>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

>> ^shinyblurry:
lennox babbling

Religion and science are not in conflict because of how Galileo was treated ot because Huxley debated a bishop, they are in conflict, and will forever be in conflict because of the way they work:
Science is the systematic way of removing faith from the equation, and to systematically question and test every assumption to prevent us from fooling ourselves.
Religion is precisely the opposite: Its a systematic way of perserving faith in the face of doubt and uncertainty. Its a systematic way of avoiding the hard questions and keep fooling oneself.
Which is why its defenders often attack those who question and destroy previous assumptions about the world (Darwin or Galileo). The two examples Lennox gives are symptoms of the conflict, not the conflict itself.
As Jerry Coyne puts it in "Why evolution is true": "Not all religious people are creationists, but all creationists are religious" So when we ask ourselves why more than 40% of the US deny the factual existance of the fundamental process that created and drives all living things on earth, the answer isnt just ignorance or stupidity. It is organized ignorance, stupidity and dogma, or religion as some call it.


Very eloquent, i'd only recommend getting rid of the "hard questions, foolish" bit because it sounds insulting. Otherwise it's a really well constructed explanation that even a theologist would find hard to deny.

Do you realize how dogmatic your position actually is? I mean, do you actually find your analysis here intellectually satisfying?

Are you willing to challenge your beliefs? I recommend two books for you:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0890510628/ref=tmm_pap_used_olp_sr?ie=UTF8&condition=used

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1595553223/ref=sr_1_1_up_1_main_olp?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342692277&sr=1-1&condition=used

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

>> ^shinyblurry:
lennox babbling

Religion and science are not in conflict because of how Galileo was treated ot because Huxley debated a bishop, they are in conflict, and will forever be in conflict because of the way they work:
Science is the systematic way of removing faith from the equation, and to systematically question and test every assumption to prevent us from fooling ourselves.
Religion is precisely the opposite: Its a systematic way of perserving faith in the face of doubt and uncertainty. Its a systematic way of avoiding the hard questions and keep fooling oneself.
Which is why its defenders often attack those who question and destroy previous assumptions about the world (Darwin or Galileo). The two examples Lennox gives are symptoms of the conflict, not the conflict itself.
As Jerry Coyne puts it in "Why evolution is true": "Not all religious people are creationists, but all creationists are religious" So when we ask ourselves why more than 40% of the US deny the factual existance of the fundamental process that created and drives all living things on earth, the answer isnt just ignorance or stupidity. It is organized ignorance, stupidity and dogma, or religion as some call it.

>> ^shinyblurry:
lennox babbling


Religion and science are not in conflict because of how Galileo was treated ot because Huxley debated a bishop, they are in conflict, and will forever be in conflict because of the way they work:

Science is the systematic way of removing faith from the equation, and to systematically question and test every assumption to prevent us from fooling ourselves.
Religion is precisely the opposite: Its a systematic way of perserving faith in the face of doubt and uncertainty. Its a systematic way of avoiding the hard questions and keep fooling oneself.

Which is why its defenders often attack those who question and destroy previous assumptions about the world (Darwin or Galileo). The two examples Lennox gives are symptoms of the conflict, not the conflict itself.

As Jerry Coyne puts it in "Why evolution is true": "Not all religious people are creationists, but all creationists are religious" So when we ask ourselves why more than 40% of the US deny the factual existance of the fundamental process that created and drives all living things on earth, the answer isnt just ignorance or stupidity. It is organized ignorance, stupidity and dogma, or religion as some call it.

This is parody done with an extremely light touch, really - and is amazingly inoffensive. There's not really any reason this music couldn't have come from a believing Mormon.

To underscore that point, it's not much different than stuff members have produced themselves (partially with the intent of demonstrating that they don't always take themselves completely seriously). For example, productions of "Saturday's Warrior" by various Mormon groups and units were extremely popular in the 70's and 80's, and the missionaries in it are at least as goofy as the ones in the BoM musical. I couldn't find a video of the stage production - but this song is normally performed by a chorus line of missionaries in sunglasses (again, in Mormon churches with approval by a bishop).

Even most devout/lame Mormons I know see the BoM musical as positive publicity that's surprisingly inoffensive (similar to South Park's Mormon bits, which generally were quite popular with Church members). The "official" church isn't exactly going to sanction it, but the position it has taken - something like "we hope people will come to us to get the real story" is pretty dang close.

First off, Romney does not equal Obama. This kind of thinking is truly what frightens me, and it's not because of the reasons you probably think.

Some 20 years ago, the overwhelming majority of the population were ignorant of politics and apathetic. Political games were played, cheap shots were utilized, but in the end, in the big scheme of things, on the truly big issues, both sides would compromise and do the right thing. Clinton and the GOP Congress balancing the budget, Bush Sr. raising taxes, etc. etc. Stuff got done. And the majority of people were wholly ignorant on things like federal budgets, that kind of thing. There was also some kind of understanding on basic principles where regardless of your ideology, you couldn't do catastrophic things just because it suited your ideology.

Now, that's gone. Extremists in both parties are labelled fascists or communists, or whatever, but now moderates are being labelled as either part of the same extremist groups, or they're called sell-outs, part of a completely corrupt system, and perpetrators of that system, not as agents trying to work within a system that was built long before they got there, who could change the system while they work within it. When they do the right thing that violates ideology, it's not because it was the bipartisan right thing to do; it's because they're extensions of the corrupt system. The bailouts are an absolutely perfect example. I hate to break it to people here, and I know most won't agree with me, but the bailouts were the right thing to do, even if you're against too big to fail, etc. The banking system was already in place when the economy collapsed. It's like being in a boat as its sinking. You can critique the design of the boat all you want, but the boat sinking kills you all. It's ridiculous to talk about actions that will blow up the boat. Plug the holes, do what you need to do to get the boat to land. THEN figure out how to fix the design, or build a new boat. But what happened? The bipartisan policy by both a Democrat and Republican president was tarred and feathered as government being in the pocket of big business. Those same people don't seem to realize the boat didn't sink. We didn't face another depression. Be critical the banking system wasn't significantly reformed after that was done, I have no issues with that.

To the person who said Obama's policies haven't worked in three years? Again, are we in a depression? No. Those policies worked. And how can you expect a macro-economic shift within a year or two of his other policies? Go back and look at economic history. Things don't change on a dime just from macro-economic policies instituted by the government. It takes several years before the effect can be measured. Again, sheer ignorance. The difference today is the ignorant are far more willing to participate in the political debate even though they don't have a clue what they're talking about. This is a problem on both sides.

Both sides are stoking the ignorant to get involved in the public debates, and not encouraging a very very basic understanding of crucial facts about history. Like... WWII was a Keynesian economic exercise effectively, which in the end was a gigantic gov't deficit that did end the Great Depression. This is a very straight forward basic economical historical fact. But there's 30% of the population that will not believe it because it blows apart what they politically favor today. It's ridiculous.

I disagree with Romney, and I probably won't vote for him. But he's not a fascist. There's a significant difference between him and Santorum. And there's a significant difference between him and Obama. Is there a choice as clearly different as say Ron Paul vs. Ralph Nader? No. Is that a bad thing? Not in my book.

My fear is in our political ecosystem, the moderates, the good ones who truly aren't compromising for the wrong reasons, but do it to get things done, and have a willingness to ignore ideology for practical solutions that help the country are getting drowned out, and characterized as corrupt when they're not. I disagree with Romney, but he's not corrupt. I disagree with Obama, but he's not corrupt. We don't need a revolution to fix our current political system, but an increasing number of people think we do. And the last decade we're seeing a rise in the extremists on both sides enough to drown out the political moderates we desperately need. This just can't continue indefinitely.

>> ^deathcow:

>> ^lantern53:
Obama's policies have not worked for the past 3 years. If you believe some improvement is coming, you have far more faith than the average Catholic bishop.

obama = romney = anyone else they put forward

>> ^deathcow:

>> ^lantern53:
Obama's policies have not worked for the past 3 years. If you believe some improvement is coming, you have far more faith than the average Catholic bishop.

obama = romney = anyone else they put forward


Yeah, except Romney is a thoroughly unlikeable individual. He's about as slimy as they come right now, gives me the creeps seeing him speak. He reminds me of the evangelical priests you see on TV, and if satan walks the earth....he's one or all of those guys.

>> ^deathcow:

>> ^lantern53:
Obama's policies have not worked for the past 3 years. If you believe some improvement is coming, you have far more faith than the average Catholic bishop.

obama = romney = anyone else they put forward


This...basically.

>> ^lantern53:

Obama's policies have not worked for the past 3 years. If you believe some improvement is coming, you have far more faith than the average Catholic bishop.


obama = romney = anyone else they put forward

Obama's policies have not worked for the past 3 years. If you believe some improvement is coming, you have far more faith than the average Catholic bishop.

>> ^kymbos:

Guy Pearce is the best. Otherwise, I have no idea what most of you people are on about. Is this some kind of cult book being made into a film, that has you guys shitting all over something that looks pretty good?


Weyland-Yutani was the company Ripley worked for in the Alien movies. They were the shadow company responsible for terraforming the planet where the Aliens were discovered (by Humans, anyways) and the creation of the android Bishop. They also played some smaller role in the shitty AVP/Predator movies.

This video is a promo for the movie Prometheus, a prequel of sorts to the Alien franchise. It's going to be pants creaming.

Who cares what Bishops think? If you do, then you should also account for concerns of the leprechauns and forest faeries.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

The whole thing is filled with speculation and arguments from incredulity. There is no hard evidence that scripture doesn't mean what it says..there is absolutely no doubt there will be eternal separaration from God because of sins..and very little doubt that it will be eternal conscious torment. Some people think it is destruction and not torment, but after looking at the evidence I have decided there is far more basis to say it is the other way around.

In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
This link is directed mostly @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry" title="member since January 21st, 2011" class="profilelink">shinyblurry but is also for anyone who is interested in an analysis of what the different versions/translations of the Bible say about hell/Sheol/Hades. It comes to a similar conclusion as this bishop in the video that the idea of hell as a burning lake isn't supported by scripture.

Yes, I've seen all of this before..it is unconvincing. As soon as you start twisting scripture to support your conclusion, you've ceased being interested in the truth.

Revelation 20:10

and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.


>> ^SDGundamX:
This link is directed mostly @shinyblurry but is also for anyone who is interested in an analysis of what the different versions/translations of the Bible say about hell/Sheol/Hades. It comes to a similar conclusion as this bishop in the video that the idea of hell as a burning lake isn't supported by scripture.

This link is directed mostly @shinyblurry but is also for anyone who is interested in an analysis of what the different versions/translations of the Bible say about hell/Sheol/Hades. It comes to a similar conclusion as this bishop in the video that the idea of hell as a burning lake isn't supported by scripture.