series of positive mutations over time. It was designed with distinct purposes in mind and functions in ways we don’t even fully understand at this time.
What is the unquestionable evidence for evolution, might I ask? How many of Darwin’s transitional forms have been located? You’d think there would be a myriad of them out there in the fossil record. And so many “new” ideas about evolution continue to be “discovered” all the time and no one can seem to find a consensus.
The problem is, Ray, that there are teachers like my college professor whom I mentioned above, who take it upon themselves to insert their OWN religious beliefs into the classroom. And by squelching ANY discussion of research in the field of intelligent design, they are showing their teachings to be dogma, not science.
In Christianity, there is plenty of room for questioning. And actually, I believe that the questioning can even increase one’s faith–only people of weak faith discourage questioning.
So why is there not even a sentence allowed to be spoken in a science classroom that says “not everyone ascribes to this theory”? The vehemence that has been leveled against intelligent design proponents is shocking for a bunch of scientists …unless you consider that they have allowed their own religious biases to enter the mix.
I went to the NCSE’s website regarding this movie, and you know what I found? I found them questioning interview tactics and I found a lot of namecalling…but I found nothing refuting any of the claims made about ID in the movie. Why is that? Because these snooty scientists would never STOOP so low as to engage in a civil debate? Because we would never want to debate with “crazies?”
One scientist is even quoted as saying that this movie is “…going to appeal strongly to the religious, the paranoid, the conspiracy theorists, and the ignorant
This life is all about choice and loyalty. Am I going to choose to obey the Almighty Creator and be loyal to Him and his Instructions or am I going to rebel against Him and do life my way? God has generously given each individual the right to choose and then to accept the consequences. Choose Him as your personal King and live in his Kingdom forever. Reject Him and you will be banished forever from his Kingdom. No unrepentant rebels allowed. That’s the hard truth. Deal with it. You have until death day.
God is the simplest answer. You don’t have to explain where God came from. He always was.
Actually, if you’re going by Occam’s Razor (the simplest solution is best) that statement is inherently wrong. In the entirety of God that we have dreamt up, he is the MOST COMPLEX answer to our existence. Aliens is a simpler answer, but again, where did the aliens come/evolve from?
To simplify: A leap of faith =/= simple answer.
I’m not Ray, but I found your comments particularly amusing and wanted to respond…
I think I’ll choose NOT to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. After all, I’ve seen no evidence of a trail of meatballs anywhwere. ;)
I’ve seen more meatballs than I’ve seen evidence of God.
I look at the world and see evidence of global flooding,
Interesting, because scientists see evidence of mass flooding in the place where Noah was thought to be from, but no global flooding
order and design down to the simplest of cells,
I’d argue that electrons are not very orderly, at least in no predictable way
and even a sort of “intelligence” in the way a virus can adapt and mutate. How did that all get programmed in there?
Well, if it didn’t evolve, it would die. I don’t think it takes some outside influence to say “This is how to work,” to have an organism try its hardest to work.
We don’t look at a Swiss watch, for goodness’ sake, and deduce that it just “happened by chance and random parts being stuck together over millions of years eventually producing a time-keeping instrument.” Do we?
No, because we know we created it.
Therefore, by using simple logic, I can assert that the human body, more complex than anything technology has ever designed, did not occur by an incredible random series of positive mutations over time. It was designed with distinct purposes in mind and functions in ways we don’t even fully understand at this time.
As a biologist, your ignorance of evolution is astonishingly scary.
What is the unquestionable evidence for evolution, might I ask?
Well, we’ve PERSONALLY OBSERVED micro and macro evolution (you mentioned viruses, which are obvious). For example, why do most people today have their wisdom teeth removed? Answer: our jaws have grown too short to accommodate all those teeth. Some people are being born today without wisdom teeth. Very simple example. Of course, there’s also the fossil record (complete with transitional fossils), chromosomal evidence, and so on…
How many of Darwin’s transitional forms have been located? You’d think there would be a myriad of them out there in the fossil record. And so many “new” ideas about evolution continue to be “discovered” all the time and no one can seem to find a consensus.
Quite a few, actually. I recommend this essay… there are of course, more. Feel free to pick up any number of scientific texts for evidence regarding the fossil record. It’s a myth that there are vast “missing links” between species.
So why is there not even a sentence allowed to be spoken in a science classroom that says “not everyone ascribes to this theory”?
Umm, you’re free to believe whatever BS you want. Scientists just want that BS to be testable.
The vehemence that has been leveled against intelligent design proponents is shocking for a bunch of scientists …unless you consider that they have allowed their own religious biases to enter the mix.
Well, maybe that’s because ID hasn’t brought anything to the table except the incredible idea that some sort of “intelligent designer” had something to do with evolution. As there’s no way of testing that hypothesis, scientists have scoffed at it. They aren’t saying “there is no such thing as God,” or “there is no such thing as an intelligent designer.” They’re saying “That idea is not a scientific one, and therefore is not valid in the scientific community.”
I went to the NCSE’s website regarding this movie, and you know what I found? I found them questioning interview tactics and I found a lot of namecalling…but I found nothing refuting any of the claims made about ID in the movie. Why is that? Because these snooty scientists would never STOOP so low as to engage in a civil debate? Because we would never want to debate with “crazies?”
Because it’s not something that can be tested. It’s a philosophy, not a science.
Well, that’s certainly a great way to endear yourself to people…by calling them a bunch of morons! :D Notice, there’s no debate, only a bunch of insults. I find the arrogance to be a very telling statement about these scientists.
I’d be arrogant too if someone kept insisting on pushing philosophy into science. Mathematicians have it easy. No one expects them to put God in 2+2.
Ray, look out your window, please, and see the evidence of God’s remarkable handiwork. There’s your evidence. Or you could even look in the mirror. :)
Wow, great argument.
Nature is beautiful.
Therefore, God exists.
Way to jump the gun on that conclusion, huh?
Fibbonaci. That’s all I need. Perfection.
And the fact that we respond to it.
I also heard someone talking about strings of E coli. 3 trillion generations and not one change.
I think a lot of people (religious) accept the idea of evolution up to a point. It’s the species jump that we have a problem with.
And let’s not forget miracles. How do we explain those?
You don’t need God to recognize the beauty of nature. Frankly, I find everything MORE incredible when I know the elaborate scientific details behind it. I find the whole idea of God to be very much a human way of screaming at a vast indifferent universe that we are significant- when in fact, we’re less than the blink of an eye on the massive scale of time.
All I know is this:
-A believer in God should be anti-abortion because abortion is a grave offense against the Creator and His creations.
-A non-believer in God should be anti-abortion because if God does not exist, then humans are the greatest beings known to exist in the universe, and should not be wantonly destroyed. In addition, we are all humans, so for us to destroy other humans, especially those who have done absolutely nothing wrong, is atrocious. And finally, if there is no Heaven, then our life on Earth is all there is to existence. An atheist must be pro-life, or else he is in favor of denying people their ONLY chance at existence – an extreme evil by any legitimate ethical standard.
A non-believer in God should be anti-abortion because if God does not exist, then humans are the greatest beings known to exist in the universe, and should not be wantonly destroyed. In addition, we are all humans, so for us to destroy other humans, especially those who have done absolutely nothing wrong, is atrocious. And finally, if there is no Heaven, then our life on Earth is all there is to existence. An atheist must be pro-life, or else he is in favor of denying people their ONLY chance at existence – an extreme evil by any legitimate ethical standard.
John, your lack of an ability to understand how anyone other than yourself might think doesn’t make your arguments true, or even reasonable.
“I also heard someone talking about strings of E coli. 3 trillion generations and not one change.”
MK, that is completely wrong. There is a steady mutation rate in E.coli and it is actually similar to mutation rate in other species. In terms of numbers, most microbes have one mutation per 300 chromosome replications.
E. coli is used to study evolutionary mechanisms all the time. Our ability to manipulate its chromosome and have “markers” as well as a short generation time make it a good organism to study.
And miracles-those are the supernatural-and science doesn’t try to explain those.
Riddle me this, creationists: If God made us and did such a supposedly good job, why did he do it so badly? Why, for instance, did he give us an appendix, which serves no purpose (but, ironically, might have in some evolutionary predecessor of ours), which will kill us if it ruptures unless we surgically remove it? How is this “intelligent design?”
You don’t need God to recognize the beauty of nature. Frankly, I find everything MORE incredible when I know the elaborate scientific details behind it. I find the whole idea of God to be very much a human way of screaming at a vast indifferent universe that we are significant- when in fact, we’re less than the blink of an eye on the massive scale of time.
Erin, you’re very lyrical today. Very nice post.
My opinion, and I’m not “bashing” religion here, is that it stems from the need to make up for that feeling of insignificance, to assuage the fear of death, fear of the unknown,etc.
Hey Doug – The guy who owned Bart still raises orphaned bears. There was an Animal Planet documentary about his bear haven that was hosted by Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anniston.
Laura, no doubt. (His name’s Doug too.) I think I saw that show – Bart was still around, Tank was young and growing and feeling better and beginning to be trained.
Just saw that they got two new orphaned cubs….
I understand how you think, Hieronymous: But your opinions are invalid as they are based upon inaccurate information. It would be like someone basing the answer to a complex mathematical equation on the notion that 1 + 1 = 3. It is, to put it simply, wrong.
Your view on abortion is based upon the idea that the unborn child is not alive. But of course that’s wrong. Biology has held that human life begins at the point of conception for 150 years.
The real argument isn’t about whether or not the embryo/fetus is alive. Every honest person admits that it is indeed alive, and that it is not a part of its mother. No, the real argument is, what’s worth more? The mother’s nine months of inconvenience, or a human life?
As I explained, from an atheistic point of view, the only valid conclusion is that life must be preserved alive. Otherwise, you’re denying a fellow human being his one and only chance at existence.
Nine months of inconvenience vs. sending a human being to oblivion? Any ethical standard which puts more value on the nine months is hideous and evil.
In fact, the answer to this is so self-evident that you pro-aborts typically pretend that this isn’t the question, and that rather the question is, what’s worth more, the mother’s life or the unborn life? This suggests that pro-lifers place the life of the unborn above that of the mother. And yet, every anti-abortion law ever passed in this country allows for an abortion to save the life of the mother. Even the Catholic Church allows for indirect abortion as an unwanted consequence of a medical procedure necessary to save the life of the mother.
Well, Edyt, I would expect an atheistic, evolutionary biologist to be very frightened when a poor lowly religious nut like me actually uses common sense regarding the human body and its processes. :)
mk said: “I think a lot of people (religious) accept the idea of evolution up to a point. It’s the species jump that we have a problem with.”
Yes. Most definitely. Changes within species are observable (science). However, we have not observed transitions between species. If evolution were true, we should see more transitional fossils. Unless you want to keep changing your theories about it (punctuated equilibria, etc). But see, there’s the issue, right? You claim it’s science, but conveniently, you need millions of years for it to work, say, on any present day animals or humans…so it’s not observable. Unless you want to talk about minor genetic variations within the species themselves. That is observable, as I said, and I have no problem with it. But to say that it somehow evolved into a wholly different kind of animal by random chance, and everything WORKS properly? You’re talking about interdependent systems here, all just happening to mutate while still beneficially working together.
Doug, it seems to me that atheism stems from the desire to be accountable to no one but oneself for one’s actions. And that’s just my “opinion.” And evolution fits right in there, doesn’t it?
I find it amazing that anyone can HONESTLY believe that random occurrences over a long period of time could create order from chaos.
Ray, perhaps the appendix was needed by our earlier HUMAN ancestors in some way. But they were most indeed human, and that’s my point. I would agree that humans have changed as a species over time…but they’ve not come from a different species. Everything mentioned here by evolutionists is observable adaptation, remaining within the species.
Has e.coli become anything else over time? Was it observed to be something else before it transitioned into e.coli? Again, you can see in e.coli observable microevolution at work, which I have no problem with…and by the way, we used to call that “adaptation within a species” when I was in grade school. They changed the terminology to “evolution” several years later.
And Edyt, there are also volumes of books on anomalies that don’t fit within your supposedly “complete” fossil record. But I suppose those would be propaganda and wholly unscientific.
John L.–10:52
You rock. :)
Kel,
The vast majority of evidence for evolution is NOT in the fossil record. If you really want to get into it, here is some light reading for you, entitled 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution – The Scientific Case for Common Descent:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Thank you, Ray. I have bookmarked the site and will add it to my reading list.
The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel
An atheist wants proof of Christ’s existence and finds it.
God is the simplest answer. You don’t have to explain where God came from. He always was.
Actually, if you’re going by Occam’s Razor (the simplest solution is best) that statement is inherently wrong. In the entirety of God that we have dreamt up, he is the MOST COMPLEX answer to our existence. Aliens is a simpler answer, but again, where did the aliens come/evolve from?
You point of view skews your thinking. Occams’ Razor has already been argued on the other “Expelled threads. As I have stated before, God’s mind may be complex, but the “idea of Him” is not and that is all we need to explain a designer.
God is so simple that the least educated among us can understand the idea of God.
Taking that leap of faith gives you the answer quite easily. How is that simpler than an explanation of aliens? It still begs the question, where did the first aliens come from? We are back to square one.
Kel: 12:45 AM:
Brilliant post.
Edyt:
We can’t measure or test love, but we know it exists because we sense it, and see evidence of it.
By the same way, believers know God exists. We sense it and see the evidence of the world around us. Belief in God and science are not mutually exclusive, although that’s what many scientists want to believe these days.
Non-believers don’t see God, because they don’t know where to look.
Ignore, my 12:13 post. I deleted part of it by mistake! Oops!
Taking that leap of faith gives you the answer quite easily. How is that simpler than an explanation of aliens? It still begs the question, where did the first aliens come from? We are back to square one.
Janet, we can create practically anything in our minds, as with that “leap of faith.”
There’s always the matter of it being in our minds or external to it, as with science.
Asking where the first aliens came from is like asking where gods came from.
Erin:5:59: You don’t need God to recognize the beauty of nature.
Frankly, I find everything MORE incredible when I know the elaborate scientific details behind it. I find the whole idea of God to be very much a human way of screaming at a vast indifferent universe that we are significant- when in fact, we’re less than the blink of an eye on the massive scale of time.
I’m listening to Relative Radio and they are discussing God vs. Science:
1. Descartes in the 1500’s said ” Without the existence of God, the purpose of science is to make us the Masters of Nature”. This makes religion out of science.
2. What a scientist does when it removes God from the picture is it makes “MAN” the supreme perfect being, giving significance to his life. But it limits his thinking to only what he can explain.
3. When we believe in God, we KNOW we are significant because we are a creation of God’s love, a part of his family.
I would argue that the universe becomes much more understandable, meaningful, more beautiful when we believe in God.
Janet, you feel a need for a deity, and that’s all fine and good with me, but there are then some things that won’t apply to other people who don’t share your beliefs.
Science helps us understand nature, and helps us live as we want to, but there’s really not any “mastering” it. It is not that scientists “remove God from the picture,” it’s that there isn’t evidence for gods in the first place. Scientists aren’t saying that we are “supreme beings,” etc.
it limits his thinking to only what he can explain.
It’s not a bad thing to stick with what we know to be true, rather than with what some of us would like, etc. Again – hey, feel free to think anything, but making public policy on unprovable beliefs is not good, IMO.
Doug,
I’m not talking about determining public policy, I’m talking about not limiting one’s thinking, which is exactly what scientists do when they deny the existence of God. There is no proof that God Does NOT exist. You are limiting the scope of your thinking by not considering God. I choose to believe.
It’s not a bad thing to stick with what we know to be true..
Well, that would be pretty stifling intellectually.
Science helps us understand nature, and helps us live as we want to, but there’s really not any “mastering” it. It is not that scientists “remove God from the picture,” it’s that there isn’t evidence for gods in the first place. Scientists aren’t saying that we are “supreme beings,” etc.
I totally disagree that scientists aren’t interested in mastering nature. That is what drives them – a quest for knowledge.
I’d suggest that God is a “variable” in hypothesizing about science which is consciously removed from the picture most of the time.
If a scientist doesn’t believe there is a God, who else is supreme, if not us humans?
AWESOME posts, Janet!!!!!!
I understand how you think, Hieronymous
Except that your “understanding” is based upon your construction of how I think, and not how I actually think.
Example:
Your view on abortion is based upon the idea that the unborn child is not alive.
BZZT!!! Wrong.
As I explained, from an atheistic point of view, the only valid conclusion is that life must be preserved alive.
Again, you have absolutely no notion of what an “atheistic” point of view is, so you make stuff up, and then argue against your made-up-stuff.
I know I should resist the temptation to respond to you, but your all-out nuttiness is delicious.
If a scientist doesn’t believe there is a God, who else is supreme, if not us humans?
Posted by: Janet at April 24, 2008 1:44 PM
Maybe that’s your stumbling block right there, the notion that there has to be a supreme being/race/species of some kind.
Janet said : 12:53: I’m listening to Relative Radio and they are discussing God vs. Science:
1. Descartes in the 1500’s said ” Without the existence of God, the purpose of science is to make us the Masters of Nature”. This makes religion out of science.
2. What a scientist does when it removes God from the picture is it makes “MAN” the supreme perfect being, giving significance to his life. But it limits his thinking to only what he can explain.
Janet said: 1:44: If a scientist doesn’t believe there is a God, who else is supreme, if not us humans?
Hiero:said: 4:23: Maybe that’s your stumbling block right there, the notion that there has to be a supreme being/race/species of some kind.
I was commenting on Descartes (See points 1 & 2 above) I think he makes interesting observations.
As I see it, in any society, or group, there is a hierarchy (of power?) of some sort. If God doesn’t exist, it makes sense that man is the next in line for the “power position”, by way of intelligence mostly.
I don’t recall, do you believe in God?
Doug 12:42 : Asking where the first aliens came from is like asking where gods came from.
Could you please capitalize “God” and not use the plural form? It’s hard to take you seriously when you do that. Thanks.
God transcends space and time. Aliens, that’s another story.
As I see it, in any society, or group, there is a hierarchy (of power?) of some sort. If God doesn’t exist, it makes sense that man is the next in line for the “power position”, by way of intelligence mostly.
I don’t recall, do you believe in God?
Posted by: Janet at April 24, 2008 5:56 PM
Nope, I’m mostly an atheist. I sometimes flirt with pantheism (thanks Bobby for straightening me out on that, btw), but generally stick with atheism.
With respect to the hierarchy thing, it may be that forming our social groups into hierarchies is how we’ve evolved to behave, but I don’t personally think that it’s the best method. I think it promotes all sorts of -isms, like racism, classism, sexism, etc., etc.
Also, I don’t really hold with the notion that there is a “power position” to be had. Maybe that’s one of the things that divides believers from unbelievers? The idea that someone has to be in charge? I don’t know. It’s interesting to think about anyway.
gods gods gods gods gods gods gods gods
I believe in one god, Janet, but (s)he isn’t picky about punctuation or capitalization or even what name you use for him or her. Furthermore, there are a whole lot of people on this planet that believe in more than one god, along with completely different creation myths. Their beliefs are every bit as valid as yours, but they don’t try to get theirs taught in science class.
Could you please capitalize “God” and not use the plural form? It’s hard to take you seriously when you do that. Thanks.
Janet, I don’t mean to offend you, but yours is not the only belief in that realm. Okay, though….
……
God transcends space and time. Aliens, that’s another story.
So you say, but another could say that no, it’s aliens that do it, because they’re so advanced. Anywho, as they sometimes say in Canada, explaining God by saying, “transcends time and space,” is really just saying, “no explanation,” or “we don’t know.”
I don’t think we “have” to know a thing, necessarily, and that as we observe a thing, such as evolution, the fact that we don’t know everything about it, etc., in no way detracts from the truths we see there.
I’m not talking about determining public policy, I’m talking about not limiting one’s thinking, which is exactly what scientists do when they deny the existence of God. There is no proof that God Does NOT exist. You are limiting the scope of your thinking by not considering God. I choose to believe.
Okay, Janet, but the scope for many Pro-Lifers is wanting public policy changed. I don’t think people deny God on a scientific basis, because as you note, there is no proof of the negative, i.e. “God does not exist.”
O’ course, ye can say the same thing about the Tooth Fairy, the Boogeyman, Bigfoot, etc….
Okay, you choose to believe. Fine and dandy. I know that there’s no proof of “no God,” nor is there proof of a God. I’m agnostic – I realize there could be a God, or other “higher” beings than us earthly humans. I don’t think my thinking is limited there.
…..
It’s not a bad thing to stick with what we know to be true..
Well, that would be pretty stifling intellectually.
Ha! Well, I certainly agree with you, if we’re not talking about making public policy, speaking of truisms, etc. then heck yes. I see what you mean. : )
……
Science helps us understand nature, and helps us live as we want to, but there’s really not any “mastering” it. It is not that scientists “remove God from the picture,” it’s that there isn’t evidence for gods in the first place. Scientists aren’t saying that we are “supreme beings,” etc.
I totally disagree that scientists aren’t interested in mastering nature. That is what drives them – a quest for knowledge. I’d suggest that God is a “variable” in hypothesizing about science which is consciously removed from the picture most of the time.
Having knowledge is “mastery”? Okay, I guess we see “mastering” in different lights. “Mastering a subject….” okay. Conscious removal of things for which there is no proof isn’t a bad thing, scientifically.
……
If a scientist doesn’t believe there is a God, who else is supreme, if not us humans?
We are “supreme” on earth, for a variety of reasons, and some other species are, in their niche, in their own respects. Certainly we have the most impact & influence. It’s our brains that make us this way, our tool-using and tool-making brains, and their tendency to accumulate knowledge and pass it down.
From my point of view, God is a creation of human brains, and the “supreme” thing or not isn’t very important – it’s just fact, not a matter of belief.
RAY 6:46: gods gods gods gods gods gods gods gods
I believe in one god, Janet, but (s)he isn’t picky about punctuation or capitalization or even what name you use for him or her. Furthermore, there are a whole lot of people on this planet that believe in more than one god, along with completely different creation myths. Their beliefs are every bit as valid as yours, but they don’t try to get theirs taught in science class.
Point taken, but with all due respect, I wasn’t directing my post to you but to Doug – regarding his posts to me specifically, and he was kind enough to oblige. Thank you Doug.
“Their beliefs are every bit as valid as yours, but they don’t try to get theirs taught in science class.”
Yes they do Ray, their God is darwin.
Yes they do Ray, their God is darwin.
Hmmm. That is a new one. I had been referring to the Hindu gods such as Vishnu, Shiva and Krishna. I have never heard of the Hindus worshipping Darwin.
We can’t measure or test love, but we know it exists because we sense it, and see evidence of it.
Actually, we can, and we have.
Doug, it seems to me that atheism stems from the desire to be accountable to no one but oneself for one’s actions. And that’s just my “opinion.” And evolution fits right in there, doesn’t it?
Kel, seems to me that atheism stems from thinking there are no gods. That doesn’t mean one doesn’t want to be accountable to other people, society, etc.
Evolution doesn’t have anything to do with it, necessarily.