|
On September 16 2009 06:51 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2009 04:13 T.Sqd)LillTT wrote:
Hi,
I haven't read any other posts but the ops, so if this doesn't make too much sense mods feel free to delete it.
As I remember speaking to my boss who is a atheist/realist he explained to me about religion in the US and why it is such a powerfull force. When the first settlers arrived in the US there were no jails no courthouses no-one to supervise them, so the only logical solution on how to maintain power over the people thousands of miles away was the fear of God.
So my reasoning for why this movie would be so contraversial would be quite simple.
Americans have religion everywhere, over the 2 ages since US became independant, religion prospered, in religion, I mean christianity, when in Europe it started losing its power. Americans where being forced to chew religion and where discriminated or even prosecuted for trying to shit it out. So it stayed there for decades and decades, even tho, so many young americans are more open to the idea that there is no GOD, the older generation makes the shots and soo we have to wait 1 more generation so that such movies would not cause controversy.
P.S. Im not realy good with expressing my thoughts in English, but I hope you can understand what I meant by that. Err not really. Its mostly just because the country was founded by people seeking land and freedom to practice whatever religion they want. Nothing was really different between Europe and America when it comes to religion no one was prosecuted for being an atheist. This country just took a lot of pride in having been founded on "religious principles". Its not like there are 0 religious ppl in Europe right now so there really isn't any difference.
Aside from the 30 or so puritan separatists on the Mayflower and the various Christian minorities that were basically invited to Pennsylvania, religious freedom really was not a motivating factor for immigration.
|
and what if god evolves ?
|
On September 16 2009 07:04 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2009 06:51 Slaughter wrote:On September 16 2009 04:13 T.Sqd)LillTT wrote:
Hi,
I haven't read any other posts but the ops, so if this doesn't make too much sense mods feel free to delete it.
As I remember speaking to my boss who is a atheist/realist he explained to me about religion in the US and why it is such a powerfull force. When the first settlers arrived in the US there were no jails no courthouses no-one to supervise them, so the only logical solution on how to maintain power over the people thousands of miles away was the fear of God.
So my reasoning for why this movie would be so contraversial would be quite simple.
Americans have religion everywhere, over the 2 ages since US became independant, religion prospered, in religion, I mean christianity, when in Europe it started losing its power. Americans where being forced to chew religion and where discriminated or even prosecuted for trying to shit it out. So it stayed there for decades and decades, even tho, so many young americans are more open to the idea that there is no GOD, the older generation makes the shots and soo we have to wait 1 more generation so that such movies would not cause controversy.
P.S. Im not realy good with expressing my thoughts in English, but I hope you can understand what I meant by that. Err not really. Its mostly just because the country was founded by people seeking land and freedom to practice whatever religion they want. Nothing was really different between Europe and America when it comes to religion no one was prosecuted for being an atheist. This country just took a lot of pride in having been founded on "religious principles". Its not like there are 0 religious ppl in Europe right now so there really isn't any difference. what religious principles (Flame war initiated)? Salem anyone?
Oh you know the usual why do you think I put them in quotes  Where ever there is religion there will be those who use it for personal agendas and things that make them total hypocrites and even horrible acts. It is what happens when the concepts of God and his teachings are given to humanity. Humanity has a tendency to find ways to corrupt anything and everything.
|
I would say... Hunger, poverty was way more important than being able to live christianity... If you wanted just the last thing there would have been no reason to leave most european countrys.
|
On September 14 2009 02:35 Sunyveil wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 02:29 tirentu wrote:
I hate the American religious right wing. its a shame they make up like 40% of the population and nothing good comes from them >_< well except for acting and sports. But science and technology? Forget about it.
I could live without Darwin or a cell phone. I could not live without football 
|
On September 16 2009 07:39 PrincessLeila wrote:
and what if god evolves ?
Level 32 already?!
|
On September 14 2009 05:53 aRod wrote:
Name the new species? They're considering name strain of staphylcoccus that is highly related to staph Aureus a new species. It has a different way of structuring it's peptidoglycan layer conveying resistance to vancomycin. Right now these are called vancymycin resistant staphylococci, but the significance of a new peptidoglycan structure and the associated genetic changes are significant. You don't seem to understand how minor changes in bacterial genetic structure warrant naming a new species. The mere presence of an enzyme called coagulase is enough to differentiate Staph Aureus from a plethora of other staphylococci.
That's not a new species, it's still a bacteria.
That's like saying a black man a a mexican woman have a baby, and the blacksican baby is a domo-novas instead of homo-sapien.
|
On September 16 2009 15:35 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 05:53 aRod wrote:
Name the new species? They're considering name strain of staphylcoccus that is highly related to staph Aureus a new species. It has a different way of structuring it's peptidoglycan layer conveying resistance to vancomycin. Right now these are called vancymycin resistant staphylococci, but the significance of a new peptidoglycan structure and the associated genetic changes are significant. You don't seem to understand how minor changes in bacterial genetic structure warrant naming a new species. The mere presence of an enzyme called coagulase is enough to differentiate Staph Aureus from a plethora of other staphylococci. That's not a new species, it's still a bacteria. That's like saying a black man a a mexican woman have a baby, and the blacksican baby is a domo-novas instead of homo-sapien.
be more ignorant
|
On September 16 2009 15:35 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 05:53 aRod wrote:
Name the new species? They're considering name strain of staphylcoccus that is highly related to staph Aureus a new species. It has a different way of structuring it's peptidoglycan layer conveying resistance to vancomycin. Right now these are called vancymycin resistant staphylococci, but the significance of a new peptidoglycan structure and the associated genetic changes are significant. You don't seem to understand how minor changes in bacterial genetic structure warrant naming a new species. The mere presence of an enzyme called coagulase is enough to differentiate Staph Aureus from a plethora of other staphylococci. That's not a new species, it's still a bacteria. That's like saying a black man a a mexican woman have a baby, and the blacksican baby is a domo-novas instead of homo-sapien.
I wonder which part of the United States you live in.
|
On September 16 2009 15:35 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 05:53 aRod wrote:
Name the new species? They're considering name strain of staphylcoccus that is highly related to staph Aureus a new species. It has a different way of structuring it's peptidoglycan layer conveying resistance to vancomycin. Right now these are called vancymycin resistant staphylococci, but the significance of a new peptidoglycan structure and the associated genetic changes are significant. You don't seem to understand how minor changes in bacterial genetic structure warrant naming a new species. The mere presence of an enzyme called coagulase is enough to differentiate Staph Aureus from a plethora of other staphylococci. That's not a new species, it's still a bacteria. That's like saying a black man a a mexican woman have a baby, and the blacksican baby is a domo-novas instead of homo-sapien.
This blew my mind - an exhibition of such little understanding can surely never have been seen anywhere before...ever!
*reads many other posts in this thread*
Oh my...
|
On September 16 2009 15:35 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 05:53 aRod wrote:
Name the new species? They're considering name strain of staphylcoccus that is highly related to staph Aureus a new species. It has a different way of structuring it's peptidoglycan layer conveying resistance to vancomycin. Right now these are called vancymycin resistant staphylococci, but the significance of a new peptidoglycan structure and the associated genetic changes are significant. You don't seem to understand how minor changes in bacterial genetic structure warrant naming a new species. The mere presence of an enzyme called coagulase is enough to differentiate Staph Aureus from a plethora of other staphylococci. That's not a new species, it's still a bacteria. That's like saying a black man a a mexican woman have a baby, and the blacksican baby is a domo-novas instead of homo-sapien.
Oh and following the same logic since you and your dog and the lice in that dogs fur are all Eucariotes you are also all the same species right?
|
On September 16 2009 15:35 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 05:53 aRod wrote:
Name the new species? They're considering name strain of staphylcoccus that is highly related to staph Aureus a new species. It has a different way of structuring it's peptidoglycan layer conveying resistance to vancomycin. Right now these are called vancymycin resistant staphylococci, but the significance of a new peptidoglycan structure and the associated genetic changes are significant. You don't seem to understand how minor changes in bacterial genetic structure warrant naming a new species. The mere presence of an enzyme called coagulase is enough to differentiate Staph Aureus from a plethora of other staphylococci. That's not a new species, it's still a bacteria. That's like saying a black man a a mexican woman have a baby, and the blacksican baby is a domo-novas instead of homo-sapien.
I actually laughed out loud :p Best troll ever.
|
On September 14 2009 19:13 zcxvbn wrote:
Holy shit you can't be serious.
Any movie with sex, violence, drugs, or some radical political ideology is ok for general release, but film about a scientist is not? Hell, this isn't even about some highly controversial theory like those people who insist that current climate change is not severe. This is about a guy whose theories are accepted in every higher institute of learning, even across America.
Also, do any of these movie distributors not realize that 40% of the market share is still pretty big, especially considering that many seem to be reluctant to pick it up?
(I haven't had time to read the rest of the thread, so apologies for repeating anything)
It's the US. Seeing a guy slaughter dozens of people in all sorts of creative ways is fine, but zOMG BOOBIES!!1!!oneoen!1 THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!
This is even worse than boobies sir. Worse... Than... Boobies.
(yes, I just love saying boobies.
... boobies).
|
On September 16 2009 21:38 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2009 15:35 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On September 14 2009 05:53 aRod wrote:
Name the new species? They're considering name strain of staphylcoccus that is highly related to staph Aureus a new species. It has a different way of structuring it's peptidoglycan layer conveying resistance to vancomycin. Right now these are called vancymycin resistant staphylococci, but the significance of a new peptidoglycan structure and the associated genetic changes are significant. You don't seem to understand how minor changes in bacterial genetic structure warrant naming a new species. The mere presence of an enzyme called coagulase is enough to differentiate Staph Aureus from a plethora of other staphylococci. That's not a new species, it's still a bacteria. That's like saying a black man a a mexican woman have a baby, and the blacksican baby is a domo-novas instead of homo-sapien. I actually laughed out loud :p Best troll ever.
Damn it. I missed that one.
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe's_Law
 The more you debate fundamentalists the harder it is to distinguish them from trolls.
|
On September 16 2009 15:09 Velr wrote:
I would say... Hunger, poverty was way more important than being able to live christianity... If you wanted just the last thing there would have been no reason to leave most european countrys.
Not in the 16-1700s
Most of the initial American colonies were founded by people who couldn't worship/believe the way they wanted to in England. (or in other American colonies)
Now the majority of people who came to America over its entire history (including 1800s+1900s and 2000s) probably involve much more economic or non-religious political reasons than the initial colonists.
In any case, the strength of religion in America v. Europe is probably more due to the lack of any state churches (whenever people criticized the politicians in a country with a state church they were also criticizing the church... French + Russian revolutions both were antireligious, because you had strong state-church ties)
|
For those saying religious people are idiots, etc. let me ask you something:
Do you believe in free will?
Do you believe in time?
If some one should prove neither of the above existed would you accept it?
It is very hard for people to let go of things they are so sure about.
|
On September 17 2009 03:05 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2009 15:09 Velr wrote:
I would say... Hunger, poverty was way more important than being able to live christianity... If you wanted just the last thing there would have been no reason to leave most european countrys. Not in the 16-1700s Most of the initial American colonies were founded by people who couldn't worship/believe the way they wanted to in England. (or in other American colonies)
"Most" is an incredible overstatement.
|
On September 17 2009 04:50 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2009 03:05 Krikkitone wrote:On September 16 2009 15:09 Velr wrote:
I would say... Hunger, poverty was way more important than being able to live christianity... If you wanted just the last thing there would have been no reason to leave most european countrys. Not in the 16-1700s Most of the initial American colonies were founded by people who couldn't worship/believe the way they wanted to in England. (or in other American colonies) "Most" is an incredible overstatement.
Well if you don't count the colonies gained by conquest (ie colonized by other european nations and then taken by the British), then it is a sizable majority.
Massachusets, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. (most of the rest of the north was colonized by the Dutch and then taken)... the south was more of the purely economic colonies.
And the point is that for most of the first 100 years of its existence, America was among a very small group of European populated nations that did not have a state church. And that those colonies that did have a state church before the country was formed often had one that was not the state church of other european powers.
|
On September 17 2009 04:41 sandroba wrote:
For those saying religious people are idiots, etc. let me ask you something:
Do you believe in free will?
Do you believe in time?
If some one should prove neither of the above existed would you accept it?
It is very hard for people to let go of things they are so sure about.
I don't think religious people are idiots, I just think the ideological coercion practiced by most religious institutions catches people at an early age. My roomate is very religious and incredibly smart, at least as smart as me.
Free will? Probably doesn't exist. I see my brain as an interconnected web that will invariably and continually process sensory input, integrate it with past wiring, possibly form new neural connections if the proper molecular stimulation/neurotransmiter levels and spacial potential are present, iall while initiating bodily responses etc... etc... repeat. Neurologist can't point to any location where "free will" comes from nor do we understand the complex interaction between the frontal lobe and the emotion centers. It's arrogant to speculate free will exists as more than an Idea. Personally human behavior is far too predictable and patterned for me to believe in the existance.
Time? Most likely? I mean shit we are living it, I can see a clock. I would accept anything as likely true if the evidence suggests it.
|
On September 17 2009 05:18 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2009 04:50 Mindcrime wrote:On September 17 2009 03:05 Krikkitone wrote:On September 16 2009 15:09 Velr wrote:
I would say... Hunger, poverty was way more important than being able to live christianity... If you wanted just the last thing there would have been no reason to leave most european countrys. Not in the 16-1700s Most of the initial American colonies were founded by people who couldn't worship/believe the way they wanted to in England. (or in other American colonies) "Most" is an incredible overstatement. Well if you don't count the colonies gained by conquest (ie colonized by other european nations and then taken by the British), then it is a sizable majority. Massachusets, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. (most of the rest of the north was colonized by the Dutch and then taken)... the south was more of the purely economic colonies. And the point is that for most of the first 100 years of its existence, America was among a very small group of European populated nations that did not have a state church. And that those colonies that did have a state church before the country was formed often had one that was not the state church of other european powers.
Where they then proceeded to persecute native Americans and non-Christians ruthlessly. Irony Overwhelming!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
