More District 9 Thoughts

The Spoony One | Aug 18 2009 | more notation(s) | 

Fan response has been huge, and for the most part, most agree that I’m being pretty naive, and people are pretty much horrible to one another all over the world. You’re right, in that I currently live in a pretty progressive, integrated society. At least, compared to forty years ago. I’ve never really seen wide-spread, large-scale racism, and that’s pretty limiting.

Most other fans seem to agree that the South African discrimination against the prawns is in place of Apartheid against the blacks, instead of both occurring in this movie’s history. That makes more sense, but it’s another reason why setting the movie in South Africa hopelessly muddies the metaphorical waters. The spectre of Apartheid looms so heavily over South Africa’s history, it’s hard to just ignore it.

Anyway, I remembered something else that would have been good to see in the documentary approach, and a very good reason the prawns would be met with widespread hostility: religion.

The presence of extraterrestrial life is heretical to many forms of organized religion, who believe that God created Man in His own image. There’s nothing in those books about God creating prawns on the seventh day, and knowledge of their existence would cause global theological disillusionment, sending hundreds of millions into a crisis of faith never before imagined. Some might reform their religious texts, be progressive about the whole thing, but by and large, the prawns’ arrival is the death of God. No longer is Earth the favored planet, Man the chosen life form. Suddenly we’re shown to be inferior to a pack of bipedal roaches. You’d have mass suicides, wars, civil unrest manifesting in hate crime on an unprecedented scale. Millennial cults would spring up like weeds, fearing the appearance of these “demonic-looking” creatures as a sure sign of the end-times.

Now that’d be a documentary.

  • wristwatchmafia

    Ummm…

    Spoony, I thought you where mexican. It didn’t really seem important, but if we’re going to have some big talk on discrimination….I’m quite curious, actually.

    Have you ever been discriminated against by someone who thought you where mexican? Or…is that racist???

  • wristwatchmafia

    Ummm…

    Spoony, I thought you where mexican. It didn’t really seem important, but if we’re going to have some big talk on discrimination….I’m quite curious, actually.

    Have you ever been discriminated against by someone who thought you where mexican? Or…is that racist???

  • KiiWii

    I’d watch the documentary. (Y)

  • KiiWii

    I’d watch the documentary. (Y)

  • DrKeun

    Actually, what you’ve said is not totally true.
    much of christian and catholic church are now quite positive over the posibility of aliens.

    I remember in, like 2008 or something, there was an article in the Vatican newspaper, titled “The Extraterrestrial Is My Brother,” . Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes said the expansiveness of the universe means there could be life on planets other than Earth.

    and I think I remember him making a good arguemnets, over the theological problems which ‘ the exsitance of aliens’ , can make.

    I don’t remember it quite well but it was something like. ‘aliens can be our brothers’ or ‘we can teach the word or god to aliens’ or something like that.

    and I think I also remember reading an article, saying that the astrological departement in vatican univercity annoucing their belief of aliens, and they’re hopes of finding E.T .

    anyway, Bible has so much flaws on its own, so unless you’re a hard believer , I don’t think that the exsitance of aliens would bother neither of the christians, or catholics that much.

    Of course I may be wrong, but it is true that the acceptance of E.T. is seeming to be easier than the old days.

  • DrKeun

    Actually, what you’ve said is not totally true.
    much of christian and catholic church are now quite positive over the posibility of aliens.

    I remember in, like 2008 or something, there was an article in the Vatican newspaper, titled “The Extraterrestrial Is My Brother,” . Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes said the expansiveness of the universe means there could be life on planets other than Earth.

    and I think I remember him making a good arguemnets, over the theological problems which ‘ the exsitance of aliens’ , can make.

    I don’t remember it quite well but it was something like. ‘aliens can be our brothers’ or ‘we can teach the word or god to aliens’ or something like that.

    and I think I also remember reading an article, saying that the astrological departement in vatican univercity annoucing their belief of aliens, and they’re hopes of finding E.T .

    anyway, Bible has so much flaws on its own, so unless you’re a hard believer , I don’t think that the exsitance of aliens would bother neither of the christians, or catholics that much.

    Of course I may be wrong, but it is true that the acceptance of E.T. is seeming to be easier than the old days.

  • alidan

    spoony, i have to say you are a very good person, mainly the ability to not see the human race as a who a bad thing is impressive.

    but you have to keep in mind, America was the only country (im aware of) to have civil rites movements, to have allot of the crap re take for granted here happen. i remember one thing specifically, where at a soccer game somewhere in Europe, a black guy was taking the field and people threw bananas at him. personally i cant imagine that, but that is somewhat common place every where in the world besides America, and even more common, on the verge of violence and murder in countries that aren’t first world.

    i mean i have sifted through this kind of thing all over the Internet, and i think one of the more surprising things was when i first learned how bad japan really is racism wise. a un inspector had a government guided tour there while investigating racism, you would think the government would take him places where he would be hard pressed to find any amount, but not far off of the governments tour areas, there are signs in the windows basically saying no foreigners.

    you may want to do a little digging yourself, but i suggest you don’t. what ever you can find will most likely just depress you

  • alidan

    spoony, i have to say you are a very good person, mainly the ability to not see the human race as a who a bad thing is impressive.

    but you have to keep in mind, America was the only country (im aware of) to have civil rites movements, to have allot of the crap re take for granted here happen. i remember one thing specifically, where at a soccer game somewhere in Europe, a black guy was taking the field and people threw bananas at him. personally i cant imagine that, but that is somewhat common place every where in the world besides America, and even more common, on the verge of violence and murder in countries that aren’t first world.

    i mean i have sifted through this kind of thing all over the Internet, and i think one of the more surprising things was when i first learned how bad japan really is racism wise. a un inspector had a government guided tour there while investigating racism, you would think the government would take him places where he would be hard pressed to find any amount, but not far off of the governments tour areas, there are signs in the windows basically saying no foreigners.

    you may want to do a little digging yourself, but i suggest you don’t. what ever you can find will most likely just depress you

  • kktor

    I need to go see this movie.

    On the theological debate: Eh, most people would just deny the existence of aliens and the U.S. government would do it’s best to cover up the evidence, while the “believers” would be labeled “tinfoil-hat lunatics”.

  • kktor

    I need to go see this movie.

    On the theological debate: Eh, most people would just deny the existence of aliens and the U.S. government would do it’s best to cover up the evidence, while the “believers” would be labeled “tinfoil-hat lunatics”.

  • Jordi

    Oh my God I want the hypothetical religion piece SO BAD

  • Jordi

    Oh my God I want the hypothetical religion piece SO BAD

  • Vadakin

    Actually, America isn’t the only country to have had civil rights movements. Northern Ireland had it in the 60’s when the Unionists ruled with an iron fist, backed by the British Government, driving Nationalists from their homes and controlling a system where, even in a Nationalist-dominated area, the Unionists held the seats of power. There was a civil rights movement which promoted the “one man, one vote” philosophy, something which both the British Government and the Unionists were against. As a result, there were incidents in which the RUC, not a paramilitary but a branch of the British military, clamped down on Nationalists/Catholics for holding protest marches, actions which ultimately lead to an increase in IRA numbers and “the long war” which only ended a 10 years ago.

    Also, in Britain during the 70s, immigration was a huge issue and whites took to the streets, demanding that all non whites (who weren’t treated as equals anyway) be kicked out of the country. There was a lot of racism in Britain back then and civil rights movements to counter it.

    Heck, every gay pride march you see around the world is in effect a civil rights march.

    It’s true the US was home to a great deal of racism and there was a massive movement to end inequality and bring about equal rights for all citizens but the concept was by no means unique to the US.

  • Vadakin

    Actually, America isn’t the only country to have had civil rights movements. Northern Ireland had it in the 60’s when the Unionists ruled with an iron fist, backed by the British Government, driving Nationalists from their homes and controlling a system where, even in a Nationalist-dominated area, the Unionists held the seats of power. There was a civil rights movement which promoted the “one man, one vote” philosophy, something which both the British Government and the Unionists were against. As a result, there were incidents in which the RUC, not a paramilitary but a branch of the British military, clamped down on Nationalists/Catholics for holding protest marches, actions which ultimately lead to an increase in IRA numbers and “the long war” which only ended a 10 years ago.

    Also, in Britain during the 70s, immigration was a huge issue and whites took to the streets, demanding that all non whites (who weren’t treated as equals anyway) be kicked out of the country. There was a lot of racism in Britain back then and civil rights movements to counter it.

    Heck, every gay pride march you see around the world is in effect a civil rights march.

    It’s true the US was home to a great deal of racism and there was a massive movement to end inequality and bring about equal rights for all citizens but the concept was by no means unique to the US.

  • aaa

    I don’t think any investor would fund that film. Too many risks.

  • aaa

    I don’t think any investor would fund that film. Too many risks.

  • http://bit.ly/4toMYg Vaughn Fry

    I disagree about the Apartheid metaphor. Even though it’s meant to be blatantly obvious, it defeats itself by being the inverse. Instead of an advanced minority controlling an indigenousness people; it’s an advance minority being controlled by indigenousness people.

    If Neil want to play analogies, he needs to match the variables. The X-Men film franchise homosexual metaphor holds ten times the water.

  • http://bit.ly/4toMYg Vaughn Fry

    I disagree about the Apartheid metaphor. Even though it’s meant to be blatantly obvious, it defeats itself by being the inverse. Instead of an advanced minority controlling an indigenousness people; it’s an advance minority being controlled by indigenousness people.

    If Neil want to play analogies, he needs to match the variables. The X-Men film franchise homosexual metaphor holds ten times the water.

  • CrimsonDusk

    Nice addition to your review to District 9 Spoony but I think the director didn’t bring religion into the movie because than he would’ve have to make the movie religious and present religious fanatics saying that the prawns are the devils minions and such or that they are other animals like cattle and pigs created by GOD so that the human can feast on them or sacrifice to the Lord. Oh and they would have gone the Taliban road were they would have presented some fanatics explode bombs on themselves and take some prawns with them and than the prawns would have had a catalyst reasons for a rebellion. I think it’s better than the director didn’t bring up the religious issue because than there would have been a controversy about religious sensibilities.

  • CrimsonDusk

    Nice addition to your review to District 9 Spoony but I think the director didn’t bring religion into the movie because than he would’ve have to make the movie religious and present religious fanatics saying that the prawns are the devils minions and such or that they are other animals like cattle and pigs created by GOD so that the human can feast on them or sacrifice to the Lord. Oh and they would have gone the Taliban road were they would have presented some fanatics explode bombs on themselves and take some prawns with them and than the prawns would have had a catalyst reasons for a rebellion. I think it’s better than the director didn’t bring up the religious issue because than there would have been a controversy about religious sensibilities.

  • CamaroCaron

    P.S. Spoony is 100% right that the “Moral” and “Metaphors” trying to be portrayed in D-9 feel completely forced upon the audience, insulting our intelligence by assuming this movie was too “deep” for us, and that we couldn’t figure it out on our own.

    Also, if D-9 was meant to reflect an alternate timeline where Apartheid never occurred in South Africa (which wouldn’t make sense) that seems extremely disrespectful to the men and women who fought so hard for civil rights for Blacks in South Africa. Also, that argument double-fails because Apartheid DID happen in South Africa, and Apartheid IS meant to be reflected in the D-9. So once again, the writers/director/producer/etc. weren’t creative enough to establish a less obvious setting for their film, and as a result, the intelligence of the audience is insulted.

  • CamaroCaron

    P.S. Spoony is 100% right that the “Moral” and “Metaphors” trying to be portrayed in D-9 feel completely forced upon the audience, insulting our intelligence by assuming this movie was too “deep” for us, and that we couldn’t figure it out on our own.

    Also, if D-9 was meant to reflect an alternate timeline where Apartheid never occurred in South Africa (which wouldn’t make sense) that seems extremely disrespectful to the men and women who fought so hard for civil rights for Blacks in South Africa. Also, that argument double-fails because Apartheid DID happen in South Africa, and Apartheid IS meant to be reflected in the D-9. So once again, the writers/director/producer/etc. weren’t creative enough to establish a less obvious setting for their film, and as a result, the intelligence of the audience is insulted.

  • Ark

    Spoony! Watch the original movie made by the same guy, it was called ‘Alive in Joburg’. Now that was a documentary of epic porportions… and 7 minutes.

  • Ark

    Spoony! Watch the original movie made by the same guy, it was called ‘Alive in Joburg’. Now that was a documentary of epic porportions… and 7 minutes.

  • theo

    Nah christians would deny that they’re coming from space and will convince themselve that prawns are demons (spawns of the lord of flies, why not). They’re too dellusionnal to realize they’re following an outdated code of conduit based on a bad, bad fantasy book created by the Church as a mind control system. They’ll simply make shit up and will still beleive in whatever faith because it make them feel special.

  • theo

    Nah christians would deny that they’re coming from space and will convince themselve that prawns are demons (spawns of the lord of flies, why not). They’re too dellusionnal to realize they’re following an outdated code of conduit based on a bad, bad fantasy book created by the Church as a mind control system. They’ll simply make shit up and will still beleive in whatever faith because it make them feel special.

  • Anyone00

    Well I’m part of a church that most here would consider fairly fundamentalist (we’re legally a cult in France); for the most part there would initially be some apprehensions at the aliens being a fraud because of a bunch of people screaming about how this disproves our religion (while showing how massively ignorant they are of what we believe; I mean today when debating one particular contentious social issue many individuals who disagree with my Church’s common position hammer the same arguments over and over again that in light of the believe of man being a fallen being and the entire ‘ways of the spirit, ways of the flesh’ are not only ineffective they’re right out detrimental to their cause), many would think there appearance as a sign of the end times (because just about everything is, but keep in mind that wouldn’t mean to those saying that the aliens themselves were evil), and then most of members of my church would just support efforts to learn the alien language and a their cultural basics so full scale proselytisation efforts could commence.

    I mean most agree “being made in the image of God” means we have a soul/are beings with transcendent spirits.

    I would be more worried about the New-agers forming cults around the aliens.

  • Anyone00

    Well I’m part of a church that most here would consider fairly fundamentalist (we’re legally a cult in France); for the most part there would initially be some apprehensions at the aliens being a fraud because of a bunch of people screaming about how this disproves our religion (while showing how massively ignorant they are of what we believe; I mean today when debating one particular contentious social issue many individuals who disagree with my Church’s common position hammer the same arguments over and over again that in light of the believe of man being a fallen being and the entire ‘ways of the spirit, ways of the flesh’ are not only ineffective they’re right out detrimental to their cause), many would think there appearance as a sign of the end times (because just about everything is, but keep in mind that wouldn’t mean to those saying that the aliens themselves were evil), and then most of members of my church would just support efforts to learn the alien language and a their cultural basics so full scale proselytisation efforts could commence.

    I mean most agree “being made in the image of God” means we have a soul/are beings with transcendent spirits.

    I would be more worried about the New-agers forming cults around the aliens.

  • Shawn

    I think Spoony is a bit wrong about hard core religious people going crazy over aliens and doubting their faith. Look at how they handle things like evolution, radiometric dating, and basically everything else the average high school student learns about. Rather than question their beliefs, they completely reject reality. If aliens landed, they would deny it. The aliens are fake, these pictures must be photoshopped, this is all a conspiracy by those god hating scientists and the liberal media.

    IF those religious people eventually acknowledged the existence of the aliens, it would probably play out similar to our own history. Think from the perspective of the first Europeans who landed in North America. The Europeans find these strange humanoid creatures which must not be human because they look nothing like us. Their skin is different, they have a strange language, their architecture is unique, and they hunt strange animals never seen back home. This doesn’t pose a religious problem because these human-like natives are just another kind of animal, like a gorilla. For the safety of the colonies, we can just round them up and put them on Indian reservations. Oh yeah and they’re drones too because they keep asking the great bear spirit for guidance.
    (racism still happens, faith is never doubted)

  • Shawn

    I think Spoony is a bit wrong about hard core religious people going crazy over aliens and doubting their faith. Look at how they handle things like evolution, radiometric dating, and basically everything else the average high school student learns about. Rather than question their beliefs, they completely reject reality. If aliens landed, they would deny it. The aliens are fake, these pictures must be photoshopped, this is all a conspiracy by those god hating scientists and the liberal media.

    IF those religious people eventually acknowledged the existence of the aliens, it would probably play out similar to our own history. Think from the perspective of the first Europeans who landed in North America. The Europeans find these strange humanoid creatures which must not be human because they look nothing like us. Their skin is different, they have a strange language, their architecture is unique, and they hunt strange animals never seen back home. This doesn’t pose a religious problem because these human-like natives are just another kind of animal, like a gorilla. For the safety of the colonies, we can just round them up and put them on Indian reservations. Oh yeah and they’re drones too because they keep asking the great bear spirit for guidance.
    (racism still happens, faith is never doubted)

  • notascam

    Really, not that much of a theological snag (provided you’re not a hyperliteral rube). In fact, many people hope there are aliens, and that they’ve haven’t defaced their nature like we have (Out of the Silent Planet, Lost in the Cosmos). And really this supposed affront has already happened with the death of the Ptolemaic universe (Maybe even before, as Almagest regards the Earth as so insignificant that it is not an object w/ dimensions, but a point).

    Unfortunately, Hollywood would probably take run with your idea in two equally boring directions: “relijun is dum” or “compassion is the only true religion”. If I have to endure one more goddamn drawling southern “corrupt preacher” character I will fucking snap.

  • notascam

    Really, not that much of a theological snag (provided you’re not a hyperliteral rube). In fact, many people hope there are aliens, and that they’ve haven’t defaced their nature like we have (Out of the Silent Planet, Lost in the Cosmos). And really this supposed affront has already happened with the death of the Ptolemaic universe (Maybe even before, as Almagest regards the Earth as so insignificant that it is not an object w/ dimensions, but a point).

    Unfortunately, Hollywood would probably take run with your idea in two equally boring directions: “relijun is dum” or “compassion is the only true religion”. If I have to endure one more goddamn drawling southern “corrupt preacher” character I will fucking snap.

  • Dylan

    I do aggree with you about the documentery thing, I think that would make the whole movie better in general, seeing that its ‘jumpy’ with the camera work and I also agree that the aliens look REAL and not cgi, well they look cgi but not as bad as in transformers or anything like that, and I loved this movie I just saw it yesterday and it was very entertaining, but yeah they did throw the whole ‘South Africans were being treated badly’ thing in your face, and that was like what, too long for me to even be alive, ago? What ever I liked the movie I didnt think it would be that good but I was wrong, best movie I’ve seen all year.

    P.S. I am new to your site and I already love all your videos

  • Dylan

    I do aggree with you about the documentery thing, I think that would make the whole movie better in general, seeing that its ‘jumpy’ with the camera work and I also agree that the aliens look REAL and not cgi, well they look cgi but not as bad as in transformers or anything like that, and I loved this movie I just saw it yesterday and it was very entertaining, but yeah they did throw the whole ‘South Africans were being treated badly’ thing in your face, and that was like what, too long for me to even be alive, ago? What ever I liked the movie I didnt think it would be that good but I was wrong, best movie I’ve seen all year.

    P.S. I am new to your site and I already love all your videos

  • Lukas

    I think that even though the parallels with apartheid are obvious, thats it does attract attention to our history that has been mostly forgotten. Here in Europe, they only briefly mention apartheid in schools. Like you it quite hard to imagine what it would be like. Older people will find the film trivial but those who aren’t familiar with the problem will google it and find what really happened in Africa.

    I welcome this kind of education.

  • Lukas

    I think that even though the parallels with apartheid are obvious, thats it does attract attention to our history that has been mostly forgotten. Here in Europe, they only briefly mention apartheid in schools. Like you it quite hard to imagine what it would be like. Older people will find the film trivial but those who aren’t familiar with the problem will google it and find what really happened in Africa.

    I welcome this kind of education.

  • Luni

    The religion factor is enough of a question to warrant it’s own story. A documentary I think would not do it justice. I think an aftermath ‘Brave New World’ or ‘Children of Men’ approach would be more artful. I can’t imagine an alien scenario being smooth or uplifting like in Star Trek anymore. It all starts to resemble Halflife 2. The best part is that you can take that train of thought to any direction and it would still be original.

  • Luni

    The religion factor is enough of a question to warrant it’s own story. A documentary I think would not do it justice. I think an aftermath ‘Brave New World’ or ‘Children of Men’ approach would be more artful. I can’t imagine an alien scenario being smooth or uplifting like in Star Trek anymore. It all starts to resemble Halflife 2. The best part is that you can take that train of thought to any direction and it would still be original.

  • http://www.sermonfire.blogspot.com/ Logan Paschke

    Hey Spoony, I don’t usually comment, but your post caused me to respond.

    First, I will admit that I didn’t go to the movie, from what I heard from others is that it’s generally a good Sci-Fi which is getting rarer and rarer these days. Kind of like a good Will Ferrel comedy like you said earlier. Poor will.

    Second, I have to say that you need to do some research on what Christians have taught regarding aliens. The idea that Christianity would collapse with the arrival of an alien species is laughable. When Europeans arrived on the shores of America, the animistic religions did not collapse but remained and possibly strengthened. Some Native Americans converted to the White man’s ways and some did not. I was just at the Grand Canyon and I watched a group of Native Americans practicing dancing rituals that their great-great-great-grandfathers practiced (according to them). Did the presence of a few hundred tourists change anything? No.

    *looks like Shawn already covered my last point, ah well*

    Here’s an interesting article by C.S. Lewis regarding aliens I just found on the web: http://books.google.com/books?id=9nFujmxXcR8C&lpg=PP1&dq=world%27s%20last%20night&client=firefox-a&pg=PA83#v=onepage&q=&f=false

    As a Christian, if they were to arrive, I’d start donating to the Wycliffe Bible Translators so they could translate the Bible into their language. Sinful aliens need to be reconciled to God through Christ like me.

    Peace mate, can’t wait for your next video.

  • http://www.sermonfire.blogspot.com Logan Paschke

    Hey Spoony, I don’t usually comment, but your post caused me to respond.

    First, I will admit that I didn’t go to the movie, from what I heard from others is that it’s generally a good Sci-Fi which is getting rarer and rarer these days. Kind of like a good Will Ferrel comedy like you said earlier. Poor will.

    Second, I have to say that you need to do some research on what Christians have taught regarding aliens. The idea that Christianity would collapse with the arrival of an alien species is laughable. When Europeans arrived on the shores of America, the animistic religions did not collapse but remained and possibly strengthened. Some Native Americans converted to the White man’s ways and some did not. I was just at the Grand Canyon and I watched a group of Native Americans practicing dancing rituals that their great-great-great-grandfathers practiced (according to them). Did the presence of a few hundred tourists change anything? No.

    *looks like Shawn already covered my last point, ah well*

    Here’s an interesting article by C.S. Lewis regarding aliens I just found on the web: http://books.google.com/books?id=9nFujmxXcR8C&lpg=PP1&dq=world%27s%20last%20night&client=firefox-a&pg=PA83#v=onepage&q=&f=false

    As a Christian, if they were to arrive, I’d start donating to the Wycliffe Bible Translators so they could translate the Bible into their language. Sinful aliens need to be reconciled to God through Christ like me.

    Peace mate, can’t wait for your next video.

  • dennett316

    re CamaroCaron;
    Unfortunately, the film maker probably felt the need to be so obvious due to the quite sad fact that audiences are in fact getting dumber. Good film making just isn’t enough anymore, in fact it’s seemingly a detriment nowadays where the likes of Transformers 2 can succeed on such a large scale despite it’s numerous and face-palmingly moronic flaws.
    Take solace in the fact that this movie has created such debate, tackles relatively complex issues and looks fantastic considering it’s low budget.

    And Spoony, never underestimate the human capacity for cruelty to our fellow men and women, unfortunately as a race we’re pretty much awful.

  • dennett316

    re CamaroCaron;
    Unfortunately, the film maker probably felt the need to be so obvious due to the quite sad fact that audiences are in fact getting dumber. Good film making just isn’t enough anymore, in fact it’s seemingly a detriment nowadays where the likes of Transformers 2 can succeed on such a large scale despite it’s numerous and face-palmingly moronic flaws.
    Take solace in the fact that this movie has created such debate, tackles relatively complex issues and looks fantastic considering it’s low budget.

    And Spoony, never underestimate the human capacity for cruelty to our fellow men and women, unfortunately as a race we’re pretty much awful.

  • BlueNick

    granted it is just my own ignorance, but before I saw your review I had never heard of the apartheids. I know south africa had problems with racism, but no idea that it had segregated slums. so it may have been a brick to the face but that is what I think is needed to bring up awareness of the masses.

  • BlueNick

    granted it is just my own ignorance, but before I saw your review I had never heard of the apartheids. I know south africa had problems with racism, but no idea that it had segregated slums. so it may have been a brick to the face but that is what I think is needed to bring up awareness of the masses.

  • DieselEdge

    Most Catholics and Christian denominations don’t take all the Bible in a literal sense. Too many people think all Christians are like hardcore Evangelists, who take the Bible as literal truth and the only truth. I don’t hate those people, I just think they are lead down a very unhealthly and shallow path. There are priests and bishops that say much of the Bible is not to be taken in a literal sense, and this includes Genesis and the other mythological texts. These aren’t liberal christains either. They are members of the Catholic Church. Only hardcore Bible thumpers or Christians that have not studied their faith and it’s history would have a problem with aliens.

  • DieselEdge

    Most Catholics and Christian denominations don’t take all the Bible in a literal sense. Too many people think all Christians are like hardcore Evangelists, who take the Bible as literal truth and the only truth. I don’t hate those people, I just think they are lead down a very unhealthly and shallow path. There are priests and bishops that say much of the Bible is not to be taken in a literal sense, and this includes Genesis and the other mythological texts. These aren’t liberal christains either. They are members of the Catholic Church. Only hardcore Bible thumpers or Christians that have not studied their faith and it’s history would have a problem with aliens.

  • CamaroCaron

    re dennett316;
    While I have no doubt that Hollywood THINKS themselves to possess higher intelligence than they average person, the fact of the matter is, they don’t. I’m not going to let Hollywood’s superiority complex make up for a lack of creativity.

    Also, humans nature may cause us to be violent towards each other, but guess what? Animals act violently towards each other as well. Nature IS violent. Its Natural to be violent. Life IS a competition. Animals fight for food, mating, and territory. Plants compete for sunlight to grow, and then kill other plants who live in its shade. Violence even exists between members of their own species. Look at the competitive violence of a wolfpack, or the brutally violent acts chimpanzees often display between one another. Don’t single out humanity as an “awful” race simply because we exhibit the same violent tenancies as any other living organism in nature. Humans are not, nor even will be, above nature.

    Also, I’d just like to say, posters need to STOP generalizing the beliefs of religious persons. Seriously, it seems idiots like “theo” think they’re smarter than another person because they have faith in a religion and he doesn’t. It people like “theo” who claim moronic crap like: “Religion is bad, Man! I don’t conform to the church, Man! I fight any form of establishment, Man! I’m not religious, I’m SPIRITUAL, Man!” Dude, SHUT UP! You sound like a tool when you attack a person’s faith and intelligence, just because they have a different opinion than your own. If you did some research instead of run your mouth you’d learn that several major religions are not opposed to the idea of extra-terrestrial life. Just because someone possesses a different opinion than you, that doesn’t mean they’re stupid.

  • CamaroCaron

    re dennett316;
    While I have no doubt that Hollywood THINKS themselves to possess higher intelligence than they average person, the fact of the matter is, they don’t. I’m not going to let Hollywood’s superiority complex make up for a lack of creativity.

    Also, humans nature may cause us to be violent towards each other, but guess what? Animals act violently towards each other as well. Nature IS violent. Its Natural to be violent. Life IS a competition. Animals fight for food, mating, and territory. Plants compete for sunlight to grow, and then kill other plants who live in its shade. Violence even exists between members of their own species. Look at the competitive violence of a wolfpack, or the brutally violent acts chimpanzees often display between one another. Don’t single out humanity as an “awful” race simply because we exhibit the same violent tenancies as any other living organism in nature. Humans are not, nor even will be, above nature.

    Also, I’d just like to say, posters need to STOP generalizing the beliefs of religious persons. Seriously, it seems idiots like “theo” think they’re smarter than another person because they have faith in a religion and he doesn’t. It people like “theo” who claim moronic crap like: “Religion is bad, Man! I don’t conform to the church, Man! I fight any form of establishment, Man! I’m not religious, I’m SPIRITUAL, Man!” Dude, SHUT UP! You sound like a tool when you attack a person’s faith and intelligence, just because they have a different opinion than your own. If you did some research instead of run your mouth you’d learn that several major religions are not opposed to the idea of extra-terrestrial life. Just because someone possesses a different opinion than you, that doesn’t mean they’re stupid.

  • Talley

    Didn’t the film sort of cover a pseudo-religious aspect with the witch doctor theme? The Nigerian gangsters thought they could gain the prawns’ power by eating them, so in a way they worshipped the prawns for their supernatural abilities.

    Maybe, in a more documentary-oriented exploration involving organized religion, there would be many sects that choose to worship the prawns as they do other gods.

    Either way, cool idea, Spoonster.

  • Talley

    Didn’t the film sort of cover a pseudo-religious aspect with the witch doctor theme? The Nigerian gangsters thought they could gain the prawns’ power by eating them, so in a way they worshipped the prawns for their supernatural abilities.

    Maybe, in a more documentary-oriented exploration involving organized religion, there would be many sects that choose to worship the prawns as they do other gods.

    Either way, cool idea, Spoonster.

  • Ancian

    Jeebus-Prawn, the second coming!

  • http://deleted Ancian

    Jeebus-Prawn, the second coming!

  • Esc0bar0ni

    That totally makes sense. World would go into chaos if these creatures, that weren’t in the bible just appeared.

    Or.. Some Pope would say that those aliens, are in fact Satan, in a different form.

    And thus, the bible saved the day.

  • Esc0bar0ni

    That totally makes sense. World would go into chaos if these creatures, that weren’t in the bible just appeared.

    Or.. Some Pope would say that those aliens, are in fact Satan, in a different form.

    And thus, the bible saved the day.

  • Fonzy

    Oh Spoony…you went there lol.
    Anyways, it is believed that those that came unto man before the flood were aliens, or Nephlim (fallen angels). There are a few hints at the possibility of extraterrestial life. God created man and the universe, I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t create other beings.
    It’s confirmed that the Vatican has now approved these beings as our brothers. Frankly I think it’s a bunch of bs. on the Vatican’s behalf. Like I said before, there’s evidence of atrocious acts of cattle and human mutilation, countless stories on traumatic abductions, some benevolent and others malevolent. Again, it’s not something you’ll always find on mainstream news. Go look for yourself and try to discern through what you think is bullshit and what not but out of those many you’ll find those true astounding ones.

  • Fonzy

    Oh Spoony…you went there lol.
    Anyways, it is believed that those that came unto man before the flood were aliens, or Nephlim (fallen angels). There are a few hints at the possibility of extraterrestial life. God created man and the universe, I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t create other beings.
    It’s confirmed that the Vatican has now approved these beings as our brothers. Frankly I think it’s a bunch of bs. on the Vatican’s behalf. Like I said before, there’s evidence of atrocious acts of cattle and human mutilation, countless stories on traumatic abductions, some benevolent and others malevolent. Again, it’s not something you’ll always find on mainstream news. Go look for yourself and try to discern through what you think is bullshit and what not but out of those many you’ll find those true astounding ones.

  • theo

    @23 eat me and fuck your fruity cult. Religion bring absolutly nothing good and you feel bad to encourage this madness. Faith is a poison that constipate the mind. Grow up an educate yourself.

    And yes I feel really more intelligent than the like of you. Fuck you and have a crappy day. :)

  • theo

    @23 eat me and fuck your fruity cult. Religion bring absolutly nothing good and you feel bad to encourage this madness. Faith is a poison that constipate the mind. Grow up an educate yourself.

    And yes I feel really more intelligent than the like of you. Fuck you and have a crappy day. :)

  • Emily

    ATTN: Theo

    Protip: Not all of us Christians are as “delusional” as you seem to think, buddy. Yeah, there are fanatical Christians, but that doesn’t mean ALL Christians are fanatical. Every religion has its fanatics and its more “down-to-earth, normal” people. You know, even Atheism suffers from its groups of fanaticism who are just as loud, obnoxious and close-minded as any fanatical Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc.

    ANYWAY — Spoony, I think your idea about the fall of religion in the documentary could be really good. It’s definitely an interesting thought, although I agree with someone who stated above, that I doubt aliens landing would completely destroy any idea of there being a God — okay, well maybe it would work in South Africa, who knows, but in North America and probably many other countries, so many people, religious or not, are so used to splashes of paranormal and superstition in the media and whatnot, that it just may be “Oh, look, aliens,”

    I could definitely see groups of fanatical religious groups falling into chaos and whatnot because of the aliens landing, and maybe their irrational and erratic behaviour could pour out and cause mass hysteria, and eventually lead to authoritative officials having to lock away the chaos-causing people who have basically gone practically insane, claiming the world is ending and Judgment Day is upon us because of aliens landing. …So now you have these two groups basically caged in beside each other, in a way: both the aliens and the mass hysterical. Or something to that extent.

  • Emily

    ATTN: Theo

    Protip: Not all of us Christians are as “delusional” as you seem to think, buddy. Yeah, there are fanatical Christians, but that doesn’t mean ALL Christians are fanatical. Every religion has its fanatics and its more “down-to-earth, normal” people. You know, even Atheism suffers from its groups of fanaticism who are just as loud, obnoxious and close-minded as any fanatical Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc.

    ANYWAY — Spoony, I think your idea about the fall of religion in the documentary could be really good. It’s definitely an interesting thought, although I agree with someone who stated above, that I doubt aliens landing would completely destroy any idea of there being a God — okay, well maybe it would work in South Africa, who knows, but in North America and probably many other countries, so many people, religious or not, are so used to splashes of paranormal and superstition in the media and whatnot, that it just may be “Oh, look, aliens,”

    I could definitely see groups of fanatical religious groups falling into chaos and whatnot because of the aliens landing, and maybe their irrational and erratic behaviour could pour out and cause mass hysteria, and eventually lead to authoritative officials having to lock away the chaos-causing people who have basically gone practically insane, claiming the world is ending and Judgment Day is upon us because of aliens landing. …So now you have these two groups basically caged in beside each other, in a way: both the aliens and the mass hysterical. Or something to that extent.

  • Benjamin

    I’ve always thought of that in every Sci-fi flick i’ve ever watched. But then again I don’t think the bible is supposed to be taken at face value for the most part, but teach you lessons like how fairy tales do. I seriously do not believe women are made of rib-meat.

  • Benjamin

    I’ve always thought of that in every Sci-fi flick i’ve ever watched. But then again I don’t think the bible is supposed to be taken at face value for the most part, but teach you lessons like how fairy tales do. I seriously do not believe women are made of rib-meat.

  • Kevin Holsinger

    Good morning, Spoony.

    I’m not sure what you think of the movie “Contact”, but I found it a rather decent approach to how people would ACTUALLY react if we had to deal with aliens. You had the kumbayah-types who reacted with uber-compassion towards the aliens, the fanatics who thought the aliens had to be a bad thing, the US government who looked at the matter from a national security perspective, and Big Business (at least in Japan) looking for the best way to make money off the whole thing.

    We’ve got over six billion people on this planet. They’re not likely to all react the same way. The question (and I honestly don’t have an answer to this) is how many of them will react the way we think they’d react, and how many would surprise us.

  • Kevin Holsinger

    Good morning, Spoony.

    I’m not sure what you think of the movie “Contact”, but I found it a rather decent approach to how people would ACTUALLY react if we had to deal with aliens. You had the kumbayah-types who reacted with uber-compassion towards the aliens, the fanatics who thought the aliens had to be a bad thing, the US government who looked at the matter from a national security perspective, and Big Business (at least in Japan) looking for the best way to make money off the whole thing.

    We’ve got over six billion people on this planet. They’re not likely to all react the same way. The question (and I honestly don’t have an answer to this) is how many of them will react the way we think they’d react, and how many would surprise us.

  • Kevin Holsinger

    Oh, and since I spent a lot of time in college thinking about this subject (I’m trying to be a writer), here are some other thoughts on the matter…

    “Sharing the technology”

    Do the aliens share their technology with us, screwing up our self-initiative by handing us what we could invent ourselves? If so, what if we aren’t ready for it? If not, how would we feel about being deprived of what they have? For example, if the aliens had the cure for cancer, but couldn’t give it to us because we needed to figure it out for ourselves, how would we take that?
    Also, think about fuel. How did the aliens get here? I’m assuming it’s a new fuel source. If they handed that to us, think of how that would destabilize countries that thrive off oil-profits. There’s no gradual slipping into a new fuel system. It’s drastic and quick, thanks to the aliens.

  • Kevin Holsinger

    Oh, and since I spent a lot of time in college thinking about this subject (I’m trying to be a writer), here are some other thoughts on the matter…

    “Sharing the technology”

    Do the aliens share their technology with us, screwing up our self-initiative by handing us what we could invent ourselves? If so, what if we aren’t ready for it? If not, how would we feel about being deprived of what they have? For example, if the aliens had the cure for cancer, but couldn’t give it to us because we needed to figure it out for ourselves, how would we take that?
    Also, think about fuel. How did the aliens get here? I’m assuming it’s a new fuel source. If they handed that to us, think of how that would destabilize countries that thrive off oil-profits. There’s no gradual slipping into a new fuel system. It’s drastic and quick, thanks to the aliens.

  • Bookshelf Stud

    Hmm. Quite the erudite theological debate going on here. Personally, my philosophy in this regard has always been that it’s just not worth it to question God. Think of it this way:
    If God is real, and you don’t question his presence or actions, then heaven for you.
    If God isn’t real, and you still believe he is, then, well, whatever the hypothetical afterlife sans-deity is.
    If God is real, and you don’t believe in him, then hell for you.
    If God isn’t real, and you don’t believe in him, then the aformentioned lack of afterlife for you.
    The gamble is far greater to not believe in God than to believe in him. In a roundabout way, this justifies my personal reaction to a hypothetical alien landing: “y’know what? God knows what he’s doing. I’m cool with it as long as nothing kills me personally.”

    On a related note, I still haven’t seen District 9 ;(

  • Bookshelf Stud

    Hmm. Quite the erudite theological debate going on here. Personally, my philosophy in this regard has always been that it’s just not worth it to question God. Think of it this way:
    If God is real, and you don’t question his presence or actions, then heaven for you.
    If God isn’t real, and you still believe he is, then, well, whatever the hypothetical afterlife sans-deity is.
    If God is real, and you don’t believe in him, then hell for you.
    If God isn’t real, and you don’t believe in him, then the aformentioned lack of afterlife for you.
    The gamble is far greater to not believe in God than to believe in him. In a roundabout way, this justifies my personal reaction to a hypothetical alien landing: “y’know what? God knows what he’s doing. I’m cool with it as long as nothing kills me personally.”

    On a related note, I still haven’t seen District 9 ;(

  • Emily

    Yeah, I agree — there really is a great theological debate happening here, other than the one or two off-colour comments. I’m rather surprised. A debate like this in Youtube comments would never be this tidy and civil, nor this intelligent/well-thought. People on Youtube are notorious for ripping and tearing without a hint of remorse. o_O

  • Emily

    Yeah, I agree — there really is a great theological debate happening here, other than the one or two off-colour comments. I’m rather surprised. A debate like this in Youtube comments would never be this tidy and civil, nor this intelligent/well-thought. People on Youtube are notorious for ripping and tearing without a hint of remorse. o_O

  • Silvexsun

    So many thoughtful comments. This really shows off the intelligence of the Spoony fanbase.
    The Spoony Experiment – reviews for the thinking man
    And a big “thank you” for your reviews which filling up those tedious minutes while I wait for my torrents to finish downloading

  • Silvexsun

    So many thoughtful comments. This really shows off the intelligence of the Spoony fanbase.
    The Spoony Experiment – reviews for the thinking man
    And a big “thank you” for your reviews which filling up those tedious minutes while I wait for my torrents to finish downloading

  • Chickidy

    “In the house of my father there are many mansions,” can be interpreted as Christ saying there is a possibility of other worlds and other sentient life. So for Christianity and Islam at least, in some circles the possibility of alien life is absolutely expected.

  • Chickidy

    “In the house of my father there are many mansions,” can be interpreted as Christ saying there is a possibility of other worlds and other sentient life. So for Christianity and Islam at least, in some circles the possibility of alien life is absolutely expected.

  • Doma

    There are spoilers in this comment, so don’t read if you haven’t seen it, because you should see it because it was absolutely amazing.

    I think you just have to think about the differences between you and the people in Johannesburg. The people who live in a majority of the city were born in shit, will live in shit, and will die in shit. Because of this, they have no concept of accepting new, intelligent beings into their world (plus the film states that the Prawns were the workers of the ship, unable to care for themselves, and it’s stated almost exactly like that so I don’t know where you’re coming from.) So you have all these people who want to live peacefully after the Apartheid and now there are these disgusting creatures stealing sutff off of them, digging through their trash, and being nothing but giant, awful nuisances to their lives. These creatures turned out to not be super amazing awesome intelligent aliens, they turned out to be shit eating monsters to these people.

    And I’d just like to squeeze in that the whole “Nigerians are gangsters” thing is kinda true, in that right now Africa’s main problem is its gangs and ganglords. That is, aside from AIDS.

    I can’t believe you didn’t mention how Christopher’s ship just happened to have a convenient doorway in the side of it when it crashed, or how twice in the film the Elite Soldier and his crew (the guys who were hunting Vickes the whole time) would just stand there and barrage them endlessly with bullets, not advancing towards them to suppress them, while Vickes and Christopher just sat there and manically discussed plans. It happened in the lab when they got the fluid and when Vickes got in the suit and was escorting Christopher through all the tons of bullets flying at them BY THE HUNTING SQUAD. They could have run up to the two of them and popped them both in the face, but they decided to just sit there and waste ammo.

    And the thing about Religion and widespread suicide and war you mentioned, the film never showed anything outside of Johannesburg. All footage was in Johannesburg, so that did well to cover up any histeria anywhere else in the world.

    As far as changing from actual footage to there being no possible way there’s a camera man around, that’s just for effect. The film has set the viewer up so that it’s like they’re watching real stuff. The entire beginning of the film was footage, and then the film became a lot more cinematic just because the impression of a documentary has been impressed on your mind. You realize there’s no way this stuff can happen, but that’s obvious. I think it’s just a “sit back and enjoy the movie” kind of part. Because there was little “actual footage” during the middle of the film.

    In general, I think it’s just how detailed you want to get about something. I mean, I walked out of the movie realizing everything that didn’t work out in my mind about it, but I could at least accept those things. Just because a movie raises questions doesn’t mean it can’t answer them. It was made to be an enjoyable film, and thats just what it was. And another thing is, I’m not sure if you’re feeling the same feeling as me, because I honestly thought the film was fucking amazing. Just the stress it made you feel, all the emotions, and they were all genuine and real because of how well the film was shaped. Not a single thing felt out of place. Not a single thing felt flimsy. I think this movie might just be flawless because of how unconventional it is.

    So that’s just what I think, cool if you read this far, have a nice day

  • Doma

    There are spoilers in this comment, so don’t read if you haven’t seen it, because you should see it because it was absolutely amazing.

    I think you just have to think about the differences between you and the people in Johannesburg. The people who live in a majority of the city were born in shit, will live in shit, and will die in shit. Because of this, they have no concept of accepting new, intelligent beings into their world (plus the film states that the Prawns were the workers of the ship, unable to care for themselves, and it’s stated almost exactly like that so I don’t know where you’re coming from.) So you have all these people who want to live peacefully after the Apartheid and now there are these disgusting creatures stealing sutff off of them, digging through their trash, and being nothing but giant, awful nuisances to their lives. These creatures turned out to not be super amazing awesome intelligent aliens, they turned out to be shit eating monsters to these people.

    And I’d just like to squeeze in that the whole “Nigerians are gangsters” thing is kinda true, in that right now Africa’s main problem is its gangs and ganglords. That is, aside from AIDS.

    I can’t believe you didn’t mention how Christopher’s ship just happened to have a convenient doorway in the side of it when it crashed, or how twice in the film the Elite Soldier and his crew (the guys who were hunting Vickes the whole time) would just stand there and barrage them endlessly with bullets, not advancing towards them to suppress them, while Vickes and Christopher just sat there and manically discussed plans. It happened in the lab when they got the fluid and when Vickes got in the suit and was escorting Christopher through all the tons of bullets flying at them BY THE HUNTING SQUAD. They could have run up to the two of them and popped them both in the face, but they decided to just sit there and waste ammo.

    And the thing about Religion and widespread suicide and war you mentioned, the film never showed anything outside of Johannesburg. All footage was in Johannesburg, so that did well to cover up any histeria anywhere else in the world.

    As far as changing from actual footage to there being no possible way there’s a camera man around, that’s just for effect. The film has set the viewer up so that it’s like they’re watching real stuff. The entire beginning of the film was footage, and then the film became a lot more cinematic just because the impression of a documentary has been impressed on your mind. You realize there’s no way this stuff can happen, but that’s obvious. I think it’s just a “sit back and enjoy the movie” kind of part. Because there was little “actual footage” during the middle of the film.

    In general, I think it’s just how detailed you want to get about something. I mean, I walked out of the movie realizing everything that didn’t work out in my mind about it, but I could at least accept those things. Just because a movie raises questions doesn’t mean it can’t answer them. It was made to be an enjoyable film, and thats just what it was. And another thing is, I’m not sure if you’re feeling the same feeling as me, because I honestly thought the film was fucking amazing. Just the stress it made you feel, all the emotions, and they were all genuine and real because of how well the film was shaped. Not a single thing felt out of place. Not a single thing felt flimsy. I think this movie might just be flawless because of how unconventional it is.

    So that’s just what I think, cool if you read this far, have a nice day

  • http://www.neovoxx.com/ Zach

    I saw a History Channel documentary the other day about Chariot of the Gods, one of the first major works that posed the question “What if our Gods were really just Aliens?” I think doing a documentary style movie about that being proven true and its impact on the world, and then the political struggle to join some sort of federated inter-galactic community would be interesting.

    On another note, I’d like to add that the US isn’t always the beacon of progressive society. The city where I’ve grown up and started my business, Albany GA, is very racially divided. Sure, the white’s only signs are only used as museum pieces now, but there’s still a clear dividing line between blacks and non-blacks, essentially at the Flint River. If you ever visit, there’s an unwritten rule that non-blacks and educated blacks (or white blacks, as they are referred as sometimes) are not welcome there, and you risk a high chance of being robbed or even shot if you go east of the Flint. The population density of blacks as opposed to other races slowly evens out as you go west of the Flint, and then the more north you get towards Leesburg (the city I went to high school in, it’s a very small suburb of Albany only 5 mins out) it gets more white (and more upper class, but not without its share of drug and corruption issues).

    I run into a lot of issues servicing customers east of the Flint. I’ve had situations where people don’t want to go out there to fix computers or meet customers, and I’ve had issues with customers not wanting to do business with me because I’m willing to do so. Sure, you might find a healthy mix of racial diversity in our mall and our Wal-Mart, but racial segregation is still alive in Albany, GA.

  • http://www.neovoxx.com Zach

    I saw a History Channel documentary the other day about Chariot of the Gods, one of the first major works that posed the question “What if our Gods were really just Aliens?” I think doing a documentary style movie about that being proven true and its impact on the world, and then the political struggle to join some sort of federated inter-galactic community would be interesting.

    On another note, I’d like to add that the US isn’t always the beacon of progressive society. The city where I’ve grown up and started my business, Albany GA, is very racially divided. Sure, the white’s only signs are only used as museum pieces now, but there’s still a clear dividing line between blacks and non-blacks, essentially at the Flint River. If you ever visit, there’s an unwritten rule that non-blacks and educated blacks (or white blacks, as they are referred as sometimes) are not welcome there, and you risk a high chance of being robbed or even shot if you go east of the Flint. The population density of blacks as opposed to other races slowly evens out as you go west of the Flint, and then the more north you get towards Leesburg (the city I went to high school in, it’s a very small suburb of Albany only 5 mins out) it gets more white (and more upper class, but not without its share of drug and corruption issues).

    I run into a lot of issues servicing customers east of the Flint. I’ve had situations where people don’t want to go out there to fix computers or meet customers, and I’ve had issues with customers not wanting to do business with me because I’m willing to do so. Sure, you might find a healthy mix of racial diversity in our mall and our Wal-Mart, but racial segregation is still alive in Albany, GA.

  • Jabrwock

    About the Apartheid allegory, perhaps the director was trying to illustrate that when the tides are turned, the former oppressed can easily join the former oppressors in oppressing a new group. Nobody stops to go “hey, this is pretty ironic, we’re now the oppressors”, because if they had thought that, they wouldn’t be doing it, there’d be a sense of guilt. I agree though that there should have been some mention of people willing to “fight the system” to help the prawns, but perhaps that was left out to avoid distracting from the story, because otherwise we’d be focusing on the struggle of the people doing the helping.

    As for the “why did no-one in the movie notice the similarities to Apartheid?”, those living in District 9 are not human, so it might take quite a stretch for your average person living near the District to make that connection. Think of someone living next to a homeless tent city. They may have some sympathy for them, but there’s still a feeling of NIMBY (not in my backyard), especially if the homeless are from a different group (think southern US attitudes towards Mexicans, if they are hard-working, they are tolerated, if they are homeless, or look grungy, then they MUST be “blood-sucking illegals”).

  • Jabrwock

    About the Apartheid allegory, perhaps the director was trying to illustrate that when the tides are turned, the former oppressed can easily join the former oppressors in oppressing a new group. Nobody stops to go “hey, this is pretty ironic, we’re now the oppressors”, because if they had thought that, they wouldn’t be doing it, there’d be a sense of guilt. I agree though that there should have been some mention of people willing to “fight the system” to help the prawns, but perhaps that was left out to avoid distracting from the story, because otherwise we’d be focusing on the struggle of the people doing the helping.

    As for the “why did no-one in the movie notice the similarities to Apartheid?”, those living in District 9 are not human, so it might take quite a stretch for your average person living near the District to make that connection. Think of someone living next to a homeless tent city. They may have some sympathy for them, but there’s still a feeling of NIMBY (not in my backyard), especially if the homeless are from a different group (think southern US attitudes towards Mexicans, if they are hard-working, they are tolerated, if they are homeless, or look grungy, then they MUST be “blood-sucking illegals”).

  • Ben, aka mlsterben

    Maybe they’ll talk about religion in District 10, the action packed sequel where *SPOILER* Christopher returns to liberate his …er… people, and cure Wikus! */SPOILER*

  • Ben, aka mlsterben

    Maybe they’ll talk about religion in District 10, the action packed sequel where *SPOILER* Christopher returns to liberate his …er… people, and cure Wikus! */SPOILER*

  • Roy

    Scientologists will be like ‘Told you so!’ – Tom Cruise spearheading the massive recruitment of new believers.

    When you said D-9 and religion in your post, it was the first thing I could think of.

  • Roy

    Scientologists will be like ‘Told you so!’ – Tom Cruise spearheading the massive recruitment of new believers.

    When you said D-9 and religion in your post, it was the first thing I could think of.

  • JoeL

    District of Eden xD. Bipedal roaches cracked me up :D. We need more sentient beings… Prawn sex, wonder how that would look like… Mhm… I suddenly bacame hungry… Religion sucks!

  • JoeL

    District of Eden xD. Bipedal roaches cracked me up :D. We need more sentient beings… Prawn sex, wonder how that would look like… Mhm… I suddenly bacame hungry… Religion sucks!

  • Kevin Holsinger

    Bookshelf Stud,

    The following is meant in the most civilized way possible (not looking to start a war here)…

    “The gamble is far greater to not believe in God than to believe in him.”

    The way I view it, if there’s a god(dess) who’s going to punish me for not believing in it, then that entity shouldn’t have allowed so many religious possibilities to flourish on this planet. If the beliefs of Religion A are true, and they’re incompatible with the beliefs of Religions B, C, & D, then that god(dess) should have handed all its prophets the same religion.

    In science, the laws of the universe that apply in the Middle East are the same that apply in East Asia. But in religion, Jesus didn’t have the same worldview as Buddha, nor did Mohammed have the same worldview as Lao Tzu. And none of them matched, say, the Aztec worldview…which in turn didn’t match the ancient Greek worldview…which in turn…you get the point.

    I could be wrong, but I can’t imagine a benevolent god(dess) punishing me horribly for not knowing which of our many religious worldviews was supposed to be the right one.

  • Kevin Holsinger

    Bookshelf Stud,

    The following is meant in the most civilized way possible (not looking to start a war here)…

    “The gamble is far greater to not believe in God than to believe in him.”

    The way I view it, if there’s a god(dess) who’s going to punish me for not believing in it, then that entity shouldn’t have allowed so many religious possibilities to flourish on this planet. If the beliefs of Religion A are true, and they’re incompatible with the beliefs of Religions B, C, & D, then that god(dess) should have handed all its prophets the same religion.

    In science, the laws of the universe that apply in the Middle East are the same that apply in East Asia. But in religion, Jesus didn’t have the same worldview as Buddha, nor did Mohammed have the same worldview as Lao Tzu. And none of them matched, say, the Aztec worldview…which in turn didn’t match the ancient Greek worldview…which in turn…you get the point.

    I could be wrong, but I can’t imagine a benevolent god(dess) punishing me horribly for not knowing which of our many religious worldviews was supposed to be the right one.

  • JoeL

    BTW, Vaughn Fry, apertheid isn’t just the minority controlling the natives. Look at apertheid in america, blacks was an minority being controlled by an majority. Apertheid is just an extreme form of segregation, not just an minority controlling an majority. But I think that letting the movie take place in johannesburg was kinda like spoony said, a brick to the face.

  • JoeL

    BTW, Vaughn Fry, apertheid isn’t just the minority controlling the natives. Look at apertheid in america, blacks was an minority being controlled by an majority. Apertheid is just an extreme form of segregation, not just an minority controlling an majority. But I think that letting the movie take place in johannesburg was kinda like spoony said, a brick to the face.

  • Steven

    Spoony, you would probably be surprised at how many religious people accept the possibility of alien life. I’m not religious myself but I’ve spoken to many people about the topic and there are many who accept that there might be life out there. As others have said, the religious zealots that don’t believe would either a) reject reality or b) call them demons spawned by the Devil. They could also call it a test God is giving us. They’ll never run out of excuses/cop outs. Trust me.

    So I have to disagree with your religious statement. Everything would probably remain about the same in that department.

  • Steven

    Spoony, you would probably be surprised at how many religious people accept the possibility of alien life. I’m not religious myself but I’ve spoken to many people about the topic and there are many who accept that there might be life out there. As others have said, the religious zealots that don’t believe would either a) reject reality or b) call them demons spawned by the Devil. They could also call it a test God is giving us. They’ll never run out of excuses/cop outs. Trust me.

    So I have to disagree with your religious statement. Everything would probably remain about the same in that department.

  • TheZapper

    Unfortunately, I haven’t seen D9 yet, as it only comes out here in October. But I’m so bold to partake in the gist of the thread anyway:
    Finally, a religious discussion on The Spoony Experiment! The forum rules don’t apply here, do they? ;-)

    Anyway. I consider myself an atheist (though technicaly an agnostic, but using the term “atheist” pisses off the right people) because the absence of a personal/interventionist God (or gods) is obvious to me, while the belief in an impersonal God (or gods) is essentially meaningless. It baffles my mind how some people who are evidently intelligent – highly intelligent, even – can believe in any specific religion. I’m not talking about Pantheism, Deism or even vague, unspecific Theism, but all those very real, rigid belief systems we’ve all learned to love over the last few millenia.But since it obviously *does* happen, I’m not going to outright claim that Religion presupposes stupidity, as there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.
    I will firmly postulate, however, that there are only three possible reasons for religious Fundamentalism of any kind: Stupidity, willfull ignorance or simply perfidious machination.
    And Fundamentalism, after all, is clearly the prime culprit for giving all of Religion a bad name. In the hypothetical (and, sadly, impropable, due to effectively insurmountable technical difficulties) scenario of an Alien-Human encounter, I don’t think that the majority of religious people (in the West and non-muslim Asia, at least) would have that much of a problem with Aliens. As a previous poster allready stated, the Galilean Affront happened almost 400 years ago, and most people seem to have taken it relatively easy. The Catholic Church doesen’t even have a problem with the fact of evolution (or the possibility of extraterrestial live, for that matter).

    But the abrahamic fundamentalists – some of them, at least – would never, ever accept the Aliens as “real”. Instead, they would propably denounce them (as others said) as “demons” and “agents of Satan”. I imagine a lot of talk about the end times, imminent rapture, and other assorted lunacies. Terrorism would be a given, from all branches of the abrahamic tree – and for everyone who would reply that “only muslims are terrorists!”: That’s a) wrong (as Spoony noted, nobody gives a fuck about Africa) and b) only the case for the West because christian fundamentalists here are in a position of relative global power, and not scared enough. The arrival of Aliens would change that, I believe.

    So yes, it would make a very interresting movie indeed. If you haven’t patented that idea yet, I should perhaps get writing ;-)

  • TheZapper

    Unfortunately, I haven’t seen D9 yet, as it only comes out here in October. But I’m so bold to partake in the gist of the thread anyway:
    Finally, a religious discussion on The Spoony Experiment! The forum rules don’t apply here, do they? ;-)

    Anyway. I consider myself an atheist (though technicaly an agnostic, but using the term “atheist” pisses off the right people) because the absence of a personal/interventionist God (or gods) is obvious to me, while the belief in an impersonal God (or gods) is essentially meaningless. It baffles my mind how some people who are evidently intelligent – highly intelligent, even – can believe in any specific religion. I’m not talking about Pantheism, Deism or even vague, unspecific Theism, but all those very real, rigid belief systems we’ve all learned to love over the last few millenia.But since it obviously *does* happen, I’m not going to outright claim that Religion presupposes stupidity, as there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.
    I will firmly postulate, however, that there are only three possible reasons for religious Fundamentalism of any kind: Stupidity, willfull ignorance or simply perfidious machination.
    And Fundamentalism, after all, is clearly the prime culprit for giving all of Religion a bad name. In the hypothetical (and, sadly, impropable, due to effectively insurmountable technical difficulties) scenario of an Alien-Human encounter, I don’t think that the majority of religious people (in the West and non-muslim Asia, at least) would have that much of a problem with Aliens. As a previous poster allready stated, the Galilean Affront happened almost 400 years ago, and most people seem to have taken it relatively easy. The Catholic Church doesen’t even have a problem with the fact of evolution (or the possibility of extraterrestial live, for that matter).

    But the abrahamic fundamentalists – some of them, at least – would never, ever accept the Aliens as “real”. Instead, they would propably denounce them (as others said) as “demons” and “agents of Satan”. I imagine a lot of talk about the end times, imminent rapture, and other assorted lunacies. Terrorism would be a given, from all branches of the abrahamic tree – and for everyone who would reply that “only muslims are terrorists!”: That’s a) wrong (as Spoony noted, nobody gives a fuck about Africa) and b) only the case for the West because christian fundamentalists here are in a position of relative global power, and not scared enough. The arrival of Aliens would change that, I believe.

    So yes, it would make a very interresting movie indeed. If you haven’t patented that idea yet, I should perhaps get writing ;-)

  • TheZapper

    @Kevin Holsinger:
    Thank you for pointing out the essential flaw in Pascal’s Wager. This kind of binary thinking about Religion is, sadly, all too common even for the non-religious.
    Also, for recommending “Contact”. It’s a truely visionary book/film (and I know I’m relatively alone with that opinion, at least for the film) from one of the greatest, kindest minds of the 20th century (Yes. Sagan’s genius was not of discovery, but of communication and passion). Allthough it does mostly deal with “interhuman” faith issues, methinks.

  • TheZapper

    @Kevin Holsinger:
    Thank you for pointing out the essential flaw in Pascal’s Wager. This kind of binary thinking about Religion is, sadly, all too common even for the non-religious.
    Also, for recommending “Contact”. It’s a truely visionary book/film (and I know I’m relatively alone with that opinion, at least for the film) from one of the greatest, kindest minds of the 20th century (Yes. Sagan’s genius was not of discovery, but of communication and passion). Allthough it does mostly deal with “interhuman” faith issues, methinks.

  • Ed Brubaker

    You know focusing on how dark humanity is isn’t going to solve any of our problems.

  • Ed Brubaker

    You know focusing on how dark humanity is isn’t going to solve any of our problems.

  • McNinja

    Well, the bible doesn’t say that God didn’t create aliens o.O It’s entirely possible for God to have created more than one race of beings in the universe.

    I actually hope that aliens come to earth. Because of all the things spoony said would happen (and they would), it would cut down the human population, making less problems for the rest of us :P

  • McNinja

    Well, the bible doesn’t say that God didn’t create aliens o.O It’s entirely possible for God to have created more than one race of beings in the universe.

    I actually hope that aliens come to earth. Because of all the things spoony said would happen (and they would), it would cut down the human population, making less problems for the rest of us :P

  • dennett316

    @23, CamaroCaron.
    We are more evolved than animals, even though we do still possess the same basic instincts, that does not excuse what we do to each other. Animals kill for food, territory etc. like you say….they don’t willfully torture others, they don’t kill because someone believes something they don’t, they do not oppress their own kind or allow them to live in poverty or starve to death. They do not rape, torture and kill for currency.
    Basic instinct may explain partially why we as a race are as bad as we are, but frankly our brains have evolved past reacting on pure instinct and have developed the ability of rational thought, we can consider and choose our actions in a way that animals cannot. And yet we still see evidence of such cruelty and barbarism every day, much of it swept under a rug due to political/economic concerns.
    Religion can be a wonderful thing, but it can be – and is – the catalyst for atrocities the world over for thousands of years.

  • dennett316

    @23, CamaroCaron.
    We are more evolved than animals, even though we do still possess the same basic instincts, that does not excuse what we do to each other. Animals kill for food, territory etc. like you say….they don’t willfully torture others, they don’t kill because someone believes something they don’t, they do not oppress their own kind or allow them to live in poverty or starve to death. They do not rape, torture and kill for currency.
    Basic instinct may explain partially why we as a race are as bad as we are, but frankly our brains have evolved past reacting on pure instinct and have developed the ability of rational thought, we can consider and choose our actions in a way that animals cannot. And yet we still see evidence of such cruelty and barbarism every day, much of it swept under a rug due to political/economic concerns.
    Religion can be a wonderful thing, but it can be – and is – the catalyst for atrocities the world over for thousands of years.

  • RTKGuy

    Re: #47

    How is discussing the paradox that is human behavior a bad thing? Perhaps it’s impossible to accurately predict human behavior in regards to any unknown situation, but it isn’t hard to extrapolate past reactions and make a educated guess. One of the unfortunate truths I’ve learned is that most people do not react well to any type of change, especially the ones that call into question the truths they’ve clung to. Without going into politics, you do see that phenomenon in America all through our history, right up to today with the health care debate. I think all countries operate the same way, because while people are more intelligent than the other species of our planet, we’re still driven by instincts and animalistic desires. The human ego is a particularly stubborn thing.

    To fix problems, we have to understand them. To fix ourselves, we have to understand ourselves. The problem is that most people don’t want to understand. We usually don’t like what we see.

    As to the alien question, I think our world, and not just religion, would have a massive reorientation of its thinking. The main problem is that we’d learn that we really aren’t the masters of the universe. Religious or not, that would hit a lot of people really hard.

  • pite

    this movie didn’t feel so much as a documentary but more as those History channel programs where they mix actual footage with whatever they think happened when cameras weren’t there to capture the action.

    The religion angle would’ve made the movie too preachy in my opinion.

  • RTKGuy

    Re: #47

    How is discussing the paradox that is human behavior a bad thing? Perhaps it’s impossible to accurately predict human behavior in regards to any unknown situation, but it isn’t hard to extrapolate past reactions and make a educated guess. One of the unfortunate truths I’ve learned is that most people do not react well to any type of change, especially the ones that call into question the truths they’ve clung to. Without going into politics, you do see that phenomenon in America all through our history, right up to today with the health care debate. I think all countries operate the same way, because while people are more intelligent than the other species of our planet, we’re still driven by instincts and animalistic desires. The human ego is a particularly stubborn thing.

    To fix problems, we have to understand them. To fix ourselves, we have to understand ourselves. The problem is that most people don’t want to understand. We usually don’t like what we see.

    As to the alien question, I think our world, and not just religion, would have a massive reorientation of its thinking. The main problem is that we’d learn that we really aren’t the masters of the universe. Religious or not, that would hit a lot of people really hard.

  • pite

    this movie didn’t feel so much as a documentary but more as those History channel programs where they mix actual footage with whatever they think happened when cameras weren’t there to capture the action.

    The religion angle would’ve made the movie too preachy in my opinion.

  • Taranaich

    It’s a great idea, Spoony, but ultimately I don’t think it would be quite as apocalyptic as you imply.

    Sure, there’s nothing in the bible about prawns, but there’s also nothing about evolution, dinosaurs, other planets or other suns, and people have managed to not commit mass suicide/war/civil unrest. Granted, none of these things are quite as extreme as visitors from beyond the stars, but I still doubt it would be quite as disastrous as you suggest. The most extreme fundamentalists would either spin the aliens as being Nephilim or Fallen Angels (or demons), consider them animals, or just accept that they’re people, but not God’s Chosen People. Perhaps people now interpret the Bible to say that humanity itself is the Chosen People, not just Jews, or Muslims see all humans as the sacred people, not just Arabs. It could be quite a unifying factor, oddly enough.

    A good example to the religious aspects of alien visitors is Clarke’s “Childhood’s End”: I see humanity reacting like that.

  • Taranaich

    It’s a great idea, Spoony, but ultimately I don’t think it would be quite as apocalyptic as you imply.

    Sure, there’s nothing in the bible about prawns, but there’s also nothing about evolution, dinosaurs, other planets or other suns, and people have managed to not commit mass suicide/war/civil unrest. Granted, none of these things are quite as extreme as visitors from beyond the stars, but I still doubt it would be quite as disastrous as you suggest. The most extreme fundamentalists would either spin the aliens as being Nephilim or Fallen Angels (or demons), consider them animals, or just accept that they’re people, but not God’s Chosen People. Perhaps people now interpret the Bible to say that humanity itself is the Chosen People, not just Jews, or Muslims see all humans as the sacred people, not just Arabs. It could be quite a unifying factor, oddly enough.

    A good example to the religious aspects of alien visitors is Clarke’s “Childhood’s End”: I see humanity reacting like that.

  • RageTreb

    There definitely would be religious upheaval, but religion/god would NOT die. The human mind is capable of telling itself anything it needs to to keep up the status quo. You can throw all the evidence in the world against any given god and its followers would still believe. Aliens would not change that.

  • RageTreb

    There definitely would be religious upheaval, but religion/god would NOT die. The human mind is capable of telling itself anything it needs to to keep up the status quo. You can throw all the evidence in the world against any given god and its followers would still believe. Aliens would not change that.

  • Walter

    I think the main events of the movie were set 20 years after the arrival of the Prawns specifically so that the human characters would have had ample time to get over the initial shock of such a huge event. I agree with Spoony in that their presence would cause widespread religious chaos, and the 20 year buffer is there to explain why none of it is happening in the movies’ story line.

  • Walter

    I think the main events of the movie were set 20 years after the arrival of the Prawns specifically so that the human characters would have had ample time to get over the initial shock of such a huge event. I agree with Spoony in that their presence would cause widespread religious chaos, and the 20 year buffer is there to explain why none of it is happening in the movies’ story line.

  • Destrucity

    Personally, Spoony, I think that in the wake of Mel Gibson’s “Passion” movie Hollywood is really reluctant to potentially ostracize the religious (particularly the Catholics and Protestants) crowd. Look at films like Children of Men and The Golden Compass–stories almost entirely stripped of the religious content that was so prevalent in the original books. And this is entirely because Hollywood recognizes Christians as a large, powerful market which adheres to particular behavioral patterns–they don’t want to lose the market.

    Now, as a Christian, I find this development alarming in two ways. First, rather than Christians actually concerning themselves with REAL LIFE, they make a big fuss when they get pandered to by marketers and when you have a vaguely Christian-ish idea explored in mainstream films (or overtly Christian ideas hammered into you by lame Kirk Cameron vehicles). Now, I certainly hate that Christians have done real persecution of other people when they are supposed to be a religion that lifts up the downtrodden, but I hate almost as much when Christians basically become the worst sorts of Fanboys imaginable–unconcerned with people outside of their social circle, trying desperately to stretch out their initial Fan excitement (which has long since faded away), and spewing rank vitriol against anyone critical of them or what they’re a Fan of.

    Second, I don’t like that Hollywood is avoiding the inclusion of a potentially unfavorable depiction of religion (particularly Christianity) in films because religion is a very real part of life. Fiction should try to include the feeling of real life as much as possible. For all its faults, I was very impressed with the way that Contact included the aspect of religion in its story (someone else mentioned this earlier). I think the Alien Nation series also included religion in its mythology, if I am not mistaken. The stories don’t suffer for it, even if some of the Christian market is lost. I would be intrigued and willing to risk being offended if I knew a story that looked cool included a significant criticism of my religion.

    As far as “if this happened in real life” goes, I don’t have much to add–I think you’d see a very diverse set of reactions even within the same religions. But I will defend the film in the sense that if the aliens didn’t DO anything significant for two decades, even religious people would get bored of them and probably dismiss them as some abberance of nature (Wilkus turning into one of the Prawns would be viewed as confirmation of this) rather than some cosmically significant sign.

  • Destrucity

    Personally, Spoony, I think that in the wake of Mel Gibson’s “Passion” movie Hollywood is really reluctant to potentially ostracize the religious (particularly the Catholics and Protestants) crowd. Look at films like Children of Men and The Golden Compass–stories almost entirely stripped of the religious content that was so prevalent in the original books. And this is entirely because Hollywood recognizes Christians as a large, powerful market which adheres to particular behavioral patterns–they don’t want to lose the market.

    Now, as a Christian, I find this development alarming in two ways. First, rather than Christians actually concerning themselves with REAL LIFE, they make a big fuss when they get pandered to by marketers and when you have a vaguely Christian-ish idea explored in mainstream films (or overtly Christian ideas hammered into you by lame Kirk Cameron vehicles). Now, I certainly hate that Christians have done real persecution of other people when they are supposed to be a religion that lifts up the downtrodden, but I hate almost as much when Christians basically become the worst sorts of Fanboys imaginable–unconcerned with people outside of their social circle, trying desperately to stretch out their initial Fan excitement (which has long since faded away), and spewing rank vitriol against anyone critical of them or what they’re a Fan of.

    Second, I don’t like that Hollywood is avoiding the inclusion of a potentially unfavorable depiction of religion (particularly Christianity) in films because religion is a very real part of life. Fiction should try to include the feeling of real life as much as possible. For all its faults, I was very impressed with the way that Contact included the aspect of religion in its story (someone else mentioned this earlier). I think the Alien Nation series also included religion in its mythology, if I am not mistaken. The stories don’t suffer for it, even if some of the Christian market is lost. I would be intrigued and willing to risk being offended if I knew a story that looked cool included a significant criticism of my religion.

    As far as “if this happened in real life” goes, I don’t have much to add–I think you’d see a very diverse set of reactions even within the same religions. But I will defend the film in the sense that if the aliens didn’t DO anything significant for two decades, even religious people would get bored of them and probably dismiss them as some abberance of nature (Wilkus turning into one of the Prawns would be viewed as confirmation of this) rather than some cosmically significant sign.

  • DesertEagle

    “The presence of extraterrestrial life is heretical to many forms of organized religion, who believe that God created Man in His own image.”

    Sorry Spoony, but I have to disagree with your apocalyptic scenario.

    Fundamentalists (specifically Biblical literalists) do not represent the majority of Christianity; most Christians on a world-wide basis do not take Genesis literally. Further, it is not beyond anyone’s stretch of imagination that the all-powerful God could have created the aliens even if a literal interpretation of Genesis is to be assumed. The ‘created in the likeness of God’ would obviously only apply to man; and there are tons of things in the universe not mentioned in the Bible that have been created by God. Sure you will have a few wackos who will insist there are no aliens even when we have irrefutable proof like the aliens but these same people would also believe the Earth is six to ten thousand years old despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Another thing is the Catholic Church recognizes the possibility of aliens. Also remember Christianity is not the only religion.

    So the scenario you describe is a tad ridiculous.

  • DesertEagle

    “The presence of extraterrestrial life is heretical to many forms of organized religion, who believe that God created Man in His own image.”

    Sorry Spoony, but I have to disagree with your apocalyptic scenario.

    Fundamentalists (specifically Biblical literalists) do not represent the majority of Christianity; most Christians on a world-wide basis do not take Genesis literally. Further, it is not beyond anyone’s stretch of imagination that the all-powerful God could have created the aliens even if a literal interpretation of Genesis is to be assumed. The ‘created in the likeness of God’ would obviously only apply to man; and there are tons of things in the universe not mentioned in the Bible that have been created by God. Sure you will have a few wackos who will insist there are no aliens even when we have irrefutable proof like the aliens but these same people would also believe the Earth is six to ten thousand years old despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Another thing is the Catholic Church recognizes the possibility of aliens. Also remember Christianity is not the only religion.

    So the scenario you describe is a tad ridiculous.

  • http://www.sermonfire.blogspot.com Logan Paschke

    Very strange, I posted my comment 7 hours ago and it has not shown up yet.

    Was it because I included a link?

    Anyway, to agree with what C.S. Lewis said in his article “Rockets and Religion”, aliens are compatible with Christianity. Yeah, that’s the short version, the long version is much more persuasive and is a good response as he deals with the whole thing quite logically (and much more extensively than my lone sentence). I’d include the link, but I’m guessing that is what made my post disappear, just google it and you should be able to find it. It’s available to read on Google Books.

    What is more interesting is what Lewis said of alien races, what if we were the only “lost sheep” of the galaxy and we were the only race that disobeyed God and fell into sin. All the other races obeyed God and received eternal life on their worlds after God created them. Lewis goes on to say how much he worries for them if they were to encounter wicked, savage mankind. Very interesting stuff to say the least, I have a lot of respect for him as he’s one of the few Christians I know who’s written science-fiction.

    Cliched Atheist’s attacks on the Bible, Christianity, and Jesus are cliched.

    @56 Yeah, believing in a literal 6 day creation is like believing Christ rose from the dead. Creation was a supernatural miracle, just like the miracle of the virgin birth, the miracles Christ did while He walked the earth, and when He resurrected. I have no problem denying millions of years not primarily because of the overwhelming evidence that it has not been millions of years (in a similar scenario, there is overwhelming evidence that Christ rose from the dead), but because of the inerrant Word of God which is crystal-clear on those were literal days. Not that you can’t be a true Christian and believe otherwise, but I’m just saying.

    I’m sure everyone will love me after a paragraph like that.

  • http://www.sermonfire.blogspot.com/ Logan Paschke

    Very strange, I posted my comment 7 hours ago and it has not shown up yet.

    Was it because I included a link?

    Anyway, to agree with what C.S. Lewis said in his article “Rockets and Religion”, aliens are compatible with Christianity. Yeah, that’s the short version, the long version is much more persuasive and is a good response as he deals with the whole thing quite logically (and much more extensively than my lone sentence). I’d include the link, but I’m guessing that is what made my post disappear, just google it and you should be able to find it. It’s available to read on Google Books.

    What is more interesting is what Lewis said of alien races, what if we were the only “lost sheep” of the galaxy and we were the only race that disobeyed God and fell into sin. All the other races obeyed God and received eternal life on their worlds after God created them. Lewis goes on to say how much he worries for them if they were to encounter wicked, savage mankind. Very interesting stuff to say the least, I have a lot of respect for him as he’s one of the few Christians I know who’s written science-fiction.

    Cliched Atheist’s attacks on the Bible, Christianity, and Jesus are cliched.

    @56 Yeah, believing in a literal 6 day creation is like believing Christ rose from the dead. Creation was a supernatural miracle, just like the miracle of the virgin birth, the miracles Christ did while He walked the earth, and when He resurrected. I have no problem denying millions of years not primarily because of the overwhelming evidence that it has not been millions of years (in a similar scenario, there is overwhelming evidence that Christ rose from the dead), but because of the inerrant Word of God which is crystal-clear on those were literal days. Not that you can’t be a true Christian and believe otherwise, but I’m just saying.

    I’m sure everyone will love me after a paragraph like that.

  • ChaosX9

    It is very true that the pro-alien side is dumbed down considerably for the movie to the point of not even getting a full minute of screen time, there was a bit of a nugget about why humanity soured on the aliens if you were attentive.

    During one of the documentary segments highlighting the history leading up to District 9, one of the people interviewed told the camera that everyone was expecting the aliens to hold the key to some universal truth, or the way to enlightenment or something along those lines. While not as compelling as an excuse of ‘Because humanity is center of universe’ (ala Babylon 5) or ‘Because religion dictates it’ (Both sides of the slavery argument claimed that the Bible justified their views), it IS an explanation. Just one that should’ve been explored a little more.

  • ChaosX9

    It is very true that the pro-alien side is dumbed down considerably for the movie to the point of not even getting a full minute of screen time, there was a bit of a nugget about why humanity soured on the aliens if you were attentive.

    During one of the documentary segments highlighting the history leading up to District 9, one of the people interviewed told the camera that everyone was expecting the aliens to hold the key to some universal truth, or the way to enlightenment or something along those lines. While not as compelling as an excuse of ‘Because humanity is center of universe’ (ala Babylon 5) or ‘Because religion dictates it’ (Both sides of the slavery argument claimed that the Bible justified their views), it IS an explanation. Just one that should’ve been explored a little more.

  • Seth

    I still have to agree with Spoony on how thinly veiled the metaphor for the South African Apartheid is by bringing up the example of Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness”. It was an indictment of Belgium’s treatment of the Congo and the mass genocide perpetuated there under King Leopold, but it did it so tactfully and subtly, the majority of people indict Joseph Conrad as a racist. In fact, that’s still a ground of tension and debate in academia today. In District 9, there’s no such debate because the message is pretty clear and straightfoward.

    Again, not insulting the movie in any way or detracting how good it is, just backing up Spoony with his initial critique that the whole political/social message behind the entire movie could have been conveyed a little better and a little less obvious.

    And on the whole “religion mass hysteria” scenario Spoony described…
    1.He’s not saying Christianity is the only religion, but Judiasm and Islam also both say man is in God’s image, and eastern religions also don’t deal with aliens.
    2.I’m pretty sure this is a short example of his, I don’t know…”WHY I SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED TO WRITE SCREENPLAYS” schtick. I mean, it’s a freaking category of posts on the side bar. Come on.

  • Seth

    I still have to agree with Spoony on how thinly veiled the metaphor for the South African Apartheid is by bringing up the example of Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness”. It was an indictment of Belgium’s treatment of the Congo and the mass genocide perpetuated there under King Leopold, but it did it so tactfully and subtly, the majority of people indict Joseph Conrad as a racist. In fact, that’s still a ground of tension and debate in academia today. In District 9, there’s no such debate because the message is pretty clear and straightfoward.

    Again, not insulting the movie in any way or detracting how good it is, just backing up Spoony with his initial critique that the whole political/social message behind the entire movie could have been conveyed a little better and a little less obvious.

    And on the whole “religion mass hysteria” scenario Spoony described…
    1.He’s not saying Christianity is the only religion, but Judiasm and Islam also both say man is in God’s image, and eastern religions also don’t deal with aliens.
    2.I’m pretty sure this is a short example of his, I don’t know…”WHY I SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED TO WRITE SCREENPLAYS” schtick. I mean, it’s a freaking category of posts on the side bar. Come on.

  • Sterner

    What about the religions that doesnt claim that God created man in his own image? Like say, Buddishm.
    According to them every living thing is part of a greater whole, or am i completly off-track here?

  • Sterner

    What about the religions that doesnt claim that God created man in his own image? Like say, Buddishm.
    According to them every living thing is part of a greater whole, or am i completly off-track here?

  • Wanderer

    That’s nonesense, Spoony. The Bible doesn’t only NOT say there are no other intelligent creatures other than man, some (including yours turly) believe it teaches that there ARE. Being a creationist, one has to read Genesis and figure out that God made the earth and the heaven and the stars roughly 6000 yrs ago in 6 days. So what about the stars that are so far from the earth that they must be older than 6000 years in oreder for the light emitted by them to travel to earth (i.e. be visible)? They must have been created before the earth, which means it’d be possible other higher forms of life were created as well.

    (And, being an evolutionist, one has to accept that one is a slighty less hairy, slighty less ugly monkey who has no responsibility and doesn’t need to answer to any morale and basically has the right to murder whoever they want. If aliens exist and come to earth, well, we’re screwed, because famous alien scientist Selrach Beeblebrox-Spock-Niwrad III. has sure figured out their race evolved from plasmagorian mud crabs 1,88 gammallion years ago, which is now common knowledge amongst them, and which means they can skin, cook, kill and eat as many humans as they want. And don’t go Kant on me here, that’s bullshit).

    Watch this if you’d like to know more, Spoons:

    http://www.amazingfacts.org/Television/EverlastingGospel/tabid/78/ctl/PlayMedia/mid/1022/MDID/4355/Default.aspx

  • Wanderer

    That’s nonesense, Spoony. The Bible doesn’t only NOT say there are no other intelligent creatures other than man, some (including yours turly) believe it teaches that there ARE. Being a creationist, one has to read Genesis and figure out that God made the earth and the heaven and the stars roughly 6000 yrs ago in 6 days. So what about the stars that are so far from the earth that they must be older than 6000 years in oreder for the light emitted by them to travel to earth (i.e. be visible)? They must have been created before the earth, which means it’d be possible other higher forms of life were created as well.

    (And, being an evolutionist, one has to accept that one is a slighty less hairy, slighty less ugly monkey who has no responsibility and doesn’t need to answer to any morale and basically has the right to murder whoever they want. If aliens exist and come to earth, well, we’re screwed, because famous alien scientist Selrach Beeblebrox-Spock-Niwrad III. has sure figured out their race evolved from plasmagorian mud crabs 1,88 gammallion years ago, which is now common knowledge amongst them, and which means they can skin, cook, kill and eat as many humans as they want. And don’t go Kant on me here, that’s bullshit).

    Watch this if you’d like to know more, Spoons:

    http://www.amazingfacts.org/Television/EverlastingGospel/tabid/78/ctl/PlayMedia/mid/1022/MDID/4355/Default.aspx

  • TheZapper

    Aww, fundies say the darndest things.
    Seriously, guys: You apparently have failed to notice that Spoony didn’t even use the words “Christianity”, “Christian” or “Bible”. He wrote about “Religions” and “Books”. Binary thinking, all over again. But that’s to be expected of a frame of mind so utterly egocentric as religious fundamentalism.
    Also: Believing the Earth is 6000 years old is stupid. Period.

  • TheZapper

    Aww, fundies say the darndest things.
    Seriously, guys: You apparently have failed to notice that Spoony didn’t even use the words “Christianity”, “Christian” or “Bible”. He wrote about “Religions” and “Books”. Binary thinking, all over again. But that’s to be expected of a frame of mind so utterly egocentric as religious fundamentalism.
    Also: Believing the Earth is 6000 years old is stupid. Period.

  • Thoadthetoad

    Personally I don’t think it’d be quiiite as apocalyptic as you say. Although it is just as good as many of my theories in apocalyptic situations. But you make a point, with the coming of the prawns there’d be some sort of hysteria of the death of religions.

    But then again, like myself and many people I know, I never really cared much for humans being a dominant and kept thinking that whatever godlike figure there could be, surely didn’t just stop with us. We may be an incompleted project, but there’s several reasons for someone/thing to give up on us out of frustration. I mean, “god” isn’t emotionless from what I’ve read.

    But that’s a different story, sorry ’bout my rambling.

    Has no one told spoony how I didn’t quite see why the prawns didn’t use their own weapons to cause extremely dangerous riots? I mean, they kinda seem easily accesible to the prawns, as they were selling them to that one crime lord for catfood. So besides being outnumbered, why don’t they just go apesh*t on the people putting them down and declaring war? It can only be used by them anyway.

  • Thoadthetoad

    Personally I don’t think it’d be quiiite as apocalyptic as you say. Although it is just as good as many of my theories in apocalyptic situations. But you make a point, with the coming of the prawns there’d be some sort of hysteria of the death of religions.

    But then again, like myself and many people I know, I never really cared much for humans being a dominant and kept thinking that whatever godlike figure there could be, surely didn’t just stop with us. We may be an incompleted project, but there’s several reasons for someone/thing to give up on us out of frustration. I mean, “god” isn’t emotionless from what I’ve read.

    But that’s a different story, sorry ’bout my rambling.

    Has no one told spoony how I didn’t quite see why the prawns didn’t use their own weapons to cause extremely dangerous riots? I mean, they kinda seem easily accesible to the prawns, as they were selling them to that one crime lord for catfood. So besides being outnumbered, why don’t they just go apesh*t on the people putting them down and declaring war? It can only be used by them anyway.

  • theo

    @ 29 Protip: If you think you’re holding the the universal truth or even only a small part of it (the existence of divinities for exemple) only based on silly, racist, sexist, incredibly stupid and badly written legends, you’re a dellusionnal douchebag that lack humility and common sense. The universe is something that is too complicated to understand by self important asshole prophets who supposedly discovered the universal truth at an epoch where our greatest scientific acheivement were sailboats.

    Also, the “moderate” religious are sheeps. They only stick with those neutered “mainstream” cults because they often were born into it or feel it’ll fufill their “spiritual” need. Newsflash: Spirituality is only a new term for religion, made to dissassociate some beleifs with the excess of the older cults. It’s still based on faith and it’s still complete bullshit: You can’t just say that something is truth and expect it to be truth (even if you call it spirituality instead of religion): It’s being dellusionnal.

    Face it religious people, you’re all following ridiculous far fetch theories for the sake of traditionalism, perpetuating and encouraging directly or indirectly some dangerous, crazy mindsets. If we accept the absence of logic and concrete scientific proofs behind homeopathy (and other spiritual “alternative” medicine), what keep some people to use the same kind of logic to justify the beleif that raping virgins can cure aids?

    Science is awesome and it kick the ass of any shit religion for being more reliable, intelligent and also COMPLETLY DEBATABLE, even to its core. It require always new mindsets, destroying or modifying the previous ones. The universe should be our bible; it’s trough analysing it that we could better understand ourselve and find our own personnal or collective purpose.

    Faith, of all sort is brainwashing and brainwashing should be considered a mental illness.

  • theo

    @ 29 Protip: If you think you’re holding the the universal truth or even only a small part of it (the existence of divinities for exemple) only based on silly, racist, sexist, incredibly stupid and badly written legends, you’re a dellusionnal douchebag that lack humility and common sense. The universe is something that is too complicated to understand by self important asshole prophets who supposedly discovered the universal truth at an epoch where our greatest scientific acheivement were sailboats.

    Also, the “moderate” religious are sheeps. They only stick with those neutered “mainstream” cults because they often were born into it or feel it’ll fufill their “spiritual” need. Newsflash: Spirituality is only a new term for religion, made to dissassociate some beleifs with the excess of the older cults. It’s still based on faith and it’s still complete bullshit: You can’t just say that something is truth and expect it to be truth (even if you call it spirituality instead of religion): It’s being dellusionnal.

    Face it religious people, you’re all following ridiculous far fetch theories for the sake of traditionalism, perpetuating and encouraging directly or indirectly some dangerous, crazy mindsets. If we accept the absence of logic and concrete scientific proofs behind homeopathy (and other spiritual “alternative” medicine), what keep some people to use the same kind of logic to justify the beleif that raping virgins can cure aids?

    Science is awesome and it kick the ass of any shit religion for being more reliable, intelligent and also COMPLETLY DEBATABLE, even to its core. It require always new mindsets, destroying or modifying the previous ones. The universe should be our bible; it’s trough analysing it that we could better understand ourselve and find our own personnal or collective purpose.

    Faith, of all sort is brainwashing and brainwashing should be considered a mental illness.

  • Tom

    The religious element is actually an interesting idea.”Spoony. The Bible doesn’t only NOT say there are no other intelligent creatures other than man”
    The bible clearly states that god created man in his own image.If there’s more intelligent life then what the hell does that say about god?
    I mean if aliens came to earth,the first thing I’d do is walk into a church and go “IN YOUR FACE!” to every religious person in there.

  • Tom

    The religious element is actually an interesting idea.”Spoony. The Bible doesn’t only NOT say there are no other intelligent creatures other than man”
    The bible clearly states that god created man in his own image.If there’s more intelligent life then what the hell does that say about god?
    I mean if aliens came to earth,the first thing I’d do is walk into a church and go “IN YOUR FACE!” to every religious person in there.

  • diggerjohn111

    Noah,
    Wow! I never even considered the whole religion angle! Good thinking young man! I’m a bit of an agnostic, and work in social science, so I usually divorce my thinking from religious perspectives (I study the former USSR, open religious practice was outlawed there). I loved this exercise. I think this could be a whole new avenue for the Experiment, discussion time.

  • diggerjohn111

    Noah,
    Wow! I never even considered the whole religion angle! Good thinking young man! I’m a bit of an agnostic, and work in social science, so I usually divorce my thinking from religious perspectives (I study the former USSR, open religious practice was outlawed there). I loved this exercise. I think this could be a whole new avenue for the Experiment, discussion time.

  • http://centerforinquiry.net/ Jonathan
  • http://centerforinquiry.net Jonathan
  • DesertEagle

    “Seriously, guys: You apparently have failed to notice that Spoony didn’t even use the words “Christianity”, “Christian” or “Bible”. He wrote about “Religions” and “Books”. Binary thinking, all over again. But that’s to be expected of a frame of mind so utterly egocentric as religious fundamentalism.”

    Only Spoony [i]was[/i] referring to Christian religions in particular. The belief that God created man in His own image derives from Christianity. Note also he said ‘God’ not ‘gods’ or ‘any possible god’. Generally, when ‘god’ is capitalized it is in reference to the Christian God. Further, “There’s nothing in those books about God creating prawns on the seventh day” is in direct reference to the Bible.

    Not that Spoony is wrong for taking Christianity as the primary example in his hypothetical scenario, but most of us do not see ‘aliens’ + ‘religion/Christianity’ = ‘chaos’.

  • DesertEagle

    “Seriously, guys: You apparently have failed to notice that Spoony didn’t even use the words “Christianity”, “Christian” or “Bible”. He wrote about “Religions” and “Books”. Binary thinking, all over again. But that’s to be expected of a frame of mind so utterly egocentric as religious fundamentalism.”

    Only Spoony [i]was[/i] referring to Christian religions in particular. The belief that God created man in His own image derives from Christianity. Note also he said ‘God’ not ‘gods’ or ‘any possible god’. Generally, when ‘god’ is capitalized it is in reference to the Christian God. Further, “There’s nothing in those books about God creating prawns on the seventh day” is in direct reference to the Bible.

    Not that Spoony is wrong for taking Christianity as the primary example in his hypothetical scenario, but most of us do not see ‘aliens’ + ‘religion/Christianity’ = ‘chaos’.

  • diggerjohn111

    Awesome link Jonathan! I just bookmarked that. Thank you!

  • diggerjohn111

    Awesome link Jonathan! I just bookmarked that. Thank you!

  • diggerjohn111

    DesertEagle, I think Spoony is Jewish.

  • diggerjohn111

    DesertEagle, I think Spoony is Jewish.

  • diggerjohn111

    Oops, let me clarify that. I am 1/4 myself. So I was just pointing out that he didn’t use Christian examples because I don’t think he is one. Which is cool, I was a Catholic School survivor and learned early on that all people are cool and that religion should be avoided at all costs.

  • diggerjohn111

    Oops, let me clarify that. I am 1/4 myself. So I was just pointing out that he didn’t use Christian examples because I don’t think he is one. Which is cool, I was a Catholic School survivor and learned early on that all people are cool and that religion should be avoided at all costs.

  • Tony the Heinlein geek

    You bring up a good point. Never noticed anything about religious upheaval till you pointed it out. I found the concept of aliens being a metaphor for minorities to be cliche to me cause I’ve read works that are similar.

  • Tony the Heinlein geek

    You bring up a good point. Never noticed anything about religious upheaval till you pointed it out. I found the concept of aliens being a metaphor for minorities to be cliche to me cause I’ve read works that are similar.

  • diggerjohn111

    Ok one more. I don’t want to get in trouble for that posting. I was just trying to say that Spoony wasn’t using just “Christian morays”, that would interfere with religions on a global scale. There is something about we North Americans and assuming that whenever someone brings up religion, they are and the subject is about Christianity. I am sure Islamic, Hindu, Baha’i peoples and those of other faiths would be shitting bricks too if rather grungy aliens showed up.

  • LaZodiac

    With something as massive as First Contact, its almost impossible to guess what anyone would respond with. Some may think the army would go in guns blazing, on the off chance they aren’t peace loving aliens. And of course, you can’t trust any translatations we’d create, in their languge, the phrase they use to start the massacre might sound to us like a peace offer.

    As for the religion thing, I think it depends. The Vatican would want to stay as friendly as possible to keep up their “alien brothers” idea. Fundamentalists will go nutters, calling Belzebub on the poor insect like race the Prawns appear to be. People that aren’t full belives (just the Sunday people) would react in their own ways, depending on how their personality works.

    As for other religions, I’m not sure. Buddism would probably take the entire thing in stride, but thats all I can think of. People would probably react in their own ways.

    Lovecraft followers will be pleased eitherway, as will Sci Fi watchers. If their hostile, Lovecraft fans will feel free to shot “I told you show” from the top of mountains, while any surviving Sci Fi fans will have hundreds of new stories. If their friendly, Lovecraft fans will probably be a slight bit annoyed, but hey, aliens. Any stories the aliens can give us would make the Sci Fi fans happy for decades.

    As for me? I’d be buying a shotgun and waiting for the whole thing to pass over. If the aliens are Grays though, I’m not going to buy any peace treaties. Fucking Grays.

  • diggerjohn111

    Ok one more. I don’t want to get in trouble for that posting. I was just trying to say that Spoony wasn’t using just “Christian morays”, that would interfere with religions on a global scale. There is something about we North Americans and assuming that whenever someone brings up religion, they are and the subject is about Christianity. I am sure Islamic, Hindu, Baha’i peoples and those of other faiths would be shitting bricks too if rather grungy aliens showed up.

  • LaZodiac

    With something as massive as First Contact, its almost impossible to guess what anyone would respond with. Some may think the army would go in guns blazing, on the off chance they aren’t peace loving aliens. And of course, you can’t trust any translatations we’d create, in their languge, the phrase they use to start the massacre might sound to us like a peace offer.

    As for the religion thing, I think it depends. The Vatican would want to stay as friendly as possible to keep up their “alien brothers” idea. Fundamentalists will go nutters, calling Belzebub on the poor insect like race the Prawns appear to be. People that aren’t full belives (just the Sunday people) would react in their own ways, depending on how their personality works.

    As for other religions, I’m not sure. Buddism would probably take the entire thing in stride, but thats all I can think of. People would probably react in their own ways.

    Lovecraft followers will be pleased eitherway, as will Sci Fi watchers. If their hostile, Lovecraft fans will feel free to shot “I told you show” from the top of mountains, while any surviving Sci Fi fans will have hundreds of new stories. If their friendly, Lovecraft fans will probably be a slight bit annoyed, but hey, aliens. Any stories the aliens can give us would make the Sci Fi fans happy for decades.

    As for me? I’d be buying a shotgun and waiting for the whole thing to pass over. If the aliens are Grays though, I’m not going to buy any peace treaties. Fucking Grays.

  • DesertEagle

    @diggerjohn111 (comments 70 & 71):

    That is a good point, actually. In hindsight, my use of the term ‘Christian’ was a bit exclusive of other possible religions. But Spoony was referring to religions who base their religion on biblical texts, so the counter-arguments against the scenario he brought up are still valid, which was my point in response to comment 62.

  • DesertEagle

    @diggerjohn111 (comments 70 & 71):

    That is a good point, actually. In hindsight, my use of the term ‘Christian’ was a bit exclusive of other possible religions. But Spoony was referring to religions who base their religion on biblical texts, so the counter-arguments against the scenario he brought up are still valid, which was my point in response to comment 62.

  • TheZapper

    @68:
    No, the idea that “God created man in his own image” actually derives from Judaism. Likewise, *all* abrahamic religions (i.e., Judaism, Christianity and Islam) capitalize the word “God” (please keep in mind that “Allah” is merely arabic for “God”).
    As for your other points: Well, I can’t read Spoony’s mind, but I would assume that he used christian lingo and metaphor as that particular religion is most prevalent in America and therefore most familiar to him. Of course he was *also* talking about Christianity, but neither explicitely nor exclusively, as some fundies in this thread seem to think.

  • TheZapper

    @68:
    No, the idea that “God created man in his own image” actually derives from Judaism. Likewise, *all* abrahamic religions (i.e., Judaism, Christianity and Islam) capitalize the word “God” (please keep in mind that “Allah” is merely arabic for “God”).
    As for your other points: Well, I can’t read Spoony’s mind, but I would assume that he used christian lingo and metaphor as that particular religion is most prevalent in America and therefore most familiar to him. Of course he was *also* talking about Christianity, but neither explicitely nor exclusively, as some fundies in this thread seem to think.

  • diggerjohn111

    True DE. But Judaism and Islam use the same foundations. I think Spoony was just speaking in the Western Context that most of us in North America understand. It would be bad of a writer, a teacher or even a reviewer to bring up points of reference that most of his or her audience wouldn’t understand. The “Tibetan Book of the Dead” and the notions of “achieving HUMAN perfection in the last life” would be lost on most people, and thus a poor metaphor.

  • diggerjohn111

    True DE. But Judaism and Islam use the same foundations. I think Spoony was just speaking in the Western Context that most of us in North America understand. It would be bad of a writer, a teacher or even a reviewer to bring up points of reference that most of his or her audience wouldn’t understand. The “Tibetan Book of the Dead” and the notions of “achieving HUMAN perfection in the last life” would be lost on most people, and thus a poor metaphor.

  • Kurtis

    Alright, my take. Here’s the freakin hilarious thing… I remember last year an article in the newspaper about the Pope declaring that the belief in aliens is now ok. His rationale for this? That to limit the creationist concept of god to one planet would be an affront to his true power… So basically… The same organization which once accused innocent people of witchcraft and executed them, the same organization that once threw astronomers in prison for saying that the earth is not the center of the universe (which we now know to be ubiquitous truth), the same organization which once told people to be forgiven for their sins they must purchase “indulgences” for no other reason than extortion, now in fact endorses the ideas that they once condemned… To search for any real semblance of truth in these kind of liquid, flowing mediums is dubious to say the least.

    If there were one universally correct way to live we’d all already be doing it! As there obviously is not, people will continue to kill and condemn each other until they finally WAKE UP and realise this.

  • Kurtis

    Alright, my take. Here’s the freakin hilarious thing… I remember last year an article in the newspaper about the Pope declaring that the belief in aliens is now ok. His rationale for this? That to limit the creationist concept of god to one planet would be an affront to his true power… So basically… The same organization which once accused innocent people of witchcraft and executed them, the same organization that once threw astronomers in prison for saying that the earth is not the center of the universe (which we now know to be ubiquitous truth), the same organization which once told people to be forgiven for their sins they must purchase “indulgences” for no other reason than extortion, now in fact endorses the ideas that they once condemned… To search for any real semblance of truth in these kind of liquid, flowing mediums is dubious to say the least.

    If there were one universally correct way to live we’d all already be doing it! As there obviously is not, people will continue to kill and condemn each other until they finally WAKE UP and realise this.

  • http://thelastgate.srb2.org/ ZarroTsu

    “God” is one’s perception of perfection, in their own eyes. “Religion” is sharing this perception with other people, as a means of helping better that perfection, by bettering ones self. But as far as current-day religions go (I bias this off of TV and media), we’ve already kind of fucked our self over in that regard, to the point in which Spoony brought up.

    Since many people believe god is an actual, single being, there really, REALLY isn’t anything anyone has written against this. Go ahead and look, there’s no media stating ‘there is no god’, anywhere. Anything you’d find goes on about how perfect god is; in a tense by which he’s a human being.

    And really, only the people who argue by the sake of christian and similar religions – primarily those with creationism – are really the ones doomed to committing suicide over any outside contact. And really, they’ve already painted themselves into a corner with their beliefs to the point where they just continue repeating gibberish to themselves and others. Really, until you realize god is an impossibility, you’re doomed to go berserk with fear as soon as someone threatens your religion. (With their own, or with major proof against it; ex. Creationism vs Evolution.)

  • http://thelastgate.srb2.org ZarroTsu

    “God” is one’s perception of perfection, in their own eyes. “Religion” is sharing this perception with other people, as a means of helping better that perfection, by bettering ones self. But as far as current-day religions go (I bias this off of TV and media), we’ve already kind of fucked our self over in that regard, to the point in which Spoony brought up.

    Since many people believe god is an actual, single being, there really, REALLY isn’t anything anyone has written against this. Go ahead and look, there’s no media stating ‘there is no god’, anywhere. Anything you’d find goes on about how perfect god is; in a tense by which he’s a human being.

    And really, only the people who argue by the sake of christian and similar religions – primarily those with creationism – are really the ones doomed to committing suicide over any outside contact. And really, they’ve already painted themselves into a corner with their beliefs to the point where they just continue repeating gibberish to themselves and others. Really, until you realize god is an impossibility, you’re doomed to go berserk with fear as soon as someone threatens your religion. (With their own, or with major proof against it; ex. Creationism vs Evolution.)

  • 715

    Sadly religion wouldn’t do it as 90% of all the problems in Africa isn’t because of Religion in anyway

    Its just becuase people are assholes who hate each other

    If you guys like to know “God created man in his own image” didn’t really start in judaism untill the prussian empire free them form enslavement, since befor that they just beliefed there were more than one god but they only worshoped theres. But even then God and the angles were insanly inhuman (really the Angle of Death was Five Thousand miles height and covered form head to toe in eyes flanked by two other angles maded out of chains that were made out of fire) it wasn’t until the 1500s wend God and the angles became human looking. So minus the far right religous assholes the Chuch for all we know might be there biggest pro-alien guys around hey “God loves all his creations equally” .

  • 715

    Sadly religion wouldn’t do it as 90% of all the problems in Africa isn’t because of Religion in anyway

    Its just becuase people are assholes who hate each other

    If you guys like to know “God created man in his own image” didn’t really start in judaism untill the prussian empire free them form enslavement, since befor that they just beliefed there were more than one god but they only worshoped theres. But even then God and the angles were insanly inhuman (really the Angle of Death was Five Thousand miles height and covered form head to toe in eyes flanked by two other angles maded out of chains that were made out of fire) it wasn’t until the 1500s wend God and the angles became human looking. So minus the far right religous assholes the Chuch for all we know might be there biggest pro-alien guys around hey “God loves all his creations equally” .

  • diggerjohn111

    ummm, it was the Persian Empire, the Prussians were Germans.

  • diggerjohn111

    ummm, it was the Persian Empire, the Prussians were Germans.

  • RTKGuy

    Re #61

    For your two points:

    1) While the Pope may have conceded the possible existance of aliens, you’re choosing to ignore the ample carbon dating evidence and fossil records showing that Earth is far, far, FAR older than 6,000 years. Having a spiritual leader concede a point because of the enormity of science and yet picking and choosing which scientific data you willing to BELIEVE sounds like a rather serious paradox in logic.

    2) Maybe we are only slightly-more-handsome-apes. Maybe, in the end, we aren’t. But the fallacy you’re perpetuating is that morality only comes from divinity. You’re certainly not the only one to say this. In fact, I used to believe it. What changed my mind is the sheer multitude of cultures out there, all saying their culture and morality is the best. What changed my mind is the fact that I don’t believe in God and yet live a just life and choose to do good because it facilitates good behavior and cooperation. Were the Native Americans unjust because they didn’t know Christianity? Were the Mayans and Aztecs and African tribes unjust?

    To be fair, some cultures were, and still are, unjust. Just like many Christians were, and still are, unjust. Believe what faith you wish to, but I won’t have you generalize evolutionists into amoralists. I’ll take them over religion any day of the week.

  • RTKGuy

    Re #61

    For your two points:

    1) While the Pope may have conceded the possible existance of aliens, you’re choosing to ignore the ample carbon dating evidence and fossil records showing that Earth is far, far, FAR older than 6,000 years. Having a spiritual leader concede a point because of the enormity of science and yet picking and choosing which scientific data you willing to BELIEVE sounds like a rather serious paradox in logic.

    2) Maybe we are only slightly-more-handsome-apes. Maybe, in the end, we aren’t. But the fallacy you’re perpetuating is that morality only comes from divinity. You’re certainly not the only one to say this. In fact, I used to believe it. What changed my mind is the sheer multitude of cultures out there, all saying their culture and morality is the best. What changed my mind is the fact that I don’t believe in God and yet live a just life and choose to do good because it facilitates good behavior and cooperation. Were the Native Americans unjust because they didn’t know Christianity? Were the Mayans and Aztecs and African tribes unjust?

    To be fair, some cultures were, and still are, unjust. Just like many Christians were, and still are, unjust. Believe what faith you wish to, but I won’t have you generalize evolutionists into amoralists. I’ll take them over religion any day of the week.

  • random

    What a useless discussion… Internet is full of similar threads with same arguments and opinions that lead to nowhere. And why the hell there are always some insecure bitter idiot who has to go off topic and start shouting f.ex. something like “Retards believe in God! SCIENCE>god blah blah” or “bible is the truth, you better believe it!!” when it really hasn’t anything to do with the topic itself. Jeeez lighten up…

  • random

    What a useless discussion… Internet is full of similar threads with same arguments and opinions that lead to nowhere. And why the hell there are always some insecure bitter idiot who has to go off topic and start shouting f.ex. something like “Retards believe in God! SCIENCE>god blah blah” or “bible is the truth, you better believe it!!” when it really hasn’t anything to do with the topic itself. Jeeez lighten up…

  • CamaroCaron

    Re Dennett316 @49

    Animals DO torture other animals. Haven’t you ever seen a cat toy with a mouse while killing it? Or Killer Whales throw around the bodies of seals, playfully breaking them until they are dead, and sometimes do not even eat them later. As far as oppression goes, I’ll bring up primate society and how they attack the faces, hands, and genitals of their rivals so that they will not die, but be unable to compete against them physical or posses the ability to reproduce. Alpha Male Wolfs oppress the smaller weaker wolfs and allows them to eat only when they are full. Keeping the lesser wolves of the pack to be weak, and small. If that’s not a prime example of animals keeping other animals in “poverty” I don’t know what is. Of coarse animals don’t kill for currency. That’s a retarded argument. Currency has no value to animals. But to humans it does. Why? Because it represents food, sex, territory, and everything else that the animals individually strive to acquire.

    It’s in every living organism’s DNA to be competitive, aggressive, and violent. if it wasn’t, then that species would die out. Simple as that. Nature always favors the strongest, most aggressive, and/or most adaptive organisms. Humans, or Aliens, as a whole, will never be above killing or taking advantage of one another.

  • CamaroCaron

    Re Dennett316 @49

    Animals DO torture other animals. Haven’t you ever seen a cat toy with a mouse while killing it? Or Killer Whales throw around the bodies of seals, playfully breaking them until they are dead, and sometimes do not even eat them later. As far as oppression goes, I’ll bring up primate society and how they attack the faces, hands, and genitals of their rivals so that they will not die, but be unable to compete against them physical or posses the ability to reproduce. Alpha Male Wolfs oppress the smaller weaker wolfs and allows them to eat only when they are full. Keeping the lesser wolves of the pack to be weak, and small. If that’s not a prime example of animals keeping other animals in “poverty” I don’t know what is. Of coarse animals don’t kill for currency. That’s a retarded argument. Currency has no value to animals. But to humans it does. Why? Because it represents food, sex, territory, and everything else that the animals individually strive to acquire.

    It’s in every living organism’s DNA to be competitive, aggressive, and violent. if it wasn’t, then that species would die out. Simple as that. Nature always favors the strongest, most aggressive, and/or most adaptive organisms. Humans, or Aliens, as a whole, will never be above killing or taking advantage of one another.

  • JoeM3000

    I’m just going to throw a wrench into the works and bring this argument down a level, cos I think we’re all over thinking this whole “God created man in his image” thing a little too much. I was thinking “I remember hearing something like that in a film recently”, remembering that it was glossed over fairly quickly, in just one line. Then I remembered the film. In Transformers 2, there’s a scene where the black marine asks “If God created us in his image, who created them? [referring to Optimus Prime]”

    I’m only saying this because District 9 and Spoony have got us all going into philosophical and historical debate, engaging deep thought, and Michael Bay managed to completely screw up the exact same thing.

    Thought it was intersting, s’all.

  • JoeM3000

    I’m just going to throw a wrench into the works and bring this argument down a level, cos I think we’re all over thinking this whole “God created man in his image” thing a little too much. I was thinking “I remember hearing something like that in a film recently”, remembering that it was glossed over fairly quickly, in just one line. Then I remembered the film. In Transformers 2, there’s a scene where the black marine asks “If God created us in his image, who created them? [referring to Optimus Prime]”

    I’m only saying this because District 9 and Spoony have got us all going into philosophical and historical debate, engaging deep thought, and Michael Bay managed to completely screw up the exact same thing.

    Thought it was intersting, s’all.

  • CamaroCaron

    re theo @28

    Change your tampon. If you don’t, the religious people will get you. Stop attacking other people’s religion you tool. You’ve obviously have done ZERO research in the effects of religion in modern society, which is a VERY complicated subject. Just shut up now, every time you post you look like a douche.

    “Science is awesome and it kick the ass of any shit religion for being more reliable” — theo the Tool.

    “The universe should be our bible; it’s trough(through) analysing(analyzing) it that we could better understand ourselve(ourselves) and find our own personnal(personal) or collective purpose.” — thoe is Menstruating (I don’t know which is worse, his symbolism or his spelling. There’s a spell check built INTO the comment submission box Dipshit)

  • CamaroCaron

    re theo @28

    Change your tampon. If you don’t, the religious people will get you. Stop attacking other people’s religion you tool. You’ve obviously have done ZERO research in the effects of religion in modern society, which is a VERY complicated subject. Just shut up now, every time you post you look like a douche.

    “Science is awesome and it kick the ass of any shit religion for being more reliable” — theo the Tool.

    “The universe should be our bible; it’s trough(through) analysing(analyzing) it that we could better understand ourselve(ourselves) and find our own personnal(personal) or collective purpose.” — thoe is Menstruating (I don’t know which is worse, his symbolism or his spelling. There’s a spell check built INTO the comment submission box Dipshit)

  • DieselEdge

    “What a useless discussion… Internet is full of similar threads with same arguments and opinions that lead to nowhere. And why the hell there are always some insecure bitter idiot who has to go off topic and start shouting f.ex. something like “Retards believe in God! SCIENCE>god blah blah” or “bible is the truth, you better believe it!!” when it really hasn’t anything to do with the topic itself. Jeeez lighten up…”

    I was once listening to one of those Robin Williams types, and he had an interesting take on all the decision we make and things we say. He said you can trace it back to 2 things, Love and/or Fear. The idea that they are saving someone from their own beliefs or the fear of those that are different. Even if they are just an asshole, that can be traced back to love or fear.

    Assholes just want to be hugged. <3

  • DieselEdge

    “What a useless discussion… Internet is full of similar threads with same arguments and opinions that lead to nowhere. And why the hell there are always some insecure bitter idiot who has to go off topic and start shouting f.ex. something like “Retards believe in God! SCIENCE>god blah blah” or “bible is the truth, you better believe it!!” when it really hasn’t anything to do with the topic itself. Jeeez lighten up…”

    I was once listening to one of those Robin Williams types, and he had an interesting take on all the decision we make and things we say. He said you can trace it back to 2 things, Love and/or Fear. The idea that they are saving someone from their own beliefs or the fear of those that are different. Even if they are just an asshole, that can be traced back to love or fear.

    Assholes just want to be hugged. <3

  • DieselEdge

    Oh crap! I meant Tony Robbins. XD

    Holy crap, I can’t believe I mixed those 2 up.

  • DieselEdge

    Oh crap! I meant Tony Robbins. XD

    Holy crap, I can’t believe I mixed those 2 up.

  • http://www.sermonfire.blogspot.com/ Logan Paschke

    @80 Please. Do you think that any (and I’ve read all of them) of the comments on this post has made me question my faith in the slightest? I’ve talked with many people from all different belief systems or worldviews, I’ve only come away with a stronger belief in the authority of Scripture to sufficiently and easily handle these idle speculations being thrown around.

    @84 Fail. I mean come on, did Spoony really think that introducing the idea that if aliens were to come you’d have the people of 3 major religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) having super doubts about their faith while the “wise” atheist/agnostic/skeptic, who are not even mentioned in his post, is probably sitting somewhere smoking a stogy saying, “Yeah. No worries.”

    I don’t mean to read into what Spoony is saying, but it seems logical that he knew that anytime God, Bible, Christianity, religion, etc is mentioned on a site this popular it is going to be discussed.

    Anyway how about this, the aliens come and they show us that they’ve been watching us ever since the universe began around 6000 years ago. And all the Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics will probably cling to their now collapsed belief system revolving around the slow gradual change even though it contradicts the alien race’s historical records.

    oh. snap, I’d like to see the director who’d touch that screenplay with a ten-foot pole. Cuz he got balls.

  • http://www.sermonfire.blogspot.com Logan Paschke

    @80 Please. Do you think that any (and I’ve read all of them) of the comments on this post has made me question my faith in the slightest? I’ve talked with many people from all different belief systems or worldviews, I’ve only come away with a stronger belief in the authority of Scripture to sufficiently and easily handle these idle speculations being thrown around.

    @84 Fail. I mean come on, did Spoony really think that introducing the idea that if aliens were to come you’d have the people of 3 major religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) having super doubts about their faith while the “wise” atheist/agnostic/skeptic, who are not even mentioned in his post, is probably sitting somewhere smoking a stogy saying, “Yeah. No worries.”

    I don’t mean to read into what Spoony is saying, but it seems logical that he knew that anytime God, Bible, Christianity, religion, etc is mentioned on a site this popular it is going to be discussed.

    Anyway how about this, the aliens come and they show us that they’ve been watching us ever since the universe began around 6000 years ago. And all the Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics will probably cling to their now collapsed belief system revolving around the slow gradual change even though it contradicts the alien race’s historical records.

    oh. snap, I’d like to see the director who’d touch that screenplay with a ten-foot pole. Cuz he got balls.

  • zognar

    In defense of the Catholics, and their Popes, and their ridiculous ‘old’ stoning laws and such is this: to err is human. We, the humans, are not perfect. We make mistakes, even in interpreting what God wants of us and what He wants us to teach/preach to others. If we are Christian and do not agree with some of the things we are taught (in Christianity), we can question these things and not be banished/admonished. I’m pretty sure you aren’t going to find any Catholics/Christians with half a brain who support stoning children or ever thought it was a good idea. Basically, if you don’t like a current religion because of really old biblical laws, good for you and don’t talk to me. I’d rather read the ramblings of the people who have points to make.

  • zognar

    In defense of the Catholics, and their Popes, and their ridiculous ‘old’ stoning laws and such is this: to err is human. We, the humans, are not perfect. We make mistakes, even in interpreting what God wants of us and what He wants us to teach/preach to others. If we are Christian and do not agree with some of the things we are taught (in Christianity), we can question these things and not be banished/admonished. I’m pretty sure you aren’t going to find any Catholics/Christians with half a brain who support stoning children or ever thought it was a good idea. Basically, if you don’t like a current religion because of really old biblical laws, good for you and don’t talk to me. I’d rather read the ramblings of the people who have points to make.

  • Concerned Carl

    Why, Spoony? Why did you have to open up that metaphysical can of worms? Just look at these friggin’ comments! Have you any idea what you have unleashed?!

    You of all people should know better than that. This is the Internet, and flame wars are started more easily than a teenage girl finds LiveJournal.

    What’s next, a discussion on the ethics of the alien abortion scene? The not-so-subtle metaphor of the intrinsic evil evident in the military-industrial complex? How you would alter the film to cover the endeavor of cataloguing and monitoring the alien population à la post-9/11-Patriot-Act international travel? How the complete inability to halt Wikus’s metamorphosis is a clarion call for nationalized health care in the U.S.?

    KNOW WHEN YOU HAVE GONE TOO FAR, SIR!

  • Concerned Carl

    Why, Spoony? Why did you have to open up that metaphysical can of worms? Just look at these friggin’ comments! Have you any idea what you have unleashed?!

    You of all people should know better than that. This is the Internet, and flame wars are started more easily than a teenage girl finds LiveJournal.

    What’s next, a discussion on the ethics of the alien abortion scene? The not-so-subtle metaphor of the intrinsic evil evident in the military-industrial complex? How you would alter the film to cover the endeavor of cataloguing and monitoring the alien population à la post-9/11-Patriot-Act international travel? How the complete inability to halt Wikus’s metamorphosis is a clarion call for nationalized health care in the U.S.?

    KNOW WHEN YOU HAVE GONE TOO FAR, SIR!

  • zognar

    Oh, my earlier post was based on #79 (Hossrex), sorry, I was a bit harsh. And about the UBER-scientific carbon dating thing, we can vouch for it’s effectiveness by… um, just ask the 6000 year old man, he’ll tell you!

  • zognar

    Oh, my earlier post was based on #79 (Hossrex), sorry, I was a bit harsh. And about the UBER-scientific carbon dating thing, we can vouch for it’s effectiveness by… um, just ask the 6000 year old man, he’ll tell you!

  • Emily

    ATTN: Theo

    K.

  • Emily

    ATTN: Theo

    K.

  • bojak90

    Spoony, I’m starting to think that you didn’t get it. The documentary was only supposed to describe the atmosphere at the time of Wickus’ conversion, not give an in depth history of human prawn interactions, so, even if religion was included, it would have been knocked down to a five-second scene. The point of the documentary portions were to show the audience what the world’s reaction was to Wickus’ “betrayal” (by allowing Chester to escape, he was allowing the earth to be held accountable to the prawns homeworld).

    Also, that topic isn’t really relevant anymore. Nowadays, the topic of religion is mostly contained in the question,
    “does man have the right to have religious authority?” not “can science and religion coexist?” Okay, that was sloppy but a religious message about the acceptance of aliens would have come out of left field and made a lot of people roll their eyes. I don’t know how it is where you live but my general experience with people is that people are generally more likely to just take the parts of religion that still work with scientific fact; not be pure fundamentalists.

    Now, if a film had been made in the early eighties that dealt with that topic, then yes, I think it could have worked, given some of the mixed up signals about DnD and as a late reaction to the “Exorcist” and other films that people were still superstitous about but in today’s market, it just wouldn’t work.

    Have a good one

  • bojak90

    Spoony, I’m starting to think that you didn’t get it. The documentary was only supposed to describe the atmosphere at the time of Wickus’ conversion, not give an in depth history of human prawn interactions, so, even if religion was included, it would have been knocked down to a five-second scene. The point of the documentary portions were to show the audience what the world’s reaction was to Wickus’ “betrayal” (by allowing Chester to escape, he was allowing the earth to be held accountable to the prawns homeworld).

    Also, that topic isn’t really relevant anymore. Nowadays, the topic of religion is mostly contained in the question,
    “does man have the right to have religious authority?” not “can science and religion coexist?” Okay, that was sloppy but a religious message about the acceptance of aliens would have come out of left field and made a lot of people roll their eyes. I don’t know how it is where you live but my general experience with people is that people are generally more likely to just take the parts of religion that still work with scientific fact; not be pure fundamentalists.

    Now, if a film had been made in the early eighties that dealt with that topic, then yes, I think it could have worked, given some of the mixed up signals about DnD and as a late reaction to the “Exorcist” and other films that people were still superstitous about but in today’s market, it just wouldn’t work.

    Have a good one

  • http://bestgeekeverpr.blogspot.com/ Batzarro

    While I’m sure many atheist are in love with “blank occurring would destroy religion”, it doesn’t work like that. In the same vein the movie ignores advancements in human rights and expectancies for contact with extraterrestrials, religious groups have had more than en enough time to prepare for such a possibility and the film would have had to ignore it. I know Hinduism would go on, and Christianism could just go “see, that’s the chariot of fire that took that guy away”

  • http://bestgeekeverpr.blogspot.com Batzarro

    While I’m sure many atheist are in love with “blank occurring would destroy religion”, it doesn’t work like that. In the same vein the movie ignores advancements in human rights and expectancies for contact with extraterrestrials, religious groups have had more than en enough time to prepare for such a possibility and the film would have had to ignore it. I know Hinduism would go on, and Christianism could just go “see, that’s the chariot of fire that took that guy away”

  • theo

    @87 camarocaron

    “Change your tampon”, serioulsy? Non only it’s a meaningless ad hominem, but it’s also so fucking juvenile. As for religions, I think I could probably teach you one thing or two about them, you presomptuous twat: We can detest what we understand and what we well know. The rest of your reply is other meaningless insults without arguments, which is typical of you brainwashed cultist morons : always attack, never defend. Fuck you and fuck your religious community for making this world even shittier assholes. Also my “built in” corrector only correct in french. Oh yeah, you can use the fact I’m from french descent to throw racist insults at me: it’ll confirm that you are, indeed, a total douchebag.

    No religious community will care about the aliens, they’ll be dissmissed as a test of their faith just like dinosaur bones. The religious are simple mindeds childs who want their magical world to be true and who don’t care at all if they’re making this world miserable.

  • theo

    @87 camarocaron

    “Change your tampon”, serioulsy? Non only it’s a meaningless ad hominem, but it’s also so fucking juvenile. As for religions, I think I could probably teach you one thing or two about them, you presomptuous twat: We can detest what we understand and what we well know. The rest of your reply is other meaningless insults without arguments, which is typical of you brainwashed cultist morons : always attack, never defend. Fuck you and fuck your religious community for making this world even shittier assholes. Also my “built in” corrector only correct in french. Oh yeah, you can use the fact I’m from french descent to throw racist insults at me: it’ll confirm that you are, indeed, a total douchebag.

    No religious community will care about the aliens, they’ll be dissmissed as a test of their faith just like dinosaur bones. The religious are simple mindeds childs who want their magical world to be true and who don’t care at all if they’re making this world miserable.

  • MerrittTheFerret

    Even having seen Spoony’s positive review of District 9, it actually made me want to see it less. I don’t want to sit through a lecture on tolerance…I wanna watch aliens and humans locked in battle.

  • MerrittTheFerret

    Even having seen Spoony’s positive review of District 9, it actually made me want to see it less. I don’t want to sit through a lecture on tolerance…I wanna watch aliens and humans locked in battle.

  • DieselEdge

    Merritt, don’t let his review make you pass it up. I’m usually repelled by preachy crap. I think this movie avoids being a “finger pointer” and it’s goal is ultimately to entertain.

  • DieselEdge

    Merritt, don’t let his review make you pass it up. I’m usually repelled by preachy crap. I think this movie avoids being a “finger pointer” and it’s goal is ultimately to entertain.

  • Tom

    Hey Spoony just wanted to give you some of my thoughts on this religious debate. I am a dedicated Roman Catholic who doesn’t see anything wrong with the combination of science and religion…in fact it makes sense to say the least when you combine the two. I personally believe that science has proven a lot of things in the Bible to be true, esp. the order of things in which they were created. I know it says “Days” but “days” could mean anything and sometimes the Bible needs to be read from many perspectives in order to understand the whole concept. Anyway, I don’t think aleins would cause people to panic about God since the Catholic Church have already accepted that it could be a possibility that intelligent life exists elsewhere, and so what if it does? I believe in co-existence and if you are believe in a religion that doesn’t believe in peace, love, and forgiveness then its not a religion.

    P.S. (sorry I had to make a joke) You would need Tom Cruise in your movie laughing and saying “I told you so”

  • Tom

    Hey Spoony just wanted to give you some of my thoughts on this religious debate. I am a dedicated Roman Catholic who doesn’t see anything wrong with the combination of science and religion…in fact it makes sense to say the least when you combine the two. I personally believe that science has proven a lot of things in the Bible to be true, esp. the order of things in which they were created. I know it says “Days” but “days” could mean anything and sometimes the Bible needs to be read from many perspectives in order to understand the whole concept. Anyway, I don’t think aleins would cause people to panic about God since the Catholic Church have already accepted that it could be a possibility that intelligent life exists elsewhere, and so what if it does? I believe in co-existence and if you are believe in a religion that doesn’t believe in peace, love, and forgiveness then its not a religion.

    P.S. (sorry I had to make a joke) You would need Tom Cruise in your movie laughing and saying “I told you so”

  • http://warpedtree.blogspot.com/ CornBRED-X

    I’m agnostic, and like religion I have no idea if theres aliens or not, but if they showed any intelligence, and some form of logical mature thought beyond petty grievances, id be fine with Aliens (even if they were slimy, bug like, or otherwise).

    If people actually did go insane from it (which I dont think they would, I agree with what someone else said, there’d more then likely be spins as to how it fits into religion.) then i’d probably be the only one at home not really giving a shit.

    Odds are though a holy war would be started more so over the Aliens religion versus ours as opposed to the fact that aliens exist at all. In some form or another, not necessarily violent, could just be a cold war, or even a vocal war; take your pick its all way more plausible then humanity going into upheaval.

  • Cornbred-X

    I’m agnostic, and like religion I have no idea if theres aliens or not, but if they showed any intelligence, and some form of logical mature thought beyond petty grievances, id be fine with Aliens (even if they were slimy, bug like, or otherwise).

    If people actually did go insane from it (which I dont think they would, I agree with what someone else said, there’d more then likely be spins as to how it fits into religion.) then i’d probably be the only one at home not really giving a shit.

    Odds are though a holy war would be started more so over the Aliens religion versus ours as opposed to the fact that aliens exist at all. In some form or another, not necessarily violent, could just be a cold war, or even a vocal war; take your pick its all way more plausible then humanity going into upheaval.

  • Taranaich

    78: are you saying that you’d prefer the Catholic Church to stick with Classical/Medieval sensibilities, instead of doing what people often say religion doesn’t do enough – evolve? To criticise the church for changing its outlook over the years is, frankly, baffling, since that’s exactly what science does – it’s what science is SUPPOSED to do. Scientific nowledge changes in the face of newer, superior evidence and theories, sometimes causing great paradigm shifts (like heliocentrism): are you saying that religions shouldn’t adapt to modern sensibilities and science because that makes their truths “liquid and flowing”?

    I could accuse the exact same thing of science. “Oh sure, NOW we think the world’s whatever number of years old – but we ALSO used to think there was some sort of “aether” in the space between planets, so if we can be wrong about that, why should we believe this?” There’s no guarantee that there isn’t going to be some dramatic new discovery that turns what we took for “scientific truth” right on their head. But I don’t use the fact that scientific theory or even fact can be turned on its head against it: in fact, it’s the thing that makes it most beneficial to the human condition. Consequently, religion too must change and adapt, otherwise it will cause stagnation and unrest, or it will die out: religion must serve humanity’s interests, not the other way around.

    Just to clarify, I was raised RC, but I was also raised to love and explore science. Everyone in my family loves the stuff, and is filled with the wonder and mystery of the universe, without feeling our faith is remotely compromised. My mother, who’s practically memorized the bible and done much study of its history, also can’t wait for aliens to come. Funny, that.

  • Taranaich

    78: are you saying that you’d prefer the Catholic Church to stick with Classical/Medieval sensibilities, instead of doing what people often say religion doesn’t do enough – evolve? To criticise the church for changing its outlook over the years is, frankly, baffling, since that’s exactly what science does – it’s what science is SUPPOSED to do. Scientific nowledge changes in the face of newer, superior evidence and theories, sometimes causing great paradigm shifts (like heliocentrism): are you saying that religions shouldn’t adapt to modern sensibilities and science because that makes their truths “liquid and flowing”?

    I could accuse the exact same thing of science. “Oh sure, NOW we think the world’s whatever number of years old – but we ALSO used to think there was some sort of “aether” in the space between planets, so if we can be wrong about that, why should we believe this?” There’s no guarantee that there isn’t going to be some dramatic new discovery that turns what we took for “scientific truth” right on their head. But I don’t use the fact that scientific theory or even fact can be turned on its head against it: in fact, it’s the thing that makes it most beneficial to the human condition. Consequently, religion too must change and adapt, otherwise it will cause stagnation and unrest, or it will die out: religion must serve humanity’s interests, not the other way around.

    Just to clarify, I was raised RC, but I was also raised to love and explore science. Everyone in my family loves the stuff, and is filled with the wonder and mystery of the universe, without feeling our faith is remotely compromised. My mother, who’s practically memorized the bible and done much study of its history, also can’t wait for aliens to come. Funny, that.

  • diggerjohn111

    Me again. Maybe this is getting a little out of hand now..lol….Peace, love respect guys! This is the site that brought us the wonders of Yor, Warrior from the Future, Naked Zombie Sean Connery and Dr. Insano. Let’s remember that before we start the 14th Crusade!

  • diggerjohn111

    Me again. Maybe this is getting a little out of hand now..lol….Peace, love respect guys! This is the site that brought us the wonders of Yor, Warrior from the Future, Naked Zombie Sean Connery and Dr. Insano. Let’s remember that before we start the 14th Crusade!

  • flymanfly

    @theo

    Shut up. It’s idiots like you who I hate to come in contact with on the internet (bible thumpers too, though there’s less of them nowadays).

    “The religious are simple mindeds childs who want their magical world to be true and who don’t care at all if they’re making this world miserable.”

    Your view is outdated sir. You believe that religion is inherently evil? Doesn’t seem like something an enlightened academic would say.

    Here’s some facts for you that you should have had drilled into your head at a much younger age.
    1. People are diverse. Your description generalizes billions of people into a single group and makes no mention of the fact that there are a number of people who accept the teachings of religion and the laws of the universe.

    2. You are shaped by your environment. You say that religion brainwashes its followers and that may very well be true. However, are you not brainwashed by your environment? Your parents, your health, the weather, the education you received, the experiences you’ve had have shaped you into the person you are today. In fact, as you read this message, I want you to think of the kind of person that is writing this message. Now, how do you know that I’m even a person? Perhaps I’m merely an a.i., a bemused anthropomorphic dog, or maybe I’m Spoony. Of course, from the rules of logic that you have learned growing up and your past exposure to technology, as well as your exposure to spoony, you know that I am none of these things. But is there any absolute proof that I am not without you seeing me typing this message? You could find my I.P. address, hack my computer, and even come to my apartment but the moment I wrote that message will always be impossible for you to know 100% In the same way, religion asks people to believe in something beyond the laws of the universe ( an unknown, like who is writing this message at this exact second) using what teachings they have.

    3. Organizations are neither bad nor good, they are sources of power. Religion is an organization that asks you to believe in something. Schools are organizations that ask you to believe in something, Governments are organizations that ask you to believe in something. None are bad by themselves. However, when an organization comes into conflict with another, both organizations will hold onto what they believe. If a compromise is not made, a conflict will emerge and the more powerful organization will crush the weaker. Religions have had power in the past and used this o crush weaker groups, Schools of thought battle it out until one is declared the correct one or several schools combine, Governments have wars when no compromise can be reached. Organized Religion is merely a tool that a person may use as a source of power, whether the leaders use it for good or bad is the leaders decision.

  • flymanfly

    @theo

    Shut up. It’s idiots like you who I hate to come in contact with on the internet (bible thumpers too, though there’s less of them nowadays).

    “The religious are simple mindeds childs who want their magical world to be true and who don’t care at all if they’re making this world miserable.”

    Your view is outdated sir. You believe that religion is inherently evil? Doesn’t seem like something an enlightened academic would say.

    Here’s some facts for you that you should have had drilled into your head at a much younger age.
    1. People are diverse. Your description generalizes billions of people into a single group and makes no mention of the fact that there are a number of people who accept the teachings of religion and the laws of the universe.

    2. You are shaped by your environment. You say that religion brainwashes its followers and that may very well be true. However, are you not brainwashed by your environment? Your parents, your health, the weather, the education you received, the experiences you’ve had have shaped you into the person you are today. In fact, as you read this message, I want you to think of the kind of person that is writing this message. Now, how do you know that I’m even a person? Perhaps I’m merely an a.i., a bemused anthropomorphic dog, or maybe I’m Spoony. Of course, from the rules of logic that you have learned growing up and your past exposure to technology, as well as your exposure to spoony, you know that I am none of these things. But is there any absolute proof that I am not without you seeing me typing this message? You could find my I.P. address, hack my computer, and even come to my apartment but the moment I wrote that message will always be impossible for you to know 100% In the same way, religion asks people to believe in something beyond the laws of the universe ( an unknown, like who is writing this message at this exact second) using what teachings they have.

    3. Organizations are neither bad nor good, they are sources of power. Religion is an organization that asks you to believe in something. Schools are organizations that ask you to believe in something, Governments are organizations that ask you to believe in something. None are bad by themselves. However, when an organization comes into conflict with another, both organizations will hold onto what they believe. If a compromise is not made, a conflict will emerge and the more powerful organization will crush the weaker. Religions have had power in the past and used this o crush weaker groups, Schools of thought battle it out until one is declared the correct one or several schools combine, Governments have wars when no compromise can be reached. Organized Religion is merely a tool that a person may use as a source of power, whether the leaders use it for good or bad is the leaders decision.

  • jnywest

    Really, If ya think about it, we are pretty well conditioned for an introduction to an alien life form. Most of us already believe that they are out there, and may have already visited the Earth. I think the only people that would be shocked would be the same folkes shocked by two guys holding hands or upon learning of any other religon out there besides thier own.
    But none the less. Humanity, I think, is ready for the reality of an alien civilizaton. its our own governments that aren’t ready for it…lol

  • jnywest

    Really, If ya think about it, we are pretty well conditioned for an introduction to an alien life form. Most of us already believe that they are out there, and may have already visited the Earth. I think the only people that would be shocked would be the same folkes shocked by two guys holding hands or upon learning of any other religon out there besides thier own.
    But none the less. Humanity, I think, is ready for the reality of an alien civilizaton. its our own governments that aren’t ready for it…lol

  • CamaroCaron

    @97 theo

    Seriously bitch. That thing must be soaking through your pants by now. Wipe off your seat and change your tampon.

    If you would just read pretty much every other post and you’ll realized that not only does everyone disagree with what you are saying, but everyone pretty much agrees that you are a Tool. You keep making claims that “Religion is Bad. Religious people are stupid. Religion is ruining the world!” OK Dickbreath… How? HOW is religion ruining the world? Give evidence that religious people are less intelligent than non-religious persons or shut the fuck up.

    Is that how you engage in politics?
    theo: “Your opinions are different than mine, therefore you are stupid. BTW I vote democrat.”

    YOU don’t defend any of your own arguments. You just make unsubstantiated claims while your tampon leaks. Seriously theo, change that thing and maybe you’ll be a little less moody and stop lashing out at things you don’t understand.

  • CamaroCaron

    @97 theo

    Seriously bitch. That thing must be soaking through your pants by now. Wipe off your seat and change your tampon.

    If you would just read pretty much every other post and you’ll realized that not only does everyone disagree with what you are saying, but everyone pretty much agrees that you are a Tool. You keep making claims that “Religion is Bad. Religious people are stupid. Religion is ruining the world!” OK Dickbreath… How? HOW is religion ruining the world? Give evidence that religious people are less intelligent than non-religious persons or shut the fuck up.

    Is that how you engage in politics?
    theo: “Your opinions are different than mine, therefore you are stupid. BTW I vote democrat.”

    YOU don’t defend any of your own arguments. You just make unsubstantiated claims while your tampon leaks. Seriously theo, change that thing and maybe you’ll be a little less moody and stop lashing out at things you don’t understand.

  • Nobody

    Spoony, do you actually get a chance to read these, or is it pretty much the commentators talking to each other?

    Anyways, I found your site from guywithglasses.com and I’ve since watched/read all your reviews. I think you’re a pretty awesomely funny guy (hey, according to Firefox “awesomely” is a word!). However, I gotta say: first “Hey, racism isn’t that bad” followed up by “I could see religious people being nutjobs, instead of racists” is kind of really messed up. Especially since I think you meant Christianity/Judaism when you said religion (considering the seventh day reference), and both of those are anti-racist religions.

    I’m sure you don’t mean to sound like you’re supporting racism this much (at least I hope you don’t), but it’s kind of the sort of thing you might want to be a bit more careful talking about.

    Still looking forward to new stuff from you, though, because I still think you’re a cool guy and again I’m thinking this stuff was incidental.

    I just hope your next review doesn’t start with “You know who sucks? Black people. And Jews”

  • Nobody

    Spoony, do you actually get a chance to read these, or is it pretty much the commentators talking to each other?

    Anyways, I found your site from guywithglasses.com and I’ve since watched/read all your reviews. I think you’re a pretty awesomely funny guy (hey, according to Firefox “awesomely” is a word!). However, I gotta say: first “Hey, racism isn’t that bad” followed up by “I could see religious people being nutjobs, instead of racists” is kind of really messed up. Especially since I think you meant Christianity/Judaism when you said religion (considering the seventh day reference), and both of those are anti-racist religions.

    I’m sure you don’t mean to sound like you’re supporting racism this much (at least I hope you don’t), but it’s kind of the sort of thing you might want to be a bit more careful talking about.

    Still looking forward to new stuff from you, though, because I still think you’re a cool guy and again I’m thinking this stuff was incidental.

    I just hope your next review doesn’t start with “You know who sucks? Black people. And Jews”

  • Drew L.

    On your list of reactions people would have to the aliens: I don’t think people would have to reform their religious views to be progressive about the whole thing, Spoony. The Bible only says that man is the favored species of the planet “earth”. The Bible also never stated that God would never make never make anything else on some other planet. It just goes unsaid, as if two worlds are/were never expected to meet.

  • Drew L.

    On your list of reactions people would have to the aliens: I don’t think people would have to reform their religious views to be progressive about the whole thing, Spoony. The Bible only says that man is the favored species of the planet “earth”. The Bible also never stated that God would never make never make anything else on some other planet. It just goes unsaid, as if two worlds are/were never expected to meet.

  • Nick

    @103: Nice point, we’re all here to have a good time : )

    I have to admit though that most of the comments try to have a philosophical and
    logical discussion without too many actual flaming. Wow! a discussion on the internet,
    who knew?

    Joking aside, I agree with the suggestion that the documentery approach would be a good idea. The
    best Sci-fi flicks always point out deep issues relative to their time period and really ask the
    question “what if”. Social racism is a little bland to be honest and has been beaten to death in American Cinema.

    The movie “The day the Earth stood still” comes to mind. The original was thought provoking and really
    went into detail about how humanity would handle the change in their perception of the universe around them.
    Although the religous shock was not explored in this movie the points it raised were similar to what Spoony discussed.

    -Nick

  • Nick

    @103: Nice point, we’re all here to have a good time : )

    I have to admit though that most of the comments try to have a philosophical and
    logical discussion without too many actual flaming. Wow! a discussion on the internet,
    who knew?

    Joking aside, I agree with the suggestion that the documentery approach would be a good idea. The
    best Sci-fi flicks always point out deep issues relative to their time period and really ask the
    question “what if”. Social racism is a little bland to be honest and has been beaten to death in American Cinema.

    The movie “The day the Earth stood still” comes to mind. The original was thought provoking and really
    went into detail about how humanity would handle the change in their perception of the universe around them.
    Although the religous shock was not explored in this movie the points it raised were similar to what Spoony discussed.

    -Nick

  • GAZZA

    I think Spoony is being naive again. :)

    Most of the Western World – Australia, Europe, even Canada – even though you probably won’t find that 99% of the population self identify as atheists, you WILL find that the extent of their religious beliefs are something along the lines of “there’s something out there”. Church attendance is way down. The sole exception to this is the US, but you’re a funny lot over there. :)

    It is true that there are large areas of the world where this is not the case, but to describe it as a world wide panic is a tad US centric I think.

  • GAZZA

    I think Spoony is being naive again. :)

    Most of the Western World – Australia, Europe, even Canada – even though you probably won’t find that 99% of the population self identify as atheists, you WILL find that the extent of their religious beliefs are something along the lines of “there’s something out there”. Church attendance is way down. The sole exception to this is the US, but you’re a funny lot over there. :)

    It is true that there are large areas of the world where this is not the case, but to describe it as a world wide panic is a tad US centric I think.

  • http://www.sermonfire.blogspot.com/ Logan Paschke

    @ theo

    I may not agree with other people on their views on the Bible, Creation, Christ, Christianity or their belief system, but I concur with them that you are not contributing anything positive and need to go to the corner of the classroom.

    Here is a pointy hat for you to wear.

  • Rene

    First of all, I would just like to say that I’m a big fan of your videos and reviews.

    Now in regards to your explanation, I think that you may be wrong about the religion aspect. Yes, I understand that it would not be consistent with the theology of many religions, but you are not giving people enough credit. Just because a person believes in a certain religion, it doesn’t mean that he is incapable of thinking for himself. I’m Roman Catholic, but I don’t believe everything that the church says, and I don’t take everything in the Bible literally, especially considering that the Bible was composed of accounts written by humans and not God himself. I love science and believe in evolution and the occurences of plenty of other scientific phenomena. However, I agree that there would be people who might be disillusioned by the appearance of aliens, and they very probably would either lose faith or go a bit wacky or bat-shit insane.

    I don’t see any reason why it would be the “death of God” as you put it. Even if the existence of aliens is inconsistent with religious texts, it does not prove that God does not exist. I know that if aliens appeared, I would not stop believing in God; I would probably actually develop a stronger belief. The fact that atoms can even be arranged to form an aware being at all is astounding! Some people seem to think that science disproves the existence of God. I think that it actually supports the God’s existence.

    Honestly, I fully believe that there is other intelligent life existing somewhere out there in the universe. After all, it would be pretty egotistical of humans to believe otherwise, wouldn’t it? Frankly, I have never believed that mankind has any right to claim being the “chosen lifeform,” despite what my religion may say.

    Thanks for being such a good sport. I think that you are a very intelligent person, and I praise the fact that your comments have made so many people stop and think about what they truly believe. Keep up the good work, Spoony.

  • http://www.sermonfire.blogspot.com Logan Paschke

    @ theo

    I may not agree with other people on their views on the Bible, Creation, Christ, Christianity or their belief system, but I concur with them that you are not contributing anything positive and need to go to the corner of the classroom.

    Here is a pointy hat for you to wear.

  • Rene

    First of all, I would just like to say that I’m a big fan of your videos and reviews.

    Now in regards to your explanation, I think that you may be wrong about the religion aspect. Yes, I understand that it would not be consistent with the theology of many religions, but you are not giving people enough credit. Just because a person believes in a certain religion, it doesn’t mean that he is incapable of thinking for himself. I’m Roman Catholic, but I don’t believe everything that the church says, and I don’t take everything in the Bible literally, especially considering that the Bible was composed of accounts written by humans and not God himself. I love science and believe in evolution and the occurences of plenty of other scientific phenomena. However, I agree that there would be people who might be disillusioned by the appearance of aliens, and they very probably would either lose faith or go a bit wacky or bat-shit insane.

    I don’t see any reason why it would be the “death of God” as you put it. Even if the existence of aliens is inconsistent with religious texts, it does not prove that God does not exist. I know that if aliens appeared, I would not stop believing in God; I would probably actually develop a stronger belief. The fact that atoms can even be arranged to form an aware being at all is astounding! Some people seem to think that science disproves the existence of God. I think that it actually supports the God’s existence.

    Honestly, I fully believe that there is other intelligent life existing somewhere out there in the universe. After all, it would be pretty egotistical of humans to believe otherwise, wouldn’t it? Frankly, I have never believed that mankind has any right to claim being the “chosen lifeform,” despite what my religion may say.

    Thanks for being such a good sport. I think that you are a very intelligent person, and I praise the fact that your comments have made so many people stop and think about what they truly believe. Keep up the good work, Spoony.

  • diggerjohn111

    Gazza. Are you from Canada? I live in a town of 9,000 people are 11 churches, a mosque and a synagogue. Toronto maybe as you said, but go outside “TO” and it’s different. Go to Quebec and tell me that it’s “all athiest”.

  • diggerjohn111

    Gazza. Are you from Canada? I live in a town of 9,000 people are 11 churches, a mosque and a synagogue. Toronto maybe as you said, but go outside “TO” and it’s different. Go to Quebec and tell me that it’s “all athiest”.

  • RockTsar

    You’re right, Spoony.
    The existence of alien life would completely destroy all of the major religious faiths. They are all centred around mankind. Would the aliens have religion? Would they get the concept? They might be a hive-mind and have no individual thoughts, which is what religion came out of.
    But what if the aliens WERE god?
    And with that comes this: when God created man, he made them in his own image. There were but two of them. They populated the Earth when they got kicked out of Eden. So, basically, it was just thousands of years of inbreeding in the same families. God would look completely differnet to what we look like now, if you accept creationism…
    We wouldn’t recognize God because were are basically inbreds. God might look like a prawn.

  • RockTsar

    You’re right, Spoony.
    The existence of alien life would completely destroy all of the major religious faiths. They are all centred around mankind. Would the aliens have religion? Would they get the concept? They might be a hive-mind and have no individual thoughts, which is what religion came out of.
    But what if the aliens WERE god?
    And with that comes this: when God created man, he made them in his own image. There were but two of them. They populated the Earth when they got kicked out of Eden. So, basically, it was just thousands of years of inbreeding in the same families. God would look completely differnet to what we look like now, if you accept creationism…
    We wouldn’t recognize God because were are basically inbreds. God might look like a prawn.

  • Octarine

    Ah, nothing more fun than witnessing the breakdown of a reasonably well-ordered group of movie and video game geeks into a squabbling mob. Religion’s nothing if not the ultimate thread derailer.

    I’m not religious myself, but I imagine that most religions would be little more flexible than that. Sure, there’d be plenty of crazies screaming out bloody vengeance from the rooftops, but there are *always* people like that. We’ve survived plenty of other scientific upheavals without mass crises of faith; I don’t think even first contact would be much of an exception. People have gotten pretty comfortable with the idea over time, after all: you don’t see too many religions staging protests in front of science fiction movie premieres.

  • Octarine

    Ah, nothing more fun than witnessing the breakdown of a reasonably well-ordered group of movie and video game geeks into a squabbling mob. Religion’s nothing if not the ultimate thread derailer.

    I’m not religious myself, but I imagine that most religions would be little more flexible than that. Sure, there’d be plenty of crazies screaming out bloody vengeance from the rooftops, but there are *always* people like that. We’ve survived plenty of other scientific upheavals without mass crises of faith; I don’t think even first contact would be much of an exception. People have gotten pretty comfortable with the idea over time, after all: you don’t see too many religions staging protests in front of science fiction movie premieres.

  • lars

    alright i think this was a good idea by spoony while it does place the main concern on the bible based religions(judaism, christianty, and muslim) that was do to the immense pop coulture with these religions and there appearnce in movies and books(the mist, dawn of the dead, etc.) and in religion there are two main extremes. the relaxed view basically there is a god but they ignore many of the rules of their religion. and the aesthetic which follow the laws and words exactly with no room for self interpration or revelation. then there is the less known middle or realistic religious persons, they are farily devout follow most the rules but still break the rules and dont thump there views. now heres the thing the relaxed view may be unnerved by aliens and soon listen to and follow the aesthetic group (like in the mist) or they will feel a little confused but still keep their logic and consul with the realistic religious persons.

    i personally fall into the realistic religous person and would be open to the idea that god created aliens. i think science an religion work pretty well together since science itself is filled with massive conflicting ideas and contradictions all over the place( such as that a bolt of lightning struck water mixing the minerals and molecules to create an amoeba this violates a law of science). now i think the discussion went over some peoples heads creating this ridicoulus debate. why cant people just get along comeon i have friends under the religious rainbow i hang with satanist, aethist, jews, nazis, people who dont give two shits about science or religion, christians. just everyone cause fuck the world is already a crazy place why care what group somone you find cool or agreeable with is in.

  • lars

    alright i think this was a good idea by spoony while it does place the main concern on the bible based religions(judaism, christianty, and muslim) that was do to the immense pop coulture with these religions and there appearnce in movies and books(the mist, dawn of the dead, etc.) and in religion there are two main extremes. the relaxed view basically there is a god but they ignore many of the rules of their religion. and the aesthetic which follow the laws and words exactly with no room for self interpration or revelation. then there is the less known middle or realistic religious persons, they are farily devout follow most the rules but still break the rules and dont thump there views. now heres the thing the relaxed view may be unnerved by aliens and soon listen to and follow the aesthetic group (like in the mist) or they will feel a little confused but still keep their logic and consul with the realistic religious persons.

    i personally fall into the realistic religous person and would be open to the idea that god created aliens. i think science an religion work pretty well together since science itself is filled with massive conflicting ideas and contradictions all over the place( such as that a bolt of lightning struck water mixing the minerals and molecules to create an amoeba this violates a law of science). now i think the discussion went over some peoples heads creating this ridicoulus debate. why cant people just get along comeon i have friends under the religious rainbow i hang with satanist, aethist, jews, nazis, people who dont give two shits about science or religion, christians. just everyone cause fuck the world is already a crazy place why care what group somone you find cool or agreeable with is in.

  • GAZZA

    diggerjohn111@113: Hell no, I’m an Aussie. And yes, that means I’ve been to Toronto and a few places around there, judging accordingly.

    Note, however, that I do not make the claim that it’s all atheist – indeed, I specifically said otherwise; I note only that the sort of fanatical evangelism common to the US is largely – though of course by no means completely – absent from most of the Western World. You may of course disagree and I am happy to be shown otherwise.

    Perhaps you Canadians are too close to the Yanks for your secular health. ;)

  • GAZZA

    diggerjohn111@113: Hell no, I’m an Aussie. And yes, that means I’ve been to Toronto and a few places around there, judging accordingly.

    Note, however, that I do not make the claim that it’s all atheist – indeed, I specifically said otherwise; I note only that the sort of fanatical evangelism common to the US is largely – though of course by no means completely – absent from most of the Western World. You may of course disagree and I am happy to be shown otherwise.

    Perhaps you Canadians are too close to the Yanks for your secular health. ;)

  • GAZZA

    Iars@116: I am curious, what law of science do you think a bolt of lightning striking minerals and molecules to create an amoeba violates?

    Of course science makes no such claim anyway. It SOUNDS as if you’re talking about abiogenesis – “life from non-life” – and you’re using a mistaken argument about the Second Law of Thermodynamics as a “refutation”. So let’s clarify that. Abiogenesis does not claim that anything nearly as complex as an amoeba was the first life form! Computer models have shown that all you really need is something capable of self replication for evolution to get its teeth into; there are great videos on youtube that explore this concept entertainingly, in particular look for the user “cdk007″. It is, however, a comparatively new and exciting field of which little is definitively known at present, so I’ll leave you to explore that further if you’re interested.

    Let’s turn to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I always liked the comparison of the Laws of Thermodynamics to a game of poker. There are three laws, and roughly they correspond to:

    – You can’t win. (“Matter can neither be created nor destroyed.”)

    – You can’t break even. (“Entropy always increases” – nothing you do can ever run at 100% efficiency).

    – You can’t get out of the game. (“Entropy is zero at absolute zero” – you can’t get to absolute zero via any finite number of processes).

    It’s the second one that is often mistakenly quoted as making abiogenesis (or even evolution itself) impossible, as it states, more or less, that you can’t end up in a more organised state than you started. Clearly life is more organised (formally, that the process lowers entropy) than non life, and similarly the process of evolution tends to lower entropy in the result as well.

    But the important fact to remember is that the laws of thermodynamics apply to CLOSED systems. The energy required for abiogenesis and evolution – or even for a foetus to grow into an adult, for snowflakes to form, or whatever – does not come from the benefitting organism (or ice). It comes, ultimately, from a large ball of burning gas approximately 9.3 million miles from Earth, and the process of generating that energy is essentially the “entropy sink”. If you remove all sources of external energy from the system then certainly the laws of thermodynamics absolutely prohibit abiogenesis, evolution, or virtually any other biological process such as growth or even respiration – but fortunately we’ll have the Sun around for several billion years more yet!

  • GAZZA

    Iars@116: I am curious, what law of science do you think a bolt of lightning striking minerals and molecules to create an amoeba violates?

    Of course science makes no such claim anyway. It SOUNDS as if you’re talking about abiogenesis – “life from non-life” – and you’re using a mistaken argument about the Second Law of Thermodynamics as a “refutation”. So let’s clarify that. Abiogenesis does not claim that anything nearly as complex as an amoeba was the first life form! Computer models have shown that all you really need is something capable of self replication for evolution to get its teeth into; there are great videos on youtube that explore this concept entertainingly, in particular look for the user “cdk007″. It is, however, a comparatively new and exciting field of which little is definitively known at present, so I’ll leave you to explore that further if you’re interested.

    Let’s turn to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I always liked the comparison of the Laws of Thermodynamics to a game of poker. There are three laws, and roughly they correspond to:

    – You can’t win. (“Matter can neither be created nor destroyed.”)

    – You can’t break even. (“Entropy always increases” – nothing you do can ever run at 100% efficiency).

    – You can’t get out of the game. (“Entropy is zero at absolute zero” – you can’t get to absolute zero via any finite number of processes).

    It’s the second one that is often mistakenly quoted as making abiogenesis (or even evolution itself) impossible, as it states, more or less, that you can’t end up in a more organised state than you started. Clearly life is more organised (formally, that the process lowers entropy) than non life, and similarly the process of evolution tends to lower entropy in the result as well.

    But the important fact to remember is that the laws of thermodynamics apply to CLOSED systems. The energy required for abiogenesis and evolution – or even for a foetus to grow into an adult, for snowflakes to form, or whatever – does not come from the benefitting organism (or ice). It comes, ultimately, from a large ball of burning gas approximately 9.3 million miles from Earth, and the process of generating that energy is essentially the “entropy sink”. If you remove all sources of external energy from the system then certainly the laws of thermodynamics absolutely prohibit abiogenesis, evolution, or virtually any other biological process such as growth or even respiration – but fortunately we’ll have the Sun around for several billion years more yet!

  • Jesse

    I think you’d have to be a frigging idiot to think that advanced alien life equals no God. I’m not into any specific religion, but I’m fine with the idea of a god creating reality. However, science has proven that the book of Genesis is, well, bullshit. It’s just outdated beliefs, right up there with witch-hunts. The universe was around for billions of years before life started on earth, and even then, it was just single-celled organisms to start with, and homo sapiens originated billions of years after that. Also, just the phrase “in his own image” seems wrong to me, because I don’t think the creator of everything would have one true form. I mean, if God predates everything else, including matter itself, how could He/She/It have a specific appearance? Finally, out of the trillions of unbelievably vast galaxies, surely one planet can’t be the sole home of intelligent life.

    But then, my original point is rendered somewhat moot, because, sadly, a lot of people in the world are frigging idiots.

  • Jesse

    I think you’d have to be a frigging idiot to think that advanced alien life equals no God. I’m not into any specific religion, but I’m fine with the idea of a god creating reality. However, science has proven that the book of Genesis is, well, bullshit. It’s just outdated beliefs, right up there with witch-hunts. The universe was around for billions of years before life started on earth, and even then, it was just single-celled organisms to start with, and homo sapiens originated billions of years after that. Also, just the phrase “in his own image” seems wrong to me, because I don’t think the creator of everything would have one true form. I mean, if God predates everything else, including matter itself, how could He/She/It have a specific appearance? Finally, out of the trillions of unbelievably vast galaxies, surely one planet can’t be the sole home of intelligent life.

    But then, my original point is rendered somewhat moot, because, sadly, a lot of people in the world are frigging idiots.

  • lars

    i simply heard that statement from a teacher of my past. and thanks for the info i will surely look into these videos on Abiogenesis to educate myself on the new current sciences. also i was just making a state to try and stop this ridicoulous religion vs science argument since most of it was started by some ignorant dumbass who failed to even attempt some intelligble form of researrch or come up with examples to prove their point. that aside i’ll avoid getting involved in scientific debates dealing withe creationism and the like. i prefer the medical side of science.

  • lars

    i simply heard that statement from a teacher of my past. and thanks for the info i will surely look into these videos on Abiogenesis to educate myself on the new current sciences. also i was just making a state to try and stop this ridicoulous religion vs science argument since most of it was started by some ignorant dumbass who failed to even attempt some intelligble form of researrch or come up with examples to prove their point. that aside i’ll avoid getting involved in scientific debates dealing withe creationism and the like. i prefer the medical side of science.

  • http://www.deejaygamer.com/ Justin Hurkman

    I’ve actually thought about various ideas of the religious implications of first contact with an intelligent alien race, although specifically in regards to what we might discover about their own religious beliefs if they have them. What if they, like us, have many, but what if one of them was remarkably similar? What if it turns out that they had their own “messiah” whom supposedly died for their sins? Some might brush it off as coincidence or the result of some kind of “galactic collective unconscious”, some might say that God must be real and adapt a kind of progressive belief that he sent a messiah to all intelligent life forms in the universe. There may be “fanatics” who believe the aliens are lying and are actually servants of the devil, and even non-believers who think it’s just a tactic to make us think they’re a peaceful race when they’re secretly planning to invade. Other religions being similar would be interesting to explore but since Christianity is fairly dominate, particularly in Western society (America and Europe, at least)-it just seems to be the best candidate to explore-although indeed the implications of an entirely different religion being similar would also have an affect on people of Christian faith-there’s probably an interesting story in just about any of the possibilities, really.

    It’d be nice though to have some kind of faux documentary that just explores the event and/or various repercussions of first contact. It could even be done on a low budget-not showing the aliens themselves just how people react to their arrival and presence on Earth and all that. It’s a subject that would be interesting to explore on a much broader scale than just how people would be prejudiced against them.

  • http://www.deejaygamer.com Justin Hurkman

    I’ve actually thought about various ideas of the religious implications of first contact with an intelligent alien race, although specifically in regards to what we might discover about their own religious beliefs if they have them. What if they, like us, have many, but what if one of them was remarkably similar? What if it turns out that they had their own “messiah” whom supposedly died for their sins? Some might brush it off as coincidence or the result of some kind of “galactic collective unconscious”, some might say that God must be real and adapt a kind of progressive belief that he sent a messiah to all intelligent life forms in the universe. There may be “fanatics” who believe the aliens are lying and are actually servants of the devil, and even non-believers who think it’s just a tactic to make us think they’re a peaceful race when they’re secretly planning to invade. Other religions being similar would be interesting to explore but since Christianity is fairly dominate, particularly in Western society (America and Europe, at least)-it just seems to be the best candidate to explore-although indeed the implications of an entirely different religion being similar would also have an affect on people of Christian faith-there’s probably an interesting story in just about any of the possibilities, really.

    It’d be nice though to have some kind of faux documentary that just explores the event and/or various repercussions of first contact. It could even be done on a low budget-not showing the aliens themselves just how people react to their arrival and presence on Earth and all that. It’s a subject that would be interesting to explore on a much broader scale than just how people would be prejudiced against them.

  • Virgil0211

    @GAZZA@118: Nice CDK007 Reference there, but don’t forget to mention ShaneDK or AndromedasWake. They both have rather excellent channels. (I would mention Tf00t, but personally, I find his behavior when discussing politics to be rather counter to reason and logic. I guess it’s okay so long as you avoid anything with political content, but I still would feel a bit hypocritical recommending his channel in the face of such conduct.)

    @Justin Hurkman: Could be, or it could be like Halo and they decide that they want to kill all of us.

  • Virgil0211

    @GAZZA@118: Nice CDK007 Reference there, but don’t forget to mention ShaneDK or AndromedasWake. They both have rather excellent channels. (I would mention Tf00t, but personally, I find his behavior when discussing politics to be rather counter to reason and logic. I guess it’s okay so long as you avoid anything with political content, but I still would feel a bit hypocritical recommending his channel in the face of such conduct.)

    @Justin Hurkman: Could be, or it could be like Halo and they decide that they want to kill all of us.

  • diggerjohn111

    Gazza,
    No, you have the religious nuts here too. Fortunately my little slice of Canuckistan isn’t too bad like that, the VAST majority couldn’t care less, and the ones who do go to services leave the rest of us alone. I play golf with a local Catholic priest, and all he ever says to me is, “I wish I could have Sunday off too.” Also, I lived in New York when I was an undergraduate, and you didn’t see much fundamentalism there. So not all of the US is like that either.

  • diggerjohn111

    Gazza,
    No, you have the religious nuts here too. Fortunately my little slice of Canuckistan isn’t too bad like that, the VAST majority couldn’t care less, and the ones who do go to services leave the rest of us alone. I play golf with a local Catholic priest, and all he ever says to me is, “I wish I could have Sunday off too.” Also, I lived in New York when I was an undergraduate, and you didn’t see much fundamentalism there. So not all of the US is like that either.

  • GAZZA

    Virgil0211@122: I’ll have to subscribe to ShaneDK (I already follow AndromedasWake and Thunderf00t); I suggested cdk007 specifically for his abiogenesis videos, which was what lars (seemed to be) talking about. (And I hope you enjoy them lars – I found them very educational and entertaining at the same time). AronRa is also excellent, but I didn’t want to clobber the thread with youtubers. (Which I guess I’ve just done now.) :)

    diggerjohn111: Oh, we have them in Oz. The main difference is that here they’re generally regarded as nuts – I got the impression that was true in Canada as well. (I refer, by the way, to the more extremist positions; though an atheist myself, I don’t have any problem with religion as long as it stays the hell out of my government, and ideally doesn’t wake me on Sunday mornings with strange door knockers). My wife and I spun through Vegas and New York a few years ago for our honeymoon and found the inhabitants to be quite nice people (sort of like anywhere really); however, considering we went to the Amazing Meeting 3 in Vegas, I wasn’t sure that there wasn’t a certain biased sample there. :)

    But yes, I don’t mean to suggest that all Americans are gun toting religious maniacs.

  • GAZZA

    Virgil0211@122: I’ll have to subscribe to ShaneDK (I already follow AndromedasWake and Thunderf00t); I suggested cdk007 specifically for his abiogenesis videos, which was what lars (seemed to be) talking about. (And I hope you enjoy them lars – I found them very educational and entertaining at the same time). AronRa is also excellent, but I didn’t want to clobber the thread with youtubers. (Which I guess I’ve just done now.) :)

    diggerjohn111: Oh, we have them in Oz. The main difference is that here they’re generally regarded as nuts – I got the impression that was true in Canada as well. (I refer, by the way, to the more extremist positions; though an atheist myself, I don’t have any problem with religion as long as it stays the hell out of my government, and ideally doesn’t wake me on Sunday mornings with strange door knockers). My wife and I spun through Vegas and New York a few years ago for our honeymoon and found the inhabitants to be quite nice people (sort of like anywhere really); however, considering we went to the Amazing Meeting 3 in Vegas, I wasn’t sure that there wasn’t a certain biased sample there. :)

    But yes, I don’t mean to suggest that all Americans are gun toting religious maniacs.

  • mobiusclimber

    Not sure I really want to enter into this debate but here goes:

    1) I believe that everyone who doesn’t have sex with me with have something horrible happen to them. Now think about it, wouldn’t it make more sense to have sex with me than to not do so? Hedge your bets here people! This makes as much sense as the argument that to believe in God is a better idea than to not do so, simply because there’s a possibility that something bad will happen in the afterlife. You can basically apply this argument to anything and it makes as much sense (which is none whatsoever).

    2) I love people who interpret the bible strictly. They’ve read the bible in English (or German, or Mandarin, or whatever), but not in the actual languages it was written in! So you can believe God created the world in six days all you like, but don’t point to the bible and expect that to back you up. Unless you’ve read the ACTUAL text, you have no idea what it ACTUALLY says, whether the many many translators screwed up somewhere along the way. The bible is a game of telephone that’s so far away from the original message it could say and mean anything. Just pick up two different translations of the bible and see what I mean. Read any passage in one and then the same passage in the other. They’re going to be pretty different. In some instances, it doesn’t change the meaning, but I can point to lots of places where it does. (The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is a pretty good for instance.)

    Besides that, the bible contradicts itself over and over again. Here’s a test: how did Judas die? The bible lists about four or five different ways! He surely didn’t die five times, did he?

    3) If not believing in God causes eternal damnation (or anything bad at all), what about all the people who were (and many who still are) born in places where the God of the bible is completely unknown? What about the people who lived BEFORE Judaism?

    4) The bible is number one best selling book that no one’s ever read. Talk to any strict interpreter of the bible for more than two minutes (if you can stand to) and you’ll find this out pretty quickly. I’ve read the bible, and it’s the primary reason why I’m not a christian (since that seems to be the pre-requisite, a belief in the bible). I think most people today would have a serious problem with some of the tenets put forth in the bible, but worse, even if you could believe in the worst things in the bible, there’s still a lot that runs counter to most christian beliefs. God is all-knowing is disproved in the story of Sodom and Gamorrah. Jesus is God is disproved by just about everything Jesus says. Jesus is “magic” is basically disproved by his raid on the temple, which left several people dead.

    5) The only real reason to believe in a deity of any kind is fear–fear of the unknown, of death, of eternal damnation, of the vast limitless expanse of space. No one really has the answers, and that frightens people. It’s not a very good reason to believe in anything tho.

  • mobiusclimber

    Not sure I really want to enter into this debate but here goes:

    1) I believe that everyone who doesn’t have sex with me with have something horrible happen to them. Now think about it, wouldn’t it make more sense to have sex with me than to not do so? Hedge your bets here people! This makes as much sense as the argument that to believe in God is a better idea than to not do so, simply because there’s a possibility that something bad will happen in the afterlife. You can basically apply this argument to anything and it makes as much sense (which is none whatsoever).

    2) I love people who interpret the bible strictly. They’ve read the bible in English (or German, or Mandarin, or whatever), but not in the actual languages it was written in! So you can believe God created the world in six days all you like, but don’t point to the bible and expect that to back you up. Unless you’ve read the ACTUAL text, you have no idea what it ACTUALLY says, whether the many many translators screwed up somewhere along the way. The bible is a game of telephone that’s so far away from the original message it could say and mean anything. Just pick up two different translations of the bible and see what I mean. Read any passage in one and then the same passage in the other. They’re going to be pretty different. In some instances, it doesn’t change the meaning, but I can point to lots of places where it does. (The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is a pretty good for instance.)

    Besides that, the bible contradicts itself over and over again. Here’s a test: how did Judas die? The bible lists about four or five different ways! He surely didn’t die five times, did he?

    3) If not believing in God causes eternal damnation (or anything bad at all), what about all the people who were (and many who still are) born in places where the God of the bible is completely unknown? What about the people who lived BEFORE Judaism?

    4) The bible is number one best selling book that no one’s ever read. Talk to any strict interpreter of the bible for more than two minutes (if you can stand to) and you’ll find this out pretty quickly. I’ve read the bible, and it’s the primary reason why I’m not a christian (since that seems to be the pre-requisite, a belief in the bible). I think most people today would have a serious problem with some of the tenets put forth in the bible, but worse, even if you could believe in the worst things in the bible, there’s still a lot that runs counter to most christian beliefs. God is all-knowing is disproved in the story of Sodom and Gamorrah. Jesus is God is disproved by just about everything Jesus says. Jesus is “magic” is basically disproved by his raid on the temple, which left several people dead.

    5) The only real reason to believe in a deity of any kind is fear–fear of the unknown, of death, of eternal damnation, of the vast limitless expanse of space. No one really has the answers, and that frightens people. It’s not a very good reason to believe in anything tho.

  • http://www.edentarot.com/ Shadow13

    Mmmm, gotta disagree with you on this one, Spoony, I don’t think THAT many people would have a religious freak-out due to intergalactic prawns.

  • http://www.edentarot.com Shadow13

    Mmmm, gotta disagree with you on this one, Spoony, I don’t think THAT many people would have a religious freak-out due to intergalactic prawns.

  • Shroud

    Nah Spoony, I don’t think things would become nearly that severe. The Creationalists would return continuity to their religion by simply having museums of us riding the aliens like we did the dinosaurs. Problem solved.

  • Shroud

    Nah Spoony, I don’t think things would become nearly that severe. The Creationalists would return continuity to their religion by simply having museums of us riding the aliens like we did the dinosaurs. Problem solved.

  • JustSayin’

    “The religious are simple mindeds childs who want their magical world to be true and who don’t care at all if they’re making this world miserable.”–Theo #97

    Ah yes of course, and the offically atheist dogmas have a spotless record.

  • JustSayin’

    “The religious are simple mindeds childs who want their magical world to be true and who don’t care at all if they’re making this world miserable.”–Theo #97

    Ah yes of course, and the offically atheist dogmas have a spotless record.

  • Karma

    @Shadow13:

    “Mmmm, gotta disagree with you on this one, Spoony, I don’t think THAT many people would have a religious freak-out due to intergalactic prawns.”

    Then, your ridiculous lax “I don’t care about religon, thus, nor could anyone else care about it, either” viewpoint renders your disagreement of Spoony’s well-made point absouely null-and void.

    Just because you don’t personally give a shit about the answers to a very thoughtful question, doesn’t mean that other people with half a brain at the very least, would ALSO refuse to think about such matters.

    People usually tend to actually think and debate about the implications of such a thing, rather than just shove their fingers in their ears and scream “lalalalala can’t hear you don’t care..” about it.

    But then again… you probably were just doing that instead of fully reading this response, amirite?

  • Karma

    @Shadow13:

    “Mmmm, gotta disagree with you on this one, Spoony, I don’t think THAT many people would have a religious freak-out due to intergalactic prawns.”

    Then, your ridiculous lax “I don’t care about religon, thus, nor could anyone else care about it, either” viewpoint renders your disagreement of Spoony’s well-made point absouely null-and void.

    Just because you don’t personally give a shit about the answers to a very thoughtful question, doesn’t mean that other people with half a brain at the very least, would ALSO refuse to think about such matters.

    People usually tend to actually think and debate about the implications of such a thing, rather than just shove their fingers in their ears and scream “lalalalala can’t hear you don’t care..” about it.

    But then again… you probably were just doing that instead of fully reading this response, amirite?

  • http://www.sermonfire.blogspot.com/ Logan Paschke

    @119

    Science can not approve or disapprove God. You’re really going to uphold science over religion here? You do realize that Eugenics and bleeding people to get rid of the “bad” blood were both cutting edge sciences. The Former only around a hundred years ago and the latter only two hundred years ago. I think we’ll eventually come to a place where evolution is dis-proven because of the irreducible complexity in molecular biology for one example.

    @125

    1. Pascal was not perfect and he certainly did not have a perfect apologetic. There are far better apologetics for Christianity than “Pascal’s Wager”, look up the Teleological, Cosmological, Pre-suppositional arguments to name just a few.

    2. First, of all I can actually read the Bible, the new testament at least, in the original language of Greek. Hebrew is much harder for me, but I hope to eventually be able to read the OT in Hebrew someday. As for your pitiful argument that the Bible was translated/copied via telephone, I only have to say that you’ve likely done no real research on the extensive manuscripts that are literally within mere decades of Christ’s life. I don’t mean this in a bad way, but it’s just very obvious that the standard practice of the churches who received the letters from Paul (for example) was that they copied what Paul wrote so they could all have a copy. The power of numbers gives us the Word of God as it came from the authors of scripture, both the apostles and the Holy Spirit.

    When Paul wrote on letter in particular to a church, he stated that the gospel account was verifiable via people who saw Christ and what He did. The fact is that we’ve got manuscripts within that tiny time period shows that the Bible far surpasses any other book of antiquity. Even more than that, we discover more manuscripts of the Bible (NT and OT) than any other book of antiquity.

    The reason that English translations vary is because there are two different methodologies towards Bible translation. They either focus on word for word (literal) or thought for thought (meaning-based). Google: “two different styles of english bible translation” and click the first result for more information on that. I’ve studied quite a bit about this during my class on the NT.

    3. The basic premise of Christianity is, that Christ even came at all for wicked men is beyond compassionate, beyond good, beyond amazing. Do you want to play the “that’s not fair” game with God? You say you’ve read the Bible, did you read the part where the innocent Son of God was crucified? And yet, God willed all that has come to pass. Even the fall of mankind. It was all according to the will of God to the glory of God. Struggle with that for a while.

    4. Since I actually am a “strict” (your words) Biblical (would be my words) interpreter of the Bible and have read through it twice so forgive me when I read through your “accusations” and laughed out loud. Are you serious, I mean, do you really stand by your three statements? If so, feel free to email me with verses, otherwise this is not worth responding to. For crying out loud, have you ever read John 14:1-14 specifically verse 7 where He states that if the disciples know Him they know God?

    5. What likely frightens you more than not having any answers is if there is one. When you’ve only known darkness, the light is pretty terrifying, but He is good.

    Fascinating discussions all around, keep it up guys everyone is being civil which is strange because this is happening on nothing more than a series of tubes.

  • http://www.sermonfire.blogspot.com Logan Paschke

    @119

    Science can not approve or disapprove God. You’re really going to uphold science over religion here? You do realize that Eugenics and bleeding people to get rid of the “bad” blood were both cutting edge sciences. The Former only around a hundred years ago and the latter only two hundred years ago. I think we’ll eventually come to a place where evolution is dis-proven because of the irreducible complexity in molecular biology for one example.

    @125

    1. Pascal was not perfect and he certainly did not have a perfect apologetic. There are far better apologetics for Christianity than “Pascal’s Wager”, look up the Teleological, Cosmological, Pre-suppositional arguments to name just a few.

    2. First, of all I can actually read the Bible, the new testament at least, in the original language of Greek. Hebrew is much harder for me, but I hope to eventually be able to read the OT in Hebrew someday. As for your pitiful argument that the Bible was translated/copied via telephone, I only have to say that you’ve likely done no real research on the extensive manuscripts that are literally within mere decades of Christ’s life. I don’t mean this in a bad way, but it’s just very obvious that the standard practice of the churches who received the letters from Paul (for example) was that they copied what Paul wrote so they could all have a copy. The power of numbers gives us the Word of God as it came from the authors of scripture, both the apostles and the Holy Spirit.

    When Paul wrote on letter in particular to a church, he stated that the gospel account was verifiable via people who saw Christ and what He did. The fact is that we’ve got manuscripts within that tiny time period shows that the Bible far surpasses any other book of antiquity. Even more than that, we discover more manuscripts of the Bible (NT and OT) than any other book of antiquity.

    The reason that English translations vary is because there are two different methodologies towards Bible translation. They either focus on word for word (literal) or thought for thought (meaning-based). Google: “two different styles of english bible translation” and click the first result for more information on that. I’ve studied quite a bit about this during my class on the NT.

    3. The basic premise of Christianity is, that Christ even came at all for wicked men is beyond compassionate, beyond good, beyond amazing. Do you want to play the “that’s not fair” game with God? You say you’ve read the Bible, did you read the part where the innocent Son of God was crucified? And yet, God willed all that has come to pass. Even the fall of mankind. It was all according to the will of God to the glory of God. Struggle with that for a while.

    4. Since I actually am a “strict” (your words) Biblical (would be my words) interpreter of the Bible and have read through it twice so forgive me when I read through your “accusations” and laughed out loud. Are you serious, I mean, do you really stand by your three statements? If so, feel free to email me with verses, otherwise this is not worth responding to. For crying out loud, have you ever read John 14:1-14 specifically verse 7 where He states that if the disciples know Him they know God?

    5. What likely frightens you more than not having any answers is if there is one. When you’ve only known darkness, the light is pretty terrifying, but He is good.

    Fascinating discussions all around, keep it up guys everyone is being civil which is strange because this is happening on nothing more than a series of tubes.

  • Kimarous

    I don’t plan on entering the grand debate, but I will say a few words.

    Aliens would not be the death of religion. Yes, there are fanatics out there, but not all religious people are fanatical and closedminded. I say this as a Christian who is open-minded to the possibility of evolution (I don’t explicitly believe in it outright, though) and, in all seriousness, think that there ARE extraterrestrial beings out there. God created a massive, vast universe; it doesn’t make sense that he’d only populate ONE planet.

    As for the issue of “aliens contradict scripture” thing, I don’t think so. It may not mention them, but that actually makes sense. If extraterrestials do exist, just how would the Bible mention them without confusing the heck out of the world’s early cultures? I think that “Bible + mentioning aliens” would equal “really F’d-up dogma”.

  • Kimarous

    I don’t plan on entering the grand debate, but I will say a few words.

    Aliens would not be the death of religion. Yes, there are fanatics out there, but not all religious people are fanatical and closedminded. I say this as a Christian who is open-minded to the possibility of evolution (I don’t explicitly believe in it outright, though) and, in all seriousness, think that there ARE extraterrestrial beings out there. God created a massive, vast universe; it doesn’t make sense that he’d only populate ONE planet.

    As for the issue of “aliens contradict scripture” thing, I don’t think so. It may not mention them, but that actually makes sense. If extraterrestials do exist, just how would the Bible mention them without confusing the heck out of the world’s early cultures? I think that “Bible + mentioning aliens” would equal “really F’d-up dogma”.

  • dodoman1

    I will accept whatever horrendous life forms decide to land here with open arms.

  • dodoman1

    I will accept whatever horrendous life forms decide to land here with open arms.

  • Virgil0211

    @GAZZA-124: Oh, I know, but I just thought I’d throw that out there. ShaneDK is woefully undersubbed for the quality of his videos, and a recent vote-bot attack hasn’t done much to help.

    Just a note: Not all “gun-toters” are religious nuts either, myself included.

    @Logan Paschke:

    First Paragraph: I think the words you’re looking for are “prove” and “disprove”, but even this is incorrect. Proof only exists in mathematics and law. A scientific hypothesis can either be validated or falsified. Evolution, the founding theory of modern biology upon which EVERYTHING in the field is built, has been verified again and again and again. It’s better supported than even gravity, which has multiple competing theories that have yet to be validated as of yet. DonExodus2, ExtantDodo, and CDK007 all have videos on irreduceable complexity if you wish to check them out.

    1: Look up ShaneDK’s video “Rebutting Conservapedia’s Atheism Page” for a response to this. These arguments are no more valid than Pascal’s wager.

    2: Don’t know, don’t care. Just chiming in on what I know, and I’m too lazy to read the rest of the comments.

    3: Okay, I DID read the previous comment there, and you didn’t answer his question. I mean, it might seem nice to you, but from my end, you just made your god look like even more of a bastard.

    Person A: “Governor Blake is such an unfair person! He imprisons anyone who doesn’t swear an oath of loyalty to him!”

    Person B: “Don’t you know that he sacrificed his only child so that those who swear the oath can live free?”

    Person A: “… That’s just sick.”

    I’m sorry, but if you’re trying to convince someone who’s not a Christian of your argument, you can’t skip over establishing your premise. Even if your response were somehow an answer to his question, you didn’t establish the threat of damnation, the wickedness of men, etc, before talking about how great of an act this was.

    4: You only responded to the second half of his point. You neither confirmed nor denied the second.

    5: Your response amounts to “NO U!” Rather childish.

  • Virgil0211

    @GAZZA-124: Oh, I know, but I just thought I’d throw that out there. ShaneDK is woefully undersubbed for the quality of his videos, and a recent vote-bot attack hasn’t done much to help.

    Just a note: Not all “gun-toters” are religious nuts either, myself included.

    @Logan Paschke:

    First Paragraph: I think the words you’re looking for are “prove” and “disprove”, but even this is incorrect. Proof only exists in mathematics and law. A scientific hypothesis can either be validated or falsified. Evolution, the founding theory of modern biology upon which EVERYTHING in the field is built, has been verified again and again and again. It’s better supported than even gravity, which has multiple competing theories that have yet to be validated as of yet. DonExodus2, ExtantDodo, and CDK007 all have videos on irreduceable complexity if you wish to check them out.

    1: Look up ShaneDK’s video “Rebutting Conservapedia’s Atheism Page” for a response to this. These arguments are no more valid than Pascal’s wager.

    2: Don’t know, don’t care. Just chiming in on what I know, and I’m too lazy to read the rest of the comments.

    3: Okay, I DID read the previous comment there, and you didn’t answer his question. I mean, it might seem nice to you, but from my end, you just made your god look like even more of a bastard.

    Person A: “Governor Blake is such an unfair person! He imprisons anyone who doesn’t swear an oath of loyalty to him!”

    Person B: “Don’t you know that he sacrificed his only child so that those who swear the oath can live free?”

    Person A: “… That’s just sick.”

    I’m sorry, but if you’re trying to convince someone who’s not a Christian of your argument, you can’t skip over establishing your premise. Even if your response were somehow an answer to his question, you didn’t establish the threat of damnation, the wickedness of men, etc, before talking about how great of an act this was.

    4: You only responded to the second half of his point. You neither confirmed nor denied the second.

    5: Your response amounts to “NO U!” Rather childish.

  • http://www.sermonfire.blogspot.com/ Logan Paschke

    @133

    With all due respect mate, I’ve watched many of the videos by the guys you’ve mentioned and I’m generally not impressed with them. Youtube Atheists have a reputation of not dealing logically or rationally with debates (this is probably because there are so many 12 year olds parroting Dawkins and typing in all caps), though I do appreciate the recent attempts by Coughlan666 and Thunderf00t to at least make friends instead of pissing on people who believe otherwise. And no, I’m not going to defend VenomFangX or Geerup, I really view them as a hindrance to actual conversations on youtube. There are a few Christians that use youtube wisely but they’re far and few between. Just to be fair, you’d likely say something similar to this paragraph about Christians on youtube so the feeling is mutual about each of our opposing sides. I’m also strongly against vote-bots and I think that any action youtube takes against people doing this is right, although I’m beginning to think that the star rating system is pretty freaking flawed in the first place.

    Specifically about that single video, the Christian views the universe very differently than the non-Christian. I have to say that my experience is with presup not the others so I’m not as qualified to talk on those apologetic arguments as James White, Greg Bahnsen, or Ravi Zacharias. With regards to the pre-suppositional argument, you have to realize that I see everything by the revelation of the living Word to me. I have no problem stating that it is first by revelation from God through salvation in Christ that then and only then can one begin to understand real reality. Like Lewis said, (paraphrased) I see everything else by the light of the sun. The natural laws of mankind have yet to be explained by the big bang while they fit perfectly in from the Christian perspective. Why does mankind have the law of morality or the law of logic? Where did it come from? Is there only material or is there something beyond material? First couple chapters of Mere Christianity lays this out far better than I can hope to summarize in one post.

    3. 1 Corinthians 1:18-31 is my simple answer. Of course he looks like a bastard from your perspective, the very idea of the Son of God coming down from Heaven to become fully man and fully God to live perfectly and to die on a tree to save people is an affront to your intelligence and your perceived righteousness. This is because you have not yet fully understood the sinfulness of man and the holiness of God. When you study the Bible and recognize the extent of man’s sin and the extent of God’s holiness (or hatred of sin), that is when Christ (from your perspective) stops being a stupid guy who hung on a tree to the ultimate act of love by God to us who don’t deserve it.

    You have already said that I assume the sinfulness of man, yes, I do, for I am a man and I know me.

    4. The main reason I didn’t respond is because nowhere in the Word of God does Jesus kill people, nowhere in the Word of God does God ask a question that He doesn’t know the answer, and (as I already mentioned) Christ specifically states that He is the same as Jehovah God. He is probably reading from the books that are not God’s word but man’s word, possibly from the apocrypha which I do consider to be interesting historical reading, but hopelessly filled with contradictions and ultimately they weren’t accepted as canon (for a number of reason, google: canon of scripture).

    Man’s default is sin as a result of disobeying God in Eden. God is sovereign and wills all things (including the fall of Lucifer and of mankind) to happen to His glory (as He is the only being worthy of being glorified). How these two things work together, you got me. They are both taught explicitly in the Bible just like the doctrine of the trinity even though the word “trinity” is not in the Bible. By faith, not by sight.

    5. Usually when someone says something like “Well, religion is just there so that people won’t worry about death, because no one has the answers and religion comforts people.” this is not something that has been well-thought out. I would respond by saying that when you jump out of the plane without a parachute (without some divine assurance from God Himself that you are forgiven and reconciled) and you face the law of gravity, you are going to be worried a lot more about hitting the ground than whether or not your fear of death causes you to believe in a parachute. This is quite strange, when men are more worried about whether or not their fear of death is causing a parachute than whether or not they are wearing one? I’m not trying to be coy here, I just don’t find it a very logical argument from what I know.

    I do hope the best for you, the best for you is in Christ, and the worst for you is facing God on Judgment Day not cleansed by Christ’s blood. I sincerely don’t want to make an enemy or be a jerk to you, I understand what I’m proposing could very well be considered crazy to you. May God be with you friend, seek the truth in the Bible, may you find Him. if you ever want to game, hit me up on steam: sermonfire

  • http://www.sermonfire.blogspot.com Logan Paschke

    @133

    With all due respect mate, I’ve watched many of the videos by the guys you’ve mentioned and I’m generally not impressed with them. Youtube Atheists have a reputation of not dealing logically or rationally with debates (this is probably because there are so many 12 year olds parroting Dawkins and typing in all caps), though I do appreciate the recent attempts by Coughlan666 and Thunderf00t to at least make friends instead of pissing on people who believe otherwise. And no, I’m not going to defend VenomFangX or Geerup, I really view them as a hindrance to actual conversations on youtube. There are a few Christians that use youtube wisely but they’re far and few between. Just to be fair, you’d likely say something similar to this paragraph about Christians on youtube so the feeling is mutual about each of our opposing sides. I’m also strongly against vote-bots and I think that any action youtube takes against people doing this is right, although I’m beginning to think that the star rating system is pretty freaking flawed in the first place.

    Specifically about that single video, the Christian views the universe very differently than the non-Christian. I have to say that my experience is with presup not the others so I’m not as qualified to talk on those apologetic arguments as James White, Greg Bahnsen, or Ravi Zacharias. With regards to the pre-suppositional argument, you have to realize that I see everything by the revelation of the living Word to me. I have no problem stating that it is first by revelation from God through salvation in Christ that then and only then can one begin to understand real reality. Like Lewis said, (paraphrased) I see everything else by the light of the sun. The natural laws of mankind have yet to be explained by the big bang while they fit perfectly in from the Christian perspective. Why does mankind have the law of morality or the law of logic? Where did it come from? Is there only material or is there something beyond material? First couple chapters of Mere Christianity lays this out far better than I can hope to summarize in one post.

    3. 1 Corinthians 1:18-31 is my simple answer. Of course he looks like a bastard from your perspective, the very idea of the Son of God coming down from Heaven to become fully man and fully God to live perfectly and to die on a tree to save people is an affront to your intelligence and your perceived righteousness. This is because you have not yet fully understood the sinfulness of man and the holiness of God. When you study the Bible and recognize the extent of man’s sin and the extent of God’s holiness (or hatred of sin), that is when Christ (from your perspective) stops being a stupid guy who hung on a tree to the ultimate act of love by God to us who don’t deserve it.

    You have already said that I assume the sinfulness of man, yes, I do, for I am a man and I know me.

    4. The main reason I didn’t respond is because nowhere in the Word of God does Jesus kill people, nowhere in the Word of God does God ask a question that He doesn’t know the answer, and (as I already mentioned) Christ specifically states that He is the same as Jehovah God. He is probably reading from the books that are not God’s word but man’s word, possibly from the apocrypha which I do consider to be interesting historical reading, but hopelessly filled with contradictions and ultimately they weren’t accepted as canon (for a number of reason, google: canon of scripture).

    Man’s default is sin as a result of disobeying God in Eden. God is sovereign and wills all things (including the fall of Lucifer and of mankind) to happen to His glory (as He is the only being worthy of being glorified). How these two things work together, you got me. They are both taught explicitly in the Bible just like the doctrine of the trinity even though the word “trinity” is not in the Bible. By faith, not by sight.

    5. Usually when someone says something like “Well, religion is just there so that people won’t worry about death, because no one has the answers and religion comforts people.” this is not something that has been well-thought out. I would respond by saying that when you jump out of the plane without a parachute (without some divine assurance from God Himself that you are forgiven and reconciled) and you face the law of gravity, you are going to be worried a lot more about hitting the ground than whether or not your fear of death causes you to believe in a parachute. This is quite strange, when men are more worried about whether or not their fear of death is causing a parachute than whether or not they are wearing one? I’m not trying to be coy here, I just don’t find it a very logical argument from what I know.

    I do hope the best for you, the best for you is in Christ, and the worst for you is facing God on Judgment Day not cleansed by Christ’s blood. I sincerely don’t want to make an enemy or be a jerk to you, I understand what I’m proposing could very well be considered crazy to you. May God be with you friend, seek the truth in the Bible, may you find Him. if you ever want to game, hit me up on steam: sermonfire

  • http://www.sermonfire.blogspot.com/ Logan Paschke

    @133

    Doh! Forgot to reply to the irreducible complexity and molecular biology and all that jazz. yeah.

    I admit, most my studies have not been in irreducible complexity, but I’m excited to learn more about biology. I’ve actually talked to ProfMTH, though him and I have fiercely disagreed on some issues (duh), and I’ve appreciated the links he’s sent me on biology, they were helpful. I also recognize that there are countless evolutionists who are true Christians. Can one be an evolutionist and be a Christian, yes, one can. Can one own slaves *according to the context of 1st century Christianity* and be a Christian? Yes. Were there Christians who owned slaves in the South who either treated them well (buying them so they wouldn’t be sent off to Brazil or Cuba and die of horrible nutrition and disease) and were there Christians who wrongly (according to the Bible’s teaching on slavery) abused the power over them? Yes.

    Even though theologically because of what the scriptures says on the age of the earth (and my belief that Creation is a miracle akin to Christ’s resurrection), I will sit in a pew with an Evolutionist any day of the week and worship God with him. I very much respect the work of the scientist whether or not his beliefs coincide with mine and I want to learn more about the sciences so I can understand more about God.

  • http://www.sermonfire.blogspot.com Logan Paschke

    @133

    Doh! Forgot to reply to the irreducible complexity and molecular biology and all that jazz. yeah.

    I admit, most my studies have not been in irreducible complexity, but I’m excited to learn more about biology. I’ve actually talked to ProfMTH, though him and I have fiercely disagreed on some issues (duh), and I’ve appreciated the links he’s sent me on biology, they were helpful. I also recognize that there are countless evolutionists who are true Christians. Can one be an evolutionist and be a Christian, yes, one can. Can one own slaves *according to the context of 1st century Christianity* and be a Christian? Yes. Were there Christians who owned slaves in the South who either treated them well (buying them so they wouldn’t be sent off to Brazil or Cuba and die of horrible nutrition and disease) and were there Christians who wrongly (according to the Bible’s teaching on slavery) abused the power over them? Yes.

    Even though theologically because of what the scriptures says on the age of the earth (and my belief that Creation is a miracle akin to Christ’s resurrection), I will sit in a pew with an Evolutionist any day of the week and worship God with him. I very much respect the work of the scientist whether or not his beliefs coincide with mine and I want to learn more about the sciences so I can understand more about God.

  • SBaby

    Well, going back to what you said about people being mean to the prawns. Maybe that’s part of the reason. Because as we all know, Religion does tend to make people do those kinds of things. This has been proven historically.

  • SBaby

    Well, going back to what you said about people being mean to the prawns. Maybe that’s part of the reason. Because as we all know, Religion does tend to make people do those kinds of things. This has been proven historically.

  • Aufbruch

    Sorry, Spoony….not enough explosions and ‘harrowing action scenes’ in your idea, and furthermore, not enough room to attach something about racism/tolerance/loving one another so that the movie could at least fool the audience into thinking it’s deep, or synonyms to that effect.

    Seriously, man….stuff that _actually_ is challenging, innovative, or makes people think pisses them off too bad to make them spend money….or invariably pisses off some sect of the 700 Club. The illusion that a sci fi movie _is_ deep, however, is a gold mine. The critics get to pretend to be happy via pretending it’s “deep”, the dullards get to drool and be “duurr…explosions r fun! More boom!” And sci fi nerds get to attribute false levels of depth and meaning to the film that are either never addressed in the first place or hinted at but never really given the time to properly address.

    It’s almost as if you thought that movies were about thinking or some shit X D

    Snark done…..I think liking 2001 A Space Odyssey and being able to _somewhat_ explain why you liked it should be a pre requisite to being able to talk about sci fi movies…..actually, hell….screw the liking it part….being able to adequately explain why they did _or did not_ like it would be enough. Expectation of a “Because (insert X aspect of the film) was gay” to be a viable opinion should really result in immediate death by….anything that results in death. The children that the executed would thus never be allowed to have would thank you….otherwise they’re going to grow up and endorse Intelligent Design…

    (Note: All offense and deep lack of political correctness is intended, may Buzz Aldrin and/or Harlan Ellison hunt you down and slug you in the face)

  • Aufbruch

    Sorry, Spoony….not enough explosions and ‘harrowing action scenes’ in your idea, and furthermore, not enough room to attach something about racism/tolerance/loving one another so that the movie could at least fool the audience into thinking it’s deep, or synonyms to that effect.

    Seriously, man….stuff that _actually_ is challenging, innovative, or makes people think pisses them off too bad to make them spend money….or invariably pisses off some sect of the 700 Club. The illusion that a sci fi movie _is_ deep, however, is a gold mine. The critics get to pretend to be happy via pretending it’s “deep”, the dullards get to drool and be “duurr…explosions r fun! More boom!” And sci fi nerds get to attribute false levels of depth and meaning to the film that are either never addressed in the first place or hinted at but never really given the time to properly address.

    It’s almost as if you thought that movies were about thinking or some shit X D

    Snark done…..I think liking 2001 A Space Odyssey and being able to _somewhat_ explain why you liked it should be a pre requisite to being able to talk about sci fi movies…..actually, hell….screw the liking it part….being able to adequately explain why they did _or did not_ like it would be enough. Expectation of a “Because (insert X aspect of the film) was gay” to be a viable opinion should really result in immediate death by….anything that results in death. The children that the executed would thus never be allowed to have would thank you….otherwise they’re going to grow up and endorse Intelligent Design…

    (Note: All offense and deep lack of political correctness is intended, may Buzz Aldrin and/or Harlan Ellison hunt you down and slug you in the face)

  • Madone

    DIstrict 10: Pope VS Prawn

    I’d watch it.

  • Madone

    DIstrict 10: Pope VS Prawn

    I’d watch it.

  • http://jshadowm.deviantart.com/ JSHADOWM

    Meh religion.
    I hate it
    why? because one of there rules is believing on there teachings and in christianity’s case, the bible.
    and those religions that are not total obedience deal have some very disturbing teachings.

    bible is tedious, and what’s more, sexist.
    with all due respect god… want me to believe in you? tell your followers to make some corrections to this shit.

    what? they do Tell us you are omnipotent and all powerful, and they clearly do your biding on free will and believe in you (or so they SAY) so appear on there faces and say “do some corrections bitch”

    By the way god… if you do the second coming while i am alive, i will punch you in the gut just to see your reaction…

    what? it is you that made me insane XD

  • http://jshadowm.deviantart.com/ JSHADOWM

    Meh religion.
    I hate it
    why? because one of there rules is believing on there teachings and in christianity’s case, the bible.
    and those religions that are not total obedience deal have some very disturbing teachings.

    bible is tedious, and what’s more, sexist.
    with all due respect god… want me to believe in you? tell your followers to make some corrections to this shit.

    what? they do Tell us you are omnipotent and all powerful, and they clearly do your biding on free will and believe in you (or so they SAY) so appear on there faces and say “do some corrections bitch”

    By the way god… if you do the second coming while i am alive, i will punch you in the gut just to see your reaction…

    what? it is you that made me insane XD

  • TheZapper

    @135:
    Logan, “irreducible complexity” is a non-argument. Aside from the fact that the two most common cited examples by creationists (the bacterial flagellum and the vertebrate eye) *have* been adequately explained, the entire line of reasoning for “irreducible complexity” is basically one that appeals to – and encourages – ignorance.
    “Irreducible complexity” means latching onto the gaps in scientific knowledge, and in effect trying to discredit the vast ammounts of knowledge that *do* exist and furthermore even actively discouraging any further inquiry, research and speculation – after all, actually filling those gaps would annihilate the creastionists’ entire argument (allthough THAT has never stopped them…).
    This is not only deeply, deeply dishonest and vastly ignorant about the actual methodology of the scientific method, but ultimately *very* dangerous to the progress of the entire species.

  • CodexBiohazardX0

    One thing people are not pointing out Is, that Religions would also pop up due to the Prawn.
    In the reboot of “V” It’s hinted at people worshiping the Visitors.
    You think the main three great faiths would have a shit storm when aliens show up?
    Wait till people start worshiping them, then your going to see the shit really hit the fan.
    This is coming from a man who is not religious in any way, but can see the wisdom in worshiping ENTITY that can not be seen,
    The last thing earth needs is more cults that worship other living things.
    As a species who has not to long ago crawled out of caves and harnessed the power of the Atom, traversed our moon,figured out the origin of our species ect… It would be a religious and secular heresy to our own species to worship such things because they have fancier “toys”.

  • TheZapper

    @135:
    Logan, “irreducible complexity” is a non-argument. Aside from the fact that the two most common cited examples by creationists (the bacterial flagellum and the vertebrate eye) *have* been adequately explained, the entire line of reasoning for “irreducible complexity” is basically one that appeals to – and encourages – ignorance.
    “Irreducible complexity” means latching onto the gaps in scientific knowledge, and in effect trying to discredit the vast ammounts of knowledge that *do* exist and furthermore even actively discouraging any further inquiry, research and speculation – after all, actually filling those gaps would annihilate the creastionists’ entire argument (allthough THAT has never stopped them…).
    This is not only deeply, deeply dishonest and vastly ignorant about the actual methodology of the scientific method, but ultimately *very* dangerous to the progress of the entire species.

  • CodexBiohazardX0

    One thing people are not pointing out Is, that Religions would also pop up due to the Prawn.
    In the reboot of “V” It’s hinted at people worshiping the Visitors.
    You think the main three great faiths would have a shit storm when aliens show up?
    Wait till people start worshiping them, then your going to see the shit really hit the fan.
    This is coming from a man who is not religious in any way, but can see the wisdom in worshiping ENTITY that can not be seen,
    The last thing earth needs is more cults that worship other living things.
    As a species who has not to long ago crawled out of caves and harnessed the power of the Atom, traversed our moon,figured out the origin of our species ect… It would be a religious and secular heresy to our own species to worship such things because they have fancier “toys”.

  • Wet blanket

    All of you guys realize, that absolutely nothing you can say or argue on a message board, is ever going to change some ones entire religious beleif system. They will always be convinced they are right, you will be convinced you are, and unless one of you is willing to admit wrongness, then this will get you no where.

    Nothing wrong with intelligent debate, just try to keep it civil.

  • Wet blanket

    All of you guys realize, that absolutely nothing you can say or argue on a message board, is ever going to change some ones entire religious beleif system. They will always be convinced they are right, you will be convinced you are, and unless one of you is willing to admit wrongness, then this will get you no where.

    Nothing wrong with intelligent debate, just try to keep it civil.

  • Booze Zombie

    Hmm, fair points there, Spoony.
    As someone who’s not a huge fan of religion, I can quite honestly say I wouldn’t really mind it all just dissolving…

  • Booze Zombie

    Hmm, fair points there, Spoony.
    As someone who’s not a huge fan of religion, I can quite honestly say I wouldn’t really mind it all just dissolving…

  • Meshi

    The Vatican recently came out and said that it is perfectly reasonable for Catholics to believe in extraterrestrial life, because God created the universe and all life in it.

  • Meshi

    The Vatican recently came out and said that it is perfectly reasonable for Catholics to believe in extraterrestrial life, because God created the universe and all life in it.

  • Mamoru-sama

    You should not talk about religion you do not know, dear Spoony.
    Islam and Judaism would be pretty fine about the existence of Aliens. (not sure for Judaism though).

  • Mamoru-sama

    You should not talk about religion you do not know, dear Spoony.
    Islam and Judaism would be pretty fine about the existence of Aliens. (not sure for Judaism though).

  • http://fziii.com/ fziii

    Oh please lets be honest here.
    Why is man on top of the food chain? intelligence? religion? No it is because humans are the most mean nasty blood thirsty creatures on the planet. Humans will do anything to get what they want and kill and hurt anything to get it, even its own species. And he will think of nothing of destroying something he doesn’t like nor understands. I am not just talking modern man with war, I mean prehistory and the very nature of a human. If you take a pair of strangers beat on them a little and starve them for two weeks, you start to get the real human animal. Now take those two starving men put in a room with a hamburger and a knife and what do you honestly think will happen? Will they find religion and cut the burger in half and share? Or will one kill the other to get all that he wants?
    Ever been in a bar and hit on a girl and suddenly realize that the rather drunk boyfriend was near by? With the alcohol stopping all inhibitions how does his inner animal react ? If you say he would be reasonable you have never been in this situation … trust me on that.

  • http://fziii.com fziii

    Oh please lets be honest here.
    Why is man on top of the food chain? intelligence? religion? No it is because humans are the most mean nasty blood thirsty creatures on the planet. Humans will do anything to get what they want and kill and hurt anything to get it, even its own species. And he will think of nothing of destroying something he doesn’t like nor understands. I am not just talking modern man with war, I mean prehistory and the very nature of a human. If you take a pair of strangers beat on them a little and starve them for two weeks, you start to get the real human animal. Now take those two starving men put in a room with a hamburger and a knife and what do you honestly think will happen? Will they find religion and cut the burger in half and share? Or will one kill the other to get all that he wants?
    Ever been in a bar and hit on a girl and suddenly realize that the rather drunk boyfriend was near by? With the alcohol stopping all inhibitions how does his inner animal react ? If you say he would be reasonable you have never been in this situation … trust me on that.

  • DieselEdge

    @146

    OK, you want to start coloring your hair green and painting your face like a clown?

  • DieselEdge

    @146

    OK, you want to start coloring your hair green and painting your face like a clown?

  • Dan

    Religion is kind of over-used as a plot connivence and rather a lazy way of driving the world crazy. Consider; when’s the last time you’ve seen a sensible religious person in film or on television? It would be more innovative to have a guy with a crucifix who wasn’t evil, insane, or monumentally stupid.
    What if, for the sake of argument, people acted like normal humans would? Some would accept the aliens. Some would fear them. Some would hate them. Some would love them. What if the aliens themselves were characters, not just incomprehensible monsters or super intelligent saintly comparisons to the cynical understanding of humanity the director seems to have.
    Yeah I know this would step on the toes of Alien Nation, but District 9 was already doing that any way.
    To me it would be way more interesting to have some of the aliens be evil some good, some humans be the same way. Polarizing things as this film did just didn’t feel realistic, racial metaphors be damned, and religion would make it worse in addition to intentionally ticking off part of its audience (believe it or not religious people go to the movies too).
    Why not consider this concept as a story first, a ‘message’ next?

  • http://olesd@spu.edu Dan

    Religion is kind of over-used as a plot connivence and rather a lazy way of driving the world crazy. Consider; when’s the last time you’ve seen a sensible religious person in film or on television? It would be more innovative to have a guy with a crucifix who wasn’t evil, insane, or monumentally stupid.
    What if, for the sake of argument, people acted like normal humans would? Some would accept the aliens. Some would fear them. Some would hate them. Some would love them. What if the aliens themselves were characters, not just incomprehensible monsters or super intelligent saintly comparisons to the cynical understanding of humanity the director seems to have.
    Yeah I know this would step on the toes of Alien Nation, but District 9 was already doing that any way.
    To me it would be way more interesting to have some of the aliens be evil some good, some humans be the same way. Polarizing things as this film did just didn’t feel realistic, racial metaphors be damned, and religion would make it worse in addition to intentionally ticking off part of its audience (believe it or not religious people go to the movies too).
    Why not consider this concept as a story first, a ‘message’ next?

  • Thomas

    Whenever I hear someone discredit religion, I always here them comment on how idiotic religious people are for beleiving in such an unprovable belief about creation, while the closet scientific beleif we have for it basically says the entire universe came about by chance. And beleiving that is about as foolish as beleiving in a God, IMO.

    As for the religious spin for D9, I really doubt there’d be a cataclysm of beleifs because of the aliens. To my knowledge, the Bible never actually contradicts life on other planets. True, it does say God created man in his own image, but that can easily be passed off as “He made us in his own image, and them later”. The Bible really only pertains itself to Earth, so it would be entirely beleivable that a different world would exist, even if you are a literalist.

  • Thomas

    Whenever I hear someone discredit religion, I always here them comment on how idiotic religious people are for beleiving in such an unprovable belief about creation, while the closet scientific beleif we have for it basically says the entire universe came about by chance. And beleiving that is about as foolish as beleiving in a God, IMO.

    As for the religious spin for D9, I really doubt there’d be a cataclysm of beleifs because of the aliens. To my knowledge, the Bible never actually contradicts life on other planets. True, it does say God created man in his own image, but that can easily be passed off as “He made us in his own image, and them later”. The Bible really only pertains itself to Earth, so it would be entirely beleivable that a different world would exist, even if you are a literalist.

  • Thomas

    Whenever I hear someone discredit religion, I always here them comment on how idiotic religious people are for beleiving in such an unprovable belief about creation, while the closet scientific beleif we have for it basically says the entire universe came about by chance. And beleiving that is about as foolish as beleiving in a God, IMO.

    As for the religious spin for D9, I really doubt there’d be a cataclysm of beleifs because of the aliens. To my knowledge, the Bible never actually contradicts life on other planets. True, it does say God created man in his own image, but that can easily be passed off as “He made us in his own image, and them later”. The Bible really only pertains itself to Earth, so it would be entirely beleivable that a different world would exist, even if you are a literalist.

  • http://fziii.com/ fziii

    “He made us in his own image”
    Am I the only one who things that this phrase was not meant to be taken literally.
    Because if you did that would show a wee too much vanity …
    I always believed that by “in his image” meant that unlike all other animals, mankind was given the special gift of self-choice and awareness such as God. In other words we were given the choice between right and wrong.
    Please let me know if I am crazy with this, but I really don’t think it was meant to say that God is a humanoid biped mammal.

    ??

  • http://fziii.com/ fziii

    “He made us in his own image”
    Am I the only one who things that this phrase was not meant to be taken literally.
    Because if you did that would show a wee too much vanity …
    I always believed that by “in his image” meant that unlike all other animals, mankind was given the special gift of self-choice and awareness such as God. In other words we were given the choice between right and wrong.
    Please let me know if I am crazy with this, but I really don’t think it was meant to say that God is a humanoid biped mammal.

    ??

  • http://fziii.com fziii

    “He made us in his own image”
    Am I the only one who things that this phrase was not meant to be taken literally.
    Because if you did that would show a wee too much vanity …
    I always believed that by “in his image” meant that unlike all other animals, mankind was given the special gift of self-choice and awareness such as God. In other words we were given the choice between right and wrong.
    Please let me know if I am crazy with this, but I really don’t think it was meant to say that God is a humanoid biped mammal.

    ??

  • xen999

    If I remember correctly, the movie Contact did went over the subject of religious folks going nuts over the discovery of extraterrestial life, aliens/science vs God. And you also had the opposite – people supporting the project of contacting aliens. Really liked that movie a lot, I felt like this is what would really happenned if such discovery ever occured in real life. Maybe that’s what District 9 is missing.

  • xen999

    If I remember correctly, the movie Contact did went over the subject of religious folks going nuts over the discovery of extraterrestial life, aliens/science vs God. And you also had the opposite – people supporting the project of contacting aliens. Really liked that movie a lot, I felt like this is what would really happenned if such discovery ever occured in real life. Maybe that’s what District 9 is missing.

  • xen999

    If I remember correctly, the movie Contact did went over the subject of religious folks going nuts over the discovery of extraterrestial life, aliens/science vs God. And you also had the opposite – people supporting the project of contacting aliens. Really liked that movie a lot, I felt like this is what would really happenned if such discovery ever occured in real life. Maybe that’s what District 9 is missing.

  • Guilherme

    Yeah, Thomas(#151) is perfectly right. Probably Spoony don’t know that much about religion.
    Just two example: since the middle ages, the catholic church agrees that extraterrestrial life is possible, and doesn’t contradict the bible and tradition.
    And the mormon church affirms that there are extraterrestrial life forms.

    Of course, more fanatical “kinds” of christianism or islam, or even some oriental religions could be a problem, but that would be a minor problem. Nothing like mass suicides and histeria all over the world. Probably some suicides, and some histeria, but nothing really important.
    The real inffluence this groups could have in the documentary would be if they wanted to kill the aliens, or attempted some suicide bombing, or things like that.

    Probably there would be a large numbers of preachers trying to convert the aliens and a lot of theologians trying to learn the aliens religion and philosophy to see how it integrates with ours; since Truth is universal, even if expressed through different means to different people(the movie Enemy Mine touches this point).

    But esoteric millenial cults exist today, without alien presence, surely they would spread widely.

    Most of the religion involvement with the aliens would be pro-alien, not anti-alien.
    And that’s a point Spoony raised in the review, many charitable entities would defend the aliens in a more realistic scenario.

    I think South Africa was a bad choice(for all that Spoony said), but surely the African continent is the perfect place to show how humanity can be cruel to others. Not because africans are essentialy evil(don’t get me wrong), but that continent is completely messed up due to misery, war and totalitarian regimes. It is the ideal stage for desperate and/or horrible people to do regretable things.

  • Guilherme

    Yeah, Thomas(#151) is perfectly right. Probably Spoony don’t know that much about religion.
    Just two example: since the middle ages, the catholic church agrees that extraterrestrial life is possible, and doesn’t contradict the bible and tradition.
    And the mormon church affirms that there are extraterrestrial life forms.

    Of course, more fanatical “kinds” of christianism or islam, or even some oriental religions could be a problem, but that would be a minor problem. Nothing like mass suicides and histeria all over the world. Probably some suicides, and some histeria, but nothing really important.
    The real inffluence this groups could have in the documentary would be if they wanted to kill the aliens, or attempted some suicide bombing, or things like that.

    Probably there would be a large numbers of preachers trying to convert the aliens and a lot of theologians trying to learn the aliens religion and philosophy to see how it integrates with ours; since Truth is universal, even if expressed through different means to different people(the movie Enemy Mine touches this point).

    But esoteric millenial cults exist today, without alien presence, surely they would spread widely.

    Most of the religion involvement with the aliens would be pro-alien, not anti-alien.
    And that’s a point Spoony raised in the review, many charitable entities would defend the aliens in a more realistic scenario.

    I think South Africa was a bad choice(for all that Spoony said), but surely the African continent is the perfect place to show how humanity can be cruel to others. Not because africans are essentialy evil(don’t get me wrong), but that continent is completely messed up due to misery, war and totalitarian regimes. It is the ideal stage for desperate and/or horrible people to do regretable things.

  • Guilherme

    Yeah, Thomas(#151) is perfectly right. Probably Spoony don’t know that much about religion.
    Just two example: since the middle ages, the catholic church agrees that extraterrestrial life is possible, and doesn’t contradict the bible and tradition.
    And the mormon church affirms that there are extraterrestrial life forms.

    Of course, more fanatical “kinds” of christianism or islam, or even some oriental religions could be a problem, but that would be a minor problem. Nothing like mass suicides and histeria all over the world. Probably some suicides, and some histeria, but nothing really important.
    The real inffluence this groups could have in the documentary would be if they wanted to kill the aliens, or attempted some suicide bombing, or things like that.

    Probably there would be a large numbers of preachers trying to convert the aliens and a lot of theologians trying to learn the aliens religion and philosophy to see how it integrates with ours; since Truth is universal, even if expressed through different means to different people(the movie Enemy Mine touches this point).

    But esoteric millenial cults exist today, without alien presence, surely they would spread widely.

    Most of the religion involvement with the aliens would be pro-alien, not anti-alien.
    And that’s a point Spoony raised in the review, many charitable entities would defend the aliens in a more realistic scenario.

    I think South Africa was a bad choice(for all that Spoony said), but surely the African continent is the perfect place to show how humanity can be cruel to others. Not because africans are essentialy evil(don’t get me wrong), but that continent is completely messed up due to misery, war and totalitarian regimes. It is the ideal stage for desperate and/or horrible people to do regretable things.

  • godofplage

    there’s nothing sayimg that God didn’t create other forms of life in the Genesis account either.
    I mean most religions do believein extrterrestrial life in the forms of spirit creatures such as angels.

    Are there “religious” people that would react poorly, yes the zealots or the people who simply belong to a religion and never take time to study thier beliefs. Other religious people are surprisingly insightful and quite analytical in thier understanding of the world around them

  • godofplage

    there’s nothing sayimg that God didn’t create other forms of life in the Genesis account either.
    I mean most religions do believein extrterrestrial life in the forms of spirit creatures such as angels.

    Are there “religious” people that would react poorly, yes the zealots or the people who simply belong to a religion and never take time to study thier beliefs. Other religious people are surprisingly insightful and quite analytical in thier understanding of the world around them

  • godofplage

    there’s nothing sayimg that God didn’t create other forms of life in the Genesis account either.
    I mean most religions do believein extrterrestrial life in the forms of spirit creatures such as angels.

    Are there “religious” people that would react poorly, yes the zealots or the people who simply belong to a religion and never take time to study thier beliefs. Other religious people are surprisingly insightful and quite analytical in thier understanding of the world around them

  • godofplage

    Fzii you are very much right. In his image refers to having the ability to reflect his qualities, and to have free choice. It is in no way connotating we look like god. Afterall god is a spirit immaterial to our perception how could we look like that?

  • godofplage

    Fzii you are very much right. In his image refers to having the ability to reflect his qualities, and to have free choice. It is in no way connotating we look like god. Afterall god is a spirit immaterial to our perception how could we look like that?

  • godofplage

    Fzii you are very much right. In his image refers to having the ability to reflect his qualities, and to have free choice. It is in no way connotating we look like god. Afterall god is a spirit immaterial to our perception how could we look like that?

  • Thomas

    @152

    I don’t beleive any of the Torah were intended to be taken literally. 40 day floods? Men made out of dust? Unlikely. I am a Christian, but I myself just flat-out don’t beleive most of the events in the Torah. The ideas are great, but I don’t take anything else in there seriously.

  • Thomas

    @152

    I don’t beleive any of the Torah were intended to be taken literally. 40 day floods? Men made out of dust? Unlikely. I am a Christian, but I myself just flat-out don’t beleive most of the events in the Torah. The ideas are great, but I don’t take anything else in there seriously.

  • Thomas

    @152

    I don’t beleive any of the Torah were intended to be taken literally. 40 day floods? Men made out of dust? Unlikely. I am a Christian, but I myself just flat-out don’t beleive most of the events in the Torah. The ideas are great, but I don’t take anything else in there seriously.

  • Ty

    I think you just described Childhood’s End.

    Mm, that’d make a good fake documentary.

  • Ty

    I think you just described Childhood’s End.

    Mm, that’d make a good fake documentary.

  • Ty

    I think you just described Childhood’s End.

    Mm, that’d make a good fake documentary.

  • http://fziii.com/ fziii

    @157

    Personally I am wary of any organized religion because of the mere fact it all is just man thing to explain the unknown. The Torah … The Bible … what ever … have great ideas in deed, and should be taken very seriously. It is very true that its not all facts but the stories and lessons in them are invaluable and get to the very core of the human condition. Just as modern fair tales teach us our quick little moral lessons … these great books teach us our spiritual lessons. Too bad that people don’t know how to internalize these lessons, instead they have to shove out of context quotes in other peoples faces just to justify what ever agendas they may have. lol The world will be a better place when people start worrying about themselves and stop worrying about how others lead their lives.
    babbling lecture over … lol

  • http://fziii.com/ fziii

    @157

    Personally I am wary of any organized religion because of the mere fact it all is just man thing to explain the unknown. The Torah … The Bible … what ever … have great ideas in deed, and should be taken very seriously. It is very true that its not all facts but the stories and lessons in them are invaluable and get to the very core of the human condition. Just as modern fair tales teach us our quick little moral lessons … these great books teach us our spiritual lessons. Too bad that people don’t know how to internalize these lessons, instead they have to shove out of context quotes in other peoples faces just to justify what ever agendas they may have. lol The world will be a better place when people start worrying about themselves and stop worrying about how others lead their lives.
    babbling lecture over … lol

  • http://fziii.com fziii

    @157

    Personally I am wary of any organized religion because of the mere fact it all is just man thing to explain the unknown. The Torah … The Bible … what ever … have great ideas in deed, and should be taken very seriously. It is very true that its not all facts but the stories and lessons in them are invaluable and get to the very core of the human condition. Just as modern fair tales teach us our quick little moral lessons … these great books teach us our spiritual lessons. Too bad that people don’t know how to internalize these lessons, instead they have to shove out of context quotes in other peoples faces just to justify what ever agendas they may have. lol The world will be a better place when people start worrying about themselves and stop worrying about how others lead their lives.
    babbling lecture over … lol

  • theo

    @106 flyman

    Get anal raped. Your the kind of pussy that masturbate to the concept of status quo. Please stay on the internet you seem to be getting trolled a lot for being such wuss; I hope you’ll develop an ulcer that way.

    1. People are diversifed; it’s truth but so what? That doesn’t mean that all kind of philosophies are good. I would glady beat the shit out of assholes pretending that raping children because it would be unfair to deprive them of being “sexually initiated”. Fuck your diversity bullshit and fuck you even more you relativist idiot.

    2. Shaped by your environement. Also… true? You know asshole I’m kind of exepecting arguments but all I get are pointless observations. I guess this is what to expect from some imbecile liberal with absolutly no opinion at all and dislike people for having one. So, I’ll still try to make a point about a pointless observation: Some people get brainwashed by cretinous assholes to become cretinous assholes and some people are raised by people that just don’t give a crap in what you beleive and let you make a mind of your own: I’m the lucky one I guess? So I should be nice to brainwashed morons who think a magical guy in the sky is telling them how to organize the world because I could have been brainwashed by wackos? Fuck you and fuck that! Ni dieu ni maitre! Ain’t fucking responsible for people being stupid and if I’m going to suffer their idioty, I’ll make damn sure they’ll suffer me pointing how much of idiots they are.

    3. All organizations are neither good or bad.

    You fruity liberal, satus quo loving, idiot, of course there are some organizations that are good and others that are bad. I’ll admit, it’s never something totally black and white and there’s alot of grey zone inside those movements, but it’s safe to say that some organizations are more evil than other: You wouldn’t want the nazis or any religious extremist groups to rule the world don’t you? I’m just opposed to organizations that beleive in crap THAT DEFY THE LAW OF PHYSICS OR LOGIC and could potentially justify any bullshits under the guise of religion, like pedophilia or the interdiction of certain medical treatments. Organizations, in order to be “good” in my perception, need to be logic, supertition free and deeply, deeply humanist. Some actually exist! Like “médecins sans frontière”. The lack of logic or realism always lead to horrible excess.

  • theo

    @106 flyman

    Get anal raped. Your the kind of pussy that masturbate to the concept of status quo. Please stay on the internet you seem to be getting trolled a lot for being such wuss; I hope you’ll develop an ulcer that way.

    1. People are diversifed; it’s truth but so what? That doesn’t mean that all kind of philosophies are good. I would glady beat the shit out of assholes pretending that raping children because it would be unfair to deprive them of being “sexually initiated”. Fuck your diversity bullshit and fuck you even more you relativist idiot.

    2. Shaped by your environement. Also… true? You know asshole I’m kind of exepecting arguments but all I get are pointless observations. I guess this is what to expect from some imbecile liberal with absolutly no opinion at all and dislike people for having one. So, I’ll still try to make a point about a pointless observation: Some people get brainwashed by cretinous assholes to become cretinous assholes and some people are raised by people that just don’t give a crap in what you beleive and let you make a mind of your own: I’m the lucky one I guess? So I should be nice to brainwashed morons who think a magical guy in the sky is telling them how to organize the world because I could have been brainwashed by wackos? Fuck you and fuck that! Ni dieu ni maitre! Ain’t fucking responsible for people being stupid and if I’m going to suffer their idioty, I’ll make damn sure they’ll suffer me pointing how much of idiots they are.

    3. All organizations are neither good or bad.

    You fruity liberal, satus quo loving, idiot, of course there are some organizations that are good and others that are bad. I’ll admit, it’s never something totally black and white and there’s alot of grey zone inside those movements, but it’s safe to say that some organizations are more evil than other: You wouldn’t want the nazis or any religious extremist groups to rule the world don’t you? I’m just opposed to organizations that beleive in crap THAT DEFY THE LAW OF PHYSICS OR LOGIC and could potentially justify any bullshits under the guise of religion, like pedophilia or the interdiction of certain medical treatments. Organizations, in order to be “good” in my perception, need to be logic, supertition free and deeply, deeply humanist. Some actually exist! Like “médecins sans frontière”. The lack of logic or realism always lead to horrible excess.

  • theo

    @106 flyman

    Get anal raped. Your the kind of pussy that masturbate to the concept of status quo. Please stay on the internet you seem to be getting trolled a lot for being such wuss; I hope you’ll develop an ulcer that way.

    1. People are diversifed; it’s truth but so what? That doesn’t mean that all kind of philosophies are good. I would glady beat the shit out of assholes pretending that raping children because it would be unfair to deprive them of being “sexually initiated”. Fuck your diversity bullshit and fuck you even more you relativist idiot.

    2. Shaped by your environement. Also… true? You know asshole I’m kind of exepecting arguments but all I get are pointless observations. I guess this is what to expect from some imbecile liberal with absolutly no opinion at all and dislike people for having one. So, I’ll still try to make a point about a pointless observation: Some people get brainwashed by cretinous assholes to become cretinous assholes and some people are raised by people that just don’t give a crap in what you beleive and let you make a mind of your own: I’m the lucky one I guess? So I should be nice to brainwashed morons who think a magical guy in the sky is telling them how to organize the world because I could have been brainwashed by wackos? Fuck you and fuck that! Ni dieu ni maitre! Ain’t fucking responsible for people being stupid and if I’m going to suffer their idioty, I’ll make damn sure they’ll suffer me pointing how much of idiots they are.

    3. All organizations are neither good or bad.

    You fruity liberal, satus quo loving, idiot, of course there are some organizations that are good and others that are bad. I’ll admit, it’s never something totally black and white and there’s alot of grey zone inside those movements, but it’s safe to say that some organizations are more evil than other: You wouldn’t want the nazis or any religious extremist groups to rule the world don’t you? I’m just opposed to organizations that beleive in crap THAT DEFY THE LAW OF PHYSICS OR LOGIC and could potentially justify any bullshits under the guise of religion, like pedophilia or the interdiction of certain medical treatments. Organizations, in order to be “good” in my perception, need to be logic, supertition free and deeply, deeply humanist. Some actually exist! Like “médecins sans frontière”. The lack of logic or realism always lead to horrible excess.

  • JV

    There is no god. So stop worrying about it and do something with your life like make a thought provoking movie for 30 million that destroys the biggest blockbuster movies on so many levels.

  • JV

    There is no god. So stop worrying about it and do something with your life like make a thought provoking movie for 30 million that destroys the biggest blockbuster movies on so many levels.

  • JV

    There is no god. So stop worrying about it and do something with your life like make a thought provoking movie for 30 million that destroys the biggest blockbuster movies on so many levels.

  • Steve

    @152
    > “He made us in his own image”
    > Am I the only one who things that this phrase was not meant to be taken literally.

    No, you are not. In my experience it is becoming the more common belief in Christianity, especially Christians who are attempting to reconcile their faith with what science has showed up about the world, that “in his own image” refers to Free Will, not two arms, two legs and a head, varying colors of pin-tan-brown skin. Crap, only but the most ignorant head-in-the-sand bible thumpers takes the creation as a word for word dictation of events. It is, at best, metaphor transcribed by people who lacked the scientific understanding of images they were given.

    @161
    >”There is no god.”

    Prove it.
    We call the belief in God Faith, because it cannot be proven or disproven. Scientific procedure dictates that a theory cannot be dismissed until it is conclusively proven or disproven beyond.
    And don’t pull the bullshit about “I don’t see God, so he isn’t there”. You cannot see Quarks and they are there. We didn’t have the technology ot see Quarks up until 1990’s, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t exist before then.
    So I say again, Prove it.

  • Steve

    @152
    > “He made us in his own image”
    > Am I the only one who things that this phrase was not meant to be taken literally.

    No, you are not. In my experience it is becoming the more common belief in Christianity, especially Christians who are attempting to reconcile their faith with what science has showed up about the world, that “in his own image” refers to Free Will, not two arms, two legs and a head, varying colors of pin-tan-brown skin. Crap, only but the most ignorant head-in-the-sand bible thumpers takes the creation as a word for word dictation of events. It is, at best, metaphor transcribed by people who lacked the scientific understanding of images they were given.

    @161
    >”There is no god.”

    Prove it.
    We call the belief in God Faith, because it cannot be proven or disproven. Scientific procedure dictates that a theory cannot be dismissed until it is conclusively proven or disproven beyond.
    And don’t pull the bullshit about “I don’t see God, so he isn’t there”. You cannot see Quarks and they are there. We didn’t have the technology ot see Quarks up until 1990’s, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t exist before then.
    So I say again, Prove it.

  • Steve

    @152
    > “He made us in his own image”
    > Am I the only one who things that this phrase was not meant to be taken literally.

    No, you are not. In my experience it is becoming the more common belief in Christianity, especially Christians who are attempting to reconcile their faith with what science has showed up about the world, that “in his own image” refers to Free Will, not two arms, two legs and a head, varying colors of pin-tan-brown skin. Crap, only but the most ignorant head-in-the-sand bible thumpers takes the creation as a word for word dictation of events. It is, at best, metaphor transcribed by people who lacked the scientific understanding of images they were given.

    @161
    >”There is no god.”

    Prove it.
    We call the belief in God Faith, because it cannot be proven or disproven. Scientific procedure dictates that a theory cannot be dismissed until it is conclusively proven or disproven beyond.
    And don’t pull the bullshit about “I don’t see God, so he isn’t there”. You cannot see Quarks and they are there. We didn’t have the technology ot see Quarks up until 1990’s, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t exist before then.
    So I say again, Prove it.

  • Booze Zombie

    Steve, why should anyone have to prove God exists?
    The only way we even know God exists are by human words, there are no mystical, super-etched words in a mountain saying “I exist, MOTHER FUCKERS”, we humans created God and apparently the general science-hating populace just likes the antiquated belief that a creator (who created him?) exists, which they can go for, so long as it doesn’t effect me with Christian-mafia anti-atheism.

  • Booze Zombie

    Steve, why should anyone have to prove God exists?
    The only way we even know God exists are by human words, there are no mystical, super-etched words in a mountain saying “I exist, MOTHER FUCKERS”, we humans created God and apparently the general science-hating populace just likes the antiquated belief that a creator (who created him?) exists, which they can go for, so long as it doesn’t effect me with Christian-mafia anti-atheism.

  • Booze Zombie

    Steve, why should anyone have to prove God exists?
    The only way we even know God exists are by human words, there are no mystical, super-etched words in a mountain saying “I exist, MOTHER FUCKERS”, we humans created God and apparently the general science-hating populace just likes the antiquated belief that a creator (who created him?) exists, which they can go for, so long as it doesn’t effect me with Christian-mafia anti-atheism.

  • TheZapper

    @162:
    The ususal response to your challenge would be: PROVE that unicorns, bigfoot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster don’t exist. Also I hope that, from your apparently agnostic perspective, any claim that god *does* exist (routinely made by most religious persons, including the ones on this thread) elicits an equal response.
    Furthermore, the difference between god and quarks is that quarks were first theorized to exist to scientific reasoning – with god, it’s actually quite the opposite. Also, we *can* “see” quarks. God, by definition, can *never* be “seen”.

  • TheZapper

    @162:
    The ususal response to your challenge would be: PROVE that unicorns, bigfoot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster don’t exist. Also I hope that, from your apparently agnostic perspective, any claim that god *does* exist (routinely made by most religious persons, including the ones on this thread) elicits an equal response.
    Furthermore, the difference between god and quarks is that quarks were first theorized to exist to scientific reasoning – with god, it’s actually quite the opposite. Also, we *can* “see” quarks. God, by definition, can *never* be “seen”.

  • TheZapper

    @162:
    The ususal response to your challenge would be: PROVE that unicorns, bigfoot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster don’t exist. Also I hope that, from your apparently agnostic perspective, any claim that god *does* exist (routinely made by most religious persons, including the ones on this thread) elicits an equal response.
    Furthermore, the difference between god and quarks is that quarks were first theorized to exist to scientific reasoning – with god, it’s actually quite the opposite. Also, we *can* “see” quarks. God, by definition, can *never* be “seen”.

  • Max

    Wow, that documentary idea concerning religion sounds seriously kick ass.

  • Max

    Wow, that documentary idea concerning religion sounds seriously kick ass.

  • Max

    Wow, that documentary idea concerning religion sounds seriously kick ass.

  • chrismcgowan

    even though the apartheid thing is very obvious and some people might feel like it’s no longer relevant now that apartheid has ended. but forms of apartheid or racial segregation live on in many parts of the world.
    making the connection to south african apartheid is an easier way to make a commentary on the practice of racial segregation than connecting the movie to a form of oppression that is still ongoing.
    it only follows logically to go from drawing the connection to south african apartheid, to what still goes on in sudan or israel.

  • chrismcgowan

    even though the apartheid thing is very obvious and some people might feel like it’s no longer relevant now that apartheid has ended. but forms of apartheid or racial segregation live on in many parts of the world.
    making the connection to south african apartheid is an easier way to make a commentary on the practice of racial segregation than connecting the movie to a form of oppression that is still ongoing.
    it only follows logically to go from drawing the connection to south african apartheid, to what still goes on in sudan or israel.

  • chrismcgowan

    even though the apartheid thing is very obvious and some people might feel like it’s no longer relevant now that apartheid has ended. but forms of apartheid or racial segregation live on in many parts of the world.
    making the connection to south african apartheid is an easier way to make a commentary on the practice of racial segregation than connecting the movie to a form of oppression that is still ongoing.
    it only follows logically to go from drawing the connection to south african apartheid, to what still goes on in sudan or israel.

  • chrismcgowan

    “Don’t single out humanity as an “awful” race simply because we exhibit the same violent tenancies as any other living organism in nature.”‘
    why not? wolves and bears and weasels aren’t intelligent. they haven’t got the intellectual capacity to reflect on the way they live.
    human beings have no need to be cruel or violent to each other,or even to animals. we can comfortably survive without hurting anyone.
    we are quite thoroughly above the brutality of nature. but unfortunately many of us choose not to exercise control over their urges.

  • chrismcgowan

    “Don’t single out humanity as an “awful” race simply because we exhibit the same violent tenancies as any other living organism in nature.”‘
    why not? wolves and bears and weasels aren’t intelligent. they haven’t got the intellectual capacity to reflect on the way they live.
    human beings have no need to be cruel or violent to each other,or even to animals. we can comfortably survive without hurting anyone.
    we are quite thoroughly above the brutality of nature. but unfortunately many of us choose not to exercise control over their urges.

  • chrismcgowan

    “Don’t single out humanity as an “awful” race simply because we exhibit the same violent tenancies as any other living organism in nature.”‘
    why not? wolves and bears and weasels aren’t intelligent. they haven’t got the intellectual capacity to reflect on the way they live.
    human beings have no need to be cruel or violent to each other,or even to animals. we can comfortably survive without hurting anyone.
    we are quite thoroughly above the brutality of nature. but unfortunately many of us choose not to exercise control over their urges.

  • chrismcgowan

    “Seriously, it seems idiots like “theo” think they’re smarter than another person because they have faith in a religion and he doesn’t. It people like “theo” who claim moronic crap like: “Religion is bad, Man! I don’t conform to the church, Man! I fight any form of establishment, Man! I’m not religious, I’m SPIRITUAL, Man!” Dude, SHUT UP! You sound like a tool when you attack a person’s faith and intelligence, just because they have a different opinion than your own. If you did some research instead of run your mouth you’d learn that several major religions are not opposed to the idea of extra-terrestrial life. Just because someone possesses a different opinion than you, that doesn’t mean they’re stupid.”
    quoted for irony’s sake

  • chrismcgowan

    “Seriously, it seems idiots like “theo” think they’re smarter than another person because they have faith in a religion and he doesn’t. It people like “theo” who claim moronic crap like: “Religion is bad, Man! I don’t conform to the church, Man! I fight any form of establishment, Man! I’m not religious, I’m SPIRITUAL, Man!” Dude, SHUT UP! You sound like a tool when you attack a person’s faith and intelligence, just because they have a different opinion than your own. If you did some research instead of run your mouth you’d learn that several major religions are not opposed to the idea of extra-terrestrial life. Just because someone possesses a different opinion than you, that doesn’t mean they’re stupid.”
    quoted for irony’s sake

  • chrismcgowan

    “Seriously, it seems idiots like “theo” think they’re smarter than another person because they have faith in a religion and he doesn’t. It people like “theo” who claim moronic crap like: “Religion is bad, Man! I don’t conform to the church, Man! I fight any form of establishment, Man! I’m not religious, I’m SPIRITUAL, Man!” Dude, SHUT UP! You sound like a tool when you attack a person’s faith and intelligence, just because they have a different opinion than your own. If you did some research instead of run your mouth you’d learn that several major religions are not opposed to the idea of extra-terrestrial life. Just because someone possesses a different opinion than you, that doesn’t mean they’re stupid.”
    quoted for irony’s sake

  • chrismcgowan

    many of you have made the assertion that catholics or whoever would accept the aliens as children of god.
    i agree with what i think spoony said originally, that the mainstream of christianity would adapt to the existence of aliens, just like they have adapted to a heliocentric universe, evolution, and all that stuff. but certainly we all know — or at least have heard of — a certain stripe of religious person who is unable to cope with what they see as a contradiction of their faith.
    what form their rejection of the aliens would take i have no idea, but i really don’t think it would have made a particularly interesting part of this movie. i think maybe 90 seconds spent on the subject is really all you need to go “yep crazy fundamentalists sure do react to new information in crazy ways”.

  • chrismcgowan

    many of you have made the assertion that catholics or whoever would accept the aliens as children of god.
    i agree with what i think spoony said originally, that the mainstream of christianity would adapt to the existence of aliens, just like they have adapted to a heliocentric universe, evolution, and all that stuff. but certainly we all know — or at least have heard of — a certain stripe of religious person who is unable to cope with what they see as a contradiction of their faith.
    what form their rejection of the aliens would take i have no idea, but i really don’t think it would have made a particularly interesting part of this movie. i think maybe 90 seconds spent on the subject is really all you need to go “yep crazy fundamentalists sure do react to new information in crazy ways”.

  • chrismcgowan

    many of you have made the assertion that catholics or whoever would accept the aliens as children of god.
    i agree with what i think spoony said originally, that the mainstream of christianity would adapt to the existence of aliens, just like they have adapted to a heliocentric universe, evolution, and all that stuff. but certainly we all know — or at least have heard of — a certain stripe of religious person who is unable to cope with what they see as a contradiction of their faith.
    what form their rejection of the aliens would take i have no idea, but i really don’t think it would have made a particularly interesting part of this movie. i think maybe 90 seconds spent on the subject is really all you need to go “yep crazy fundamentalists sure do react to new information in crazy ways”.

  • chrismcgowan

    “the closet scientific beleif we have for it basically says the entire universe came about by chance”
    not that i’m trying to argue against religion or anything, but the big bang theory, which is what i assume you’re talking about, is a theory that the universe came out of a chemical reaction. that’s technically the opposite of “by chance”.

  • chrismcgowan

    “the closet scientific beleif we have for it basically says the entire universe came about by chance”
    not that i’m trying to argue against religion or anything, but the big bang theory, which is what i assume you’re talking about, is a theory that the universe came out of a chemical reaction. that’s technically the opposite of “by chance”.

  • chrismcgowan

    “the closet scientific beleif we have for it basically says the entire universe came about by chance”
    not that i’m trying to argue against religion or anything, but the big bang theory, which is what i assume you’re talking about, is a theory that the universe came out of a chemical reaction. that’s technically the opposite of “by chance”.

  • Thomas

    Thanks for clarifying that, I wasn’t too positive on that. I’ll read more upon that later.

    IMO, the only proof we need that a god exists is in the utter complexity of life, and the fact that while everything probably seems random, it really isn’t.

    I also once heard that music proved there was a god, because there was no reason whatsoever for music to come about evolution-wise, but it did nonetheless. Not really sure what to make of that.

  • Thomas

    Thanks for clarifying that, I wasn’t too positive on that. I’ll read more upon that later.

    IMO, the only proof we need that a god exists is in the utter complexity of life, and the fact that while everything probably seems random, it really isn’t.

    I also once heard that music proved there was a god, because there was no reason whatsoever for music to come about evolution-wise, but it did nonetheless. Not really sure what to make of that.

  • Thomas

    Thanks for clarifying that, I wasn’t too positive on that. I’ll read more upon that later.

    IMO, the only proof we need that a god exists is in the utter complexity of life, and the fact that while everything probably seems random, it really isn’t.

    I also once heard that music proved there was a god, because there was no reason whatsoever for music to come about evolution-wise, but it did nonetheless. Not really sure what to make of that.

  • Yogurt

    Well, there goes another potential discussion…down like a burning blimp.

    These kinds of discussions never go well do they? Sure, they start out great. People from both sides (religious and non-religious, in today’s case) share ideas and have a nice chat.

    But then you get more trolls than a D&D campaign.

    For my part? I don’t really think that the arrival of aliens would affect human religions all that much. In fact, C.S. Lewis wrote about a similar idea in his essay, “Religion and Rocketry”.

    In fact, I’ve been reading Micheal Flynn’s “Eifelheim” which deals with that very subject–with a twist.

    Oh well….

  • Yogurt

    Well, there goes another potential discussion…down like a burning blimp.

    These kinds of discussions never go well do they? Sure, they start out great. People from both sides (religious and non-religious, in today’s case) share ideas and have a nice chat.

    But then you get more trolls than a D&D campaign.

    For my part? I don’t really think that the arrival of aliens would affect human religions all that much. In fact, C.S. Lewis wrote about a similar idea in his essay, “Religion and Rocketry”.

    In fact, I’ve been reading Micheal Flynn’s “Eifelheim” which deals with that very subject–with a twist.

    Oh well….

  • Yogurt

    Well, there goes another potential discussion…down like a burning blimp.

    These kinds of discussions never go well do they? Sure, they start out great. People from both sides (religious and non-religious, in today’s case) share ideas and have a nice chat.

    But then you get more trolls than a D&D campaign.

    For my part? I don’t really think that the arrival of aliens would affect human religions all that much. In fact, C.S. Lewis wrote about a similar idea in his essay, “Religion and Rocketry”.

    In fact, I’ve been reading Micheal Flynn’s “Eifelheim” which deals with that very subject–with a twist.

    Oh well….

  • Thomas

    Actually, I’m reminded of “Speaker for the Dead” when I think of the topic.

  • Thomas

    Actually, I’m reminded of “Speaker for the Dead” when I think of the topic.

  • Thomas

    Actually, I’m reminded of “Speaker for the Dead” when I think of the topic.

  • JustSayin’

    #148
    “If you take a pair of strangers beat on them a little and starve them for two weeks, you start to get the real human animal. Now take those two starving men put in a room with a hamburger and a knife and what do you honestly think will happen? Will they find religion and cut the burger in half and share? Or will one kill the other to get all that he wants?”-fzii

    Well the inmates of Auschwitz, Dachou, and the rest didn’t turn on each other and do himmler’s work for him.

  • JustSayin’

    #148
    “If you take a pair of strangers beat on them a little and starve them for two weeks, you start to get the real human animal. Now take those two starving men put in a room with a hamburger and a knife and what do you honestly think will happen? Will they find religion and cut the burger in half and share? Or will one kill the other to get all that he wants?”-fzii

    Well the inmates of Auschwitz, Dachou, and the rest didn’t turn on each other and do himmler’s work for him.

  • Disthron

    I don’t think there would be wide spred panic for religios resons. At least not in the way that Spoony seems to think. Some might be conserned that it’s an invasion or something. Like someone said above, also my Dad has told me, the bible deals with the history of earth. So God could have made other planets after or before ours. I remember one convesation I had where someone said that if aliens came to earth and had the same religion as us that it would be a very compelling argument for that religion. He wonderd if Jesus had to be sacrefised on all the othere inhabited worlds. I made the point that maybe other species passed the “Tree of Knowlage” test and thus would remain “perfect”.

    Some one above wonted some proof that religion is bad. Well, in modern times there is the hole aids epidemic in africa. The church has been spreding propaganda about people getting aids from the use of condoms and generaly trying everything they can to stop people from using them. Then theres the hole harbering child molesters thing. There was the Holocost in World War 2, a lot of people seem to think that Hitler was an atheist…but he was a stornch Christian. I realise that some like Ray Comfort think that Catholics are not “true” Christians but that’s just going into the “no true scotsman” falacy. Then going back further there were the witch burnings in Salum, though that is just a famus case there were meany others in Britain and around the world. There were the Holy Inqusition, a lot of people seemed to have forgotten about that one. A lot of people got tortured and murrderd for being jews. And that’s just Christianity.

    Now I realise that most Christians are decent people, but you can’t claim that religion is not a bad influence without disregarding the history of it.

    All in all, I liked the movie but I would have liked to see some more good representations of us humans. I know were not all lollypops and rainbows but were not all flesheating sychopaths ether.

  • Disthron

    I don’t think there would be wide spred panic for religios resons. At least not in the way that Spoony seems to think. Some might be conserned that it’s an invasion or something. Like someone said above, also my Dad has told me, the bible deals with the history of earth. So God could have made other planets after or before ours. I remember one convesation I had where someone said that if aliens came to earth and had the same religion as us that it would be a very compelling argument for that religion. He wonderd if Jesus had to be sacrefised on all the othere inhabited worlds. I made the point that maybe other species passed the “Tree of Knowlage” test and thus would remain “perfect”.

    Some one above wonted some proof that religion is bad. Well, in modern times there is the hole aids epidemic in africa. The church has been spreding propaganda about people getting aids from the use of condoms and generaly trying everything they can to stop people from using them. Then theres the hole harbering child molesters thing. There was the Holocost in World War 2, a lot of people seem to think that Hitler was an atheist…but he was a stornch Christian. I realise that some like Ray Comfort think that Catholics are not “true” Christians but that’s just going into the “no true scotsman” falacy. Then going back further there were the witch burnings in Salum, though that is just a famus case there were meany others in Britain and around the world. There were the Holy Inqusition, a lot of people seemed to have forgotten about that one. A lot of people got tortured and murrderd for being jews. And that’s just Christianity.

    Now I realise that most Christians are decent people, but you can’t claim that religion is not a bad influence without disregarding the history of it.

    All in all, I liked the movie but I would have liked to see some more good representations of us humans. I know were not all lollypops and rainbows but were not all flesheating sychopaths ether.

  • Disthron

    I don’t think there would be wide spred panic for religios resons. At least not in the way that Spoony seems to think. Some might be conserned that it’s an invasion or something. Like someone said above, also my Dad has told me, the bible deals with the history of earth. So God could have made other planets after or before ours. I remember one convesation I had where someone said that if aliens came to earth and had the same religion as us that it would be a very compelling argument for that religion. He wonderd if Jesus had to be sacrefised on all the othere inhabited worlds. I made the point that maybe other species passed the “Tree of Knowlage” test and thus would remain “perfect”.

    Some one above wonted some proof that religion is bad. Well, in modern times there is the hole aids epidemic in africa. The church has been spreding propaganda about people getting aids from the use of condoms and generaly trying everything they can to stop people from using them. Then theres the hole harbering child molesters thing. There was the Holocost in World War 2, a lot of people seem to think that Hitler was an atheist…but he was a stornch Christian. I realise that some like Ray Comfort think that Catholics are not “true” Christians but that’s just going into the “no true scotsman” falacy. Then going back further there were the witch burnings in Salum, though that is just a famus case there were meany others in Britain and around the world. There were the Holy Inqusition, a lot of people seemed to have forgotten about that one. A lot of people got tortured and murrderd for being jews. And that’s just Christianity.

    Now I realise that most Christians are decent people, but you can’t claim that religion is not a bad influence without disregarding the history of it.

    All in all, I liked the movie but I would have liked to see some more good representations of us humans. I know were not all lollypops and rainbows but were not all flesheating sychopaths ether.

  • JustSayin’

    #175
    “Holocost in World War 2, a lot of people seem to think that Hitler was an atheist…but he was a stornch Christian”-Disthron

    Seriously reading this was my only “WTF?!” moment in all 175 posts.

  • JustSayin’

    #175
    “Holocost in World War 2, a lot of people seem to think that Hitler was an atheist…but he was a stornch Christian”-Disthron

    Seriously reading this was my only “WTF?!” moment in all 175 posts.

  • JustSayin’

    #175
    “Holocost in World War 2, a lot of people seem to think that Hitler was an atheist…but he was a stornch Christian”-Disthron

    Seriously reading this was my only “WTF?!” moment in all 175 posts.

  • Virgil0211

    @176: Actually, that’s true. The majority of German Nazis were catholic. I mean, the belt buckle of the SS had a swastika embroidered with the words “Gott mit uns” (God with us).

    “Just as the Jew could once incite the mob of Jerusalem against Christ, so today he must succeed in inciting folk who have been duped into madness to attack those who, God’s truth! seek to deal with this people in utter honesty and sincerity.”

    -Adolf Hitler, in Munich, 28 July 1922

    “We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls…. We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity… in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people.”

    -Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Passau, 27 October 1928, Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall’s The Holy Reich]

    “Providence has caused me to be Catholic, and I know therefore how to handle this Church.”

    -Adolf Hitler, reportedly to have said in Berlin in 1936 on the enmity of the Catholic Church to National Socialism

    “National Socialism is not a cult-movement– a movement for worship; it is exclusively a ‘volkic’ political doctrine based upon racial principles. In its purpose there is no mystic cult, only the care and leadership of a people defined by a common blood-relationship…. We will not allow mystically-minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else– in any case something which has nothing to do with us. At the head of our programme there stand no secret surmisings but clear-cut perception and straightforward profession of belief. But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will– not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord…. Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed. Our humility is the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so far as they are known to us men.”

    -Adolf Hitler, in Nuremberg on 6 Sept. 1938.

    [Some have accused Hitler of believing in pagan cult mythology. Here he clearly expresses his stand against cults and reinforces his Christian views.]

    “Thus one of Europe’s most serious crises will be ended, and all of us, not only in Germany but those far beyond our frontiers, will then in this year for the first time really rejoice at the Christmas festival. It should for us all be a true Festival of Peace….”

    -Adolf Hitler, in Berlin, 05 Oct. 1938

    [This statement disputes some who claim that Hitler outlawed Christmas.]

  • Virgil0211

    @176: Actually, that’s true. The majority of German Nazis were catholic. I mean, the belt buckle of the SS had a swastika embroidered with the words “Gott mit uns” (God with us).

    “Just as the Jew could once incite the mob of Jerusalem against Christ, so today he must succeed in inciting folk who have been duped into madness to attack those who, God’s truth! seek to deal with this people in utter honesty and sincerity.”

    -Adolf Hitler, in Munich, 28 July 1922

    “We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls…. We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity… in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people.”

    -Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Passau, 27 October 1928, Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall’s The Holy Reich]

    “Providence has caused me to be Catholic, and I know therefore how to handle this Church.”

    -Adolf Hitler, reportedly to have said in Berlin in 1936 on the enmity of the Catholic Church to National Socialism

    “National Socialism is not a cult-movement– a movement for worship; it is exclusively a ‘volkic’ political doctrine based upon racial principles. In its purpose there is no mystic cult, only the care and leadership of a people defined by a common blood-relationship…. We will not allow mystically-minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else– in any case something which has nothing to do with us. At the head of our programme there stand no secret surmisings but clear-cut perception and straightforward profession of belief. But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will– not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord…. Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed. Our humility is the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so far as they are known to us men.”

    -Adolf Hitler, in Nuremberg on 6 Sept. 1938.

    [Some have accused Hitler of believing in pagan cult mythology. Here he clearly expresses his stand against cults and reinforces his Christian views.]

    “Thus one of Europe’s most serious crises will be ended, and all of us, not only in Germany but those far beyond our frontiers, will then in this year for the first time really rejoice at the Christmas festival. It should for us all be a true Festival of Peace….”

    -Adolf Hitler, in Berlin, 05 Oct. 1938

    [This statement disputes some who claim that Hitler outlawed Christmas.]

  • Virgil0211

    @176: Actually, that’s true. The majority of German Nazis were catholic. I mean, the belt buckle of the SS had a swastika embroidered with the words “Gott mit uns” (God with us).

    “Just as the Jew could once incite the mob of Jerusalem against Christ, so today he must succeed in inciting folk who have been duped into madness to attack those who, God’s truth! seek to deal with this people in utter honesty and sincerity.”

    -Adolf Hitler, in Munich, 28 July 1922

    “We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls…. We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity… in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people.”

    -Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Passau, 27 October 1928, Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall’s The Holy Reich]

    “Providence has caused me to be Catholic, and I know therefore how to handle this Church.”

    -Adolf Hitler, reportedly to have said in Berlin in 1936 on the enmity of the Catholic Church to National Socialism

    “National Socialism is not a cult-movement– a movement for worship; it is exclusively a ‘volkic’ political doctrine based upon racial principles. In its purpose there is no mystic cult, only the care and leadership of a people defined by a common blood-relationship…. We will not allow mystically-minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else– in any case something which has nothing to do with us. At the head of our programme there stand no secret surmisings but clear-cut perception and straightforward profession of belief. But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will– not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord…. Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed. Our humility is the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so far as they are known to us men.”

    -Adolf Hitler, in Nuremberg on 6 Sept. 1938.

    [Some have accused Hitler of believing in pagan cult mythology. Here he clearly expresses his stand against cults and reinforces his Christian views.]

    “Thus one of Europe’s most serious crises will be ended, and all of us, not only in Germany but those far beyond our frontiers, will then in this year for the first time really rejoice at the Christmas festival. It should for us all be a true Festival of Peace….”

    -Adolf Hitler, in Berlin, 05 Oct. 1938

    [This statement disputes some who claim that Hitler outlawed Christmas.]

  • freemonty

    Give me one piece of evidence for god’s existence that doesn’t boil down to “I have a hunch” or “my favorite holy book proves its own trustworthiness because I say it does” circular logic, and I won’t tell you religion is a waste of time.

    Really, that’s all that needs to be said on that topic. Can you provide evidence for your beliefs? If not, don’t try to convince anyone of their validity. Some here should try it some time, rather than foaming at the mouth because there just happen to be atheists and skeptics in the room.

    And theo, you probably should stop making yourself look so crass. It doesn’t help as much as you would think.

  • freemonty

    Give me one piece of evidence for god’s existence that doesn’t boil down to “I have a hunch” or “my favorite holy book proves its own trustworthiness because I say it does” circular logic, and I won’t tell you religion is a waste of time.

    Really, that’s all that needs to be said on that topic. Can you provide evidence for your beliefs? If not, don’t try to convince anyone of their validity. Some here should try it some time, rather than foaming at the mouth because there just happen to be atheists and skeptics in the room.

    And theo, you probably should stop making yourself look so crass. It doesn’t help as much as you would think.

  • freemonty

    Give me one piece of evidence for god’s existence that doesn’t boil down to “I have a hunch” or “my favorite holy book proves its own trustworthiness because I say it does” circular logic, and I won’t tell you religion is a waste of time.

    Really, that’s all that needs to be said on that topic. Can you provide evidence for your beliefs? If not, don’t try to convince anyone of their validity. Some here should try it some time, rather than foaming at the mouth because there just happen to be atheists and skeptics in the room.

    And theo, you probably should stop making yourself look so crass. It doesn’t help as much as you would think.

  • Darephony

    The cataclysm of faith thing was covered by Linkara and his review of that X-men comic about a cuckoo plot involving killer communion waters, right? It… just doesn’t work that way, Spoony. The logic behind it is laughable at best.

  • Darephony

    The cataclysm of faith thing was covered by Linkara and his review of that X-men comic about a cuckoo plot involving killer communion waters, right? It… just doesn’t work that way, Spoony. The logic behind it is laughable at best.

  • Darephony

    The cataclysm of faith thing was covered by Linkara and his review of that X-men comic about a cuckoo plot involving killer communion waters, right? It… just doesn’t work that way, Spoony. The logic behind it is laughable at best.

  • theo

    @178 freemonty

    So crass? I’m just replying with the same level of politness and class that my detractors use. And it can’t be “helped” anyway. Like a group of pedophiles that try to reassure each others that they’re not a bunch of sickos, religious people reassure each others that they’re not a bunch of culties following static, outdated, dangerous mindsets (that also involve sometime (read often) pedophilia).

    I could politly criticized them or insult the fuck out of them, it really doesn’t matter: they will always resort to ad hominem, dodge the issue of the illogism of faith by telling you how they’re cults are so awesomly progressive because they allow them a little more freedom than before (which, btw, totally redeem the whole aspect of the arbitary authoritarian religious “ethic” shoved down the throat of vulnerable people like kids in the first place) or play the victimisation card by denouncing how much of an intelorant persecutor you are for calling balls on their crap. So, I go with insulting those idiots because this is the internet and It’s quite liberating, I really wouldn’t be able to get away with this IRL and this is why I love this medium so much. You should try it.

  • theo

    @178 freemonty

    So crass? I’m just replying with the same level of politness and class that my detractors use. And it can’t be “helped” anyway. Like a group of pedophiles that try to reassure each others that they’re not a bunch of sickos, religious people reassure each others that they’re not a bunch of culties following static, outdated, dangerous mindsets (that also involve sometime (read often) pedophilia).

    I could politly criticized them or insult the fuck out of them, it really doesn’t matter: they will always resort to ad hominem, dodge the issue of the illogism of faith by telling you how they’re cults are so awesomly progressive because they allow them a little more freedom than before (which, btw, totally redeem the whole aspect of the arbitary authoritarian religious “ethic” shoved down the throat of vulnerable people like kids in the first place) or play the victimisation card by denouncing how much of an intelorant persecutor you are for calling balls on their crap. So, I go with insulting those idiots because this is the internet and It’s quite liberating, I really wouldn’t be able to get away with this IRL and this is why I love this medium so much. You should try it.

  • theo

    @178 freemonty

    So crass? I’m just replying with the same level of politness and class that my detractors use. And it can’t be “helped” anyway. Like a group of pedophiles that try to reassure each others that they’re not a bunch of sickos, religious people reassure each others that they’re not a bunch of culties following static, outdated, dangerous mindsets (that also involve sometime (read often) pedophilia).

    I could politly criticized them or insult the fuck out of them, it really doesn’t matter: they will always resort to ad hominem, dodge the issue of the illogism of faith by telling you how they’re cults are so awesomly progressive because they allow them a little more freedom than before (which, btw, totally redeem the whole aspect of the arbitary authoritarian religious “ethic” shoved down the throat of vulnerable people like kids in the first place) or play the victimisation card by denouncing how much of an intelorant persecutor you are for calling balls on their crap. So, I go with insulting those idiots because this is the internet and It’s quite liberating, I really wouldn’t be able to get away with this IRL and this is why I love this medium so much. You should try it.

  • Matty James

    @171 What? There’s plenty of science as to why music exists. I won’t get into it, but at it’s base level, it comes dow to vibrations. There’s also science to why people may find different music pleasing, which deals with the individual’s ears. There’s a bit of psychology to it too.

    @ some people on here, pull your heads out of your asses. “God created man in his own image isn’t literal; it means free will.” Really? I mean, if that was how it was written and it wasn’t elaborated by it’s writer, you can actually tell what it meant? Did God whisper in your ear? Did he touch while he did it? Okay, kidding about the last, but seriously, what’s this free will bullshit. As I understand it, other animals have ‘free will’ as well even though none of us really indulges in ‘free will’. There is really no difference between humans and animals. We eat, we sleep, we shit, we fuck. All that we do is a hyper-complex form of what other animals do. Also, I don’t think God is very special if a majority of mankind is supposed to be a representation of it. Especially with this ‘free will’ theory.

    Religion doesn’t exist for the better. It exists to buld walls around the fragile mind. Each person has their own religion, even if they’d like to label something else that everyone else does. That is why they can believe in it so passionately. I don’t expect some people to understand when I say “each person has their own religion”, but let it settle into your mind. You’ll understand.

  • Matty James

    @171 What? There’s plenty of science as to why music exists. I won’t get into it, but at it’s base level, it comes dow to vibrations. There’s also science to why people may find different music pleasing, which deals with the individual’s ears. There’s a bit of psychology to it too.

    @ some people on here, pull your heads out of your asses. “God created man in his own image isn’t literal; it means free will.” Really? I mean, if that was how it was written and it wasn’t elaborated by it’s writer, you can actually tell what it meant? Did God whisper in your ear? Did he touch while he did it? Okay, kidding about the last, but seriously, what’s this free will bullshit. As I understand it, other animals have ‘free will’ as well even though none of us really indulges in ‘free will’. There is really no difference between humans and animals. We eat, we sleep, we shit, we fuck. All that we do is a hyper-complex form of what other animals do. Also, I don’t think God is very special if a majority of mankind is supposed to be a representation of it. Especially with this ‘free will’ theory.

    Religion doesn’t exist for the better. It exists to buld walls around the fragile mind. Each person has their own religion, even if they’d like to label something else that everyone else does. That is why they can believe in it so passionately. I don’t expect some people to understand when I say “each person has their own religion”, but let it settle into your mind. You’ll understand.

  • Matty James

    @171 What? There’s plenty of science as to why music exists. I won’t get into it, but at it’s base level, it comes dow to vibrations. There’s also science to why people may find different music pleasing, which deals with the individual’s ears. There’s a bit of psychology to it too.

    @ some people on here, pull your heads out of your asses. “God created man in his own image isn’t literal; it means free will.” Really? I mean, if that was how it was written and it wasn’t elaborated by it’s writer, you can actually tell what it meant? Did God whisper in your ear? Did he touch while he did it? Okay, kidding about the last, but seriously, what’s this free will bullshit. As I understand it, other animals have ‘free will’ as well even though none of us really indulges in ‘free will’. There is really no difference between humans and animals. We eat, we sleep, we shit, we fuck. All that we do is a hyper-complex form of what other animals do. Also, I don’t think God is very special if a majority of mankind is supposed to be a representation of it. Especially with this ‘free will’ theory.

    Religion doesn’t exist for the better. It exists to buld walls around the fragile mind. Each person has their own religion, even if they’d like to label something else that everyone else does. That is why they can believe in it so passionately. I don’t expect some people to understand when I say “each person has their own religion”, but let it settle into your mind. You’ll understand.

  • The Dude Abides

    Wow, I love how this movie inspires these discussions. There is a lot to be said about the little plot holes and inconsistencies, but to be fair – and you already mentioned this before – to stick entirely with a documentary style approach would have turned the movie into something completely different all together. It would have been really hard to show the truth that’s happening behind the camera versus what is being fed to the public.

    PJ said in an interview that he considers it “just” entertainment and not to be taken seriously, but seeing how it provokes people to have these fundamental discussions I think more movies should have that effect on the movie going populous.

    As to the religious aspects – well, maybe I just turned too New Age over the years of dealing with religious views – I just came to interpret the “In his own image” as we are all God looking him/herself, experiencing him/herself. We’re all one gigantic being that lives under the impression that we’re all separated by… air?… and ultimately that ones’ misery affects others as well in the long run. The freedom of choice aspect comes in too, but brings with itself this whole responsibility thing that no one really seems to be able to handle. Well, our society does not promote personal responsibility… but that’s another discussion.

    In what the movie definitely failed was the creatures themselves. Sure there are some smart ones, but I still believe that society as a whole would have to evolve into something more than the depicted low brain trash heap muncher to create something as scientifically profound as hyperspace travel. But I sure liked the Mec and the Tesla gun ;-)

  • The Dude Abides

    Wow, I love how this movie inspires these discussions. There is a lot to be said about the little plot holes and inconsistencies, but to be fair – and you already mentioned this before – to stick entirely with a documentary style approach would have turned the movie into something completely different all together. It would have been really hard to show the truth that’s happening behind the camera versus what is being fed to the public.

    PJ said in an interview that he considers it “just” entertainment and not to be taken seriously, but seeing how it provokes people to have these fundamental discussions I think more movies should have that effect on the movie going populous.

    As to the religious aspects – well, maybe I just turned too New Age over the years of dealing with religious views – I just came to interpret the “In his own image” as we are all God looking him/herself, experiencing him/herself. We’re all one gigantic being that lives under the impression that we’re all separated by… air?… and ultimately that ones’ misery affects others as well in the long run. The freedom of choice aspect comes in too, but brings with itself this whole responsibility thing that no one really seems to be able to handle. Well, our society does not promote personal responsibility… but that’s another discussion.

    In what the movie definitely failed was the creatures themselves. Sure there are some smart ones, but I still believe that society as a whole would have to evolve into something more than the depicted low brain trash heap muncher to create something as scientifically profound as hyperspace travel. But I sure liked the Mec and the Tesla gun ;-)

  • The Dude Abides

    Wow, I love how this movie inspires these discussions. There is a lot to be said about the little plot holes and inconsistencies, but to be fair – and you already mentioned this before – to stick entirely with a documentary style approach would have turned the movie into something completely different all together. It would have been really hard to show the truth that’s happening behind the camera versus what is being fed to the public.

    PJ said in an interview that he considers it “just” entertainment and not to be taken seriously, but seeing how it provokes people to have these fundamental discussions I think more movies should have that effect on the movie going populous.

    As to the religious aspects – well, maybe I just turned too New Age over the years of dealing with religious views – I just came to interpret the “In his own image” as we are all God looking him/herself, experiencing him/herself. We’re all one gigantic being that lives under the impression that we’re all separated by… air?… and ultimately that ones’ misery affects others as well in the long run. The freedom of choice aspect comes in too, but brings with itself this whole responsibility thing that no one really seems to be able to handle. Well, our society does not promote personal responsibility… but that’s another discussion.

    In what the movie definitely failed was the creatures themselves. Sure there are some smart ones, but I still believe that society as a whole would have to evolve into something more than the depicted low brain trash heap muncher to create something as scientifically profound as hyperspace travel. But I sure liked the Mec and the Tesla gun ;-)

  • The Dude Abides

    and btw: Man created God in his own image

  • The Dude Abides

    and btw: Man created God in his own image

  • The Dude Abides

    and btw: Man created God in his own image

  • freemonty

    Theo, when I say crass, I really mean stupid. You’re very second comment in his thread was to say “fuck you’re cult and have a bad day” (I’m paraphrasing) You come off right from the start as a hostile pukestain who doesn’t give much thought into his posts and is just out to troll people. I agree with you in principal, but I’m telling you that you aren’t impressing anyone by acting childish. I mean, look at this thread, its a fucking trainwreck, and in part that’s your fault for going on and on and /on/ about how religion is bad ad nausium. In 178 comments, I’m the only atheist here to have actually gone for “what evidence do you have for god?” and that’s a bad sign. You are making the rest of us look bad by acting like an arrogant know-it-all first-to-throw-stones asshat. It isn’t helping, so shut the fuck up!

    Christ, all this over a goddamn movie review. Sometimes its better to drop it for some other day.

  • freemonty

    Theo, when I say crass, I really mean stupid. You’re very second comment in his thread was to say “fuck you’re cult and have a bad day” (I’m paraphrasing) You come off right from the start as a hostile pukestain who doesn’t give much thought into his posts and is just out to troll people. I agree with you in principal, but I’m telling you that you aren’t impressing anyone by acting childish. I mean, look at this thread, its a fucking trainwreck, and in part that’s your fault for going on and on and /on/ about how religion is bad ad nausium. In 178 comments, I’m the only atheist here to have actually gone for “what evidence do you have for god?” and that’s a bad sign. You are making the rest of us look bad by acting like an arrogant know-it-all first-to-throw-stones asshat. It isn’t helping, so shut the fuck up!

    Christ, all this over a goddamn movie review. Sometimes its better to drop it for some other day.

  • freemonty

    “So, I go with insulting those idiots because this is the internet and It’s quite liberating, I really wouldn’t be able to get away with this IRL and this is why I love this medium so much. You should try it.”

    Wait, why did I even bother with my last comment. This is the internet, yes, so I can’t punch you in the soul like I would if you had said this to my face. You. Are. A. Troll. You are what’s wrong with the internet. This isn’t about religion, is it? This is just you pleasing yourself by insulting people. Take the rusty pike out of your ass, and fuck off you worthless shitstain.

  • freemonty

    “So, I go with insulting those idiots because this is the internet and It’s quite liberating, I really wouldn’t be able to get away with this IRL and this is why I love this medium so much. You should try it.”

    Wait, why did I even bother with my last comment. This is the internet, yes, so I can’t punch you in the soul like I would if you had said this to my face. You. Are. A. Troll. You are what’s wrong with the internet. This isn’t about religion, is it? This is just you pleasing yourself by insulting people. Take the rusty pike out of your ass, and fuck off you worthless shitstain.

  • Thomas

    True, there is no direct evidence that a god exists. That’s basically what “faith” means. I know it comes off as complete bull to non-religious people, but can you just leave it at that? Christians are often critisized for trying to make others think their way, but even atheists are guilty of that, with the “prove that god exists” argument.

    Also, religion is not a waste of time. Religion has helped our society advance throughout the centuries, and while it did have some horrible setbacks as well, there were a number of good things as well. You forget that a number of good people act kindly because their religion dictates it, also that a number of charity groups are religious groups.

    Oh, and people who use the Middle Ages as proof that religion is bad forget that the church was incredibly corrupted at that time. That’s why Martin Luther posted his 95 theses and started the Protestant Reformation.

  • Thomas

    True, there is no direct evidence that a god exists. That’s basically what “faith” means. I know it comes off as complete bull to non-religious people, but can you just leave it at that? Christians are often critisized for trying to make others think their way, but even atheists are guilty of that, with the “prove that god exists” argument.

    Also, religion is not a waste of time. Religion has helped our society advance throughout the centuries, and while it did have some horrible setbacks as well, there were a number of good things as well. You forget that a number of good people act kindly because their religion dictates it, also that a number of charity groups are religious groups.

    Oh, and people who use the Middle Ages as proof that religion is bad forget that the church was incredibly corrupted at that time. That’s why Martin Luther posted his 95 theses and started the Protestant Reformation.

  • Thomas

    True, there is no direct evidence that a god exists. That’s basically what “faith” means. I know it comes off as complete bull to non-religious people, but can you just leave it at that? Christians are often critisized for trying to make others think their way, but even atheists are guilty of that, with the “prove that god exists” argument.

    Also, religion is not a waste of time. Religion has helped our society advance throughout the centuries, and while it did have some horrible setbacks as well, there were a number of good things as well. You forget that a number of good people act kindly because their religion dictates it, also that a number of charity groups are religious groups.

    Oh, and people who use the Middle Ages as proof that religion is bad forget that the church was incredibly corrupted at that time. That’s why Martin Luther posted his 95 theses and started the Protestant Reformation.

  • Thomas

    Oh, and I’m willing to bet that one of the only reasons we as humans have a conscience and differentiate between good and evil is because of religion.

  • Thomas

    Oh, and I’m willing to bet that one of the only reasons we as humans have a conscience and differentiate between good and evil is because of religion.

  • Ethan

    You’re right Noah, that would be a hell of a documentary. I guess i have never really thought of it that way, very interesting….

  • Ethan

    You’re right Noah, that would be a hell of a documentary. I guess i have never really thought of it that way, very interesting….

  • Ethan

    You’re right Noah, that would be a hell of a documentary. I guess i have never really thought of it that way, very interesting….

  • freemonty

    “That’s basically what “faith” means.”
    What does faith mean? Seriously, at times I hear people use it as a synonym for hope (“I have faith in our chances” = “I am hopeful for our chances”), trust (“I have faith in his abilities” = “I trust his ability”), and at other times as an open admission that you have a closed mind about the issue (the way you seem to be using it here). After all, to paraphrase Carl Sagan, who is the more humble, the scientist who admits he does not have all the answers? Or the person who has faith in their predetermined convictions?

    “Also, religion is not a waste of time. Religion has helped our society advance throughout the centuries,”
    Did religion invent the computer? (at times, its repressed science– you know the cliche about Galleleo and Darwin, but there was also Capurnicus before them and in a more passive sense you can also consider medieval attitudes and superstitions about disease as a passive form of repression) Did religion invent democracy? (religion has almost always resisted social change in favor of authoritarian systems like the caste system of the Hindu civilization or the divine right of kings bullcrap in Europe, and that isn’t even getting into issues of race and sex) I can name more things done to retard the advance of civilization in the name of religion than I can good– that is, nothing. I challenge you to show me otherwise.

    “Oh, and I’m willing to bet that one of the only reasons we as humans have a conscience and differentiate between good and evil is because of religion.”
    No. Why would you depreciate yourself like this? What you are saying when you make this claim is that if it weren’t for ceiling cat– I mean god ;-) — you and everyone else wouldn’t be moral. But is that really true? If you didn’t believe in God, and you were presented with an opportunity to steal from someone and get away with it, would you do it? Lets say its not theft, lets say you had the opportunity to kill someone. If you didn’t believe in god, would you do it? I wouldn’t. For the good of the community. For the good of the victims family. Because it would hurt my self respect. Because the victim is still my equal as a human being. If nothing else, because of the earthly repercussions of jail time (even though I already said you would get away with it, in reality that usually isn’t a given).

    The idea that morality comes from god is absurd, in part because it is a /concept/. It flows logically from basic principals. As any anthropologist would tell you, morality is a social construct; its inherently interpersonal. Would a hermit who lives alone have any need for a concept of good and evil? No, only survival. But morality ensures the survival of groups of people, and of the individual inside the group (think “karma”). How you determine right from wrong depends somewhat on your assumptions and logic, hence the philosophy of ethics. But God is irrelevant to this: the only reason you think he is is thanks to the culture you live in.

    In fact, I would put it to you that assuming morality comes from god is a bankrupt position because even by the admission of the religious, its impossible to know the mind of god. If that’s true, how can you derive anything about morality from god? From the bible? That will rouse a lot of laughs from anyone who’s read the thing. Besides, if you did, you would be getting your morals from MEN, the people who WROTE the thing.

    No, when you say morals come from “god’ what you mean is morality comes from mom and dad, the people who taught you /about/ “god”. Without realizing it, you have admitted that you have the moral development of a child.

  • freemonty

    “That’s basically what “faith” means.”
    What does faith mean? Seriously, at times I hear people use it as a synonym for hope (“I have faith in our chances” = “I am hopeful for our chances”), trust (“I have faith in his abilities” = “I trust his ability”), and at other times as an open admission that you have a closed mind about the issue (the way you seem to be using it here). After all, to paraphrase Carl Sagan, who is the more humble, the scientist who admits he does not have all the answers? Or the person who has faith in their predetermined convictions?

    “Also, religion is not a waste of time. Religion has helped our society advance throughout the centuries,”
    Did religion invent the computer? (at times, its repressed science– you know the cliche about Galleleo and Darwin, but there was also Capurnicus before them and in a more passive sense you can also consider medieval attitudes and superstitions about disease as a passive form of repression) Did religion invent democracy? (religion has almost always resisted social change in favor of authoritarian systems like the caste system of the Hindu civilization or the divine right of kings bullcrap in Europe, and that isn’t even getting into issues of race and sex) I can name more things done to retard the advance of civilization in the name of religion than I can good– that is, nothing. I challenge you to show me otherwise.

    “Oh, and I’m willing to bet that one of the only reasons we as humans have a conscience and differentiate between good and evil is because of religion.”
    No. Why would you depreciate yourself like this? What you are saying when you make this claim is that if it weren’t for ceiling cat– I mean god ;-) — you and everyone else wouldn’t be moral. But is that really true? If you didn’t believe in God, and you were presented with an opportunity to steal from someone and get away with it, would you do it? Lets say its not theft, lets say you had the opportunity to kill someone. If you didn’t believe in god, would you do it? I wouldn’t. For the good of the community. For the good of the victims family. Because it would hurt my self respect. Because the victim is still my equal as a human being. If nothing else, because of the earthly repercussions of jail time (even though I already said you would get away with it, in reality that usually isn’t a given).

    The idea that morality comes from god is absurd, in part because it is a /concept/. It flows logically from basic principals. As any anthropologist would tell you, morality is a social construct; its inherently interpersonal. Would a hermit who lives alone have any need for a concept of good and evil? No, only survival. But morality ensures the survival of groups of people, and of the individual inside the group (think “karma”). How you determine right from wrong depends somewhat on your assumptions and logic, hence the philosophy of ethics. But God is irrelevant to this: the only reason you think he is is thanks to the culture you live in.

    In fact, I would put it to you that assuming morality comes from god is a bankrupt position because even by the admission of the religious, its impossible to know the mind of god. If that’s true, how can you derive anything about morality from god? From the bible? That will rouse a lot of laughs from anyone who’s read the thing. Besides, if you did, you would be getting your morals from MEN, the people who WROTE the thing.

    No, when you say morals come from “god’ what you mean is morality comes from mom and dad, the people who taught you /about/ “god”. Without realizing it, you have admitted that you have the moral development of a child.

  • freemonty

    “That’s basically what “faith” means.”
    What does faith mean? Seriously, at times I hear people use it as a synonym for hope (“I have faith in our chances” = “I am hopeful for our chances”), trust (“I have faith in his abilities” = “I trust his ability”), and at other times as an open admission that you have a closed mind about the issue (the way you seem to be using it here). After all, to paraphrase Carl Sagan, who is the more humble, the scientist who admits he does not have all the answers? Or the person who has faith in their predetermined convictions?

    “Also, religion is not a waste of time. Religion has helped our society advance throughout the centuries,”
    Did religion invent the computer? (at times, its repressed science– you know the cliche about Galleleo and Darwin, but there was also Capurnicus before them and in a more passive sense you can also consider medieval attitudes and superstitions about disease as a passive form of repression) Did religion invent democracy? (religion has almost always resisted social change in favor of authoritarian systems like the caste system of the Hindu civilization or the divine right of kings bullcrap in Europe, and that isn’t even getting into issues of race and sex) I can name more things done to retard the advance of civilization in the name of religion than I can good– that is, nothing. I challenge you to show me otherwise.

    “Oh, and I’m willing to bet that one of the only reasons we as humans have a conscience and differentiate between good and evil is because of religion.”
    No. Why would you depreciate yourself like this? What you are saying when you make this claim is that if it weren’t for ceiling cat– I mean god ;-) — you and everyone else wouldn’t be moral. But is that really true? If you didn’t believe in God, and you were presented with an opportunity to steal from someone and get away with it, would you do it? Lets say its not theft, lets say you had the opportunity to kill someone. If you didn’t believe in god, would you do it? I wouldn’t. For the good of the community. For the good of the victims family. Because it would hurt my self respect. Because the victim is still my equal as a human being. If nothing else, because of the earthly repercussions of jail time (even though I already said you would get away with it, in reality that usually isn’t a given).

    The idea that morality comes from god is absurd, in part because it is a /concept/. It flows logically from basic principals. As any anthropologist would tell you, morality is a social construct; its inherently interpersonal. Would a hermit who lives alone have any need for a concept of good and evil? No, only survival. But morality ensures the survival of groups of people, and of the individual inside the group (think “karma”). How you determine right from wrong depends somewhat on your assumptions and logic, hence the philosophy of ethics. But God is irrelevant to this: the only reason you think he is is thanks to the culture you live in.

    In fact, I would put it to you that assuming morality comes from god is a bankrupt position because even by the admission of the religious, its impossible to know the mind of god. If that’s true, how can you derive anything about morality from god? From the bible? That will rouse a lot of laughs from anyone who’s read the thing. Besides, if you did, you would be getting your morals from MEN, the people who WROTE the thing.

    No, when you say morals come from “god’ what you mean is morality comes from mom and dad, the people who taught you /about/ “god”. Without realizing it, you have admitted that you have the moral development of a child.

  • JustSayin’

    @ #177
    Actually, that’s true. The majority of German Nazis were catholic. I mean, the belt buckle of the SS had a swastika embroidered with the words “Gott mit uns” (God with us).”- Virgil0211
    Actually that is a Wehrmacht( regular Army) belt buckle design that dates back to the First World War
    The SS belt buckle inscription reads “Meine Ehre Heisst Treue” (my honour is loyalty). Do an image search, even if your german is more rusty than mine you can se there isn’t even a “G” in it.

    As for the speeches pure 100% weapons grade demagoguery, for instance note the context of this one…
    Providence has caused me to be Catholic, and I know therefore how to handle this Church.”
    -Adolf Hitler, reportedly to have said in Berlin in 1936 on the enmity of the Catholic Church to National Socialism
    So he was a good Catholic but the church maitained an animosity well after his rise to power?
    Now this is where I should try to sum up my argument with some pithy and witty final point, but come on…

  • JustSayin’

    @ #177
    Actually, that’s true. The majority of German Nazis were catholic. I mean, the belt buckle of the SS had a swastika embroidered with the words “Gott mit uns” (God with us).”- Virgil0211
    Actually that is a Wehrmacht( regular Army) belt buckle design that dates back to the First World War
    The SS belt buckle inscription reads “Meine Ehre Heisst Treue” (my honour is loyalty). Do an image search, even if your german is more rusty than mine you can se there isn’t even a “G” in it.

    As for the speeches pure 100% weapons grade demagoguery, for instance note the context of this one…
    Providence has caused me to be Catholic, and I know therefore how to handle this Church.”
    -Adolf Hitler, reportedly to have said in Berlin in 1936 on the enmity of the Catholic Church to National Socialism
    So he was a good Catholic but the church maitained an animosity well after his rise to power?
    Now this is where I should try to sum up my argument with some pithy and witty final point, but come on…

  • JustSayin’

    @ #177
    Actually, that’s true. The majority of German Nazis were catholic. I mean, the belt buckle of the SS had a swastika embroidered with the words “Gott mit uns” (God with us).”- Virgil0211
    Actually that is a Wehrmacht( regular Army) belt buckle design that dates back to the First World War
    The SS belt buckle inscription reads “Meine Ehre Heisst Treue” (my honour is loyalty). Do an image search, even if your german is more rusty than mine you can se there isn’t even a “G” in it.

    As for the speeches pure 100% weapons grade demagoguery, for instance note the context of this one…
    Providence has caused me to be Catholic, and I know therefore how to handle this Church.”
    -Adolf Hitler, reportedly to have said in Berlin in 1936 on the enmity of the Catholic Church to National Socialism
    So he was a good Catholic but the church maitained an animosity well after his rise to power?
    Now this is where I should try to sum up my argument with some pithy and witty final point, but come on…

  • JustSayin’

    @ #189
    “No, when you say morals come from “god’ what you mean is morality comes from mom and dad, the people who taught you /about/ “god”. Without realizing it, you have admitted that you have the moral development of a child.”-freemonty

    So if I find your wallet full of cash and your I.D. and return it to you I have the mental development of a child? Interesting…

  • JustSayin’

    @ #189
    “No, when you say morals come from “god’ what you mean is morality comes from mom and dad, the people who taught you /about/ “god”. Without realizing it, you have admitted that you have the moral development of a child.”-freemonty

    So if I find your wallet full of cash and your I.D. and return it to you I have the mental development of a child? Interesting…

  • JustSayin’

    @ #189
    “No, when you say morals come from “god’ what you mean is morality comes from mom and dad, the people who taught you /about/ “god”. Without realizing it, you have admitted that you have the moral development of a child.”-freemonty

    So if I find your wallet full of cash and your I.D. and return it to you I have the mental development of a child? Interesting…

  • freemonty

    “So if I find your wallet full of cash and your I.D. and return it to you I have the mental development of a child? Interesting…”
    I said MORAL development, NOT mental development. Read more carefully. Its a basic bit of developmental psychology; to a child, right and wrong is what mom and dad say are right and wrong, and it must be true because they would punish me if I did wrong. Sound familiar? Replace “mom and dad” with “God” and “punish” with “Hell” and you have the religious morality Thomas was describing. A step up from that is equating the law with morality, and at the top of the list is realizing moral principals from rational concepts. Some people get stuck at one stage or another, and it sounds as if Thomas is using religion to justify getting stuck on one of the lower stages.

    Also, you are confusing DOING good with the REASON for doing good. Mom and dad are sometimes right, since presumably they get their morals from some higher form of reasoning. Of course, if they /don’t/ you run the risk that their morals have flaws in them. Thus the problem with ascribing morality to god.

  • freemonty

    “So if I find your wallet full of cash and your I.D. and return it to you I have the mental development of a child? Interesting…”
    I said MORAL development, NOT mental development. Read more carefully. Its a basic bit of developmental psychology; to a child, right and wrong is what mom and dad say are right and wrong, and it must be true because they would punish me if I did wrong. Sound familiar? Replace “mom and dad” with “God” and “punish” with “Hell” and you have the religious morality Thomas was describing. A step up from that is equating the law with morality, and at the top of the list is realizing moral principals from rational concepts. Some people get stuck at one stage or another, and it sounds as if Thomas is using religion to justify getting stuck on one of the lower stages.

    Also, you are confusing DOING good with the REASON for doing good. Mom and dad are sometimes right, since presumably they get their morals from some higher form of reasoning. Of course, if they /don’t/ you run the risk that their morals have flaws in them. Thus the problem with ascribing morality to god.

  • freemonty

    “So if I find your wallet full of cash and your I.D. and return it to you I have the mental development of a child? Interesting…”
    I said MORAL development, NOT mental development. Read more carefully. Its a basic bit of developmental psychology; to a child, right and wrong is what mom and dad say are right and wrong, and it must be true because they would punish me if I did wrong. Sound familiar? Replace “mom and dad” with “God” and “punish” with “Hell” and you have the religious morality Thomas was describing. A step up from that is equating the law with morality, and at the top of the list is realizing moral principals from rational concepts. Some people get stuck at one stage or another, and it sounds as if Thomas is using religion to justify getting stuck on one of the lower stages.

    Also, you are confusing DOING good with the REASON for doing good. Mom and dad are sometimes right, since presumably they get their morals from some higher form of reasoning. Of course, if they /don’t/ you run the risk that their morals have flaws in them. Thus the problem with ascribing morality to god.

  • Thomas

    We’ve had religion from the very beginning of society- The acient civilizations all had their own myths and beleifs. I say that the only reason we have morals like we do is because of religion is because of the influence it’s had on our lives since the beginning. Almost all religions beleived in a punishing God, so the best way to no anger him would be to act good and just.

    “The idea that morality comes from god is absurd, in part because it is a /concept/. It flows logically from basic principals.”

    But my argument is that the reason we have those “basic principles” is because of our beleif in dieties who would condemn our lives if we betrayed them. If we had no beleif in gods like those, then I think we wouldn’t have the same morals we have today, as that’s the only form of punishment we couldn’t get rid of. Think about it, if you lived in early times and stole from your neighbor, if he posed a problem to you, you could just kill him. If anyone could potentionally get you in trouble, you’d just kill them. Now, if you beleived in an omnipotent deity, you’d probably beleive he’d torture you beyond compare either during your life or after-or, in some cases, both. Since you can’t kill a god, the only way you could avoid the torture would be to not steal in the first place.

    Nowadays, it’s difficult to think like that, as we’ve become so intertwined as a society that killing your neighbor would never be considered- at least among normal people. However, when we were first adapting as a society, I think religion was essential to give us those morals that shape us today.

    As for the good I think a religion brings us, I think I answered that along with my other one.

  • Thomas

    We’ve had religion from the very beginning of society- The acient civilizations all had their own myths and beleifs. I say that the only reason we have morals like we do is because of religion is because of the influence it’s had on our lives since the beginning. Almost all religions beleived in a punishing God, so the best way to no anger him would be to act good and just.

    “The idea that morality comes from god is absurd, in part because it is a /concept/. It flows logically from basic principals.”

    But my argument is that the reason we have those “basic principles” is because of our beleif in dieties who would condemn our lives if we betrayed them. If we had no beleif in gods like those, then I think we wouldn’t have the same morals we have today, as that’s the only form of punishment we couldn’t get rid of. Think about it, if you lived in early times and stole from your neighbor, if he posed a problem to you, you could just kill him. If anyone could potentionally get you in trouble, you’d just kill them. Now, if you beleived in an omnipotent deity, you’d probably beleive he’d torture you beyond compare either during your life or after-or, in some cases, both. Since you can’t kill a god, the only way you could avoid the torture would be to not steal in the first place.

    Nowadays, it’s difficult to think like that, as we’ve become so intertwined as a society that killing your neighbor would never be considered- at least among normal people. However, when we were first adapting as a society, I think religion was essential to give us those morals that shape us today.

    As for the good I think a religion brings us, I think I answered that along with my other one.

  • Thomas

    We’ve had religion from the very beginning of society- The acient civilizations all had their own myths and beleifs. I say that the only reason we have morals like we do is because of religion is because of the influence it’s had on our lives since the beginning. Almost all religions beleived in a punishing God, so the best way to no anger him would be to act good and just.

    “The idea that morality comes from god is absurd, in part because it is a /concept/. It flows logically from basic principals.”

    But my argument is that the reason we have those “basic principles” is because of our beleif in dieties who would condemn our lives if we betrayed them. If we had no beleif in gods like those, then I think we wouldn’t have the same morals we have today, as that’s the only form of punishment we couldn’t get rid of. Think about it, if you lived in early times and stole from your neighbor, if he posed a problem to you, you could just kill him. If anyone could potentionally get you in trouble, you’d just kill them. Now, if you beleived in an omnipotent deity, you’d probably beleive he’d torture you beyond compare either during your life or after-or, in some cases, both. Since you can’t kill a god, the only way you could avoid the torture would be to not steal in the first place.

    Nowadays, it’s difficult to think like that, as we’ve become so intertwined as a society that killing your neighbor would never be considered- at least among normal people. However, when we were first adapting as a society, I think religion was essential to give us those morals that shape us today.

    As for the good I think a religion brings us, I think I answered that along with my other one.

  • Virgil0211

    @190:

    Point 1: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/images/nazibelts.gif

    Around prior to World War I? Was the swastika used as a national symbol of Germany around that time? I think not.

    “I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” – Mein Kampf

    “Today Christians … stand at the head of [this country] … I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit … We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press—in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past … [few] years. ” – Undated Speech

    For someone who wasn’t a Christian, he sure had a funny way of showing it.

  • Virgil0211

    @190:

    Point 1: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/images/nazibelts.gif

    Around prior to World War I? Was the swastika used as a national symbol of Germany around that time? I think not.

    “I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” – Mein Kampf

    “Today Christians … stand at the head of [this country] … I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit … We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press—in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past … [few] years. ” – Undated Speech

    For someone who wasn’t a Christian, he sure had a funny way of showing it.

  • Virgil0211

    @190:

    Point 1: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/images/nazibelts.gif

    Around prior to World War I? Was the swastika used as a national symbol of Germany around that time? I think not.

    “I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” – Mein Kampf

    “Today Christians … stand at the head of [this country] … I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit … We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press—in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past … [few] years. ” – Undated Speech

    For someone who wasn’t a Christian, he sure had a funny way of showing it.

  • JustSayin’

    @ #192
    So if an atheist finds your hypothetical wallet and gives it back, why? They don’t beleive that there will be any divine retribution. It’s not rational he chooses to give up a finacial advantage that has no risk attached to it.

    • Crensler .

      Because human beings are rational, right?

  • JustSayin’

    @ #192
    So if an atheist finds your hypothetical wallet and gives it back, why? They don’t beleive that there will be any divine retribution. It’s not rational he chooses to give up a finacial advantage that has no risk attached to it.

  • JustSayin’

    @ #192
    So if an atheist finds your hypothetical wallet and gives it back, why? They don’t beleive that there will be any divine retribution. It’s not rational he chooses to give up a finacial advantage that has no risk attached to it.

  • Virgil0211

    @193: You didn’t really counter his point. You simply reasserted your original claim.

    Here’s a good video on the origins of morality, though it’s more of a primer. – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyd6om8IC4M&feature=channel_page

    As for your other point, are you aware that the largest and most transparently operated charities are naturalistic? Hell, the biggest one was founded by Bill Gates, another atheist.

    Oh, yeah. Ever check the statistics of the US prison bureau on inmate religiosity?

    http://www.atheistempire.com/reference/stats/main.html

  • Virgil0211

    @193: You didn’t really counter his point. You simply reasserted your original claim.

    Here’s a good video on the origins of morality, though it’s more of a primer. – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyd6om8IC4M&feature=channel_page

    As for your other point, are you aware that the largest and most transparently operated charities are naturalistic? Hell, the biggest one was founded by Bill Gates, another atheist.

    Oh, yeah. Ever check the statistics of the US prison bureau on inmate religiosity?

    http://www.atheistempire.com/reference/stats/main.html

  • Virgil0211

    @193: You didn’t really counter his point. You simply reasserted your original claim.

    Here’s a good video on the origins of morality, though it’s more of a primer. – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyd6om8IC4M&feature=channel_page

    As for your other point, are you aware that the largest and most transparently operated charities are naturalistic? Hell, the biggest one was founded by Bill Gates, another atheist.

    Oh, yeah. Ever check the statistics of the US prison bureau on inmate religiosity?

    http://www.atheistempire.com/reference/stats/main.html

  • Virgil0211

    @195: And yet, they do. Look at the web site I linked previously. Apparently, threat of damnation/hell doesn’t really deter criminal behavior. Then again, Jesus is supposed to forgive the sins of believers, right?

  • Virgil0211

    @195: And yet, they do. Look at the web site I linked previously. Apparently, threat of damnation/hell doesn’t really deter criminal behavior. Then again, Jesus is supposed to forgive the sins of believers, right?

  • Virgil0211

    @195: And yet, they do. Look at the web site I linked previously. Apparently, threat of damnation/hell doesn’t really deter criminal behavior. Then again, Jesus is supposed to forgive the sins of believers, right?

  • Virgil0211

    Sorry. The comment I left with the link somehow got deleted.

    http://www.atheistempire.com/reference/stats/main.html

  • Virgil0211

    Sorry. The comment I left with the link somehow got deleted.

    http://www.atheistempire.com/reference/stats/main.html

  • Virgil0211

    Sorry. The comment I left with the link somehow got deleted.

    http://www.atheistempire.com/reference/stats/main.html

  • JustSayin’

    @194

    Look don’t take this the wrong way but that site’s image does needs a little more clarification, I mean they even state that one is a fire department buckle, should the Allies have rounded up all the urban fire departments for the Nurmberg trials? hitler imposed the swastika as the national symbol on all the old sevices the Wermacht, Kreigsmarine and so on. Do a regular google search the actual SS buckles say different.
    Once again as for the speeches the man was a megalomaniacal madman Osama Bin Ladden says similar things, should we round up every follower of Islam in Deerborn, Michigan because of that?

  • JustSayin’

    @194

    Look don’t take this the wrong way but that site’s image does needs a little more clarification, I mean they even state that one is a fire department buckle, should the Allies have rounded up all the urban fire departments for the Nurmberg trials? hitler imposed the swastika as the national symbol on all the old sevices the Wermacht, Kreigsmarine and so on. Do a regular google search the actual SS buckles say different.
    Once again as for the speeches the man was a megalomaniacal madman Osama Bin Ladden says similar things, should we round up every follower of Islam in Deerborn, Michigan because of that?

  • JustSayin’

    @194

    Look don’t take this the wrong way but that site’s image does needs a little more clarification, I mean they even state that one is a fire department buckle, should the Allies have rounded up all the urban fire departments for the Nurmberg trials? hitler imposed the swastika as the national symbol on all the old sevices the Wermacht, Kreigsmarine and so on. Do a regular google search the actual SS buckles say different.
    Once again as for the speeches the man was a megalomaniacal madman Osama Bin Ladden says similar things, should we round up every follower of Islam in Deerborn, Michigan because of that?

  • JustSayin’

    @196
    “And yet, they do…”
    My point exactly, if they look at it from a purely rational point of view they have no reason to return the wallet.

    “Apparently, threat of damnation/hell doesn’t really deter criminal behavior.”
    And what precisely does deter all criminal behavior? To my knowledge nothing.

  • JustSayin’

    @196
    “And yet, they do…”
    My point exactly, if they look at it from a purely rational point of view they have no reason to return the wallet.

    “Apparently, threat of damnation/hell doesn’t really deter criminal behavior.”
    And what precisely does deter all criminal behavior? To my knowledge nothing.

  • Virgil0211

    @198: I’m confused. Are you arguing that I got the wrong part of the German military, or that the Nazi movement wasn’t primarily Christian? If the former, who cares? My point still stands. If the latter, you aren’t doing a very good job of it.

    Are you saying Osama Bin Laden isn’t religious?

    @199: Argument from ignorance. Even a cursory view at humanistic or objectivist philosophies have their own reasons for this. They differ from individual to individual.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyd6om8IC4M&feature=channel_page

    Whatever the case, your argument that religion is the source of morality is flawed from the base to the summit. Religion failed to act as a deterrent in the crusades, the holocaust, the salem witch trials, the “witch burnings” in the middle ages, etc.

    I’m not saying that atheism is inherently healthier or that religion is inherently bad for these reasons. It’d be a pretty weak argument if I were. I’m simply stating that you cannot argue that religion is the source of morality when it fails to even act as a deterrent.

  • Virgil0211

    @198: I’m confused. Are you arguing that I got the wrong part of the German military, or that the Nazi movement wasn’t primarily Christian? If the former, who cares? My point still stands. If the latter, you aren’t doing a very good job of it.

    Are you saying Osama Bin Laden isn’t religious?

    @199: Argument from ignorance. Even a cursory view at humanistic or objectivist philosophies have their own reasons for this. They differ from individual to individual.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyd6om8IC4M&feature=channel_page

    Whatever the case, your argument that religion is the source of morality is flawed from the base to the summit. Religion failed to act as a deterrent in the crusades, the holocaust, the salem witch trials, the “witch burnings” in the middle ages, etc.

    I’m not saying that atheism is inherently healthier or that religion is inherently bad for these reasons. It’d be a pretty weak argument if I were. I’m simply stating that you cannot argue that religion is the source of morality when it fails to even act as a deterrent.

  • JustSayin’

    @ 200
    “I’m confused. Are you arguing that I got the wrong part of the German military, or that the Nazi movement wasn’t primarily Christian?”

    1. Yes the waffen-ss and einsatzgruppen (commonly called death squads) which were both responsible for the vast majority of atrocities were seprate entities from the regular military. Whereas the regular military was loyal to the state the ss swore direct personal loyalty to hitler himself.
    2. As for the nazi movement not being Christian lets look at hitlers to most powerful deputies, rudolf hess had such strong occult beliefs that he used them as reasons to go awol and parachute into England in order to attempt to negogiate a peace settlement. heinrich himmler head of the ss, geeze where to start with this guy grade A 4 layer occult nutcake. Astroligers(spellcheck!), ancient pyramid theories, ritual chambers in ancient castles, rune inscribed throne, and on and on…
    If hitler was real believing Christian this would be like the Pope appointing Hare Krishnas as cardinals (no offense to any Hare Krishnas out there just lookin’ for an outlandish example)

    “Are you saying Osama Bin Laden isn’t religious”
    No. Are you saying all Muslims ascribe to his personal religious views and methods?

    “Whatever the case, your argument that religion is the source of morality is flawed from the base to the summit. Religion failed to act as a deterrent in the crusades, the holocaust, the salem witch trials, the “witch burnings” in the middle ages, etc.”

    And how many innocent lives were saved in all those incidents by religious people acting on their beliefs? More than we’ll ever know I would wager. However bad news always gets more headlines.

    “…I’m simply stating that you cannot argue that religion is the source of morality when it fails to even act as a deterrent.”
    Once again I point out my earlier statement I fully acknowledge no concept and or institution secular or religious will ever be a 100% effective detterent against immoral behavior, perfection is simply not attainable by human beings.

  • JustSayin’

    @ 200
    “I’m confused. Are you arguing that I got the wrong part of the German military, or that the Nazi movement wasn’t primarily Christian?”

    1. Yes the waffen-ss and einsatzgruppen (commonly called death squads) which were both responsible for the vast majority of atrocities were seprate entities from the regular military. Whereas the regular military was loyal to the state the ss swore direct personal loyalty to hitler himself.
    2. As for the nazi movement not being Christian lets look at hitlers to most powerful deputies, rudolf hess had such strong occult beliefs that he used them as reasons to go awol and parachute into England in order to attempt to negogiate a peace settlement. heinrich himmler head of the ss, geeze where to start with this guy grade A 4 layer occult nutcake. Astroligers(spellcheck!), ancient pyramid theories, ritual chambers in ancient castles, rune inscribed throne, and on and on…
    If hitler was real believing Christian this would be like the Pope appointing Hare Krishnas as cardinals (no offense to any Hare Krishnas out there just lookin’ for an outlandish example)

    “Are you saying Osama Bin Laden isn’t religious”
    No. Are you saying all Muslims ascribe to his personal religious views and methods?

    “Whatever the case, your argument that religion is the source of morality is flawed from the base to the summit. Religion failed to act as a deterrent in the crusades, the holocaust, the salem witch trials, the “witch burnings” in the middle ages, etc.”

    And how many innocent lives were saved in all those incidents by religious people acting on their beliefs? More than we’ll ever know I would wager. However bad news always gets more headlines.

    “…I’m simply stating that you cannot argue that religion is the source of morality when it fails to even act as a deterrent.”
    Once again I point out my earlier statement I fully acknowledge no concept and or institution secular or religious will ever be a 100% effective detterent against immoral behavior, perfection is simply not attainable by human beings.

  • JustSayin’

    @ 200
    “I’m confused. Are you arguing that I got the wrong part of the German military, or that the Nazi movement wasn’t primarily Christian?”

    1. Yes the waffen-ss and einsatzgruppen (commonly called death squads) which were both responsible for the vast majority of atrocities were seprate entities from the regular military. Whereas the regular military was loyal to the state the ss swore direct personal loyalty to hitler himself.
    2. As for the nazi movement not being Christian lets look at hitlers to most powerful deputies, rudolf hess had such strong occult beliefs that he used them as reasons to go awol and parachute into England in order to attempt to negogiate a peace settlement. heinrich himmler head of the ss, geeze where to start with this guy grade A 4 layer occult nutcake. Astroligers(spellcheck!), ancient pyramid theories, ritual chambers in ancient castles, rune inscribed throne, and on and on…
    If hitler was real believing Christian this would be like the Pope appointing Hare Krishnas as cardinals (no offense to any Hare Krishnas out there just lookin’ for an outlandish example)

    “Are you saying Osama Bin Laden isn’t religious”
    No. Are you saying all Muslims ascribe to his personal religious views and methods?

    “Whatever the case, your argument that religion is the source of morality is flawed from the base to the summit. Religion failed to act as a deterrent in the crusades, the holocaust, the salem witch trials, the “witch burnings” in the middle ages, etc.”

    And how many innocent lives were saved in all those incidents by religious people acting on their beliefs? More than we’ll ever know I would wager. However bad news always gets more headlines.

    “…I’m simply stating that you cannot argue that religion is the source of morality when it fails to even act as a deterrent.”
    Once again I point out my earlier statement I fully acknowledge no concept and or institution secular or religious will ever be a 100% effective detterent against immoral behavior, perfection is simply not attainable by human beings.

  • freemonty

    It seems the browser keeps doing 404, so this post is just a test. if it gets through, please ignore it.

  • freemonty

    It seems the browser keeps doing 404, so this post is just a test. if it gets through, please ignore it.

  • freemonty

    It seems the browser keeps doing 404, so this post is just a test. if it gets through, please ignore it.

  • freemonty

    Thomas, you’re generalizing about religion as if every religion were like Christianity. The Hindu’s, despite the many crazy things wrong with that religion, do not believe in a vengeful sadist watching over you like ceiling cat. The Japanese are mostly Buddhists and Shintoists, yet the murder rate in Japan puts the US to shame.

    You also make this mistake:

    “Think about it, if you lived in early times and stole from your neighbor, if he posed a problem to you, you could just kill him. If anyone could potentionally get you in trouble, you’d just kill them.”
    This strategy wouldn’t work in a primitive society at all. You forget a few things:

    1 tribal societies are /small/. Its hard for city dwellers like ourselves to quite comprehend such a lifestyle, but if you were living in a group of, say, 50 other humans, there is no way you are just going to get away with the murder of one of your fellow tribesmen. That’s a great way to get yourself ejected from the group real fast. Not a good survival strategy.

    2 In such a tribal society, everyone is dependent on everyone else for survival. You kill someone in your group, and it turns out he was the guy who knew how to make the arrow heads you hunt with? You’re screwed!

    3 You can’t kill everyone. Simple.

    You act as if moral behavior arose in the time when people were living in agriculture based settlements, but I’m telling you it evolved long before then as a way to ensure cooperation among hunter gatherers, since you know, that’s how humans have lived for 90% of our existence on this earth. I’ll go a step further: I’d argue religion evolved as a parasitic trait that happened to reinforce our group cohesion at the cost of creating a status quo that in the long run actually retards the advance of civilization and on an individual holds back their development as a person. In a similar fashion there is a gene found in african populations that helps them resist malaria– by causing sickle cell anemia.

    Do you really think charity groups outweigh these things? Really? I mean, if that’s all it has going for it, I can name several charities that are completely secular. Medicine Sans Frontiers, for example, one of the most noble charities I can think of, in part because for them religion is no issue.

    Also, just for fun, lets compare the morality you describe to my own:

    the morality you describe: “Ohs noes, Ceiling cat (who seems to be channeling the persona of my parents for some reason) wants to control my life and tell me what to do (with my body, what friends I should have, and as it so happens he doesn’t want me to murder my fellow man [unless he’s one of /those/ people, of course]), and if I don’t do these things, HE’S GOING TO BURN ME ALIVE AFTER I DIE!!! I’d better do what I’m told!”

    My morality: “Holy shit, this authoritarian psychopath condones torture and cruel and unusual punishment? Good grief! I’m glad HE doesn’t exist, because otherwise I’d be obligated to fight this tyrant.”

    I say this with no irony whatsoever: do you really want to worship this God? This God who by your own description is far worse than than Hitler or Stalin? Really?

    You’re god is Satan, dude. Not cool.

  • freemonty

    Thomas, you’re generalizing about religion as if every religion were like Christianity. The Hindu’s, despite the many crazy things wrong with that religion, do not believe in a vengeful sadist watching over you like ceiling cat. The Japanese are mostly Buddhists and Shintoists, yet the murder rate in Japan puts the US to shame.

    You also make this mistake:

    “Think about it, if you lived in early times and stole from your neighbor, if he posed a problem to you, you could just kill him. If anyone could potentionally get you in trouble, you’d just kill them.”
    This strategy wouldn’t work in a primitive society at all. You forget a few things:

    1 tribal societies are /small/. Its hard for city dwellers like ourselves to quite comprehend such a lifestyle, but if you were living in a group of, say, 50 other humans, there is no way you are just going to get away with the murder of one of your fellow tribesmen. That’s a great way to get yourself ejected from the group real fast. Not a good survival strategy.

    2 In such a tribal society, everyone is dependent on everyone else for survival. You kill someone in your group, and it turns out he was the guy who knew how to make the arrow heads you hunt with? You’re screwed!

    3 You can’t kill everyone. Simple.

    You act as if moral behavior arose in the time when people were living in agriculture based settlements, but I’m telling you it evolved long before then as a way to ensure cooperation among hunter gatherers, since you know, that’s how humans have lived for 90% of our existence on this earth. I’ll go a step further: I’d argue religion evolved as a parasitic trait that happened to reinforce our group cohesion at the cost of creating a status quo that in the long run actually retards the advance of civilization and on an individual holds back their development as a person. In a similar fashion there is a gene found in african populations that helps them resist malaria– by causing sickle cell anemia.

    Do you really think charity groups outweigh these things? Really? I mean, if that’s all it has going for it, I can name several charities that are completely secular. Medicine Sans Frontiers, for example, one of the most noble charities I can think of, in part because for them religion is no issue.

    Also, just for fun, lets compare the morality you describe to my own:

    the morality you describe: “Ohs noes, Ceiling cat (who seems to be channeling the persona of my parents for some reason) wants to control my life and tell me what to do (with my body, what friends I should have, and as it so happens he doesn’t want me to murder my fellow man [unless he’s one of /those/ people, of course]), and if I don’t do these things, HE’S GOING TO BURN ME ALIVE AFTER I DIE!!! I’d better do what I’m told!”

    My morality: “Holy shit, this authoritarian psychopath condones torture and cruel and unusual punishment? Good grief! I’m glad HE doesn’t exist, because otherwise I’d be obligated to fight this tyrant.”

    I say this with no irony whatsoever: do you really want to worship this God? This God who by your own description is far worse than than Hitler or Stalin? Really?

    You’re god is Satan, dude. Not cool.

  • freemonty

    Thomas, you’re generalizing about religion as if every religion were like Christianity. The Hindu’s, despite the many crazy things wrong with that religion, do not believe in a vengeful sadist watching over you like ceiling cat. The Japanese are mostly Buddhists and Shintoists, yet the murder rate in Japan puts the US to shame.

    You also make this mistake:

    “Think about it, if you lived in early times and stole from your neighbor, if he posed a problem to you, you could just kill him. If anyone could potentionally get you in trouble, you’d just kill them.”
    This strategy wouldn’t work in a primitive society at all. You forget a few things:

    1 tribal societies are /small/. Its hard for city dwellers like ourselves to quite comprehend such a lifestyle, but if you were living in a group of, say, 50 other humans, there is no way you are just going to get away with the murder of one of your fellow tribesmen. That’s a great way to get yourself ejected from the group real fast. Not a good survival strategy.

    2 In such a tribal society, everyone is dependent on everyone else for survival. You kill someone in your group, and it turns out he was the guy who knew how to make the arrow heads you hunt with? You’re screwed!

    3 You can’t kill everyone. Simple.

    You act as if moral behavior arose in the time when people were living in agriculture based settlements, but I’m telling you it evolved long before then as a way to ensure cooperation among hunter gatherers, since you know, that’s how humans have lived for 90% of our existence on this earth. I’ll go a step further: I’d argue religion evolved as a parasitic trait that happened to reinforce our group cohesion at the cost of creating a status quo that in the long run actually retards the advance of civilization and on an individual holds back their development as a person. In a similar fashion there is a gene found in african populations that helps them resist malaria– by causing sickle cell anemia.

    Do you really think charity groups outweigh these things? Really? I mean, if that’s all it has going for it, I can name several charities that are completely secular. Medicine Sans Frontiers, for example, one of the most noble charities I can think of, in part because for them religion is no issue.

    Also, just for fun, lets compare the morality you describe to my own:

    the morality you describe: “Ohs noes, Ceiling cat (who seems to be channeling the persona of my parents for some reason) wants to control my life and tell me what to do (with my body, what friends I should have, and as it so happens he doesn’t want me to murder my fellow man [unless he’s one of /those/ people, of course]), and if I don’t do these things, HE’S GOING TO BURN ME ALIVE AFTER I DIE!!! I’d better do what I’m told!”

    My morality: “Holy shit, this authoritarian psychopath condones torture and cruel and unusual punishment? Good grief! I’m glad HE doesn’t exist, because otherwise I’d be obligated to fight this tyrant.”

    I say this with no irony whatsoever: do you really want to worship this God? This God who by your own description is far worse than than Hitler or Stalin? Really?

    You’re god is Satan, dude. Not cool.

  • Virgil0211

    Rudolf- In a 1937 address to the local NSDAP Ortsgruppe, [Rudolf Boeckh, chief doctor of the Lutheran Neuendettelsau Asylum in Central Franconia] advocated the elimination of “life unworthy of life.” His theological justification for this course of action acknowledged that “the Creator had certainly imposed illness upon the destiny of mankind.” However, “the most severe forms of idiocy and the totally grotesque disintegration of the personality had nothing to do with the countenance of God…, we should not maintain these travesties of human form we should return them to the Creator.”

    As far as Heinrich Himmler, he seemed to study occult beliefs in an attempt to gain power more than anything else. He was still raised a Roman Catholic, much like Hitler was.

    And again, the movement was primarily Christian.

    No, but the religion certainly doesn’t seem to be preventing the actions of his followers.

    Argument from ignorance again. You have no evidence that the effect of religion on behavior has been more positive. You simply assume some sort of historical bias against religion and say “we’ll never know”. I ask you again, if religion is capable of such an effect, then why don’t we see it in the prison statistics?

    That’s not the point. The point is that you argued the source of morality/ethics was religion. It obviously isn’t.

  • Virgil0211

    Rudolf- In a 1937 address to the local NSDAP Ortsgruppe, [Rudolf Boeckh, chief doctor of the Lutheran Neuendettelsau Asylum in Central Franconia] advocated the elimination of “life unworthy of life.” His theological justification for this course of action acknowledged that “the Creator had certainly imposed illness upon the destiny of mankind.” However, “the most severe forms of idiocy and the totally grotesque disintegration of the personality had nothing to do with the countenance of God…, we should not maintain these travesties of human form we should return them to the Creator.”

    As far as Heinrich Himmler, he seemed to study occult beliefs in an attempt to gain power more than anything else. He was still raised a Roman Catholic, much like Hitler was.

    And again, the movement was primarily Christian.

    No, but the religion certainly doesn’t seem to be preventing the actions of his followers.

    Argument from ignorance again. You have no evidence that the effect of religion on behavior has been more positive. You simply assume some sort of historical bias against religion and say “we’ll never know”. I ask you again, if religion is capable of such an effect, then why don’t we see it in the prison statistics?

    That’s not the point. The point is that you argued the source of morality/ethics was religion. It obviously isn’t.

  • Virgil0211

    Rudolf- In a 1937 address to the local NSDAP Ortsgruppe, [Rudolf Boeckh, chief doctor of the Lutheran Neuendettelsau Asylum in Central Franconia] advocated the elimination of “life unworthy of life.” His theological justification for this course of action acknowledged that “the Creator had certainly imposed illness upon the destiny of mankind.” However, “the most severe forms of idiocy and the totally grotesque disintegration of the personality had nothing to do with the countenance of God…, we should not maintain these travesties of human form we should return them to the Creator.”

    As far as Heinrich Himmler, he seemed to study occult beliefs in an attempt to gain power more than anything else. He was still raised a Roman Catholic, much like Hitler was.

    And again, the movement was primarily Christian.

    No, but the religion certainly doesn’t seem to be preventing the actions of his followers.

    Argument from ignorance again. You have no evidence that the effect of religion on behavior has been more positive. You simply assume some sort of historical bias against religion and say “we’ll never know”. I ask you again, if religion is capable of such an effect, then why don’t we see it in the prison statistics?

    That’s not the point. The point is that you argued the source of morality/ethics was religion. It obviously isn’t.

  • Thomas

    “the morality you describe: “Ohs noes, Ceiling cat (who seems to be channeling the persona of my parents for some reason) wants to control my life and tell me what to do (with my body, what friends I should have, and as it so happens he doesn’t want me to murder my fellow man [unless he’s one of /those/ people, of course]), and if I don’t do these things, HE’S GOING TO BURN ME ALIVE AFTER I DIE!!! I’d better do what I’m told!”

    My morality: “Holy shit, this authoritarian psychopath condones torture and cruel and unusual punishment? Good grief! I’m glad HE doesn’t exist, because otherwise I’d be obligated to fight this tyrant.”

    I say this with no irony whatsoever: do you really want to worship this God? This God who by your own description is far worse than than Hitler or Stalin? Really?

    You’re god is Satan, dude. Not cool.”

    The gods I was trying to describe were more along the lines of early Greek and Egyptian mythology, not the Christian God. However, you are right in saying morality likely did not stem from religion, I can see I was wrong about that.

    Now, to every anti-religious person here who uses the Crusades and the Holocaust as the reasons for why religion is bad, you’re forgetting the primary base of Christianity- That because of Jesus Christ everyone’s sins are absolved. So, if you were a true Christian, and someone did wrong unto you shouldn’t have to do anything, because the both of you will be forgiven in the afterlife. The problem is, there are no true Christians, and you usually end up having two kinds of people- The one who demands retribution from the man who did wrong, or the man who uses eternal forgiveness as an reason for doing wrong unto the man.

    Unfortunately, there’s also a third type of Christian, who I feel is the worst- The Christian who beleives that only people who beleive in their exact religion will be eternally damned. This usually stems from a lot of narrow-minded denominations, and I think it’s that type of reasoning that will sometimes eventually grows to become “these people do not deserve to live on God’s world”. If you actually knew scripture, this is one of the most horrid interpretations of “God’s will”.

    Now it’s really stupid to say that the reason Christianity didn’t spark the Holocaust is because Hitler wasn’t a TRUE Christian. However, the reason the Holocaust happened is because Hitler wanted the “perfect race”- who, coincidentally, was like himself. Everyone knows that over six million Jews died in the Holocaust, but they forget that Jews weren’t the only ones who died. Homosexuals, disabled people, and people who weren’t caucasian were also killed in the Holocaust. Hitler wanted the “perfect race”, and since he was a Christian, he also happened to beleive the only good religion was Chrisitianity. As such, I wouldn’t label the Holocaust as caused by religion- religion was a factor, but overall it was more of Hitler’s determination to create a race of people like himself.

    As for the Crusades, you forget two things. One, that the Church was INCREDIBLY corrupt during the Middle Ages (Again, that was the reason for the Protestant Reformatin), and two, that most people who fought in the Crusades had never read a page of the Bible. The church beleived at that time that the Bible could only be written in latin, and since most people at that time weren’t really educated, the only people who could read the Bible were the preists and monks, who as I already mentioned, were corrupted beyond beleif.

  • Thomas

    “the morality you describe: “Ohs noes, Ceiling cat (who seems to be channeling the persona of my parents for some reason) wants to control my life and tell me what to do (with my body, what friends I should have, and as it so happens he doesn’t want me to murder my fellow man [unless he’s one of /those/ people, of course]), and if I don’t do these things, HE’S GOING TO BURN ME ALIVE AFTER I DIE!!! I’d better do what I’m told!”

    My morality: “Holy shit, this authoritarian psychopath condones torture and cruel and unusual punishment? Good grief! I’m glad HE doesn’t exist, because otherwise I’d be obligated to fight this tyrant.”

    I say this with no irony whatsoever: do you really want to worship this God? This God who by your own description is far worse than than Hitler or Stalin? Really?

    You’re god is Satan, dude. Not cool.”

    The gods I was trying to describe were more along the lines of early Greek and Egyptian mythology, not the Christian God. However, you are right in saying morality likely did not stem from religion, I can see I was wrong about that.

    Now, to every anti-religious person here who uses the Crusades and the Holocaust as the reasons for why religion is bad, you’re forgetting the primary base of Christianity- That because of Jesus Christ everyone’s sins are absolved. So, if you were a true Christian, and someone did wrong unto you shouldn’t have to do anything, because the both of you will be forgiven in the afterlife. The problem is, there are no true Christians, and you usually end up having two kinds of people- The one who demands retribution from the man who did wrong, or the man who uses eternal forgiveness as an reason for doing wrong unto the man.

    Unfortunately, there’s also a third type of Christian, who I feel is the worst- The Christian who beleives that only people who beleive in their exact religion will be eternally damned. This usually stems from a lot of narrow-minded denominations, and I think it’s that type of reasoning that will sometimes eventually grows to become “these people do not deserve to live on God’s world”. If you actually knew scripture, this is one of the most horrid interpretations of “God’s will”.

    Now it’s really stupid to say that the reason Christianity didn’t spark the Holocaust is because Hitler wasn’t a TRUE Christian. However, the reason the Holocaust happened is because Hitler wanted the “perfect race”- who, coincidentally, was like himself. Everyone knows that over six million Jews died in the Holocaust, but they forget that Jews weren’t the only ones who died. Homosexuals, disabled people, and people who weren’t caucasian were also killed in the Holocaust. Hitler wanted the “perfect race”, and since he was a Christian, he also happened to beleive the only good religion was Chrisitianity. As such, I wouldn’t label the Holocaust as caused by religion- religion was a factor, but overall it was more of Hitler’s determination to create a race of people like himself.

    As for the Crusades, you forget two things. One, that the Church was INCREDIBLY corrupt during the Middle Ages (Again, that was the reason for the Protestant Reformatin), and two, that most people who fought in the Crusades had never read a page of the Bible. The church beleived at that time that the Bible could only be written in latin, and since most people at that time weren’t really educated, the only people who could read the Bible were the preists and monks, who as I already mentioned, were corrupted beyond beleif.

  • Thomas

    “the morality you describe: “Ohs noes, Ceiling cat (who seems to be channeling the persona of my parents for some reason) wants to control my life and tell me what to do (with my body, what friends I should have, and as it so happens he doesn’t want me to murder my fellow man [unless he’s one of /those/ people, of course]), and if I don’t do these things, HE’S GOING TO BURN ME ALIVE AFTER I DIE!!! I’d better do what I’m told!”

    My morality: “Holy shit, this authoritarian psychopath condones torture and cruel and unusual punishment? Good grief! I’m glad HE doesn’t exist, because otherwise I’d be obligated to fight this tyrant.”

    I say this with no irony whatsoever: do you really want to worship this God? This God who by your own description is far worse than than Hitler or Stalin? Really?

    You’re god is Satan, dude. Not cool.”

    The gods I was trying to describe were more along the lines of early Greek and Egyptian mythology, not the Christian God. However, you are right in saying morality likely did not stem from religion, I can see I was wrong about that.

    Now, to every anti-religious person here who uses the Crusades and the Holocaust as the reasons for why religion is bad, you’re forgetting the primary base of Christianity- That because of Jesus Christ everyone’s sins are absolved. So, if you were a true Christian, and someone did wrong unto you shouldn’t have to do anything, because the both of you will be forgiven in the afterlife. The problem is, there are no true Christians, and you usually end up having two kinds of people- The one who demands retribution from the man who did wrong, or the man who uses eternal forgiveness as an reason for doing wrong unto the man.

    Unfortunately, there’s also a third type of Christian, who I feel is the worst- The Christian who beleives that only people who beleive in their exact religion will be eternally damned. This usually stems from a lot of narrow-minded denominations, and I think it’s that type of reasoning that will sometimes eventually grows to become “these people do not deserve to live on God’s world”. If you actually knew scripture, this is one of the most horrid interpretations of “God’s will”.

    Now it’s really stupid to say that the reason Christianity didn’t spark the Holocaust is because Hitler wasn’t a TRUE Christian. However, the reason the Holocaust happened is because Hitler wanted the “perfect race”- who, coincidentally, was like himself. Everyone knows that over six million Jews died in the Holocaust, but they forget that Jews weren’t the only ones who died. Homosexuals, disabled people, and people who weren’t caucasian were also killed in the Holocaust. Hitler wanted the “perfect race”, and since he was a Christian, he also happened to beleive the only good religion was Chrisitianity. As such, I wouldn’t label the Holocaust as caused by religion- religion was a factor, but overall it was more of Hitler’s determination to create a race of people like himself.

    As for the Crusades, you forget two things. One, that the Church was INCREDIBLY corrupt during the Middle Ages (Again, that was the reason for the Protestant Reformatin), and two, that most people who fought in the Crusades had never read a page of the Bible. The church beleived at that time that the Bible could only be written in latin, and since most people at that time weren’t really educated, the only people who could read the Bible were the preists and monks, who as I already mentioned, were corrupted beyond beleif.

  • JustSayin’

    @204
    “As far as Heinrich Himmler, he seemed to study occult beliefs in an attempt to gain power more than anything else. He was still raised a Roman Catholic, much like Hitler was.”

    And where in Catholic theology are all these occult practices permitted? So himmler didn’t beleive in any of these occult practices he we was just going through the motions despite their cost and inconvenience. Isn’t it possible that the man had rejected his upbringing?

    “And again, the movement was primarily Christian”
    Despite the fact that engaging in occult practices is expressly forrbiden in Christian theology, not to mention the genocide? Was Japanese Imperialism and its resulting atrocities a Shinto movement?
    If someone opens a bakery and sells you a box full of flour, eggs, sugar, and milk and tells you it’s a cake do you call them a baker or do you figure out they’re not just a sick parody of one.

    “I ask you again, if religion is capable of such an effect, then why don’t we see it in the prison statistics?”
    Because we don’t have thought dectors wired up all over? Because it’s impossible to record every instance of when someone has a chance to make some sort of material gain when there is is no chance of getting caught, but decides that doing so would be wrong and doesn’t do it.

  • JustSayin’

    @204
    “As far as Heinrich Himmler, he seemed to study occult beliefs in an attempt to gain power more than anything else. He was still raised a Roman Catholic, much like Hitler was.”

    And where in Catholic theology are all these occult practices permitted? So himmler didn’t beleive in any of these occult practices he we was just going through the motions despite their cost and inconvenience. Isn’t it possible that the man had rejected his upbringing?

    “And again, the movement was primarily Christian”
    Despite the fact that engaging in occult practices is expressly forrbiden in Christian theology, not to mention the genocide? Was Japanese Imperialism and its resulting atrocities a Shinto movement?
    If someone opens a bakery and sells you a box full of flour, eggs, sugar, and milk and tells you it’s a cake do you call them a baker or do you figure out they’re not just a sick parody of one.

    “I ask you again, if religion is capable of such an effect, then why don’t we see it in the prison statistics?”
    Because we don’t have thought dectors wired up all over? Because it’s impossible to record every instance of when someone has a chance to make some sort of material gain when there is is no chance of getting caught, but decides that doing so would be wrong and doesn’t do it.

  • JustSayin’

    @204
    “As far as Heinrich Himmler, he seemed to study occult beliefs in an attempt to gain power more than anything else. He was still raised a Roman Catholic, much like Hitler was.”

    And where in Catholic theology are all these occult practices permitted? So himmler didn’t beleive in any of these occult practices he we was just going through the motions despite their cost and inconvenience. Isn’t it possible that the man had rejected his upbringing?

    “And again, the movement was primarily Christian”
    Despite the fact that engaging in occult practices is expressly forrbiden in Christian theology, not to mention the genocide? Was Japanese Imperialism and its resulting atrocities a Shinto movement?
    If someone opens a bakery and sells you a box full of flour, eggs, sugar, and milk and tells you it’s a cake do you call them a baker or do you figure out they’re not just a sick parody of one.

    “I ask you again, if religion is capable of such an effect, then why don’t we see it in the prison statistics?”
    Because we don’t have thought dectors wired up all over? Because it’s impossible to record every instance of when someone has a chance to make some sort of material gain when there is is no chance of getting caught, but decides that doing so would be wrong and doesn’t do it.

  • Mallow

    I’m not going to get into the debate here in the comments section, but I’ll say this – religion has routinely survived when its precepts have been proven false. Earth used to be the only planet – religion survived that. The other planets and the sun used to revolve around the Earth – religion survived that. Our sun and our moon used to be unique, and religion survived that as well. It would survive the arrival of alien life, and might even be better off for it. Would there be unrest, hostility beyond compare? Certainly. Would it be “the death of God”? No, never.

    I’ll also note this – in many ways, we expect any aliens we meet to be superior to us, or else we’d be the ones visiting them. It would take time, certainly – dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands of years – but as long as both our kinds survived our hostility would eventually diminish. Coexistence, if it does not lead to destruction, eventually leads to acceptance.

  • Mallow

    I’m not going to get into the debate here in the comments section, but I’ll say this – religion has routinely survived when its precepts have been proven false. Earth used to be the only planet – religion survived that. The other planets and the sun used to revolve around the Earth – religion survived that. Our sun and our moon used to be unique, and religion survived that as well. It would survive the arrival of alien life, and might even be better off for it. Would there be unrest, hostility beyond compare? Certainly. Would it be “the death of God”? No, never.

    I’ll also note this – in many ways, we expect any aliens we meet to be superior to us, or else we’d be the ones visiting them. It would take time, certainly – dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands of years – but as long as both our kinds survived our hostility would eventually diminish. Coexistence, if it does not lead to destruction, eventually leads to acceptance.

  • Mallow

    I’m not going to get into the debate here in the comments section, but I’ll say this – religion has routinely survived when its precepts have been proven false. Earth used to be the only planet – religion survived that. The other planets and the sun used to revolve around the Earth – religion survived that. Our sun and our moon used to be unique, and religion survived that as well. It would survive the arrival of alien life, and might even be better off for it. Would there be unrest, hostility beyond compare? Certainly. Would it be “the death of God”? No, never.

    I’ll also note this – in many ways, we expect any aliens we meet to be superior to us, or else we’d be the ones visiting them. It would take time, certainly – dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands of years – but as long as both our kinds survived our hostility would eventually diminish. Coexistence, if it does not lead to destruction, eventually leads to acceptance.

  • Squall Lee

    Never thought the Spoony Experiment would be a good place for hot topical debate

  • Squall Lee

    Never thought the Spoony Experiment would be a good place for hot topical debate

  • Squall Lee

    Never thought the Spoony Experiment would be a good place for hot topical debate

  • JustSayin’

    @208
    Well I like to keep it in this perspective the, Freaxx video has over 4 times the comments. Of course they’re mostly about how mind numbingly horrible it is, and I think we can all agree with that.

  • JustSayin’

    @208
    Well I like to keep it in this perspective the, Freaxx video has over 4 times the comments. Of course they’re mostly about how mind numbingly horrible it is, and I think we can all agree with that.

  • Virgil0211

    @206: The crusades, inquisition, witch burnings, etc, still happened despite murder being expressly forbidden in all Christian ideology. The people who participated in them were still Christian.

    Perhaps, but I doubt it. It would probably be more like someone looking for an artifact which some legend claims grants extraordinary power or eternal youth because of the influence of some god. While they may not believe in the god, they may still seek out the artifact in the hopes that it actually does carry some sort of extra-normal quality.

    And even so, the presence of a few semi-Christians in the group doesn’t divorce the group from its Christian influences. The genocide against the Jews had obvious religious overtones. You can’t say that about Japanese imperialism, which had more to do with nationalism than a given aspect of Shintoism.

    Your statement had nothing to do with what I asked. It doesn’t require thought detectors. The statistics show that with each and every religious affiliation, its population in the prison will reflect its population in the general public i.e., ~75% Christian populace, ~75% Christian prison populace give or take 2-3% difference. The only place we don’t see this is in the Atheist/Agnostic/Secular affiliation, where the ratio is 14%-17% general populace and 0.207% prison population (according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons).

    And there IS a field of study for this subject, you know. It’s called criminology. Among all the competing theories to explain criminal behavior (social disorganization, strain theory, social ecology, subcultural theory, trait theory, social control theory, rational choice theory, etc), none of them consider lack of religion to be a significant contributing factor.

    That’s just that. When it comes to moral or ethical behavior, religion is a non-issue.

  • Virgil0211

    @206: The crusades, inquisition, witch burnings, etc, still happened despite murder being expressly forbidden in all Christian ideology. The people who participated in them were still Christian.

    Perhaps, but I doubt it. It would probably be more like someone looking for an artifact which some legend claims grants extraordinary power or eternal youth because of the influence of some god. While they may not believe in the god, they may still seek out the artifact in the hopes that it actually does carry some sort of extra-normal quality.

    And even so, the presence of a few semi-Christians in the group doesn’t divorce the group from its Christian influences. The genocide against the Jews had obvious religious overtones. You can’t say that about Japanese imperialism, which had more to do with nationalism than a given aspect of Shintoism.

    Your statement had nothing to do with what I asked. It doesn’t require thought detectors. The statistics show that with each and every religious affiliation, its population in the prison will reflect its population in the general public i.e., ~75% Christian populace, ~75% Christian prison populace give or take 2-3% difference. The only place we don’t see this is in the Atheist/Agnostic/Secular affiliation, where the ratio is 14%-17% general populace and 0.207% prison population (according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons).

    And there IS a field of study for this subject, you know. It’s called criminology. Among all the competing theories to explain criminal behavior (social disorganization, strain theory, social ecology, subcultural theory, trait theory, social control theory, rational choice theory, etc), none of them consider lack of religion to be a significant contributing factor.

    That’s just that. When it comes to moral or ethical behavior, religion is a non-issue.

  • Virgil0211

    @206: The crusades, inquisition, witch burnings, etc, still happened despite murder being expressly forbidden in all Christian ideology. The people who participated in them were still Christian.

    Perhaps, but I doubt it. It would probably be more like someone looking for an artifact which some legend claims grants extraordinary power or eternal youth because of the influence of some god. While they may not believe in the god, they may still seek out the artifact in the hopes that it actually does carry some sort of extra-normal quality.

    And even so, the presence of a few semi-Christians in the group doesn’t divorce the group from its Christian influences. The genocide against the Jews had obvious religious overtones. You can’t say that about Japanese imperialism, which had more to do with nationalism than a given aspect of Shintoism.

    Your statement had nothing to do with what I asked. It doesn’t require thought detectors. The statistics show that with each and every religious affiliation, its population in the prison will reflect its population in the general public i.e., ~75% Christian populace, ~75% Christian prison populace give or take 2-3% difference. The only place we don’t see this is in the Atheist/Agnostic/Secular affiliation, where the ratio is 14%-17% general populace and 0.207% prison population (according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons).

    And there IS a field of study for this subject, you know. It’s called criminology. Among all the competing theories to explain criminal behavior (social disorganization, strain theory, social ecology, subcultural theory, trait theory, social control theory, rational choice theory, etc), none of them consider lack of religion to be a significant contributing factor.

    That’s just that. When it comes to moral or ethical behavior, religion is a non-issue.

  • Virgil0211

    @205: Oops! Guess I should have read that one first, eh? I didn’t know you’d already conceded the point. My bad.

    “There was only one true Christian, and he died on the cross.” – Friedrich Nietzsche (One of my favorite philosophers, although he did sorta go crazy in his later years.)

    Just to be clear, I’m not saying that Christianity is unique among religions for its part in various atrocities, or that it’s inherently bad, or that religion is inherently evil. My problem with religion has to do with its tendency to draw and accept conclusions without a significant amount of objective evidence and its resistance to change. That’s a personal preference for another debate at another time. It’s also a criticism not limited to religion. Any sort of dogma can be unhealthy. For example, Stalin and communist Russia, or Senator McCarthy and the McCarthy trials (Just to make sure I’m getting both sides of the coin, here. Can’t let my libertarian bias get in the way.). Belief systems that aren’t open to questioning can lead to abuse and control.

  • Virgil0211

    @205: Oops! Guess I should have read that one first, eh? I didn’t know you’d already conceded the point. My bad.

    “There was only one true Christian, and he died on the cross.” – Friedrich Nietzsche (One of my favorite philosophers, although he did sorta go crazy in his later years.)

    Just to be clear, I’m not saying that Christianity is unique among religions for its part in various atrocities, or that it’s inherently bad, or that religion is inherently evil. My problem with religion has to do with its tendency to draw and accept conclusions without a significant amount of objective evidence and its resistance to change. That’s a personal preference for another debate at another time. It’s also a criticism not limited to religion. Any sort of dogma can be unhealthy. For example, Stalin and communist Russia, or Senator McCarthy and the McCarthy trials (Just to make sure I’m getting both sides of the coin, here. Can’t let my libertarian bias get in the way.). Belief systems that aren’t open to questioning can lead to abuse and control.

  • Virgil0211

    @205: Oops! Guess I should have read that one first, eh? I didn’t know you’d already conceded the point. My bad.

    “There was only one true Christian, and he died on the cross.” – Friedrich Nietzsche (One of my favorite philosophers, although he did sorta go crazy in his later years.)

    Just to be clear, I’m not saying that Christianity is unique among religions for its part in various atrocities, or that it’s inherently bad, or that religion is inherently evil. My problem with religion has to do with its tendency to draw and accept conclusions without a significant amount of objective evidence and its resistance to change. That’s a personal preference for another debate at another time. It’s also a criticism not limited to religion. Any sort of dogma can be unhealthy. For example, Stalin and communist Russia, or Senator McCarthy and the McCarthy trials (Just to make sure I’m getting both sides of the coin, here. Can’t let my libertarian bias get in the way.). Belief systems that aren’t open to questioning can lead to abuse and control.

  • JustSayin’

    @210
    You know I have conducted an experiment on this topic over the last couple days, I asked several people I know if they thought that hitler was a christian, now all these people are causual aquaintinces I really have no idea of there religious/philisophical leanings but the response was unanimous and went along these lines “Huh!?! are you serious?”

    With all that I’m satisfied that that I really don’t need to worry about continuing this arguement, if thats what you belevie in (dare I say have faith in) there’s simply nothing I can say that will convience you. So after a tactical consideration I see nothing I have to gain or loose from this, and so I’ve decided to quit the battlefield as it were, I wish you a pleasant day.

  • JustSayin’

    @210
    You know I have conducted an experiment on this topic over the last couple days, I asked several people I know if they thought that hitler was a christian, now all these people are causual aquaintinces I really have no idea of there religious/philisophical leanings but the response was unanimous and went along these lines “Huh!?! are you serious?”

    With all that I’m satisfied that that I really don’t need to worry about continuing this arguement, if thats what you belevie in (dare I say have faith in) there’s simply nothing I can say that will convience you. So after a tactical consideration I see nothing I have to gain or loose from this, and so I’ve decided to quit the battlefield as it were, I wish you a pleasant day.

  • JustSayin’

    @210
    You know I have conducted an experiment on this topic over the last couple days, I asked several people I know if they thought that hitler was a christian, now all these people are causual aquaintinces I really have no idea of there religious/philisophical leanings but the response was unanimous and went along these lines “Huh!?! are you serious?”

    With all that I’m satisfied that that I really don’t need to worry about continuing this arguement, if thats what you belevie in (dare I say have faith in) there’s simply nothing I can say that will convience you. So after a tactical consideration I see nothing I have to gain or loose from this, and so I’ve decided to quit the battlefield as it were, I wish you a pleasant day.

  • Virgil0211

    @212:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

    I just go where the evidence takes me. If you want to call that “faith” to make yourself feel better, go right ahead.

  • Virgil0211

    @212:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

    I just go where the evidence takes me. If you want to call that “faith” to make yourself feel better, go right ahead.

  • Virgil0211

    @212:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

    I just go where the evidence takes me. If you want to call that “faith” to make yourself feel better, go right ahead.

  • Thomas

    “The genocide against the Jews had obvious religious overtones. You can’t say that about Japanese imperialism, which had more to do with nationalism than a given aspect of Shintoism.”

    Again, I’d accredit the Holocaust more to Hitler’s determination for a race of people like him more than I would religion.

  • Thomas

    “The genocide against the Jews had obvious religious overtones. You can’t say that about Japanese imperialism, which had more to do with nationalism than a given aspect of Shintoism.”

    Again, I’d accredit the Holocaust more to Hitler’s determination for a race of people like him more than I would religion.

  • Thomas

    “The genocide against the Jews had obvious religious overtones. You can’t say that about Japanese imperialism, which had more to do with nationalism than a given aspect of Shintoism.”

    Again, I’d accredit the Holocaust more to Hitler’s determination for a race of people like him more than I would religion.

  • Virgil0211

    Perhaps it’s akin to the following scenario. A man kills his wife. She was having an affair. Her life insurance policy would have left him with $10,000,000. What caused his murderous behavior? Was it the former or the latter reason? Did one reinforce the other?

    I think it’s safe to say that his focus on the Jews was at least reinforced by his religious views and upbringing, if not caused by them. Antisemitism was rather popular at the time, and that had religious roots, though that was more through a schism between the Jewish and Christian communities resulting from religious doctrine rather than directly from doctrine. Christianity forbade banking as an evil practice, Judaism didn’t. The majority of the rich bankers were Jewish. You can see where that leads.

    My main problem here was two-fold. 1: The assertion that Hitler was an atheist. I don’t know why people make that assertion in the face of the evidence. Whatever people may conclude from his speeches etc., the last thing he was was an atheist. While we’re on that, I’d also like to point out that Hitler didn’t even understand the theory of evolution. The version of evolution he embraced was that posited by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who suggested the predecessor to Darwin’s theory. Lamarckian evolution is as follows: Animals acquire various traits by performing and attempting tasks throughout their lives (giraffes getting longer necks by trying to reach for leaves on taller tress, for example). These traits are then passed on to their children. Hitler embraced this theory because it allowed him to justify his racial hatred on a genetic level.

  • Virgil0211

    Perhaps it’s akin to the following scenario. A man kills his wife. She was having an affair. Her life insurance policy would have left him with $10,000,000. What caused his murderous behavior? Was it the former or the latter reason? Did one reinforce the other?

    I think it’s safe to say that his focus on the Jews was at least reinforced by his religious views and upbringing, if not caused by them. Antisemitism was rather popular at the time, and that had religious roots, though that was more through a schism between the Jewish and Christian communities resulting from religious doctrine rather than directly from doctrine. Christianity forbade banking as an evil practice, Judaism didn’t. The majority of the rich bankers were Jewish. You can see where that leads.

    My main problem here was two-fold. 1: The assertion that Hitler was an atheist. I don’t know why people make that assertion in the face of the evidence. Whatever people may conclude from his speeches etc., the last thing he was was an atheist. While we’re on that, I’d also like to point out that Hitler didn’t even understand the theory of evolution. The version of evolution he embraced was that posited by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who suggested the predecessor to Darwin’s theory. Lamarckian evolution is as follows: Animals acquire various traits by performing and attempting tasks throughout their lives (giraffes getting longer necks by trying to reach for leaves on taller tress, for example). These traits are then passed on to their children. Hitler embraced this theory because it allowed him to justify his racial hatred on a genetic level.

  • Virgil0211

    Perhaps it’s akin to the following scenario. A man kills his wife. She was having an affair. Her life insurance policy would have left him with $10,000,000. What caused his murderous behavior? Was it the former or the latter reason? Did one reinforce the other?

    I think it’s safe to say that his focus on the Jews was at least reinforced by his religious views and upbringing, if not caused by them. Antisemitism was rather popular at the time, and that had religious roots, though that was more through a schism between the Jewish and Christian communities resulting from religious doctrine rather than directly from doctrine. Christianity forbade banking as an evil practice, Judaism didn’t. The majority of the rich bankers were Jewish. You can see where that leads.

    My main problem here was two-fold. 1: The assertion that Hitler was an atheist. I don’t know why people make that assertion in the face of the evidence. Whatever people may conclude from his speeches etc., the last thing he was was an atheist. While we’re on that, I’d also like to point out that Hitler didn’t even understand the theory of evolution. The version of evolution he embraced was that posited by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who suggested the predecessor to Darwin’s theory. Lamarckian evolution is as follows: Animals acquire various traits by performing and attempting tasks throughout their lives (giraffes getting longer necks by trying to reach for leaves on taller tress, for example). These traits are then passed on to their children. Hitler embraced this theory because it allowed him to justify his racial hatred on a genetic level.

  • Sniktbub

    I rather like that idea of yours about the religion, Spoony. I wish now the movie had put that into play, it would have been great.

  • Sniktbub

    I rather like that idea of yours about the religion, Spoony. I wish now the movie had put that into play, it would have been great.

  • Sniktbub

    I rather like that idea of yours about the religion, Spoony. I wish now the movie had put that into play, it would have been great.

  • netizen

    It’s sad, but not surprising, that everyone has completely missed the message of this film. This is because you all ascribe to the politically correct view of South Africa – whites as evil murderous oppressors, blacks as innocent victims.

    This film was made by a white South African whose family had been driven from South Africa by the ANC (the ruling party that took over after the whites abandoned apartheid). The central metaphor in this film is his family’s own oppression at the hands of the post-apartheid government.

    To summarize:
    Whites came to South Africa with vastly superior technology.
    Those whites were abandoned by all the other white countries including their homeland.
    Since then, those whites have been endlessly extorted, tortured, and murdered by the black majority.

    Sound familiar?

    Yes, the movie had to be dolled up to obfuscate this theme, and at least appear on the surface to fit the politically correct depiction of South Africa. But you can’t ignore the obvious: this movie is about natives abusing foreigners, not foreigners abusing natives.

    If you don’t believe me, do a little research. The conditions in South Africa right now are so bad that Canada just granted refugee status to a white South African for racial persecution. Say what you will about the Boers, they were never as bad as the ANC.

  • netizen

    It’s sad, but not surprising, that everyone has completely missed the message of this film. This is because you all ascribe to the politically correct view of South Africa – whites as evil murderous oppressors, blacks as innocent victims.

    This film was made by a white South African whose family had been driven from South Africa by the ANC (the ruling party that took over after the whites abandoned apartheid). The central metaphor in this film is his family’s own oppression at the hands of the post-apartheid government.

    To summarize:
    Whites came to South Africa with vastly superior technology.
    Those whites were abandoned by all the other white countries including their homeland.
    Since then, those whites have been endlessly extorted, tortured, and murdered by the black majority.

    Sound familiar?

    Yes, the movie had to be dolled up to obfuscate this theme, and at least appear on the surface to fit the politically correct depiction of South Africa. But you can’t ignore the obvious: this movie is about natives abusing foreigners, not foreigners abusing natives.

    If you don’t believe me, do a little research. The conditions in South Africa right now are so bad that Canada just granted refugee status to a white South African for racial persecution. Say what you will about the Boers, they were never as bad as the ANC.

  • netizen

    It’s sad, but not surprising, that everyone has completely missed the message of this film. This is because you all ascribe to the politically correct view of South Africa – whites as evil murderous oppressors, blacks as innocent victims.

    This film was made by a white South African whose family had been driven from South Africa by the ANC (the ruling party that took over after the whites abandoned apartheid). The central metaphor in this film is his family’s own oppression at the hands of the post-apartheid government.

    To summarize:
    Whites came to South Africa with vastly superior technology.
    Those whites were abandoned by all the other white countries including their homeland.
    Since then, those whites have been endlessly extorted, tortured, and murdered by the black majority.

    Sound familiar?

    Yes, the movie had to be dolled up to obfuscate this theme, and at least appear on the surface to fit the politically correct depiction of South Africa. But you can’t ignore the obvious: this movie is about natives abusing foreigners, not foreigners abusing natives.

    If you don’t believe me, do a little research. The conditions in South Africa right now are so bad that Canada just granted refugee status to a white South African for racial persecution. Say what you will about the Boers, they were never as bad as the ANC.

  • Virgil0211

    @218: Do you have a reputable source for these accusations?

  • Virgil0211

    @218: Do you have a reputable source for these accusations?

  • Virgil0211

    @218: Do you have a reputable source for these accusations?

  • gaijinguy

    Actually, I don’t think this would cause much in the way of religious upheaval, except from already-extreme groups; Nicholas of Cusa speculated on the existence of life on other planets, and Catholic dogma holds that “made in God’s image” is a reference to free will, not physical appearance. Also, religious views are addressed here: the Nigerian gangsters are invoking animistic beliefs when they eat the aliens in the hopes of gaining their power.

    Also, “the evils of organized religion” is a topic so grossly overused in speculative fiction that it makes the racism metaphor seem distinctly less stale by comparison.

  • gaijinguy

    Actually, I don’t think this would cause much in the way of religious upheaval, except from already-extreme groups; Nicholas of Cusa speculated on the existence of life on other planets, and Catholic dogma holds that “made in God’s image” is a reference to free will, not physical appearance. Also, religious views are addressed here: the Nigerian gangsters are invoking animistic beliefs when they eat the aliens in the hopes of gaining their power.

    Also, “the evils of organized religion” is a topic so grossly overused in speculative fiction that it makes the racism metaphor seem distinctly less stale by comparison.

  • gaijinguy

    Actually, I don’t think this would cause much in the way of religious upheaval, except from already-extreme groups; Nicholas of Cusa speculated on the existence of life on other planets, and Catholic dogma holds that “made in God’s image” is a reference to free will, not physical appearance. Also, religious views are addressed here: the Nigerian gangsters are invoking animistic beliefs when they eat the aliens in the hopes of gaining their power.

    Also, “the evils of organized religion” is a topic so grossly overused in speculative fiction that it makes the racism metaphor seem distinctly less stale by comparison.

  • Hitman640509
  • Hitman640509
  • Hitman640509
  • MobMentality

    Someone should have mentioned that to Ozymandias before he went and made the squid.

  • http://none MobMentality

    Someone should have mentioned that to Ozymandias before he went and made the squid.

  • jack lupino

    The vatican has issued a statement begin 2009 that they acknowledge the fact that we might not be alone in the universe.

  • jack lupino

    The vatican has issued a statement begin 2009 that they acknowledge the fact that we might not be alone in the universe.

  • jack lupino

    The vatican has issued a statement begin 2009 that they acknowledge the fact that we might not be alone in the universe.

  • netizen

    It’s sad, but not surprising, that everyone has completely missed the message of this film. This is because you all ascribe to the politically correct view of South Africa – whites as evil murderous oppressors, blacks as innocent victims.

    This film was made by a white South African whose family had been driven from South Africa by the ANC (the ruling party that took over after the whites abandoned apartheid). The central metaphor in this film is his family’s own oppression at the hands of the post-apartheid government.

    To summarize:
    Whites came to South Africa with vastly superior technology.
    Those whites were abandoned by all the other white countries including their homeland.
    Since then, those whites have been endlessly extorted, tortured, and murdered by the black majority.

    Sound familiar?

    Yes, the movie had to be dolled up to obfuscate this theme, and at least appear on the surface to fit the politically correct depiction of South Africa. But you can’t ignore the obvious: this movie is about natives abusing foreigners, not foreigners abusing natives.

    If you don’t believe me, do a little research. The conditions in South Africa right now are so bad that Canada just granted refugee status to a white South African for racial persecution. Say what you will about the Boers, they were never as bad as the ANC.

  • netizen

    It’s sad, but not surprising, that everyone has completely missed the message of this film. This is because you all ascribe to the politically correct view of South Africa – whites as evil murderous oppressors, blacks as innocent victims.

    This film was made by a white South African whose family had been driven from South Africa by the ANC (the ruling party that took over after the whites abandoned apartheid). The central metaphor in this film is his family’s own oppression at the hands of the post-apartheid government.

    To summarize:
    Whites came to South Africa with vastly superior technology.
    Those whites were abandoned by all the other white countries including their homeland.
    Since then, those whites have been endlessly extorted, tortured, and murdered by the black majority.

    Sound familiar?

    Yes, the movie had to be dolled up to obfuscate this theme, and at least appear on the surface to fit the politically correct depiction of South Africa. But you can’t ignore the obvious: this movie is about natives abusing foreigners, not foreigners abusing natives.

    If you don’t believe me, do a little research. The conditions in South Africa right now are so bad that Canada just granted refugee status to a white South African for racial persecution. Say what you will about the Boers, they were never as bad as the ANC.

  • netizen

    It’s sad, but not surprising, that everyone has completely missed the message of this film. This is because you all ascribe to the politically correct view of South Africa – whites as evil murderous oppressors, blacks as innocent victims.

    This film was made by a white South African whose family had been driven from South Africa by the ANC (the ruling party that took over after the whites abandoned apartheid). The central metaphor in this film is his family’s own oppression at the hands of the post-apartheid government.

    To summarize:
    Whites came to South Africa with vastly superior technology.
    Those whites were abandoned by all the other white countries including their homeland.
    Since then, those whites have been endlessly extorted, tortured, and murdered by the black majority.

    Sound familiar?

    Yes, the movie had to be dolled up to obfuscate this theme, and at least appear on the surface to fit the politically correct depiction of South Africa. But you can’t ignore the obvious: this movie is about natives abusing foreigners, not foreigners abusing natives.

    If you don’t believe me, do a little research. The conditions in South Africa right now are so bad that Canada just granted refugee status to a white South African for racial persecution. Say what you will about the Boers, they were never as bad as the ANC.

  • Saint Judas

    hey spoony, i disagree a little with the prawn/god/7th day thing causing worldwide doubt. Many Christians believe in other life on other worlds, although no one can imagine exactly what…If I can believe in angels and demons as real, yet invisible forces, why can’t i believe that He made other things on other worlds? I can’t put God in that Box.

  • Saint Judas

    hey spoony, i disagree a little with the prawn/god/7th day thing causing worldwide doubt. Many Christians believe in other life on other worlds, although no one can imagine exactly what…If I can believe in angels and demons as real, yet invisible forces, why can’t i believe that He made other things on other worlds? I can’t put God in that Box.

  • Saint Judas

    hey spoony, i disagree a little with the prawn/god/7th day thing causing worldwide doubt. Many Christians believe in other life on other worlds, although no one can imagine exactly what…If I can believe in angels and demons as real, yet invisible forces, why can’t i believe that He made other things on other worlds? I can’t put God in that Box.

  • http://twitter.com/colabomb colabomb

    Let me add another comment along the Religious lines. When I read that I am made in the image of God, i read that to mean that I am a sentient being with free will and higher reasoning beyond the base instincts. The existence of Alien life would do nothing to my faith, neither strengthen or weaken it.

    I don't know why so many people assume that the Christian faith teaches that there are no aliens. Perhaps it has to do with the old stereotypes that we are all backwards hicks.

    • http://www.facebook.com/RottenEggCreations Andross Youwillneverstophim

      you are all backwards hicks in comparison to reality. Faith is believing in something without a good reason. No physical indication for such a belief outside of feelings and emotions. And you would be one of the rare exceptions to the majority of christains. I think the evidence how they view gay people to this day is proof of that.

      • ftidus12

        Wrong. Pistis (the word translated as “faith”) is the exact opposite of the ludicrous caricature you present: Pistis is “having trust in someone (in this case, God) based on prior behavior”. Christians do not trust in God without evidence, they trust because God has constantly shown wisdom and a sense of justice to them. Thus this Pistis is not based on fleeting things such as feelings and emotions but rather on a clear track record.

        That’s not even looking at the centuries of philosophical study and contributions to logic which comprise their intellectual history.

        Furthermore, given that millions of Christians have supported and fought for LGBT rights (in fact, of the 14 major denominations, seven are gay affirming), and many more if one counts the independent congregations, I’d say your “example” neither covers the majority of Christians nor does it “prove” anything (Non-religious states and individuals have also oppressed LGBT persons, are they representative of that population too? Of course not. Same deal with Christians).

        So it looks like the only “backwards hick” here….is you.

  • http://twitter.com/colabomb colabomb

    Let me add another comment along the Religious lines. When I read that I am made in the image of God, i read that to mean that I am a sentient being with free will and higher reasoning beyond the base instincts. The existence of Alien life would do nothing to my faith, neither strengthen or weaken it.

    I don’t know why so many people assume that the Christian faith teaches that there are no aliens. Perhaps it has to do with the old stereotypes that we are all backwards hicks.

  • Anonymous

    Ewww. I knew I would regret looking into the earlier comments sections.

    “The presence of extraterrestrial life is heretical to many forms of organized religion, who believe that God created Man in His own image.”

    Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Spoony.

    When the Abrahamic religions (Islam, Judaism, AND Christianity. YES, ALL THREE), speak of “made in the image of God” , they refer to something to known as the “Imago Dei”, which in the theology of all three, speak not of form but of will and consciousness. The “image of God” in Semitic thought (the core of all three belief systems) is a reference to man’s ability to choose. Free will IS the image of God. In choosing, in our ability to rise above our base instincts we transcend other animals and in doing so are that much closer to divine.

    In their theology, God is beyond form. He is beyond nature. He transcends all things and is all things. As such, nothing can have the physical form of God. This is established from the very beginning of their holy texts (which even the briefest scan of Biblical Hermeneutics would have told you)

    As such, all sentient beings who possess Free Will (regardless of planet) can be said to be made in the image of God. As such, your entire statement is false.

    Furthermore, religious clergy and writers have for years been open to the idea of other beings (in fact, the Vatican Observatory and Islamic Academy of Sciences have, since their inception, been at the forefront of the quest to find intelligent life).

    “Some might reform their religious texts, be progressive about the whole thing, but by and large, the prawns’ arrival is the death of God. ”

    Why would the texts need reforming? As I have shown, there is nothing wrong about it. Also, “the death of God”? Really? Spoony, the idea of new races and peoples to be ministered to, would be rocket fuel for countless religious groups. We would see an upsurge in religious attendance and a new emphasis on preaching to “our brothers and sisters from the distant expanse of Creation” (Don’t believe me? Read Lewis’s “Rocket Men” or the works of Alhacen or if you would be more comfortable hearing about it from a Secular angle, read “Holy Day on Mars?” by Kelsey, an Anthropologist and an Atheist, which shows that the idea of meeting new cultures and peoples actually BOOSTS religion).

    This is doubly so if they are religious themselves, and especially if they are monotheistic in those beliefs (and since works like Sloan’s “Darwin’s Cathedral” have shown that religious beliefs are very useful as an evolutionary adaptation for a high level civilization, there is much to suggest that they will be.)

    No offense, Spoony. I respect you and I love your work. But this piece is terribly misinformed (as are many of the comments here) .

    • http://twitter.com/TransientChaos John Johnson

      That’s some mighty fine word play right there! Care to do that with the rest of the bible?

      • Anonymous

        No word play involved. Just an understanding of ANE culture and hermeneutics. My same statement applies to the rest of the Bible as well.

    • http://www.facebook.com/rene.geiss.9 Rene Geiss

      I thought free will was given to us later by a talking snake who is also an Archangel wich god threw out of heaven?

      • ftidus12

        Wrong. The choice to defy is, by it’s nature, an act of free will. Even in the parable of the Garden you refer to (wherein it is established long before the serpent appears, that humanity could always choose to defy God’s will, thus God needing to set ground rules about which fruit they could and could not eat.) there is a clear understanding that humanity has always had free will gifted to it by it’s creator.

        • Jegsimmons

          pretty much spot on. That and i never really found in anyway that alien life would be contradictory to any religion. especially mine (christian). Not unless you misread or misunderstood what “made in my own image” meant in that context. plus, why would god just make one planet with life on it, especially one with the only sentient mind in the universe. (personally i always assumed god did about the same thing to other alien races if they exist, that he did with us. more or less)

          • ftidus12

            Thank you and I agree.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kain-Alin/100000980485001 Kain Alin

            What if an alien race is what made you? Wouldn’t that kind of destroy any religion? What if this alien race is so technologically advanced that they transcend anything that relies in our perception, what if we are just a colony or the last remnants of a long gone civilization that floated through the universe?

            The existence of god is quite useless. The only reason why people should be praying to him is if they have nothing better to do, like say walking or eating or anything that is more relevant to their current lives. We live short lives, my friends, do not waste this time on worthless things because you think your worship of a grand creator will bring you something. A perfect entity does not need any worship or any attention from you, the entity is perfect so by default complete.

          • Jegsimmons

            not, really, because even if we were created by aliens (which would be stupid since evolution has already been figured out) something still created them, and i doubt they would be omnipotent beings. because if they were, then they’d literally be god.

            also, why are you trying to tell me god doesnt exist. thats not the point of this conversation. also, why do you care so much to type out such a negative response months after these post that dont contribute and only serves to start flame wars and shit?

            if you dont believe in god fine.
            If you do, fine. i don’t care either way, you got your own views.

            now let ME decide how i want to live my life. ok buddy?

          • ftidus12

            “What if an
            alien race is what made you? Wouldn’t that kind of destroy any religion?”

            Given the
            existence of UFO religions like the Realians, the Church of Scientology, and
            the Universe People, the exact opposite would
            be true.

            “The existence of god is quite useless.”

            This statement makes no sense. The existence of an entity cannot be useless. Actions
            can be useless. Entities themselves can be described as useless. Existence in and
            of itself cannot be useless.

          • ftidus12

            “The only
            reason why people should be praying to him is if they have nothing better to do…”

            How about:
            focusing one’s thoughts, dealing with stress, overcoming physical pain, the warmth
            and fellowship offered by being part of a prayer community, or the countless
            other physiological/psychological benefits that come from engaging in prayerful
            meditation? If you are going to demean
            something, it would help if you have SOME idea of what you are mocking.

            “We live
            short lives, my friends, do not waste this time on worthless things because you
            think your worship of a grand creator will bring you something.”

            I can play
            that tune too, sunshine.

            “We live short
            lives, my smug, impotent, faux intellectual poseur. Do not waste time on making
            worthless rants on the internet because you think that your ill-informed
            rambling will make people people think highly of you.”

          • ftidus12

            “A perfect entity does not
            need any worship or any attention from you, the entity is perfect so by default
            complete.”

            The
            Abrahamic God does not NEED anything
            from humanity (See Isaiah 1:11). He WANTS a bond with them. To speak
            to them. For them to live justly. He can
            be complete without us, but chooses to seek out mankind to make HUMANITY more complete.

    • Hanskrsg

      I totally agree that the proof of existence of aliens wouldn’t deter the religious for long. There are a lot of scientific discoveries that proves a lot religious texts of all Abrahamic and other religions wrong, but they still believe. Sometimes they try to interpret the words to fit the new knowledge, or try to confuse the issue by using their own “scientists” to “prove” the new theories wrong, etc. But they won’t stop believing, because people are stupid that way.

      And although the image of God thing has been interpreted away in your example, there are still problems with the existence of another sentient species if you read the bible, torah , koran etc.The bible teaches implicitly that the only things He created with intelligence are the angels, man, and the animals. So if you aren’t saying that the shrimps are angels or even fallen angels, you have a problem with the scriptures.

      I could go on of course, but I should really butt out of the religious talk before things get feisty :P

      • ftidus12

        “There are a lot of scientific discoveries that proves a lot religious
        texts of all Abrahamic and other religions wrong….”

        Oh dear. If I got a penny each time I heard this canard I’d be able to pay for Spoony’s web hosting until the 50th millennium. To be brief: no. No discovery, scientific, anthropological, or otherwise has ever “proven the Abrahamics wrong”. As both scientist and philosopher, I sought such proof which disavowed these texts. I found none. Nor could anyone I have discussed the subject with. In fact, everytime I challenged someone to show me this proof….well, suffice it to say, they had a lot of sizzle, but no steak.

        “Sometimes they try to interpret the words to fit the new knowledge,”

        A problem with many sub-groups, secular as well as religious.

        But I have found that the words, understood in their context, need no “re-fitting” and do not conflict with discoveries.

        “or try to confuse the issue by using their own “scientists” to “prove” the
        new theories wrong, etc. ”

        If you are referring to Creationists and their ilk. I agree. They practice both bad science AND bad theology. I argue with them, almost more than any other group in any other category.

        But if you are referring to those that made those discoveries (most of whom were religious) like: Francis Collins, Freeman Dyson, Georges Lemaître, Gregor Mendel, John Lennox, and the legion of others I could name…then you need to ask yourself: “Am I painting all religious people with a broad brush? Can it be that the brilliant scholars listed above are capable of being both religious and scientists? Can it be that THEY saw the same theories and found (as so many) that they did not conflict with their religion? Can the problem simply be that I misunderstand them?”

        “But they won’t stop believing, because people
        are stupid that way.”

        I find that statement to be true of all groups. Atheist as easily as theist (Trofim Lysenko, if you want a particularly colorful example).

        But could it be that those brilliant minds didn’t stop believing, not because they were “stupid”, but simply because they found no logical reason to stop? That they compared the evidence (as I and millions like me have) and found no conflict?

      • ftidus12

        “And although the image of God thing has been interpreted away in your example, there are still problems with the existence of another sentient species if you read the bible, torah , koran etc.The bible teaches implicitly that the only things He created with intelligence are the angels, man, and the animals. So if you aren’t saying that the shrimps are angels or even fallen angels, you have a problem with the scriptures.”

        Actually, having studied the Bible and Torah (as well as the Oral Torah), reading over countless commentaries and translations and study notes….I can definitevely say you are incorrect.
        While I can’t speak for the Quaran (as my study of it only began in earnest a year ago), I CAN tell you that nothing in the Judaic or Christian texts suggest that humans were the ONLY mortal beings blessed with the Imageo Dei (other beasts did not get that gift, something you would know if you had actually read any of the texts). In fact, the only wording that comes close to that specifically is referring to our relationship to the Holy Host and the Earth, but never states that we are the ONLY ones created (and in fact, given that it is written in plural, it is pretty clear that we are not the only game in town). In fact, as early as the first reconstruction period after the reign of Cyrus the Great we have numerous rabbinical texts posititing the existence of other worlds and other beings like us.

        So once again, you are mistaken: it looks like YOU have a problem with the Scriptures. Perhaps actually reading them might help. I can even reccommend an excellent translation guide.

        “I could go on of course, but I should really butt out of the religious talk before things get feisty :P”

        …but you didn’t have any substance the first go round, so I doubt you could “go on”. I think I’ve demonstrated exactly why your argument is so much empty noise. I don’t blame you, though. There is alot of misinformation going around. So I’ll do ya a solid and reccommend some books that might clear the air and help prove my point:

        “Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion” by Ronald Numbers

        “God’s Philosophers” by James Hannam

        “Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society” by David Sloan Wilson

        By the way? Sloan and Numbers? Both non-religious (Rons a hardline Agnostic and Davids an Atheist).

        Give them a read and I think you’ll see just how silly your screed was.

  • Luvz2spooge

    Hey guys is this the… oh wait (sees religious discussion) my mistake! (swiftly exits the room)

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Schmidt/100000349635671 Michael Schmidt

    this isnt a video review……….

    • Sajeh

      This one is sharper than we thought!

  • The Spoony Experiment
    @ 2014 Noah Antwiler
  • Privacy Policy
  • "Burt-OS" forged by The Engineer.
  • Logo image by Marobot.