It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NEWS: IMAX theaters Reject Science Shows under Religious Pressure

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 09:46 PM
Why did you quote me if you were resonding to something else? Where did Howard Stern come into this discussion? How does he relate to what is going on here? Please tell me. As another poster said, I'm all ears...

[edit on 3/22/2005 by djohnsto77]

posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 09:52 PM
One of the posts that I responded to and quoted stated that this was an economic issue. I disagree rightfully so. Howard Stern is a prime example of how religious wackos push the rest of this country around. The minority. I explained accurately the scenerio in which a specific radio station generated better ratings than any other radio show in history. I.E. had the biggest fan base in recorded history.

Yet, the fcc fueled by the minority and a few politicians has been able to push him around. The minority. Economics works off of the majority. In ecoonomics, you push howard stern out by removing his income due to low viewer ratings. However, this is not the case. Economically, howard stern is the most lucrative radio talk show host...IN HISTORY. Whether you like him or not, it is factual to say that the will of the majority in this case would not be to contiuously fine him off of FM radio. This is the minority at work.

Is that clear...or do I have to go write a kindergarden book explaining it? The connection? It is not the majority, nor is it economics that is pressuring the IMAX in this case. It is a minority christian base, made up of those blind to reality.

Sorry that I was so unclear before. I have to remember that sometimes I deal with those who cannot comprehend the first time around.

posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 09:55 PM
Obviously you are incapable of comprehending the difference between government censorship and free enterprise decisions. I feel like I'm speaking to a wall with an agenda.

posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 10:37 PM

Originally posted by Seapeople
I deal with those who cannot comprehend the first time around.

More sage advice. You may want to enroll in a comprehension course. There are probably a few on the Internet that would overlook your obvious youth and skill base. might work. The price is probably within your budget as well. Mom or dad would be glad for you to take such a course. Imagine being able to have written discourse with others and not have to insult them constantly! Excuse, that's one of the things you could learn in such a course. Check it out

The Reading Comprehension Online Course Series is specifically designed by educators to dramatically improve your ability to understand what you read, so you can succeed and excel at school, on tests, and at work.

Sounds good, right?

This way you can leave your agenda parked at the curb.


posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 12:01 AM

Originally posted by Seapeople


"Evolution is a bunch of hogwash"

How enlightening. It is nice to see an example of what I described earlier. Truly, thanks for showing everyone.

You say evolution is hogwash. Tell me. Have you ever read a package of antibiotics? Or a prescription for one? "Even if the symptoms dissapear, maintain proper dosage for the amount of time prescribed by your doctor"

Why is it that we have to do this? Well, lets look closer at the hogwash. It is SCIENTIFIC FACT, that when you take antibiotics, they will kill certain strains of viruses and infection. It is also SCIENTIFIC FACT that some of these viruses or infectous agents may survive the initia dose of antibiotics. Continuing, it is also SCIENTIFIC FACT, that if you stop taking an antibiotic before killing a virus in whole, some of that virus is still alive. This remaining virus ws strong enough to survive the initial dose. It is SCIENTIFIC FACT that the remaining viruses all will be stronger as compared to the antibiotic. Sidenote, it is SCIENTIFIC FACT that all things that reproduce pass on traits from themselves or the source. It is SCIENTIFIC FACT that when these remaining viruses reproduce, their offspring will be stronger as compared to the antibiotic. Thus, when the virus reproduces enough, it likely will be immune to the original antibiotic.

Every year, there are new versions of the flu and such. Variants of many animals are seen with the naked eye each day. This is just SCIENTIFIC FACT. Go ahead, read your prescription. The doctors must be lying to you huh?

lol i spacificaly said it was hogwash to prove a point.
i have been hearing people call creation "hogwash" and worse for years interesting the response i got from calling the pet theory of these same types of people hogwash. keep it in mind that they are both theories, and theories that may be impossible to prove whether one or the other is ultimately correct. the believe in either of them is faith. oh yeah i have never seen it stated in the bible that life can not or will not do some evolveing. in fact considering the flood ( i know lots do not believe in it either), i would say that god has indeed given life the ability to change. i find it hard to believe that noah could have gotten the millions of varieties of creatures we have today in the ark. even though the arc was apoximatly double the size of a ww2 liberty ship. and as science has noted very simmiler charactoristics amoung many species. i think that indeed there have been many changes among life, includeing man's skin colour.

i like your useing medication for a basis of your arguement. especialy considering i tend to forget to finish my medications like penicillan without ill effect.

as for the theory of gravity. where in the bible does it tell us god did not bring about gravety, therefore why state that god did not create it. it does state on the other hand that god created the heavens and the earth. gravity is a part of the earth and therefore i would have to say that god also created it. now if genisis had stated adam and eve were floating arround that would be a differant story.

as for evolution being the better theory due to it's foundation in sciance. is not the myth of global warming and it's causes also based upon "sciance"?
just because someone uses sciance to back up thier claims does not actualy make something "true".

i would also ask where in the bible does it tell us that creatures do not "evolve"? i have never heard of this. we all know that the human race itself has played with selective breeding on animals for at least centuies if not a lot longer. it is not unwarented to asume that creatures can do this on their own. just look at mateing rituals, creatures trying to prove they are more worthy of reproduction for one reason or another.

personly i believe that god purposely left a lot of mysteries out there for man to study and form opinions. weather they are right or wrong. this gives mankind something to strive for. something that causes us to exault in the complexity of life that god created.

posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 01:26 AM
You know, even if this were just a special interest group pushing this, and has already been explained, not an economic issue, I don't see what would be so terrible about it. It's not like there isn't a special interest group pushing every agenda imaginable, many using blatantly false information to peddle their beliefs. Ya, Christians do it. So do environmentalists. So do mothers united in anything (it's for the children!!). I wonder how many people did nothing but read the title and maybe a quick skim then came out with this:

Originally posted by James the Lesser

Awesome man, well put.

My religion is very much in reality. So is your blatant ignorance towards it.

And us Christians are the closed minded ones. Go friggin figure, huh?

posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 04:28 AM

"would you force me to pay my money to see a movie or documentary that says otherwise?"

No one is trying to force you to go and see the movie. All we are asking is that we are able to.

The protestors have done their utmost to prevent ANYONE seeing this movie.

How would you feel if I was able to get your church shut down because it disagreed with my point of view?

Same thing



[edit on 23-3-2005 by BillHicksRules]

posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 05:16 AM
Seems to me, that both sides have the right to free speech. IMAX can show anything they want, and we can protest anything we want. What’s the problem?
By, the way there is no such clause of separation of Church and State in the Constitution.

Reference to Separation of Church and State does not appear in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, or any of our country’s official documents. It does, however, appear in another prominent document, the constitution of the former Soviet Union: "The church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state and the school from the church."

Article 52 [Religion]

(1) Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited.
(2) In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.

The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (emphasis added). What does this say about what the Church can or cannot do? What does it say about what a Christian citizen should or should not do? Absolutely nothing!

Seem’s to me, that we got ourselves a bunch of Godless commies in the U.S., we fought some real bad wars over this, and now it is here. Real shame, lot good men died fight’n for freedom, just to have a bunch of Godless commie, pinkos take over.

I guess some of you agree the killing of 150,000 priests in Russia, eh? That’s how commies solve their problems. That way the “new man” can evolve. Got to kill those simpleminded Christians.

posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 07:08 AM
If we listened to Religion,

1) The Earth would still be flat.

2) The Sun would revolve around the Earth.

3) The Sun and Earth would be the centre of the Universe.

Those are just facts, i'am not saying that Religion is always bad, religion is bad when it it detrimental to humanity's leaps forward.

posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 09:04 AM

Originally posted by BillHicksRules

The protestors have done their utmost to prevent ANYONE seeing this movie.

Can you please read the New York Times article and tell me where it says there have been protests with protestors?

posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 05:41 PM

Please read the Bible for yourself carfully,
It says the Earth is round.
The planets go round the sun.
And, by the way, the Earth is the center of your universe.

Secondly, if we listen to Science,
We could not travel faster than the speed light, or over 35 mph,
We would bleed people, to cure the flu,
We would think that women are inferior to men,
We would think that you measure the size of peoples heads to see how smart they are.
That baby fish become baby humans.
And we would think that life can come from rocks.

Just, because a man wears a white lab coat he is not all knowing.
Nor, is it the case that because he wears black, and a collar his is all dumb.

“Those are just facts, i'am not saying that Religion is always bad, religion is bad when it it detrimental to humanity's leaps forward”

We absolutely agree on this point, True Religion, and true science cannot be separate. Well said.
I not saying science is always bad, science is bad when it is detrimental to humanity. Chemical warfare, atomic warfare, machine guns, biological warfare, atheism, abortion, racism, purging of the old man, 60 million murdered in Russia, 30 million China, 100 million Hitler, etc. yea! Science. Good job.
So, some people question this kind of thinking, I wonder why?
Plus, Galileo publicly insulted of the Pope, this is what got him in trouble, not his astronomic observations, he blamed it on that, but his presentation was poor. Luther used this as propaganda, also. But, the Greeks always knew it was round, as did most of the world. I am not a Papist, so don’t go there. Plus, loving my neighbor on a flat earth is better than killing him on a round one. Wouldn't you agree?

posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 09:10 PM
I think the argument for creationism is ecocentricallly based. It is nice to think that the human species is 'special'. "God's chosen . . . "

If it were simply a matter of indulging people's ego/world-view sensitivities it would be no big deal. But truth in the phrase "Pride goeth before a fall" comes to mind.

By thinking we are special we will more than likely overlook all those necessary things we need to do to perpetuate, protect and possibly improve the species.

The Universe is absolutely brutal, cruel, ruthless and if we think we can cut it without using every resourse we have to its best use we are being incredibly naive.

The fossil record is littered with species that could not comprehend the larger context in which they lived and imagine and protect against many reasonable possible events/transitions.

If we don't have what it takes, some other species may come along and fill that void. It may even come from some other evolution from some other planet.

Call it bias, but i would like to see the aspiring species here to be homegrown and not some import.

posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 11:57 PM
You missed my point. I am not arguing creation here. The statement was made the religious people are ignorant, and do not have the right to free speech only wise Atheist, who uses science (to paraphrase).
My retort, is not all that science has bought us so wonderful, and science may know some important things, but it has caused reductionism in the meaning of life which both of us are saying is valuable.

posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 01:09 PM

posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 11:15 AM
Censoring Science: IMAX and Evolution

here is another article about all of this...

posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 11:17 AM
There's nothing illegal about IMax submitting to the will of thier clients. I think it's just the fact that it's a religious group trying to influence that has caused the uproar. The idea itself isn't that odd.

posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 11:28 AM

Originally posted by savannah
There's nothing illegal about IMax submitting to the will of thier clients. I think it's just the fact that it's a religious group trying to influence that has caused the uproar. The idea itself isn't that odd.


it is CENSORING science...

this is "bad"...

posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 11:53 AM
Well, Imax can do whatever they wish. It's not censoring unless there's a law making it illegal.

posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 12:28 PM
If nothing else this shows that 'Imax' is just a business, not some sort of public educational group or somesuch, which is what they are often presented as.

posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 12:35 PM
My 2 cents here...........

Evolution is a scientific theory, it is based on the evidence that the driving force of natural selection can over eons of time results in new species as a result of random environmental changes altering the process of survival through the natural selection process. Incidentally, natural selection itself is not a theory but a face (viruses demonstrate it thousands of times a day in laboratories all over the world). natural selection is not debated by the creationist but whether that process can result in species evolution is the point of contention with them. Anyway, as a scientific theory, evolution is not based... nor required to ask anyone who subscribes to take a leap of faith in accepting it..........In fact a theory as part of the scientific method is only as good as whatever evidence substantiates it..................the scientific method requires that as soon as a theory no longer applies to the reality of the evidence it must be changed to match that evidence................."question authority" is often a healthy process in applying the scientific method to established data.

Creationism is a model of creation based on the authority of religious scripture that is not subjected to either questioning or revision.........even if the evidence demonstrates otherwise.............It is required to be taken on faith while dismissing any facts to the contrary as deceptive illusions..........(often attributed to the work of the devil). Sometimes creationists will attempt to select evidence that substanciates their point of view from scientific research..........however, they maintain the ablity to be selective in the process only taking evidence that supports their model while ignoring any other evidence as misleading.........

You must decide as an individual to select whatever process you see as valide.........

But consider this......................scripture authority based reality lead to the dark ages....................while questioning authority through evidence utilizing the process of the scientific method lead to the renaissance......

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in