>> ^westy:

lol instantly annoying me , "even science fiction couldn't imagine them " and the blody retarded voice like some retarded Jeremy Clarkson lol fucks sake who thought this was a good way to present this are they mental ? .


Ah well, if it reaches a wider audience by getting the attention of some less educated people, then so be it.

lol instantly annoying me , "even science fiction couldn't imagine them " and the blody retarded voice like some retarded Jeremy Clarkson lol fucks sake who thought this was a good way to present this are they mental ? .

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Oh man I love the Gateway books. The Heechee ships were awesome. I may have to reread them again too. As a teenager I liked all the sex on the ships that were out of human control. I also read Wake and thought it was a pretty good take on an emergent AI rising from the Web.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

I'm re-reading Frederik Pohl's Gateway series right now because it's so hard to find good, new science fiction.
But I do recommend Robert Sawyer's new series, WWW (Wake, Watch, and Wonder are the three book titles). The heroine is a 15 year old blind girl who is the only person in the world who communicates with the newly conscious internet. (The plot doesn't sound as good as he writes it.)

I'm re-reading Frederik Pohl's Gateway series right now because it's so hard to find good, new science fiction.

But I do recommend Robert Sawyer's new series, WWW (Wake, Watch, and Wonder are the three book titles). The heroine is a 15 year old blind girl who is the only person in the world who communicates with the newly conscious internet. (The plot doesn't sound as good as he writes it.)

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I wasn't a huge fan of Cryptonomicon - I got bogged down in the book, and it seemed to not be going anywhere, lost its way over multiple chapters. After reading the inside flap of Anathem, it sounded like more of the same and decided to give it a pass. I know people love these books though - so I guess it's a very subjective thing. >> ^direpickle:

Stephenson's Anathem was absolutely science fiction. Cryptonomicon is one of my favorite books, though it's not particularly sci-fi-ish except for a couple of things.

Stephenson's Anathem was absolutely science fiction. Cryptonomicon is one of my favorite books, though it's not particularly sci-fi-ish except for a couple of things.

Sorry for two posts, but I missed a section there in the middle.

Your entire premise here is a fallacy. You are falsely equivilcating Christianity to Scientology, and then using attacks upon your Scientology strawman (which are easily refuted) to try to knock it down. Scientology was a story authored by a science fiction writer trying to deify himself.

First off, I should say that I appreciate the effort you're putting into legitimate debate here. I do. While I disagree with your recent points, I also accept them as honest reasoning and I think we're discussing things on a better level than we have in the past. So thanks, and I'll try to rein in my own douchebag forum persona.

Anyways, I'll (hopefully) explain what I was trying to get at better. It is my belief that religions often effectively "poison the well" for detractors by saying that the detractors are doing so for alternative motives, or that those detractors cannot understand the truth because of some flaw. To illustrate this, I was saying that Scientologists are quick to call out detractors (who are, to be fair, usually former members with a grievance) for their character flaws or crimes. Facetiously (because I don't actually know Scientologist beliefs), I was suggesting that they might also blame detractors' disagreements on confusing Thetans.

I was attempting to illustrate how awkward this attack is to refute for the detractor. The detractor certainly does have "crimes" (because, as I think we all agree, people all do things they aren't proud of). And he certainly can't be convincing if he says he has no Thetans. How can he make the case for that, when he doesn't even believe in Thetans anymore, and is definitely no longer being cleared of them?

From a perspective of a non-believer, a Christian detractor is in a similar position. Many (or even most) will have personal grievances that make their arguments sound suspect. And all will have sins. Many will have sins associated with their departure. Given that it's common Christian thought that sin clouds thought (or bars revelation or conscience or similar), we're left with a tidy way to undermine almost all detractors.

So my overall point is an analogy. Both the Scientologist and the Christian believer have similar reasons to doubt the detractor. However, I think we'd both agree that the Scientologist detractor is right despite those reasons. So while I understand that you still would not accept the Christian detractor, my point would be that we can't completely refute him on these grounds because he could (in principle) be the same as the Scientologist detractor. The differences between the Christian and the Scientologist detractor (with regards to these ideas) are generally only differences from the perspective of someone who already believes Christianity and not Scientology (and certainly I think we'd agree that believing Christianity is more rational than believing Scientology - I'm just using it as a convenient analogy).

My point was that instead of looking at him (the detractor) in terms of his grievances, or in terms of factors (like sin or Thetans) that could cloud his judgement - it's safer to just consider his arguments, which will stand or fall on their own qualities regardless of the speaker.

Now in this specific case (back to Bill Maher), he's a comedian and a bit of a jerk. He doesn't make a lot of arguments; he is more like a football player who doesn't carry the ball, he just does perpetual endzone celebrations. Sometimes I think he's funny, but generally I find him annoying. When he does debate, he seldom makes any effort at the debate part - typically it's just ridicule, and winking at an audience who he can count on agreeing with him already. This doesn't stop some people from thinking of him as making great points, mostly because they agree with him.

But I don't care about his personal life.

I take that as a compliment, as I respect Hitchens as a writer and speaker (though we disagree on some politics). I haven't read any of his work beyond news oriented articles on Slate (and some videos here), though, so I can't say how well we agree on this in particular. In any case, lack of originality is a pretty sad point to make against an argument. I'm fairly sure, for example, that I couldn't make an original case for the Pythagoran theorem - though I could probably submit 10 different proofs, they've all been done (and 100 others).

Your prose was matching his word for word, point for point..particularly about "thought crime". Also with the ridiculous comparisons between scientology and Christianity. It was so egregious that I couldn't help but feel I should just go to youtube and find a Hitchens video and comment there as my reply.

It's a certitude that the biggest mouths against Scientology have an agenda. It comes from a heart polluted by Thetans. Hey, this is fun!

To be fair, I'm sure many critics of Christianity (or Scientology) have some axe to grind, or are angry because the church makes them feel guilty about bad things they've done. That doesn't mean they're wrong. Similarly, most people posting bad reviews of Kias are probably people who had a bad Kia (or auto reviewers, but there aren't a lot of professional reviewers for religion). What you're doing here is an actual ad hominem fallacy (as opposed to the times you call it, when it's just you complaining because someone was mean to you). As with most fallacies, there's a grain of truth - it does make sense here to question arguments from people with a bone to pick. But you still question their points, not their backgrounds.

It's not the church that is making someone feel guilty, it's their own God given conscience that does so. People don't come to believe in Christ because they were guilted into doing so; that in itself is a ridiculous premise. People come to Christ in part because of personal conviction from their own conscience; they already knew they were guilty. They realize that it is not just other people they have offended but God Himself, and without a mediator they have no hope of standing on their own merits.

Yes, I know what you're implying, since you already shared your history with me. It's true many previous believers strike out in anger because they feel wronged for being indoctrinated. In your case, it's probably justifiable. However, it goes much farther than that. This kind of person tends to get disillusioned and emboldened, and goes to the other extreme, feeling cocky and self assured because they now perceive themselves as being elevated and enlightened over anyone who believes.

2 Peter 2:20-22

For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.”

These sorts of people usually become worse sinners than anyone else because they feel above Gods laws. They treasure this new found "freedom" and don't want to give it up in their self righteouness. What they perceive as freedom from the law is really mental and emotional derangement from sin. So in the same manner they still hate Gods authority because they prefer their sins.

Mr. Hubbard, obviously. It is a certainty that Dianetics perfectly describes the human condition. If you disagree, it's Thetans. Maybe I'll shorten that to IYDIT.

But yeah, people are bad. That was one of my premises, and it's why shame is so effective. Were you agreeing with me as a ploy? You know, make me feel like a moron for being on your side? Or maybe you're being like on Bugs Bunny where he would throw in "Rabbit Season" after a few rounds?

Chewbacca is a wookie from the planet Kashyyk. He has soft brown hair and talks with kind of like a growling, elk-call sound. IYDIT.

Your entire premise here is a fallacy. You are falsely equivilcating Christianity to Scientology, and then using attacks upon your Scientology strawman (which are easily refuted) to try to knock it down. Scientology was a story authored by a science fiction writer trying to deify himself.

"The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion."

L. Ron Hubbard

Dude, when I disagree with Scientology, it doesn't matter that L. Ron Hubbard really existed. Similarly, most people are happy to believe that there was a guy name Jesus who preached at that time. Also, this is a fantastically stupid point to bring up. With Jesus or Hubbard, the question isn't whether they existed, it's whether what they said was true (and, to a lesser extent, whether they or their celebrity endorsers could perform miracles).

And no, Christianity isn't a conspiracy to control people. Usually. The fact that it works like this isn't by design, it's by evolution. The churches and denominations that survive are the ones that approach things in a certain way. The people who try to be non-judgmental, independent followers of Christ? They're cool, but their churches don't last or franchise out. The ones that survive and flourish (like Scientology) in modern times tend to work this way.

Further in the past, they had more strategies available, like just killing people who didn't believe - now they have to be a bit more subtle.

What's completely stupid here is your chain of reasoning. Christianity is centered on Christ; whether or not He existed is central. Most of what Christ said centered around His claim to be God, and judge of the entire world. If He didn't exist it isn't true. This is just babble at this point, dude.

Regardless of how people may have abused Christianity in the past does not speak to its truth. If anything it confirms it, as the bible warns countless times of false teachers and prophets who will try to distort the message and use it for gain. The early church flourished under heavy persecution, and Christians were murdered continually for the truth they shared. Do you think the church was so successful in controlling people that they could make them sing praises to Jesus while they were being burned alive? Give me a break.

What you're talking about is the catholic church, and they aren't Christians. They are basically a pagan religion that worships Mary and the Pope. There is a conspiracy in that so called church, a will to power. Among Christians, however, we exist in fellowship. You were part of a church once and you still apparently want to stay that way, so I think you understand about fellowship.

>> ^shinyblurry:

blah blah blah, god, jesus, wankery etc.

Speaking of lies, ChaosEngine, there is plenty of evidence which shows evolution to be false. It is science fiction, not science fact.


Hey cheers for providing the evidence to back up my assertion that you're an idiot. As I said before, you're not worthy of being debated, only mocked.

This kind of rhetoric always comes back to God because that is what this is really about. Maher has a lifestyle that he doesn't want to be judged for. Much like most of the people here on the sift. The people with the biggest mouths about God are the ones with the most to hide.

John 3:19-21

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

This isn't about sexism in the bible (there isn't any), that is just a joke. People who hate God are unrepentant sinners who know they are guilty and will say anything to justify their sinful lifestyle. Moral people don't have a problem with God, it's the people who want to sin without consequence who hate Him. It's because your God given conscience has already judged you guilty. That's what you absolutely cannot stand, is the authority that is over you which tells you are wrong and under Gods judgement. Your stubborn pride cannot bear it and you are blind to the truth because of it.

If you loved the truth, and wanted to turn from your evil, God would lead you to Jesus in a second. Since you love your sin more than the truth, God lets you stay ignorant and deluded with lies.

bareboards2 It's great that you have some lingering residue of respect for Jesus, but He isn't your buddy.

John 15:14

You are my friends if you do what I command.

Btw, the gnostic gospels were ruled out because they were written by gnostics (read: NOT Christians) hundreds of years after the fact.

hpqp "Having been raised in an evangelical cult, I know the Bible quite well," Change that to not at all and we enter a realm of honesty. I mean, we have this comment "some of his parables are terribly authoritarian"..Really? He's God, of course they're authoritarian. This idea of Jesus as a great moral teacher is patently false. He is God in the flesh, with the power over life and death, and that is what He stated consistantly. He has a right to tell us what to do. Who knows how you were brought up but if you had any idea what was in the bible you would understand that Jesus is bigger than this trite understanding. The sad thing is you passed from life to death and you think you're free.

There are more lies about Jesus than any other person in history. He is the most lied about Person of all time, and I have personally encountered literally hundreds if not thousands of beliefs which are predicated in some way in denying who He is. Speaking of lies, ChaosEngine, there is plenty of evidence which shows evolution to be false. It is science fiction, not science fact.

So true.

And other than that... it gave us all something to look at and think "Look at what we can do". We can send a spaceship up into space and it can then come back down and land on a runway, that's just darn cool.

Yeah, it had problems, yeah it had a couple of catastrophes, yeah it never met the initial goals of cost of flights and number of flights that it was supposed to reach.

BUT.

It has given a generation of us a program of ships that looked like spaceships dammit... these looked like our science fiction fantasies, these looked like what we wanted spaceships to look like, not just a capsule on top of a rocket.

So yeah, it has been a success.

It's sad that it's quite some time before something as inspirational as that will fly into space again, it really is.

It's also sad that it's left up to private enterprise and some billionaires (SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, Armadillo) to push forward in this regard, a unified, cross country effort would be do far more good for the soul of the planet at the moment I think.

No Pluto Nash? Don't you know he's THE MAN on the moon?


>> ^evilspongebob:

1 Battlefield Earth
2 Passion of the Christ
3 Superman 4
4 An Inconvenient Truth
5 Star Trek - Final Frontier
6 Indiana Jones and The Crystal Skull
7 A.I
8 Independence Day
9 Armageddon
10 What the Bleep do we Know?
>> ^csnel3:
when I list my top 10 science fiction movies this is one of them.
Has somebody already started a sift talk on "name your top 10 SciFi movies"?
#1- Alien
...... Discuss

1 Battlefield Earth
2 Passion of the Christ
3 Superman 4
4 An Inconvenient Truth
5 Star Trek - Final Frontier
6 Indiana Jones and The Crystal Skull
7 A.I
8 Independence Day
9 Armageddon
10 What the Bleep do we Know?

>> ^csnel3:

when I list my top 10 science fiction movies this is one of them.
Has somebody already started a sift talk on "name your top 10 SciFi movies"?
#1- Alien
...... Discuss

when I list my top 10 science fiction movies this is one of them.
Has somebody already started a sift talk on "name your top 10 SciFi movies"?

#1- Alien

...... Discuss

In reply to this comment by Payback:
>> ^PalmliX:

How do you know so much about the hazards of space exploration? I'm looking for an expert of sorts to consult for a short film about Voyager, drop me a line if your interested.


Mostly from reading "hard science" fiction. I kinda dislike the stuff that plays fast and lose with the various accepted physical laws. The cynical part of my brain is wondering if you're teasing, but I'll let the warm fuzzy part respectfully say I ain't anywhere near "expert".

Haha well you're right to listen to the cynical part of your brain. The internet is full of, um... interesting... personalities. Seriously though I am making a short film about the Voyager spacecraft and accuracy is very important to me. I also don't like stuff that plays fast and loose with science, especially when it comes to the lighting in most space scenes...

I'm hoping to make this one of the most visually accurate space films ever made but I'm having trouble finding out some critical information on what stuff would look like out in space, like for example, how dark is it where the Voyager's are now? What would the shadows look like, are the light rays from the sun completely parallel in space? etc...