Expelled (Documentary about the atheist stranglehold over science in the USA)

[StopS]

This is what I am saying. Why bring up things without checking up. Again Master Wiki tells us there there is something called Darwinism. I mean if normal people are saying Darwinism, then maybe, just maybe they are referring to what everyone refers Darwinism to. So now that we have that out of the way, let's accept the terms Darwinian Theory, Atheistic belief, etc etc in their contextual understanding by the people and move the discussion forward.

Practice what you preach! Look it up and you will see that not "everyone refers" to what you want.

And maybe ask a bit more. I firmly reject the term "Darwinism" for several reasons. Just because many people use the word does not make it correct and defined. But if you insist on using an erroneous, faulty, stupid and wrong word, go ahead. Like I said, it does not make sense as nobody refers to Newtonism or Einsteinism, but it's a free world, so do whatever blows your hair back.

We have a perfectly valid and agreed upon name: Theory of Evolution. Why not use that? Because Darwin's theory has very little in common with what we have today.

No, it seems you have not read more of my postings. Unfortunately my information thread on the definition of atheism was not approved and immediately deleted.
So here it is again: atheism has NOTHING to do with science or evolution. Most atheists don't even know what the ToE even is.
There is no such thing as an "atheistic belief", it is an oxymoron.
Are you aware of the definition of a theory as used in science? The ToE is not something anyone can "believe" in. It is a fact just like gravity here on this planet. I don't know of people questioning gravity or calling it an "atheistic belief in gravity" - yet both are scientific theories.

To move a discussion forward, I prefer asking people what it is they believe and why they believe it. That way I don't make silly mistakes and come off as an arrogant prick who is driven by preconceptions. Makes sense, right?

Now: do you think that Expelled actually has a valid background and that the people depicted were really fired because they were believing nonsense?

[StopS]

anyone?i am asking which papers 'you' have read and 'investigated'...and under whom did you carry out your research and what methodologies did you adopt?

in fact your faculty of 'observation' is wholly determined by these instruments you 'trust'. ever heard of the limitations of naked eye?
since you do not even know what is the difference between infinite and finite precision you cannot make any claim regarding validity of a theory using any form of 'observations'.

rest of what you said are your assumptions about what i am supposed to have said. i'll leave it at that.

Are you asking me for a list of papers I have read? Did I ever claim I did?

By saying: "Anyone can read published papers and follow their route. Anyone can investigate and correct these papers" I am in no way insinuating that I have read a single paper. You should not jump to conclusions and rather ask.

I will ignore the second part of your question as it is nonsensical.

Again you make a statement about what I believe and what I do. Why don't you ask? Well, because the eye has evolved we see several flaws and limitations, yes. A hawk or an octopus have better eyes in their environment, which is why we humans have learned to develop instruments which enhance or broaden our capabilities of observation. Example: A FLIR camera enables us to literally see different temperatures, which we can't do naturally.

I do not know the difference between "infinite and finite precision"? What does that mean? And because I can't make observations and show the validity of a theory? What are you on about? You need to seriously evaluate your attitude.

I think it was you who told me I had somehow contradicted myself - without saying how or why and never gave an explanation. Come on, get real and cough up some evidence for what you are saying. And, if you can't formulate something, it helps to provide an example.

Just suggestions to make communication easier.

And in my opinion, this personality banter is inefficient. I'd rather find out whether you think there is something accurate in this movie and why.

[StopS]

this has got to be one of the most irrelevant answers given to any question asked. when you are asked to prove something you do this. you have failed to answer any question i asked you and in this post you didn't even go close to attempting it. you are a waste of time.

and you are cordially invited to islam via this article:

I was not aware that you are in the committee awarding prizes for irrelevant answers. I could submit a few

But since you fail to see the link:

Your question was: you just assumed he appeals to them. how can you prove that?

My answer: No, I have heard both state this.

This means that
1. no, I did not assume anything. You see, asking helps clarify things.
2. I have talked to both and this is what they told me (regarding rational thinking, scepticism and reasoning) (Oh, the one if I remember correctly, is on public record when I talked to PZMyers on the Magic Sandwich Show)

I don't understand how you are able to contradict yourself in 2 adjacent sentences, but you manage somehow. First you say I DO prove something when asked and then you say I DON'T answer any questions. It is also FACTUALLY incorrect because I did answer your first question, which I have just explained? Why are you so difficult?

Then you have a block of 4 questions which I also answer. Maybe you don't understand the answer or maybe you don't like the answer. But saying I did not answer, is not exactly the truth, is it?

The last 2 questions made me angry because they implied something I did not say and you were - instead of asking - putting words in my mouth.

Now, have you seen a common element here? Do you think that we can get along much better if we ask instead of assuming stuff?

Why do you, when we are talking about a Christian movie, think you need to bring up an introduction to the Koran? Do you think I have never read a Koran before? Do you think reading a Koran will make anyone automatically and immediately accept the contents?
I met a bloke who postulated that a Muslim is only allowed a limited time of interaction with a non-Muslim. Are you also of this opinion?

[faizol]

Practice what you preach! Look it up and you will see that not "everyone refers" to what you want.

And maybe ask a bit more. I firmly reject the term "Darwinism" for several reasons. Just because many people use the word does not make it correct and defined. But if you insist on using an erroneous, faulty, stupid and wrong word, go ahead. Like I said, it does not make sense as nobody refers to Newtonism or Einsteinism, but it's a free world, so do whatever blows your hair back.

bla bla bla

yeah right. So you have the authority to define what is "Darwinism" and to accept the term or to reject it? Even though people world wide accepted the term as pointed out by my respected brother abuhajira. You have a personality complex of thinking that you're extremely intelligent, aren't you? Apparently from all the posts you replied, that doesn't seem so.

[abuhajira]

yeah right. So you have the authority to define what is "Darwinism" and to accept the term or to reject it? Even though people world wide accepted the term as pointed out by my respected brother abuhajira. You have a personality complex of thinking that you're extremely intelligence, aren't you? Apparently from all the posts you replied, that doesn't seem so.

@Stops,

whether you like it or not, the above is correct. You perceive a notion from your angle and then feel that this perception is the only, valid, non stupid, intellectual, unquestionable, logical, free from error, right concept. I am not in any form of discussion with you, but the above is simply a reflection of your incorrect assertions.

So what if you reject Darwinism, I reject the whole idea of atheism being a moral thought. Would you then accept my rejection and sulk in a corner now? Come on, you are discussing with people here. Show some intellect. "But if you insist on using an erroneous, faulty, stupid and wrong word, go ahead"

Atheism as per your explanation is simply a denial. You keep saying it is not belief, yet the whole definition of "belief" demands that the insistence in your denial has to be based on some belief. for example, Merriam-Webster says "conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence". Do you deny the assertion of Metaphysical beliefs in Divinity / God? Do you accept that denial to be your conviction or true? If you do, then you are by definition a believer. Although in atheism, still a believer. Now, you may go one and rant and rave, make all your justification...

"If it acts like a frog, and looks like a frog, croaks like a frog, it is a reasonably certain judgment call that IT IS A FROG"

Then you say that Theory of Relativity is a fact, and yet go on to tell me about being oxymoron. If its a fact, then CHANGE the darn name! There is a reason Theory remains a theory while Newton's law of gravity becomes a law. So, sorry mate, you didn't make sense. and if you did, then the intellectual academia failed.

You are in denial. That is your belief system. Whether you call it Cthuhulism or Atheism. If you want to move the discussion forward, then stop "acting" like a Socrates and start answering question like a human being.

While I do agree with a few points with you in this thread, eg "atheistic belief of gravity" is an incorrect usage of the term, but that does not render a discussion moot. You need to mature up and explain it in a mature manner that belief of gravity (or law of it) is separate from atheism. So, once you have made the point, move along to something better.

Now, do you realize, I don't really care what your discussion is about. I am modding this thread. So I need to see if the thread is beneficial for the forum or not. So far you are not making a good case.

[mh16388]

maybe people need to realize the conditions and assumptions along with theory of relativity.
i'll name one and describe it for the layman:
your observer has to be stationary. if it is moving, the theory fails.

even recently many physicists were so excited that the neutrinos had broken the speed barrier...why would they be excited if the theory was the Law?do not equate this with a scientists' determination to prove things right or wrong: many scientists simply believe the speed of light can be broken: the neutrinos incident fueled this 'belief' and turned it into excitement.

yet the restriction on the observer remains.

[mh16388]

I am in no way insinuating that I have read a single paper.

I do not know the difference between "infinite and finite precision"? What does that mean? And because I can't make observations and show the validity of a theory? What are you on about? You need to seriously evaluate your attitude.

this shows how much you actually 'know': you know nothing.
we are not responsible for your ignorance so that we have to repeat our questions again and again.
go read about precision of instruments and actually read papers of science that will tell you what i said about assumptions and in fact limitations of science.

[mh16388]

Do you think that we can get along much better if we ask instead of assuming stuff?

i ask.
you do not know the answer.
sometimes you reply incorrectly
sometimes you say you do not know
sometimes you accuse me of putting words in your mouth when all i did was ask a question.
sometimes you accuse me in your response of not asking you...when in fact first thing i did was 'ask'...and i was still asking till the last post. here you go boy, a contradiction for you.
your responses are laden with emotion. yet you claim atheists do not get emotional when people expose/question the theory of evolution. another contradiction. you also claim : "your last two questions made me angry"...another one.
your responses lack academic worth.
your responses also make assumptions on other people. uneducated inaccurate assumptions.

hence you are a complete waste of time im afraid.

now you will respond with : "chee i didnt know!!...thankss..."or are we done with the "handing out awards" cliche?

the link i shared was meant to be an introduction to many things, not just the Qur'an...if you actually read it some things like 'faculties of reasoning' might interest you. do read it.
peace.

[StopS]

yeah right. So you have the authority to define what is "Darwinism" and to accept the term or to reject it? Even though people world wide accepted the term as pointed out by my respected brother abuhajira. You have a personality complex of thinking that you're extremely intelligent, aren't you? Apparently from all the posts you replied, that doesn't seem so.

If you don't ask a question relating to this movie I will no longer react to your taunts. You just claim and claim and don't even understand why. I asked you questions to clarify your rants and you refuse to answer. Your choice.

[StopS]

@Stops,

whether you like it or not, the above is correct. You perceive a notion from your angle and then feel that this perception is the only, valid, non stupid, intellectual, unquestionable, logical, free from error, right concept. I am not in any form of discussion with you, but the above is simply a reflection of your incorrect assertions.

How is this correct in any way? It is a stubborn and childish knee-jerk reaction and not a rational response.

How is the Theory of Evolution any form of -ism? The link you yourself provided shows there is more than one connotation to Darwinism. Darwinism is an emotional, factually incorrect term. Darwinism does not carry a unique definition and identity. Yes, my opinion is that this is wrong. Totally, utterly and completely wrong. This is my personal verdict and my personal opinion.
How did I form my opinion? By asking a simple question:
Does "Theory of Evolution" accurately, precisely and without ambiguity or the possibility of a misunderstanding convey the contents of what I am talking about? Answer: yes.
Does "Darwinism" accurately, precisely and without ambiguity or the possibility of a misunderstanding convey the contents of what I am talking about? Answer: no.

It is that easy. But if you want to use the wrong word, you are right: who cares?

So what if you reject Darwinism, I reject the whole idea of atheism being a moral thought. Would you then accept my rejection and sulk in a corner now? Come on, you are discussing with people here. Show some intellect. "But if you insist on using an erroneous, faulty, stupid and wrong word, go ahead"

Exactly, who cares? Except if you want to discuss evolution or the theory, we need to define it each and every time if you use Darwinism because I don't know what you are referring to. This is why in science you get very precise and accurate definitions instead of vague, emotional words.
I reject the term Darwinism. Atheism is not a moral thought. I don't care what you accept or reject as long as you don't expect me to do the same.

Atheism as per your explanation is simply a denial.

Wrong!

You keep saying it is not belief, yet the whole definition of "belief" demands that the insistence in your denial has to be based on some belief. for example, Merriam-Webster says "conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence". Do you deny the assertion of Metaphysical beliefs in Divinity / God? Do you accept that denial to be your conviction or true? If you do, then you are by definition a believer. Although in atheism, still a believer. Now, you may go one and rant and rave, make all your justification...

Of course it is about belief. You see, you don't have the definitions; I defined atheism in a separate thread, but the mods deleted it.

Do you understand epistemology? The difference between belief and knowledge? So according to epistemological definitions atheism is about belief or lack of belief. Belief/denial is a false dichotomy.
Denial is a term which can only be used for factual claims. I can't deny there is another planet in our solar system, I just don't believe there is.
So the positive statement is: atheism is the lack of belief that a god exists. Finito. Nothing more. Nothing about science or anything else.
There are metaphysical beliefs, but they are - to my knowledge - not standardised. Could you explain what your definition of metaphysical beliefs regarding divinity are?

"If it acts like a frog, and looks like a frog, croaks like a frog, it is a reasonably certain judgment call that IT IS A FROG"

So you DO accept deductive, empirical reasoning.

Then you say that Theory of Relativity is a fact, and yet go on to tell me about being oxymoron. If its a fact, then CHANGE the darn name! There is a reason Theory remains a theory while Newton's law of gravity becomes a law. So, sorry mate, you didn't make sense. and if you did, then the intellectual academia failed.

What?!?!!? I said what? There is no way I would ever say that. Ah, I went back and checked and, to my relief found, I did not.
I said that the Theory of Evolution is a fact just like gravity here on this planet.
I said that "atheistic belief"is an oxymoron. Because, as I just explained, atheism is a lack of belief. So you can't atheism = "lack of belief belief". It does not make much sense, does it?

Oh dear! Ok, now you have seriously shown you have no understanding of science, of how science works and what science is.

Try Google and enter definition scientific theory. You will get >21m hits. Start on Wikipedia, which starts by saying : "The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word." That's a good place to start: throw everything out what you think you know and start asking questions.

And again: even if the terms are wrong it is the scientists who are to blame and not the atheists. Clear?

You are in denial. That is your belief system. Whether you call it Cthuhulism or Atheism. If you want to move the discussion forward, then stop "acting" like a Socrates and start answering question like a human being.

No, because I will not believe what you think I believe. It is not philosophical, but all a matter of definitions. If I am an atheist, does this influence my stance towards music, cars, colours, clothes, general knowledge, job, friends, hobbies, etc etc? No, not in any way. Every atheist is completely different. There is no group feeling or joint activity. Recently, because religions are more vocal and more demanding, opposing groups have been formed to counter this.

While I do agree with a few points with you in this thread, eg "atheistic belief of gravity" is an incorrect usage of the term, but that does not render a discussion moot. You need to mature up and explain it in a mature manner that belief of gravity (or law of it) is separate from atheism. So, once you have made the point, move along to something better.

Now, do you realize, I don't really care what your discussion is about. I am modding this thread. So I need to see if the thread is beneficial for the forum or not. So far you are not making a good case.

Man, why don't you first check before posting something??? Try entering "law of gravity" into Google and watch what happens. Then enter "Theory of Gravity". In the first instance you will only find references to Newtonian laws, applicable only here on this planet. The second search will lead to the general term of gravity - which is a theory. But you don't question this every day, do you?

No, why can you make unsubstantiated claim after claim and I am the one who needs to repair your mistakes and erroneous thinking?
Why can't YOU do some homework before attacking my person and my character, based on what we now know are basic misunderstandings and lack of definitions?

This entire thread is about Expelled. A movie. Did anyone here ever go to http://www.expelledexposed.com/? This site shows exactly what nonsensical drivel this movie is and what the lies are. It also shows the attempt at drawing emotional parallels to Hitler and Nazis, which is ridiculous, but fundamentalist Christians prefer this to the truth. Why do Muslims want to even follow Christians into their baseless assertions?
I am here because I am appalled at the contents and the lies. It seems that some people here have not really watched it and are simply following some propaganda. I am trying to point out the truth and background - but some people attack me personally, instead of factually. Pity. Because even though they may not like me because I represent something they don't trust, my arguments are sound and truthful.