Creationism vs Imax

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: shira
Yes, I'm going to tell you science is hard.

Research to develop a commercial fusion reactor has been ongoing since at least the mid 1960's, with no end date in sight. You, apparently, would conclude that such a pursuit is impossible (if not, you would at least offer "It's impossible" as "one possible explanation", right?) I conclude, "science is hard."

Interesting that you didn't acknowedge that "Christ as messiah is a bunch of crock" is "one possible explanation", since drawing that conclusion would completely parallel your argument (and your newly explained "motive") for offering that explanation in the "life from nothing" discussion.
Please, quote where I said it's impossible. Good luck. I'm guessing you won't find it unless you go thread-shopping and quote me out of context like the two trolls above you.

If you want to use words such as "highly improbable", "unlikely", "questionable", or whatever, feel free.

The point is that you are clearly stating a negative conclusion about research which you perceive as "anti-Christian" ("life from nothing", for example), using as justification deeply flawed reasoning. Yet when that same flawed reasoning can be applied to a pro-Christian "theory" (the second coming of Christ, for example) or to some scientific research that is neutral with respect to Christianity (failed attempts at nuclear fusion, for example) you don't seem quite so disposed to draw a parallel, negative conclusion. One might conclude from this obvious inconsistency a lack of principle (aka "hypocrisy") and a willingness to engage in intellectual dishonesty.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: shira
If you want to use words such as "highly improbable", "unlikely", "questionable", or whatever, feel free.

The point is that you are clearly stating a negative conclusion about research which you perceive as "anti-Christian" ("life from nothing", for example), using as justification deeply flawed reasoning. Yet when that same flawed reasoning can be applied to a pro-Christian "theory" (the second coming of Christ, for example) or to some scientific research that is neutral with respect to Christianity (failed attempts at nuclear fusion, for example) you don't seem quite so disposed to draw a parallel, negative conclusion. One might conclude from this obvious inconsistency a lack of principle (aka "hypocrisy") and a willingness to engage in intellectual dishonesty.
First, you should realize that you've constructed a twofold strawman. I never said it was impossible. I also never said that I believe in creationism. I'm simply demonstrating why these people believe as they do. I'm not sure why that's so difficult for you to wrap your brain around. I'm guessing it's because you want to do your normal third-grade routine where you call me stupid, among other things, regardless of what I say. Feel free to continue beating your strawman, noting that you've not touched on a single one of my beliefs in this entire thread.
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
CycloWizard

You're going to tell me 'science is hard'? What are your credentials? I'd wager I have a good deal more scientific expertise than yourself, unless you already carry a PhD in science or engineering.

You brandish your credentials in a manner that suggests that they offer more credability than another's; I respond with a little sarcasm of suggesting it is not a valid argument; and I'm a troll?

You sure are on the defensive today and seem to be taking everything personally.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
You brandish your credentials in a manner that suggests that they offer more credability than another's; I respond with a little sarcasm of suggesting it is not a valid argument; and I'm a troll?

You sure are on the defensive today and seem to be taking everything personally.
You're a troll because you made some snide remark in my direction to avoid making any contribution to the thread. So far, your arguments in this thread have comprised of 'those darned fundamentalists screw up everything!' In fact, that seems to be the objection of everyone here who is pissed off that the IMAX won't be showing these movies. For myself, I don't agree with them, but I applaud their willingness to stand up for what they believe in and their making full use of their rights. As I said, if you really care so much about it, go protest in favor of the movie. If you really don't care that much, then why are you complaining?
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: shira
If you want to use words such as "highly improbable", "unlikely", "questionable", or whatever, feel free.

The point is that you are clearly stating a negative conclusion about research which you perceive as "anti-Christian" ("life from nothing", for example), using as justification deeply flawed reasoning. Yet when that same flawed reasoning can be applied to a pro-Christian "theory" (the second coming of Christ, for example) or to some scientific research that is neutral with respect to Christianity (failed attempts at nuclear fusion, for example) you don't seem quite so disposed to draw a parallel, negative conclusion. One might conclude from this obvious inconsistency a lack of principle (aka "hypocrisy") and a willingness to engage in intellectual dishonesty.
First, you should realize that you've constructed a twofold strawman. I never said it was impossible. I also never said that I believe in creationism. I'm simply demonstrating why these people believe as they do. I'm not sure why that's so difficult for you to wrap your brain around. I'm guessing it's because you want to do your normal third-grade routine where you call me stupid, among other things, regardless of what I say. Feel free to continue beating your strawman, noting that you've not touched on a single one of my beliefs in this entire thread.

Now you've got me feeling bad. You think I'm trying to set you up so I can insult you. I'm actually a very nice person. Let me show you how much a softie I can be.

First, although I've already granted you the use of all those wonderful alternative adjectives (see above), you seem to still feel I'm forcing "impossible" on you. But, hey, you don't have to use any term at all if you don't want to.

Second, if you were attempting to express what others believe, why was your actual wording, "Amazing that something that could happen accidentally in nature is thus far impossible for mankind to reproduce with all his vaunted knowledge?" Wouldn't something such as, "Many people think it amazing that . . . ." have been more clear? But I guess I was reading too much into the specific phrasing. My bad. Sorry.

Third, why this obsession with "stupid". In another thread, I specifically said that I did not think you were stupid. I reserve my wise-acre comments for right-wingers and/or fundies as a group (the typical exception is when I refer to Dubya himself, or his minions). And I think you realize that it's often fun to be outrageous on these forums, and to say things ten or a hundred times more extreme than what one really believes. So my tone can sometimes appear over the top. I apologize. If it will reassure you, I promise NEVER to question your intellectual capacity. Really.

Finally, this isn't the first time you've accused me of erecting straw men. A straw man as I understand it is the intellectual equivalent of a figure to be burned in effigy. In other words, I would have had to create a phoney, transparently weak, representation of an argument, and then knock it down. Do you think I've done that? I suppose in the heat of argument anything's possible, but in looking back over what I wrote in this thread, I still can't see any straw. So please point out where I've transgressed. I will endeavor to make amends.

 

kogase

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2004
5,213
0
0
I don't know if anyone addressed this because, frankly, I saw some patterns here that lead to a boring thread and I didn't feel like reading the whole spiel. Anyway, the biggest problem here is this.

Basically, what we are seeing here is a kind of self-censorship. Our government is legally bound to provide for free speech (for the most part). So the biggest danger comes from self-censorship of venues such as this which are the singular sources for some types of information. And I don't think the theaters are entirely at fault here. I think what we have here is very similar to a tried and true coercive tactic: racketeering.

You set up your establishment in the Bible Belt. You have a relatively large and consistent demographic. Most of these people are practicing Christians, but they wouldn't think anything of going to see a movie that perhaps refutes their beliefs, so long as they have no reason to believe that the movie is trying to. They go to see these movies at the IMAX. But wait. The local pastor sees these movies. He, of course, takes these issues to heart, and he sends an angry letter to the owners of the theater: "Either stop propogating this blasphemy, or I shall warn all good Christians away from your establishment".

The theater now has two options, really. Risk losing their largest demographic, but do the morally correct thing... or cave into the wishes of the highly influential pastor. The theater really has no choice. They pull anything that could be construed as refuting Christian teachings, because they do have to make a profit.

The biggest problem here is that a large portion of the American people do not actually believe in, and most likely do not even understand the principal rights that make America what it is. And through large numbers and the therefore effective coercion, these people can get what they truly want: to be talking to themselves.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: kogase
I don't know if anyone addressed this because, frankly, I saw some patterns here that lead to a boring thread and I didn't feel like reading the whole spiel. Anyway, the biggest problem here is this.

Basically, what we are seeing here is a kind of self-censorship. Our government is legally bound to provide for free speech (for the most part). So the biggest danger comes from self-censorship of venues such as this which are the singular sources for some types of information. And I don't think the theaters are entirely at fault here. I think what we have here is very similar to a tried and true coercive tactic: racketeering.

You set up your establishment in the Bible Belt. You have a relatively large and consistent demographic. Most of these people are practicing Christians, but they wouldn't think anything of going to see a movie that perhaps refutes their beliefs, so long as they have no reason to believe that the movie is trying to. They go to see these movies at the IMAX. But wait. The local pastor sees these movies. He, of course, takes these issues to heart, and he sends an angry letter to the owners of the theater: "Either stop propogating this blasphemy, or I shall warn all good Christians away from your establishment".

The theater now has two options, really. Risk losing their largest demographic, but do the morally correct thing... or cave into the wishes of the highly influential pastor. The theater really has no choice. They pull anything that could be construed as refuting Christian teachings, because they do have to make a profit.

The biggest problem here is that a large portion of the American people do not actually believe in, and most likely do not even understand the principal rights that make America what it is. And through large numbers and the therefore effective coercion, these people can get what they truly want: to be talking to themselves.
This is nothing but the effect of any free market. You choose products and services that suit your customers. You can't sell The Passion in Afghanistan any more than you could sell a movie about Muhammed in Jewish sections of Israel. If you set up your theater in an area that has such a selected demographic, it makes your marketing much easier. You know exactly what you need to do to turn a profit.
 

kogase

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2004
5,213
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: kogase
I don't know if anyone addressed this because, frankly, I saw some patterns here that lead to a boring thread and I didn't feel like reading the whole spiel. Anyway, the biggest problem here is this.

Basically, what we are seeing here is a kind of self-censorship. Our government is legally bound to provide for free speech (for the most part). So the biggest danger comes from self-censorship of venues such as this which are the singular sources for some types of information. And I don't think the theaters are entirely at fault here. I think what we have here is very similar to a tried and true coercive tactic: racketeering.

You set up your establishment in the Bible Belt. You have a relatively large and consistent demographic. Most of these people are practicing Christians, but they wouldn't think anything of going to see a movie that perhaps refutes their beliefs, so long as they have no reason to believe that the movie is trying to. They go to see these movies at the IMAX. But wait. The local pastor sees these movies. He, of course, takes these issues to heart, and he sends an angry letter to the owners of the theater: "Either stop propogating this blasphemy, or I shall warn all good Christians away from your establishment".

The theater now has two options, really. Risk losing their largest demographic, but do the morally correct thing... or cave into the wishes of the highly influential pastor. The theater really has no choice. They pull anything that could be construed as refuting Christian teachings, because they do have to make a profit.

The biggest problem here is that a large portion of the American people do not actually believe in, and most likely do not even understand the principal rights that make America what it is. And through large numbers and the therefore effective coercion, these people can get what they truly want: to be talking to themselves.
This is nothing but the effect of any free market. You choose products and services that suit your customers. You can't sell The Passion in Afghanistan any more than you could sell a movie about Muhammed in Jewish sections of Israel. If you set up your theater in an area that has such a selected demographic, it makes your marketing much easier. You know exactly what you need to do to turn a profit.


In the same sense that racketeering is nothing but the free market... give me money or I breaka you face. Which is why no market should be purely free.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: kogase
In the same sense that racketeering is nothing but the free market... give me money or I breaka you face. Which is why no market should be purely free.
So, what are you suggesting - that companies be forced to market products that will flop? That sounds like a popular piece of legislation to me.
 

kogase

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2004
5,213
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: kogase
In the same sense that racketeering is nothing but the free market... give me money or I breaka you face. Which is why no market should be purely free.
So, what are you suggesting - that companies be forced to market products that will flop? That sounds like a popular piece of legislation to me.


I have no solution really, because there is none. Other than the Roman solution. Kill all who oppose you.

Actually, on a serious note, you are still missing the point here. It's not that that the products themselves do not appeal to people, it's that these people can be convinced to boycott these products if their community leader deems the products a threat to their sovereignty.

 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: kogase
I have no solution really, because there is none. Other than the Roman solution. Kill all who oppose you.

Actually, on a serious note, you are still missing the point here. It's not that that the products themselves do not appeal to people, it's that these people can be convinced to boycott these products if their community leader deems the products a threat to their sovereignty.
So you're saying that the fundamentalists are completely controlled by their pastor, and that he'll do anything possible to avoid a possible uprising? I doubt it, but that's one theory I suppose. How can you extend this theory to other groups, or is it unique to Christian fundamentalists?
 

kogase

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2004
5,213
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: kogase
I have no solution really, because there is none. Other than the Roman solution. Kill all who oppose you.

Actually, on a serious note, you are still missing the point here. It's not that that the products themselves do not appeal to people, it's that these people can be convinced to boycott these products if their community leader deems the products a threat to their sovereignty.
So you're saying that the fundamentalists are completely controlled by their pastor, and that he'll do anything possible to avoid a possible uprising? I doubt it, but that's one theory I suppose. How can you extend this theory to other groups, or is it unique to Christian fundamentalists?


It applies to all groups of people of course, that label themselves as part of a particular group. The difference is in the scope and implementation. Most importantly, with Christian fundamentalists the ideas can be progagated and ingrained much more swiftly than with, say, neo-nazis.

That's because, you'll find, the Christians have a very concentrated and specific power base (the pastor, or a group of pastors that heavily influence a specific church, and with it a specific community). Amplifying this effect is the fact that Christians are usually members of very specific and rigid demoninations. So you have the head church somewhere, that leads the demonination. They can very quickly send down instructions to each satalite church, which in turn can quickly send down instructions to each obedient attendee. In this way can a very large group of people be influenced in a relatively short amount of time.

But take the neo-nazis. Though they have some specific demoninations, they are often relatively small, and each demonination cannot possibly hope to influence a relatively significant number of people. For an idea to take in a group of people like this, one requires much more time. The idea generally starts in a very influential geographical area, say NYC (completely for the sake of argument, of course). The idea then has to diffuse throughout many different small categories of neo-nazis. Sometimes the idea doesn't stick with one group, and it has to be modified and tried again, or whatever. Anyway, it takes considerably longer to develop a unified front based on a new cause.

Basically, Christian fundamentalists have the perfect structure to implement mindless boycotts, as they have a centralized leadership and large homogenous denominations.

I'm too tired to check that and see if anything I just said made any sense.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: kogase
It applies to all groups of people of course, that label themselves as part of a particular group. The difference is in the scope and implementation. Most importantly, with Christian fundamentalists the ideas can be progagated and ingrained much more swiftly than with, say, neo-nazis.

That's because, you'll find, the Christians have a very concentrated and specific power base (the pastor, or a group of pastors that heavily influence a specific church, and with it a specific community). Amplifying this effect is the fact that Christians are usually members of very specific and rigid demoninations. So you have the head church somewhere, that leads the demonination. They can very quickly send down instructions to each satalite church, which in turn can quickly send down instructions to each obedient attendee. In this way can a very large group of people be influenced in a relatively short amount of time.

But take the neo-nazis. Though they have some specific demoninations, they are often relatively small, and each demonination cannot possibly hope to influence a relatively significant number of people. For an idea to take in a group of people like this, one requires much more time. The idea generally starts in a very influential geographical area, say NYC (completely for the sake of argument, of course). The idea then has to diffuse throughout many different small categories of neo-nazis. Sometimes the idea doesn't stick with one group, and it has to be modified and tried again, or whatever. Anyway, it takes considerably longer to develop a unified front based on a new cause.

Basically, Christian fundamentalists have the perfect structure to implement mindless boycotts, as they have a centralized leadership and large homogenous denominations.

I'm too tired to check that and see if anything I just said made any sense.
Geez, you really think the Christian fundamentalist movement is that well-oiled of a machine? Why, just so they can piss in your Cheerios by boycotting things? Honestly, your idea doesn't jibe at all with any of the fundamentalists/their churches that I know.
 

fuzzynavel

Senior member
Sep 10, 2004
629
0
0
chuck all the christian fundamentalists( and any other fundamentalists that you care to mention) on top of mount st helens and see if they still think they are blasphemus....hopefully it will pop its top while they are there and we won't need to care any more........


**pops on flame retardant suit and runs**
 

kogase

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2004
5,213
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: kogase
It applies to all groups of people of course, that label themselves as part of a particular group. The difference is in the scope and implementation. Most importantly, with Christian fundamentalists the ideas can be progagated and ingrained much more swiftly than with, say, neo-nazis.

That's because, you'll find, the Christians have a very concentrated and specific power base (the pastor, or a group of pastors that heavily influence a specific church, and with it a specific community). Amplifying this effect is the fact that Christians are usually members of very specific and rigid demoninations. So you have the head church somewhere, that leads the demonination. They can very quickly send down instructions to each satalite church, which in turn can quickly send down instructions to each obedient attendee. In this way can a very large group of people be influenced in a relatively short amount of time.

But take the neo-nazis. Though they have some specific demoninations, they are often relatively small, and each demonination cannot possibly hope to influence a relatively significant number of people. For an idea to take in a group of people like this, one requires much more time. The idea generally starts in a very influential geographical area, say NYC (completely for the sake of argument, of course). The idea then has to diffuse throughout many different small categories of neo-nazis. Sometimes the idea doesn't stick with one group, and it has to be modified and tried again, or whatever. Anyway, it takes considerably longer to develop a unified front based on a new cause.

Basically, Christian fundamentalists have the perfect structure to implement mindless boycotts, as they have a centralized leadership and large homogenous denominations.

I'm too tired to check that and see if anything I just said made any sense.
Geez, you really think the Christian fundamentalist movement is that well-oiled of a machine? Why, just so they can piss in your Cheerios by boycotting things? Honestly, your idea doesn't jibe at all with any of the fundamentalists/their churches that I know.


Er... okay. You haven't really offered anything but "I disagree" (albeit spoken rudely), so there's not much to say.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
So if telling children evolution is the truth, then you are propagating the biggest lie on earth. It is a flawed concept.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Originally posted by: piasabird
So if telling children evolution is the truth, then you are propagating the biggest lie on earth. It is a flawed concept.

Which concept?
 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,650
203
106
Bah...
All i see is a bunch of anti religious people whining because the religious majority in power controls them.

its ok for civil rights groups to boycott and protest in favor of gay rights, womens rights, rights for this race and that race. But hey... the christians? they are fundamentalists they dont deserve no rights. So... we want all the rights that the minoritys deserve, but lets oppress the religious conservative majority.


 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: sao123
Bah...
All i see is a bunch of anti religious people whining because the religious majority in power controls them.

its ok for civil rights groups to boycott and protest in favor of gay rights, womens rights, rights for this race and that race. But hey... the christians? they are fundamentalists they dont deserve no rights. So... we want all the rights that the minoritys deserve, but lets oppress the religious conservative majority.
Exactly.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: sao123
Bah...
All i see is a bunch of anti religious people whining because the religious majority in power controls them.

its ok for civil rights groups to boycott and protest in favor of gay rights, womens rights, rights for this race and that race. But hey... the christians? they are fundamentalists they dont deserve no rights. So... we want all the rights that the minoritys deserve, but lets oppress the religious conservative majority.
Apples and oranges.

If the Christian Right (which is neither) wants to boycott the movies that's fine. But what they're doing is pressuring or forcing theater owners (including publicly-funded museums) to not show the film.

Quite the difference.
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
Civil rights are granted or protected by the government. Attempts at censorship by a minority are a whole different ball game.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: conjur
Apples and oranges.

If the Christian Right (which is neither) wants to boycott the movies that's fine. But what they're doing is pressuring or forcing theater owners (including publicly-funded museums) to not show the film.

Quite the difference.
Maybe you can explain how boycotting is not the same as applying pressure to the theater owner? I don't see any difference at all.
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Civil rights are granted or protected by the government. Attempts at censorship by a minority are a whole different ball game.
If they are a minority, then why are the theaters preemptively caving? The decision is still up to the theater management - these are the people choosing your censorship. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this obvious fact?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Civil rights are granted or protected by the government. Attempts at censorship by a minority are a whole different ball game.

Jack I have been beating a dead horse here, so I might as well continue


First I think those who are protesting are assholes.
Second I think assholes have the right to protest.
Third, I think that if the goal is censorship, that is unpleasant, but it is an expression of their first amendment rights. It is also within the rights of the theatres to ignore them. Does it hurt them economically? Probably. But recall there are boycotts of products from time to time to force others to do things against their will. Sometimes it is punishment for someone speaking their ignorant mind.

Remember it is not the RIGHT of the protestors to be successful, but it is allowed that they try. When they can march into a theatre and remove material by force of law and arms, then I have your back and I think you know what I mean.

You can't have it both ways. Either everyone is guaranteed the right to be an ass or no one is.
 

cquark

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2004
1,741
0
0
Originally posted by: sao123
its ok for civil rights groups to boycott and protest in favor of gay rights, womens rights, rights for this race and that race. But hey... the christians? they are fundamentalists they dont deserve no rights. So... we want all the rights that the minoritys deserve, but lets oppress the religious conservative majority.

Refusing to grant fundamentalists special rights is not oppressing them.

 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Originally posted by: cquark
Originally posted by: sao123
its ok for civil rights groups to boycott and protest in favor of gay rights, womens rights, rights for this race and that race. But hey... the christians? they are fundamentalists they dont deserve no rights. So... we want all the rights that the minoritys deserve, but lets oppress the religious conservative majority.

Refusing to grant fundamentalists special rights is not oppressing them.

Well I guess I am wearing my conservative hat today, but it's more libertarian.

While the SAO's post is not the best example of the King's English, he didn't say christians were wanting special rights. I think he was pointing out some hypocracy in that some groups seem to be permitted to protest, yet others are frowned upon for doing so because in the personal POV of an individual it has not merit. It is not OUR place to make that decision as to whether it's "special"

Gays get to protest, and others get to protest against them and they can all go on hell bent for recursion forever, just as long as the protests are peaceful.