It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Hi Bill,

Rocks do not have control, and they have no desire. Anyway, desire is before control, if you did not have desire than you would not care about control. Therefore, it does not necessarily follow that lack of control creates desire. This would also so mean that a lack of control, would have properties, when it is an absence of something.

Beers,
BD




posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 03:54 AM
link   
BD,

With regards to the question you asked of me, what is the point you want to make?

Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 04:08 AM
link   
Bill,

Uh....I forgot too....what were we talking about... morals...and ....um....

Oh yeah, I said you cannot explain ethics without God.
You said morals came from the desire to control.
I challanged that saying God creates ethics and moral, thus religion. Then I went on about rocks and control, and such.

So you are supposed to explain how you have ethics without God.
Yes, I paraphrased, sorry.

Oh, wait my point, you cannot explain ethics without God.

More beers,
BD



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 04:21 AM
link   
BD,

Why do you need God for ethics?

Ethics are simply codified common sense for the survival of the species.

This requires no deity intervention to assign them in the firstplace.

You may believe that God "programmed" us with ethics. That is your right.

However, it will only ever be a matter of faith. Until you can prove otherwise I will know it to be a matter of common sense and evolution.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   
.
There is tree-ring evidence that the Dark Ages were started by volcanic climate disruption.

Krakatoa erupted in 535.

From 539-542 the years were so cold from the sulphur, ash and dust in the atmosphere that no crops could have been grown.

Secrets of the Dead . . Catastrophe
.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 03:08 AM
link   
Slank,

I did not think they called it the Dark Ages because there was not a lot of light.

I thought it was the dark practices.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by JoeDoaks
Censorship? How about plain old dollar$? Religion gets banned here- that's O.K. Now evolution gets a hit and it's a 'sin?' (pun intended) Can't have it both ways folks. Religious people want their say just as much as the non-religious.

Star Wars wasn't protested- why? It doesn't pretend to be something it isn't. Evolution is speculation. It is using convenient theories and examples to mold and fit an argument. Religion isn't a whole lot different.

Where was your (the supporters of evolution) outrage when The Passion of the Christ was being banned?

Why the big wail anyway? The volcano movie was pure speculation based on guesswork and theory. Sure it would be interesting, but Star Wars was interesting also.

IMAX- aren't they supported by public money- you know, tax dollar$? Some are at least. Would anyone complain if public money were spent showing Nazi extermination movies or date rape videos? How about snuff films at public theaters paid for with tax dollar$, would that be O.K.?

Censorship is nothing new. It only bothers us when something we believe in is affected.

I love this argument (taken from one of the reporter's links:


Scientists now believe that there is an intrinsic logic to our reality, that there are absolutes, laws of nature. Much remains a mystery, and as one question is answered, many others arise.

Scientists now believe . . .

Think about that. Tax dollar$ are used to teach as an absolute a belief system that is still based on conjecture and theory. Is it right this year or will it be right in five years? Evolution should be taught. It should be taught as what it is and not what some wished it was.

The volcano film- I didn't see it so I have no idea what statements it postulates. When I took Anthropology 101, Cro-magnon evolved from Neanderthals- yet the absolutes then conflict with the theories of today!

Is this regression?


Onelife.com site
Late evidence in a study of the DNA from fossil remains seem to indicate that the neandertal was not assimilated into the gene pool of modern man.


Paleontological Museum, Norway
They are rather similar to modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) but they are considered to be a unique species, Homo neanderthalensis. DNA anaysis will throw more light on the relationship between Neandertals and modern man.


From Paleos.com

So where does this leaves us?

Probably nowhere- we are on a journey to discover. During our travels perhaps we can discover the forces that cause so much discontent and discord (the conspiracies) or maybe we will succumb to those forces. After all, we will be in good company either way.

.

.


I voted for you, I think your post is a fresh and welcome reply to once again a "blown out of proportions" story to make christians and christianity look bad.

Banning christianity, God and Jesus from our current worlds seems fine with most, but then when an unproven theory gets resisted by religious people they are morons?

Talking about hypocrits...



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 03:19 AM
link   
Jakko,

I can see your point but the most telling quote from Joe's post is

"Evolution is speculation. It is using convenient theories and examples to mold and fit an argument. Religion isn't a whole lot different."

As I see it this would mean that the evolution film was just as valid as any creationist or religious film.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 04:24 AM
link   
Bill


Why do you need God for ethics? Ethics are simply codified common sense for the survival of the species.


Chemicals do not have ethics, nor is any living thing on earth other than man religious, why? Evolutionary theory or "theology", survival of the fittest, would not create ethics of self sacrifice, only greed. Nor do we see sign of ethics in non-humans, so we must asks how did ethics appear and why?

If religion is programmed into us as you claim, then can you name a time when man was not religious, other than the last 200 years. If it were the case, of a few small men programming, non-religious people with ideas of God, then how were they so successful, when man is non-naturally religious as are all animals? Maybe, you say by force? If so then is not force a greater form of control the religion?



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 05:26 AM
link   
BD,

Ethics did not "come" from anywhere.

They evolved over time. Much like the rest of us.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 04:27 AM
link   


Ethics did not "come" from anywhere. They evolved over time. Much like the rest of us.


Can you suport that claim? That ethics evolved.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 05:21 AM
link   
this is a failure of open minded thinking back to the dark ages we go.im really impressed how poorly we are progressing right now as a human race.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 07:04 AM
link   
BD,

It can be proved that man's existence on this planet is predated by thousands of other species and millions of years.

Animals have, as far as we can tell no ethics.

Early man, as far as can be told, had no ethics. Kill or be killed.

The rules by which we live were originally created to control us and to increase the propogation of the species.

Certain things that in the past have been deemed to be ethical are now no longer so.

As man evolves so does the ethics by which he/she lives.

The fact that in the past the wise men of the tribe ascribed these rules as having come from a deity only shows the wisdom of the wise men and the stupidity of the tribe.

I do not kill, steal etc not because I fear a vengeful God but because rightly it is essential to maintain an ordered society.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Hi Bill,


The rules by which we live were originally created to control us and to increase the propogation of the species.


originally created? How could this happen logically, you and I are wondering of into some rather interesting places in origins, which is great and I am glad we are civilized about.

So please help me understand how could a non-ethical life develop ethics?

What is the process? You stated they were created. We can easily see how ethics and rules are a good from our point of view, but how could a non-ethical creature, realize this, never having seen this?

Now this is quite enjoyable for me to have this discussion, and I assume you are not an ethics professor, so let us give each other liberty in our discussion.



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 05:27 AM
link   
BD,

How does any "idea" develop?

Surely you are not going to say that we are all mindless sheep and any new thought is sent by the Lord?

Ethics developed alongside religion as a means of controlling the population.

As time has moved on ethics have remained as they are a good idea where as religion's relevance has waned since as a species we are able to understand and express the universe around us in scientific terms.

The need for deities in science is as outdated as placing "Here be Dragons" on unexplored areas on maps.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Hi Bill


Surely you are not going to say that we are all mindless sheep and any new thought is sent by the Lord?

No, but close. I think the Lord moves the heart of man to good things, and man using his freewill accepts or not this movement, and uses his mind as a means to fulfill that movement.

Now, I am saying Ethics, are an extension of God's nature, since God is love then it is ethical to love.

My question to you is, what is the explanation of ethics outside of God?
Saying ethics developed to control people only begs the question, it does not answer how do they came into being, you have given the effect but not the reason of origin. A controlling person could say I wish to control people, how could he create ethics, if no one had ever seen them before? But, I am afraid you will not be able to answer these questions, which is the point of using a transcendental argument, the impossibly of the contrary.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
Banning christianity, God and Jesus from our current worlds seems fine with most, but then when an unproven theory gets resisted by religious people they are morons?

Talking about hypocrits...

Let's get back to the thread (ethics?nope). I kind of forgot about this thread for awhile (got lost in the 'cracker' thread*).

This thread is about evolution vis-a-vis religion as it affects an economic enterprise.

What is 'evolution?' Is it a changed (new) thing/species or just a current one different?

Science types have no problem ascribing an amoeba-like creature as having all the building blocks to eventually escalate into mammal thence human, yet these same people can not accept that maybe, just perhaps, all the heavy evolving was already accomplished prior to our (mankind) arrival.

When God created man what did he really do? We don't know. What does create mean in this usage anyway? Many like to think this means Adam was the first humanoid. I don't have a problem with this. The problem (as I see it) is then how many thousands of years passed prior to the expulsion from the garden? We don't know. We don't know much about little.

What we do know is this- with enough pressure any economic entity wanting to survive will adapt. Maybe there is a message here that relates to creationist vs. evolutionist?

external image

*locked and soon going to the dust bin as a further example of argument out of control

ATS cracker monster



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Joe


Let's get back to the thread (ethics?nope). I kind of forgot about this thread for awhile (got lost in the 'cracker' thread*). This thread is about evolution vis-a-vis religion as it affects an economic enterprise.


Hi! I think you maybe missing the point of the discussion, Bill and Balaam’s (me) are having. It is most certainty about evolution, and economics. Looking at cells is only one aspect of the discussion, the origins of everything is also tossed in, because with out God, then evolution is the sole creator of everything, including logic and ethics. I believe Bill is aware of this, which is why is defending the position, that ethics can be explained simply by the desire to control others, I disagree with this. I do not think evolution, can explain ethics or logic, if evolution cannot explain it, then we are forced to look else where, which will led us to God. If there is a God, a creator then, ethics are based on Gods nature, and thus all of our laws which control our economic systems, also follow. So please be aware the Mr. Bill Hicks and I are completely on track, and are both very much aware of what we are talking about and the implications, thereof. In fact should either of us establish a sound victory on this topic, it will have major implications, either way it lands. So we are foolishly blathering away here.

Lastly, I think credit must be given to Mr. Bill Hicks, as he and some others have kept this discussion on a very friendly and coherent level, rather than the childish yelling on some of the other posts.

Cheers



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 06:47 PM
link   
No problem Balaams, trouble with playing checkers in a public place is someone else sees the moves a bit differently.

The horse- one of my favorites of all. Evolutionists claim all kinds of things happened during its journey to modern mammal.

Maybe they are correct.

One point they (evos) gloss over is man and the horse. Man selected one horse over another horse to care for. Man 'built' the modern horse. Nature provided the clay (as it were) and the spark of man (the thing that makes us different from every other creature) bred modern horses in a relatively short period of time.

From somewhere around 2,000 BC until Rome began its conquests (250BC +-) man took a spindly chariot (cart) pulling beast unable to support weight and selectively developed a beast of war and transport far exceeding what it started out as.

Dogs are another subject for another time- man did it.

Man didn't do these things just because he walks upright or has opposed thumbs, man had something different. Man had a divine spark to take dominion of the earth.



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 02:36 AM
link   
BD/JD,

Sorry for taking so long to reply, I have been a bit off the grid for the last two weeks.

To answer the topic at hand I feel that I can adequately explain the universe and all that is in it, without recourse to a divine power/being.

This will only be sufficient to those who have no requirement for such a divine power/being.

Not wanting to wimp out of this thread but I feel we have reached an impasse.

Cheers

BHR



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join