Looks like an interesting film. I'll post review when I see it
Posted by hardcore trancer on Oct-02-2008 02:41:
I cant wait to watch this film finally!!!!
Posted by Rasidel Slika on Oct-02-2008 06:52:
i love these guys
Posted by ziptnf on Oct-02-2008 13:20:
Ugh! I love Bill Maher! It's about time someone made a movie about how crazy these fucking people are.
Posted by LazFX on Oct-02-2008 13:37:
Gay Muslim Activist.
Posted by DeRangedMind on Oct-03-2008 21:01:
I think the movie comes out today but will be on the watch for it looks very funny
Posted by josh4 on Oct-04-2008 05:28:
Worth seeing but somewhat of a letdown because I had high expectations. Maher held back a lot because he hadn't done adequate research beforehand. He knew Christianity so that was an easy one for him. It felt like he was holding back on Judaism, sort of hypocritical.
The rest of the stuff he didn't really push the envelope because the people he was interviewing knew the material better. I mean its not like he didn't have enough time to prepare. When Stewart or Colbert interview their guests, you can tell they know the topics, a lot of the time impressively well.
Most of the people he spoke to were idiots. That was a big joke of the movie, to make fun of these lunatics and show them for what they are. That's sort of a cop out for me because it so easy. Although that was kind of the premise, to show how rational people can "believe" things they know can't be true. I would have liked to see him take on more important people that matter. That didn't happen probably because of my earlier observation.
Posted by shaolin_Z on Oct-05-2008 22:05:
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Renegade, everyone isn't like you man, that is, level headed, informed, and non-judgemental/tolerant. And I'm not saying the same doesn't apply to 'religious' folks. I'm not trying to obfuscate your argument here or anything btw, just a comment.
I wasn't trying to tar all religious people with the same brush there, I was merely pointing out that a religious person being ignorant about their own religion is far more inexcusable than a non-religious person being ignorant about that same religion. Wouldn't it frustrate you more, for instance, to see a practicing Muslim displaying flagrant ingorance about the nature of your religion than to see a non-Muslim doing the same thing?
Apparently not Bill Maher. I haven't seen the movie yet though, so in all fairness I can't really say what he's doing... but it seem like the standard drivel to me.
Posted by shaolin_Z on Oct-05-2008 22:49:
quote:
Originally posted by delobbo
i love these guys
LOL, his comments on the trinity concept were hilarious... which wasn't even a part of Christianity until 300 a.d. The concept is one of the many pagan elements incorporated in to "Christianity" by the Romans at the Council of Nicea, leading to the creation of the 'Holy Roman Empire.' That's one thing that always boggled my mind, monotheism and [pagan] Egyptian / Babylonian trinity meshed together (which is where I'm guessing the Greeks got it from too?).
Posted by DJ Shibby on Oct-06-2008 03:20:
Can't wait to see this.
Posted by josh4 on Oct-11-2008 16:17:
Here is Ben Stein's antithesis film - Exposed, about the persecution of intelligent design
Posted by DJ Shibby on Oct-11-2008 21:16:
quote:
Originally posted by josh4
Here is Ben Stein's antithesis film - Exposed, about the persecution of intelligent design
The funniest part about the debate between intelligent design and modern evolution is over a matter of a word, "intelligence", which technically means nothing on the grander scale of the universe.
I think this will also be the cause of a lot of debate when computers become self-aware, if they're not already on some level. The word "artificial" will be the only difference, as they will be Life. I could argue that we also are artificial.
We probably are the result of an "intelligent" blueprint, but to think that it is a creature or a God-thing is just myopic.
There are definitely problems I have with modern evolution, such as its lack of appreciation of the current individual adapatation, as well as the fact that survival of the fittest is so relative that it becomes basically "survival of those who survive" after its fractioned down enough times through enough of the infinite possibilities this world can toss at us. Our current financial crisis and the situation with CEOs making a buck and bailing is one example of this.
Just like in business, we rise to our level of incompetence, constantly being promoted while we are too good for our position, until finally we end up in a place where we are not good enough to be promoted, and thus are less suitable for the company, bringing the whole system into a state of inefficieny.
I'd like to help pioneer the idea that viruses are the cause of evolution and are naturally arising "intelligent" "life"forms that the universe creates in order to "upgrade" the hardware of all lifeforms.
I'd also like to point out that by adding elements and compounds to eggs during conception, the lifeform can take on the properties of that element; glow in the dark pigs, for example, have been bred as we all have seen.
So its almost as if life itself is constantly taking queues from the environment, in this obvious grand symbiosis, but whether you choose to believe in either theory, intelligent design or evolution or even both, you still are left with the same end questions.
Posted by LazFX on Oct-11-2008 23:08:
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
LOL, his comments on the trinity concept were hilarious... which wasn't even a part of Christianity until 300 a.d. The concept is one of the many pagan elements incorporated in to "Christianity" by the Romans at the Council of Nicea, leading to the creation of the 'Holy Roman Empire.' That's one thing that always boggled my mind, monotheism and [pagan] Egyptian / Babylonian trinity meshed together (which is where I'm guessing the Greeks got it from too?).
+1
and Mohamed was a pedophile and possessed by demons.......
the joos are the the only saved people from god, I mean Muslims are the bastards of Abram and Christians are just the same......
yes I am drunk!!!
and I am headed to the 9th Circle so yeah....
Posted by josh4 on Oct-11-2008 23:14:
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Shibby
The funniest part about the debate between intelligent design and modern evolution is over a matter of a word, "intelligence", which technically means nothing on the grander scale of the universe.
I think this will also be the cause of a lot of debate when computers become self-aware, if they're not already on some level. The word "artificial" will be the only difference, as they will be Life. I could argue that we also are artificial.
We probably are the result of an "intelligent" blueprint, but to think that it is a creature or a God-thing is just myopic.
There are definitely problems I have with modern evolution, such as its lack of appreciation of the current individual adapatation, as well as the fact that survival of the fittest is so relative that it becomes basically "survival of those who survive" after its fractioned down enough times through enough of the infinite possibilities this world can toss at us. Our current financial crisis and the situation with CEOs making a buck and bailing is one example of this.
Just like in business, we rise to our level of incompetence, constantly being promoted while we are too good for our position, until finally we end up in a place where we are not good enough to be promoted, and thus are less suitable for the company, bringing the whole system into a state of inefficieny.
I'd like to help pioneer the idea that viruses are the cause of evolution and are naturally arising "intelligent" "life"forms that the universe creates in order to "upgrade" the hardware of all lifeforms.
I'd also like to point out that by adding elements and compounds to eggs during conception, the lifeform can take on the properties of that element; glow in the dark pigs, for example, have been bred as we all have seen.
So its almost as if life itself is constantly taking queues from the environment, in this obvious grand symbiosis, but whether you choose to believe in either theory, intelligent design or evolution or even both, you still are left with the same end questions.
Dude, you reaallly need to go easy on the drugs.
Posted by LazFX on Oct-11-2008 23:40:
quote:
Originally posted by josh4
Dude, you reaallly need to go easy on the drugs.
BLASPHEMY!!!
Posted by DJ Shibby on Oct-12-2008 00:22:
quote:
Originally posted by josh4
Dude, you reaallly need to go easy on the drugs.
*shrug*
I'm sober at the moment. If you can't handle this simple stuff, then I'm scared to think how you'd react to me on drugs. LOL
Posted by LazFX on Oct-12-2008 00:37:
dd I mention that I am drunk>>??
Posted by Renegade on Oct-12-2008 13:54:
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Shibby
We probably are the result of an "intelligent" blueprint, but to think that it is a creature or a God-thing is just myopic.
And you are basing that on what exactly?
quote:
There are definitely problems I have with modern evolution, such as its lack of appreciation of the current individual adapatation
I'm not sure what this means. If you're complaining that evolutionary theory doesn't take into account the potential for individual organisms to adapt to their environment during the course of their lifetimes, then in one sense you are correct: developmental processes are only tangentially relevent to discussions about speciate evolution. In another more actual sense, however, you are wrong: these sorts of processes are already well acounted-for in biology. Neural plasticity and epigenetics are just two important examples of environmental adaption on the level of the individual.
If your complaint is that evolutionary theory focuses more on the level of species, groups or genes rather than on the level of the individual organism, then again you are correct in a sense, but you've also missed the point: evolution does not occur on the level of the individual organism in any appreciable sense, so there is limited value in discussing individual organisms in an evolutionary context.
quote:
as well as the fact that survival of the fittest is so relative that it becomes basically "survival of those who survive" after its fractioned down enough times through enough of the infinite possibilities this world can toss at us.
Not really. Natural Selection can be demonstrated in an empirical sense by measuring the frequency of given genes in a given gene-pool against competing alleles. There is nothing "relative" or tautological about that.
quote:
Our current financial crisis and the situation with CEOs making a buck and bailing is one example of this.
Just like in business, we rise to our level of incompetence, constantly being promoted while we are too good for our position, until finally we end up in a place where we are not good enough to be promoted, and thus are less suitable for the company, bringing the whole system into a state of inefficieny.
This is a rather peculiar analogy, but if I'm reading you right then this is actually the exact opposite of what happens in nature. Animals that are good at what they do (that is to say, well adapted to their environmental niche) are not "promoted" at all: in fact, they tend to stay pretty much the same over a long period of time (sharks are a good example of this). Biological inefficiencies tend to be weeded out by natural selection rather quickly.
quote:
I'd like to help pioneer the idea that viruses are the cause of evolution and are naturally arising "intelligent" "life"forms that the universe creates in order to "upgrade" the hardware of all lifeforms.
I'd be inclined to agree with you on (some of) this. Viruses undoubtedly shape the content of genomes over a long period of time (in the most obvious example, the genes that give rise to immune systems would not be selected for if not for the presense of viruses) and they can occasionally contribute directly to the content of these genomes (in the form of retroviruses). There's also reason to think that life itself is derived from virus-like, self-replicating strands of RNA (which explains the redundant way in which DNA is converted into RNA for the creation of proteins in nearly all living cells).
None of this, however, implies any sort of "intelligence" or teleological direction.
quote:
I'd also like to point out that by adding elements and compounds to eggs during conception, the lifeform can take on the properties of that element; glow in the dark pigs, for example, have been bred as we all have seen.
I'm not familiar with the example you've used, but the plasticity of embryological development (through aforementioned epigenetic processes) is already accounted for in evolutionary theory. See, for example, the field of "Evolutionary Development".
quote:
So its almost as if life itself is constantly taking queues from the environment
Of course the nature of life on this planet is largely determined by environmental pressures. That's the very basis for the natural selection, which is itself the foundation of biological evolution.
quote:
in this obvious grand symbiosis, but whether you choose to believe in either theory, intelligent design or evolution or even both, you still are left with the same end questions.
Intelligent Design stops asking questions that second it becomes intellectually uncomfortable. Conflating it with the intellectually rigorous discipline of evolutionary theory just betrays your ignorance of the nature of both.
