Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

"God's Not Dead" is playing in 3 days...

Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2014 3:31:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So what do you think of it based on the previews? Will you watch it?
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2014 4:13:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/18/2014 3:31:43 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
So what do you think of it based on the previews? Will you watch it?

So basically they're going to make a movie on a thing that happens on DDO twice a week? Seriously, just stay on DDO and you can find theist-atheist debates that are just as interesting as what that movie has to offer.
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 6:50:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/18/2014 3:31:43 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
So what do you think of it based on the previews? Will you watch it?

If it doesn't go on netflix, I'll probably illegally watch it. I want to watch it, mostly so I can laugh, but I don't really want to give them money.

Based on the previews, my guess is that the sole purpose of the film is to demean and delegitimize the atheist community and its pursuits of secular education and government, while creating emotion based straw man arguments for atheists based on our philosophical arguments, not our scientific ones.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 8:57:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 6:50:40 AM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 3/18/2014 3:31:43 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
So what do you think of it based on the previews? Will you watch it?

If it doesn't go on netflix, I'll probably illegally watch it. I want to watch it, mostly so I can laugh, but I don't really want to give them money.

Based on the previews, my guess is that the sole purpose of the film is to demean and delegitimize the atheist community and its pursuits of secular education and government, while creating emotion based straw man arguments for atheists based on our philosophical arguments, not our scientific ones.

It could potentially raise good arguments against our current secular education, perhaps ones like the Cambridge-educated ex-Scientist Rupert Sheldrake has continuously raised.
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 10:44:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 8:57:09 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 6:50:40 AM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 3/18/2014 3:31:43 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
So what do you think of it based on the previews? Will you watch it?

If it doesn't go on netflix, I'll probably illegally watch it. I want to watch it, mostly so I can laugh, but I don't really want to give them money.

Based on the previews, my guess is that the sole purpose of the film is to demean and delegitimize the atheist community and its pursuits of secular education and government, while creating emotion based straw man arguments for atheists based on our philosophical arguments, not our scientific ones.

It could potentially raise good arguments against our current secular education, perhaps ones like the Cambridge-educated ex-Scientist Rupert Sheldrake has continuously raised.

Well the education system of the US is just terrible in general, but it isn't the secular part of the education that is wrong. It is apathetic teachers (note: I have nothing against teachers. The problem is the system makes them apathetic, due to low pay, long hours and enduring obnoxious kids), teaching classes that are too big, in schools that don't get good funding, with students who have to get part time jobs or leave school to support themselves and their families, with colleges that leave kids with crushing debts, and a lack of willingness to fund schools.

We got 99 problems with our education system, but secularism ain't one.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 8:27:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 10:44:40 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:57:09 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 6:50:40 AM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 3/18/2014 3:31:43 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
So what do you think of it based on the previews? Will you watch it?

If it doesn't go on netflix, I'll probably illegally watch it. I want to watch it, mostly so I can laugh, but I don't really want to give them money.

Based on the previews, my guess is that the sole purpose of the film is to demean and delegitimize the atheist community and its pursuits of secular education and government, while creating emotion based straw man arguments for atheists based on our philosophical arguments, not our scientific ones.

It could potentially raise good arguments against our current secular education, perhaps ones like the Cambridge-educated ex-Scientist Rupert Sheldrake has continuously raised.

Well the education system of the US is just terrible in general, but it isn't the secular part of the education that is wrong. It is apathetic teachers (note: I have nothing against teachers. The problem is the system makes them apathetic, due to low pay, long hours and enduring obnoxious kids), teaching classes that are too big, in schools that don't get good funding, with students who have to get part time jobs or leave school to support themselves and their families, with colleges that leave kids with crushing debts, and a lack of willingness to fund schools.

We got 99 problems with our education system, but secularism ain't one.

I'm not sure how to say it, but it's not secularism in general, but the current scientific paradigms adopted in the secular world-view that range from neo-darwinism to physical materialism, which seem to have created a world where further inquiries in science are doomed to be labeled pseudoscience if they challenge the main paradigms and assumptions in the scientific world-view, although free inquiry is supposed to be at the heart of science, but practically, scientists form an elitist class which is corrupted by businesses, peer pressure and what Kuhn calls the practice of 'normal science.'
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 5:41:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 8:27:31 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 10:44:40 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:57:09 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 6:50:40 AM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 3/18/2014 3:31:43 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
So what do you think of it based on the previews? Will you watch it?

If it doesn't go on netflix, I'll probably illegally watch it. I want to watch it, mostly so I can laugh, but I don't really want to give them money.

Based on the previews, my guess is that the sole purpose of the film is to demean and delegitimize the atheist community and its pursuits of secular education and government, while creating emotion based straw man arguments for atheists based on our philosophical arguments, not our scientific ones.

It could potentially raise good arguments against our current secular education, perhaps ones like the Cambridge-educated ex-Scientist Rupert Sheldrake has continuously raised.

Well the education system of the US is just terrible in general, but it isn't the secular part of the education that is wrong. It is apathetic teachers (note: I have nothing against teachers. The problem is the system makes them apathetic, due to low pay, long hours and enduring obnoxious kids), teaching classes that are too big, in schools that don't get good funding, with students who have to get part time jobs or leave school to support themselves and their families, with colleges that leave kids with crushing debts, and a lack of willingness to fund schools.

We got 99 problems with our education system, but secularism ain't one.

I'm not sure how to say it, but it's not secularism in general, but the current scientific paradigms adopted in the secular world-view that range from neo-darwinism to physical materialism, which seem to have created a world where further inquiries in science are doomed to be labeled pseudoscience if they challenge the main paradigms and assumptions in the scientific world-view, although free inquiry is supposed to be at the heart of science, but practically, scientists form an elitist class which is corrupted by businesses, peer pressure and what Kuhn calls the practice of 'normal science.'

Look, in the scientific community, free inquiry is accepted. You do your research if you think that something is wrong.

The current explanations we have are the closest things to the truth that we currently hold. They may change. Evolution could be proven wrong tomorrow. Maybe someone will prove that gravity really is 'an object's love for its place'. However the odds are slim.

It's only pseudoscience if they fail to use real science or attempt, 'god of the gaps' type logic, or if they avoid using science whatsoever.

And what about physical materialism? How can we teach anything else in science class? In science, we only teach what we know. We don't know anything about the non-physical (unless you start to get into some of the deeper theoretical physics), so we don't teach those things.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 7:03:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I appreciate your response. I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree with you on some points.

Look, in the scientific community, free inquiry is accepted. You do your research if you think that something is wrong.

I'm not sure how to start, but let me focus on the persecution of dissenters in the scientific world. An anonymous panel(which included materialist scientists), banned a TED talk by the accomplished, Cambridge-educated scientist Rupert Sheldrake in a TED event ironically called "Challenging the current paradigms of thought." In addition to this, there are always attempts to ensure that dissenting scientists never get funding, while drowning in considerable Media attack which ruins their reputation(some of it organized by Richard Dawkins himself). Because of that, many accomplished scientists wait for retirement before they can criticize the current scientific paradigm(e.g Shimon Malin), or win a Noble prize and get enough bragging rights to make harsh criticisms against "bunk science."(e.g Randy Schekman).

The current explanations we have are the closest things to the truth that we currently hold. They may change. Evolution could be proven wrong tomorrow. Maybe someone will prove that gravity really is 'an object's love for its place'. However the odds are slim.

I agree that science is our best method to have a "less wrong" stance about reality, but you have to realize that the practitioners of science are turning into a class of bishops with considerable power over the state, since governments rely on their experiments for most of their policies, although the scientists themselves could be biased and moved by economical aspects such as the loans of various, billion-dollar corporations such as pharmaceutical corporations. That being clarified, the methods to detect fraudulence in science are not as effective as advertised, namely because academic panels don't have enough time and resources to exactly try to replicate all numbers and data. It seems to me that the most prevalent way of catching fraudulence is by whistle-blowing, which has happened before and exposed some big names in the scientific world. However, some talented and deceitful scientists could have easily gotten away with deceit by having strong relations among their peers and a rather strong network which supports their practices of what Kuhn calls "normal science."

It's only pseudoscience if they fail to use real science or attempt, 'god of the gaps' type logic, or if they avoid using science whatsoever.

ESP and telepathy are supported by scientific literature, but often stamped with the 'Heretic" or "Nonscientific" stamp by dogmatic scientists who fervently support the current modern-view in a rather dogmatic and religious way. On the other hand, supported and "scientific" claims are often misunderstandings carried across because of the 'file-drawer' effect and the rather suspicious dismissal of the double-blindfold experimental principle, which is important in decreasing the effect of bias and dogma on experimental results, but somehow dismissed in a considerable number of experiments that deal with medication or observing animal behavior, when other studies have shown that if you tell different groups of researchers in a rat experiment that Group 1 Rats are considerably smarter than Group 2 Rats, and then ask them to observe and compare the signs of intelligent behavior knowing that the rats are from exactly the same breed, researchers will most probably identify more signs of intelligence in the group they were originally told was smarter.

And what about physical materialism? How can we teach anything else in science class? In science, we only teach what we know. We don't know anything about the non-physical (unless you start to get into some of the deeper theoretical physics), so we don't teach those things.

Not just school, even in colleges and other academic institutions. Only those who learn about the history of science or the philosophy of science(10% or less of science majors), are introduced to the philosophical assumptions they make in their scientific practice, which are not even recognized, for the most part, by their fellow scientists.