BerserkerCatSplat
Hormone Induced
///M said:
I dunno about that generalization - I challenge you to find me a violent radical extremist Bhuudist.
I dunno about that generalization - I challenge you to find me a violent radical extremist Bhuudist.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2165132838065157556&q=bullshit&hl=en
Ghandi, Mother Teresa and the Dali Lama - not as holy as you may think.
Ghandi, Mother Teresa and the Dali Lama - not as holy as you may think.
///M
Well-Known Member
BerserkerCatSplat said:
While I agree that Buddhism is one of the only peaceful religions, Sri Lanka comes to mind when discussing violent Buddhists. But yeah, generally Eastern religions tone down the violence, murder, incest, and general nastiness found in the western faiths.
BerserkerCatSplat
Hormone Induced
Blind_Io said:
Why have I never heard of that show before?! It's awesome!
jeffy777
Forum Addict
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2005
- Messages
- 6,518
- Location
- US
- Car(s)
- '04 Toyota Sienna, crippled people like vans....
Blind_Io said:
Penn & Teller are great.....at making generalizations, and their attitude is just so positive
I haven't watched all of this particular episode, but some of their other "claims" and "points" are obviously biased over generalizations. Even if the stuff they present is partialy true, it's hard to take a person seriously when they're so rude and arrogant.And yeah, it's so fun to bash on religious people, isn't it? How mature....
I'm not going to try to defend any else's religion. My relationship with God is on a personal level and has nothing to do with prominent religious figures. I'm truly disappointed by the fact that a few bad apples tend to spoil the reputation for the true people of faith. Then people look at the bad ones and say that all religion is bad because of it. That sucks big time. It's like saying that all Americans are fat rednecks. It's just not true.
I think Zenki had some great words of wisdom in another thread on religion, etc. I'm going to quote it again for those who may have overlooked it:
jeffy777
Forum Addict
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2005
- Messages
- 6,518
- Location
- US
- Car(s)
- '04 Toyota Sienna, crippled people like vans....
Firecat said:jeffy777 said:Blind_Io said:
Penn & Teller are great.....at making generalizations, and their attitude is just so positive
I despise them. One could easily do the same thing for the "other side" of the debate.
That's true. And as a respectful person, I wouldn't stoop to such a level.
zenkidori
Banned For Trolling
what I'm saying is that people always dredge up the past with it suits them. "we're not that bad, look at what THEY did back in the day". nevermind that nobody from that time is even alive nor are thier children or thier grandchildren.///M said:
some black people in the US constantly bring up slavery as well, that's bullshit. People keep living in the past and acting as if some misdeed or wrong turn still applies today, and that's bullshit.
get over it and move the fuck on already. we just need to let people do thier thing and not constantly bring up the past as if it happened yesterday. It's just a diversionary tactic and a sorry attempt to justify some misdeed that is going on RIGHT NOW.
so someone has a grudge against something and in order to justify thier act of hate they bring up something that happened long long long ago and which they had no part in whatsoever, and neither did the object of thier hate most likely. I think that's wrong.
I am not for an instant saying ignore the past, but let's not use it as an excuse. Let's learn from it and move on in peace.
mojo_786
Active Member
osabros
"my thoughts exactly.
in the future even mentioning the name of muhammad will probably kill you..."
Yeah ur rite about that... maybe at one point the world will sadly come down to that stage. But from the previous replies, before your post, its not just because "we" muslims are committing these acts. The world is getting very bias. At the recent shooting in montreal. some girl from that college was interviewed. she was asked who did this? she replied with a very baised answer. Relating terrorism and extremists. This interview was taken on the day, but was aired on the second day of coverage. My point being here is that out of all the interviews this channel had taken (btw it was A-channel) why would you air an interview like this? Even knowing that the information this girl is giving is wrong so why air it?
You guys might say its the muslims who are screwing themselves up. and to a certain degree i might agree. but at the same time, who has control of all the media? who has the power to air bs (not all is bs) information? I mean these "muslims" might do something that goes totally against Islam but the media is the one that exposes it to the whole world. and if you expose something so much, is it not possible for humans to get tired of it?
and i believe if you pick out the weirdest things, the little useless crap or the negative points out of anything. you make even the most gorgeous objects look like shit. And that is whats wrong with this world. If you look at the good side of things you might just learn something new.
"my thoughts exactly.
in the future even mentioning the name of muhammad will probably kill you..."
Yeah ur rite about that... maybe at one point the world will sadly come down to that stage. But from the previous replies, before your post, its not just because "we" muslims are committing these acts. The world is getting very bias. At the recent shooting in montreal. some girl from that college was interviewed. she was asked who did this? she replied with a very baised answer. Relating terrorism and extremists. This interview was taken on the day, but was aired on the second day of coverage. My point being here is that out of all the interviews this channel had taken (btw it was A-channel) why would you air an interview like this? Even knowing that the information this girl is giving is wrong so why air it?
You guys might say its the muslims who are screwing themselves up. and to a certain degree i might agree. but at the same time, who has control of all the media? who has the power to air bs (not all is bs) information? I mean these "muslims" might do something that goes totally against Islam but the media is the one that exposes it to the whole world. and if you expose something so much, is it not possible for humans to get tired of it?
and i believe if you pick out the weirdest things, the little useless crap or the negative points out of anything. you make even the most gorgeous objects look like shit. And that is whats wrong with this world. If you look at the good side of things you might just learn something new.
Firecat, jeffy777,
I would hardly call what Penn and Teller do generalizing. They have a whole team of researchers and try to get the best people from both sides of the arguemnt on the show. Just because you don't like what they are saying does not mean that they are not well intentioned or that they are malicious. They do give the other side a chance to make their case and in several cases they have conceded victory on some points.
The show is supposed to be entertaining as well as infomative and you have to look past Penn's use of profanity to what he's saying. The fact is that they both call it like it is. They have both said on several occasions that if someone can, for example, show proof that ghosts exist they will happily admit defeat.
The show is called Bullshit! for a reason; because they are revealing how much of popular perception is based on bullshit and misinformation. My favorite episode was the PETA one, where they found links in PETA's own tax records linking them to animal euthenasia and domestic terrorism.
I'm sorry that you guys don't like the show, but I find it very enlightening. I hope that eventually you will both see what Penn and Teller are attempting to do here and appreciate it when someone challenges a long help belief with hard evidence to the contrary. After seeing several of thier episodes that challenged my established perceptions I started looking at them more carefully and asking myself why I thought the way I did. I also did some more digging and realized that I was wrong about several things. I can admit when I'm wrong and the more I learned the more I realized that I needed to alter my opinions to take into consideration these new facts.
You can't "do the same thing" to the other side of the debate, because the entire show is based on research. Watch some of the other episodes and you will see what I mean. You are entitled to your own opinon but not your own facts and the facts speak for themselves. There have been times on the show when the arguments have trancended facts, at which point Penn and Teller admit that it's not their place to challenge someone's faith. However, they can and do challenge the "facts" that someone uses as a base for faith especially when that faith is being used in a way that adversely affects others.
Penn and Teller are very strong supporters of personal freedom, as long as what you are doing isn't harming anyone else you should be left alone. I don't see how anyone can argue with that unless they are trying to legislate their own morality onto others. I'm getting off topic now.
Sorry guys, sometimes the truth hurts - but that does not make it any less true and shooting the messenger won't change the message.
I would hardly call what Penn and Teller do generalizing. They have a whole team of researchers and try to get the best people from both sides of the arguemnt on the show. Just because you don't like what they are saying does not mean that they are not well intentioned or that they are malicious. They do give the other side a chance to make their case and in several cases they have conceded victory on some points.
The show is supposed to be entertaining as well as infomative and you have to look past Penn's use of profanity to what he's saying. The fact is that they both call it like it is. They have both said on several occasions that if someone can, for example, show proof that ghosts exist they will happily admit defeat.
The show is called Bullshit! for a reason; because they are revealing how much of popular perception is based on bullshit and misinformation. My favorite episode was the PETA one, where they found links in PETA's own tax records linking them to animal euthenasia and domestic terrorism.
I'm sorry that you guys don't like the show, but I find it very enlightening. I hope that eventually you will both see what Penn and Teller are attempting to do here and appreciate it when someone challenges a long help belief with hard evidence to the contrary. After seeing several of thier episodes that challenged my established perceptions I started looking at them more carefully and asking myself why I thought the way I did. I also did some more digging and realized that I was wrong about several things. I can admit when I'm wrong and the more I learned the more I realized that I needed to alter my opinions to take into consideration these new facts.
You can't "do the same thing" to the other side of the debate, because the entire show is based on research. Watch some of the other episodes and you will see what I mean. You are entitled to your own opinon but not your own facts and the facts speak for themselves. There have been times on the show when the arguments have trancended facts, at which point Penn and Teller admit that it's not their place to challenge someone's faith. However, they can and do challenge the "facts" that someone uses as a base for faith especially when that faith is being used in a way that adversely affects others.
Penn and Teller are very strong supporters of personal freedom, as long as what you are doing isn't harming anyone else you should be left alone. I don't see how anyone can argue with that unless they are trying to legislate their own morality onto others. I'm getting off topic now.
Sorry guys, sometimes the truth hurts - but that does not make it any less true and shooting the messenger won't change the message.
Firecat
Politically Charged
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2005
- Messages
- 5,730
I'll admit that some of the episodes have been interesting. The PETA one is a great example. The one where they discussed germs on toilets seats or something was also pretty good (plus it had nudity).
Anyway, what you are saying though is that everything that they air is the truth because they have research teams...
Now take the recycling episode for example. I'm sure that proponents for recycling have their own research teams, and they can use whatever facts they gather to support their own ideas. This is actually quite normal, people use facts and bend them in certain ways to prove their point.
In other episodes they just paint people as being crazy and ridicule them, but they don't always prove them wrong. Based on what i've seen. I think the Randi institute does a better job with that.
Now probably the worst episode I saw was the conspiracy theories one. Not that I believe any of the 9/11 conspiracies, but they really didn't even touch on some of the more elaborate explanations....they basically focused on some nutter that thought the attacks never even took place.
With all that said, I think Penn is a complete asshole. That too is based on what i've seen.
But again, this is not to say that ALL their episodes are like this. In some cases the facts do speak for themselves, other times it's not that simple.
Anyway, what you are saying though is that everything that they air is the truth because they have research teams...
Now take the recycling episode for example. I'm sure that proponents for recycling have their own research teams, and they can use whatever facts they gather to support their own ideas. This is actually quite normal, people use facts and bend them in certain ways to prove their point.
In other episodes they just paint people as being crazy and ridicule them, but they don't always prove them wrong. Based on what i've seen. I think the Randi institute does a better job with that.
Now probably the worst episode I saw was the conspiracy theories one. Not that I believe any of the 9/11 conspiracies, but they really didn't even touch on some of the more elaborate explanations....they basically focused on some nutter that thought the attacks never even took place.
With all that said, I think Penn is a complete asshole. That too is based on what i've seen.
But again, this is not to say that ALL their episodes are like this. In some cases the facts do speak for themselves, other times it's not that simple.
jeffy777
Forum Addict
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2005
- Messages
- 6,518
- Location
- US
- Car(s)
- '04 Toyota Sienna, crippled people like vans....
Bah, This isn't the first time I've seen the show. It's more of a tabloid: Digging up trash and slinging profanity. It's easy to dig up all kinds of dirt in an attempt try to debase a person, organization, belief, etc and then call them "F"ers., but I don't find that "enlightening" or "entertaining", especially when you do it in such an immature way.
And I don't think they do their best to get "the best people from both sides of the argument on the show". Take the episode about the Bible for instance: the guy may have been a professor or whatever, but even I could have a done a better job than him and I went to college for audio production For instance, they don't take into account that many of the stuff they quote from the Old Testament is taken out of context. For instance, Certain laws in Leviticus for example were written for the Israelite people of that time period and those laws intended to be only temporary. If they talked to a real Bible scholar who was worth his weight in beans, they would have been told that, as well as many other "enlightening" things. In any case, I could make a huge post about how their views about the Bible were very generalized, biased, inaccurate, and unfair, but I don't take the show seriously enough to feel that I have to defend my beliefs based on what was said on there.
I'm not saying that some of their shows and views aren't accurate, but the supposed "truth" that they present in some of their stuff on religion is nothing more than biased "BS". So yeah, the show title can be appropriate
That comes across as everything they say is fact because it's been researched. And that's assuming that their research is always qualified and authoritative on all subjects. And it's assuming they aren't leaving any facts out or taking them out of context, which is exactly what they seem to do in religious matters.
And speaking of "facts", I find it interesting Blind_Io, that the research and facts you depended upon when speaking of religion aren't always that reliable (a study of only 2,000 people, and "Exhibit A": a supposed Christian graphic that was actually created by a group of Christian-hating atheists). I only bring this up because sometimes misleading "facts" can be used to present a biased opinion and I think Penn and Teller have been guilty of that in some cases.
Anyway, I really like what mojo said:
And I don't think they do their best to get "the best people from both sides of the argument on the show". Take the episode about the Bible for instance: the guy may have been a professor or whatever, but even I could have a done a better job than him and I went to college for audio production
For instance, they don't take into account that many of the stuff they quote from the Old Testament is taken out of context. For instance, Certain laws in Leviticus for example were written for the Israelite people of that time period and those laws intended to be only temporary. If they talked to a real Bible scholar who was worth his weight in beans, they would have been told that, as well as many other "enlightening" things. In any case, I could make a huge post about how their views about the Bible were very generalized, biased, inaccurate, and unfair, but I don't take the show seriously enough to feel that I have to defend my beliefs based on what was said on there. I'm not saying that some of their shows and views aren't accurate, but the supposed "truth" that they present in some of their stuff on religion is nothing more than biased "BS". So yeah, the show title can be appropriate
Blind_Io said:
That comes across as everything they say is fact because it's been researched. And that's assuming that their research is always qualified and authoritative on all subjects. And it's assuming they aren't leaving any facts out or taking them out of context, which is exactly what they seem to do in religious matters.
And speaking of "facts", I find it interesting Blind_Io, that the research and facts you depended upon when speaking of religion aren't always that reliable (a study of only 2,000 people, and "Exhibit A": a supposed Christian graphic that was actually created by a group of Christian-hating atheists). I only bring this up because sometimes misleading "facts" can be used to present a biased opinion and I think Penn and Teller have been guilty of that in some cases.
Anyway, I really like what mojo said:
mojo_786 said:
The problem with trying to debunk things like conspiracy theories is that there's so much crap to refute you just can't do it. On my gaming forum we had a guy named OCCBigDaddy who showed up every few months and started a flamewar about the New World Order and 9/11 and a half dozen other things. He would selectively quote, twist facts, and sometimes just make shit up. No matter what evidence from peer reviewed publications you found to support your side or refute his claims he persisted. You can spend a lifetime refuting the "facts" that are entered as evidence by the Foil Hat Brigade and never get half way to the bottom of the pile. This is why the scientific method places the burden of proof on the person trying to prove the hypothesis and not the other way around.
Penn and Teller make their case and submit their evidence. They show that evidence to the opposition, as they should, and allow them to have a go at it. Then they take a look at the evidence of the opposition and have a go at shooting holes in it. It's not their fault that the arguments don't hold up under scrutiny, it's their job to point out that the evidence of vortexes in the Arizona desert is bullshit. In that episode they even accepted the assertion of a magetometer as a device that could detect the presence of the vortexes. So they took a magnetometer around and took readings at the alleged location of the vortexes and also where there were no alleged vortexes. What a surprise, the readings for the locations showed no correlation with the alleged presense of vortexes. In this case they didn'e even ask for proof that a vortex causes magnetic fields, or that the instrument could be used to measure vortexes. They used the opposition's own argument against them, and the only way they were able to do that is because the argument was crap in the first place. That's how they usually demonstrate the stupidity of the claims.
Anyway, I'm sorry you don't like the show. I suggest that you find the facts that contradict them and post the refrences on their message boards or email them. They have said on several occasions that if someone has some scientific proof that shows them to be wrong they want you to send it in. They invite people to challenge the findings of the show, as long as they do it in a logical and scientific manner. That's the only way we expand our understanding. That attitude alone makes me respect Penn and Teller. Penn may be an asshole, I don't know, I've never met him - but I certainly respect him.
Penn and Teller make their case and submit their evidence. They show that evidence to the opposition, as they should, and allow them to have a go at it. Then they take a look at the evidence of the opposition and have a go at shooting holes in it. It's not their fault that the arguments don't hold up under scrutiny, it's their job to point out that the evidence of vortexes in the Arizona desert is bullshit. In that episode they even accepted the assertion of a magetometer as a device that could detect the presence of the vortexes. So they took a magnetometer around and took readings at the alleged location of the vortexes and also where there were no alleged vortexes. What a surprise, the readings for the locations showed no correlation with the alleged presense of vortexes. In this case they didn'e even ask for proof that a vortex causes magnetic fields, or that the instrument could be used to measure vortexes. They used the opposition's own argument against them, and the only way they were able to do that is because the argument was crap in the first place. That's how they usually demonstrate the stupidity of the claims.
Anyway, I'm sorry you don't like the show. I suggest that you find the facts that contradict them and post the refrences on their message boards or email them. They have said on several occasions that if someone has some scientific proof that shows them to be wrong they want you to send it in. They invite people to challenge the findings of the show, as long as they do it in a logical and scientific manner. That's the only way we expand our understanding. That attitude alone makes me respect Penn and Teller. Penn may be an asshole, I don't know, I've never met him - but I certainly respect him.
jeffy777,
It's been a while since I watched that episode. I certainly don't doubt what you are saying, but I want to take another look at it before I shoot my mouth off.
As for the Bible itself, even you have to admit there's alot of stuff in there that just does not add up. Dinosaurs for example. Or the fact that several days passed from the time god created light until he created anything to create the light - y'know, stars and stuff.
It's been a while since I watched that episode. I certainly don't doubt what you are saying, but I want to take another look at it before I shoot my mouth off.
As for the Bible itself, even you have to admit there's alot of stuff in there that just does not add up. Dinosaurs for example. Or the fact that several days passed from the time god created light until he created anything to create the light - y'know, stars and stuff.
jeffy777
Forum Addict
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2005
- Messages
- 6,518
- Location
- US
- Car(s)
- '04 Toyota Sienna, crippled people like vans....
Blind_Io said:
Dude, I'm not going to bother debating that stuff. Like I said, I could make a humongous post about why the supposed contradictions aren't that contradicting, but the people that fling that stuff around about how the Bible is inaccurate usually have their mind made up already, and they don't even want to hear anything otherwise.
I'm pretty much done here. I don't want to have a debate, as I've already made my views pretty plain in this and other topics. If people like Penn and Teller (and whoever else), want to bash religion and attempt to make Christians look stupid, that's their free choice. I respect their opinions, but unfortunately people like that don't return the favor. They'd rather call you an "F"er for disagreeing.
A lot of people are like that in today's world. They want to tear down people that don't see things their way. It's fine to disagree, but to go to great lengths to dig up trash about those you disagree with and then do your best to make them look stupid is just lame in my opinion. If a person doesn't agree with Christianity/Atheism/Islam, etc., that's ok, but there's no need to try to debase or rip apart someone else's beliefs. Live and let live.
zenkidori
Banned For Trolling
Please keep in mind that Penn and Teller are entertainers. Getting mad at them is like getting mad a Jeremey Clarkson, stupid.
jeffy777
Forum Addict
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2005
- Messages
- 6,518
- Location
- US
- Car(s)
- '04 Toyota Sienna, crippled people like vans....
zenkidori said:
Word. I'm not mad at them. I just find it unfortunate that people equate what they present as fact just because it's been "researched". I don't think the other side of the coin is always presented fairly, especially in some of their religious stuff.
But yeah, as long as people are entertained, that's all that matters, lol
Anyway, back on topic:
Some Muslims aren't excepting the apology:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5356820.stm
zenkidori
Banned For Trolling
His next statement should be, "you're all just a bunch of crazy assholes, I'm creating a legion of uber1337 cyber ninja knights templar to pwn j00 all"
seriously tho, self-fulfilling prophecy.
"oh shit, we're being oppressed, let's go blow shit up!...oh fuck now we're actually being oppressed!"
seriously tho, self-fulfilling prophecy.
"oh shit, we're being oppressed, let's go blow shit up!...oh fuck now we're actually being oppressed!"
RikfromBelgium
Member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2004
- Messages
- 92
I don't think he should appologyze. He's the pope for one, and he just quoted a 14th century emeperor. yes, it was a stupid remark. Yes he should have shut it, or put it in another context. But what the hell, grow up Muslim-world. It's 2006. When people start burning churches for this, killing nuns, rioting, burning dolls from crusaders for christ sake, ... something is horribly wrong with your mindset.
And WTF, they start burning american flags again, threathening western leaders, ... what's that for? We had nothing to do with that. It's also amazing how fast this spread through the muslim world, like the media, or fundamentalists really staged a massive media-coup.
Like with those danish cartoons. They were showed in a saudi-arabian paper months before, but in those danish papers 1 day and the enbassy and KFC's started to burn down.
I am a liberal minded person. I believe in the freedom of speech, religion, ... I defend Islam whenever I can, saying you can't judge an entire religion on the actions of a small group of madmen. But this has got to stop. It's getting way out of hand, and it is not helping their cause AT ALL. It reminds me of a sketch from a dutch comedian.
" whenever you say to a hell's angel he's a criminal, he'll come down and hit you in the face. How lame is that. It's like telling a guy he's a plumber. He comes to your house, fixes the plumbing and says: and if you say it again I'm gonna fix the toilet too."
And WTF, they start burning american flags again, threathening western leaders, ... what's that for? We had nothing to do with that. It's also amazing how fast this spread through the muslim world, like the media, or fundamentalists really staged a massive media-coup.
Like with those danish cartoons. They were showed in a saudi-arabian paper months before, but in those danish papers 1 day and the enbassy and KFC's started to burn down.
I am a liberal minded person. I believe in the freedom of speech, religion, ... I defend Islam whenever I can, saying you can't judge an entire religion on the actions of a small group of madmen. But this has got to stop. It's getting way out of hand, and it is not helping their cause AT ALL. It reminds me of a sketch from a dutch comedian.
" whenever you say to a hell's angel he's a criminal, he'll come down and hit you in the face. How lame is that. It's like telling a guy he's a plumber. He comes to your house, fixes the plumbing and says: and if you say it again I'm gonna fix the toilet too."
zenkidori
Banned For Trolling
There is a problem with stopping the extremists. Many of those who promote violence are seen as holy men and spiritual leaders in the muslim community(or else thier brainwashing would be less effective), so if you take them out it's seen as an attack on the religion and the resolve and power of those still remaining grows.
I only see two ways to stop the extremists and thier thinking:
kind of frightening.
I only see two ways to stop the extremists and thier thinking:
- One: An internal movement within Islam that calls said leaders and thier actions into question and promotes nonviolence, gains momentum and eventually removes thier powerbase.
- Two: Destroy everything have to do with them and thier ideas. Everything.
kind of frightening.