Charles Darwin is too controversial for the U.S.

Remove all ads!

Yet I don't think the theory you presented is the only way. To read a book, and even to comment on what you think it means and how various experts have interpreted it, doesn't mean to teach that any of that is true. I'm betting that (teaching that it's true or false) is what the 'objective' term was intended to deter.

There are also Koreans. Should we make Korean history mandatory? I'm sure it's made some significant impacts on the world, especially of late. That was my point about what you value in education being entirely subjective anyway.

There are a ton of various images of God in the Bible, and some of them are presented as non-specific human male images (sitting on a radiant throne in heaven even). Combine that with the imagery of white as good (actually a Greek idea, for Jews white is mercy) and the idea of God as the Father (especially of grown men and women) and you get a man in white robes with a white beard (required under jewish law) sitting on a glowing throne in the clouds.

What about 'teach what it says and the major interpretations of it' is not objective?

Fiction vs non-fiction? That's an interesting distinction. Tell me, where would you place opinion pieces? Where would you place philosophical texts? They're definitely not fiction, yet teaching them doesn't necesarily endorse their values as correct, so it's iffy (by implication at least) to call them non-fiction (the implication being factual). I'd place the Bible and other religious texts in that boat. Technically speaking, that probably puts them in non-fiction, since that's anything that's not fiction.

My point is that the population, the political influence, the financial influence, the technology, and all those things are largely modern developments, with some noticable spikes in the Middle Ages as well (around the time of the Crusades). The Christian empires, on the other hand, have been significant from Christianity's adoption in Rome, through the fall of Rome, arguably there's a serious dip in the early dark ages, then through the rise of empires in Europe and northern Asia (Russia), the Renaissance, the colonial age, the settlement of the Americas by Europe, and even today.

And, of course, there's the fact that we're Western Culture here (and in Texas) and that's based on all those empires (not so much the middle eastern ones).

Wow. I think we got Egypt in Ancient History I and that was it. Europe was covered in every single class.

 

Which experts? Who decides which experts? Interpretation is by its nature subjective. You are understanding my point now, that literature is subjective. The Bible, by its nature, is an especially subjective work of literature. And its subjective nature is easy to prove because people have fought wars and killed each other over how to interpret it. Objective writing and reading is better suited to journalism than it is to literature. These rules are basic jouranlism: Who, What, When, Where and How. That's it. Basic journalism 101. That's objective.

Of course, modern journalism moves beyond that, but it is understood that editorals and feature stories are told from a point of view, so it is no longer objective. Hence, the reason we haggle on this forum 17 times a day over which "sources" are being used. In other words, WHO is interpreting the who, what, where and how. With literature, who's doing the interpreting is just as important. For instance, if a Catholic priest is teaching the Bible will it be somewhat different than if a Southern Baptist minister is teaching it? You bet.

To be fair, yes. Is it practical? no. But you are now drifting into the whole PC thing in education, which I despise. In education, at some point you have to make a value judgment about what you teach. And its almost always fair to have that judgment questioned by people who take an opposite point of view. In colleges, it is best left up to the individual departments and the profs who are doing the teaching; in PS it's best not to "go there" in the first place. Keep the politicians out and let the teachers to their work. It's OK for government to regulate the schools and set standards, but it's something different to tell teachers what they should be teachng.

Have you seen the Statue of Zeus at Olympus?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Zeus_at_Olympia

Btw, does God age and grow old? Did his hair turn white? Does he need to shave? Why would "growing" a beard be an issue for the Creator of the universe. I'm not mocking the Holy God, but pointing out how utterly strange people are in believing that the real God is very much like the Greek Gods, with the human characteristics that actually make us imperfect.

No, because at some point you have an interpretation that someone will consider blasphemous. And our topic is the example: Just try to teach that evolution is a viable interpretation of Genesis and see how fast most of the people in the district, especially THIS district, show up at the school doors with pitchforks and torches....

That's right. In literature classes pieces on comptemporary religions are treated as nonfiction, and again they are still open to interpretation, just as in history; every historian with a point of view is both challenged and supported, depending on the readers or students own point of view and which scholars he/she wishes to use to defend or attack an historical text or a literary one. That's why it is important for the instructors to carefully choose which texts to use in the classroom (some texts are chosen by the departments and these tend to be neutral, but not all). Neutral texts are almost always to be treated as "fact" in the topic of study (who, what when where and how). They are usually not disputed (although there are always one of two people in a class who will dispute ANYTHING).

 

Sorry, I was in a rush earlier, so I didn't get to Coin's post.


Looking at it, though, I think I responded to this in detail some time ago when you posted (or PMed me, not sure) a Youtube video. Basically, it's all BS.

That's great. Christ was most likely born September 11th or 13th (depending on the year, more on that later). Horus, however, was born during the month of Khoiak (Oct/Nov).

Umm, no and no. Horus was the son of Isis (a goddess) and her husband Osiris (a god). Incidentally, this was after Set had chopped Osiris into 14 bits and Isis had re-assembled him (except I seem to recall she never found his *ahem* pecker, and replaced it with a crane beak or something). Now, Isis may have been a virgin goddess, but since she was married to Osiris, and had been for some time (eternity I think) I kind of doubt it.

You'll have to provide evidence for this. I can't find anything.

Actually, it was Osiris who was 'baptised' (floated in the Nile) as part of his temporary ressurection. No Horus stories mention anything of the kind. Baptism was an Egyptian tradition, though. It was performed at birth to clean the baby.

Again, I can't find anything about this. You'll have to provide links.

I've found Horus, Haru (falcon), Kemwer (the great black one), Harmerty (Horus of two eyes), Harsiesis/Heru-ur/Har-Wer (Horus the Elder), Mekhenty-er-irty (He who has no eyes), Khenty-irty (He who has eyes), and Nopheros (The Good Horus). Sorry, no 'light', 'truth', 'anointed anythin (and there were lots of children of gods), or anything dealing with lambs or sheep. In fact the last two are blatantly wrong, as the Egyptians looked down on farmers and herders as low-caste. Calling Horus a shepherd or lamb would be like calling Jesus a hobo or rat.

Umm, Typhon was an ally of Set and was in on the chopping up of Osiris, so I don't see how you could call him opposing Horus 'betrayal'. They were enemies from the start. Also, I can't find any mention of Horus being betrayed by anyone. Lastly, Typhon didn't kill Horus. Horus beat Typhon.

Crucifiction wasn't even invented yet. This claim is just plain stupid. Horus was torn to pieces, not crucified. His pieces were tossed into the Nile where Iris begged the crocodile god (blanking on the name) to fish his pieces out. No clue if he was ressurected, but since his father could only be ressurected for the one night, I doubt it.

Just to set the record straight, the first reference we have to crucifixion in any document is in a greek text from 479 BC. No claims of crucifixion before that should be taken seriously without hard proof.

I've found no mentions of Krisna being born, killed, or resurrected at all.

Dionysus was born from Zeus's thigh after Zeus was tricked into killing his mother (agian, no mention of virginity). No date is given. He was also the party god, god of wine and drunken revelry in Greek mythology, so I doubt he went around teaching with disciples or healing the sick, though he may have turned water into wine. In this case, I can't find any mention of other names of Dionysus, though comparisons are made to the Roman god Bacchus. Also, again, the title of "God's only son" makes no sense, as Zeus had tons of sons, there were other gods, and they had sons, too. And, again, no mention of death or resurrection is made.

Again, none of this is substantiated by any source I could find. There were no mentions of birth, death, resurrection, or disciples (except that Mithra was one of the 'disciple'/servants of Ahura Mazda. There weren't 12 of them, though. Nothing about being burried. He was associated with contracts and aid to man, from what I can tell, but not truth, light, or the like.

Actually, that's wrong in many, many places. Joseph was one of 13 brothers, yes, but he didn't know the last one until he was older. None of them served him in any way until he was older, and even then it's iffy if they ever did. Judas never suggested selling Jesus, he was bribed to betray Jesus. Also, Joseph started his 'work' a lot younger than 30. He was sold into slavery as a child, after all.

There are more problems throughout the rest of this. They're equally egregious. I suggest you do actual research before spreading this stuff next time. Incidentally, this site seems to have a good primary breakdown of the problems with your source, which is apparently the movie Zeitgeist.


Ok, now to the birth of Jesus. Remember I said September 11th or 13th? There's reason to say this, it isn't a guess. You see, the Bible talks about Jesus being brought to the Temple as a newborn. This was common practice in Israel, and was done when the child was a week old, or on the 8th day of life. Interestingly, the Bible makes note of a woman that was at the temple that day and had been praying at the Temple all night long. That was completely forbidden, for a woman to be on Temple grounds past sundown, except on one day of the year: the Day of Atonement. Now, the Jewish calander at the time and our modern one don't quite line up, so the day of the Day of Atonement depends a little on what year you're talking about, but the most common estimate is 4 BC, which puts it at the 18th of September. The general range of estimates is 6 BC to 6 AD, all of which put it mid September. Backtrack from there, and you get the day of Jesus's birth.

Well, since it's a theological text, I'd suggest theologians. You know, there are people who make their livings studying this stuff, just like physics, literature, art, and the like. I'd say those experts. As for who decides who, well, that'd be the school board, which assembles the material.

Fair? Really? I don't think so. A 'fair' teaching of history would teach the parts that are most likely to be important to the students in their future lives. The first emperor of Korea probably isn't. The fall of Rome may be (possibly). The rise of the European empires, their colonial expansion, and the foundation of the US, definitely.

Here, I'll agree and disagree. Public school teaching material is not determined by the teachers, but by the school boards, which are political entities. That's standard practice. Now, I'll agree things can get dangerous in there, and some guidelines are necessary, but the courts take care of that. I am a little surprised the legislature got involved, but I don't think that's the first time it's happened.

Lol, well, any image of a God who never actually reveals His image (closest we get is Moses' face glowing after he hid behind a rock so God could walk by without destroying him) is bound to be a personification. That means people attribute human features to it.

And, since this is a public school, it doesn't matter if it's 'blasphemy' or not. Evolution is, by many religious peopel today, considered blasphemy. We teach it in school.

 

No. Just no. Look, up until colonialism kicked off in a big way, Europe was, like, the wart on the ass of Asia/Africa.

Why do you think the Euros were so desperate to get to China? Because China was ****ing great in comparison to Spain or France or England. The Chinese didn't go massacre and enslave the Indians precisely because they were so much better off than the Euros; they had no need, or indeed interest in (well, they did for a little, but it was a passing fancy), going to other places to get cool stuff. Have you seen those diagrams comparing the size of the Chinese treasure ships with the Santa Maria? Yeah.

Japan? When the Euros showed up, it didn't take too long for Japan to tell 'em to **** off and seal its borders. When the Euro...oh, wait, Americans...showed up with cannons and said, 'nuh uh, no sealing off' quite a few years later, it took the ****ing place less than fifty years to pwn Russia. Japan's been hugely important ever since.

I suspect your argument, more honestly stated, is that you know much less about African, Asian, and American (Indian) history than you do about American/European/Roman/Greek history, and you attribute this discrepancy too some inherent superiority on the part of the latter, rather than having anything to do with you and the culture you live in.

But I'm mean.

 

Coin,

Going on the "offensive" implies you do see people as opponents after all-you seem to be contradicting yourself from when you said you don't see me as an opponent in your last comment. Though I think that demagogic video you dropped in earlier was already going on the "offensive".

Now the things in that last comment reaching the limits of my historical knowledge regarding ancient times. So I cannot give full support or denial to NOG's criticisms just yet.

But I can say what I do remember of Dionysus from classes I had that went over the basics of Greek mythology several years ago and what I've been able to dig up in less than 5 minutes online tells me your source is badly flawed on at least that issue.

If NOG is correct and you are basically using a conspiracy theory movie for your info you are going against you own self-stated dislike of distracting conspiracy theories.

One specific issue I didn't press you on before but did bring up is what do you think of various events (atrocities) done within the past few centuries that are both much easier to document/prove happened and related to atheism? Do you treat how they relate to atheism the same as how you would treat how Jihads & the Inquisition relate to religion?

And, touching back on the thread's topic, why do you think the movie has no distributor?

 

No that's not quite the way it works. The state has mandated that the instructors be trained according to the guidelines they have set:

Here's section 2

This rather confused language by the state has lead to this comment:

Exactly my point, that the guidelines make little sense from a practical standpoint.

Well, good for you. But someone who is interested in that area may not see it that way. And if you don't think there are students from the East, do yourself a favor and just take a walk across the campus at the University of Houston if you ever get the chance. It may change your opinion about this comment:

If students are in HS and have no further plans, then that's a valid point.
If the purpose is to prepare students for college, I don't agree (but still it may not be very practical):

If you've been on the campus of an international university, even at the business college, Asian studies are important because, Asian markets are opening up and becoming very important to "international" corporations, many of which are interested in expanding their market share overseas. Understanding the history and culture of an area in which you wish to do business may be important.

Again, all this is basic HS material, at least where I went to school. But every district is a bit different.

This is all basic stuff in college and generally taught in the first or second years anyway. Beyond that, most history majors are starting on their areas of specialization and would not find such general topics very useful. My minor was in history and once I was out my second year, I never took a history class outside of my area of concentration, which was medieval and renaissance studies. Once I finished my core requirements, almost all my literature and history classes were within those periods. Iirc, I took only one elective class outside that area, which was the Development of the American Novel. That was it.

If you are speaking of general core requirements, the students themselves have little say about which classes they are taking, so the point is irrelevant in that case.

Well, that's not quite the case. There is a core of materials mandated by the district, but the teachers often assign additional materials on their own. For instance, my seven year old has been assinged reading materials specifically by her teacher. In fact, last year her teacher brought her a large number of books of her own that my daughter was assigned to read. Also, I don't think my 7 year old has any materials provided by the school at this point in the school year as of yet.

That would be in science class, not in Bible class...big difference.

 

Very astute, NOG. The spoiler is indeed a transcript from the 1st Zeitgeist film. I planned to say that in a later post, after the story had sunk in.
You went into detail about the Horus story, and pointed out numerous inconsistencies. Then you point out that you can't find anything about certain claims.
Neither could I. Then I tried looking for the sources on the Zeitgeist website, and found a link to the author Gerald Massey. He's a long-dead Egyptologist, who wrote about his translations. His translations were peer-reviewed at the time, and aren't disputed. I doubt you care to read it, so I spoilered an excerpt. Luckily this passage accounts for the problems with Horus, Mithra, and crucifixion. He's a longwinded lecturer, unfortunately:

Spoiler

Casini, the French Astronomer, has demonstrated the fact that the date assigned for the birth of the Christ is an Astronomical epoch in which the middle conjunction of the moon with the sun happened on the 24th March, at half-past one o'clock in the morning, at the meridian of Jerusalem, the very day of the middle equinox. The following day (the 25th) was the day of the Incarnation, according to Augustine, but the date of the Birth, according to Clement Alexander. For two birth days are assigned to Jesus by the Christian Fathers, one at the Winter Solstice, the other at the Vernal Equinox. These, which cannot both be historical, are based on the two birthdays of the double Horus in Egypt. Plutarch tells us that Isis was delivered of Horus, the child, about the time of the winter Solstice, and that the festival of the second or adult Horus followed the Vernal Equinox. Hence, the Solstice and spring Equinox were both assigned to the one birth of Jesus by the Christolators; and again, that which is impossible as human history is the natural fact in relation to the two Horuses, the dual form of the Solar God in Egypt.

And here, in passing, we may point out the astronomical nature of the Crucifixion. The Gospel according to John brings on a tradition so different from that of the Synoptics as to invalidate the human history of both. The Synoptics say that Jesus was crucified on the 15th of the month Nisan. John affirms that it was on the 14th of the month. This serious rift runs through the very foundation! As human history it cannot be explained. But there is an explanation possible, which, if accepted, proves the Mythos. The Crucifixion (or Crossing) was, and still is, determined by the full moon of Easter. This, in the lunar reckoning, would be on the 14th in the month of 28 days; in the solar month of 30 days it was reckoned to occur on the 15th of the month. Both unite, and the rift closes in proving the Crucifixion to have been Astronomical, just as it was in Egypt, where the two dates can be identified.Plutarch also tells us how the Mithraic Cult had been particularly established in Rome about the year 70 B.C. And Mithras was fabled as having been born in a cave. Wherever Mithras was worshipped the cave was consecrated as his birthplace. The cave can be identified, and the birth of the Messiah in that cave, no matter under what name he was born, can be definitely dated. The "Cave of Mithras" was the birthplace of the Sun in the Winter Solstice, when this occurred on the 25th of December in the sign of the Sea-Goat, with the Vernal Equinox in the sign of the Ram. Now the Akkadian name of the tenth month, that of the Sea-Goat, which answers roughly to our December, the tenth by name, is Abba Uddu, that is, the "Cave of Light;" the cave of re-birth for the Sun in the lowest depth at the Solstice, figured as the Cave of Light. This cave was continued as the birthplace of the Christ. You will find it in all the Gospels of the Infancy, and Justin Martyr says, "Christ was born in the Stable, and afterwards took refuge in the Cave." He likewise vouches for the fact that Christ was born on the same day that the Sun was re-born in Stabulo Augiæ, or, in the Stable of Augias.

To be fair, Zeitgeist did make some leaps and oversimplifications. A bit disappointing.
I found the wikipedia entry on Horus to be rather poor, it was little more than what I had learned in middle school. Then I noticed this: "This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page."
The wikipedia entry of Horus is categorized as high priority, low quality.
On the talk page, I read contributors pushing for any mention of Zeitgeist as a source of discussion to be dismissed up front. They argue that it's a minority viewpoint, so allowing it to have equal attention would give it undue weight.
The astrological facts aren't disputable, fortunately, since the stars can't be marginalized by wikipedia.
There seems to be a lot of confusion about the claims, and I honestly don't know what the cause is. But I thought that the following summary really sums up the dilemma:

We had best leave it at that, don't you think?

Ah, now that you know my world views, you know how to taunt me. accusing me of losing rationality, and even demagoguery. Very well done.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. Many forms of conspiracy have been documented. They are real occurences. Distracting nonsense, is stuff like the christian illuminati rantings, 'we never landed on the moon' and 'alien abduction'.

pplr, like I said in an earlier post, I think the movie distributors collectively decided to block the movie. I suspect that it may be because bible literalists (those who find themselves threatened by evolution anyway) have a vested interest in the negative image that Darwin has in the States. Who knows?

 

But it wasn't a taunt (though I do know it wouldn't come across well), it was a pointing out your own sources don't measure up to your standards/concerns.

I saw right away the video was flawed. What I didn't realize until I actually looked up the definition & methods of demagoguery is that it matched (at least) one of them.

I agree there can be and have been real conspiracies. But there can be a difficulty in sorting them from the nonsense-by preferred beliefs is probably not a good way to do that.

The problem with that idea is that there has to be a negative image to have a vested interest in. While I'll agree there probably is a negative image of him in some circles but most of the people in the US I've met, gone to class with, and seen discuss Darwin don't have one. I suspect a large portion of the US population views him as a respected scientist rather than with a negative image.

There are 2 other possibilities. That distributers didn't see the film as a money maker (or at least not worth the current costs of showing it). Or that this is a marketing strategy.

I don't know any 1 of these is true. But what I am pretty sure of is that "offensive" movies have been shown already and that Darwin was respected in every Biology class and History class, where he was mentioned, I have attended here in the US.

And you didn't address the well documented historical events I brought up.

 

... Yes, but China wasn't muslim, was it?

Again, agreed, but not Muslim.

Now, if you want to suggest that a study of the Chinese or Japanese, or even Indian cultures, empires, and history (and yes, philosophies and religions) is important in a modern climate and should be mandated in schools, I'll agree with you. The only one that has anything to do with Islam, though, (as far as I know at least) is India, and they were invaders there. Islam may get a footnote there and some serious, but light, coverage for the Muslim Empires, but not a dedicated class.

Looking at that, I only see guidelines on teachers teaching the classes, not who develops the material. Or do you think that your HS science teachers were experts on evolution, biochemistry, astrophysics, and the like? The experts contribute material to be put together by the School Board (or an approved developer) and passed out to the teachers to familiarize themselves with and teach. The teachers need some background on the topic, sure, but they aren't experts themselves. Experts make a lot more money than they do.

Chandos, my point is that the purpose of school isn't to teach you everything you want to know. It's to teach you everything you need to know to function in the society that that school takes part of. If an Iraqi immigrant wants to learn more about Iraqi history, I suggest independant study. Public schools, though, don't base their content on what you're interested in.

If the purpose is simply to prepare the student for college, then I don't see any problems. Some basic history is plenty, in all honesty. If the purpose is to cover college, then I'll agree that that isn't enough. College and HS are two different things, though.

I'll agree with that, but I don't see why every American needs to know that. If you want to be a chemical engineer, or a rocket scientist, it isn't so important as if you want to be a business manager. This is the purpose of college: to provide specialized education.

Umm, I was speaking about highschool. Are you talking about HS majors and minors, or College here?

Well, additional material provided by teachers isn't unusual, but it's generally suplimentary to the core material (here at least).

And this is literature and cultural impact class, not Bible class...big difference. Your problem seems to be that you see this as a Bible class. It isn't. It's an Impacts of the Bible class.

Do you mean this guy? He seems to have been more of a poet than an egyptologist. Also, I couldn't find anything about his translations being peer-reviewed, but I did find him confessing that he didn't use his own translations, but rather used those provided to him by his apparent mentor, Dr. Samuel Birch. Interestingly, I can't actually find any talk about that source material, so I don't know whether it was faulty or whether Massey's conclusions from it were faulty. Nonetheless, it's all a century old or more, and we've learned a lot about archeology since then. The idea that you'd take that reading over the modern understanding of the science, and even worse, take as credible such claims as Zeitgeist makes, tells me you are deluding yourself.

And again, that's great, but Christ wasn't born on any equinox or other astrologically significant event.

"Some leaps and oversimplifications" doesn't even begin to cover it.

Then how about this or this? Or, you could go to your local library. I'm sure they have something. If you have a nearby university, especially one with an archeology or even egyptology section, you could look there. Bascially, what I'm saying is that there is information and evidence out there, and today, the experts seem to entirely dismiss all this as clap-trap and nonsense based, not on biblical bias, but on the evidence we have from ancient Egypt.

They seem more like rational notations of contradiciton than taunts.

This is a mature distinction, and one I'm glad to see. There is a problem of what conspiracies to accept and what ones to call 'distracting nonsense', though. Zeitgeist seems to be nonsense. From my education as an engineer, I can tell you that many of the 9/11 conspiracies are also nonsense. All the JFK conspiracy theories, on the other hand, I don't have the knowledge (or interest) to assess.

That doesn't explain how movies like Religous got such extensive publishing, though. As noted before, there have been plenty of films that got Christians riled up and were still distributed in the US. The idea that this one was blocked on those grounds, while others weren't, doesn't really seem to make sense.

 

Most of the high school courses I am aware of that deal with history deal with European history and the relations of Europeans to other cultural groups. This is fair in a sense in that most Canadians are from European stock.

This does not mean that the contribution of Islam to history in general has been minimal. Far from it. Ben Kingsley narrates an excellent documentary entitled "Empire of Faith" -- I highly recommend it as a springboard into beginning to understand the positive elements of Islam and the positive contributions that this religion / culture / ethnic group(s) has made to human society.

I myself have great respect for the ideals of Islam and it's spiritual adherents (people Tarek Fateh* characterizes as "Muslims.) I have no respect for the vicious bastards who use their religion as a cloak for murder, terrorism, and general selfishness (Tarek Fateh refers to those who use Islam in this was as Islamicists.) But There are plenty of loony toons out there using Christianity, Judaism, or what have you in similar ways -- I hold them in equal contempt.

As for Darwin, I think that fundamentals of all stripes should just calm the hell down.

*Fateh's book "Chasing a Mirage" is a fabulous read for anyone who wants to know if there are any good hearted people of the Muslim faith out there. This book demonstrates that there are.

 

Wikipedia says: "Demagogy is a strategy for gaining political power by appealing to the prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public — typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist, populist or religious themes."
What you identified correctly in the video, is that a person with an opposing viewpoint attempts to persuade the audience. You don't agree with her analysis, meaning it's subject to debate. But she serves to gain no political power, or anything of the kind, by making it. As many people on the Boards have tried to convince you, atheism simply isn't organised. Power lost by the religious establishment, isn't gained by a collective atheist movement. Theists consist of people organized under a religion, atheists are just people. This narrator only makes an appeal for people to no longer be organized under religion, and just be people. For these reasons, it isn't demagogy.

One thing that I was meaning to point out, is that this video is one of the most benign videos on YouTube, of an atheist making their case. If this video is enough to set you off, then I advise you to stay well away from YouTube. It won't be good for your blood pressure...

I'm of the opinion that conspiracies can and should be sorted on the basis of available evidence. Illuminati conspiracies are brought with no evidence, and a total lack of objectivity. The evidence for UFO stories and the like is not testable or verifiable. The conspiracies Zeitgeist discusses, are either brought with compelling evidence (though it needs a bit of scrutiny, considering the way they embellished the facts about the religions), or are already confirmed as historic truth (like the Gulf of Tonkin PT-boat incident: A deliberate and confessed lie to start the Vietnam War)

Also very possible, I'd be curious to see what happens. Will the movie actually be picked up, or will it be forgotten? This thread can serve as an excellent 'monitor'.

Are you referring to atrocities allegedly committed by atheists?... Now I think I realize why you find the video i posted so offensive: There was a comment or 2 in it about the harm that cristianity has done. I must say that I totally overlooked it. I think we had best stick with the old conclusion, that neither theist or atheist atrocities can be attributed to the (lack of) faith. All atrocities in the past were committed by people, often taking advantage of religion, to further their own agendas.
On the same basis, it's interesting to note that no case can be made either, for Islam being harmful to people in any way. Any injustice can simply be attributed to ruthless power abuse by people, who (deliberately) misinterpret the faith.

Did you read the relevant chapter in his wiki page? "This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale" (and for good reason). In the middle of the discussion of 'Parallels between Horus and Jesus', I read the suggestion:
~Perhapes people should stop watching little movies and actually read his books. He goes into more detail then that.~
I'm not saying the guy who wrote it doesn't have a point, but I've never seen anything like it in wikipedia before. The idiot who added it obviously can't even spell, nor disguise his emotions when writing in wikipedia. Wikipedia has really let me down, in terms of reliability. I can see why you made a fuss about wiki articles in the past, NOG.

Well, I could rehash all of the evidence I found compelling, but we went over it last year. We went over the debunking stuff, but none of it was that convincing.
One interesting thing I didn't realize at the time, was that it made no sense for a hollow aluminium airplane to enter a steel and concrete building, showing no signs of deformation. Like a hot knife through butter, it left a huge gash in the building. Aluminium objects tend to crush against steel and concrete, regardless of which object is moving. Zeitgeist doesn't even discuss that.

No, it doesn't make sense. That's probably why this thread is so compelling. Maybe there's already a distributor, and this rumour is just a publicity spin. We'll see what happens.

LKD, I don't think the term judeo-christian is accurate, because in order to justifiably exclude Islam from the term, you must at least prove that Judaism's influence was stronger. The two influences are hard to compare, since jews lived among christians for so long, but also kept their worship largely private. Islam's influence is one of foreign trade, diplomacy, and more often than not, hostility. I would argue that a nation's (or society's) problems are what more readily effect changes. Friends, allies, and peaceful coexistance is taken for granted, while problems are tackled and solved. Competition with Islam, on all kinds of levels, drove Christianity to change its attitude.

 

I have used the term before, but I didn't use it in my last post -- I'm wondering why you invoked my name on this one??

However, I would argue that because Jews and Christians historically tended to move westward into Europe, while Muslims tended to stay east and south, peopled started referring to Abrahamic concepts as "Judeo-Christian". I would say that "Abrahamic" is a better term because all three religious spring from that great man's story.

I could be lost, though, as I am not certain of the context from which you are quoting the term "Judeo-Christian".

 

Actually, you will now see the date of Christ's birth pushed back a bit earlier, in the range of 12 BC to 4 BC. There's a reason for these start and end dates. I'll start with the 4 BC date, as that has the simple explanation, and it comes down to the reign of King Herod. Biblical scholars agree that Christ's birth could have happened no later than 4 BC, for the simple reason that the death of King Herod, in whose reign he was born, can be dated by a number of methods to that year.

The 12 BC date is a little trickier and a longer explanation. Today most New Testament scholars place the date of Christ's crucifixtion as 36 AD (which is a bit later than originally estimated). Traditional thought is that Jesus was a relatively young man at the time of his death - likely still in his 30s. However, based on the Gospels alone, there is some evidence that Christ was quite a bit older than that.

First of all, to be considered a rabbi in ancient Jewish society (and Jesus was a rabbi remember) one typically had to be nearly 50 years old.

But the Gospels are far more intriguing, especially the Gospel Of John. Take a look at John (8:57) in which John states that Christ was "not yet fifty" (which implies that he was at least close). Or, go to John (2:20) in which Christ compares his body to the temple of Jerusalem, stating it was "forty and six years in the building". The temple that stood in Jerusalem at that time was the one built by King Herod, and neither that temple nor any other temple in Jersualem ever took 46 years to build. The most obvious explanation for Christ's story is that he was saying he was the same age as the temple - 46 years old. Historical records also indicate that the temple of Jerusalem built in King Herod's reign was completed in 12 BC. So if Jesus did indeed die in 36 AD, that would have made him 48 years old.

One other little tidbit here concerning the birth of Jesus. As a Christian, I'm sure you're aware of the Nativity story of the three Magi following the star to Bethlehem. Halley's comet appeared in 12 BC, and according to descriptions of astonomers throughout the Mediterranean and Middle East, Halley's was a spectacular sight in that passage by earth. As you also know, comets have tails, and can seem to "point" in a particular direction. If Christ was born in 12 BC, Halley's comet is the ideal nominee for the star of Bethlehem.

(I will concede that the last bit regarding Halley's comet is speculative, but there IS evidence in the preceeding paragraphs to suggest Jesus lived to be quite a bit older than most people generally think, which thereby places his date of birth earlier than people generally think.)

I suspect you are correct.

 

Close, but not quite. Theists consist of people who believe in some sort of God and are thereby more likely than not to adhere to a religion. Atheists are people who do not believe in some sort of God are are therefore highly unlikely to adhere to a religion. As they are likely to be adherents of an organized religion, theists are also likely to be organized. As atheists are not likely to be adherents of an organized religion, atheists are not likely to be organized. The difference between what you said and what I'm saying is subtle -- almost bordering on semantics -- but important.

It's convincing if you know something about physics, or recognize that the word of an expert is worth far more than the word of a crackpot or an armchair physicist, consider the scope necessary for such a conspiracy to be even remotely possible (since it would have to include pretty much the entire scientific community). There was no second gunman, the moon landing was not faked on a sound stage, the number of wrecks occurring within the Bermuda Triangle is not extraordinary when ts size, location and the amount of traffic it receives are all factored in, and people who argue that the real, credentialed physicists and engineers who have explained how and why the towers fell are wrong -- preferring the word of crackpots and armchair physicists instead -- only make themselves look foolish. You would do well to either let the 911 thing slide or consider looking at the matter objectively and reversing your (untenable, unsubstantiated, and uncorroborated) position.

 

NOG - I will post this again for you. I thought you looked at it?

Note:

1. "Mandated teacher training."
2. "State approved training materials."
3. And the state attorney general had to sign off on it

I have no idea why you are making some of your comments:

According to the link, the Texas State Agency will develop the materials, so that's not a question. However, they find the state legislature's guidelines too "vague" to develop any materials, plus there are no funds for materials. Read the link is all I can suggest.

I really don't know what the rest of your rant is regarding this point, unless you are just giving your opinion about what the state should be doing. Personally, I don't think they should be doing any of this, so feel free to carry on with your own opinions.

I really don't know why you are making this point either. Let's take all this point by point:

That's nice to know, but I don't get why you are telling me this....

That's an odd statement. Perhaps you may want to comment if it's a HS, vocational school or a university or even a 2 year college, since they all have different objectives. Also, what do you mean "that the school takes part in?"

Everyone studies "Iraqi history" in some sense. Can you count the ways?

Besides why would an Iraqi immigrant want to leave the country of his/her specialization? "I think I'll study Iraqi history so I think I'll move to the US?" Would he learn about his country from Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld? Ok, I'll stop, but there's just so much in the subtext here about Iraq.

You have to be talking about only HS with this one. The basic standards are set by the Texas State Board of Education under the broad heading of Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills. Nevertheless, even HS offers electives so that students can find courses that are of special interest to them. Even colleges still have an essential skills core that every student must have to complete as a program of study. And of course, students are still free to pursue courses that interest them through electives - colleges to a larger extent offer both, required and elective classes. HS are somewhat limited in this sense. But it's changed a lot since I was in HS, now it's all about testing and government mandates - yes, "govrenment run" schools. I hope they do better with health care.

Not really. But if you choose to believe that, OK. But the state has mandated that all HS in Texas offer a course in the Bible, and it's impact. You can dress it up though however you feel most comfortable.

Well, we agree. But did you know that there are some colleges that won't even let you declare a major until you finish your first two years? Different colleges provide different programs regarding the "specialization" process. I think everyone should choose a college with extra care, since a lot of them have different objectives, especially private colleges.

 

Duely noted and added to Netflix as the next movie. Netflix's reviews of it are mixed, though. It apparently focuses on the positive aspects and doesn't talk about the negative aspects.

I think you've shaded your opinion here. She sought to gain power for her viewpoint, a pseudo-political entity (it has strong political implications, even if that's not the focus). She does so by appealing to (and exacerbating) the prejudice and emotions of the public through propaganda using religious themes*.

*An attack on religion is still a religious theme.

Which may serve to educate you on why some of us see a large, fanatically anti-religious movement of atheists. I realize that Youtube attracts extreme fanatics more than the educated moderates, so it's not the best example, but an example nonetheless.

I don't know about the rest of the movie, but the religious aspects at least have barely a shred of evidence backing them up, and that shred seems to be completely dismissed by all modern experts.

I think the issues of suicide bombers and terrorism may challenge that a bit, as it is no longer a reliable claim that political power is the goal. I mean, does Osama really expect to conquer the US, or just to hurt us? Anyway, that's a vague issue worthy of debate, but aside from that I'd agree with you.

Yeah, though honestly I though ancient mythology would be a pretty safe topic. I guess the whole attack on religion thing has polarized even it.

Very fast moving objects tend to retain their shape a good way through a devastating collision. Even more, when the energies reach a certain point, the materials actually enter a plasma-state. They basically become a hot knife. This is what happened at the Pentagon, though I'm not sure about the Towers.

The reason Islam is excluded from the general Judeo-Christian term is because the religions broke off before Islam formed. Basically, Christianity has a Jewish herritage, so anything Christian can be said to be Judeo-Christian. Islam formed in the Middle East, though, and as such was always an outside force in European society. It didn't significantly impact morality or law, and even for politics it was no more than an outside aggressor/influencer. It was never internalized. The Islamic factor in the Middle East could be said to be a Judeo-Chritio-Islamic one.

I'll admit I'm not up to date on this. I'll take your word for it.

This is an interesting arguement, but there are some flaws. 1.) The John 8:57 point is, at best, an exlusionary arguement, meaning he couldn't have been more than 50, yet could have been noticably younger. The John 2:20 point is even weaker, because Jesus doesn't make it, but rather the Jews who assumed He was talking about Herod's Temple. Jesus never even corroborated their statement about the Temple. As for becoming a Rabbi, the age is actually 30, not 50. Again, though, this is an exclusionary arguement. He had to be 30 or older to begin, but could have been anywhere past 30. With that given, we get the rough range of 30-50 years old. That being said, there's nothing in the Bible to indicate any of those dates are right or wrong. 12BC may well be accurate, but still places the date of birth in September.

1.) Any attempts to tie the Star of Bethlehem to a singular astrological event are usually discounted, simply because there are so many possibilities. It could have been Halley's Comet, or it could have been an alignment of planets, or it could have been Jupiter rising in a particular set of stars, or even a somewhat nearby star going supernova in the same set of stars. All of these and more are possible, and confirmed to have happened in about the right timeframe.
2.) The Magi's trip likely took several years. While it isn't necessary that the star shone that whole time, the sequence does at least suggest that it either shown that whole time or that it was a predictable event and only appeared at the end (thus, they could begin to travel in anticipation of it).

Even the arguement that atheists are unlikely to be organized is weak. There are plenty of non-religious organizations in the world, including a number dedicated specifically to atheism. It would be fair to say that atheists are less likely to organize than theists. Again, the difference is subtle, and may be semantics, but I think it's important.

I did. Sorry, i was talking about the other link in particular.

I think we're in the same boat here. I see what you posted, I recognize the notes as legitimate, but I don't see the significance. Is there a point?

Yes, the lack of funds is problematic. As for the guidelines being too vague to develop materials, I see that as a lack of initiative, not a legitimate problem. If the guidelines are vague, that just means more possibilities are acceptable. Develop something that meets your own standards of quality and submit it. If they don't like it, just point to the vague guidelines and say, 'I followed all the guidelines.'

You seemed to be arguing that it was improper for them to teach the Bible, but not teach the Koran, Torah, or other religious books. I was attempting to establish a reason why the Bible may be more important in modern western culture than other religious books.

Well, the details of the objectives vary between them. Each defines 'all you need to know' within their own context. PS is generally seen as the minimum that everyone is expected to understand, regardless of their employment. Even people flipping burgers are expected to know what the US Constitution is, how to read and write, and some basic laws of physics. Vocational schools, colleges, and universities seek to expand that knowledge into more specialized areas, be they engineering, philosophy, medicine, business, metal-working, or whatever.

In large scope? American society (at least for American schools). In more detail, Texas society (in this case), maybe even with a focus on city/county. Exactly what did you think I was talking about?

Or, Iraqi immigrant's parents moved to the US when Iraqi immigrant was a child (or teen, or pre-teen), and now Iraqi immigrant wants to learn more about his/her roots. He/she takes pride in Iraqi culture and history and wants to learn more. I was just taking it as a random country out of the bag, no subtext was intended. You can replace it with England, Brazil, Japan, South Africa, or whatever you want.

Ah, but they don't offer you any elective you want. They offer you choices from a set number of electives. If you want to take a class in the History of Brazil in HS, you're probably out of luck.

And you wonder why I'm worried!

I think you're assuming a worst-case (and incedentally unconstitutional) scenario here. I, on the other hand, am assuming a best-case (and incedentally constitutional) scenario. If they start teaching the Bible as absolute fact of the Universe, then I'll agree with you. If they're only teaching about the major claims, history, and imagery of the Bible and it's impacts on Western culture, then I think we're safe.

 

Just saw this:

Ummm... it did. The jet that hit the pentagon deformed so much the black box was at the farthest point of penetration (it was found in the control room). For those that don't know; the black box is kept in the tail section so it has the greatest probability of survival. The plane basically melted and ripped into small pieces as it penetrated the pentagon, the mass behind continually pushing the portion ahead to oblivion.

 

Actually I don't know if she or someone who encouraged her to make it is gaining something or not-I suspect you don't know that off the top of your head either.

I'm not sure if she is part of a political agenda or not. Just as religious groups have influenced politics it is possible for atheist groups to do the same-see modern history for atheist groups that already have.

Now for the video itself, I got a feel it was propaganda when I first saw it. When I looked up Demagogy it listed methods it employs. I noticed that the video fit one of them to a T. In specific, "False dilemma" which it described as 'assuming that there are only two possible opinions on a given topic. For example, "You're either with us or against us...," ignoring the possibility of a neutral position or divergence.'

I think at least 3 different people mentioned that they support both an Abrahamic religion and the Theory of Evolution-a position the video not only left unmentioned but implied was nonexistent when it claimed it undid Christian, Jewish, and Islamic religions (basically all of those viewed as Abrahamic). It didn't specify literalists in any way but rather each of them in general and as a whole.


I already pointed out ways that at least some Fundamentalist Atheists (and note that I have said not all atheists belong to this group) have tried to use "prejudices" (even promote them), "emotions", and "fears" already.

If you disagree then please explain exactly how the video does not make use of the "False dilemma" fallacy.

And I explained that atheism is actually getting more organized. There have been and are atheist organizations that have published newsletters & own/rent office space, atheist authors who try to generate talking points & refine doctrine, and the more loosely organized atheist clubs that may be online.

Some atheists (I stumbled across elsewhere) even see themselves as part of a movement/revolution. Those have leaders and some form of organization(s). This may be grandose fantasy on the part of these atheists, but they seemed to actually take it seriously.

In an era where communication is becoming easier it is quite reasonable to find a minority group that is spread out in a given nation(s) is capable of becoming more organized. The odds that atheists aren't interacting (and thus organizing at some-perhaps basic-level) are dropping.

For one example, I don't think you made that demagogic (I think there is an argument I can say that factually rather than as a taunt towards you) video yourself and yet you were able to find it and bring to our attention.

I think I just pointed out why that actually isn't quite true.

Do you feel the Libertarian, Green, or the smaller (and less recognized) political parties aren't organizations, but rather "just people"?

These are fair comparisons to the extent that they share an ideology, a level of organization, but still are much smaller and dispersed than the major political parties (less thought about/examined by society at large).

So someone is able to demagog on youtube, it is not that different from speaking in a town square (and it is not hard to see a demagog doing that).

I actually get a kick out of much of youtube so I don't think I will.

Going by evidence is good but it appears you actually didn't give it much scrutiny because it agreed with a belief (atheism) you had.

Not that different from someone giving someone else less scrutiny because the second person claimed to belong to the same religious or ethnic group.

Yes.

I think a types of Christianity, Islam, Atheism, and whatever can be filled with bigotry/intolerant ideology and be criticized without also criticizing the entire/broad group as a whole.

Like I think religion (or non) based bigotry/intolerant ideology can exist like ethnic/skin color based bigotry/intolerant ideology can exist. So I technically disagree with T2Bruno there (he was the one who suggesting viewing it as such in a different thread). But I did thank him for having a consistent position (no double standards) so I can go along with it on that basis.

We probably will.

Maybe, but if a movie is a dud and still gets talked about (especially as such) that will not give you an accurate read on how many people will actually see it.

 

Most atheists most assuredly are not part of an organization dedicated specifically to atheism. Most theists are members of an organized religion. This isn't a difference between "more likely" and "less likely" but between "very likely" and "very unlikely" -- a difference that is most assuredly not subtle.

 

Yes and no. Many Democrats and Republicans aren't card carrying members of the 2 parties. But even without this official form of membership many follow an ideology that sympathizes with 1 of the 2, listen to leaders/speakers within 1 of the 2, and carry out actions that are supportive of and/or organized by (volunteering for campaigns, donating money, showing up at rallies, and so on) 1 of the 2.

Thus you don't have to be an official member to be a member/follower.


Hmm, just put down the 100th post of this thread. I wonder if I get a prize, maybe I get to play a video game or something....