"Golden Compass" is an anti-religion film?

[Calabrio]

You've missed the point.
I think I was clear enough in the last post, so I'm not investing the time to repeat myself.

I will add, to help ease your confusion, we have a secular government. Western philosophy doesn't require everyone practice Judeo-Christian faith. But Western philosophy would not exist had it not been FOR it.

When you have the opportunity, spend some time studying American political theory.

 

[fossten]

and destroying the bible would hardly create the fall of the western world.

Care to back that statement up? In case you may not be aware of history, the Dark Ages were called that for a reason. They coincided with the Inquisition, where not only millions of Christians were murdered by the Catholic church, but countless records and Bibles were burned and destroyed. The people of Europe were not permitted to read the Bible for hundreds of years, and subsequently all available copies were locked up in Catholic monasteries. Except for those that were smuggled by Christians hiding for their very lives.

You might want to reconsider what a world without the Bible would be like.

 

[shagdrum]

Evolutionists are acting on faith, starting from the worldview "Evolution must be true"

Good point!!
Evolution takes the facts, creates some story to connect the facts, then assumes them to be true unless and until proven wrong, the opposite of most sciences. The problem is, darwinian evolution has become the athiest's creation story in their "faith". Since darwinian evolution is a scientific theory and is very specific in what it spells out, it is very easily disprovable in a purely logical since, considering the facts vs. the theory given. This is a huge threat to the athiest faith, and they react accordingly.

 

[shagdrum]

it's [science] not afraid to ask the questions and seek the answers.

...as long as those answers aren't supernatural. You are forgeting that point, which I made twice in this thread.
Science philosophically subscribes to methodological naturalism which assumes God doesn't exist. This is a wierd double standard, as athiest scientists will gladly consider the posibility of God if the info tends to go against creationism. So your statement sould read more accurately, " Science isn't afraid to answer questions and seek answers, as long as they aren't supernatural."

Science effectively limits itself in it's search for the truth. Not very logical, or objective.

 

[shagdrum]

society can't be created without western religious convictions?...talking like you do would make it seem that seperation of church and state has been nothing but a charade. there was a reason for it and you're showing exactly what that reason is. given true freedom, you'd revoke the rights of free thought as soon as it conflicts with you. work call's. i'll continue later.

Separation of church and state is a charade. Show me where it is written in either the Constitution, the Declaration or the Bill of Rights, or for that matter, any other founding document. I will conceed this whole argument if you can do that. I bet you don't even know what separation of church and state means.

The fact of the matter is, western civilization as we know it wouldn't exist if it weren't for Christianity. More specifically, there would be no democratic United States of America if it weren't for Christianity.
prove me wrong.

 

[TheDude]

Care to back that statement up? In case you may not be aware of history, the Dark Ages were called that for a reason. They coincided with the Inquisition, where not only millions of Christians were murdered by the Catholic church, but countless records and Bibles were burned and destroyed. The people of Europe were not permitted to read the Bible for hundreds of years, and subsequently all available copies were locked up in Catholic monasteries. Except for those that were smuggled by Christians hiding for their very lives.

You might want to reconsider what a world without the Bible would be like.

What? The Dark Ages was from around 470-1000 AD, typically starting with the official "fall of Rome", 476 AD.

It was coined the "Dark Ages" by Francesco Petrarch, because there was a decline in cultural highpoints, written history, population decline and a decline in building achievements during that time period.

The Medieval Inquisition started sometime in the 1100's AD., i.e. after the "Dark Ages".

 

[TheDude]

Separation of church and state is a charade. Show me where it is written in either the Constitution, the Declaration or the Bill of Rights, or for that matter, any other founding document. I will conceed this whole argument if you can do that. I bet you don't even know what separation of church and state means.

The fact of the matter is, western civilization as we know it wouldn't exist if it weren't for Christianity. More specifically, there would be no democratic United States of America if it weren't for Christianity.
prove me wrong.

LOL... Correct it wouldn't be the same, but to say there wouldn't be Democracy is a joke, Democracy existed before Christianity.

 

[Calabrio]

LOL... Correct it wouldn't be the same, but to say there wouldn't be Democracy is a joke, Democracy existed before Christianity.

There were Democratic institutions, but nothing like what exists today.
America wasn't called an "experiment" because it had been before.

 

[shagdrum]

LOL... Correct it wouldn't be the same, but to say there wouldn't be Democracy is a joke, Democracy existed before Christianity.

I'll specify.
American democracy.
Our democracy (US democracy) comes initially from Christianity.

As I said, their would be no democratic United States if it weren't for christianity.

 

[TheDude]

Calabrio & Shagdrum,

Though I agree that Christianity played a role in making America what it is, how do you see Christianity being intrinsic with Democracy; where's the link between the two?

I'm all for "not murdering" or "coveting your neighbor’s wife" etc. etc. etc., but how is that Democracy?

 

[Calabrio]

Calabrio & Shagdrum,

Though I agree that Christianity played a role in making America what it is, how do you see Christianity being intrinsic with Democracy; where's the link between the two?

I'm all for "not murdering" or "coveting your neighbor’s wife" etc. etc. etc., but how is that Democracy?

The notion of the individual with free will, rights endowed by the creator, the recognition that rulers aren't Gods and all men are created equal.

In all honesty, that's a question that can easily take hundreds of pages to fully explain. But if you follow the evolution of the philosophy that led to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution- you'll take it back through guys like Jefferson, and through guys like Hobbes and Locke, with Natural Law, and through St. Thomas Aquinas, and you go right back to the bible. That's the seed.

 

[hrmwrm]

shagdrum, there is the other impossibility of supernatural. how do you prove it? instead of out right logic and testing to prove the improbability of something, you would suggest that the final answer should be just "supernatural" instead of re-hashing evidence or re-creating the method to find an answer. maybe the question asked at first was wrong. this is not the same as creating the evidence to prove something. this is just determining if you looked at evidence in the right direction to find an answer.

when it comes to the cosmos, distant findings have been around only since hubble was sent up. planets around other stars have only been found in less time than that. evidence for the oort cloud has only come around recently.

atoms were only hinted at at the beginning of the last century. yet, without knowing exactly what they are and without being able to see them, and not knowing their structure, science came to an understanding of them. you don't here the controversies about them because the atom didn't threaten religious ideals. only the science that calls into question a supernatural creation is questioned and scrutinized.


religions have been around a long time, but haven't come up with any answers but the supernatural. 1 answer for eveything. and it worked for quite a while. now man demands a better understanding of his environment.

 

[fossten]

shagdrum, there is the other impossibility of supernatural. how do you prove it? instead of out right logic and testing to prove the improbability of something, you would suggest that the final answer should be just "supernatural" instead of re-hashing evidence or re-creating the method to find an answer.

Well, now, Thomas Jefferson must not have been as smart (or as arrogant) a person as you, since in the Declaration of Independence he stated in one eloquent sentence that the existence of the supernatural DOES NOT NEED PROVING:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Self-evident. In other words, any person who doesn't have their head up their hind parts can tell that man is created by God. Regardless of whether or not he was trying to make a religious point, he stated it in such a way as to make it a no-brainer in order to make his more important point.

I will choose to respect Thomas Jefferson's opinion over yours.

 

[hrmwrm]

ahh, fossten. back into a war of insults. that really hurts. and your arrogance is showing again.

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature"

a little more than just a creator there.

 

[shagdrum]

shagdrum, there is the other impossibility of supernatural. how do you prove it?

Your are close, just a little off. The non-disprovablity of the supernatural isn't the issue here, at least not for ID. maybe creationism, but that isn't a science.

instead of out right logic and testing to prove the improbability of something, you would suggest that the final answer should be just "supernatural" instead of re-hashing evidence or re-creating the method to find an answer. maybe the question asked at first was wrong. this is not the same as creating the evidence to prove something. this is just determining if you looked at evidence in the right direction to find an answer.

You have it 180 degrees out of wack here. ID is build around the logical gaps and flaws in evolution. The one part you have wrong is the whole "final answer should just be supernatural" thing. The issue here is that evolution does the opposite of what you are suggesting. Evolution doesn't try to use reason, logic and/ or testing to dissprove and type of design (including supernatural) as a possibility. Evolution just assumes away design and states that everything is effectively random and by chance. Not at all logical. It would be like someone asking the question, "who created the stop light". In searching for the truth they make the assumption, "a black man couldn't have created the stop light, because black men aren't smart enough to do that." Because of that assumption, the possibilities availible as an explanation would be severly limited, illogically. That is what evolution does. FYI, a black man did create the stop light.

atoms were only hinted at at the beginning of the last century. yet, without knowing exactly what they are and without being able to see them, and not knowing their structure, science came to an understanding of them. you don't here the controversies about them because the atom didn't threaten religious ideals. only the science that calls into question a supernatural creation is questioned and scrutinized.

Not exactly.
Again, you have it 180 degrees out of wack here. ID simply questions evolution as plausible, the evolutionists are the ones making the issue here. This isn't an isolated incedent here. We are seeing it with the fall of man-made global warming as a scientific theory. The change of one paridigm in the scientific community to another more accurate one. Scientists who grew up being taught evolution, and ones who make their living studying it, are going to work rebel against any challenge to it. However, the fact that their challenges are through attacking the messanger type arguments, staw man tactics, and repression of any opposing points of view instead of presenting evdence and having an honest debate should send up some serious read flags in any objective mind. The only difference in this paradigm shift is the Athiest factor. This is their creation story, and as such, is a challenge to their "religion", in their minds.

 

[04SCTLS]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

This sounds very idealistic but it is self evident to any intelligent person that all men are not created equal.
Some are born lucky into wealth and good health, others into disease, disability and poverty.
There are mensa geniuses as well as the severely mentally challenged.
Some make full use of their talents (talents are unequally distributed)
and become accomplished in their pursuits, adding to the wealth and well being of humanity.
Others are just born bad and become animal torturers, serial killers, rapists, murderers, pedophiles, sadists, with absolutely no empathy for their fellow human beings.
If competition is the basis of success in America then inequality is the outcome.
The strong, smart and ruthless invariably win out over the dim, weak and unlucky.
If God made man in his image some of that image is not very flattering.
Vlad the Impaler, Atilla the Hun, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot come to mind.
The fearful vengeful God of the first testament could have made man to amuse himself and then sent the "nice guy" Jesus to try and tone man down because things were getting out of hand.
The only real equality is that we are mortal and know that we will die.

 

[hrmwrm]

there is a problem with the id design as well. how do you prove the method of interference for what would seem inexplicable propagation of species? evolution is not as random as you state. if a mutation gives some benefit or doesn't create a hinderance, it could be carried on, as long as what carries the mutation survives. and i do see your final statement. a lot of science i guess does play into the athiest block. personally, i never really looked at it from that point of view.

but evolution is not really about disproving god either. it's about realizing the diversity of life within the realm of the world without an outside influence. and it is a plausible theory. but the origins of id was to put god back into the creation theory. i think that is where the heaviest of arguements started. god doesn't belong in the public school system. the god of choice belongs in the believers home, life, and place of worship. and if id doesn't have a problem with evolution, then that can be taught at home as well as an addition to evolution theory. atheism is not being promoted with this either, so why the fuss? it is just non denominational science.

 

[shagdrum]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

This sounds very idealistic but it is self evident to any intelligent person that all men are not created equal.
Some are born lucky into wealth and good health, others into disease, disability and poverty.
There are mensa geniuses as well as the severely mentally challenged.
Some make full use of their talents (talents are unequally distributed)
and become accomplished in their pursuits, adding to the wealth and well being of humanity.
Others are just born bad and become animal torturers, serial killers, rapists, murderers, pedophiles, sadists, with absolutely no empathy for their fellow human beings.
If competition is the basis of success in America then inequality is the outcome.
The strong, smart and ruthless invariably win out over the dim, weak and unlucky.
If God made man in his image some of that image is not very flattering.
Vlad the Impaler, Atilla the Hun, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot come to mind.
The fearful vengeful God of the first testament could have made man to amuse himself and then sent the "nice guy" Jesus to try and tone man down because things were getting out of hand.
The only real equality is that we are mortal and know that we will die.

You love listing mindless platitudes I see. Was their anything in their relevant to this thread?
Who said anything about equality in this thread, Mr. Marx?

 

[shagdrum]

evolution is not as random as you state. if a mutation gives some benefit or doesn't create a hinderance, it could be carried on, as long as what carries the mutation survives.

Again, we get to the whole irreducible complexity thing. One mutation carried on because it doesn't cause a hiderance, possible. But hundreds if not thousands being carried over and all eventually meeting up in the right part of the organism at the right time; that has been proven to be mathematically impossible.

but evolution is not really about disproving god either.

No, it ignores any type of design, which is illogical, and alone shows evolution to be flawed. Methodological naturalism. If evolution even attempted to disprove any outside influence, then it wouldn't be as strong an argument against it. As such, evolution doesn't, so the argument stands.

The origins of id was to put god back into the creation theory.

I would like to see proof of that.
I would say, more accurately, ID trys to stop ignoring the possibility of God or some other influence that designed life on earth.

god doesn't belong in the public school system.

In America? From a constitutional perspective I could easily disprove that, but that is another thread.

if id doesn't have a problem with evolution, then that can be taught at home as well as an addition to evolution theory. atheism is not being promoted with this either, so why the fuss?

ID does have a problem with evolution. Besides, the whole school thing has been grossly distorted. Not to waste your time with too many details, but both the Ohio and Kansas things were simply about presenting alternatives liek ID in addition to evolution, which is the only thing being taught. Give kids an overview of the various scientific alternatives and let them decide. To only present evolution in the classroom isn't teaching, its indoctrination. In both the Ohio and the Kansas cases, it was the evolutionists that were outraged that any point of view challenging theres be presented at all. The repression of ideas comes from the evolutionists, not the IDer's. Trust me on this one, I live in Kansas and grew up in it's school systems.

 

[04SCTLS]

Well, now, Thomas Jefferson must not have been as smart (or as arrogant) a person as you, since in the Declaration of Independence he stated in one eloquent sentence that the existence of the supernatural DOES NOT NEED PROVING:



Self-evident. In other words, any person who doesn't have their head up their hind parts can tell that man is created by God. Regardless of whether or not he was trying to make a religious point, he stated it in such a way as to make it a no-brainer in order to make his more important point.

I will choose to respect Thomas Jefferson's opinion over yours.

Shagdrum,
Although this is slightly off topic I was refering to fossen's post above.
He was the one who quoted Jefferson's platitude about equality which you somehow missed in your zeal to call me Mr Marx.

 

[04SCTLS]

Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

[TheDude]

Shagdrum,
Although this is slightly off topic I was refering to fossen's post above.
He was the one who quoted Jefferson's platitude about equality which you somehow missed in your zeal to call me Mr Marx.

Na, you were on topic... the last page and the beginning of this, the topic of Christianity, Democracy and America came up; which relates to "equality."

 

[Calabrio]

All men are created equal doesn't mean that everyone is endowed with the same skills and abilities. You can't seriously think it meant that. It simply means that everyone is created equal in terms of the rights bestowed upon them by the creator and in the eyes of the law.

 

[shagdrum]

Shagdrum,
Although this is slightly off topic I was refering to fossen's post above.
He was the one who quoted Jefferson's platitude about equality which you somehow missed in your zeal to call me Mr Marx.

Yeah, I kinda liked the "Mr. Marx" thing...

Ok lets break this down,

"All men are created equal"​

This says nothing about people being equal, or starting out equal; which you try to imply with the whole some born into wealth and some not. That is due soley to circumstance.

[INDENT]"That they are endowed by their creator with certian inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"[/INDENT]

the pursuit of happiness, not the guarentee of achiving it.

What this line, as written in the declaration of independence, is saying is that humans, by their very nature, are entitled to certian natural rights. There is a term you might wanna look up, most people haven't a clue what it means today. Natural rights are rights that come from God (showing more proof at the phlisophical level of God's role in the founding of this nation; as a nation based on natural law). The theory goes that humans, being made in Gods image, are entitled to these rights, equally so. that is to say, that every human (being a creation of God in his image) has these rights and no entity has they authority to take them away (without due process).

That line says nothing about people being created with equal abilities, intellect, etc... as you alluded to.

If competition is the basis of success in America then inequality is the outcome.
The strong, smart and ruthless invariably win out over the dim, weak and unlucky.
​

You are distorting this quote to your own ends. The government cannot, and should not try to make every one equal, in fact that is the polar opposite of what Jefferson ment. To make people equal you have to take away their freedoms, Jefferson was saying in that quote that no government has the authority to take away their freedoms.

When Jefferson said "all men are created equal" he was talking about natural (God given) rights.

Once again, you are taking a quote out of context and distorting it to your own views.

The "Mr. Marx" label is accurate, as you seem to think that the government should try to correct naturally occuring inequalities, making everyone equal. That is the goal of socialism, and only serves to take away freedom and repress people.

 

[04SCTLS]

I never said the government should try to make everyone equal.
I'm a very high income earner and that would certainly be bad news for me.You're stereotyping me too quickly.
Republican economic policies benefit me as a business owner.
I have 80 employees now and growing so I know what it means to be on top of one's game.
I just think the government should spend more money on the infrastructure of the country instead of trying to police the world through military adventures.