DVD Talk
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008 documentary starring Ben Stein) [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008 documentary starring Ben Stein)


dhmac
08-28-09, 12:30 AM
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008)

Website: http://www.expelledthemovie.com

Trailers: http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php


Main counter-site for this movie:
http://www.expelledexposed.com


"Scientific American" article on the movie:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled

which also has "Six Things in 'Expelled' That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know..."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know

kvrdave
08-28-09, 01:17 AM
Haven't seen it, but based on the "things Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know..." it sounds very similar to An Inconvenient Truth, in terms of twisting to the agenda.

dhmac
08-28-09, 11:02 AM
Haven't seen it, but based on the "things Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know..." it sounds very similar to An Inconvenient Truth, in terms of twisting to the agenda.
They aren't similar at all, but that movie needs a thread too so I'll create it.

Disc Jockey
08-28-09, 10:23 PM
I don't think KVR is referring to the subject matter, I think he's speaking to the way facts are at the very least distorted in both "documentaries". That the film makers in both cases have an agenda and are sticking to it.

P.S. Can we add a rule that limits the number of links that can be posted here? I simply don't have time to view them all. ;)

Deep_lurk
08-28-09, 10:32 PM
The reviews:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/

Expelled from Expelled:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php

dhmac
08-29-09, 01:05 AM
I don't think KVR is referring to the subject matter, I think he's speaking to the way facts are at the very least distorted in both "documentaries". That the film makers in both cases have an agenda and are sticking to it.
One (An Inconvenient Truth) makes a presentation using actual scientific data on climate and then draws conclusions, which are at times extreme conclusions, from the data. The other (Expelled) attacks science from the start and then makes outrageous claims using quote-mining and dishonest editing to claim that the scientific community of biologists is basically comprised of Nazis trying to oppress freedom (and, as a side effect, also kill Jews). These movies are not similar in how they are put together at all.

JohnSlider
08-29-09, 09:43 AM
No intelligence sounds about right.

Supermallet
08-29-09, 05:40 PM
Expelled from Expelled:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php

I remember reading this when Myers first posted it. Hilarious that they singled him out and then let Richard Dawkins in. So perfect.

Superboy
08-31-09, 05:50 AM
This is the dumbest "documentary" that i've ever seen. I found it appalling that they would associate evolution with the holocaust. Which is funny when you consider how conservative Christians never want to own up to the past 2000+ years of religious warfare.

movielib
08-31-09, 09:32 AM
I did not see this film because I knew it had to be bad. I may see it to see just how bad it is.

It's sad that Ben Stein, whom I like in a lot of ways, would perpetrate something like this. I suspect he wanted to tweak the sensibilities of some people whose opinions he didn't care for for a variety of reasons (liberals?), chose the wrong venue and harmed his own credibility.

Groucho
08-31-09, 09:44 AM
It's sad that Ben Stein, whom I like in a lot of ways, would perpetrate something like this.Agreed. Although I've always disagreed with Stein on many political issues, before this film at least I had a great deal of respect and esteem for him. This film lowered both of those a great deal.

Deep_lurk
08-31-09, 01:44 PM
More recent Ben Stein news:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/we_made_a_sad_old_man_cry.php

dhmac
08-31-09, 02:20 PM
For those with NetFlix accounts, this sad excuse for a documentary is available on "Watch Instantly" online viewing (http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Expelled_No_Intelligence_Allowed/70096749).

Trevor
08-31-09, 02:31 PM
It's not worth watching. While I possibly agree with the premise, the "documentary" blows.

DeputyDave
08-31-09, 06:36 PM
This is the dumbest "documentary" that i've ever seen. I found it appalling that they would associate evolution with the holocaust. Which is funny when you consider how conservative Christians never want to own up to the past 2000+ years of religious warfare.

I haven't seen the film but a distortion and misunderstanding of Darwinism lead to Eugenics which in turn was used to justify a lot of the atrocities in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

Deep_lurk
08-31-09, 07:20 PM
Trying to refute Darwinism with Hitler is like trying to refute Newtonism with a plane crash.

DeputyDave
08-31-09, 07:37 PM
Trying to refute Darwinism with Hitler is like trying to refute Newtonism with a plane crash.

Who's trying to refute it? The fact that I am an atheist who believes in evolution does not make my statement any less true.

Superboy
08-31-09, 07:42 PM
I haven't seen the film but a distortion and misunderstanding of Darwinism lead to Eugenics which in turn was used to justify a lot of the atrocities in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.


It's not like nothing like what happened in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, the Eastern Bloc, the Middle East, Asia, Africa, South America, North America, and pretty much everywhere in the world except antarctica happened before Darwin wrote The Origin of Species. There has been a long history of ethnic cleansing since the dawn of man. It even goes so far as the theory that homo sapiens actually killed off cro magnon and other "cousins" of man.

DeputyDave
08-31-09, 07:52 PM
Oh, thank you for that stunning display of your holistic understanding of history.

BTW, nothing like what happened in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, the Eastern Bloc, the Middle East, Asia, Africa, South America, North America, and pretty much everywhere in the world except antarctica happened before Darwin wrote The Origin of Species. It was alllll because of him.

I never said that it didn't. I also never said that Darwinism caused any of those things I was merely pointing out that there is a legitimate connection. I have stated that I respect Darwin's work and accept evolution as the most likely theory. Would the Holocaust have happened without Darwin's theories? Very most likely. Hitler would have most likely grasped at another justification.

Superboy
08-31-09, 08:10 PM
I never said that it didn't. I also never said that Darwinism caused any of those things I was merely pointing out that there is a legitimate connection. I have stated that I respect Darwin's work and accept evolution as the most likely theory. Would the Holocaust have happened without Darwin's theories? Very most likely. Hitler would have most likely grasped at another justification.

Sorry, I just realized how vitriolic my first post sounded, because I realized that you weren't behind that idea, just stating it.

I think that associating the Holocaust with Darwinism is just stupid. It really doesn't take into account any of the factors that led up to what happened. And I don't believe Hitler actually ever mentioned Darwinism as his justification.

Superboy
08-31-09, 08:10 PM
I did not see this film because I knew it had to be bad. I may see it to see just how bad it is.

It's sad that Ben Stein, whom I like in a lot of ways, would perpetrate something like this. I suspect he wanted to tweak the sensibilities of some people whose opinions he didn't care for for a variety of reasons (liberals?), chose the wrong venue and harmed his own credibility.

I haven't agreed with anything he's said since his cameo in Ghostbusters 2.

Deep_lurk
08-31-09, 08:11 PM
Who's trying to refute it?

Ben Stein. Using Hitler.

movielib
08-31-09, 08:47 PM
It's not like nothing like what happened in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, the Eastern Bloc, the Middle East, Asia, Africa, South America, North America, and pretty much everywhere in the world except antarctica happened before Darwin wrote The Origin of Species. There has been a long history of ethnic cleansing since the dawn of man. It even goes so far as the theory that homo sapiens actually killed off cro magnon and other "cousins" of man.
Cro-Magnons were Homo sapiens. Some think so were Neanderthals. They are sometimes referred to as Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis respectively.

DeputyDave
08-31-09, 11:44 PM
Sorry, I just realized how vitriolic my first post sounded, because I realized that you weren't behind that idea, just stating it.

I think that associating the Holocaust with Darwinism is just stupid. It really doesn't take into account any of the factors that led up to what happened. And I don't believe Hitler actually ever mentioned Darwinism as his justification.No, but Hitler was very clearly a believer in Eugenics, which is perverted derivative of Darwinism (and some will argue it's not so much of a perversion and claim Darwin himself firmly believed in it).

Superboy
09-01-09, 08:36 AM
No, but Hitler was very clearly a believer in Eugenics, which is perverted derivative of Darwinism (and some will argue it's not so much of a perversion and claim Darwin himself firmly believed in it).

Saying that Darwin was a champion of Eugenics is tantamount to saying that he didn't understand his own theory.

Eugenics is not something that started with Darwinism. It existed well before the 19th century.

DeputyDave
09-01-09, 10:02 AM
Saying that Darwin was a champion of Eugenics is tantamount to saying that he didn't understand his own theory.

Eugenics is not something that started with Darwinism. It existed well before the 19th century.I am not saying that Darwin supported eugenics, just that it has been argued that he accepted it based on his own writings and articles. One particular argument is based on the original title for "The Origin of Species", which was "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" (which specifically talks about the breeding of domestic animals). Also there's "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex" which specifically talks about what would later be called eugenics or Social Darwinism, though it certainly doesn't advocate it, it later became a blueprint.

Although the basic premise behind eugenics has been around for 1000's of years (any culture who ever bred animals for specific purposes probably eventually thought about it), its modern "scientific" form did not come about until the late 19th century. The widespread hysteria that swept most Western countries and was eventually used as justification for atrocities by both Hitler and Stalin stems from there. The father of modern eugenics was Darwin's own cousin, Sir Francis Galton, who certainly based his theories on Darwin's work.

Again I am not saying Darwin can be blamed for eugenics, and his own writings expressed abhorrence that his work would be used that way. I’ve never seen the movie (and surely never will), so I have no idea what it has to say on the subject. I was merely pointing out that there is a tenuous relation between Darwin and the holocaust, just as you could say there is a link between Einstein and Hiroshima. To say otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

Groucho
09-01-09, 10:13 AM
Even if we can draw a direct line connecting Darwinism with the Holocaust, that doesn't invalidate the theory of evolution.

DeputyDave
09-01-09, 11:33 AM
Even if we can draw a direct line connecting Darwinism with the Holocaust, that doesn't invalidate the theory of evolution.Of course not. My opinion is that the theory of evolution is most likely true.

Not having seen the movie I don't know if that is what Ben Stein does (or if he merely uses it as a reason to label Darwinism as"evil"). That would be like saying physics is invalid because of Hiroshima.

dhmac
09-01-09, 12:21 PM
First off, the idea for evolution existed before Darwin. There were books written before Darwin’s that put forth the idea that more complex life evolved (or "transmutated" as the idea was once called) from simpler forms of life going all the way back to the ancient Greeks (specifically, the ancient Greek philosopher Anaximander). Darwin’s major contribution to science is the scientific theory of “Natural Selection” being his idea on what guided evolution (Alfred Russel Wallace, the independent co-discoverer of Natural Selection, also gets credit too - but not as much). Darwin contrasted this against the idea of “Artificial Selection” which is the selective breeding of animals that mankind has done for thousands of years and still does to this day.

The idea of Eugenics is based on “Artificial Selection” not “Natural Selection” so it’s not even based on Darwin’s main contribution to science, but on an idea that had been practiced for thousands of years with animals. Eugenics is the idea that humans should also be artificially bred to promote desired traits and anyone with undesirable traits should not be allowed to breed (and even sterilized). Sperm banks and sterilization of the mentally ill are ideas that come directly from the idea of Eugenics. But Eugenics is not about killing people and did not at all create the idea of genocide. Instead genocide is a idea that goes back thousands of years of history with numerous examples of it being done, and is even in the Old Testament of the Bible (for example: the story of the conquest of Canaan by the Hebrews fully endorses genocide). And even the idea of killing off the weak and handicapped within a society started with the Spartans and the Romans, who had it in their laws, so it also goes back thousands of years.

The Nazis idea of a superior Aryan race and that the Jewish people are an inferior race is really just a racist ideology that’s not at all backed up by any science. (Or even by the idea of Eugenics, which would support the idea of using the sperm of famous scientists, like Einstein, for breeding because advanced intelligence would be considered a desired trait.) The Nazis didn’t invent the idea of an Aryan race – that was an idea popular in Europe in the 19th and early-20th centuries – but that idea did not come from Darwin at all. And as for thinking that Jewish people are “inferior” that’s also an unscientific idea that goes back thousands of years, particularly in Christian and Muslim areas of the world. For example, the Catholic Church required Jews in Rome to live in a specified ghetto by a papal decree that was enforced from 1555 until 1870. So when the Nazis required Jews to live in ghettos, they didn’t invent that idea but just revived an idea that had only ended about 60 years earlier. And reading the writings of Martin Luther about Jews is like reading some lost Hitler speech (for instance, Martin Luther even calls for exterminating the Jews). So anyone who thinks anti-Semitism in any way stemmed from Darwin, as Ben Stein does, is either ignorant of actual history or just an outright liar.

DeputyDave
09-01-09, 12:25 PM
First off, the idea for evolution existed before Darwin. There were books written before Darwin’s that put forth the idea that more complex life evolved (or "transmutated" as the idea was once called) from simpler forms of life going all the way back to the ancient Greeks (specifically, the ancient Greek philosopher Anaximander). Darwin’s major contribution to science is the scientific theory of “Natural Selection” being his idea on what guided evolution (Alfred Russel Wallace, the independent co-discoverer of Natural Selection, also gets credit too - but not as much). Darwin contrasted this against the idea of “Artificial Selection” which is the selective breeding of animals that mankind has done for thousands of years and still does to this day.

The idea of Eugenics is based on “Artificial Selection” not “Natural Selection” so it’s not even based on Darwin’s main contribution to science, but on an idea that had been practiced for thousands of years with animals. Eugenics is the idea that humans should also be artificially bred to promote desired traits and anyone with undesirable traits should not be allowed to breed (and even sterilized). Sperm banks and sterilization of the mentally ill are ideas that come directly from the idea of Eugenics. But Eugenics is not about killing people and did not at all create the idea of genocide. Instead genocide is a idea that goes back thousands of years of history with numerous examples of it being done, and is even in the Old Testament of the Bible (for example: the story of the conquest of Canaan by the Hebrews fully endorses genocide). And even the idea of killing off the weak and handicapped within a society started with the Spartans and the Romans, who had it in their laws, so it also goes back thousands of years.

The Nazis idea of a superior Aryan race and that the Jewish people are an inferior race is really just a racist ideology that’s not at all backed up by any science. (Or even by the idea of Eugenics, which would support the idea of using the sperm of famous scientists, like Einstein, for breeding because advanced intelligence would be considered a desired trait.) The Nazis didn’t invent the idea of an Aryan race – that was an idea popular in Europe in the 19th and early-20th centuries – but that idea did not come from Darwin at all. And as for thinking that Jewish people are “inferior” that’s also an unscientific idea that goes back thousands of years, particularly in Christian and Muslim areas of the world. For example, the Catholic Church required Jews in Rome to live in a specified ghetto by a papal decree that was enforced from 1555 until 1870. So when the Nazis required Jews to live in ghettos, they didn’t invent that idea but just revived an idea that had only ended about 60 years earlier. And reading the writings of Martin Luther about Jews is like reading some lost Hitler speech (for instance, Martin Luther even calls for exterminating the Jews). So anyone who thinks anti-Semitism in any way stemmed from Darwin, as Ben Stein does, is either ignorant of actual history or just an outright liar.

I don't disagree with a single point you made and yet I am still right.

dhmac
09-01-09, 02:47 PM
I don't disagree with a single point you made and yet I am still right.
Actually, that posting was not against you but against what the movie claims.

I was merely pointing out that there is a tenuous relation between Darwin and the holocaust, just as you could say there is a link between Einstein and Hiroshima. To say otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
And similarly there is also a tenuous relation between the Wright Brothers and the September 11, 2001 skyjackers who crashed planes into the WTC. But anyone who would then argue that this means the Wright Brothers are to blame for what those Islamic terrorists did is being intellectually dishonest.

DeputyDave
09-01-09, 03:00 PM
I guess if the Wright Brothers had a cousin who was a world renowned Jihadist, who constantly cached in on his famous relation's accomplishments then you might have a point.

dick_grayson
09-01-09, 03:17 PM
I thought the Onion's review was spot on:

http://www.avclub.com/articles/expelled-no-intelligence-allowed,2990/

by Steven Hyden April 23, 2008

Director:
o Nathan Frankowski
Cast:
o Ben Stein
Writer:
o Walt Ruloff
Distributor:
o Rocky Mountain Pictures

What, exactly, is intelligent design theory? How is it different than creationism? Why should scientists take it as seriously as evolution theory? It's reasonable to expect Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, an intelligent-design documentary starring and co-written by former Nixon speechwriter, game-show host, and "Bueller, Bueller" guy Ben Stein, to address these basic questions with at least a modicum of depth. No such luck. Instead, Expelled is a classic bait-and-switch, presenting itself as a plea for freedom in the scientific marketplace of ideas, while actually delivering a grossly unfair, contradictory, and ultimately repugnant attack on Darwinists, whose theory of life is first described, in frustratingly vague terms, as "unintelligible" and "a room full of smoke," then as a pathway to atheism, and finally as a Nazi justification for the Holocaust.

Stein's assertion in Expelled is that the academic establishment routinely silences scientists who believe in intelligent design, stripping them of university tenureships, jobs, and their good reputations. ID, Stein says, isn't merely a cockamamie scheme to shoehorn creationism back into science, but a serious academic theory with no ties to religion. (Though, in the film's typically muddled fashion, Stein also argues that ID might provide insight into God.) Even for those who buy into the idea that intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory, Expelled offers little substantive illumination. Director Nathan Frankowski relies instead on superficial, hand-me-down Michael Moore cutesiness like'50s educational-movie parodies, kiddie animations, and jokey cheap shots to not-so-subtly portray innocuously tweedy scientists as eveeel, mustache-twirling baddies bent on furthering a worldview that supposedly favors destroying religion and coldly doing away with the weak and disabled.

Expelled stacks the deck in favor of intelligent design, interviewing the most rational-seeming and articulate proponents, and the crustiest, most arrogant critics, but that's to be expected from a hot-button documentary in the post-Moore era. But when Stein—whose disingenuous babe-in-the-woods routine grows more grating with every wronged talking head he pretends to be shocked over—walks through Dachau's Nazi death camp and wonders whether "survival of the fittest" thinking could lead to future atrocities at the hands of sociopathic Darwinists, he strides proudly over the last line of decency in contemporary documentary filmmaking. Surely there's a more nuanced argument to be made in favor of ID than pinning the old "bad as Hitler" canard on pro-evolution scientists? Perhaps what Bruce Chapman of ID advocacy group The Discovery Institute says about Darwinists applies best to Expelled: "People who don't have an argument are reduced to throwing sand in your eyes." If only this movie could be washed away as easily.

dhmac
09-01-09, 04:08 PM
I guess if the Wright Brothers had a cousin who was a world renowned Jihadist, who constantly cached in on his famous relation's accomplishments then you might have a point.
So the mere fact that Charles Darwin is the cousin of Francis Galton means he also gets the credit/blame for Galton's ideas? And because the Nazis cherry-picked some ideas they liked from Galton, he gets credit/blame for them? (Which then extends back to Darwin.) Sorry, but that's exactly the same kind of fallacious sophistry on display in Expelled.

The Nazis' warped form of eugenics did cherry-pick ideas from a number of sources: Francis Galton, Arthur de Gobineau, long-standing Christian anti-Semitism, Friedrich Nietzsche, Richard Wagner, etc., etc. but the final product of this mixture was entirely Nazi and not simply equivalent to any of these (and other) sources.

DeputyDave
09-01-09, 04:30 PM
So the mere fact that Charles Darwin is the cousin of Francis Galton means he also gets the credit/blame for Galton's ideas? And because the Nazis cherry-picked some ideas they liked from Galton, he gets credit/blame for them? (Which then extends back to Darwin.) Sorry, but that's exactly the same kind of fallacious sophistry on display in Expelled.

The Nazis' warped form of eugenics did cherry-pick ideas from a number of sources: Francis Galton, Arthur de Gobineau, long-standing Christian anti-Semitism, Friedrich Nietzsche, Richard Wagner, etc., etc. but the final product of this mixture was entirely Nazi and not simply equivalent to any of these (and other) sources.

You misunderstand me. I don't blame Darwin at all. I like Darwin. I would invite Darwin for coffee. I have no problem with Darwin. I was merely pointing out that the link is much closer than the Wright Brother's one you suggested.

I am not saying that Darwin intended, caused, or can be blamed for the holocaust. I am not saying that Darwin intended, caused, or can be blamed for eugenics. This simply started out as a response to someone who thought it was ludicrous they be linked by Stein. I wanted to show that there is indeed a link, although not the one the movie intends, I'm sure.

Deftones
09-01-09, 04:37 PM
Agreed. Although I've always disagreed with Stein on many political issues, before this film at least I had a great deal of respect and esteem for him. This film lowered both of those a great deal.

Pretty much this. I saw the "documentary", if you could call it that. It's terrible.

dhmac
09-02-09, 12:12 AM
Roger Ebert's long article on the movie (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/win_ben_steins_mind.html), which is well-worth the read. (I particularly like when he points out some of the logical fallacies in the movie, of which there are many.)

Deep_lurk
09-05-09, 03:05 PM
Re-Eberted. (Reberted?)

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/09/the_longest_thread_evolves.html

Superboy
09-08-09, 09:05 PM
I don't think this film will get much debate here since it's so far-right and off-the-wall that no one is going to support the points made in this film. Seriously, it sucks.

Nausicaa
09-09-09, 11:47 AM
Yeah. But they love it over at World Net Daily!

Superboy
09-10-09, 02:44 AM
Yeah. But they love it over at World Net Daily!

Don't forget Fox News.

Trevor
09-10-09, 07:44 AM
I don't think this film will get much debate here since it's so far-right and off-the-wall that no one is going to support the points made in this film. Seriously, it sucks.
1 - It's the #1 thread in this hopping forum.

2 - Yes, it sucked, but it's as good as any Michael Moore film.

I'm hoping this forum brings to attention a decent "political film" to watch. I'm 0-4 in the ones I've tried, and anxious to see a good one.

Senor Javi
09-12-09, 01:56 PM
They will as soon as atheists own up to Stalin and Mao.

This is the last point you want to ever try to make. It has been destroyed over and over again and you'd have to intentionally avoid ever reading or listening to anything counter to your point of view to not know why. There is a difference between correlation and causation. Just because you are something and just because you do something, it doesn't mean that your characteristic caused the action. Joseph Stalin had a mustache and committed mass murder. There is nothing about him having a mustache that would have caused him to commit mass murder. There is nothing overtly mustacheian about his violent acts and the killings did not satisfy a mustacheian agenda. His mustache did not give him motivation to kill and he did not kill for a mustache reason. Joseph Stalin was an atheist and committed mass murder. There is nothing about him being an atheist that would have caused him to commit mass murder. There is nothing overtly atheist about his violent acts and the killings did not satisfy an atheist agenda. His atheist did not give him motivation to kill and he did not kill for an atheist reason. He was a psychopath who happened to be an atheist. Nothing more.

So, let's apply this to religion. A fundamentalist Christian man finds his wife cheating on him and kills her in the heat of the moment. Did he do this for a religious reason? No, he did this because he was mad and violent and mentally unhinged. His religion did not affect his action and no one should ever pretend it did. However, let's apply this to the Crusades. A religion-sanctioned campaign where an army of Christians went to massacre Muslims and other different religious groups with the intent of regaining control of a holy land. Let's not pretend that anything but religion was the motivation for that one.

Atheism is the single unbelief in a deity or deities. That's it. There is not a political element, there is not a philosophical element, there is not a moral element, there is not a value element. Atheism is not a system, it is a single unbelief. Your unbelief in unicorns does not cause your actions. Your unbelief in fairies does not cause your actions. Your unbelief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not cause your actions. Atheism tells you what you aren't, not what you are and you don't do something because you aren't something, you do something because you are something.

Senor Javi
09-12-09, 07:28 PM
Stalin, like his Bolshevik predecessors, did specifically target the Church. They tried to wipe it out completely, and yes because of their atheist beliefs whether you choose to believe it or not. To update a quote of yours:

Stalin wanted to control ever aspect of Soviet life, but he felt like religion was the one thing he could never fully control. His solution to this was to target the churches. It was an issue of paranoia and control, not his personal atheism that lead him to this.

It doesn't make you worse of a person just because some atheists were evil 70 years ago, just like today's Christians don't have to answer to the crimes of the Crusaders or Inquisitors. That was the whole point of my original post. If you're going to dump past events on the heads of today's Christians, then be prepared to do the same to yourself or else you are being hypocritical.
I wont even bother responding to the rest of the condescending bullshit in your post.

Congratulations on missing the point of everything. And replacing a word in my quote with a different word - ivy league debating skills I see. I never said that Christians should be held responsible for everything that every Christian had ever done. I said nothing like it or even implied anything remotely close to that. You were the one that made the asinine post that atheists need to take responsible for Stalin and Mao. I simply stated the absolute and indisputable fact that the Crusades were religiously motivated as a means of pointing out how we determine causation. I never said that Christians today need to own up to this or apologize for it and I have no idea where you are getting this from. I never even said anything bad about religion! I was simply pointing out the flat-out wrongness of your claim that Stalin and Mao did horrible things because of their atheism. That's a tired and lazy "argument" and even Christian apologist websites say to stop using because it's so embarrassingly stupid. You can complain about "condescending bullshit" all you want (which is a cop-out excuse), but I was trying to explain the logic of the situation in as plain a way as possible.

Senor Javi
09-12-09, 09:30 PM
Actually you are the one that missed the point. I only made the statement about Stalin and Mao in response to another poster to show how ridiculous it was for them to say that Christians should 'own up' to the Crusades etc. I don't believe atheists need to own up to Stalin and Mao anymore than Christians do. I never said that you said anything about religion.
The rest I don't even care about because I won't be responding to you anymore.

And I'm not the one who made the initial post so it doesn't make sense for you to act like I was speaking for him. You offered no explanation for your Stalin/Mao comment in your first post so I took it the same way as anyone would take that comment with no context. Also, you seemed to back this up in your first response to me when you explicitly said that Stalin was motivated by atheism. I can see what you meant now, but you are still dead wrong about Stalin/Mao being motivated by atheism. Also I never said that you said that I said (wow that sounds ridiculous) anything bad about religion. I was merely trying to point out that I was not trying to turn this into a religion vs. atheism discussion which I (perhaps wrongly so) thought you were taking it as. And whether you respond or not, I don't think that you should just declare "I don't care" about something that you spent a few posts talking about. You clearly do care to some extent and digesting a few posts coming from a different point of view is generally pretty helpful if for no other reason to see how other people think. Quick dismissal of anything you can't instantly think up a comeback for doesn't provide nearly as much help.