Creationism vs Imax

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
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.
Yet here there is a fundamental difference. These protesters don't want anything ADDED for others. They want something REMOVED.

Giving rights would be, say, them getting a movie made, and having it shown, that is creationist-centric.

OTOH, I doubt it makes much difference in this case.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Cerb
Yet here there is a fundamental difference. These protesters don't want anything ADDED for others. They want something REMOVED.

Giving rights would be, say, them getting a movie made, and having it shown, that is creationist-centric.

OTOH, I doubt it makes much difference in this case.
I wasn't aware that freedom of movie selection was a constitutional right. You're still completely ignoring the issue - that the theater management is the group withholding the movie, not the group you're blaming.
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Cerb
Yet here there is a fundamental difference. These protesters don't want anything ADDED for others. They want something REMOVED.

Giving rights would be, say, them getting a movie made, and having it shown, that is creationist-centric.

OTOH, I doubt it makes much difference in this case.
I wasn't aware that freedom of movie selection was a constitutional right. You're still completely ignoring the issue - that the theater management is the group withholding the movie, not the group you're blaming.
I'm not ignoring that issue. Read the last line again. It doesn't make much of a difference specifically because of that--the problem that management has no balls is a bigger problem than fundies protesting (though not bigger than what they are trying to accomplish, which is willing censorship).
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Cerb
I'm not ignoring that issue. Read the last line again. It doesn't make much of a difference specifically because of that--the problem that management has no balls is a bigger problem than fundies protesting (though not bigger than what they are trying to accomplish, which is willing censorship).
You're just shifting blame from the theater management to fundamentalists because you disagree with them. You're free to disagree with them, but they are not the problem here.
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Cerb
I'm not ignoring that issue. Read the last line again. It doesn't make much of a difference specifically because of that--the problem that management has no balls is a bigger problem than fundies protesting (though not bigger than what they are trying to accomplish, which is willing censorship).
You're just shifting blame from the theater management to fundamentalists because you disagree with them. You're free to disagree with them, but they are not the problem here.
Shifting blame where?
Both parties clearly have a part in this. If I am not blaming one party at the exclusion of blaming the other, how am I shifting blame?

I think what the protesters are tyring to do is bad. In fact, what they are trying to do should never be done.
I also think what the management is doing is bad, as it is giving in to such whims of the protesters, rather than standing up to them or ignoring them.
 

cquark

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2004
1,741
0
0
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
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.

IF these idiots were given unrestrictedfreedom to protest and harass, then yes that would be special treatment. When they go too far they deserved to be slapped down. I havent seen that argument made.

Another thing, is that protesters are subject to being criticised. That's part of free speech. To be able to prevent a peacible protest is a "special" right, and I think that matters.

WinstonSmith, I don't think that you and I disagree on anything here. Perhaps it's the lack of clarity in sao123's post, but as there's no source of oppression of fundamenalists here other than posters disagreeing with their protests, it seems that he does believe fundamenalists either have a right to not be criticized on AT or to automatically have their censorship granted without having to have protests that someone might criticize.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: conjur
Have you already forgotten the content of the original article? Might want to go back and re-read it. We're not talking boycotts. We're talking direct pressure.
A boycott is a form of applying pressure. Why is any other form worse or better? You have yet to make a single coherent point. Feel free to do so. Also feel free to keep your childish jackassery to yourself.



Now, now CW, be nice. We mustn't call people names or apply cruel labels. And I have to tell you, it is so . . . so . . . so LIBERATING to be gentle. And remember, what would HE say?
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Cerb
Shifting blame where?
Both parties clearly have a part in this. If I am not blaming one party at the exclusion of blaming the other, how am I shifting blame?

I think what the protesters are tyring to do is bad. In fact, what they are trying to do should never be done.
I also think what the management is doing is bad, as it is giving in to such whims of the protesters, rather than standing up to them or ignoring them.
No one should ever protest or stand up for what they believe in? Or do you only apply your criteria to Christian fundamentalists? Or just people who generally disagree with you? I think what you're trying to do - censor the protestors - is bad.
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Cerb
Shifting blame where?
Both parties clearly have a part in this. If I am not blaming one party at the exclusion of blaming the other, how am I shifting blame?

I think what the protesters are tyring to do is bad. In fact, what they are trying to do should never be done.
I also think what the management is doing is bad, as it is giving in to such whims of the protesters, rather than standing up to them or ignoring them.
No one should ever protest or stand up for what they believe in? Or do you only apply your criteria to Christian fundamentalists? Or just people who generally disagree with you? I think what you're trying to do - censor the protestors - is bad.
I only apply it to anyone who wants to remove something.

Fundy protesters, F911 protesters a bit back...anyone who's aim to get something that others should be able to experience removed--that is, no longer avilable for them to experience.

What's terrible in this case is that they seem to be caving in, when they should have gone to the papers ASAP about it, specifically to HELP get more sales.
 

sxr7171

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2002
5,079
40
91
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Forget 'em. Let them block out everything true in the world. But don't waste time funding their universities with government money or put scientific facilities in their districts if they dont' want science. Let them live in ignorance and poverty.
Perhaps the sheep can all herd together and get the flock outta here...form their own United States of Christ or something.

If Australia were still empty we could have sent them there. Maybe we could just send them to Antarctica.
 

sxr7171

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2002
5,079
40
91
Originally posted by: cobalt
Originally posted by: conjur
Nah...Fund-A-Mentals aren't affecting our society at all...nope...no way.


They're worse than the political correctness wackos.

Carol Murray, director of marketing for the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History, said the museum decided not to offer the movie after showing it to a sample audience, a practice often followed by managers of Imax theaters. Ms. Murray said 137 people participated in the survey, and while some thought it was well done, "some people said it was blasphemous."

In their written comments, she explained, they made statements like "I really hate it when the theory of evolution is presented as fact," or "I don't agree with their presentation of human existence."
Fvcking idiots.

No sh!t because evolution doesn't fvcking = abiogenesis. These people sicken me. It's one thing to not agree with a certain theory or w.e because it doesn't agree with your views, buit if they don't know what it is in the first place, then we have a problem.

Thank you.
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
They've got a lot of balls calling that a "science fair". I like the part about one being disqualified because of "Biblical inconsistencies". Great science book.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Cerb
I only apply it to anyone who wants to remove something.

Fundy protesters, F911 protesters a bit back...anyone who's aim to get something that others should be able to experience removed--that is, no longer avilable for them to experience.

What's terrible in this case is that they seem to be caving in, when they should have gone to the papers ASAP about it, specifically to HELP get more sales.
You're trying to remove their right to protest. As far as I can tell, your only motive is that they're a group that you disagree with.
Originally posted by: sxr7171
Originally posted by: conjur
Perhaps the sheep can all herd together and get the flock outta here...form their own United States of Christ or something.
If Australia were still empty we could have sent them there. Maybe we could just send them to Antarctica.
Both of you can feel free to take your unabated bigotry and leave. You're protesting in favor of open-mindedness while displaying your own closed-mindedness. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
 

sxr7171

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2002
5,079
40
91
Great, look what I found (on the link posted by Supertool above):

"The Error Of Triclavianism

There have been some questions as of late on why we moved our web-site. As stated, it was due to our previous host's lack of strong condemnation of triclavianism. I would like to clarify this situation as I think it illustrates an overlooked heresy in today's Church.

Triclavianists hold that three, and only three, nails were used to affix our Lord Jesus Christ to the cross. While it might be true that three nails were used -- and, in fact, archeological evidences uncovered by Biblical researchers positively point to this conclusion -- it is erroneous, and theologically dangerous, to make this a doctrinal position. The Bible does not enumerate the Lord's nails and any extra-Biblical research on the subject -- while both interesting and useful for apologetic purposes when dealing with those afflicted with a Secular world view that denies even the historicity of our Lord's passion and crucifixion -- cannot be considered of any substantive import to the Faith.

The Bible is the infallible and inerrant word of God; everything that He wanted us to know about Faith can be found in its pages. If He remains silent on the issue of the number of nails used in the sacrifice of His only begotten Son, then it is not for us to presume to make it a point of contention. Those that do are like the Pharisees, hypocritical in their righteousness based on their own worldly learning, and they will lead people astray and away from the True teachings of God. Therefore, we must oppose their strident and irrelevant teachings on the triune nature of the implements of our Lord's impalement.

The heresy in triclavianism is not the belief in the use of only three nails, per se. Rather, it is the insistence that fallible, non-Biblical sources of information should be used as a guide to important matters of Faith. Triclavianism is merely a pernicious symptom of a greater illness inflicting today's Christians: the allowing of Secularists to subvert the authority of Christ's teachings, thereby replacing Faith with skepticism and knowledge with ignorance. Those who do not oppose this illness strongly enough, although their motives may be pure, are only helping to spread it."

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Cerb
I only apply it to anyone who wants to remove something.

Fundy protesters, F911 protesters a bit back...anyone who's aim to get something that others should be able to experience removed--that is, no longer avilable for them to experience.

What's terrible in this case is that they seem to be caving in, when they should have gone to the papers ASAP about it, specifically to HELP get more sales.
You're trying to remove their right to protest. As far as I can tell, your only motive is that they're a group that you disagree with.
Originally posted by: sxr7171
Originally posted by: conjur
Perhaps the sheep can all herd together and get the flock outta here...form their own United States of Christ or something.
If Australia were still empty we could have sent them there. Maybe we could just send them to Antarctica.
Both of you can feel free to take your unabated bigotry and leave. You're protesting in favor of open-mindedness while displaying your own closed-mindedness. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
Oh, here comes King Troll lambasting us for being intolerant of the intolerant.


As CsG says, Piss Off, Troll
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: sao123
Conjur. After reading months of your posts...
I dont want to sound insulting to you...but
I would almost say that you would ether shut down your imax theator or go bankrupt, rather than let a group of infererior Christians tell you what to do.
Do you really feel that they are inferior, because they believe in God?
Then you should know I have no problem with normal, sentient human beings. We're not dealing with such in this case.
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Cerb
I only apply it to anyone who wants to remove something.

Fundy protesters, F911 protesters a bit back...anyone who's aim to get something that others should be able to experience removed--that is, no longer avilable for them to experience.

What's terrible in this case is that they seem to be caving in, when they should have gone to the papers ASAP about it, specifically to HELP get more sales.
You're trying to remove their right to protest. As far as I can tell, your only motive is that they're a group that you disagree with.
No, you are putting meaning where there are no words of mine to back it up.

I have said I disagree with the protesters.
I have said I disagree with the management's decision.
I have said that neither should do what they are doing.
Nowhere have I said either should not be able to to do what they are doing. There is a huge difference.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: conjur
Oh, here comes King Troll lambasting us for being intolerant of the intolerant.


As CsG says, Piss Off, Troll
That's what, your 30th post in this thread? You still haven't added anything except bigotry and idiocy. I'd carefully watch who I was calling a troll.
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
Why do people believe science and religion to be mutually exclusive?

Belief is a conceptual lens, through which we view the world around us. We use it to attribute cause and effect and to interpret and correct behavior. It is paradoxically associated with mercy and malice, polar opposites of human potential, and it is regrettably often categorized as one or the other. It provides us with an explanation for things about which we are uncertain, it comforts us in times of grief and joy, it provides us with guidance in unclear situations and justifies those decisions that otherwise might be questionable.

With belief, there are a great deal of things that cannot be explained: why do I get sick? (because God willed it?) Why did Grandma die? (because God was calling her home) Why did Uncle Joe die? (because he fvcked his wife's best friend and God wanted him to spend a nice vacation in a warm place, perhaps?) There are many questions, both about the world around us and the profound, that religion is honestly not prepared to answer, or at least answer on its own. To claim otherwise is to resort to conclusions in want of truth, and in some cases, common sense!

There is a resolute frailty to scientific investigation; it does not assume answers, but bases answers upon what it can observe, verify, and repeat. This has had such a lasting impact on the human condition and on our understanding of the universe around us; we now know by what most diseases are caused (and cures for a great many of them), we know that the earth revolves around the sun which revolves around a black hole, we know by what processes foods are metabolised into energy for our bodies.

But we do not have answers to many of the most pressing, yet basic, questions - when does life begin? When did the universe begin? What happens when we die? These are questions which may never be answerable by science, and some think this appropriate. After all, there are some aspects of life and nature too sacred and delicate for scientific rigor.

But taken in tandem, belief tempered by science, neither subordinated. The interaction between the two is not a zero-sum game; they can intertwine and grow together, and both be greatly enriched. They have so much to offer each other!

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to contemplation of the truth. - Pope John Paul II

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. - Einstein
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: kogase
Originally posted by: SuperTool
The future of American Science :)


I remember seeing that site about a year ago. It's a confirmed hoax.

My ex girlfriend showed me her ribbons from her schools grade 7 "creation science fair". Even if that particular one was a hoax, the concept is very real in private evangelical schools.

And some of the projects were almost as ridiculous as the winners there; not quite, but close.