Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Kirk Cameron on Darwin

Sep 26, 2009#1

ZenMonkey

Beware: if you are a critical thinker, you may not want to watch this directly after eating. And yes, Cameron does Godwin himself less than two minutes into it.

Now, as Michael Shermer asks, should a campaign be mounted to counter this dribbling shit? I say yes, because Cameron has the advantage of name recognition and celebrity-worshipping America doesn't, generally, know any better not to listen to a celebrity just because he was on a TV show once.

Sep 26, 2009#2

drifter

Ugh. My cousin's husband is deep into that Way of the Master shit. Actually, I think she may be into it as well, now, at least to a certain extent. Makes for amusing dinner conversation, as we all have had experiences with her husband and his attempts to witness.

Sep 26, 2009#3

Armadillo

ZenMonkey said:
Beware: if you are a critical thinker, you may not want to watch this directly after eating. And yes, Cameron does Godwin himself less than two minutes into it.

Now, as Michael Shermer asks, should a campaign be mounted to counter this dribbling shit? I say yes, because Cameron has the advantage of name recognition and celebrity-worshipping America doesn't, generally, know any better not to listen to a celebrity just because he was on a TV show once.

Sep 26, 2009#4

Iaculus

Armadillo;263359][quote=ZenMonkey said:
Beware: if you are a critical thinker, you may not want to watch this directly after eating. And yes, Cameron does Godwin himself less than two minutes into it.

Now, as Michael Shermer asks, should a campaign be mounted to counter this dribbling shit? I say yes, because Cameron has the advantage of name recognition and celebrity-worshipping America doesn't, generally, know any better not to listen to a celebrity just because he was on a TV show once.

If there's one thing I've learned about the creation/evolution debate, it's that NOBODY will ever have their mind changed about it. Either you believe that science is a way to attempt to answer questions about the world, or you think it's all bunk designed to brainwash kids into Communism and heavy petting.[/QUOTE]

What about those who haven't yet reached an opinion? That's who both sides are scrambling for, not the hardliners opposing them.

Sep 26, 2009#5

Armadillo

Iaculus;263370][quote=Armadillo;263359][quote=ZenMonkey said:
Beware: if you are a critical thinker, you may not want to watch this directly after eating. And yes, Cameron does Godwin himself less than two minutes into it.

Now, as Michael Shermer asks, should a campaign be mounted to counter this dribbling shit? I say yes, because Cameron has the advantage of name recognition and celebrity-worshipping America doesn't, generally, know any better not to listen to a celebrity just because he was on a TV show once.

Sep 26, 2009#6

Bowielee

"This is a life and death issue"

Um.... tell me, Mike Seaver, how is this "life and death"?

Sep 26, 2009#7

Kitty Sinatra

"Kirk Cameron on Darwin" belongs in the NSFW section doesn't it?

Sep 27, 2009#8

Armadillo

Gruebeard said:
"Kirk Cameron on Darwin" belongs in the NSFW section doesn't it?

Sep 27, 2009#9

ZenMonkey

Bowielee said:
Um.... tell me, Mike Seaver, how is this "life and death"?

Because we atheists eat babies.

Sep 27, 2009#10

Iaculus

ZenMonkey;263481][quote=Bowielee said:
Um.... tell me, Mike Seaver, how is this "life and death"?

Because we atheists eat babies.[/QUOTE]

Oh? I only ever tried kittens. Know any good recipes?

Sep 27, 2009#11

Silver Jelly

ZenMonkey;263481][quote=Bowielee said:
Um.... tell me, Mike Seaver, how is this "life and death"?

Because we atheists eat babies.[/QUOTE]

And we catholics make them! Do I see the hand of God in this perfect balance? Or is it an evolutionary adaptation?

Sep 27, 2009#12

ZenMonkey

Iaculus said:
Oh? I only ever tried kittens. Know any good recipes?

Recipes? I'm an atheist Jew, I have a whole fuckin' cookbook.

Sep 27, 2009#13

Bowielee

ZenMonkey;263623][quote=Iaculus said:
Oh? I only ever tried kittens. Know any good recipes?

Recipes? I'm an atheist Jew, I have a whole fuckin' cookbook.[/QUOTE]

So, you killed Christ AND God...

Sep 27, 2009#14

Espy

You know, I admire their boldness in sharing Christ with people but... their logical reasoning isn't always my cup of tea.

Sep 27, 2009#15

ZenMonkey

Espy said:
their logical reasoning isn't always my cup of tea.

WHAT logical reasoning.

Sep 27, 2009#16

Bowielee

I can understand people believing in intelligent design. If you believe in god, I can totally see that you would think that he's the one who set up all the rules that science uncovers. I can totally see that. It's when they start on the creationism stuff that just gets me riled.

"God totally litterally created the earth and everything in it in a week" just seems willfully ignorant to me. Haven't these people ever heard of a metaphor?

---------- Post added at 12:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:32 AM ----------

ZenMonkey;263630][quote=Espy said:
their logical reasoning isn't always my cup of tea.

WHAT logical reasoning.[/QUOTE]

That's exactly it, Faith, by it's definition defies logic.

Sep 27, 2009#17

SpecialKO

Bowielee said:
I can understand people believing in intelligent design. If you believe in god, I can totally see that you would think that he's the one who set up all the rules that science uncovers.

But that's kind of the thing. There's "intelligent design", the philosophical thought process, and "Intelligent Design", which pretends to be science.

Lots of scientists believe in the small-caps version, which is the simple belief that God had a hand in setting the natural laws, including evolution, in place to make everything work. Darwin himself is well known to have thought this.

Large-caps, on the other hand, is straight-up creationism pretending to be "science" even though there is no application of the scientific method to back any theories, and most of their "science" is pointing out inconsistencies in, or making outright falsifications about, our current understanding of evolution and geology, and then using that reject science as a whole and embrace creationism.

Sep 27, 2009#18

ZenMonkey

Setting aside the creationist vs. evolution debate, the problem here is that they are tampering with Origin of Species to put forth their own agenda. I bet the country would go fucking apeshit if people went to college campuses handing out versions of the Bible where Satan wins Job's soul and Eve told Adam not to touch that nasty apple.

Hand out all the Chick Tracts you want, or write your own, fine. Talk about Darwin's religiosity in your own book. But inserting bullshit into Darwin's own book is one of the most offensive attacks on rational thinking I've ever heard.

Sep 27, 2009#19

Iaculus

ZenMonkey;263623][quote=Iaculus said:
Oh? I only ever tried kittens. Know any good recipes?

Recipes? I'm an atheist Jew, I have a whole fuckin' cookbook.[/QUOTE]

How is it that this is one of the most weirdly badass things I've heard on this forum?

Sep 28, 2009#20

Frankie Williamson

THERE'S NO FUCKING SCIENCE INVOLVED IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

Stop trying to get it taught in fucking science fucking classes.

Sep 28, 2009#21

Espy

ZenMonkey;263630][quote=Espy said:
their logical reasoning isn't always my cup of tea.

WHAT logical reasoning.[/QUOTE]

Well thats exactly the problem. As other have hit on, faith is FAITH. If it was "logical" it wouldn't be faith. That doesn't make it bad, it just makes it a different beast.
What bothers me about these guys is that they really, really think they can control faith. They can take it and beat it into formulas that MUST WORK. They think they can take faith and make it 100% objective truth.
To me, that defeats the purpose of it.

Sep 28, 2009#22

fade

Silver Jelly;263503][quote=ZenMonkey;263481][quote=Bowielee said:
Um.... tell me, Mike Seaver, how is this "life and death"?

Because we atheists eat babies.[/QUOTE]

And we catholics make them! Do I see the hand of God in this perfect balance? Or is it an evolutionary adaptation?[/QUOTE]

Best. Post. Ever.

Sep 28, 2009#23

tegid

The lack of logic and the mix of unrelated things is painful.

I want to think this will be completely useless, since they will be giving the books to university students, but it doesn't seem impossible that some are fooled...

Sep 28, 2009#24

Armadillo

tegid said:
The lack of logic and the mix of unrelated things is painful.

I want to think this will be completely useless, since they will be giving the books to university students, but it doesn't seem impossible that some are fooled...

You've met university students, right? Lots of them aren't terribly good at the thinkin'.

Sep 28, 2009#25

Fun Size

I refuse to take this seriously until I know how the kid who played Boner feels about the whole thing.

Sep 28, 2009#26

tegid

Armadillo;264041][quote=tegid said:
The lack of logic and the mix of unrelated things is painful.

I want to think this will be completely useless, since they will be giving the books to university students, but it doesn't seem impossible that some are fooled...

You've met university students, right? Lots of them aren't terribly good at the thinkin'.[/QUOTE]

Now that you say it... I have met physics students who "don't believe in god but in some 'energy' that is everywhere and I dunno". Also in horoscopes.

EDIT: that energy thing sounds a lot better here than when she tries to flesh it out.

Sep 28, 2009#27

Bowielee

Actually, people who evangelize atheism bother me just as much as those that evangelize any religion.

Sep 28, 2009#28

Armadillo

Bowielee said:
Actually, people who evangelize atheism bother me just as much as those that evangelize any religion.

Which is why I consider myself agnostic. I don't fucking know, nor do I care.

Sep 28, 2009#29

Silver Jelly

tegid;264074][quote=Armadillo;264041][quote=tegid said:
The lack of logic and the mix of unrelated things is painful.

I want to think this will be completely useless, since they will be giving the books to university students, but it doesn't seem impossible that some are fooled...

EDIT: that energy thing sounds a lot better here than when she tries to flesh it out.[/QUOTE]

Are you sure it's a "she" you are talking about?

Sep 28, 2009#30

SpecialKO

Armadillo;264174][quote=Bowielee said:
Actually, people who evangelize atheism bother me just as much as those that evangelize any religion.

Which is why I consider myself agnostic. I don't fucking know, nor do I care.[/QUOTE]

Can I get an AMEN?!

:thumbsup:

Sep 28, 2009#31

Alex B.

I got into this argument with one of my uncles a while back. It went something like this, as I recall:

Uncle B - Creationism should be taught in science class. Alternative ideas should be presented.

Alex B - Ridiculous! Creationism isn't a science. It's fine if you want to have some philosophy class or something, but keep it out of science.

Uncle B - Intelligent Design is a science! *points to some creationist website with a dubious argument about the probability of life forming by accident* Math!

Alex B - *unsure of where to even start* Er, but, besides the law of large numbers proving that wrong, that site is premised on this other guy's book, which has been roundly ripped to shreds by evolutionary scientists. Either way, evolution isn't even about the origin of life. It's just about how that life split into all the species we have today and how it changes over time.

Uncle B - Where's the proof for evolution? Darwin couldn't account for variation!

Alex B - You're basing all your arguments on a book that's a couple of centuries old! They constantly find new evidence to plug in the gaps that Darwin couldn't.

Uncle B - What about the Cambrian Explosion? They haven't explained that.

Alex B - That "explosion" lasted tens of millions of years, and the only thing significant is that all these creatures developed hard shells and left more evidence that they existed.

Uncle B - So that's the proof? A bunch of old bones and dirt?

Alex B - Yes!

Uncle B - Well I just don't believe it.

Alex B - Well there we go.

Uncle B - See you at Christmas. I'll bring the zombies game.

Sep 28, 2009#32

Armadillo

In a nutshell: ID is a science because I say so.

Sep 28, 2009#33

ZenMonkey

Armadillo said:
You've met university students, right? Lots of them aren't terribly good at the thinkin'.

That is exactly my worry here. And I have a sneaking suspicion they won't be handing these out at Harvard, but probably schools targeted for not having the brightest student body.

Sep 28, 2009#34

Bowielee

ZenMonkey;264333][quote=Armadillo said:
You've met university students, right? Lots of them aren't terribly good at the thinkin'.

Sep 28, 2009#35

ZenMonkey

Bowielee said:
Religions preying on the weak willed and absentminded??????

The HELL you say!

I can only hope that Kirk Cameron and one of those campus Scientology recruiters get into a knife fight. Which they both lose.

Sep 28, 2009#36

MindDetective

Armadillo;264174][quote=Bowielee said:
Actually, people who evangelize atheism bother me just as much as those that evangelize any religion.

Which is why I consider myself agnostic. I don't fucking know, nor do I care.[/QUOTE]

You can believe one way or the other without obnoxious evangelizing, you know? Just because there are idiots on both sides is not a good reason to choose agnosticism, I think.

Sep 28, 2009#37

North_Ranger

Armadillo said:
You've met university students, right? Lots of them aren't terribly good at the thinkin'.

Maybe not on your hemisphere...

Sep 28, 2009#38

Cajungal

North_Ranger;264428][quote=Armadillo said:
You've met university students, right? Lots of them aren't terribly good at the thinkin'.

Sep 28, 2009#39

Bowielee

Cajungal;264448][quote=North_Ranger;264428][quote=Armadillo said:
You've met university students, right? Lots of them aren't terribly good at the thinkin'.

Sep 28, 2009#40

SpecialKO

Cajungal said:
Drink, fuck, and whine about a moderate work load that anyone with an average IQ could handle if their blood wasn't composed of mostly Natural Light... forget about learning.

God, I loved college. :toocool:

---------- Post added at 12:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 AM ----------

Seriously, though, I know what you mean.

Sep 28, 2009#41

North_Ranger

TeKeo;264229][quote=Armadillo;264174][quote=Bowielee said:
Actually, people who evangelize atheism bother me just as much as those that evangelize any religion.

Which is why I consider myself agnostic. I don't fucking know, nor do I care.[/QUOTE]

Can I get an AMEN?!

:thumbsup:

[/QUOTE]

I feel it may be somewhat hypocritical of me to use a religious expression while I consider myself an agnostic as well.

Oh, what the heck. AMEN!

---------- Post added at 03:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:52 AM ----------

ZenMonkey;264333][quote=Armadillo said:
You've met university students, right? Lots of them aren't terribly good at the thinkin'.

That is exactly my worry here. And I have a sneaking suspicion they won't be handing these out at Harvard, but probably schools targeted for not having the brightest student body.[/QUOTE]

I don't know which academic organisations you are referring to, crazy monkey cat lady... but I asked a friend of mine in New York state to see if her university is visited by these people. And then kick him in the dangly bits.

---------- Post added at 03:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:54 AM ----------

Bowielee;264451][quote=Cajungal;264448][quote=North_Ranger;264428][quote=Armadillo said:
You've met university students, right? Lots of them aren't terribly good at the thinkin'.

Sep 28, 2009#42

ZenMonkey

North_Ranger said:
I don't know which academic organisations you are referring to, crazy monkey cat lady... but I asked a friend of mine in New York state to see if her university is visited by these people. And then kick him in the dangly bits.

I didn't have any specific ones in mind, crazy Finnish sauna man. I just have a feeling the schools they pick will be picked for a reason or reasons, whatever they may be.

Sep 28, 2009#43

Cajungal

Bowielee;264451][quote=Cajungal;264448][quote=North_Ranger;264428][quote=Armadillo said:
You've met university students, right? Lots of them aren't terribly good at the thinkin'.

Maybe not on your hemisphere...[/QUOTE]

Man don't even get me started. I'm so jaded. College is a fucking zoo over here. Drink, fuck, and whine about a moderate work load that anyone with an average IQ could handle if their blood wasn't composed of mostly Natural Light... forget about learning.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's what happen kids go to school on their parent's money. Seeing as I'm going back to school and paying for it myself, dickheads like this doubly frustrate me.[/QUOTE]

It just breaks my heart to think of people who would give anything to have someone teach them how to fucking read or count--do something simple. But someone's parents' send these kids to a college with great resources and teachers and all they can do is complain about a simple 3-page essay or a project that increases understanding of the field they're "interested" in?

Sidenote... I've been known to have a little fun every now and then also. But still.

Sep 28, 2009#44

North_Ranger

ZenMonkey;264466][quote=North_Ranger said:
I don't know which academic organisations you are referring to, crazy monkey cat lady... but I asked a friend of mine in New York state to see if her university is visited by these people. And then kick him in the dangly bits.

I didn't have any specific ones in mind, crazy Finnish sauna man. I just have a feeling the schools they pick will be picked for a reason or reasons, whatever they may be.[/QUOTE]

Yeah... Religious universities for sure, at least.

I wish I knew more US university students so that I could recruit more people to provide considerable kinetic force via the movement of a human lower appeandage to the external genitalia of these people.

Sep 28, 2009#45

ZenMonkey

North_Ranger said:
Yeah... Religious universities for sure, at least.

Nope, I don't think so. My guess is they don't want to preach to the converted and that the institutions will be secular.

Sep 28, 2009#46

drifter

ZenMonkey;264484][quote=North_Ranger said:
Yeah... Religious universities for sure, at least.

Nope, I don't think so. My guess is they don't want to preach to the converted and that the institutions will be secular.[/QUOTE]

Mmm, I dunno. It's not just about getting people to worship God. It's also about getting people to worship God THE RIGHT WAY.

Sep 29, 2009#47

ZenMonkey

drifter said:
Mmm, I dunno. It's not just about getting people to worship God. It's also about getting people to worship God THE RIGHT WAY.

Sep 29, 2009#48

drifter

ZenMonkey;264628][quote=drifter said:
Mmm, I dunno. It's not just about getting people to worship God. It's also about getting people to worship God THE RIGHT WAY.

By using Origin of Species as a Trojan horse. You don't do that with people who are already interested in Christ (in some way or another). If you watch his video (and I really don't blame you if you don't as I could hardly get through it), he talks about influencing future doctors et al, so I believe they are approaching rational thinkers with this Darwin ploy. He even talks about how their version is free unlike the campus bookstore.[/QUOTE]

Whoops, my bad! You're right, I didn't bother to watch the video. Like I stated earlier, my cousin-in-law is into this stuff. I've listened to him try and tell my father about being a true Christian, which is what prompted my response.

Also, while stuff like this does get on my nerves, I have to say I'm not really too worried about it. Religion is one of those things where most people already have their minds made up. Sure, there are always people who'll switch sides, either through true conversion or simply because they're too stupid and/or weak-willed to look away from the shiny bright thing, but most people will stick to what they know, for better or worse.

Sep 29, 2009#49

AshburnerX

There are two kinds of people in this world: those who Think and those who Believe.

Sep 29, 2009#50

drifter

Let's not forget those who believe they think. Or those who think they believe. Or... ah hell, you get the idea.

Sep 29, 2009#51

AshburnerX

The sad part is that Science is just as full of Believers as Religion.

Sep 29, 2009#52

ZenMonkey

drifter said:
Also, while stuff like this does get on my nerves, I have to say I'm not really too worried about it. Religion is one of those things where most people already have their minds made up.

Yeah, most likely this is true. It's just that the method is so underhanded, slimy, and utterly antithetical to critical thought. It's so fucktastically audacious. And just imagine the 30-ton brick they would shit if anyone did the same thing to the New Testament, slipping in evolution theory and handing it out at churches.

AshburnerX said:
The sad part is that Science is just as full of Believers as Religion.

I don't necessarily find that sad. First of all, "science" is generally so incredibly specialized that most people practicing it can have faith without it affecting their work. For example, someone studying the mitochondria of cells could certainly believe that a higher power set off the Big Bang without her results being tainted by a religious bias. I remember reading an excellent article in Skeptic magazine where scientists who were religious explained similar positions about how their science and their faith coexisted.

Granted, none of the ones profiled were fundamentalists, or evangelicals, or born again, etc. I would say that science and the extremes of religion are not compatible, but generally speaking, religious belief does not automatically exclude the power of critical thinking in secular pursuits.

Sep 29, 2009#53

Covar

Bowielee;264451][quote=Cajungal;264448][quote=North_Ranger;264428][quote=Armadillo said:
You've met university students, right? Lots of them aren't terribly good at the thinkin'.

Maybe not on your hemisphere...[/QUOTE]

Man don't even get me started. I'm so jaded. College is a fucking zoo over here. Drink, fuck, and whine about a moderate work load that anyone with an average IQ could handle if their blood wasn't composed of mostly Natural Light... forget about learning.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's what happen kids go to school on their parent's money. Seeing as I'm going back to school and paying for it myself, dickheads like this doubly frustrate me.[/QUOTE]
Oh My God This. QUIT RUINING THE VALUE OF MY DEGREE ASSHOLES! The only thing worse than the douchebag students with no interest in even being in college, is the fact that since parents pay for the majority of the schooling, Universities (mine at least) will bend over backwards for anyone over the age of 40, while it's near impossible for me, the paying student, to have his administrative needs looked after.

Sep 29, 2009#54

fade

Believe me, we're just as upset about it as you guys are. Administrators do what they think makes the place run like a business, and we profs are down here under it all with you students who want a decent education. Our hands are tied in multiple directions. We have to pander to the students, because evaluations are heavily weighted because they're tied to money. We can't make the classes too challenging, or kids will complain. Or they drop, which is just as bad. We have to deal with the "smart" kids who think they know more than us thanks to that at least five decades out of date idea that "those who can't do teach"--which pisses me off, considering prof jobs are highly competitive and usually go to the cream of the crop who have to by their job definition "do" more than they "teach" anyway! I even hear people I respect spout that one off (I've heard plenty here say it). And we have to deal with the admins who give us contradicting edicts like "raise our standards!" and "make the classes easier".

Sep 29, 2009#55

SpecialKO

drifter said:
Also, while stuff like this does get on my nerves, I have to say I'm not really too worried about it. Religion is one of those things where most people already have their minds made up.

Sep 29, 2009#56

Fun Size

ZenMonkey;264414][quote=Bowielee said:
Religions preying on the weak willed and absentminded??????

The HELL you say!

I can only hope that Kirk Cameron and one of those campus Scientology recruiters get into a knife fight. Which they both lose.[/QUOTE]

I'm trying to read this thread. I really am. But all I can think of is Kirk Cameron and Tom Cruise with their wrists tied together in a knife fight, almost cutting each other until zombie Micheal Jackson breaks it up.

Maybe I should have another cup of coffee before I post any more.

Sep 29, 2009#57

Espy

TeKeo;264697][quote=drifter said:
Also, while stuff like this does get on my nerves, I have to say I'm not really too worried about it. Religion is one of those things where most people already have their minds made up.

Sep 29, 2009#58

AshburnerX

ZenMonkey said:
AshburnerX said:

The sad part is that Science is just as full of Believers as Religion.

Click to expand...

I don't necessarily find that sad. First of all, "science" is generally so incredibly specialized that most people practicing it can have faith without it affecting their work. For example, someone studying the mitochondria of cells could certainly believe that a higher power set off the Big Bang without her results being tainted by a religious bias. I remember reading an excellent article in Skeptic magazine where scientists who were religious explained similar positions about how their science and their faith coexisted.

Granted, none of the ones profiled were fundamentalists, or evangelicals, or born again, etc. I would say that science and the extremes of religion are not compatible, but generally speaking, religious belief does not automatically exclude the power of critical thinking in secular pursuits.

No... what I mean is that Science is also full of people who proclaim "This is what Science says, so this is the ultimate truth!" without understanding that Science changes all the fucking time, with new theories replacing old and occasionally old theories being proven to be correct after all. They believe that Evolution as it's taught now is what it's always going to be, without entertaining the possibility that someday we might find something to totally turn it on it's head and as such become stuck in their ways. I'm not talking about people who actually work in Scientific fields and who are also theists, because that's perfectly acceptable.

Sep 29, 2009#59

fade

Espy;264772][quote=TeKeo;264697][quote=drifter said:
Also, while stuff like this does get on my nerves, I have to say I'm not really too worried about it. Religion is one of those things where most people already have their minds made up.

But here's the thing, I don't think evangelical conversion of college students is really the primary goal with measures like this. This sort of thing is really more about getting public exposure to oft-repeated claims that evolution is just a theory, so why can't ID/creationism get equal time?[/QUOTE]

I disagree. These guys, in my opinion, have their hearts in the right place. They really are trying to, in their minds, help people and show them a way to a relationship with God. See, they think of themselves as modern day Paul's, debating with other great minds.
The problem is, Paul wasn't, in essence, pushing a political agenda and like it or not these guys are pushing one, even if their intentions are right. They are so focused on evolution that they are missing the point.

Just my opinion of course.[/QUOTE]

My biggest problem (actually the same one I have with most political pundits) is that people like this don't really understand the other side of the argument, yet they argue like they do. They make outright false accusations and assumptions.

Sep 29, 2009#60

Green_Lantern

North_Ranger said:
I wish I knew more US university students so that I could recruit more people to provide considerable kinetic force via the movement of a human lower appeandage to the external genitalia of these people.

That was the most awesome example of spock speak that I have seen xD

Sep 29, 2009#61

Jake

AshburnerX;264831][quote=ZenMonkey said:
AshburnerX said:

The sad part is that Science is just as full of Believers as Religion.

Click to expand...

I don't necessarily find that sad. First of all, "science" is generally so incredibly specialized that most people practicing it can have faith without it affecting their work. For example, someone studying the mitochondria of cells could certainly believe that a higher power set off the Big Bang without her results being tainted by a religious bias. I remember reading an excellent article in Skeptic magazine where scientists who were religious explained similar positions about how their science and their faith coexisted.

Granted, none of the ones profiled were fundamentalists, or evangelicals, or born again, etc. I would say that science and the extremes of religion are not compatible, but generally speaking, religious belief does not automatically exclude the power of critical thinking in secular pursuits.

Sep 29, 2009#62

AshburnerX

Jake said:
I'd be willing to bet that these "scientists" mainly exist in your head. It sounds dramatic and all, but I don't get the impression that you've been out and about in the world enough to back this bullshit up.

Sep 29, 2009#63

Kitty Sinatra

AshburnerX said:
I'm also talking about people who simply "believe" in Science for their day to day needs.

Considering all the things that "Science" actually does for these people, I suppose if they don't want to understand what's behind all their gadgets, transportation, food and life saving medicine, believing in Science actually makes sense.

Sep 29, 2009#64

Espy

fade;264837][quote=Espy;264772][quote=TeKeo;264697][quote=drifter said:
Also, while stuff like this does get on my nerves, I have to say I'm not really too worried about it. Religion is one of those things where most people already have their minds made up.

Sep 29, 2009#65

SpecialKO

Espy;264772][quote=TeKeo;264697][quote=drifter said:
Also, while stuff like this does get on my nerves, I have to say I'm not really too worried about it. Religion is one of those things where most people already have their minds made up.

Sep 29, 2009#66

Espy

TeKeo said:
How is that "hearts in the right place"?

Let me put it this way: the way they see it, everyone who isn't in a relationship with Jesus is drowning (or living in a burning house, etc, pick your metaphor for slowly dying) and they have a way to save them (or show the to the one who will save them would be a better way to put it).
Remember, just because one's heart is in the right place or their intentions are good it's doesn't make what they are doing a GOOD thing.
I firmly believe that many of Greenpeace's members, and even their leadership probably have the best intentions but I don't approve of them lying to the public, pushing radical political agendas, acting out in violence, etc. It doesn't mean their hearts aren't in the right place though.
Does that makes sense?

Sep 29, 2009#67

SpecialKO

Espy;265038][quote=TeKeo said:
How is that "hearts in the right place"?

Sep 29, 2009#68

Espy

You don't have to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I was just stating my opinion. However it's the opinion of someone who knows these guys, what they do and why they do it so I like to think it's got a little weight behind it. When I say, "here's most likely WHY they are doing it" there's a pretty good chance I'm right about it.

Sep 29, 2009#69

Krisken

Espy said:
When I say, "here's most likely WHY they are doing it" there's a pretty good chance I'm right about it.

I can't wait to pull that one out! :rofl:

Sep 29, 2009#70

SpecialKO

Espy said:
However it's the opinion of someone who knows these guys, what they do and why they do it so I like to think it's got a little weight behind it. When I say, "here's most likely WHY they are doing it" there's a pretty good chance I'm right about it.

Okay, if you know the guys personally, I can accept that.

Sep 29, 2009#71

Kitty Sinatra

I still wanna see this thread get moved to NSFW. Mike Seaver (with Boner) on Darwin. c'mon, people!

Sep 29, 2009#72

Covar

I just want to say, us Catholics have no problem with evolution.

Sep 29, 2009#73

Krisken

Sep 29, 2009#74

Covar

Sep 29, 2009#75

Chazwozel

AshburnerX;264913][quote=Jake said:
I'd be willing to bet that these "scientists" mainly exist in your head. It sounds dramatic and all, but I don't get the impression that you've been out and about in the world enough to back this bullshit up.

Sep 29, 2009#76

Covar

pfft, everyone knows Mathematics are the only source of absolute truth.

Sep 29, 2009#77

Espy

TeKeo;265113][quote=Espy said:
However it's the opinion of someone who knows these guys, what they do and why they do it so I like to think it's got a little weight behind it. When I say, "here's most likely WHY they are doing it" there's a pretty good chance I'm right about it.

Okay, if you know the guys personally, I can accept that.[/QUOTE]

Not personally no, but I know THEM, their organization and what they do better than I wish I did. I'm not saying I'm know anything special, but we travel in similar circles so I get their mindset.

My main point was really is, they are coming from a place of religious understanding that if you don't get it, it's hard to understand what they are doing or why. And let me tell you, as someone who does come from that religious understanding it's hard for me to grasp the BS they are spewing, but it's not unfamiliar to me.

And Krisken. Dear, dear Krisken. You know who I am and what I do so you know exactly why I said that you little smart ass

PS: I don't like the new wink smiley. It does not convey the joking nature I desire it to convey. It looks like a very sad half blink.

Sep 29, 2009#78

drifter

Espy said:
My main point was really is, they are coming from a place of religious understanding that if you don't get it, it's hard to understand what they are doing or why.

Oh, you mean like the Westboro Baptists? :whistling:

Sep 29, 2009#79

ZenMonkey

Espy said:
My main point was really is, they are coming from a place of religious understanding that if you don't get it, it's hard to understand what they are doing or why.

No, it's not hard to understand that what they are doing is wrong. Just fucking wrong. The way they are going about it is wrong. They are deliberately getting around the rule of not being able to hand out Bibles by tucking Scripture inside Origin of Species. That is not defensible no matter how enlightened one may be about their ultimate goal.

Again, I ask, what if I rewrote the New Testament so that Jesus said "homosexual marriage is totally cool and those who follow me should support it" and then went to churches and passed it out going "Look, I have a nice free Bible for you!" I'd be fucking lynched.

This discussion is veering off into creationism vs. evolution, which is fine, but nothing about what Comfort & Cameron are doing is "okay" just because one might happen to agree with their beliefs.

Sep 29, 2009#80

Espy

ZenMonkey;265251][quote=Espy said:
My main point was really is, they are coming from a place of religious understanding that if you don't get it, it's hard to understand what they are doing or why.

No, it's not hard to understand that what they are doing is wrong.

This discussion is veering off into creationism vs. evolution, which is fine, but nothing about what Comfort & Cameron are doing is "okay" just because one might happen to agree with their beliefs.[/QUOTE]
You know I agree with you so I will re-iterate because I think people are misunderstanding me:
I never said it was "good", just that people think this is about evolution and creationism and darwin, but it isn't about that to them. Thats simply their poor tool they are using. I am not defending them or their actions, in fact for anyone to think that they would have to have ignored 99% of everything I have said in this thread.

And drifter? If you want to start making comparisons that don't work just go right to Hitler and save us all some time.

Sep 29, 2009#81

drifter

Espy said:
And drifter? If you want to start making comparisons that don't work just go right to Hitler and save us all some time.

Sep 29, 2009#82

Espy

drifter;265282][quote=Espy said:
And drifter? If you want to start making comparisons that don't work just go right to Hitler and save us all some time.

I don't know; while my comment was meant to be mostly tongue-in-cheek, I feel the comparison is fairly apt. From my point of view, you were making the case that, while their methods are bad, their intent comes from a good place insofar as their beliefs are concerned. Doesn't that pretty much describe the Westboro Baptists? (Aside from your own argument, I feel that with both groups, they have come to the conclusion that the ends justify the means, although the WBC sure does take it a lot farther.) If I have misconstrued your meaning, or read into your post something that isn't there, my bad.[/QUOTE]

No, what Comfort and tv dude are doing is very stupid and mildly offensive but in the end it's not going to hurt anyone. The WBC is a hateful, evil group of people. It is not, in my opinion as far as the spectrum of religious folks in the US go, a fair comparison to either group.

Sep 29, 2009#83

ZenMonkey

drifter said:
while their methods are bad, their intent comes from a good place insofar as their beliefs are concerned. Doesn't that pretty much describe the Westboro Baptists?

I'm not sure the WBC actually has an interest in recruiting when they go off on their shenanigans. This is an effort to brainwash and suck people into their "church" (or ministry, whatever it is). I do see a difference there, although I find both situations totally unpalatable.

Espy said:
and mildly offensive

...to some, while enormously offensive to others.

Sep 29, 2009#84

AshburnerX

Chazwozel;265186][quote=AshburnerX;264913][quote=Jake said:
I'd be willing to bet that these \"scientists\" mainly exist in your head. It sounds dramatic and all, but I don't get the impression that you've been out and about in the world enough to back this bullshit up.

When I say "Science", I'm not talking about JUST scientists. I'm also talking about people who simply "believe" in Science for their day to day needs. After all, when we say "Religion", we aren't just talking about people who work for a church, we're also talking about people who simply attend service or live their lives by the teachings of said religion.[/QUOTE]

Science has this magical thing called fact and results that are reviewed by scientific peers. Chances are if somethings published as a fact, then it's currently the 'truth'. I'd say it makes sense for John Q. Public to believe what those wacky scientists are telling them.[/QUOTE]

But that's just replacing a preacher with a scientist, which kinda goes against the entire premise of "finding the truth" and getting people to Think for themselves. Both have a vested interest in getting the public to believe them. Both are known for intentionally misleading the public (here's a short article about increasing fraud in the Scientific Community). Are you honestly going to tell me that the scientist is innately more trustworthy than the preacher? It seems to me that both are using the same tools and tricks to have their way.

Sep 29, 2009#85

Espy

ZenMonkey said:
Espy said:

and mildly offensive

Click to expand...

...to some, while enormously offensive to others.

Fair enough. I know a lot of Christians who think the Da Vinci Code is extremely offensive so I guess I can see how this would be as well to some.
We can agree that it is stupid and offensive.

Sep 29, 2009#86

Krisken

I wonder if a scientist and a preacher would fight each other in Scribblenauts....

Sep 29, 2009#87

drifter

My original intent was not to directly compare Kirk Cameron et al. with the WBC, rather my post was more a shot at Espy's lukewarm defense of KC's motivations, which could be used to rationalize any number of terrible ideas. Of course, my second post did more or less directly compare the two groups, which is my mistake.

Sep 29, 2009#88

Espy

drifter said:
My original intent was not to directly compare Kirk Cameron et al. with the WBC, rather my post was more a shot at Espy's lukewarm defense of KC's motivations, which could be used to rationalize any number of terrible ideas. Of course, my second post did more or less directly compare the two groups, which is my mistake.

Sep 29, 2009#89

ZenMonkey

Espy said:
Did I not say that despite good motives I think what they did/are doing is stupid/bad?

Not everyone here necessarily agrees with you that their motives are good as well.

Sep 29, 2009#90

Espy

Which is fine. I never said they did. In fact, I actually think most here would tend to think they were bad, which is why I tried to make it clear that I'm just giving my opinion.

Man that winking smiley sucks.

Sep 29, 2009#91

fade

AshburnerX said:
But that's just replacing a preacher with a scientist, which kinda goes against the entire premise of \"finding the truth\" and getting people to Think for themselves. Both have a vested interest in getting the public to believe them. Both are known for intentionally misleading the public (here's a short article about increasing fraud in the Scientific Community). Are you honestly going to tell me that the scientist is innately more trustworthy than the preacher? It seems to me that both are using the same tools and tricks to have their way.

Sep 29, 2009#92

drifter

Espy;265329][quote=drifter said:
My original intent was not to directly compare Kirk Cameron et al. with the WBC, rather my post was more a shot at Espy's lukewarm defense of KC's motivations, which could be used to rationalize any number of terrible ideas. Of course, my second post did more or less directly compare the two groups, which is my mistake.

I'm confused. You think I don't know that people can take good motives and twist them to something stupid or bad or even evil?
Did I not say that despite good motives I think what they did/are doing is stupid/bad?[/quote]

Like I said earlier, my original post was also meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

This seems like it's turning into a game of internet misunderstandings, so I'd just like to say that the silver spider turns along the whistle goat.
-edit-
Also, yes, that wink smiley sucks hard.

Sep 29, 2009#93

ZenMonkey

fade said:
Only if it's a bad scientist or teacher. I good scientist leads his students to the result with observable evidence. That's what inherently makes it more trustworthy. If I dump a bunch of facts on you or "trick" you, I'm not doing my job the right way. You can't judge all by the few bad apples. I can safely say I've never heard of modern scientists being "known for intentionally misleading the public"--at least not for long. Also, I have less interest in the public believing me than I do in my investors, potential end users, and peers--most of whom have the background to judge the merit of my work.

Fade, beautifully said. I couldn't work up a coherent response and yours hits all the right points.

Too often popular science, in which the author might have a certain bias or motive for writing his book, and the actual professional practice of science are conflated. And believe me, I have nothing whatsoever against popular science (I love Stephen J. Gould's essays, and Skeptic magazine), but that's usually where you'll find the "trickery." For example, I started reading a very interesting book about madness in the 20th century, but the author had such a giant chip on his shoulder about our current mental health system that it really undermined even the basic historical facts he was presenting. (I also don't mean to say no research scientists have problematic biases in their work.)

Sep 29, 2009#94

Cajungal

Listening to/talking about this kind of stuff makes me wish everyone could meet my high school theology/apologetics teacher, Dr. Bollich. He was incredibly intelligent and hilarious. We'd all have so much fun if he was here to discuss this too.

/nostalgic

Sep 29, 2009#95

Bubble181

Coming late to the party here, but I sort of have to agree with drifter.
My thought when I was reading through this thread was "man, that's true, but it's also a blanket statement for everything! Off to the respond-o-mobile!", but he beat me to it, sort of.

M_D: while their intentions may be good - and I won't argue that - this in itself can't and shouldn't be used in any way to excuse or pardon their acts. Yes, they truly believe they're triying to help and save people. Heck, I know pretty devote Christians who actively try and save me and other people. Sure. But that same logic *can* be applied, not only to the WBC, but also to, say, people flying airplanes into towers, or suicide bombers in general. Most of them are religiously motivated, and truly do believe they're martyring themselves for the good of humanity. Doesn't change the fact they're assholes destroying lives, though.

That aside, I also agree soemwhat with Ashburner. I've seen too many people treat science as a religion. The scientific method is not "blindly believe what I'm told by a scientist". Of course we can't all spend all our time checking everything, and so on and so forth- that's what peers are for and al lthat. The scientific canon will be mostly made up of uquite generally accepted truths, and things unlikely to change vastly very quickly...but still, blind faith in science is useless. Thinking for oneself and being free of thought, free of dogmas, free of prejudices is all we should strive for. And most scientists fail hard at this :-P

Sep 29, 2009#96

ZenMonkey

Bubble181 said:
Heck, I know pretty devote Christians who actively try and save me and other people.

Sep 29, 2009#97

Chazwozel

fade;265343][quote=AshburnerX said:
But that's just replacing a preacher with a scientist, which kinda goes against the entire premise of \"finding the truth\" and getting people to Think for themselves. Both have a vested interest in getting the public to believe them. Both are known for intentionally misleading the public (here's a short article about increasing fraud in the Scientific Community). Are you honestly going to tell me that the scientist is innately more trustworthy than the preacher? It seems to me that both are using the same tools and tricks to have their way.

Only if it's a bad scientist or teacher. I good scientist leads his students to the result with observable evidence. That's what inherently makes it more trustworthy. If I dump a bunch of facts on you or "trick" you, I'm not doing my job the right way. You can't judge all by the few bad apples. I can safely say I've never heard of modern scientists being "known for intentionally misleading the public"--at least not for long. Also, I have less interest in the public believing me than I do in my investors, potential end users, and peers--most of whom have the background to judge the merit of my work.

I do have to disagree with Chazwozel's use of the word truth though. The first thing I do on day one of my big non-major geology classes is define science, and one of the pictures I use is a plot of science vs. truth. Science approaches and asymptotes, but never completely meets up with it.[/QUOTE]

I should have put truth in quotations. Wait I did. I did imply the asymptotic approach towards truth, non the less. I agree with your definition.

As for scientists that intentionally mislead their findings well: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2009-08-24-cloning-scientist-jail_N.htm Let's just say if you get found out, your career is over.

What Ash is describing is close to plain ol' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti_intellectualism

Sep 29, 2009#98

Espy

ZenMonkey;265367][quote=Bubble181 said:
Heck, I know pretty devote Christians who actively try and save me and other people.

I have no problem with this as long as they are up front about what they're doing. If you're that weak in your faith that you have to trick people into joining it, like Cameron and Comfort are doing, you get negative respect from me. They're exactly the same as those "personality test" Scientologists.[/QUOTE]

Totally agree.

And Bubbles: I agree with what you and drifter are saying about taking a good (in this case religious) motive and using to fly airplanes into buildings. But couldn't that be applied to ANYTHING? Isn't that why we have anti-government terrorists? Environment terrorists? Why people kill and hurt people who are on opposite ideological sides?
We are human. We take perfectly good motives (both religious and NON-religious as well) and we twist them to suit our needs. Most of the time it's no big deal, sometimes it offends others, sometimes it annoys other, sometimes it makes us money or gives us power and in rare and very unfortunate cases it kills people.

Sep 29, 2009#99

drifter

You know, while I agree that people shouldn't have blind faith in science, on a realistic level, what choice do most people have? Even the scientifically literate layperson can have a hard time slogging through some science papers. What hope beyond blind faith does the average schmoe have? It's easy to say the research and proofs are out there and available, but without the tools to be able to decipher and critically analzye such papers, they may as well be the Voynich manuscript.

Sep 29, 2009#100

ZenMonkey

That's what good popular science is for. Again, I bring up Stephen J. Gould because there's just no better introduction for the layperson into the application of evolutionary theory, but there are plenty of awesome popular science writers like Jared Diamond and Michael Shermer. They make you want to read more about the actual science behind what they talk about, or at least that was my experience.

And Espy, I still have to disagree with you about the "good motive." Their motive isn't "let's get people on our side," it's "let's trick people who want to think critically into believing what we do." That is not a good motive. That is carnival shystering, both in motive and in method.

Sep 29, 2009#101

Espy

ZenMonkey said:
That's what good popular science is for. Again, I bring up Stephen J. Gould because there's just no better introduction for the layperson into the application of evolutionary theory, but there are plenty of awesome popular science writers like Jared Diamond and Michael Shermer. They make you want to read more about the actual science behind what they talk about, or at least that was my experience.

And Espy, I still have to disagree with you about the "good motive." Their motive isn't "let's get people on our side," it's "let's trick people who want to think critically into believing what we do." That is not a good motive. That is carnival shystering, both in motive and in method.

Sep 29, 2009#102

Chazwozel

drifter said:
You know, while I agree that people shouldn't have blind faith in science, on a realistic level, what choice do most people have? Even the scientifically literate layperson can have a hard time slogging through some science papers. What hope beyond blind faith does the average schmoe have? It's easy to say the research and proofs are out there and available, but without the tools to be able to decipher and critically analzye such papers, they may as well be the Voynich manuscript.

Well... you don't exactly need to know the breakdown of a car engine to trust the mechanic when he tells you that you need a new head gasket. Scientists are sort of similar in that retrospect.

Sep 29, 2009#103

drifter

Chazwozel;265426][quote=drifter said:
You know, while I agree that people shouldn't have blind faith in science, on a realistic level, what choice do most people have? Even the scientifically literate layperson can have a hard time slogging through some science papers. What hope beyond blind faith does the average schmoe have? It's easy to say the research and proofs are out there and available, but without the tools to be able to decipher and critically analzye such papers, they may as well be the Voynich manuscript.

Well... you don't exactly need to know the breakdown of a car engine to trust the mechanic when he tells you that you need a new head gasket. Scientists are sort of similar in that retrospect.[/quote]

So, you're basically saying that you have to have faith that the mechanic is telling you the truth.
-edited for snark-

Sep 29, 2009#104

Bubble181

Espy said:
And Bubbles: I agree with what you and drifter are saying about taking a good (in this case religious) motive and using to fly airplanes into buildings. But couldn't that be applied to ANYTHING? Isn't that why we have anti-government terrorists? Environment terrorists? Why people kill and hurt people who are on opposite ideological sides?

Of course. In the context of the thread, though, it seems that you are trying to use it as a defense of people - up to a point. Yes, you do say right away that you don't agree with their actions, but still - you mean it as a defense against (needlessly) demonizing these people. This same defense can be used successfully for almost anyone, tohugh. There are fairly few comic book villains in the world, and psychopaths aren't the greatest amount of criminals, either. A whole ot of people who do things that go against the greater good - or, at least, the greater good as perceived by those wielding the power to make laws - do so because they honestly believe they're doing the right thing. This can be diverted straight back into the terrorists-vs-freedom-fighters debate; in the end, for many, many actions, your stance on it will be heavily influenced by how well you understand their motives and whether orn ot you agree with them.

A Frenchman blowing up a Nazi tax office may have done so with far less noble ideas than an Afghan blowing up an American sentry post; yet the first one is a resistance fighter,and the second is an evil terorist. Both, in the end, did something they believe they did for the betterment of their country or themselves or the people. The same applies to the Hara Krishna folks preaching in shopping streets, Jehova's witnesses going door to door, or what have you. Assuming they're not from some sect just doing it for the money, they probably really do believe they're trying to save my soul, and I can only thank them for that Honest! They can annoy me greatly, but that's another matter.
However, when you go from "preaching and taking a bit of my time" to "abuse books/science", "intimidate people", "hurt people" or "kill people", you're overdoing the whole "ends justify the means" thing.

Sep 29, 2009#105

Espy

Why is it bad to try and understand where people are coming from though? I'm not defending them one bit, I'm saying that I think it's really sad they are coming at it from this direction. It's sneaky, underhanded and thats just the tip of the iceberg.
See, I'm saying they don't NEED to do this. If they want to show God's love to people, do it. Don't be sneaky about it.

Sep 29, 2009#106

Chazwozel

drifter;265430][quote=Chazwozel;265426][quote=drifter said:
You know, while I agree that people shouldn't have blind faith in science, on a realistic level, what choice do most people have? Even the scientifically literate layperson can have a hard time slogging through some science papers. What hope beyond blind faith does the average schmoe have? It's easy to say the research and proofs are out there and available, but without the tools to be able to decipher and critically analzye such papers, they may as well be the Voynich manuscript.

Sep 29, 2009#107

ZenMonkey

Bubble181 said:
However, when you go from "preaching and taking a bit of my time" to "abuse books/science", "intimidate people", "hurt people" or "kill people", you're overdoing the whole "ends justify the means" thing.

Espy said:
I'm not defending them one bit, I'm saying that I think it's really sad they are coming at it from this direction. It's sneaky, underhanded and thats just the tip of the iceberg.
See, I'm saying they don't NEED to do this. If they want to show God's love to people, do it. Don't be sneaky about it.

Yeah, I think we're in agreement here.

Any person or group who comes at you with a lie right off the bat should be dismissed without a second thought, unless that second thought is pure intellectual curiosity. Meaning that even if you were, say, leaning towards becoming a Christian, I would desperately hope you wouldn't do it through swallowing Kirk Cameron's runny bullshit.

Also, Chaz, I like your analogy here. To some extent, I am responsible for learning the basic care of my car and understanding how and why it runs, but there's a point where you turn it over to the mechanic. You do understand that there's a mechanism at work, however, and that there is a human person who understands it better than you and it's okay to let that person work on it. It's not just blind faith. You educate yourself first.

Sep 30, 2009#108

AshburnerX

mr_thehun said:
Wow... I'm late to the part but just wow it's almost as bad as that movie the Id'ers put forward a while ago name "no intelligience allowed" starring Ben Stein

I think anyone wanting to consolidate evolution and religion should check out David Sloan Wilsons "Darwins Cathedral" or "Evolution For Everyone" amazing books that made me hungry to learn more.

You know... for a smart guy, Ben Stein does an awful lot of really stupid things.

Sep 30, 2009#109

North_Ranger

Espy;265413][quote=ZenMonkey said:
That's what good popular science is for. Again, I bring up Stephen J. Gould because there's just no better introduction for the layperson into the application of evolutionary theory, but there are plenty of awesome popular science writers like Jared Diamond and Michael Shermer. They make you want to read more about the actual science behind what they talk about, or at least that was my experience.

And Espy, I still have to disagree with you about the "good motive." Their motive isn't "let's get people on our side," it's "let's trick people who want to think critically into believing what we do." That is not a good motive. That is carnival shystering, both in motive and in method.

We aren't actually disagree on whether or not their motive is good then. We are disagree on their motive. I say their motive is less insidious than you, but their actions are the trickery.

In the end though, it amounts to the same so we can just agree that if you see them give 'em a kick in the nuts from Espy and ZenMonkey.[/QUOTE]

Oy, watch it, you bed-breaking nicotine addict toddler! I promoted the idea of kinetic force to the genitalia first in this thread.

Sep 30, 2009#110

Math242

he should shut up

Sep 30, 2009#111

Covar

Trust a Mechanic? :bush:

Sep 30, 2009#112

Covar

mr_thehun said:
My mechanic told me my flux capacitor is out of whack...

heh, that reminds me of when I was in AIT, we got one of our fellow students to ask the instructor where the Flux Capaciter was on the LMTV. Made even more funny when he told her not to worry about it since the LMTV's can't get up to 88mph.

Sep 30, 2009#113

sixpackshaker

AshburnerX said:
You know... for a smart guy, Ben Stein does an awful lot of really stupid things.

Well, he got his start working for Nixon. It is pretty much up hill from there.

Sep 30, 2009#114

ZenMonkey

AshburnerX said:
You know... for a smart guy, Ben Stein does an awful lot of really stupid things.

Yeah, when did he go totally fucknuts, with "Expelled" and shilling that totally shady credit report site? I used to respect him a lot and now he's just this sad, deluded old man.

Sep 30, 2009#115

Chazwozel

ZenMonkey;266159][quote=AshburnerX said:
You know... for a smart guy, Ben Stein does an awful lot of really stupid things.

Yeah, when did he go totally fucknuts, with "Expelled" and shilling that totally shady credit report site? I used to respect him a lot and now he's just this sad, deluded old man.[/QUOTE]

He came to my university in 2003 when I was a junior to host a forum. Man oh man, what a load of bullshit that was.

Still got his autograph though.

"For Matt, Be cool & stay in school." - Ben Stein

Jackass.

Forums