• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Expelled - Why does Ben Stein hate America?

shadron said:
Science has a remarkable tendency, when correctly applied, to turn young minds away from the religious "straight and narrow" and start them asking religiously inappropriate questions.
Click to expand...

Interesting thought. Science as a social movement. Gotta' make sure the young think like me!!! :rolleyes:



ETA: This would be the antithesis of America.
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Interesting thought. Science as a social movement. Gotta' make sure the young think like me!!! :rolleyes:



ETA: This would be the antithesis of America.
Click to expand...

So the founders and the movement that the founders were participating in was the antithesis of America?

Maybe you'd better tell them that!

:tr:
 
IchabodPlain said:
:covereyes

Non-believers? Whaat? Deists and non-deists. As in Deists and Christians for instance. Are you being dishonest on purpose?
Click to expand...

Well, one could wonder about Benjamin Franklin and Tom Paine, too...
 
Last edited:
IchabodPlain said:
[derail]

Franklin was a Deist, and Paine wrote Rights of Man; said rights come from God, according to Paine.




Mmmm, I'm quite confident his views were consistent with that of a Deist as well (or maybe a Unitarian). Either way, not an Atheist.

http://www.adherents.com/people/pj/Thomas_Jefferson.html
[/derail]
Click to expand...


Methinks you need to read Paine's work a bit more carefully, then. Bear in mind the guy was a touch sarcastic, and has written himself that he was writing for the effect. Other things he's written do seem to suggest that he, himself, was not a believer. Common Sense, for instance, would seem to be revealing.

As to Franklin, he was a professed deist of a very agnostic bent, to say the least. He professed deism, sometimes, and appears not to have professed deism at other times.

Jefferson was definately some kind of Deist, but very much not a Christian. Ever read his bible?
 
jj said:
Methinks you need to read Paine's work a bit more carefully, then. Bear in mind the guy was a touch sarcastic, and has written himself that he was writing for the effect.
Click to expand...

From my understanding, these rights are ascribable to nature, and thus, a Deist foundation when defining the origin of the Rights of Man.

Other things he's written do seem to suggest that he, himself, was not a believer. Common Sense, for instance, would seem to be revealing.
Click to expand...

Common sense is not mutually exclusive with the belief in a God.

Ever read [Jerfferson's] bible?
Click to expand...

Parts of it. FWIR, It's more focused on ethics and morals; I think it is consistent with a Kantian sense of ethics that many founders (including Jefferson) professed.

Also, my initial point was that Jerome started a claim of non-believers which Tsukasa Buddha (or the OP) did not mention. I was pointing out as an example using Christians that 'non-believers' (or Atheist as Jerome was implying) doesn't necessarily follow from the claim of Deist and non-Deist.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
Be that as it may it doesn't change Mycroft's point. It's a thin rationalization. Just because a lot of people engage in silly rationalization doesn't make it better. What do you think "thin rationalization" means?
Click to expand...

I think it means the same as you do, but we seem to have a distinction here as to who "the rationalization" applies to. This is really Mycroft's call, but as I interpreted it he was suggesting that some people are attacking Stein for being an ID woo, and others are attempting to soften the critique by saying that's not what it is; it's about free speech and discussion.

My point is that it is actually the "wedge" strategy, where IDers don't focus on ID, they focus on free speech issues and the ID part, for now, is the red herring.
 
Here's Ben Stein's career in brief:
Nixon, Bueller, Win [his] Money, Clear Eyes, Pixies, self destruction.
Any questions?
 
IchabodPlain said:
From my understanding, these rights are ascribable to nature, and thus, a Deist foundation when defining the origin of the Rights of Man.
Click to expand...
There is no reason whatsoever to assert that nature implies deism. None.
Common sense is not mutually exclusive with the belief in a God.
Click to expand...
Really? You must be stretching those words as far as you're stretching a belief in nature to imply deism. Geeze.
Parts of it. FWIR, It's more focused on ethics and morals; I think it is consistent with a Kantian sense of ethics that many founders (including Jefferson) professed.
Click to expand...
Won't quibble with that.
Also, my initial point was that Jerome started a claim of non-believers which Tsukasa Buddha (or the OP) did not mention. I was pointing out as an example using Christians that 'non-believers' (or Atheist as Jerome was implying) doesn't necessarily follow from the claim of Deist and non-Deist.
Click to expand...


Oh, absolutely. Jerome has engaged in repeated straw-man building, suborned logic, and a whole variety of other arguments to support his accusation of public malfeasance on my part.

I wonder how he'll feel if he has to support his public, worldwide circulated accusations under some scruitiny?
 
jj said:
Oh, absolutely. Jerome has engaged in repeated straw-man building, suborned logic, and a whole variety of other arguments to support his accusation of public malfeasance on my part.
Click to expand...

Ohh, really? Let us examine your second falsehood in th OP.

jj said:
Consider the following facts:

The constitution of the USA prohibits the government recognizing religion.
Click to expand...



It is not a straw-man to present your false words for examination.

:gnome:
 
jj said:
As my words are not false, you are simply trolling, again.

:tr:
Click to expand...

Name-call instead of explaining how your false statement is true.

Here is your false statement again:
"The constitution of the USA prohibits the government recognizing religion."


ETA: US Constitution
Maybe reading the document in question will help you find the truth.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom