Cool News
A reader of Baha'i faith was at Capone's Chicago RELIGULOUS screening! And...
Ahoy, squirts! Quint here with some thoughts on the Larry Charles/Bill Maher movie RELIGULOUS sent in from a reader. We'll have some big coverage of this flick in the weeks to come. I interviewed director Larry Charles this evening and am scheduled to talk with Bill Maher on Thursday. The Charles interview went very well and I can only hope the Maher one will be just as entertaining.
It's interesting to hear reaction as this movie screens. Movies are always subjective, but I'd say this movie especially will evoke strong reactions from all different viewpoints. Here's a new one for you guys to mull over!
Greetings Quint,
I am a longtime reader of the site, but I never post in the talkbacks. Last night Capone hosted a screening of Religulous here in Chicago, and I thought I’d chime in. I feel as though Maher’s intention is to (at least) provoke an honest conversation about religion, which is a topic I cannot resist.
I would hesitate to call myself a “fan” of Bill Maher’s, but I have enjoyed his television shows in the past (I no longer have HBO), and have always appreciated his willingness to speak honestly about potentially controversial topics. With Religulous, he claims to embark on a journey to discover why so many people believe in God and follow the world’s three major religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. However, the film itself seems more like Maher challenging the people he encounters, rather than discovering the answers he claims to seek. Granted, this may just be the unintentional result of finding the most interesting clips to include in the final cut, but Maher’s investigation into religion ultimately feels like an unfair fight.
With so many reviews already appearing on the site, I know that this is a film that has been adequately summarized and critiqued. Coming from my relatively unique religious background – the Bahá’í Faith – I feel as though I may have a few more thoughts to contribute.
Without getting to heavy into what my religion is all about, one important principle of the Bahá’í Faith is the idea that religion and science are both necessary, and without science “religion is superstition (paraphrase).” What Maher seems to be chasing in this film is not an answer to “why are people religious?,” but instead, “why are people superstitious?”
I was pleasantly surprised by the pair of priests Maher interviewed at the Vatican, as both of these men recognized the futility in adhering to a literal interpretation of the Bible, and acknowledged certain flaws in Catholicism. These were religious men, comfortable enough in their faith in God to recognize that mankind’s handling of God’s message is imperfect. But for the rest of the film, the very idea of religion was reduced to a set of fairy tales and superstitions that set up a flimsy punching bag for Maher to pummel with his sharpened wit and regurgitated arguments. Granted, this idea of religion was provided by real folks and their fundamentalist beliefs, but it appears as though Maher sought out the crazy, extreme fundamentalists instead of rational, intelligent, middle of the road believers.
With that being said, I found many of the scenes hilarious, and I can admit that many of the issues Maher raises are concerns and objections that I share, especially because I belong to a religion that is being persecuted so heavily in the Middle East.
Maher’s closing “sermon,” where he says that we must abandon religion for the sake of the world, was a bit over the top. I believe a previous fan-review suggested that it seems to come out of nowhere, and it does. The film focuses on the fundamentalist schools of thought within each of these religions and then paints every believer with the same brush, which is a cheap move. But, to Maher’s point, a quote from the authoritative texts of the Bahá’í Faith says: “If religion becomes the cause of enmity and bloodshed, then irreligion is to be preferred, for religion is the remedy for every ailment, and if a remedy should become the cause of ailment and difficulty, it is better to abandon it.”
Isn’t this, basically, what Maher is saying? That these religions have become detriments to our society, and that their relevance has long expired? I mean, for all his bluster, Maher really isn’t saying anything new. I was disappointed that his film didn’t do anything more than just skim the surface of religion in this country. (It would have been interesting to see him talk with a Bahá’í, or see him react to the quote I supply above.) But, I must admit, I was laughing pretty hard.
The successes of the film, then, are not necessarily intellectual victories that Maher achieves over his prideful victims, but the constant humor throughout the film. Supplied not only through Maher’s sardonic wit, but also through the use of pop-culture b-roll footage and clever subtitles, there was never a moment where someone in the audience wasn’t laughing. Also noteworthy was the fact that so many people seemed to find so many different things funny; if I wasn’t laughing hard someone else was.
-
+ Expand All
-
I'm not religious enough that I follow anything, but I was baha'i for a few years when I was younger. I really respect the religion, very open minded and while I'm not religious anymore, I definitely have faith and most of my beliefs stemmed from being baha'i. Really cool to see someone from the faith submit a review like that.
-
Including Judaism as one of the world's major religions simply doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. There are an estimated 920m Hindus, 230-500m Buddhists, 25m Sikhs and 13.2m Jews in the world. It may be the major religion of Hollywood, but is given disproportionate prominence in an objective look at religions.
-
This reviewer's main mistake is in missing one of the major points of the movie. It is, in many ways, preaching to the choir. And honestly, as someone without religion, I cannot imagine what answer he COULD have found. But what this reviewer seemed to miss was that half of the reason this flick exists, is as a call to arms for those that don't believe in this shit, to actually do and say something about it. On that point, it is very much successful.
-
( this is all I'm saying on this TB and I leave it to you all )
I think they are focusing on Judaism also for the fact that Christianity, Islam, and Judaism see themselves are three sides of the same die, the god they worship is the same God, this lends itself to comparison of the three more for their differences in practice of belief more readily than including Buddhism, Shintoism, Taoism, Baha’I, Hinduism as the systems are sometimes incompatible in translation to western audiences due to our woeful lack of study of eastern cultures, religions, and philosophies.
Also to be honest Bill was taking a cheap shot at western culture, as always. I’m old fashioned in that I always believe there are three things you don’t blather on about angrily in public, especially in a way that would deliberately offend someone: Politics, Religion, and someone’s mother. My Dad raised me with the saying that nothing good comes of mouthing off about these things in public, someone always gets offended, and as America is a land of freedoms and you are given the right to say anything you want, people who try to be deliberately hurtful or hateful of things people hold dearest, superstitious or not, must realize freedom of thought, speech, and action is a double edged sword and carries with it the consequence that those who do not agree may not respond favorably.…basically don’t be surprised if you get your ass kicked for it. That is their right as well if they are willing to take the consequences of their actions so too should you the speaker realize that.
It all comes down to what I’m seeing as a lack of compromise in the country. You are a Democrat or Republican. Religious or Secular. There seems to be no patience no understanding anymore, no compromise, no attempt to see things from both sides, only ridicule aimed at those across an isle or inside or outside a church… is this what we are now?
Is this how it is going to be from now on? Because if it is, it is never going to get any better and we might as well throw in the towel on our seemingly failed experiment we have here. I hope that is not the case. Which is why on this talkback I set a challenge…Discuss do not fight. Listen, do not rave. We may learn something if we tone down our collective rhetoric for once.
Or not.
I’m just trying to find a reason not to move to New Zealand at this point, but it keeps getting harder.
-
Yep; friend of a friend.
-
There's STILL 13.2 million Jews in the world?
Germany's really been slacking off lately... -
just sayin'.
-
...there is no outside. So we are all a part of "it". Being "spiritual" is a recognisation of that connection. Religion, on the other hand, is mostly a bunch of old wankers trying to control everyone else with rules and regulations supposedly handed down from somewhere higher. In reality it does not have requirements and an ego to stroke or an emotional attachment to what you do (which is what most Religions try to play on: it's vengeful, judgemental, has lots of rules, etc). It does not punish or answer prayers for this reason. Love is an emotion, it doesn't have it whatsoever. It simply expresses pure compassion for you because you are part of it: there is no outside of it. Even if you don't realise the opposite is true.
-
i.......disagree
-
However one feels about this film, it is a first for the free-thinkers of the world.
I am always amazed at how many people devote their entire lives to a mythological figure from an old book written by people who never met the man in a time when people believed the Earth to be flat. In the year 300 or so, Earthlings didn’t know what a germ or an atom was. They had no knowledge of Dinosaurs that have been extinct for 65 million years. They hadn’t discovered electricity. They believed that the sun and the stars revolved around the earth. The people of that era manufactured answers for the questions that overwhelmed them.
There is no historical record for Jesus other than the passages in the New Testament. The Romans have no record of Jesus or a crucifixion (and the Romans kept great records). Why would 21st century earthlings work backwards from this old book? This is a book that crucifies homosexuals, subjugates women and is one of the most violent books ever written. (Just read Leviticus or Exodus to see the naughty parts.)
Born-again Christian, George Bush got elected by single-issue, fanatical religious people. He was deemed the most moral because of his abortion stance. Look how many people died because of his war. The religious nuts have always stifled progress in the world.
America is a secular country that allows people the freedom to believe or not believe in the nonsense of religion, as stated in our godless constitution. Jefferson got it right. We non-theists shouldn’t have to tolerate the encroachment of religion into our secular government.
Atheists are the most discriminated against people in the country. If you don’t believe me, try getting elected if you’re an atheist.
Keep thy religion to thyself. Thanks Bill Maher for this film!
-
Sep 30, 2008 9:40:18 AM CDT
Atheists are the most discriminated against people inthe country
by stevepants
That is the most ridiculous statement in the entire history of the universe. Affirmative Action for Atheists Now!! FUCK YOU BLADERAZOR!!
-
Religion and faith are deeply personal issues and for someone to discount it because their little pea brains can't rationally wrap around the belief of God is sad. David Lo Pan said it best in Big Trouble in Little China, "Shut up Mr. Burton, you were not put on this world to get it!" Shut up Mr. Maher.
-
Too bad in Bill Maher's eyes the reviewer is a superstitious moron. Maher can be funny, but I have zero respect for his attitude that he is right about everything and if you believe in religion or anything he doesn't you're stupid.
Oh and I think there are some people in this country who would disagree that atheists are the most discriminated against... in fact that's almost laughable. -
I will be shocked if he ravages islam as much as he does christianity in the movie. Insulting christians and jews is safe, that requires no courage. Does Maher have the balls to rip into islam? Or is he afraid he will become the next Theo Van Gogh?
-
where in the bible does it mention contemporaries of Jesus who fly? That sounds pretty cool, but I think you're mixing it up with the last Harry Potter book. Also, Islam and Christianity are not the same religion, they don't worship the same god. Read the New Testament and the Quran and then try to make that claim. As for the rest, I'll just say this. Humans are arrogant, selfish, violent and greedy. Everyone is this way, to some degree. What religion does is to put stopgaps on such behavior. Now, almost all religions are derived from man, that is, men devised them and therefore men can corrupt them. The uniqueness of the gospels of Jesus is that the idea isn't simply a set of rules that restrict behavior: that was the old covenant with Moses and the Ten Commandments. The New covenant was a change in the fundamental nature of the individual, a new spirit within Jesus' disciples, that would then govern behavior from the inside. Now this is a tough thing to prove and an easy thing to say you have. But the proof is in the behavior. Those who claim to follow Jesus and then behave no different from those who don't can safely be said to be lying about their conversion. Hence the abuses done in the name of Christ and Christianity are not truly representative of the actual teachings of the Gospel. Bill Maher has an agenda, so I'm not surprised that he doesn't give the concept of faith a fair shake. I'll be skipping this.
-
...who think they are some sort of repressed minority in this country. In surveys, 90% of Americans express a belief in god, satan, angels, demons, and hell, probably tiny men that live inside the brain and tell people what to do for all I know or care. What I resent is having to go to work and constantly be bombarded with this shite. I'm an art director for chrissake...What's even worse is meeting some girl, having a great conversation... until she expresses her belief in "spirits" or some shit or she says that early humans road around on dinosaurs like in the Flintstones. ARRGH! Yet another drawback of living in the South, I guess. I was brought up to believe that religion is a personal matter that had a time and a place. I became an atheist in my 20s and I certainly have never tried to foist that view on others. Maybe I should... the next time I get preached to at the office or meet a woman who launches into a glowing review of her church or wacked out new age beliefs, or run across anyone who brings up that mythical amalgam of various minor Roman Era Middle Eastern shamans, con men, and fanatics (i.e.... Jesus), I'm gonna just roll out the atheism in a big way, starting with: There's NO such thing as god, messiahs, angels, demons, satan, fairies, elves, spirits, souls, heaven, hell, purgatory, limbo (Hey! Even the current Pope agrees on this one! Hey christers, what happened to limbo... you believed in it for over 1000 years, then one guy just decides by fiat that it never existed?), holy ghost, dharmas, devis, avatars of brahman, engrams, xenu, etc, etc, etc! I have to listen to your mythological crap... you're gonna listen to me channel Richard Dawkins!
-
I'll listen to your religious beliefs if you listen to mine
-
...but if you go spouting them off to me, you'll have to hear why I think you're a misguided idiot. No offense... kinda like I'm sure you christers mean no offense when you tell me I'm going to hell because I don't believe in your magic skygod.
-
Stevepants, you are showing your douchiness.
People of color, woman and gays have all had their civil rights movements. You can’t make derogatory remarks on television against Asians, gays, blacks women or Christians. However, I regularly hear Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and radio hosts talk down to their atheist guests as if there is something wrong with them.
My in-laws think I’m going to suffer in some made-up, fiery hell when I die because I have rejected the Jesus myth. In fact, I have encountered much discrimination in my life whenever I reveal my atheism.
The non-religious represent close to 17% of America. That’s more than a lot of the religious cults out there yet most of us remain in the closet.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is an atheist but he played the Catholic card to get elected to public office. It is also well-known that John McCain is not religious either. The candidates always have to play the god card to warm up to the Jesus-Freaks in this country. It’s pathetic. In Europe, religion never comes up in elections. We’ve got a long way to go.
Perhaps a few people who are on the fence might wake-up after seeing this film.
-
It's all the same. It is a BELIEF there is some 'higher power' out there that created us and the universe. I could be God, Allah, whatever. That idea to me is the same as believing in santa claus, the tooth fairy or cthulhu. It is utterly ridiculous and more than a little insane in today's age of science and reason. Things based on BELIEF have no place in a civilized and educated society except in your own minds and homes. Want to believe in this ridiculous crap? Go ahead. It's your right to. Start using it to pass laws or legislation, put your sayings on our currency or make us reference your belief in something that all Americans should be proud to recite (Pledge of Allegiance) then I will fight you and your belief to my last breath if necessary. Religion is the scourge of humanity. It breeds discrimination, hatred and intollerance and the world would be a MUCH better place without it and it's followers.
-
Agent Johnson- Whether or not Atheism is a choice has nothing to do with discrimination. Religion is also a choice that transcends race and gender or sexual orientation. I’m not comparing Atheists to women or blacks. I am pointing out that we are all groups who have faced discrimination.
As an atheist, I can never be elected to public office unless I lie. Thanks to civil rights movements, gays, blacks and women are capable of being elected (in recent times anyway). Atheists will have their day but it will take a while in this country filled with backward-thinking fundamentalists who believe the Noah’s Ark story literally.
Please purchase a clue and form a cohesive argument next time. -
I just wiki'ed the Bahá’í faith and it sort of sounds like algamated religion in Futurama...
Their beliefs seem a lot more rational to me than others though. -
...Yeah, atheism is a choice ... a choice to be a logical, thinking human being, just like being religious is a choice to embrace narrow-minded inanity. And didn't conservatives use this whole "it's a choice" argument against gays a few years back? As in, "They don't deserve any protections, they chose to be gay!" Just the same invalid argument used to aim the same discrimination in another direction. Besides, maybe being religious is a choice... the choice to throw all logic and intellectual pursuit out the window and to live your life based on shared delusion and bigotry. Glad I passed up on that choice.
-
higher power, because the intricacy of life is just too insane to be just a coincidence. At the same time, I believe this potential higher power is well beyond human comprehension (we of course have put a human face on it) and I really doubt it gives fuckall about our little day to day bullshit or whether or not we sit in a room and worship it every Sunday or all that other nonsense. It's important to be a good person. I think that is what to shoot for. The rest of it is semantics and politics. Clearly most of the religious rules were developed in a time of chaos to create order, we are beyond most of that now...well maybe hah
-
... cut it out. An eye for an eye makes the world blind. Either way, we are not supposed to have eyes. Eyes are tools of Satan, or was it nipples? I'm so confused.
-
Hallowed by thine lunch.
-
Do we truely have free will or does God already know everything? Is God simply a Schrodinger cat made of spaghetti circling the solar system in a teapot? Inquiring minds want to know.
-
Delusion means believing in something that is verifiably untrue or not believing in something that is verifiably true. Because science exists entirely within the realm of the physical and natural universe and the concept of a higher power exists in a higher plane of existence, science can never impinge on one's belief or disbelief in a higher power.Bill Maher has said many times that he is okay with deism. He may not understand it but he's accepted the fact that completely rational, intelligent people believe in a Creator. What he rails against is people whose belief in a higher power influences their perception of the natural, physical world. What he rails against is people who use their belief in a Creator to say that the universe is 6000 years old or that the Noah's Ark story is true. This is delusion. This is what he wants people to move away from. Believing the universe is 6000 years old is the same as believing the Earth is flat or that it is the center of the solar system.What Bill Maher does is he equates people who are manipulated by religion to believe that the stories of the Bible are true word-for-word with people who are manipulated by religion to believe that it's okay to kill in the name of religion. It's a harsh apporach but he's merely pointing out how easy it is for people to be manipulated by religion in some way, be it harmful or innocently ignorant. He's not critical of the belief, it's the willigness to be subjugated by the belief that irks him. And me too.
-
Did Jesus visit other worlds and are demons all the aliens who couldn't get into heaven because they weren't human? These questions and more I pondered when I was in 3rd grade. I also thought I could change the future by doing stupid stuff randomly, like I could 'trick' the future... "They never expected.... THIS!"
-
"...or is he stuck in purgatory, because he doesn't seem to want to leave." Dear lord, I wish I could remember my mom's answer to that one!
-
well said! well said I say! and I agree as well
-
Discriminated against. Its a fact. They are bashed on Fox news all the time. They are looked down upon by Politicians. I have been part of it myself at my workplace. Lets just say I work at a large Retail electronics establishment. We have a dvd loop that plays on all the tvs over and over. I don't know the band but there was a music video on the loop that had an attractive blond girl in her undies for about 2 seconds, if that. A customer went out of their way to complain about the 2 second clip, saying it was inappropriate and was going to file a complaint with corporate. 2 days later the loop was changed. And this mannish looking, huge cross wearing woman got her way. This pissed me off because the last 2 loops have had christian country songs on them. Songs saying in the lyrics "God is Great" "I believe in the Cross and the Steeple" and it bothered me greatly. Much like government should be church and state separate as should the workplace, especially in what is supposed to be a "diverse" environment. So I wrote a complaint to the company. Which they posted on the board in the break room, like they do with all the "suggestions".Since then people that were cool with me have started ignoring me, i have been cut hours and I have been harassed by a few of the hardcore believers.
So yes, there is discrimination. -
fuck those losers, you don't need them and their holy bullshit attitude, religous zealots are the most self righteous motherfuckers around it makes me want to puke, get off your high horse and look at what your glorious religion has caused, murder, war, greed, corruption (of innocent children no less!) the list goes on, and on and on...urge to kill dropping, dropping, dropping, RISING, dropping, gone...
-
Ugly people who don't have money.I'm tired of seeing so many of 'em, that's why I don't think there is a God who cares about humanity. If there was, I'd have more things to look at that are pleasing... of course God may just care about everyone else other than me.Dammit, it's supposed to be about ME!But, seriously, I think therefore I'm Spam, and I think Spam is good only when it is grilled or fried.
-
There's not much about Buddhism or Hinduism. Maybe it's not as funny of a punching bag?
-
there's a big difference between being discriminated against and people not liking you because you're an asshole.
just be happy your workplace doesn't make you listen to that michael mcdonald dvd all day. -
the god of islam and the god of christianity is in fact the same unnamed god. He is referred to by the tetragrammaton, which has been at different times Yahweh, Jehovah and God ect. Both jews and muslims trace their faith back to abraham who 'invented' the jewish religon. he had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael. Both faiths believe that jews are the descendants of Isaac and muslims are the decentant of Ishmael. One the ways the various faiths refer to the unnamed god is 'the god of abraham' both christains and muslims say this and so, yes it is in fact by definition the same god (though there is argument as to his nature or 'personality). As such they share many figures such as Mosses and the arch angel gabriel, who, according to muslims visited mohammed and instructed him to give a series of messages to the people. same god
-
Most of the gospels were written within the lifetime of people who knew jesus, say no further from the time of his death than the time from now to the second world war. I would take some critism of the traditional view of their authorship and dates (which would hold that both the gospels of mathew and john were written by eye witnesses) but to put them in the 300s is plain wrong. I think you are talking about the council of nicea. There are contemporary non christain accounts of jesus, such as that of josephus, and before you say that they were inserted, 1st century copies have recently been found that reference jesus. It is not necessarily the case that they would record his execution. Many thousands were executed this way, for example we are not talking about long after the revolt of sparticus, where crosses lined many miles of the apennine way. Varro refers to germs in ‘on agriculture’ in 36bc. The word atom was coined by the ancient greeks in 450bc and is greek for uncuttable. They certainly did have a theory of atoms, believing them to be the smallest unit of matter. The acients greeks had a big debate about geocentricity vs heliocentricity and yes the geocentics were thought correct but they were aware of the alternate possibility. Lastly critias, in the 5th century b.c claimed that religion ‘was invented by some cunning individual’ for his own political purposes. This before the life of Christ. So your point of view is not new, not the outcome of greater knowledge or living in a more advanced society. The view of these savages, living in caves, seeking to explain thunder is as inaccurate of 1st century people as it is of those who lived in the time of l. ron hubbard.the rest are you views and opinions and you are welcome to them.
-
Actually, someone choosing not to vote for someone BECAUSE they are an atheist is the very definition of discrimination. Taken from the dictionary: "to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality". When the poster earlier was making the comparison to african-americans he wasn't likening the kind of discrimination to the 400 years of oppression, he simply just said that atheists are discriminated against the same way black people are (or if he didn't then he should have). It doesn't matter whether something is chosen or inherited, discrimination is discrimination. In this country we have the freedom of choice, and thus people "should" not be discriminated against for their chosen religion or non-religion. Favoritism for someone who belongs to your same group is just as bad by the way.
-
I love it when people spout off about " how complex " life is and all that jazz..Yes its pretty cool how well the earth co-existed before we showed up. But now since we humans either destroy or create, we must assume that a "higher power" is just a bigger more bad ass version of us. How arrogant is that? Because humans can tell each other they own things and then agree or not, does not mean that the earth is ours to take all we want with no remorse. The 2 traits that humans have that are our greatest strengths and weaknesses is Imagination. Imagination has brought me here today typing away on my computer, listening to this awesome new Faint album and anticipating watching the bonus features on my new Iron Man dvd. Imagination also brings Superstition and Idiocy. When you can't explain something, then you can just make shit up. When something scares you, you can just make shit up. That's what religion is to me. So why, in this day of such great technological advancement do we still believe in these stories that hold the human race back mentally as 10 year old children? Because it keeps them in control..... Most atheists have read numerous biblical works... Have you believers ever even checked the facts? Or is your imagination good enough?
-
I'm so happy Bill Maher made this film. The fact it's produced or directed (can't remember) by the guy who made "Borat" will bring a big push to its opening weekend take, and possibly longer. I'm not expecting it to change anyone's mind on either side of the issue, but I'm glad Maher had the balls to question the entrenched subjects of faith and belief.
Also, if anyone is wondering, atheists ARE the most hated minority in the world. Read any major social research study, academic or governent or private, and it'll back this up. From about.com:
"Since 71% agreed that atheists who "preach against God and religion" should be denied access to civic auditoriums, it seems clear that making fun of God and religion wasn't the problem — offending people by openly denying God and religion was. Thus religious theists, including Christians, should be free to promote their beliefs no matter how extreme they are but atheists should not be free to respond, whether by being critical of religion or simply by promoting a nonreligious, non-theistic perspective, because that is offensive to religious theists.
This same research found that only 59% thought that gay liberation groups should be denied access to the same auditoriums to promote gay rights. Remember, this was the 1980s when acceptance of homosexuality and gay rights were much lower than today, but even then gay rights and gay liberation movements were regarded with more tolerance and less prejudice than atheists being critical of religion or promoting a non-religious, non-theistic view of life."
Just wanted to clear that up. 71% of Americans want to deny atheists "preaching against god" access to public forums. 59% percent want to deny gays. These are well-researched numbers that persist and are backed up worldwide.
Thank you, Bill Maher! I'll be checking out the film on Friday. -
its a lack of brainpower to see beyond whats in front of you.
-
Thank You.
-
First of all, I agree, this has been a very levelheaded TB for the most part and it's about religion of all things!To your point, though, the difference between a human and a building is that a human is made up of living components and a building is not. And atheists don't say that humans built themselves, we say that the process probably occurred naturally with no deliberate, intelligent builder. The nucleotides that comprise DNA and the ammino acids neccessary for DNA to replicate itself occur naturally in the atmospheric and environmental conditions of the Earth in its primordial first days. The chemicals that comprise the materials used to build a building cannot self-replicate. The building is all it will ever be. This should be easy to observe. When you look at a two story house do you say it might one day be a skyscraper? But now if you look at a human baby do you say it might one day grow into an adult size human capable of producing more babies?And as for a naturally formed Empire State Building, it's happening right now all over the world! The only problem is that the process is so slow we can't observe it with the naked eye in one lifetime. The process of evolution -- going from the first primitive single cell to the elaborate machines we are today -- took billions of years. Take Devil's Tower for example. In just a few hundred million years it pretty much resembles a massive skyscraper. Give it another billion years or so and maybe it'll develop windows and elevator shafts and an observation deck of its own. =)Like I said in my earlier post, because science exists entirely within the confines of the physical universe it will never be able to make any legitimate as to existence or non-existence of a Creator. Believing that God or any intelligent designer kickstarted the process is perfectly reasonable. But it's important to acknoweldge that science, operating entirely within said confines, has given us a plausible, falsifiable hypothesis for a natural origin of life on Earth. It's a time consuming process of turning hypothesis into Theory but, in my opinion, a natural explanation of any mystery of the Universe is preferable to a supernatural one.
-
"Christians CHOOSE to be Christians." Umm, Not really. I wish people DID have a choice in their silly religions but unfortunately they have been programmed to think irrationally from the moment they emerge from the womb and have water splashed on them.
It takes a strong person to reject the nonsense religion of their parents and to form their own rational beliefs- independent of their long lineage.
-
A rock doesn't need food to stay a rock. It doesn't need sunlight to survive. It doesn't need instinct because it doesn't have any predators. There's no reason for it to evolve which is why it doesn't. Unlike the chemical reactions that produced the first rocks, the chemical reactions that produced the first living cells happened in an atmospheric environment that allowed chemicals to intermix more freely. The first living cells needed to consume to replicate itself. It needed sustenence so the more developed sensory perceptors it had to find that sustenence the better. Over billions of years those sensory perceptors became eyeballs and tastebuds and eardrums. If a piece of rock needed to sustain itself in such a manner it would have evolved or it would have died. But it doesn't need to sustain itself so it hasn't done either. If a canvas needed paint to survive, over billions of years it would most certainly have painted itself. But it doesn't. It's a canvas. Whether you paint on it or not, it will still be canvas. It has no reason to develop sensory perceptors to attract itself to paint.
And of course Devil's Tower won't develop windows and an observation deck. That was the joke. But Devil's Tower IS naturally formed. In your first comment you didn't ask for an evolved Empire State Building just a naturally occuring one. I realize now that you meant to say evolved Empire State Building. That was my misinterpretation and I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I think it's a flawed question given the obvious differences between living and non-living organisms."Only atheists see a painting and assume it painted itself, or a building and assume it built itself. You can have evolution AND intelligent design. The two are not mutually exclusive."The painting and building analogies just don't work because they're not living organisms. I hope I've illustrated why they have no reason to be living organisms. As for evolution and intelligent design not being mutually exclusive, I agree. They can co-exist and there's nothing wrong with believing that. But if you understood the evolution of those first living cells I think you'd see that intelligent design is not necessary to the process and believing in that process is not akin to believing a painting painted itself. -
"First, it is this change from necessity, the complexity itself of life (which we can agree is infinitely more complex than non-life like rocks or paintings in it´s needs), where I am arguing is proof of the existence of intelligent design and therefore God."I don't believe that change happens because of necessity."Who decided that we would need these things and were capable of changing to achieve them but non-life does not?"No one. The natural chemical reactions that created rocks created a material that could only change when acted upon by an outside force. The natural chemical reactions that created DNA created something that could pass on changes (mutations) to subsequent generations without being acted upon by an outside force -- or an intelligent designer. When DNA copies itself, it doesn't make an exact duplicate. Markers are switched, turned on and turned off. This allows for natural changes from one generation to the next. If you're stuck on the 'Who allowed this' then you will always have an answer in God. But based on what we know today about how DNA works, an intelligent designer is not necessary to the process."What are the astronomical odds that something completely unique of every other thing would even suddenly spontaneously exist? Is that not evidence?"Spontaneously? None. Or like you said, astronomical. The chemical processes that created the first cell took hypothetically a billion years give or take. It didn't take a billion years for it to happen instantaneously, it took a billion years for it to happen from start to finish. In geological or even cosmological terms, I wouldn't say a billion years is spontaneous."Where did the idea that if without any prior experience to develop the solutions of life´s necessities just bam out of the proverbial blue life knows how to survive. ... Where does the original instinct of life consuming life to continue come from? Where did the first cell realize that if I eat this I will survive come from?"Again, it wasn't an 'out of the proverbial blue' situation, it was a lengthy process. The first cells couldn't possibly consciously learn that they needed protein but they didn't have to. It's a process that happens naturally. Cells that existed in an environment that also included the protein necessary for cells to replicate were able to replicate.The disconnect here is that you seem stuck on the idea that something has to know how to do something in order to do it. You keep using words like 'know', 'idea' and 'concept' and insinuate that that's the only way change can occur. If you need the word 'design' in your explanation, then I guess 'intelligent' has to go before it. If you need those words to explain the diversity of life than you're answer will always be God. What I'd like you to understand is that you don't need those words to explain the diversity of life. There were no concepts, no ideas, no plan, no design."If random evolution without intelligent design is to be believed then we are to believe that a mutant strain of insects occurred and out of this random chance came tada! wings! Not just these lumps but over billions of years, SPECIFICALLY, fucking wings!! That could fly!!"False. The minuscule genetic mutation between the first and second generation is not part of a plan that leads to the hundred millionth generation. It's a simple genetic marker that was activated or deactivated."It seems to me that it is much more likely the mutation occured because of the concept rather than the concept occured because of the mutation. And even if you believe the latter which obviously you do, how did the body know, randomly, to mutate into something as specific as wings. Those that developed wings, in particular, where did the incredibly difficult design for the wings come from and why did they mutate in the first place?"I don't believe in the 'concept' so I don't subscribe to either of your alternatives. And the body doesn't know to change itself. Do parents know how to transmit specific genetic traits to their offspring? Certain genetic mutations are considered advantageous and as a result, those animals flourish. Some genetic mutations are not considered advantageous and as a result, those animals are poised for extinction. Because the animals that received advantageous mutations survived, it does not mean that they were part of a plan. It just means that they drew the genetic long end of the stick.For example: Let's say there's an animal that lives in a fertile environment with plenty of vegetation and a moderate climate. These animals have offspring. Most of the offspring resemble their parents but a few animals, thanks to a natural genetic mutation, were given a thicker coat than their parents and even fewer animals, also thanks to a natural genetic mutation, were given slightly webbed feet. Over time the population of thicker-coated and webbed-footed animals grows. Now let's say a natural climate change occurs rendering their environment frigid and cold. The animals with the thicker coat is better suited to survive. The animals with little or no coat will struggle to survive and eventually die off. What I see is a series of small natural genetic mutations over tens of thousands of generations that led to a distinct animal.Now let's say a different climate change occured instead. A drought decimated the vegetation on land but there were still small lakes which contained vegetation. Since the easiest way to find food in this environment would be to navigate the water, the webbed-footed animals would flourish. Again, I don't see a plan here, I see genetic mutations that prove beneficial to animals depending on environmental changes and migration patterns. Just because the thicker-coated or webbed-footed animal is all that is left, it doesn't mean it was a direct, pre-ordained evolutionary line. For every animal that has beneficial mutations, there are hundreds of animals that have debilitating mutations that were rendered extinct. Natural selection is a massive tree that has many branches leading to dead ends and only a few branches able to grow further.Using your example of the fly we can do the same thing. At one point there was an insect with no wings that could only walk. Some of its offspring, as a result of natural genetic mutation, had longer legs. This allowed them to move faster then some of their siblings so they were better at evading predators. Longer legs was not part of a plan, it was simply a natural genetic mutation. Over many, many generations some of their offspring developed light webbing on two of their legs. This allowed them to glide delicately in the air for very short periods of time. Maybe while in the air they found a new food source at the tops of plants and they were able to reproduce more rapidly. Again, not part of a plan, it's a natural genetic mutation. Now when you look at flies today and the very first insect you're going to see the intricate design of the wing and the magnificent beauty of flight itself. But if you look at all the many millions of generations of this insect you will only see miniscule variations, if any, from one generation to the next. The reason we perceive it to be a direct chain with the potential to be guided by a designer is because we don't see the other mutations that did not survive. Maybe some of the original insects passed on stumpier legs to its offspring. These insects would be predated easily thus wiping them out."Necessity and advantage don´t dictate random mutation of the evolution of super powers if it takes billions of years to feel the benefits as it pertains to the respective necessity and advantage."Precisely! Mutation is not dictated by neccesity and advantage. Mutation is dictated by the process of DNA replication. Mutations that turn out to be advantageous flourish and mutations that are not advantageous struggle to survive."In the end, as a thinking man, it just seems more believable to me that you cannot have the application without first having the concept originating from random mutation even if it takes billions of years to achieve, and therein lies intelligent design married to evolution and therefore to me, the existence of God."If you must see a design in mutation then there will always be God. I don't. I see nature in mutation. I see DNA making imperfect copies of itself. Copies that, in addition to providing advantages, can also lead to babies being born blind, conjoined or inside out.I think you do God a disservice by saying He needs to be active in the process. There's no way to prove or disprove the existence of God, so it's perfectly reasonable to believe He wrote the rules of life on Earth before He even created the Universe. But once He created the Universe, he does not need to be involved in the processes that govern life -- or anything in the Universe for that matter. He did not need to design the wing, the process of natural selection does that for Him. He did not need to design the human brain, the process of natural selection does that for Him. He does not require intelligent design in order for this planet to go from lifelessness to human beings. Like I said, if He truly created everything in the beginning, he doesn't need ideas, he doesn't need concepts, he doesn't need his creations to be cognitive of the processes that govern their existence.From a religious point of view, natural selection should be considered God's greatest gift. It showed that He is so powerful and so wise that human beings can happen without His direct hand. Why intelligent design proponents insist on saying, "No, God is not that powerful, what He created still needs His intelligent hand," is something I don't quite get.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 273 total posts 271 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 92 total posts 92 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 160 total posts 69 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 151 total posts 63 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 67 total posts 59 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 60 total posts 57 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 484 total posts 49 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 69 total posts 42 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 120 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 183 total posts 24 posts