oh no it's davinci code week

[Robin]

OK, here is the test. If a fictional book and film came out based on the premise that Charles Darwin was a member of a mysterious Satanic cult and devised the theory of evolution by natural selection in order to undermine religion - would atheists be up in arms the way Christians are about this film?

 

[Darat]

OK, here is the test. If a fictional book and film came out based on the premise that Charles Darwin was a member of a mysterious Satanic cult and devised the theory of evolution by natural selection in order to undermine religion - would atheists be up in arms the way Christians are about this film?

What has Darwin got to do with atheists? There is not a creed of atheism, a doctrine of beliefs as there is for a religion. Remember in essence atheism is a lack of belief in something.

 

[Pauliesonne]

I think the smart atheists would leave it alone untill all the fuss died down and then, if anybody got confused by the film, the atheists would correct them.

( That's if they were willing to be corrected )

 

[Meadmaker]

OK, here is the test. If a fictional book and film came out based on the premise that Charles Darwin was a member of a mysterious Satanic cult and devised the theory of evolution by natural selection in order to undermine religion - would atheists be up in arms the way Christians are about this film?

If it stayed on the bestseller list for weeks and weeks and weeks? Yeah, I think they would.

Come to think of it, I've read lots of variations on that premise, and atheists do get up in arms about it. Try posting a note on this message board that goes only half that far. Forget the cult. Just post a message that says Darwin was an atheist who invented the theory of evolution to undermine religion. See what happens.

Or, come to think of it, I've read a lot of comments by people who are up in arms about the popularity of the "Left Behind" series.

Some religious people hate this book for the simple reason that it really is a threat. In my opinion, the threat comes not from people who will believe the book, but rather from people who decide that the version in the book makes a better story than the Gospels. That's a real threat.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

OK, here is the test. If a fictional book and film came out based on the premise that Charles Darwin was a member of a mysterious Satanic cult and devised the theory of evolution by natural selection in order to undermine religion - would atheists be up in arms the way Christians are about this film?

I would be curious as to how they could paint him that way. I'd go see the movie or read the book and see if they had some logical ties or proof that Darwin belonged to which, if any satanic cult at the time. As you can see, they would have to mention which satanic cult, and prove that those satanists wanted to undermine religion, which is weird since satanists must believe in some kind of religion to believe in and worship satan.

Then they would have to show why simple facts are actually some conspiracy to undermine religion. Then, for instance, they would also have to show how the earth being round undermines religion, and how the existence of genes undermines religion. I guess the world isn't really round, and genetics doesn't actually exist.

Then I would shake my head and wonder how any could swallow any of that crap, let alone argue about it. Thus, as an atheist I wouldn't really care about the book or movie, and laugh to myself at anyone that would.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

If it stayed on the bestseller list for weeks and weeks and weeks? Yeah, I think they would.

Come to think of it, I've read lots of variations on that premise, and atheists do get up in arms about it. Try posting a note on this message board that goes only half that far. Forget the cult. Just post a message that says Darwin was an atheist who invented the theory of evolution to undermine religion. See what happens.

Or, come to think of it, I've read a lot of comments by people who are up in arms about the popularity of the "Left Behind" series.

Huh? Darwin didn't invent anything. He simply wrote down what he saw and came to some conclusions. Then other people went out to see what if they could see what Darwin saw, and made some conclusions. Then other people find out about genetics, and saw what Darwin and the others saw, and made even more conclusions.

Just like the people who discovered the earth was round. One person saw some things, and came to some conclusions. Then we got satellites, airplanes, and so EVERYONE saw that the eart was round, and came to that conclusion.

So when someone says evolution is only something that's around to undermine religion, I wonder how why that person simply refuses to find out what it's really about. It's not hard. Pick up a book, go see what has been observed for yourself, and come to your own conclusions.

Really. I'd like you to tell me the earth is flat and at the center of the Universe. It would entail ignoring all the real reasons that is not true.

and would anyone say that all evolutionists are atheists? That is not true.

Some religious people hate this book for the simple reason that it really is a threat. In my opinion, the threat comes not from people who will believe the book, but rather from people who decide that the version in the book makes a better story than the Gospels. That's a real threat.

I think the entire Gospels needs an update.

 

[slingblade]

and would anyone say that all evolutionists are atheists? That is not true.

I agree. Back when I was a believer, I was also an evolutionist.
My argument was that since God is all-powerful, I reckon he can order the world any way he likes, including setting it up so it evolves.

Aside from that, however, I think "atheists would be up in arms" if someone seriously suggested Darwin concocted an evolution-hoax, simply because such a claim would require proof. I know I'd be hollering for it, so where's the big surprise in that?

If someone wrote a work of fiction claiming same, and didn't specify it was fictional, I'd probably react the same way (essentially) I did to Da Vinci. "Wow. There's a new idea. Is this author serious? I'ma go check this out. Oh, it's fiction. Okay. Gee, I wish he had said so....oh well."
With Da Vinci, I had already read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail," so the idea wasn't new to me. Unfortunately, I wasn't a critical thinker when I first read HBHG, so I'd thought for years it was truthful. Once I knew it was all one big story, I was more disappointed in myself for falling for it than I was with the authors for cooking it up.

One minor reason why I'm an atheist is because I'm also a critical thinker now, or at least I try to be one. I know now that I'm responsible for what I believe, think, or know. If someone presents a lie as the truth, it's not their fault if I believe it; it's mine.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Awesome post slingblade.

Yes, when someone is seriously trying to say evolution is a hoax to undermine religion, which they do say often, I roll my eyes. I'm so used to hearing it though, I wouldn't be surprised to see a "Da Vinci" book on Darwin.

I don't know if I'd get "up in arms about it", since I am used to hearing it.

In fact, I'd like to see someone even try to get a popular work of fiction out on that! How would they do it. I'm darn curious Darwin actually existed, and you can look at the facts around his existence to prove his real motives...knowledge. Jesus didn't exist, so you can say he liked purply flying pigs if you wanted to. Just cause the bible didn't say so, doesn't mean he didn't. Couldn't have captured ALL his likes and dislikes in one book!

I guess, based on that, I have to applaud the author of DaVinci Code for getting so much attention over this whole thing.

Mind you, if something like evolution (which is observable and based on fact) gets them going, then the book must have something in it that is hard for them to refute, and that is why they are "up in arms".

Hm. Gotta go see the movie and see what it is that they figure must seem true, even though it isn't observable nor fact based. *scratches head*

Again, that is why I find this all so confusing. They are both works of fiction, so one really can't undermine the other. They will both simply exist, and people will still choose to believe what they want to, since neither is based on anything observable or factual. It's not like evolution, where we know it's silly for someone to say a living cat can just suddenly evolve into a dog. We can refute it with facts. There are no facts to refute in the DaVinci situation.



So the cunundrum of fiction. You cannot refute fiction with more fiction. It's like using the flatness of the earth to try to prove the moon is also flat. Neither is true, so you can't prove either. Instead, you have to look at the earth and moon, take a pic, and decide based on fact instead of trying to prove either is flat.

It's all just so silly!

So, take the bible as end all, and there you have it. It isn't in the bible. So it didn't happen. Problem solved. DaVinci Code is fun, but it wasn't in the bible, so it's not true. Easy enough.

I hear there are supposed jesus decendants. Well, test their dna...

 

[slingblade]

I keep seeing that suggestion--test their DNA--and I keep wondering, to what would you compare the sample?

A DNA test won't tell you a whole lot about specific identity, without a sample to compare it with, will it? I don't know a whole lot about it, so I'm asking. Seems to me about all we could find out is "Yep, they bear genetic markers similar to those of people with Middle-Eastern descent," or whatever.
I'm missing something, aren't I?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

No, you totally caught the irony

How is this DaVinci book even a threat when you can't prove anything in it??

I'm really quite happy you caught that, and asked about it! In fact, I can't stop smiling!

 

[slingblade]

Oh! Wheeee!

 

[Huntster]

Then the sheep/shepherd metaphor is not very apt. Or else, you are a very bad sheep to wander off like that. You're more likely to be used for mutton than for wool.

I'm a very, very bad sheep. You might say I'm the black sheep.

I'm very wooly, but you're right; the wolves have tried to make mutton of me.

But look! I'm still here!

I can send you photos of the wolves next week, if you'd like (hope you aren't PETA)............

 

[thaiboxerken]

Possibly, but also likely because atheism is based on a foundation of spiritualism just like any other religion, even if it's position is one that denies spiritualism exists.

No, atheism doesn't even address exist the notion of spirits.

I understand and believe the doctrine of Jesus the man and Christ the divine. That's why the theory of Jesus not accepting the death and resurrection, then fleeing incognito, marrying and living life out as human alone doesn't work. It denies the Christ.

Yea, I know, you think that if anyone doesn't believe that Jesus became a zombie, they are denying christ.

I like this particular shepherd. I'll stay with this flock, thanks.

I'd rather live as a man and not a sheep.

Why would a "critical thinker" need a disquise? And why would "acting religious" be an effective disquise?

Persecution, hate and intolelerance.

I know lots of religious folks who are among the most critical thinkers I've known.

I know a few, but not when it comes to their religion.

Athiests aren't my "enemy". Evil is my enemy.

Aren't atheists evil, according to your bible?

Have you considered the possibility that your real enemy are not faithful Christians, Christianity itself, or any particular religious organization, but instead is the evil that can infect all people; religious and non-religious alike?

Not me, especially since many of the "evils" are actually condoned in that bible.

 

[thaiboxerken]

OK, here is the test. If a fictional book and film came out based on the premise that Charles Darwin was a member of a mysterious Satanic cult and devised the theory of evolution by natural selection in order to undermine religion - would atheists be up in arms the way Christians are about this film?

As an atheist, I wouldn't be up in arms. If that movie claimed to be factual, however, I would. The bible code doesn't claim to be factual. Even if such a movie claimed to be factual, I'd give arguments to debunk the lies, just like I do against creationists.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I'm very wooly, but you're right; the wolves have tried to make mutton of me.

But look! I'm still here!

Yea yea, you need a sheperd to protect you from wolves and sasquatch, we get it. Some of us need no such sheperd, as we are independant people and not sheep.

 

[KevinM]

The big problem of the Davinci Joke(in my oppinion it rates as third rate fantasy not fiction in any way based on fact, or history) is that the idea is simply ubsurd. If we hold that a Jesus did exist(not unreasonable nothing about the claims regarding him are completely unique other "messiahs" of the same day and age made the same claims and between the gospels, Josephus and other writers of the era we have substantial record of him and his followers) it seems illogical that some 1100 years after he died Crisiten De Troyes would decide to write a metaphorical story about his descendents. The oldest Grail stories don't even mention Jesus Christ and none of them predate the 1100s. The very idea that Holy Grail is a mistranslation is rather debunked by the fact the origin of Grail the latin Gradals meaning a dish used to serve a course of a meal(not a cup). Further Brown misrepresents so many historical facts not even related to Christ. To give three examples:

1)Theres no way Leonardo Davinci or Isaac Newton were members of the Priori De Sion. The Priori didn't exist prior to the 20th century.

2) The Council of Nicea didn't invent the idea Christ was God. It was commonly believed up until Arius in the 3rd century argued that Christ was a seperate being from God. The final vote came down 316 in favor of Christ being one with God to two desenters(Brown calls this a close vote personally I call it a landslide)

3)The existant new testament was widely accepted before the Council of Nicea as accurate. In 95 AD Jerome mentions them, Iraeneous mentioned them as being accurate accounts, and even the heretic Marcion considered 11 of the 27 books accurate. The Gnostic gospels were the work of a different religion capitalizing on the sucsess of Christianity and are all older then the new testament.

I could keep going but if your interested I did a more thorough defeat of this bunk at lougentile.com

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, but the bible joke is absurd as well, Kevin.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Possibly, but also likely because atheism is based on a foundation of spiritualism just like any other religion, even if it's position is one that denies spiritualism exists.

No, atheism doesn't even address exist the notion of spirits….

Atheism:

1.
a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.

That definition “doesn't even address exist the notion of spirits”?

I understand and believe the doctrine of Jesus the man and Christ the divine. That's why the theory of Jesus not accepting the death and resurrection, then fleeing incognito, marrying and living life out as human alone doesn't work. It denies the Christ.

Yea, I know, you think that if anyone doesn't believe that Jesus became a zombie, they are denying christ.

Kinda, sorta………

I like this particular shepherd. I'll stay with this flock, thanks.

I'd rather live as a man and not a sheep.

Yeah. That’s what you say.

Why would a "critical thinker" need a disquise? And why would "acting religious" be an effective disquise?

Persecution, hate and intolelerance.

If you were as tough as you claim to be, you wouldn’t be afraid of persecution, hate, and intolerance (if you were righteous).

I know lots of religious folks who are among the most critical thinkers I've known.

I know a few, but not when it comes to their religion.

You don’t seem to “know” much.

Athiests aren't my "enemy". Evil is my enemy.

Aren't atheists evil, according to your bible?

Nope. Atheists aren't necessarily evil.

And their relationship with God is their own business.

 

[thaiboxerken]

That definition “doesn't even address exist the notion of spirits”?

I didn't see spirits mentioned at all in the definition.

Kinda, sorta………

Living, dead-man.

Yeah. That’s what you say.

I mean it too, mutton.

If you were as tough as you claim to be, you wouldn’t be afraid of persecution, hate, and intolerance (if you were righteous).

Are you claiming that courageous people don't have fear?

You don’t seem to “know” much.

Just because I don't buy into your mythologies of christ and sasquatch doesn't mean I don't know much.

Nope. Atheists aren't necessarily evil.

Psalm78:21 Therefore the LORD heard this, and was wroth: so a fire was kindled against Jacob, and anger also came up against Israel; "The LORD heard this" (he had his hearing aid on) and became angry, and burned people "because they believed not in God."
78:22 Because they believed not in God, and trusted not in his salvation:


Ok, not evil, but your god likes to burn them.

And their relationship with God is their own business.

LOL. Atheists have no relationships with gods.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
That definition “doesn't even address exist the notion of spirits”?

I didn't see spirits mentioned at all in the definition....

True, but you don't consider God as spirit?

Yea, I know, you think that if anyone doesn't believe that Jesus became a zombie, they are denying christ.

Kinda, sorta………

Living, dead-man.

Risen from the dead, and always alive in spirit.

Dead for only 3 days.

I'd rather live as a man and not a sheep.

Yeah. That’s what you say.

I mean it too, mutton.

And, politically partisan as you are, you are not a ewe?

If you were as tough as you claim to be, you wouldn’t be afraid of persecution, hate, and intolerance (if you were righteous).

Are you claiming that courageous people don't have fear?

Nope.

I profess that courageous people act in spite of fear.

You don’t seem to “know” much.

Just because I don't buy into your mythologies of christ and sasquatch doesn't mean I don't know much.

It's your words that reveal that you you don't know much.

You don't even know how to learn.

Nope. Atheists aren't necessarily evil.

Psalm78:21 Therefore the LORD heard this, and was wroth: so a fire was kindled against Jacob, and anger also came up against Israel; "The LORD heard this" (he had his hearing aid on) and became angry, and burned people "because they believed not in God."
78:22 Because they believed not in God, and trusted not in his salvation:

Ok, not evil, but your god likes to burn them.

I don't know if He "liked it", but it apparently became necessary.

Applied discipline is a fact of life.

What loving father doesn't correct His children?

And their relationship with God is their own business.

LOL. Atheists have no relationships with gods.

And their lack of relationship with God is their own business.

Are you "getting it" yet?