For preview only. Get it at

D.M. Bennett: The Truth Seeker

Ratings: 6.50/10 from 12 users.

D.M. Bennett: The Truth SeekerOne-hour documentary – awarded the Grand Prize for Best Feature Length Film at the 2011 Portland Humanist Film Festival – chronicles the life of publisher D.M. Bennett (1818-1882).

D.M. Bennett was nineteenth-century America's most controversial and unjustly imprisoned editor of the blasphemous New York City freethought periodical THE TRUTH SEEKER.

Written, produced, and directed by Roderick Bradford, author of the biography D.M. Bennett: The Truth Seeker (Prometheus Books).

Edited by Tom Flynn at the Center for Inquiry, Amherst, New York. Funded by a grant from the James Hervey Johnson Charitable Educational Trust.

More great documentaries

495 Comments / User Reviews

Leave a Reply to Robyn318 Cancel reply

  1. Fascinating

  2. I like dat

  3. Excellent

  4. Mason written on every turn,who promoted this garbage

  5. All of it a fraud,all contradicted Christianity,then blamed Christianity,as we know how Darwin is a fraud now,what is the common denominator between all,there daughter died at birth just as there first choice and steps were death

    1. And just how is Darwin a fraud? Both of your posts sound awfully ignorant.

  6. Must have been asleep at the wheel (nothing new there) when this doc was posted. Great doc about an authentic individual. And great comments by all you wonderful cyber custodians here at TDF . Ra-ra team - I say.

  7. Interesting doc on an interesting personality. My only criticism is one of aesthetics: what is with the overuse of the painfully long, drawn-out panning shot (very bottom of a pic or graphic to very top). It became a distraction somewhere around 15 minutes in. Other than that, I enjoyed the history lesson. Ingersoll's "Some Mistakes of Moses" is one of my favorite polemics of the period (and absolutely a recommended read). It was good to be introduced to a contemporary of his in a period taken for granted as bereft of free-thought.

  8. Wonderful doc. Bennett was, and is, one of the great unsung heroes of the modern age. Beautifully scripted, researched and presented. Had to admit though that every time the loathesome creature Anthony Comstock was mentioned a certain epicural entity clawed and crawled it's way into my mind. What a disgusting and objectionable little excuse for an intellect. I can visualize him now atop his 'Coward's Castle' screeching 'thou shalt have no doctrine but mine. Any disagreement will be deemed a breech of my Critical Thinking Law'!!!! Comstock....craven little creature in an epicural sort of way.

  9. Now anyone who is not Canadian but consider himself/herself intelligent, please raise your hand for Robertallen1. LOLOL

    1. Apparently lack of sunshine is good for intelligence.

    2. Just got back from a walk by the river. There is a bench hidden behind the trees between the shore and the airport landing, a great place to lay down in the sun with a parka on. lol

    3. I take a walk every day. Miles of aimless wandering up and down hills, along the river, and through the forest. Course I have my camera with me.

      I do it for two reasons. I like it and I've got to keep these old legs in shape for backpacking.

      In fact it's time for that walk right now.

    4. In the past, anytime I walked in woods, forest, was always stress, bears everywhere, grizzly/black bears, they seem to have an affinity for me. Even when I lived in Kelowna years back, walked in the mountains, lo and behold black bears always, they usually run, unless a mother with cubs.

      And then "Sasquatch/Bigfoot" a person can hear them howling in the middle of the night. Prevalent in the Agassiz/Harrison hot springs area. lol

    5. I just spent two weeks or so with ex-girlfriend traveling around and poking our noses into every nook and cranny in the state of Oregon.
      One cold clear night while lying in our tent in some god-forsaken campground in the middle of nowhere we heard wolves. Far distant but with no doubt wolves. That sound was as if icicles were being shoved into my brain and each and every hair on my body was standing straight. The same for girl friend. We were reacting to wolves the same as our most distant ancestors reacted. The only difference was I loved it and it scared the bejesus out of her. Stress about what can kill you is a normal human trait.

      Don't stress about what you can see or hear, you're relatively safe from those threats. It's the ones you don't know about which are gonna have you for lunch.

      I once saw a picture taken from overhead of a group of people playing in the water a few yards off the beach. I think this was the Gulf of Mexico. Surrounding these people enjoying their carefree vacation was a ring of sharks all pointing inward and no more than ten feet from the group of people. Must have been at least 50 sharks. These people didn't have a clue.

      It's what you don't see that's gonna get you.

    6. How serious are you about the Sasquatches howeling, Mr. Razor? I've never seen a wild bear--you sound like a lucky hiker to me!

    7. My cousin in Christina Lake BC, has been surrounded by 25 bears for many years. The situation was discovered in a very publicised drug bust at her neighbour's last year. I have seen bears many many times there, she even faught with one with a broom from a patio, punching him on the This past summer EVERY DAY her and her kids had to run them away, even her two dogs couldn't keep them at bay.
      Google Drug Bust Involving Bears, and if you are even more curious youtube bears in Christina lake drug'll see Allan feed them oranges. lol


    8. Charles, I am always serious, google...Sasquatch sound recordings. Lucky hiker? I guess, have not been eaten.

    9. Mr. Razor: I too believe in Sasquatch, actually. I'd love to see one someday--I think it's an ape of some kind. What's your take on it? I hope we can document them before they too become extinct. I think I posted a video link last year about a sighting in Oregon along the river. It's shows one or more big hairy things moving away as the boat goes by. I've heard the recordings on docs before, but I've not met anyone in real life that's heard them. You're almost "real life" in a cyber kinda way, I suppose.

  10. much of a muchness

    (idiomatic, UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand) Of two or more things, having little difference of any significance between them.

  11. It's a pity D.M Bennett isn't alive today, it would be very interesting to read his thoughts on recent history.
    Assange is a poor substitute for a Bennett. (in my opinion)

    1. They each accomplished different things, so I don't think it's fair to compare them. However, I admire both.

  12. From what I read, norlavine didn't say Australia (I assume you mean Australia, as it says she's Australian) was better then the USA.

    I have had the pleasure of visiting the US, regretfully only a small part for a relativity short time.
    Don't worry, there are plenty of crap, fast food choices here in Aus too. :(
    For curiosities sake, off the top of my head, one thing that Australia does a hell of a lot better then the US is the health system. If you step off a plane in Aus, and get hit by a taxi outside of the airport, you will receive top quality medical attention, regardless of your insurance status.
    Other then that, from what I've seen, (granted my own experience in the US is limited) both countries are much of a muchness. Although, I rarely hear Australians saying that Aus is the best country in the world, unlike our American friends. ;)

    1. I did not mean to convey any jingoism on my part or to imply that Norvalene was putting down the United States in favor of her own country.

      One of the major problems with this country is that we think we know it all. For example, during the hostage crisis which began in the Carter Adminstration, we were too high and mighty to ask for help from the Israelis who have far more experience than we do in dealing with situations such as this. Had we done so, the crisis would probably not have gone on into the next administration and lives would not have been lost aboard that helicopter, the brainchild of a president who had no brains. The same applies to health care, an area in which we could probably learn a lot from your country, but won't and probably never will, partly for political reasons and partly due to yankee stubborness and pomposity.

      Now one for you, what is "much of a muchness?" Is it an Australian expression?

    2. Ahh, not sure to be honest. I have heard it a fair bit here, it may be, or it may just be my incorrect English. :) I've heard 'same-same' used overseas to convey the same meaning. (in non-English speaking countries admittedly)
      Unfortunately the health system here is going downhill, becoming more like the US system by the year. Our leadership leaves a lot to be desired too.
      I agree, the Israelis would've done things different, I wouldn't want to mess with the Mossad.

      P.S. jingoism, nice word, I had to look it up. I learn things reading your posts :)

    3. much of a muchness - all alike, very much alike, the same. Like socks, all different but still socks.

  13. White Flag

    1. It's up to you.

  14. He was such an open minded wise person. He would turn in his grave if he could see the garbage that is 'freely' available now. He knew the difference between licentiousness and freedom. For example, there is no freedom for those exploited in child pornography.
    He could publish matters concerned with sexuality because he obviously didn't have a problem with his own, and it is likely he respected women immensely, and had little time for fools.
    The gross injustices continue on in the USA - the biggest 5 star hotel for the criminally insane on the planet.xx

    1. Actually, you have a point or perhaps two or three. This is one of your better posts and my hat's off to you for it.

      I'm also happy to see that you did not state categorically that he respected women immensely, but rather that it is likely that he did. This makes all the difference in the world, as it is an intelligent and logical conclusion based on what you saw in the documentary and if the opposite were later found to be true, it would still be an intelligent conclusion albeit an erroneous one.

      As for his having little time for fools, remember he had to make the time to deal with Anthony Comstock and Samuel Colgate. And speaking of fools, for your information, President Hayes was not elected by the popular vote which went to Samuel Tilden, but rather by the Electoral College in an election so dirty that it launders Bush and Nixon.

      I concede the justice of your general criticism of this country, but other than the paucity of junk food establishments, how much better is your country than this one? I'm curious. Have you ever been to the United States or have you just read about it?

    2. @robertallen1
      I do know that Australia is not that far behind your country in many issues socially, but we never need to think twice when seeking medical assistance. Also, critically injured or sick people will be flown from rural areas (with a skilled medical crew on board) to major city facilities for treatment - whether rich or poor.
      Never made it further abroad than Europe and South East Asia, so my observations regarding the USA are obviously second hand.
      NB: Australia is probably not 'better' than the USA, but I am sure the lifestyle here is 'easier'.

  15. A question, are Scientology the only 'nutters' who actually have science as a religion? (I don't know much about Scientology, I could be way wrong)

    One thing I've noticed, is it's usually religious people who claim that others 'worship' science. Valuing rational, concise thinking to my mind does not make someone a 'worshiper of science'. Maybe it does?

    1. You're right. It makes them doubters which is even better.

  16. @ Az, rofl.

  17. May be it's now time to talk about Rock n'roll. lol

    1. Az.. funny thing is, in real life my best friends are just like the ones Im bickering with. One problem with internet boards is that doesnt capture the moment as it really is. Its just words on a board. There are no guestures or facial expressions to note. No way to hear the tone in the voice. I have an opinion of them, and them of me and its all because of the peck peck pecking of letters on a keyboard.

  18. I better stop, your'e going to blow a gasket. Or shall I call you the Athiest Tea Kettle?

    1. You're right, you'd better stop and read the comment policy about using this site for a pulpit.

    2. Pulpit? Why not, you are? You are worshipping the science Gods? You are declaring that all are stupid unless you fall and kneel to SCIENCE!

      And the hell with the homeless you also said. Just wanted to state that for the record. SCREW THE HOMELESS

    3. First of all, I have no obligation to the homeless. They are not my problem and to put it in language you might understand, I am not my brother's keeper--and no one else is either.

      Secondly, I worship rationality and intelligence and anyone who doesn't is, as you mentioned, patently stupid.

  19. With regard to war, science is the 'how' we fight, not the 'why'. If you look into 'why' we fight wars, you'll usually find religion, often center-stage.

  20. LOL, am I on punked? Ashton is that you. Damn you Ashton!

  21. @Vlatco
    I know its like a gun. In the movie Shane, Shane states that a gun is a tool, like any other tool and is only as good as the man using it.(or something like that) The lady replies wouldn't it just be better if their were no guns in the valley. Another shared opinion by many.

    Like I said, I love science, and I agree its people that choose how to use it.

    But I disagree with you on one thing.
    ".... Can anyone worship and idolize Biology? I don't understand how that can be actually done? Taking the Biology book from my 5th grade, placing it on altar, lighting candles and praying to the authors of the book?"

    I believe that 5th grade biology book can be worshipped. But I suggest something much heavier with core concepts like Darwin's Orgin of the Species. Or I can see Dawkins writing something that could be like a bible. So in a nutshell yes I believe science can be worshipped. Perhaps not by you, but by the wrong charasmatic individual.

    1. I see nothing wrong with worshipping science in an intellectual sense. It sure beats anything you have to offer.

    2. Agree completely, science rocks! lol

      I'm just sayin:

      Carl Sagan...

    3. @Brandon Costa,

      "I suggest something much heavier with core concepts like Darwin's Orgin of the Species. Or I can see Dawkins writing something that could be like a bible."

      Well I can suggest that Cinderella story can be turned into religion, or I can see someone writing another bible out of it, but what is the point?

      Even if someone writes a Bible out of scientific ideas, that would not be a science in the first place. It would be just another nut-job case holding to science to push his own agenda.

    4. "Even if someone writes a Bible out of scientific ideas, that would not be a science in the first place. It would be just another nut-job case holding to science to push his own agenda. "

      Well there you go, you just said it. Another nut-job pushing his agenda. Science, religion ... isnt it all about the misuse of truth?

    5. @Brandon Costa,

      "Another nut-job pushing his agenda. Science, religion ... isnt it all about the misuse of truth?"

      You're saying it as if religion holds the truth and someone is abusing it, which is not true. It may be true just for you, but in general sense there is no evidence that any religion holds the truth. However science is pointing to the truth (in empirical sense) on a daily basis. In every moment of your life you depend on scientific, rational truth.

      The whole point was to show you that science is not intrinsically bad. It is up to people how they want to use it. It is just a device, a tool.

      On the other hand religion is intrinsically bad, at least some part of it, since there is lot of justification of war, murder, slavery etc. You can't find that in science.

      You refuse to see the difference between science and religion, without any rational argument on your side. And because of that the discussion is turning into pissing contest.

      Now, since you believe in JC (in some spiritual way), and you advice that we need a little bit of JC, lets talk about him now.

      If we agree that JC existed in the first place, besides the fact that he is mentioned as a footnote in just several sources outside of the Bible, and the fact that the Gospels are written one century after JC, plus there are many Gospels edited out of the Bible, we can analyze what this guy was doing.

      If we relay just on the Bible, we can say that generally he was a good guy, spreading loving messages, but often he quoted his father and the early prophets, and stood by everything his father and the prophets previously said.

      "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17)

      And sometimes it seems he was really upset:

      "49 I am come to send fire on Earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? 50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! 51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." (Luke 12:49-51)

      “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.” (Luke 14:26)

      You know that the OT is full of bad stuff, we don't have to quote that, but as you can see JC was indirectly supporting all that.

    6. @Vlatco

      "You're saying it as if religion holds the truth and someone is abusing it, which is not true. It may be true just for you, but in general sense there is no evidence that any religion holds the truth. However science is pointing to the truth (in empirical sense) on a daily basis. In every moment of your life you depend on scientific, rational truth."

      How can you say no religion holds any truth? Religion points to a way of living that flows harmoniously with the universe. Yes science can define the obects and physical interactions between these objects but it doesnt care what happens it just tells you what will happen. Religion tries to get us to flow with the objects in a harmonious manner. As far as evidence Im not sure how I can measure this for you. How can you measure the effect of the truth a Bhuddist monk feels after days of quiet meditating? You can only take his word and try it for yourself.

      "The whole point was to show you that science is not intrinsically bad. It is up to people how they want to use it. It is just a device, a tool.
      On the other hand religion is intrinsically bad, at least some part of it, since there is lot of justification of war, murder, slavery etc. You can't find that in science."

      I agree, science is not intrinsically bad. Now for Religion and The Bible in particular this is where the misuse and abuse comes in. The NT cleans the slate of OT tradition. JC, as a figure in history was probably the kindness,and most compassionate figure alive. Matthew 9:13 ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice." This is supposed to tell us you you do not need to do anything but believe in me and show mercy to others. There is no more justification for war, sacrifices, or even rituals.

      "You refuse to see the difference between science and religion, without any rational argument on your side. And because of that the discussion is turning into pissing contest."

      You are right I can not empirically justify God, and perhaps I should not make the science comparison.However, any individual can make each a platform for his agenda. And why am I turning this into a pissing contest. Its your two disciples, RobertAllen and Achem that sling the insults. Have they not read your comment guidelines, #8 I believe?

      Now, since you believe in JC (in some spiritual way), and you advice that we need a little bit of JC, lets talk about him now.

      If we agree that JC existed in the first place, besides the fact that he is mentioned as a footnote in just several sources outside of the Bible, and the fact that the Gospels are written one century after JC, plus there are many Gospels edited out of the Bible, we can analyze what this guy was doing.

      If we relay just on the Bible, we can say that generally he was a good guy, spreading loving messages, but often he quoted his father and the early prophets, and stood by everything his father and the prophets previously said.

      "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17)

      And sometimes it seems he was really upset:

      "49 I am come to send fire on Earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? 50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! 51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." (Luke 12:49-51)

      Division, yes. Dividing a man from his worship of the world(money,glory,lust) to turn his thoughts upword.This does not mean we can't enrich our selves with the earth, just not to hang our glory on it. Why? Because earth has a finite nature, and God does not.

      “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.” (Luke 14:26)

      Strong words, but its meant to convey you better love me (GOD,Universe) much more than anyone.

      "You know that the OT is full of bad stuff, we don't have to quote that, but as you can see JC was indirectly supporting all that."

      He was supporting the stories in their correct context, something most theoligians are wrong about. At least that is my opinion. I have no evidence.

    7. @Brandon Costa:

      Since I am mentioned in your post to Vlatko will say a few things.

      "the NT cleans the slate of OT tradition"?? no it does not, I can list many sources saying the OT and the NT are one and the same concerning your religion, you are cherry picking! And/or being an apologetic.

      Luke...14:26...Your quote-"Strong words, but its meant to convey you better love me (God, Universe) much more than anyone."...Give me a break! what kind of jealous and vindictive gods do you guys waste your time praying and giving your allegiance to?

    8. "Luke...14:26...Your quote-"Strong words, but its meant to convey you better love me (God, Universe) much more than anyone."...Give me a break! what kind jealous and vindictive gods do you guys waste your time praying and giving your allegiance to?"

      I have had trouble with this. And like you I could not and still will not give any allegiance to what people will say is a jealous,vindictive megalomaniac God. But I think its wrong to give God attributes of human nature. Its even tough to use the word God for in implies too many an old white bearded man with the frailties of the human condition. The Bible to me was a simplification of the truth for a simple man to understand for the time being. I do believe that the universe mannifested itself in Jesus Christ. No I have to evidence for this , I think from now on Im going to put this under everything I state that is what I believe without any empirical facts behind it. All I can say is I believe connecting with this 'truth of invisible nature' makes man a better,healthier and more compassionate man'

      I appologize for pointing anyone out in here for heated debates, I just don't understand why debates can't be more civil. But would it help if I just put, this is my opinion for which I have no evidence except what is in myself and what I have viewed in others.

    9. Fine, since you have said you are just reiterating things that you have absolutely no proof for and are just stating stuff that you personally believe in, that is fine with me, more of a philosophical bent then, except keep in mind that religion and science will never mix, ever!

    10. One of the first thing we learn in life is Never say Never. It starts with i'll never play with you again.


    11. Az...Religion, and that has to be as we know it, will to the 10^500 power never mix with science! As you notice I left a small Plancks constant that maybe it will, in some very far off obscure reality/universe. But nothing we can be concerned about.

    12. Oups! I did not mean existing religions, i meant spirituality or the incorporeal.
      You are right, why would science play with old religions unless they go through a complete rebirth.

    13. Az...Incorporeal..."Having no material body or form" That is what a lot of religions use as a prime mover or first cause that transcends both time and space, same with spirituality. So do not really know what you mean.

    14. I must bring an other doc to answer your question. In TRUM, UFO and Extraterrestrial 2.23 at around 15minutes...
      you will hear Degrasse Tyson talk as such: "What distinguish us from chimps emerges from the 1% difference in our DNA. May be the difference between humans and chimps is really not that big, almost nothing. Now imagine an other life form that is 1% different from us in the direction that we are different from chimps. We are 1% different and we are building the Hubble telescope, imagine 1% more. What are we to them? Think how smart they would be." (sorry if it is not exactly the same and yes some of it is missing but i don't need it to make my point).

      What if this other life form has actually succeeded in transcending physicality. How would we know? Of course we look for a physical being "thing" but there are many reasons to think that the dimension humans would most like to trancend is the physicallity aspect of us. And we may have succeeded at some point....there is a lot of mystery around the Egyptians, the monks of high mountains of Nepal, the shaman of old days, and more mystery if you go back even further.
      I AM NOT SAYING WE DID, i am saying we may in the future.
      We may be like the kid at the gate holding the bars, seeing how beautiful and exciting life seem to be outside the gate and not realizing that the lock on the gate is open.

    15. Az...I understand what you are saying, your scenario is somewhat similar to "Plato's Allegory Of The Cave"

      We are focused in this reality, because we are riding one, out of the unlimited crests of the waves of probability and collapsing the waveform to bring us our physical reality, we cannot envision the unlimited multidimensional selves that we are in the unlimited other realities that there are, and no doubt we are saying the same thing there as we are saying here now. That is the only way that I can answer your post and will stop, don't want to be classed as another Deepak Chopra, lol.

      And this is not some la, la, land scenario I am referring to, it is science.

    16. @Achems_Razor, Epicurus, Over_the_Edge:

      Speaking of waves of probability, I have a question.

      In their endeavor to appear learned, some creationists aver that because the mathematical odds of the world coming together the way it did are so remote, it could not have been by chance, i.e., there must have been a creator. Of course, the conclusion is a flagrant non sequitur, but the use of mathematical odds seems equally fallacious and disingenuous. While I have my own reasons for thinking so (which I will share if and when you respond to this query), I would appreciate your take.

    17. Yeah, I know that creationists seem to think that everything was made for us by their remote mathematical odds.

      But they fail to realize that nothing was perfect in the beginning, the earth was not suitable for life, the Moon was very close to the earth, and for life as we know it took billions and millions of years through evolution for us sentient beings to adapt to the earth as it is, not the other way around.

      There may be other forms of life on other planets that are not carbon based that do not live in any "goldilocks zone" at all and are thriving.

    18. You went at it differently than I did.

      Mathematically speaking, it's a matter of perspective. In a lottery consisting of say 50 numbers, the odds of getting any combination, either winning or losing, are astronomical; yet, look at all the combinations that come up. There is nothing miraculous about that--ask any loser.

      Now going back in time, creationists, again an effort to sound scientific, aver that because the odds of the big bang occurring in the way that it did are astronomical, therefore there must have been a creator. Remember, this is before the allmighty decided one day to create a place in the sun (so to speak) for his favorite toy, mankind. So if you ignore the obvious non sequitur (and I wish more people did), the same fallacy seems to be operating, only on a more cosmic scale. Do you agree?

    19. Yes, the same fallacy seems to operating, akin to a slippery slope fallacy, because their gods as you say created man for their playthings, the creationists then declare that everything, the universe/cosmos itself was made first only for mankind period. As it says in Genesis. And because the odds seem astronomical according to the creationists they claim either creation or ID. Without any science backing.

    20. And speaking of playthings, do you see any difference between the actions of the gods towards the mortals in the Iliad and His ordering Abraham to sacrifice Isaac or His toying with Abraham over the destruction of Sodom and Gemorrah or His role in the misfortunes of Job and Jonah?

    21. No, not much difference in the actions of the gods, imagine the same in the iliad, but am not to familiar of the iliad, a lot, a lot, of reading.

    22. Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. We all know that at some point in the future the Universe will come to an end and at some other point, considerably in advance from that but still not immediately pressing, the sun will explode. We feel there's plenty of time to worry about that, but on the other hand that's a very dangerous thing to say.

      - Douglas Adams.

    23. Actually, we could make a stronger case for the world being custom tailored just for TDF and those who post on its site and for nothing else and no one else.

    24. Does that mean i would have to live with you around for the rest of my life, and you with me. lol
      You wrote lately that you never Kick Back, do you ever laugh outloud? You come across as such a serious guy, it's hard for me to imagine someone who would not have a lighter side.

    25. lol i think im just going to use Douglas Adams quotes to make all my points. he says it better than anyone.

    26. I think you should try that for a day, see how it works. If it goes well you could use it in your next exam :)

    27. @robertallen1
      when you say "the mathematical odds of the world coming together the way it did are so remote," (according to creationists of course) do you mean the coming together of the actual planet(and universe) or the coming together of life on the planet?

    28. Good question. I've heard it applied to both, but let's be more cosmic and discuss the coming together of the planet--after all, life is simply the icing on the cake.

    29. @robertallen1
      first off i am going to offer a disclaimer. my knowledge of the big bang,the formation of the planets and (but not limited to) string theory and so on is limited and therefore i have a hard time backing any claims on this front. that being said many of the "statistical" claims thrown out by creationists either misrepresent the theory they are trying to disprove (claim science says things happen by pure chance) or forget that for matter to exist it has to exist in some form all equally improbable. for a great explanation of creationist failures re watch (i am assuming you have already watched it) why do people laugh at creationists parts 8 to 11

    30. Yes, I have watched it and was highly entertained and enlightened, but I will review parts 8 to 11, as you suggest.

      You've brought up another salient point. There seems to be only one reason why creationists distort and lie the way they do, especially about science and mathematics, namely because it's the only way they can "support" their arguments, which says a lot about the strength and validity of their arguments and even more about them. How many times have you heard of a modern atheist, such as Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens or Daniel Dennett, caught in a lie or distortion? I believe your answer is the same as mine.

      As long as we're on creationists, I am a good way into "The Creationists" by Ronald L. Numbers and it is absolutely fascinating and, of course, scholarly and well-written. I have even ordered the enlarged edition of 2005. I would like to bring one statement to your attention--something said by George Wright, a creationist of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries who, by the way, believed in an old earth as did most creationists at the time. According to him, the main purpose of the first part of Genesis was to affirm that there was one god and one god alone. If he is correct, this shows Genesis to be a relatively new book, for this radical theistic exclusivity did not take root until considerably late in the game. Just thought you might be interested.

    31. Was there anything before men was there to think that there was something?
      Reality may be so complicated, mysterious and unfathomable that not only may the creationist be wrong but the rest of all humans too.

    32. @Azilda
      I believe the answer is beyond grasp.
      Is our reality subjective or objective?
      Many 'intuitive' as well as 'counter intuitive' theories have evolved over the years and eventually most = proven/unproven scientifically, but i believe this one defies even description. xx

    33. You are talking neuropsychology and quantum physics. We spend a great deal of time uncovering the secrets to our delusion.

    34. Is finding the source of life a possibility or is it a ball scientists will keep kicking to infinity? Kicking away with complicated explanations that create even more complicated explanations.
      We spend....? I think most people would say: "we let them spend...".
      Some trust science to find the solution to life and some trust religion to have found it in GOD and some are ambivalent between the two. Most people don't think of themself intelligent, independent or good enough to ask those big questions.
      Religion offers GOD as the ultimate reason, that's it and that's that. Bow and behave.
      Science is now offering multi universes, black matter and 11 dimensions and so on. Bow and listen.
      Faith and knowledge perhaps takes us away from what could be easily known if every individuals of the mass listened to it's deepest voice.

    35. I know you didn't ask me, but i will attempt an answer anyway. At least i am not interupting the talk just sliding in between the big boys like a cyber ghost.
      I don't think it was chance that made it happen, i think it was the intensity of Time/Space which may have taken the shape of an arrow with the single-pointed focus of a it that knows where it is going.
      If we say all started from nothing, where are we going? Back to nothing? May be the creator is the nothing.

    36. This is not a private forum, so chime in any time you'd like. However, we were not discussing how things began, but rather the mathematical and logical fallacies perpetrated and perpetuated by creationists endeavoring to justify what cannot be justified.

      As for the creator as nothing, you might want to consult Schopenhauer and Buber.

    37. The difficulty is to try and teach the multitude that something can be true and untrue at the same time.
      Arthur Schopenhauer


    38. Funny that two comments prior to this one i was referring to the caved beast. Obviously i wasn't talking about Plato's.

      Well ya, you know me and science. I have never taken a science class in my life. No Joke! You don't always have to be a scientist to approach making sense of life, just a very curious person.
      How about Deep Act Chop Ra (the god) lol

    39. Thats cool.

    40. At least that's honest.

    41. What makes you think you know anything about the "harmonious flow of the universe" except your unmitigated conceit brought about by your idiotic religion?

      "If we agree that JC existed in the first place, besides the fact that he is mentioned as a footnote in just several sources outside of the Bible and the fact that the Gospels are written one century after JC, plus there are many Gospels edited out of the Bible, we can analyze what this guy was doing." It's really a shame that a sentence with such a promising beginning should end with such a glaring non sequitur. You've just provided the reasons for not being able to ascertain what "this guy was doing." In addition, while there are myriad differences in the roughly 1,500 manuscripts we have of the New Testament and while most of these differences are venial, a disquietingly large number is not. For examples, see Bart Ehrman's books "Misquoting Jesus" and "Forgery." I'm not going to do your homework for you. So your statement "JC as a figure in history was probably the kindness [sic] and most passionate fellow alive" is based on nothing but what you've read in a book which has gone through who knows how many drastic emendations.

      I, for one, take a dim view of assertions made without evidence and like several others on this site distrust everything that you posit, even basic figures.

    42. @Brandon Costa,

      I was about to write a long response, but since you stated that this is only your opinion for which you have no evidence except what is in yourself, I have to just agree with that.

      And that is what religion should be about. If you feel good while praying to JC - awesome, if that makes you a better person - excellent. I don't have a problem with that, and I don't think anyone would have, except maybe a person from antagonistic religious group who doesn't recognize your God.

      But the problem becomes wide when, religious groups are pushing their agenda onto others, especially children.

      I stated this in an other thread, but I'll repeat it here. I do have a problem with religions and religious people when they:

      1. Promote genitalia mutilation,
      2. Make effort to put Intelligent Design in public schools,
      3. Publicly impose their Gods as the only and right ones,
      4. Recruit followers under age of 18,
      5. Claim higher moral grounds,
      6. Suggest scientific verification of their scriptures,
      7. Evade taxes,
      8. Abuse children,
      9. Subtly put women in inferior position,
      10. Openly stigmatize anyone who is not heterosexual,
      11. Interfere with politics and the society in general.

    43. I basically agree with you, but I would like to ask you about two points.

      1. Do you consider circumcision genetalia mutation. I don't believe you do, but I would like clarification.

      7. Evade taxes. Do you mean by this the provisions in various tax codes exempting churches from paying taxes or do you mean out and out fraud or perhaps a combination of both? In this light, I used to believe that churches should be taxed as any other form of business, but I began to wonder if we taxed religious institutions, wouldn't we have to tax organizations such as the Richard Dawkins Foundation?

      Your comments would be appreciated.

    44. @robertallen1,

      I believe that forced circumcision out of religious, ritualistic, and superstitious reasons is genitalia mutilation. There are arguments "for" and "against" circumcision in the medical field, and thus I believe that circumcision should be personal/parental decision only. Personally I would never circumcise my child.

      "95% of the world's non-Muslim familes do not circumcise. Every mammal evolved a foreskin and nature has been perfecting foreskins ever since, for 65 million years."

      As for taxes I mean every form of tax evasion. I say tax the churches and tax the foundations too if needed.

    45. I think 95% is not right, there are still many people who will let their kids be circumcised in the questions asked. Not sure about the percentage, i wouldn't want to make a mistake but i seriously think 95% who don't, is wrong. I lived in the US and it is still common practice there.
      In most discussions on circumcision here on TDF, it appears as if many Us men think of this as being a plus to get a woman happy and many woman in the Us think an uncircumcised penis is disgusting.

      As for came wrapped like a be it!
      As for the everyone "equally"...none taxed or all taxed.


    46. @Azilda,

      95% from non-Muslim population world wide. There is no centralized agency to give these stats but this estimate is quite correct.

    47. Vlatko, please do not regard me as being nosey, but my curiosity is getting the better of me.

      Just about all the intelligent, informed posters on your site are Canadians, are you one, too?

      Please do not take offense--again, I can't help myself.

    48. I thought several years ago Vlatko said he was in Europe, and I think Eastern Europe, but I'm just going on a vague memory clip.

    49. In my time here, i have read this question being put to Valtko many times. Never seen an answer.

    50. I find it quite funny that Robertallen1 has not answered your comment yet. If your name was Brendon Costa, Norlavine or even Azilda, he would have been here 4hrs ago pounding on our head (literally as in D*ck) and taxing us for taxing Richard Dawkings foundation.
      I expect him, on the other hand, to be most courteous when he gathers his words to respond to your opinion.

    51. I agree. Don't know about circumsicion though, if thats what you meant. I like my beast without the hood. Of course I don't know the other way. The beast in the cave, couldnt have been cool.

    52. couldn't have or could have?....i know some guys who would say...a caved beast is pretty cool when he pokes his head out.

  22. Everybody seeks, has to seek, everybody want to know, have to know, everybody share, have to share. We identify or not to the knowledge of our time and we fight for it's being right or wrong. Science is like a river as it flows through the years. It changes, it takes different courses and carries the approval of many and leaves many on it's shore. Religions are the dams on the river, they claim to know God but show that all they do is destroy the unity of what they claim God to be.

    Through the milleniums spirituality has resisted, in the old days when religion was strong it had opponents, when science said we know, it had opponents, but the spiritual aspect of people always existed because it is the unprovable.
    God is not the ocean where the river goes because there are many oceans, God is not the earth because there are many planets, God is not the universe because they are many universes, god can be the unification of IT ALL, us included.
    The second the web of humans realize we are a combined energy and we create the world we see...we will see a different world, this world will vanish.

    1. "Religions are the dams on the river, they claim to know God but show that all they do is destroy the unity of what they claim God to be."

      I agree. But even religions are susceptible to evolutionary change and this is good. Their core messages are the same. The truth they point to is the same. For me within each provides a sort of code to truth, but the ability to decipher that code is only available to those that calmy, quietly meditate upon it.

      Religion can destroy. But so does science. Just ask Japan.

    2. @Brandon Costa,

      "Religion can destroy. But so does science."

      No, people destroy, with their actions, irresponsibility, bad intentions and so on.

      There is fallacious comparison (two items or groups of items are compared that cannot be validly compared) in your reasoning. And almost every religious/spiritual person tends to say that as an argument in a given point of the discourse.

      1. Religion is an organized dogmatic belief system that gives social, moral, behavioral instructions on behalf of some supernatural being. It interferes directly with your actions/reactions on a daily basis.

      For example religions says: "Love your neighbor." If you decide to follow that rule you'll try to respect your neighbors as much as you can.

      Another example is: "Kill the infidels." Now if you decide to follow that rule (if you're fairly indoctrinated), at some point you'll try to kill an infidel.

      In short religions give you guidance through out your life, whether that be wrong or right.

      2. Science is not doing any of the above. It is just a technical tool used for wondering around. Doesn't give morals, guidance, philosophy... It doesn't care how are you going to live your life. It is just hard core technical data, that proves or disproves things. How are you going to use it it's up to you, up to humanity.

      Now you may say, well you can also choose how are you going to use the religion too. Yes, that would be doable if you decide to censor/ignore half of the scriptures of a given religion.

      Religion instructs bad things to be done, science never instructs anything. Just provides empirical knowledge, nothing else.

      Are you able to compare these in any sense:

      Christianity - Biology; Islam - Physics; Buddhism - Chemistry; Hinduism - Psychology.

      It is like saying: Christianity can destroy, but so does Biology. Or, Islam can destroy, but so does Physics.

      Religion and science are simply incomparable in any sense because of their nature of functioning.

    3. But science can advise. However, unlike, religion it demands no more than rigor.

      You sum it up nicely. A bullet can kill or drive a nail in a wall; hence, it is as unmoral as science.

    4. beautifully put. couldnt have said it better myself.

    5. @epicurus, achems_razor and overthe edge.

      I agree. But let me ask you a taxonomical question. I consulted with my bird man who indicated that the idea behind species inherent in the taxonomical system does indeed break down when it comes to macaws. Hybrids such as the calico, the shamrock and the milicinth produce viable offspring. As a matter of fact, although hybrid macaws are rare in the wilds, in captivity they are often crossbred like dogs and cats. Please see animal world. com/ encyclo/ birds / macaws.

      I would appreciate your comments.

    6. @robertallen1:

      Interesting question, but will relinquish the floor to Epic. he would know much more about your taxonomical question than I.

    7. @robertallen1
      i went to the link provided and from what i gather so far you are right (hybrid lovebirds seem to do this as well). but my knowledge of this practice is very limited (i will look into further and get back to you if i find answers). but i would suspect (only a guess) that these species don't crossbreed in the wild in sufficient numbers and would not be viable without human intervention.

    8. As I mentioned, generally macaws don't crossbreed in the wild, but obviously the capacity is there. Do dogs crossbreed in the wild? Even if it is a rarity as with macaws and lovebirds, the potential exists. However, my point is that the taxonomic system seems inconsistent: dogs belong to one species, yet macaws belong to a number.

      Incidentally, my bird man also iinformed me that old world birds cannot breed with new world birds--so here geography seems to play a large part in speciation, as I've learned from my recent foray into ring species.

    9. species actually means two things, A) organisms that cant mate due to genetic differences, AND B) organisms that cant mate due to geographic distance.

      like i said before, even though chimps and bonobos are a different species they can still mate. but they never will naturally due to their geographic boundaries.

      so yes two different species will be able to mate sometimes. as long as they are genetically similar enough.

      from wiki:
      Hybrids between different subspecies within a species (such as between the Bengal tiger and Siberian tiger) are known as INTRASPECIFIC HYBRIDS. Hybrids between different species within the same genus (such as between lions and tigers) are sometimes known as INTERSPECIFIC HYBRIDS or crosses. Hybrids between different genera (such as between sheep and goats) are known as intergeneric hybrids. Extremely rare interfamilial hybrids have been known to occur (such as the guineafowl hybrids). No interordinal (between different orders) animal hybrids are known.

      Hybridisation between two closely related species is actually a common occurrence in nature but is also being greatly influenced by anthropogenic changes as well. Hybridization is a naturally occurring genetic process where individuals from two genetically distinct populations mate. As stated above, it can occur both intraspecifically, between different distinct populations within the same species, and interspecifically, between two different species. Hybrids can be either sterile/not viable or viable/fertile. This affects the kind of effect that this hybrid will have on its and other populations that it interacts with. Many hybrid zones are known where the ranges of two species meet, and hybrids are continually produced in great numbers. These hybrid zones are useful as biological model systems for studying the mechanisms of speciation (Hybrid speciation). Recently DNA analysis of a bear shot by a hunter in the North West Territories confirmed the existence of naturally-occurring and fertile grizzly–polar bear hybrids. There have been reports of similar supposed hybrids, but this is the first to be confirmed by DNA analysis. In 1943, Clara Helgason described a male bear shot by hunters during her childhood. It was large and off-white with hair all over its paws. The presence of hair on the bottom of the feet suggests it was a natural hybrid of Kodiak and Polar bear.

    10. Biology does kill. We see it when a reigning male lion is chased out and his recently born progeny is systematically murdered by the new ‘king’. It happens in other species too, when a female of lesser rank gives birth, the dominant female will kill the newborn to ensure ‘only’ her genes are passed on. It seems the more ‘stringent’ the hierarchy, the more this tends to happen. Dawkins calls it ‘the selfish gene’, Darwin,”survival of the fittest” and Howard Bloom “labels it part of the process of ‘entelechy’.

    11. @Robyn318,

      I would put it "Nature" does kill. And kills very, very often.

      However, a natural science (Biology) concerned with the study of life and living organisms can not kill. It can only show/prove to you that Nature indeed kills. Biology is just a tool to show you what Nature does.

    12. I agree. How about Eugenics. It doesnt involve knives and spears (in the traditional sense) but it has the same effect on bloodlines.

    13. @Robyn318,

      Well, "Eugenics" is only a social movement, concept, or "applied science" if you will.

      For example "Human Genome Project" is a research in the domain of Biology - Genetics, but also opens up the back door for Eugenics.

      So I would not strictly classify Eugenics as "science" per se.

      However there is possibility that I'm wrong, since Eugenics not so long ago was an academic discipline at many colleges and universities, and was receiving funding from many sources.

    14. I would say eugenics has a philosophy apart from what science does. and it uses the knowledge of science to push forth that philosophy.

      i wouldnt say it is a science though.

      kind of like new age crap clinging to quantum physics to push its agenda.

    15. Let say in 50 years when they succeed to manipulate the genetic composition of humans, will you call it a science?

    16. they will be using science to do so.

    17. It was more than a ‘social movement’ to the Nazi’s.

      And what about the love affair between science and the military complex. The United States spends $billions every year on new and better ways to ‘kill’ in the name of National Defense. Oppenheimer knew his work was to create an ‘atomic bomb’ a weapon of war, as did the developer of the ‘daisy cutter’. How is science absolved here?

    18. What do you have against science? It's done a lot more good than religion ever thought of doing.

    19. Really? I don't see scientists feeding or housing the homeless?

      You know the nothing about what Jesus Christ taught us to do.

    20. .....

      look up Norman Borlaug.

      every house is the result of science.

    21. That is funny, you are talking as if your big JC is real! Taught you stuff? lol. Need proof, and the onus is on you to show proof. Otherwise your post means squat!

    22. You and Robert Fallen need some JC, trust me.

    23. I can't speak for Achems-Razor, but I refuse to trust any mental defective who can't even get his figures on Hiroshima and Nagasaki straight and who pooh-poohs the very concept of evidence. Take it somewhere else, like the toilet!

    24. @Brandon Costa: seems to be a warrior for his god, or for his big JC, therefore I will class him as a "shavetail-louie" meaning he knows not of what he speaks and not to be trusted in anything!!

    25. He seems to be an awfully wimpy warrior in more ways than one. However, I advised him to consult the section of the posting policy militating against using the site as a pulpit--not that he will--just like he won't do his research before posting figures for the casualties at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I think you can see why I feel about religees the way I do.

    26. Did i not state 100,000+ casualties? I did, and guess what there were, are you stupid???...Oh my God I sound like you now.

    27. Please re-read your post. You didn't merely state 100,000+ casualties, you enumerated them and your enumeration was as pathetically far off as most of your assertions.

    28. Who, the hell, cares about the homeless? And I really couldn't give a damn what Jesus Christ allegedly taught which I know a lot more about than you do because not only have I studied the Bible, but also its history.

    29. I have nothing against the discipline of science, it is the end result of a process that starts with theism in an attempt to make sense of the incomprehensible. I agree that religion is the blight of man concocted by clever ‘leeches’ to gain power and control, but it seems religion is a necessary part of that process.

    30. No, it does not. No it is not. You don't know what you're talking about!

    31. Im a little confused by the lack of clarity in your statement.

      Should I interpret it: Mommy, mommy PLEASE make him stop; he is hurting my ears!


      I think you are wrong and here is my evidence.

    32. Try you are completely wrong and need to learn about the fundamentals of science before keyboarding about it.

    33. Isn't keyboarding about a subject a form of learning about a subject? Or would you rather that only people who have spent all their life in universities learning what others had learned previous to them keyboard here?
      In my opinion TDF's audience and participants are from all walks of life,from many backgrounds, many countries and language. People express the view they have attainted, that view may be stirred towards a higher knowledge of the subject or spit on as you know so well how to do.
      No one will stop people from expressing their view, this is what this forum is for. If most people who participate here were highly educated and i mean HIGHLY, i doubt they would in return have much time to participate here unless they are retired and bored or just want to make themself feel good by making others feel small.
      As for me, i am here to learn, i am somewhat bored at times, i am not university highly educated, i don't like to spit on people, i have a view and will revise it with good, polite informative arguments.
      I have learned a lot since i first came on TDF two years ago, a lot of what i have learned is that most people think they know what they know and that applies to every one here.

    34. No, keyboarding is a means of communication.

      But ideally, it would be wonderful if all those who posted knew something about their subject, made intelligent observations and asked intelligent and sincere questions. Those who don't conform to these criteria deserve to be, as you put it, spit upon.

    35. This is like saying, no students should write papers until they have mastered the lessons mastered by their teachers, and in the same way those teachers should not have written papers until they mastered the lessons mastered by their teachers...and on and on...
      This is like saying no scientist should express new hypothesis.
      Keyboarding, talking, reading, studying are all means of learning through communication.
      If people didn't express their opinion, no advancement would ever be made.
      Even the best scientists discussed their ideas even if those ideas were proven wrong in the end. I doubt this is done spitting on each other.

    36. You are right. Perhaps posting should only be made a select group appointed by the committee for absolute truth as shown and documented by vigorous study and double blind randomised experiments. The committee feels that only such individuals will not corrupt and distract other less informed individuals from the truth.

      Of course this is just my opinion. I have no evidence for this.(Brandon's new signature)

    37. Perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought you were referring to unilateral keyboarding, not the mutual version, which I agree can be a learning process.

      However, I suggest you disembarass yourself of the idea that one opinion is as good as another; it's not. It's what's behind that opinion--and you're right, in general, discussions among experts are conducted on a different level than what we meet with on this site. That's because you have a number of knowledgable, educated people who have done their homework discussing a matter clearly within their ken. See the recent documentaries on global warming and the archaeopteryx as examples.

      And speaking of competence; students should not write papers until they have mastered their subject although perhaps not to the degree one would expect of a teacher. However, if they decide to divagate from the mainstream, it seems highly probable that their divergence will be founded in the virtues of education and intelligence.

    38. how is math absolved? we should all blame math. actually i think we should blame newton. if it wasnt for newton helping us undertsand gravity we never would have been able to make planes.

      how utterly ridiculous.

      for the umpteenth time, science is a method that people use to understand the world. that is all. it doesnt tell people what to do. it doesnt people how they ought to behave.

      it is just a process of understanding how things work. the fact that it produces these things just shows that we know how to do science. but our ethics are off.

    39. You're right, it doesn't tell people how they ought to behave. We leave that up to ignoramuses like Robyn318 and Brandon Costa.

    40. @Robyn318:

      That is why the world is always at war, trying to make better weapons than the other side, and to make them first, as in real or imagined, like the weapons of mass destruction fiasco. And yes, there has to be made more and better weapons than the other side, as in Reagan not backing down on weapons against Russia. And star wars. Because if he did back down everyone would also probably be speaking Russian.

      And if the the US did not make the A-bomb first, then what? Science does not necessarily love the military complex, but most adaptations in science came from new military inventions.

    41. actually Darwin never used the term survival of the fittest, it was coined by Herbert Spencer who failed terribly with his attempts to make an ethical system based on his flawed view of evolution.

      now just because beings kill doesnt mean biology prescribes one to kill. biology only describes. and to take a prescription from a cold description is committing the is/ought fallacy, or Hume's guillotine

    42. If you're talking about the end of World War II, Japan got what it deserved. Why don't you read up on the events leading to the bombings before you go shooting off at the keyboard?

    43. Japan got what it deserved? really? What percentage of the 100,000 plus people killed had anything to do with the decision to bomb Pearl Harber?

      Thank You science for giving us the tool to wipe out 2 entire cities within seconds. And it was not done in the name of Religion.

      You do realize Science is becoming you're idol, your tool to worship and set as a rock for future generations to come.

      "Science is not doing any of the above. It is just a technical tool used for wondering around"

      I don't have a problem with science, I love it as well. But while wondering around please be careful not to accidently introduce a super bug into nature, please don't open up any black holes that swallow our solar system, and can you hurry up and use science to fix the not so well thought out science that helped pollute the atmosphere.

    44. Are you talking about the atomic bombs or Pearl Harbor or are you confounding the two?

    45. Here Robert..I know you need to perfect numbers for argument
      from wiki:
      90,000–166,000 killed in Hiroshima[1]
      60,000–80,000 killed in Nagasaki[1]

      2402 Americans were killed at Pearl Harbor

    46. Why don't you read up on the events preceding the two bombings or does that go against your grain? For your information, for about two months prior to the bombings, we had been repeatedly and persistently warning Japan both through diplomatic and non-diplomatic channels (i.e., dropping pamphlets) that we had a terrible weapon which we didn't want to use, but would if Japan refused to surrender. At the same time, a plan to invade the Japanese mainland was being considered and it was estimated to take three or four months with roughly 1,000,000 people perishing in the onslaught. So faced with the two choices, President Truman decided to minimize the time and the number of potential fatalities--and he did the right thing--and as Over the Edge has tried to tell you, science was not to blame; people outside of it were.

      Also for your information, the number of deaths at Hiroshima due to the bombing was 66,000 and at Nagasaki, 39,000. The number of injured was 69,000 at Hiroshima and 25,000 at Nagasaki., making a total number of casualties of 135,000 at Hiroshima and 64,000 at Nagasaki. I LOOKED IT UP BEFORE I STARTED KEYBOARDING.

    47. Add the Soviet Union, Korea, are right Truman did juggle with too many balls in those days. Balls that weren't his.

    48. He had to; he was President and although I disagree with a number of the things that he did, such as the founding of the OSS, the precursor to the CIA, he was the best President we have had during my lifetime and the only one for which I have any respect--and to think that this virtual country bumpkin left the White House as moderately wealthy as he was when he entered it.

    49. I didn't have to look it up, I already knew the number was 100,000+... How many bars of soap do you have in your bathroom cabinet?

    50. Yes, you do. Had you written 100,000+, that would have been acceptable, but instead your enumberation was woefully off the mark. See atomic archive. com and then tell me about the bars of soap in my bathroom cabinet.

    51. Is this person right in your opinion?

      "In 1937, Japan invaded China, the two were ancient enemies. The United States attempted to force Japan to leave China by slapping Japan with a crippling Oil Embargo. No one was allowed to sell Oil to Japan. No oil means no Navy, no Army, and no Airforce. Which means Japan would lose in China. Japan needed its own oil supply, and the only place to get it at the time was in the Dutch East Indies (present day Philippines area). The only thing in the way was the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour. So they attacked it. The embargo on oil was only the beginning, when Japan refused to cease their imperialistic actions they were also slapped with an embargo on iron, rubber, and other resources. Which caused them to go further with their actions, especially with resource rich China."

      Following this the US killed - or + 200,000 innocent people.

      I agree science is the observation of the physical world around us and the resulting possibilities from the search for what is unknown yet.
      Without science Japan would have never been attacked by the US and without people Japan would have never thought of invading China.


      I think life would be so wonderful if we all moved back into the forest.

    53. Okay Az, what are you trying to say? that science is the culprit? people do not even need science or even religion to kill one another, although it may expedite matters.

      We basically are the only species that still kill one another, always have, and always will, STAR WARS anyone?? As life finds a way, so will killing.

      The only time that killing will stop if ever we become a "class three civilization" and then we probably will populate other worlds.

    54. I am saying without science, the US would not have had the capability to hit Hiroshima with the nuclear bomb. I am saying without science the US would not have done all the explosive experiments they had to perform prior to Hiroshima to know what they were doing. I am saying without science the US would not be in possession of 5000 plus warheads. I am saying without people those warheads would remain inexistant or dormant.
      I am saying knowing what people can do and how much they LOOOOOVE to fight, it is not a reasuring thought to know that those warheads were invented.
      I am saying there is a little bit of truth in all of your arguments.

      Science puts the tools in your hand, in the days of the first hatchet the world was safer but progression goes from hatchet to sharp knife to guns to fighter planes to kaboum! between men of science have discovered marvellous things for humanity.

    55. Az...Same thing I basically said, but without science we would not at this time be in this reality merrily typing away on our keyboards, we would be in another reality.

      Maybe not even a scientific reality and I hope not fighting off the religious hordes that are trying to burn us at the stake! REPENT I say, Repent! lol

    56. @Brandon Costa
      others have tried to explain it to you already ,but i will try as well. much like my explanation of atheism, science does not try to dictate morals and behavior to anybody. all it is trying to do is explain the world around us with natural phenomena. holding the tools that science provides responsible for what people do with it is akin to holding Apple responsible if i beat someone with my Ipad.

    57. "science does not try to dictate morals and behavior to anybody"

      Well according to you guys my believing in God is stupid according to the laws of science. Now that isnt a command but it does seem to be trying to stir my behavior into a "rational one." So I may just start to feel a little insecure about my decision which has worked for me, but heh, I feel I really need to join the masses here.

    58. @Brandon Costa
      while i feel that your belief is not compatible with the evidence and i have certainly tried to show you the irrationality of said belief. neither science or atheism says that god does not exist only that it does not have any empirical evidence and is in conflict with the empirical evidence we do have. but if you (or anybody) is going to claim that god does exits i will try to refute claims made. that being said i have made it clear many times before on this site, if your belief makes you happy and causes you to treat others better i will not try to take that away from you. but when belief is injected into areas that it doesn't belong (science), tries to affect my life directly (schools.government policy. my home) or makes claims it cannot back up i will hold religion to account

    59. I will hold religion to account as well. I already do in my normal life.

    60. Why don't you hold yourself to account or is this inconsistent with your attacks on rationality and your comittant promotion of the supernatural?

    61. I defend your side in real life more than I defend religion. I do this because of what Over the Edge said. Religion should not stand in the way of science, government policy, personal freedoms. I think science should be regulated but not from a religious front.

      But I do believe connecting to the spiritual side is what makes a person be the most they can be. For myself its Christ based, but for another it may be something else. But it shouldn't be because of what thousands of books or documents have stated. Perhaps they may be pointers to a truth, but the truth comes from the quiet inside through meditation, or prayer for some.

    62. Once again, who are you to be telling others what they should do to make the most of themselves? Who are you to be instructing people to hold what "thousands of books and documents have stated" in a secondary light?

      You believe what you want, however false, however ignorant, however pathetic.

    63. Hear! Hear! And if this is being narrow-minded or in the box, sobeit.

    64. You made me chuckle, would like to see that.

    65. @Brandon Costa,

      "Thank You science for giving us the tool to wipe out 2 entire cities within seconds."

      Wrong. Science gave you knowledge (know how) and a tool to split the atom. It is up to you to decide how you're going to use it: 1. Instantly kill quarter of a million people with that or 2. Supply the same number of people with cheep energy for the next 100 years.

      "You do realize Science is becoming you're idol, your tool to worship and set as a rock for future generations to come."

      No I don't realize that, because it is a fallacy. Can anyone worship and idolize Biology? I don't understand how that can be actually done? Taking the Biology book from my 5th grade, placing it on altar, lighting candles and praying to the authors of the book?

      "But while wondering around please be careful not to accidently introduce a super bug into nature, please don't open up any black holes that swallow our solar system, and can you hurry up and use science to fix the not so well thought out science that helped pollute the atmosphere."

      We don't really understand each other. Science will not introduce super bug, it will only tell you and show you how it can be done. It is up to people (certain groups) to decide if they want to introduce it and if they going to use that for harm or good.

      The science is well thought out. The pollution is caused by the people. Science gave us the means and knowledge to produce pollutants, people decided to use them. It is that simple.

      Now are you going to blame Homo Erectus too for making the first stone tool? It started from there. At first he used that for acquiring food, but latter on his descendants used it for killing people.

  23. Once again someone who has done his best to remain polite and non accusing (for most of his time here on TDF) while explaining his view on the complexity of both the physical and intangible worlds has been tricked into the ring and pushed to fight with "word gloves".
    I must say Robertallen1 you win at this game, you got him to finally play in your style, so you could give the last punch.
    I will say Brandon Costa, i have enjoyed reading you while you were expressing your view. That view is different from mine, you and me makes two views, you add zillions of people of all countries and that makes zillions of views. Get them to fight and you get wars.
    Humans are passionate beings indead.

    1. He is better at words, and I'll give him that. I have to look up every other damn word he

    2. Maybe if you had a better education. It's not too late, get one; Maybe it will make you appreciate the value of and necessity for evidence.

    3. I can come up with other views equally as cockamamie, so what?

      As usual you've said nothing.

    4. A lot of little nothings can add to something. Like a piggybank of pennies, most people throw them in fountains now, i still roll them.

  24. "So you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked what is the root of all money?"-Ayn Rand

    "lack of money is the root of all evil"-George Bernard Shaw

    "What's a soup kitchen?"-Paris Hilton

  25. All of the biblical scholars I've read agree to his existence. Two extra-biblical sources are Josephus (quite unreliable) and Lucian (125-ca 180). Three quotes from Lucian can be found on Wikipedia, search for Lucian - Jesus. While they don't specifically name Jesus (which, by the way, is a later name), there can be little doubt as to whom they refer. Otherwise, there is nothing fairly contemporary (such as official Roman records) beyond the Bible relating to his existence--you can draw your own conclusions as to how great Jesus' following was at that time.

    A lot of what paleontologists, biologists, geologists tell us at first wreaks of the incredible until they explain it and then it makes all the sense in the world.

  26. @Brandon Costa says:

    'Not that a baby is born knowing who Jesus Christ is, but I think there is an innate sense of God'

    Where is the evidence for this? Your "belief" in a thing doesn't make it true. The issue of a God existing, [as defined by theologians], has been shown to be patently false by virtue of His criminal indifference to murderous human behaviour throughout thousands of years.

    More, you should also know there is ample circumstantial proof that the prophet-'son of God' Jesus Christ, probably never existed.

    "The curse of man, and the cause of nearly all his woes, is his stupendous capacity for believing the incredible." - Mencken -

    1. Well am I being arrogant when I say I don't agree with the existence of God as defined by the theologians you speak of?

    2. No. However, until we can improve on ratiocination a valid rule for judging objective reality may be stately thusly: If you can't see it, touch it, smell it, or taste it; it must not exist. Naturally, this rule doesn't apply to certain well established physical laws.
      Subject: [topdocumentaryfilms] Re: D.M. Bennett: The Truth Seeker

    3. Well the invisible stuff works great for me so I guess I'll stick with it. And I promise I won't do any of the bad things religion has done.

    4. Notwithstanding your "good intentions", "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for everyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence". - G.K.Clifford - Reminds me of a possible relative anecdote. When Ayn Rand met the conservative intellectual, William F.Buckley Jr. she said; "you're too intelligent to beleef in gott." :-)
      Subject: [topdocumentaryfilms] Re: D.M. Bennett: The Truth Seeker

    5. Rand thought way to highly of herself to believe in God

    6. And so do I and so does every person who refuses to abrogate his intelligence.

    7. Some humility would suit you well, and many others here. Your intelligence is not even a speck of real knowledge. You define well, the parameters of the small box you inhabit. You enjoy your knowledge so much you insist that nothing exists outside the box. Some have claimed to experience something outside the box, and you refute all claims without evidence. But the evidence you seek is a system of rules created inside the box.

    8. @Brandon Costa
      you state "Some humility would suit you well, and many others here." we need humility really? why because when confronted with 28 000 000 estimated gods that have been worshiped that live outside of this so called box. none with any empirical evidence and with what seems like equal claims of just knowing or personal experiences. an atheist says i am not convinced, but you on the other hand can choose just one out of the group and claim you are right. and i need to show humility ?
      next "Rand thought way to highly of herself to believe in God " really ? Rand realized we are an insignificant species on an insignificant planet, within an insignificant galaxy that lives for such a short period when compared to the life of the universe. you on the other hand believe some god created all of this for us and we have eternal life. and your conclusion is she is the one that thinks too highly of herself?

    9. Yesterday, I asked god to be my valentine and she responded that I should wait till Haloween and then ask her again.

      Dammit, you'd better believe me or you're just a narrow-minded rational intellectual chained to the box--so there!

    10. Actually what Mr. Costa is saying is that we must keep an open mind to every cockamamy claim which assails us. In this way, we demonstrate our abject humility and win his undying respect.

    11. And some brains would suit you.

      You cavil against those who have too much respect for their intellect and the intellect of others to afford any credence to claims made without evidence or without parallel. To strengthen your untenable and ignorant position, you accuse those wise enough to impeach groundless claims of being narrow-minded. In other words, you meet legitimate inquiry with an irrelevant homiletic on humility. You cannot provide an intelligent argument, so you provide a jeremiad instead--and a feeble one at that. You simply don't have it in you to convince anyone.

      And speaking of homiletics, who are you to be preaching to anyone? Who are you to be criticizing those intelligent enough to remain "inside the box" (read be rational). The box is fine and there's a lot more room in it for intelligent expansion than anything you have to offer.

      In short, it is you who has no speck of real knowledge and with your attitude, you never will.

      You're a joke!

  27. Aliens wont be religious like us. they wont have any of our religions. but they very well may have the same atheism. think about it.

  28. @Under Siege

    Another P.S. (Sorry, but the question suddenly occurred to me). What are your views on Bart Ehrman?

  29. robertallen1

    Oh Dawkins is a rip...writing with enviable domination of our language, science, and a formidable adversary to the obscurantist.

    I think of him as the modern equivalent of Huxley.

    1. I see we are fellow travelers. He's also a formidable adversary to creationists (obscurantists, just as Thomas Huxley was in the days of Darwin.

      Why do modern atheists sound so much more intelligent and learnéd than the other? Could it be the devil's work?

    2. Of course it's 'the devil's work'....God doesn't make atheists. :-)

      Subject: [topdocumentaryfilms] Re: D.M. Bennett: The Truth Seeker

    3. Touché.

      Today, when I woke up I decided to ask god to be my valentine.

    4. Trust in dreams, for in them is hidden the gate to eternity.
      Khalil Gibran


    5. Az~
      Nice quote...I love me some Khalil Gibran. Ironically, he was a Christian... from Lebanon, I believe... I enjoy surprising my Muslim friends with this tidbit.

    6. Everyone is an atheist at birth, my friend. That's why mothers rush to baptize their babies before the devil can catch 'em by the toe. ;~)

    7. I dont agree here. Not that a baby is born knowing who Jesus Christ is, but I think there is an innate sense of God(I know everyone hates that word here) in everyone at birth. We just need to quit trying to make that God figure into some bearded old man with a cane of wrath.

    8. How about telling us what causes you to believe this.

    9. Believe what? That Athiesm could be just as dangerous as religion? Lack of belief is belief. All it needs is some charasmatic leaders and a mob of angry 'non believers''. I can see doctrine in its future. You have reason right? Look at how religees have polluted your world with their ignorant dogma. They need to be stopped. What we need here is organization. We can't let this go on. The virus must be eliminated. We need to quarantine them. They are a permanent hindrence to the evolution of man, and the only way is to wipe them out. Burn their bibles, the weaker species must go. It is time to act!

    10. You deserve an answer. Please go back to my previous few posts.

    11. Yeah...I remember talking with Blaise Pascal about this very same idea in a former life. He would say to me..."Laurent, you know...inside every man is a God shaped let's go eat."

  30. @UnderSiege

    I forgot to ask you for your thoughts on Richard Dawkins.

  31. Ahhhhh....foolish old man....all the while thinking my biographical musings were private? I won't fall for that again.

    1. @UnderSiege:

      Do not know what you mean by private, please read the "comment policy " above if you have any questions.

    2. I appreciate when people paint otobio of themself, age is such a defining result of a life lived and of a death creeping nearer.
      It is for many, a time to lay the puzzle of oneself and assemble it into an image, only the one who lived it knows what the image on the box looks like from the many pieces of actions chosen in the past.

    3. Many images...but the 'puzzle' remains intact. Perhaps I've chosen the wrong brush or confounded the colours? :)

      Subject: [topdocumentaryfilms] Re: D.M. Bennett: The Truth Seeker

  32. Is there a number out there (achems, I see you got the actuary numbers going) that describes the percentage of what we know now about the universe? 1%, 20%, etc

    1. we know 100% of what we more

    2. @Az
      So since we use only 10% of our

    3. that statement was denied as true....check it out online.

    4. Where do you get this idea that we use only 10% of our brain. Brain scans have shown this to be an old wives' tale.

    5. You know where he got it, and i guess you know where you lost it.

    6. I know, it was a joke. Don't take everything so literally. I googled that number for my

    7. My mother was fond of saying as she got older, that she "knew less and less, but at least it was less and less about more and more."

    8. No numbers that I know of, that is like saying "what is north of the north pole" (Stephen Hawking)

  33. @Az.. I always like what you have to say. You are both intelligent and wise enough to admit that there is an unfathomable existence. Its extremely difficult to articulate something that you believe in ,when what you believe taps into a realm we can not yet define, yet know its there.

    1. Please, no excuses. Say you don't understand and leave it at that.

    2. Put a cork in it

    3. If there was a score for unpleasantess, you would proudly win. Not because you are the most unpleasant but because you are the most constant with it.

    4. I take that as a compliment.

    5. Az, you made me laugh out loud, funner than hell. lol

    6. he11??? que es?
      I was right on with proudly.

    7. check again.

  34. I suspect Vic is going through a deep realization and he doesn't have the words to describe the vision in the right terms. It looks to me like a big caldron on a hot burner, but things are just heating up. He has mixed in science, religion, new age spirituality and a bit of unknown. It is spiced up with bits of his past, bits of his present and quite a bit of hopus pocus focus for a rightly guessed future( as he hopes).
    This world is very mysterious, as far as we can read back people have thought they had the words to describe the unfathomable, and then we switched to math to say what can't be said in easy terms. Most people on earth have no clue what the science jargon means, how you gonna convince them, educate them, involve them and pull them away from religion who's words are so down to earth (from the sky).
    So my impression is that his words don't do justice to his thoughts and they never will.
    I advocate to remain a mystery because i have noticed that MY truth works only for me, i can scatter bits and pieces here and there, the simpler the better because simplicity can contain a lot of complexity, rarely the other way around, especially from someone who is not math bilangual.
    As for Miss Gaga, last year she came in an egg, this year her face is wrapped in some kind of barbed wire. The girl knows how to sell herself, a good skill in her busy nest.

    1. Az...Yes, the world is mysterious, the universe/cosmos is mysterious, time/ spacetime is mysterious. Consciousness is mysterious, life itself is mysterious. Einstein quote "what I cannot understand is how we can understand at all"

      But the most strangest and mysterious of all is quantum mechanics/physics, basically chaos, but static, which means everything that could happen in this reality/universe and all the 10^500 other reality/universe, multiverse already happened, there is no past present and future.

      "But" nothing until someone looks, collapses the waveform and then the waves of probability settle down from their quantum jitters and form the reality that we seemingly miraculous envision as our fleeting "now's" that instantly are transformed into our past, giving us the flow of time. But again it is all illusion as the physicist say. Heavy ? Yes. and I am just skirting the issue, so much more.

    2. And yet with all this mystery, with all this "heaviness", it doesnt leave any "possibility" for intelligent design?any possiblity that its possible for a God cloaked in human skin to walk on water, turn water into wine, heal the sick?

    3. There is nothing intelligent about it, at 10^43 sec. it all came from inflation, and then plasma, cooling off period, gravity forming suns, galaxies, planets, and then forming all that lives, sentient beings formed from star stuff and by trial and error after billions/millions of years formed us homo-sapiens by evolution.
      We have adapted to the earth as it is, not the other way around.

    4. hmmm... And the world is flat. When I put a ball on the floor it doesn't roll anywhere.

    5. Well, there you go, nothing to say, can't refute so as most religee's you resort to ad hominem attacks, funny religee's. lol

    6. You dont understand what Im getting at? What you tell me today about existence will be trumped again and again. By what? Science? You think we have reached the pinacle of truth by science? You just mentioned all the heaviness, with quantum physics, consciousness, multiverse, the collapse of waves and probability.

      Just answer me this. Pretend there is no church, no dogmas, no witch hunts..and tell me, based on all this heaviness we do not know about, is intelligent design possible? or is it possible a man named Jesus Christ was able to manifest reality to his liking and walked on water.

    7. A ploy most religious use!

      Actually the onus is on you to prove your allegations, not on me at all, so give us the proof, besides any circular logic, am waiting!!

    8. I do think humans are able to manifest reality to their liking, as long as their intent is not to change someone else's actuality but to change their own personal one. But that may not answer your question.

    9. I believe this too. And the braver sciences and trying to prove this. So if this is in fact possible, could it not be possible that one named Jesus was able to do this 2000 years ago? Im really not trying to be religious when I say this, Im just trying use probabilities here.

    10. The way i see it, is that if it didn't happen yet there is no reason why it could not happen one day.
      I think the world is pregnant of God....whatever that turns out to be when it pops out at last. All the talking about god for eons is just the gestation of IT.
      take that as an opinion, not as your truth or his or hers or who ever

    11. @Az..
      See you get it. Why doesnt anyone else?

    12. But again what i get is not what you get. To me i am part of God in the making, not the result of GOD.

    13. ahhh... well please remember me in your kingdom, I tried really hard to be polite. Though it was hard

    14. The only reason you have the need to be polite is because you hold on to the definition of the word god that was crammed into your head since birth. The old paradigm is bound to be squashed by new "overstanding". The atheists can keep hoping that the word God will suddenly disappear but i rather think it will be reinvented. The new doc Trum...shows something very important on 1.2 Evolution of everything at 1.5 minute...

    15. Interesting concept: god as a gentleman.

      Would you like to be my guest at my special dinner which I told you about a few posts back?

    16. I did notice the description of your assembly...and yet still have to answer on are adding me now? about i come as a cook with a few tricks in my basket? Mushrooms anyone?

    17. Fine with me. You can help out Al Fish.

    18. Englishmen, to the manor born, would agree with you, old chap.

    19. I think politeness is a universal quality that is in sync with the natural flow of the cosmos. At least it is for those at the more advanced stage of evolution.

      I guess it isn't polite for a lion to devour the gazelle for lunch, but he does need to survive. But whats the point in not being polite here?

    20. Have i misunderstood your post in reply to my post?: "ahhh... well please remember me in your kingdom, I tried really hard to be polite. Though it was hard"

    21. Howdyagetto besosmart, Az?

    22. There are some fine books written for the layman on the history of the New Testament. I suggest that you read one or two and then ask your question?

    23. No, but your statements are?

      Achems_Razor is trying his best to enlighten you, but instead you cling to your creationist idiocy.

    24. There's a possibility for anything, including tooth fairies, toothy fairies and daily instead of monthly periods. So your question is nugatory.

      Now, how about some hard, direct evidence?

    25. Nugatory? lol

      Look there are only two toothfairies, spaghetti monsters.
      Its either accident or design.

      And lets say for the sake of the arguement evolution does exist as taught. So yes answer the question leaving evolution in place as you believe in it.

    26. Evolution deals with the mechanisms of life, not its origins (abiogenesis). Why can't you appreciate existence without weighing it down with a so-called creator? Why can't you learn about the world around you without seeking some overweaning design. All of this is irrelevant and childish.

    27. I don't disagree with you on this, I really don't. I hunger for all knowledge. I understand everything you guys are saying, I went to school till I was 28 with a taking of ton of chemistry and biology so I believe in everything you guys say.

      But why can't one try to Also appreciate and understand what there are no facts too.(yet)
      I mean is there truth to God, prayer, Buddhism, law of attraction, etc etc.

      Just because it seems primitive doesn't mean its not real. Couldn't 'faith' be a real power, a real energy? Just as real as anything else?

    28. Please don't try to justify the unjustifiable by bringing it to the level of a philosophical argument. If the evidence is not there, forget it!

      As for faith being a power, it's a man-made power based on fraud and nothing.

    29. Ok, how about a thought attached with emotion. Do you think it might have power to manifest reality around it? I know there are small scale experiments to demonstrate this.

      And when I say reality I mean real physical reality.

    30. Would you mind letting me in to what you are talking about? Emotion with the power to manifest reality around it?

    31. @robertallen1:

      @Brandon Costa:...might be talking about "the secret" is or was on TDF where as in quantum M, entanglement of thought envisioned and portrayed with emotion may entangle matter, forms positive future reality, of course only if a person thinks positively, negative thoughts will give negative-bad reality.

      Not saying that it works, but might lead a person in the right direction, as I said in quantum/M concerning probabilities anything seems possible.

      I should of added, in our reality, you can only go so far as in the laws of physics, no walking on water gunk and stuff. Only sunbeams walk/dance on the water, that is why in pictures the big JC has sun rays around his head. He is the "son" SUN of the religee's god. Nothing but SUN worship!

    32. Thank you.

      I can't remember if I asked youif you have read "The Creationists" by Ronald Number and if so, what are your thoughts?

    33. Have not read the creationists, but will check my library.

    34. Good idea. The book's well worth reading, as it shows how creationism evolved from Darwin's era to modern times (1990's).

    35. You have to realize that with the advent of our technologically advanced telescopes, man, seeing things he could never have imagined, created a whole new ‘religion’ around the phenomenon. The Discipline of Science turned into the religion of science almost overnight (figuratively speaking). Man’s intellect was so overloaded by what was seen, that often speculative ‘theories’ arose out of a single observation in an attempt to reconcile the chasm between what was known and what was observed; bad Science by anybody’s’ standards. These hastily ‘thrown together’ theories relied on the faith that science would be able to fill in the gaps, but when that didn’t happen and other scientists started to question their validity, disgruntled supporters started to abandon them in favor the next generation of ‘theory’, sadly, often thrown together in the same hasty manner. This process is very similar to someone going from Catholic to Lutheran to Jehovah’s Witness or Ralean in a feeble attempt to find the “TRUTH”. Eventually, I hope, we will demand real evidence to support these theories, that take into account accepted laws of physics (as Einstein did with Newtonian Laws) and once again take us out of the realm of religion and back into Science. This process defines us as a species; we crave distinction of thought; sometimes even defying logic.

    36. And that's the beauty of science, the ability to change with more acquired knowledge and through this device, enabling it to move further and further away from the realm of religion.

    37. Absolutely!!

    38. But as far we know, it may be a loop that is taking us further and further away from religion to get back to the dot where spirituality started in the first place.
      Alpha meeting Omega by way of Pi.

    39. I agree, BUT I still believe there has to be something left in the sense of one's connection to what isnt known. It's like an asking of the Universe for something. A faith bridge for help, peace, prosperity.

      As fleshly mortals this knowledge gap will ALWAYS exist.I do not think there is a problem with exploring and learning everything there is to learn. I can't stand the church's attempts to block science, including evolution, embryonic research, etc, etc. They have everything all wrong in my opinion of what God or the universe wants out of them.

      But I know, religion is a dirty word. It conjours up images of war, violence, grave atrocities.. But is it the only ideology guilty of this? Did not an Athiest Soviet Union commit these same attrocities? Could it be that any ideology is capable of such things? Could science not turn humanity on its backside and do the same thing religion did? I get bashed on the website all day for even thinking about the possiblity a God. One day maybe the believers will be persecuted. This has happened before.

    40. @Brandon Costa
      yes Stalin was atheist and his government did awful things. but these things weren't done in the name of atheism or justified by some doctrine of atheism (there are no such doctrines) . he persecuted religion to eliminate the competition , he wanted to be "god" and communism the "religion". atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods that is it. there is no books or claim or moral superiority. what was done in the Soviet Union good or bad was not done in the name of atheism. but i can show many cases of bad things done in the name of religion (right or wrong) . atheism claims no moral high ground , rules to live by or has books that try to justify awful actions so when an atheist does bad things it is not and can not be justified by atheism. religion is another story

    41. True, but it was his ideology that killed people. Atheism is another ideology that 'could' be capable of killing, IF its members become fanatic, turn the ideas around to their liking or for the liking of the state. Perhaps the ideology in itself isnt harmful. Is the idea of God harmful? We shun religion under a monothiestic God or any other God for that matter because of the wars it has started or the individual harm it has caused to homosexuals, etc, but in truth the real intention was lost because of fanatisism.

    42. We don't need the synthetic concept of a "supreme being" to keep us on the straight and narrow or give us a sense of direction or purpose.

    43. @Brandon Costa
      before we continue could you please explain what you mean by "Atheism is another ideology " . it is my opinion that we have different definitions of what an atheist is and it is important that we are on the same page in order to have an intelligent discussion. my definition of atheism is "lack of belief in a god or gods" what is yours?
      to close i will paraphrase a quote i heard (cannot remember source)
      Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches and did bad things therefore can we conclude that mustaches cause bad behavior?

    44. I had thought of not using the word ideology, but let me use another word in contrast to Atheism...Theism. One is the absence of belief that any deities exist and the other the belief that at least on diety exists. So I guess if Atheism isnt an ideology neither is Theism. Yet, you are saying the fruits of Theism has led to great human suffering but not the fruits of Atheism? Perhaps the fruits of Atheism are not ripe yet. The majority of the world still believes in God.

    45. @Brandon Costa
      so your problem with atheists is. we might organize and do something bad in the future? that reasoning can be used to attack anything/anyone. rallying atheists would be harder than you think. our lack of belief is our only common link. i don't believe Elvis is still alive and would bet we are in the majority but i would not support someone who holds that belief as well killing those who do. that is morally wrong and there is nothing in atheism that can justify me doing what i know (or should know) is wrong.

    46. If the fruits of atheism are not yet ripe, the fruits of theism are.

    47. Yeah, they scratched all the women they kissed with their moustaches.

    48. Are you asserting that his atheism killed so many people?

    49. Im saying people kill people. Believers and non believers. And do I think atheism could be raised to the level of ideology that could become the new rock for attrocities? You bet I do. And its not because I think athiests advocate violence, I don't, but its a rally point for collective thought that 'could' be misused.

      In the name of God, has been abused by fanatics, but that shouldn't be the way it is. But I don't think believers should be ostracized either. I have not seen strong enough science that one could easily extrapolate to pure chance.

    50. Anything can be abused or misused. It's just that a disquieting amount of it has been caused by religion.

      Now, what are you proposing?

    51. By all means money has done much more damage, worse is the love of money than any religion but the social mind is soo washed that it would first defend money and place it above anything else thats more sick than believing in a god. The fasle belief system in money and in a (so called) truthful society is far more sickening than beleiveing in a creator because lets face it money is the physical god of this planet yet it has little to no blame. Money is the root of all evil so much that I would say its the most damaging religion. But it is this way and it is mean't to be this way for only having escaping the evil desires of the world can you begin to understand how arrogant man is with all his pride and so called intelligence.

    52. I like the stuff myself and it sure beats religion--at least it gets you something.

      P.S. The quote is "Love of money is the root of all evil." 1 Timothy 6:10.

    53. I've always had plenty of money, and it gets you plenty of nothing. This is all over the bible too. Ecclesiastes is a great read in the bible regarding this. And Jesus said easier for camel to get through eye of needle than rich man to get into heaven.

      Money is our idol and the reason in my opinion the world is in the shape its in.

    54. To hell with what the bible says. If you don't want your money, I'll take it.

    55. If you think about money enough you'll have it. Its magical like that.

    56. Which planet are you on?

    57. You're right. I can't find anything in history demonstrating an atrocity committed in the name of atheism--that is the difference.

      Modern day atheism, as epitomized by Richard Dawkins and the like, doesn't demand blind faith (quite the opposite), doesn't ostracize for not believing in fairy tales or in a certain book (quite the opposite), doesn't incite people to do horrible things (again quite the opposite) and doesn't try to impose an pervasive pseudomorality and belief system on the world at large (it doesn't even have a belief system), only to seek out knowledge and to reason. It is therefore superior to anything devised by theism.

    58. @robertallen1
      But hey, you have to remember that you live in a country that is way down the list in literacy/general knowledge. Most of your cities are now only catering for the wealthy and there is no health care for the working class to speak of. Your prisons are overflowing and the masses are dosed with prescription and non prescription drugs (how can they afford it?).
      So it's only natural that your country is the home to religious sects of all description.
      They spring up, usually, as a result of the search for power from one individual.
      A population that can't do anything about it's 'leaders' committing criminal acts against other nations certainly won't be able to keep religious zealots out of the classroom.
      The more people gabble on about it, the more the everyday person feels they have to make a choice.
      Like climate change, it's all just another red herring. Wake up and look at what's really going on. No one with an ounce of wisdom worries about who believes in the tooth fairy.

    59. I agree with you that there is something more to it, and this is what is trying to be conveyed in their cultural myths and rituals.

      What is it that seems to automatically draw cultures into a supernatural mindset and create rituals when confronted by the incomprehensible? This phenomenon is worldwide; and crosses the centuries even into modern times. Let’s revisit the cargo cults: These people saw with their own eyes, flesh and blood humans operating the airplanes and building the landing strips, yet they still create rituals and built quite elaborate likenesses, not of the men giving them the goods, but of the technology carrying them.

      Obviously they were capable of distinguishing man from technology: But what is it that seems inherent in them to think that if they imitate the technology, they will get the goods? It could be that they are used to rhythmic (seasonal) offerings from nature and they are trying to imitate the conditions not the technology. Like I said earlier, it seems to be a necessary part of the learning process man goes through to get understanding.

    60. Perfect exemple where complexity can contain simple one has to shut down everything to feel it for a split nanosecond.
      no before no after nowhere to go just persistence to be

  35. meh.. it was worth a shot not gonna try to communicate it if you got it good if you didnt good.. i understand the crowd in here now.. thats all

    1. I did not get it, nothing that you gave was concise enough for that, all I gathered from your posts was that maybe there is some kind of a higher power that made everything? My take, maybe it is just us, (the higher power) that are collapsing the waveform, as in, is the Moon still there if nobody is not looking, it is all still there but in no recognizable form until we look, seems that is one of the things that quantum mechanics is about, double slit experiment, schrodinger's cat, et al. Who really knows?

    2. Such a smart guy like you...dreaming about Lady Gaga, i am watching the Grammys,you should see her...certainly not dressed to be able to please a man...lolol
      Good writing here, simple, no jargon...shot right from the self.

    3. Az...Here we go off topic again. Lady Gaga? absolutely! can't help it if I have a high libido. She does not have to be dressed to please a man, have seen her undressed, lol

      Now if you want to keep this on topic and talk science and stuff, then give us your viewpoint on what @vic: was talking about, would be interested on your take on this. I really have no clue to what @vic was alluding too.

  36. @Vlatko

    Great comments from so many interesting persons! Very entertaining AND informative!

    In Melvilles' biography he expressed amazement at " man's willingness to believe". Mencken put it another way; remarking [paraphrased] that no amount of evidence can be produced which would dissuade the true 'believer'.

    There might be something inherently fixed [at an early age] in the psyche of those who willingly choose to ignore facts which demolish their 'beliefs'?

    If this is not an acceptable explanation then we must turn to Agnes Repplier who noted; "it is not depravity which afflicts the human race so much as a general lack of intelligence".

    I favour Agnes' explanation; convinced by the evidence which I've gathered over three quarters of a century, that at least 95% of the human race is intellectually dead.

    To all the 'mensches' here....I am sincerely:

    1. And our society keeps encouraging. In this so-called information age, people are more ignorant than ever before. and it's not because of an all-powerful church keeping learning under wraps.

      It's nice that you cite Mencken, a man with no formal college education, who rose to become one of the intellectual lodestars of his time, but your references to both Mencken and Agnes Repplier make me wonder first of all, if you're an easterner and secondly what your profession is or was. I hope you don't regard this as prying, but I am curious.

    2. 'Prying' wouldn't bother me much Robert. :-) "Easterner"? As in a geographical/cultural sense? My early beginnings were unstable, with no deep cultural roots, [PA., NYC., & L.V.] , much travel leading to a liberal, eclectic turn of mind, autodactism, and a lifetime of fruitless, escapist experimentation. And btw, none of which has increased my happiness or sense of well being. Does it show? 'Occupation'? Ne'er do well businessman, prof. gambler, and so on. The 'so on' must stand as the tragic unspoken milestone of unthinking obedience which upset so many naive notions of human intelligence and decency. The prevailing mentality of a guard at Treblinka or Guantanamo will be a useful guide. And Robert? Regards, Hank "Most of the things people worry about will never happen."

      Subject: [topdocumentaryfilms] Re: D.M. Bennett: The Truth Seeker

    3. But I gather from this and your previous post that you've made learning an art form and that this alone has increased your happiness and sense of well-being which makes you all right in my book.

      P.S. If I did not mention it before, your references to Agnes Repplier in tandem with H.L. Mencken pegged you as an easterner.

    4. Thanks for the kindness Robert. It's probably no exaggertion that 'knowledge gives one power but rarely makes us happy' Schopenhauer so tersely stated; 'he who increases knowledge multiplies sorrow'. I've had an exciting and often adventurous life, but in every respect any sense of fulfillment has eluded me. I might have achieved some personal satisfaction, or have found a degree of contentment in academia, or as a scientist-but who knows? 'Credentials' might have made a difference but above all things, no one can transcend the limitations imposed by their disposition. I opened many promising doors, only to have them close in my face. As I write this I think of the unrecognized autodidact-genius Jaques Fresco, [THE VENUS PROJECT]. By no stretch can I compare myself to him, but his innovative brilliance seems always to have been overshadowed by his 'lack of credentials', as he often laments. Now......tell me a little about Robert. I automatically assume everyone is younger than my seventy-five yrs. Would that be true in your case? Apart from your interesting Disqus contributions-what does Robert do to make the world a little brighter?
      "Most of the things people worry about will never happen."
      Subject: [topdocumentaryfilms] Re: D.M. Bennett: The Truth Seeker

    5. There's the sorrow which comes from increasing knowledge and the joy of having done so. It's a vicious cycle.

      For most people a sense of fulfillment is simple and three-pronged: a spouse, some offspring and a source of income. But it's those few dissatisfied ones who've contributed to the world at large and are remembered for it. Somehow this brings to mind the etymology of the word sad, from the Latin "satis (as in dissatisfied)," enough. Originally the sad man was the man who had everything he wanted and then the word later took on the meaning it has today of sorrow or lack of fulfillment from not being able to want any more.

      So much for the homiletic and on to me. I am ten years younger than you and at this phase of my life, I realize that I have done nothing to make the world a little brighter, certainly through lack of opportunity and possibly through temperament. Although I hold two degrees (for whatever they are worth), I am basically an autodidact like yourself (but we're in good company for so were H.L. Mencken and Edward Jenner). While my background is in the liberal arts, I have decided in my twilight years to make up for the gaps in my scientific knowledge, at least to the extent I can). This is really all i can offer generally; however, I'm willing to respond to any specific questions.

      According to Cicero (I can't remember which work), there's a lot to be said for a quiet life of study.

    6. Impressive eloquence Robert. The etymological lesson was much appreciated. We do seem to be 'fellow travelers'?

      Subject: [topdocumentaryfilms] Re: D.M. Bennett: The Truth Seeker

    7. I reside in Los Angeles. Which area of the world do you live in?

    8. I'm in Las Vegas. If you should come this way, or when you feel like chatting...[censored]. AT&T.

      Subject: [topdocumentaryfilms] Re: D.M. Bennett: The Truth Seeker

    9. i censored your phone number. im not sure if you are aware that you posted it publicly. just seemed like a bad idea.

    10. @UnderSiege,

      I agree completely. I don't know how many times I quoted Carl Sagan but I have to do it again:

      "We have arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces."

    11. I'm inclined to agree with Sagan's quote...but...who constitutes 'we'? It must be those with power to influence change, yes? Unfortunately, our frantic world of acquisitors seems sorely lacking in those marvelous 'philosopher kings' , like Frederick or Catherine the Great. UnderSiege
      "Most of the things people worry about will never happen."

      Subject: [topdocumentaryfilms] Re: D.M. Bennett: The Truth Seeker

  37. @Azilda

    After careful l consideration, I offer the following the list of those I would like to invite to my small but special dinner and the reasons for the invitation, if not self-evident.
    1. The Reverend Michael Wigglesworth. In his youth, Dr. Wigglesworth’s belief that being a man rendered him unworthy to believe in a god triggered off a sense of damnation re-enforced when he experienced his first wet dream. This inspired him to write the apocalyptic corker “Day of Doom.” His eventual belief that he could do anything on god’s green earth except preach renders him the perfect spiritual representative.
    2. Julia Moore, the “Sweet Singer of Michigan,” who penned the immortal line, “Literary is a work very difficult to do.” When her infirm husband threatened to divorce her if she penned another poem, she gave in to his wishes, eagerly awaiting his death and after the funeral, made up for lost time to the delight of a belly-laughing public. Thus, she was to poetry what Florence Foster Jenkins was to music and will provide a fine example to the guests of what a woman with no real talent can accomplish.
    3. Alfred Henry Lawson , founder of the School of Lawsonomy. In a prolific output spanning at least twenty years, Mr. Lawson managed to reduce the whole of existence, both terrestrial and otherwise, to two things, suction and pressure, sex included. His expostulations in the name of science will serve to balance those of Reverend Wigglesworth in the name of spirituality.
    4. Silius Italicus, whose epic about the Punic Wars, “The Puniad,” stands out as the longest epic we have from classical Rome--and the worst. Through the perversity of history, we have all of it and in quite a number of manuscripts at that. With a little nudging perhaps, the other guests can dissuade him from reading from his work.
    5. John R. Brinkley, the goat gland doctor—no need to explain what they were used for and or comment on their efficacy. But this and other medical shenanigans made him a considerably wealthy man as well as the quack’s quack. We really should have a doctor in the house.
    6. Al Fish, the “Manhattan cannibal,” the oldest man executed in the state of New York—and all for his love of children—with turnips and carrots.
    7. Bernie Madoff, if only to give the attendees the investment advice that they don’t need.
    8. Anthony Comstock, to prove moral guidance that no one wants.

    The names of the last two guests escape me (but these people definitely existed), so I shall merely provide descriptions.
    9. The man who wrote an entire novel without punctuation. When his public complained, he inserted the punctuation in a glossary in the back. We need him to represent creativity.
    10. This man whose last name I believe was the same as my own merits a place as history’s vainest actor. If the audience applauded after one of his death scenes, he would get up and do it again.

    Wouldn't it be nice to have the place mats designed by Madame La Farge?

    1. 9. Timothy Dexter
      At the age of 50 he wrote A Pickle for the Knowing Ones or Plain Truth in a Homespun Dress. The book contained 8,847 words and 33,864 letters, but no punctuation, and capital letters were seemingly random. At first he handed his book out for free, but it became popular and was re-printed in eight editions. In the second edition Dexter added an extra page which consisted of 13 lines of punctuation marks. Dexter instructed readers to "peper and solt it as they plese".Dexter announced his death and urged people to prepare for his burial. About 3,000 people attended Dexter's mock wake. The crowd was disappointed when they heard a still-living Dexter screaming at his wife that she was not grieving enough.
      Still looking for #10 but my guess is that it is actually your self.

    2. 1. Right.

      2. Clue: No.

    3. 10. Woody Allen once said :"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it by not dying."
      Good enough no? Plus you also need an actor/movie maker if you want this diner to ever make it on TDF....and he's an Allen.

    4. No, not good enough. The person I was referring to lived back in the 19th century. I wish I could remember his name, for I like him a hell of a lot more than Woody Allen.

    5. Early Woody Allen from 'Love and Death':
      "I don't believe in an afterlife but I'm taking a change of underwear just in case."

    6. Think I might skip the meal in favour of a few laps on
      Man o War. The air is crisp and the going is good, nothing like a frosty gallop :)

  38. @Vlatko

    You see my post on Roku and media devices below? Its a good idea, Im telling ya. Not sure if it would cost you though.

    1. @Brandon Costa,

      Sorry for not responding quickly to that. Lot of people are asking the exact same question, but I'm afraid that is not possible.

    2. @Vlatko
      Thats cool. I have no clue what goes into putting something into one of these media players but there are several apps on them that are awful in my opinion. Would be nice to see an 'all documentary' app included.

  39. Ok, clearly it is in my best interest to just search by oldest comment first, since there were some relevant comments in the beginning. Good to know for future reference...

    1. Too true dear Ms. Penny. One need not read them all because they do degenerate when they "go viral". But, whata ya gonna do? People love to talk, argue, question, speculate, and bulls hit. Sometime tiresome/troubling. Sometime entertaining/enlightening.

  40. My goodness I tried to figure out if the doc was worth watching by reading the comments - clearly a mistake. Topdoc comments have taken a turn for the bizarre since he added this login feature...

    1. The only way to find out if a documentary is worth watching (or a book worth reading) is to watch it yourself.

    2. lol penny, you need to always check the first few comments. they will be the most helpful.

      i agree conversation gets crazy here, but you have to forgive people. intelligent people like to are more than welcome to join in at any time!

  41. Parden me a sec for a momentary derail.. Does anyone here have a Roku player, or similiar media player..Sony,Apple Tv, Boxee,etc?

    To Admin..
    The reason I ask is I think I speak for many that topdoc is the best all around site for watching documentaries and would love to see an application made for media players like ROKU. Through such boxes you can watch Netflix, Amazon video, Hulu etc. It would be great to see TopDocumentaries on TV through one of these boxes. I prefer Roku because of its simplicity and relatively cheap cost. The only significant show with educational material (that Ive found) on Roku is TED, which is fine but doesnt provide a large content of varied documentary material.

  42. eh, we agree to disagree .. no big deal.. it was cool seeing everyones thought process regardless .. see ya at another good doc worth discussing...

  43. @Epicurus

    You haven't answered my question. How are the end points of a ring species determined?

  44. It's interesting how history repeats itself in new and varied ways. Each time society moves forward just a little. Each time martyers and fools act their roles. Each time, the people have forgotten their past.

    1. Again, the quote from George Santayana, "he who is ignorant of history . . . "

  45. I do believe everyone need and do get educated, for some the education comes from places other than universities. The earth is populated by a diversity of people with different opportunities, by people with different needs and interests, by people participating in millions of ways.
    Every human has thoughts, questions, and ideas about the physical world...some of the latest hypothesis coming out of cosmology science could have been thought by a 15 yrs old.
    Every human has secrets thoughts, unexplained experiences, moment of great existensial questions.
    We are a lot more alike than we are different, our weakness are located in different pockets, our strenght is when we get together despite our differences.

  46. This is quite amusing! If I may interject, I got the reference to female companionship. It is a euphemism for telling Robert he is too uptight and needs to get laid once in a while. ROLF

    1. At least now we now what Vic thinks with.

    2. He thinks with his mind the same way you think with yours.

    3. azilda thank you .. ive been coming to this site for over a yr now.... im very philosophical, as most musicians are but i never commented on any documentary.. ever.. for the simple fact that i KNEW once i opened my mouth/mind to most folks on here.. they'd go crazy on me. Hell i even got under vlats skin.. and for what ? The boldness to not stick to a label!
      In studying both scientific theory and biblical lore (i also have done some studyin of other faiths besides my own.. islam and hinduism) I find that the current paradigm which suggest that one hold one theory or another only serves to divide and so perfectly analytical minds of awesome logic..become petty minds of divisive thought when confronted with something that does not completely affirm what they had already believed. In that sense how are they not like the bible thumpers they so despise?
      What one can learn from our little quarrel is how proud science is, and you can now put urself if columbus' shoes of tryin to explain a round earth to those who would tell us that there was an edge of the earth , and anything else was insanity.
      These labels allow ppl to prescribe to prejudices, and sadly that what ppl prefer(even the smart ones) because someone has to be more right than the other. As you can see i only mentioned a creator in small ways... i only alluded to him simply to give a view of what i believe.. not to impose it on anyone. I never even called it "god"....
      but what was alarming to me.. was the utter hatred for the mere concept of a god.
      This is something i dont think is occurring independently this is something that was predetermined and is only now baring the fruit of a seed that was planted hundreds of yrs ago.. read manly p hall or alliester crowley or albert pike... or marilyn mansons book.. its all influenced by the "age of reasoning"..aka the "age of horus" aka the luciferian age. If the over reliance on logic was good for us.. then why is it advised as a way to live in the satanic bible? In that book you are taught that you can be free "do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" and that the biggest sin is to be ignorant... sounds great doesnt it ?The goal however is to get you to discredit faith or living within means and considering your fellow man. It is intrinsic to faith to believe without needing to see because in life you will not always see what benefits you..and who would want to care for someone who only likes you bcuz you benefit them? What if it doesnt benefit you.. do you still care? I know you dont have to agree.. im just explainin the fundamental approaches of the two frames of thought. Remember reliance on logic is cool to me... over reliance gives man too much credit.. especially when most of the knowledge he attained can be listed as "theory" .
      Its like the great bill cooper once said, it doesnt matter if YOU believe in it or not... there are some very evil ppl who do. They act as if they are liberating us when in fact it is they who seek to see us in bondage. I made the point (which ppl ignored) that BOTH science and religion are being affected by this (religion with false teachings.. missing texts. fakers placed in positions of power only to abuse it .. and science with edited info. technologies they withhold that would help the world one million times over) and it serves one purpose.. to keep us from unifying and in a perpetual state of strife.
      But why? This is the area where sciences over reliance on logic fails more than religion.. bcuz if you place it in a religious context you can quickly understand why...there are destructive forces who would rather see us undone. .. but science would say "well everyone has there own way can we make a right or wrong" and thats where i use the term ive coined "hyper logic" where everything has its scientific reasoning.. there is nothing we cant explain. . but that doesnt even hold weight as it pertains to science..wheres the missing link? lol.. we cant explain that.. does it make us poo poo evolution or do we still give it its just due for the things it gets right ?
      There is plenty of evidence supporting what i am saying.. but if you rather not look it up simply to keep to whatever you believe.. you are no better than the zealots who condemn scientific thinking.. and you are a traitor to logic. The human experience is made of equal parts faith and logic... tipping the scale too much one way can make you ignorant to the beneficial aspects of the other.

    4. Your ending gets a thumbs up from "moi".
      "The human experience is made of equal parts faith and logic... tipping the scale too much one way can make you ignorant to the beneficial aspects of the other."

    5. In other words, you give weight to something based on nothing. That doesn't say much for you.

    6. Faith is a word and it means something different for every one of us. I follow no preset meanings and i don't identify to any religions.
      Faith is believing i am who i feel i am.
      No one can agree with that or disagree because it only means something to me.
      Nebulous! it ought to be for others.

    7. @vic:

      "but what was alarming to me...was the utter hatred for the mere concept of a god."

      No, that is not true, I for one do not hate something that is not real, why should I hate any invisible gods, maybe your god? You have no pipeline to gods of any kind.

      Your wall of text and convoluted paragraphs means that you are just trying to mix people up, all that I got from your excessive rant was you are a proponent of at least ID. plain and simple. The rest of your linguistic insouciance is meaningless.

    8. Insouciance--a word I would have used.

      He's no better than than the religious zealtory he pretends to decry. He's ignorant, so everyone else must be ignorant. He's mixed up so everybody else must be mixed up.

    9. again.. why are you not elaborating on the factual things i present and not just the faith thing ( oh he believes there is a god so hes an ***** cannot be all you defend urself with thats just lazy)

    10. uh ok dude.. i get it .. the only thing you wanna prove is that theres no proof of god.. all the books/ppl i mentioned were just there to confuse you .. not to make you wonder... wtf was i thinking ? nothing was convoluted you just rather not address facts... beside the one where you state there is no god.. which is all you guys are focused on just like the thumpers.. if i tell them about a particular theory .. they go into a fit about how can i believe ___ . instead of going to see for themselves.. and like i keep sayin thats the enemy of logic.. did i point you to a bible verse ? no.. i gave you real ppl and facts you tell me bring you some tangible proof of god.. what a copout

    11. Quotes are no evidence of a supreme being.

      You write like a longshoreman or an ignorant hick.

    12. Vic, I couldn't care less about proving there is no god, the religee's are the ones always spouting off about their god's, devils and demons, the ball lays in their court to prove their allegations, not some hearsay evidence or mass beliefs propagated by the fear/religions to keep the masses in check.

      "Real people and (FACTS")??? Where? Their is no "particular theory" about religion, it is mass hallucination, hallucinating invisible gods, of which there are approx. 28,000,000 in recorded history.

      And again you seem like an ID proponent trying to sneak into the back door, of which we had many on TDF we are wise to you.

    13. Don't you wish he were wise to himself?

    14. man .... even documentary watchers respond with clickish behavior when confronted with views that are not their own.. this is fascinating!
      Without taking slights on your reading comprehension (which both you and robert can be pecked to death about since you keep goin to the same points and i did not ONE TIME try to force god or prove god to any of you "bedroom geniuses ") i simply said go look up the facts that pertain to religion being discredited by scientific means, and how that is not a natural progression but a predetermined one.. that is ages old... the reason why you dont go there is because it will force you to look at things you set in stone... the word "religees" <<(bigot terminology) as i alluded to earlier when i sed "These labels allow ppl to prescribe to prejudices, and sadly that what ppl prefer(even the smart ones) because someone has to be more right than the other.
      You see guys... i soak things in.. even if i dont agree i listen because no one knows everything. i would never say some of the stuff you guys say.. because i have respect for the beliefs of others. I simply show you that not all of your thoughts are your own.. you think .. how THEY want you to.. thats not freedom.. only the illusion of it.
      Go look up some of the things i brought up.. THEN come back to me and tell me how its all hogwash.. till then you spout off at the mouth just as self righteously as the "religees" do

    15. "Religion being discredited by scientific means." Religion being discredited as unscientific and hence not science is more like it. Religion trying to discredit science is even nearer the mark and religion sticking its nose into what is none of its business and where it has no place is right on point--and this makes mincemeat of your assertion a few days ago of the oneness of both of them.

      You are so obsessed with self-justification that your comprehension (especially your reading comprehension) and analytical ability suffer as a result of it.

      P.S. I like the term "religee" because it is accurately pejorative (and bigoted if you prefer.)

    16. @vic: You know, you do not get to the point at all, what is your point besides ad hominem? You say you are not forcing god on us, then why even talk about your god? Not interested in any gods, unless you can prove their existence. "Religion been discredited by scientific means"?? Don't know what you are talking about and I am not looking up anything, you look it up then tell us, the onus is on you. Give us your sources!

    17. dude im a freakin musician/writer/ dad... all that other stuff ur tryin to label me with is sooooooooooooo not the case...

    18. Vic, you are obviously a thoughtful man but some of your conclusions appear to be based on questionable information. You have read many books, but when you talk about science it seems you have not read the relevant texts. The satanic bible? come on now that's got to be a comedy - and if it says ignorance is a sin then it's got at least one good thing going for it.

      I'm not sure I understand your philosophical questions about faith and caring, so I'm guessing (please correct me if this is not what you meant) but you seem to be implying that without faith, there would be no reason to care. Well sir, I have no faith in unknowable things, and by your implication you describe me as amoral by default. Now I would write a retort to this as it is certainly offensive, but I have no wish to bait you and perhaps it is not what you meant. My only intent to engage in discussions like this is to encourage people to think critically, and culture a rational level of doubt in all things, especially the words of men. I sincerely hope you have doubt about everything I am going to tell you, otherwise you would have no impetus to research the ideas for yourself. That is my problem with 'faith' as you use the word, as in belief in unknowable things. My doubt for such things is absolute until you can demonstrate to me the reality of them.

      Next, you say that much of what science knows is 'theory', well you are partially correct. In actual fact ALL of what science knows is theory, but you misunderstand. You use the word theory in the vernacular, in scientific terms you mean unvalidated hypothesis. In this sense, all religious ideas about gods, afterlives or supernatural forces are unvalidated hypotheses. The scientific definition of theory is distinctly different however. For an hypothesis to become a theory, it must first be validated (or invalidated) by experimental results. Knowing something is false is essentially the same as knowing something is true - the results are the initial 'answer' if you will. The experiment must be repeated a number of times to eliminate flukes and unintended variables in the starting conditions. Once this is done the entire process including the hypothesis, results, and the exact methodology of the experiment must be documented so it can be cross examined for flaws in methodology and repeated by independent groups of scientists. Once this is done all the results can be grouped together and if the trends validate the original hypothesis it can be published as a theory. If the trends invalidate the hypothesis, it simply remains a false hypothesis. This system is permanently open to further testing that may (in)validate the initial conclusion. Put simply;

      A fact is an idealisation, a 101% level of certainty that is unattainable in reality. A scientific theory is as close to fact as is possible regarding ALL current knowledge and understanding.

      You assert 'there are destructive forces who would rather see us undone' and you go on to say what you imagine science would say about that. I think it would go more like 'OK, describe these forces and where we can observe them, we'll brainstorm some hypotheses and then think of experiments to try to invalidate them.(the hypotheses that is, not the forces)' but truthfully as you are the one asserting, this burden of (dis)proof is on you, not science.

      Lastly, if you want to discuss the theory of evolution, you should read 'On the Origin of Species' by Charles Darwin followed up by 'The Ancestors Tale' by Richard Dawkins. There are indeed 'missing links' in the fossil record, and simple reasons why this is so - soft bodied invertebrates are rarely found as fossils, for obvious reasons. You will be surprised how far back from Homo Sapiens the first missing link is currently however, it is a very long time before the first primate species walked upon this earth. Don't take my word for it! read some science books if for nothing else as a thoughtful person you should find some intellectual enjoyment there. Remember also that it is science and only science that has pushed our understanding this far, and continues to do so. Faith can not help and is too often antagonistic to us in these endeavors, what we all really need is doubt.

      Sorry for the wall of text but your post was rather long and took quite some picking apart. I'm still not sure I understand a lot of it but there is my answer to what I have gleaned. I am a musician also, so I can relate to you on that point :)

      Regards, Sam

    19. There is nothing in your post that I take issue with, but one thing I would like to refine, the "missing link." There really is no such thing, at least in the pedestrian sense in which Vic, is of course, using it. If I understand correctly what Dr. Dawkins points out in "The Ancestor's Tale," despite any allegedly missing archaeological links, the genetic evidence is so strong and virtually complete, that fossils take a second place.

    20. ROFL @"VIRTUALLY COMPLETE" virtually meaning almost but not quite or enough to satisfy ones curiosity.. but again not really complete.... but we laugh at the bibles missin things and say that the gaps are proof of fantasy.. this is incredible... if you ask these "smart " ppl enough find that their just prideful humans..

    21. That's not what virtually means. It means complete enough to be considered complete. As usual, you have it wrong.

      No one with any intellectual self-respect would offer the gaps in the bible as proof of its being a fantasy and, for that matter, wouldn't even need to. Also, the bible is not what's being laughed at, it's those like you who make of it everything that it's not.

    22. Sam , my brother.. you are awesome. regardless of our view... even if we end up disagreeing bitterly i appreciate the time you took out to say all of that it was well put and intelligent and it took the time to actually try to grasp all that i have said.(which i aknowledge can be a little difficult because i attack it from many angles) oh and no need to apologize about length... it wwas a great read.
      First off, I'd never label you as amoral simply because you dont share what i think, there are plenty of folks who are religious and do not have any sense of morality and there are scientists who are great ppl and the have the kindest hearts and never stepped foot in a church.. this i know.
      The concepts you laid out are difficult for a standard "believer" to grasp but trust me i get you ... science does in fact provide more tangible proof than religion could ever do, but i never said it doesnt.
      Its simply this Sam.. just because we know water is 2 parts hydrogen and one part oxegen does that mean there was no creator? Can it simply be that we are uncovering the secrets of the greatest scientific mind ever? Is it so hard to believe in a universe of multiple dimensions?
      Now sam.. heres where i ask you to humble yourself and just hear me out ok? The satanic bible may be a joke to you (hell, its a joke to me) but these beliefs rule the world. We are taught "on rails" meaning everything is according to a plan.. this is not religious speculation.. this is fact. How so? Read behold a pale horse by william cooper.. morals and dogma by albert the teachings of h.p blavatsky and lastly look up alliester crowley. In these books you will find the root of the agnostic belief system, you will see how they always sought to make man discredit the reality of a creator and to only serve himself..i may not be able to give you tangible proof of god,but i can definitely give you evidence of his enemy. .which should then lead you to the all important question.. "well why would they go out of their way to fight against the will of something that doesnt exist?" its like the presence of vultures hovering.. yet there is no carcass?
      Such things do alot to create a gap between science and faith only so that we do not unify. Order out of chaos.. no one on the same page ...confusion and speculation become the norm because no one wishes to prescribe to any belief system out of fear of being labeled ignorant or dumb. But spirituality is the last science .. there is soo much to be learned that i fear we do ourselves a disservice not payn attn to it. I hope that showed you a lil bit more of what i believe.. thx again... all questions are welcomed

    23. See, you can write coherently, although ignorantly, when you try.

      You can't prove the existence of a supreme being (or for that matter, spirituality or a cosmic plan), yet you know who god's enemies are, namely agnostics--and intelligent agnostics at that. Not only are the agnostics god's enemy, they're part of a conspiracy to "discredit the reality of a creator and to only serve himself," in other words to do who knows what or who knows why, but definitely something against a god who might or might not exist. Already I hear spooky music in the background.

      You don't argue; you don't present evidence. You merely plead like a cry baby.

    24. vic, there are writers and thinkers who are against the muslim teachings, there have been teachers thinkers who were against the greek gods, and the roman gods, and the hindu gods.

      the presence of people who disagree with a specific thought does not mean that the beliefs in that school are true. just because people like Crowley, Pike, and many many many others existed and wrote against the christian god doesnt mean that god is real.

      the vultures analogy was clever. i liked it. but its not correct. those people you named were not fighting against GOD, they were fighting against the people here who insist god is real. so they do have a prey, and a very tangible one. the dogmatic belief system.

      So, like you said, i might not be able to give you tangible proof for the greek gods, but i could give you evidence of their enemy.

      the fact of the matter is this. no one KNOWS if there is a god. we do know there are things we dont understand yet. we know in the past we have looked at things we didnt understand and attributed gods to them. so maybe we should be more careful these days and stick with what we know and admit what we dont know.

      and we dont know if there is a creator because nothing says there is definitively.

    25. lol .. thx robyn glad to see i succeeded in lightening the mood :)

    26. Hi Vic, Im glad you are here.
      As you have personally witnessed you have entered the Synagogue of Darwin, where blasphemers and Infidels are dealt with swiftly by our own self appointed Reverend Cook. LOL

      I am a student of the Discipline of Science, not the Religion of the same name. And I too am amazed at the foreknowledge contained in some of the age old religious ‘myths’. (gotta be careful of your wording here so as not to be labeled an Infidel and suffer the wrath of Robert LOL) For instance the “Miracle of the Creation of Eve” now through the advancement of technology, is plain ole everyday cloning. That story would have had the same impact without mentioning technology that wouldnt be discovered for thousands of years in the future. Why was it included??

    27. thx for being one of the few to at least get where i am coming from and give it some play. You are brave.. its not easy to have unpopular views in a clickish environment .. im not sure if i get the last question you asked tho.. care to elaborate a lil more ?

    28. Researchers are finding out more and more every day that the myths passed down from generation to generation were often based on some fact or event that the tellers felt needed to be retold to future generations so certain events, often unique to their culture, some seemingly miraculous and without words or technology to explain them, would not be lost.

      A perfect example of this is the mythical story of the Trojan Wars and the city of Troy; long thought by mainstream science to be a fantastic (imaginary) Greek moral tale of stolen love, deception and ultimately conquest that lasted 12 years and destroyed one of the greatest cities of the day. Heinrich Schliemann armed with only his copy of Homer’s Illiad, set out to find the fabled city and ultimately did so, causing some to question the current definition and function of Myths.

      Anyway, getting back to my explanation, the problem with the modern interpretation of so-called myths is the different level of technology and therefore understanding at the times they were originated and today, when we try to decipher them. Most, if not all of these ‘myths’ were originated before the Industrial Revolution and Electronic (Intellectual) Revolution, which allowed for the ‘coinage’ (invention) of new words and terms at a previously unheard of rate. The creation of all of this new technology and terminology permits us to express our understanding of the world around us in new and previously unimagined ways, increasing our understanding exponentially.

      What was the message that was being preserved and conveyed in the myth of the creation of man from the dust of the earth AND cloning?

    29. @Robyn318,

      It is true, in some cases myths turn out to be based on real life events, however very exaggerated, and distorted beyond recognition over the centuries.

      Without further explanation would you please google "Cargo Cults". It explains how myth and religion can rise from a simple, ordinary, but "strange" events occurring in one point of time in a given culture.

    30. That is exactly my point; those ‘cargo cult’ societies have no technology or language to satisfactorily explain the appearance of ‘metal birds’ that brought supplies and never before seen technologies. They have no advanced written language to convey the experience to succeeding generations, so they create rituals and oral traditions to do so. Does that give us the right to invalidate their experience and allow us to say they were hallucinating?

    31. @Robyn318

      Nope, that does not give us right to invalidate their experience, but also does not give us right to assume that there is supernatural reason for their belief.

    32. “We”, coming from a technologically advanced society DO NOT assume it is ‘supernatural’; however, those primitive tribes, because of their very limited experience of the world, do see it as such because it is something they have never seen occur in nature before.
      And because they need to validate their own experiences of the event and because it was such a profound occurrence to them, and probably because they hope the metal birds will come again with those relished goods (invention IS the mother of necessity), they altered their culture accordingly. (Sadly it was probably the worst thing that could have happened to them.) This is who man is; it is how our civilization advances through time. Even today there are ‘religions’ created from new ideas derived from technological breakthroughs trying to explain the otherwise unexplainable, and we are supposed to know better.

    33. @Robyn318,

      The "Cargo Cults" were just an example of how religion can rise from exactly "nothing".

      You've mentioned that even today religions are created from derived ideas, trying to explain the otherwise unexplainable.

      Now, I'm only asking if it is possible that people in the past were also producing myths and religions due to their limited experience of the world, deprived of scientific reasonable explanation about their surrounding, thus altering their culture accordingly?

      Having in mind the "Cargo Cults" and the "new religions", are we right to assume that there is supernatural reason for the ancient religions?

    34. As with the cargo cults, not supernatural reason, advanced technology that defies comprehension.

    35. @Robyn318,

      So what is your opinion? Is there a supernatural reason for the rise of ancient religions or not?

    36. I think Joseph Campbell in his book, ”The Power of Myth”, eloquently showed how man, in his quest to understand the unknown forces of nature (earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes, etc.) attributed them to ‘supernatural forces’ attributed to gods and the birth of religion. And I see how the rise of the cargo cults, eloquently shows how advanced technology has the power to do the same.

    37. @Robyn318, I agree.

    38. at the same time who the hell knows if there were actual supernatural forces.. thats called paranormal science and that stuff is loaded with things we cant explain... it seems to me that their lust to know as much as they can hinders their understanding of how big life is.. not EVERYTHING is explainable

    39. people who say "not everything is explainable" are the people who give up or dont understand how science works.

    40. This is a science based forum. The best way to enter into a discussion (debate) is to select one (uno) (1) item and give a clear concise argument in favor of your position, and wait for a bite. When you get a response, think about what is said and again give a concise answer. It isnt about winning or losing, or being right or wrong; it is about sharing ideas. That is what makes us human and that is what makes this site interesting.

      Are there supernatural or paranormal ‘forces’ out there? This is not the place for that kind of discussion. It is not quantifiable (measurable): Unless of course the video is about that sort of thing.

      If you are going to use the fossil record as part of an argument, use it as supporting evidence for another point; it is too incomplete to be a foundation. Use tact in your answers and above all have a sense of humor…the truth is no one has all the answers, only theories and beliefs, sometimes one indistinguishable from the other. Cheers!

    41. Why not, if these experiences are shown to be delusional?

  47. I have decided that the only way to enjoy this fantastic site is to never again read another comment. Thank you so much for all the documentaries Vlatko. I will be here watching just not reading.

    1. I agree with you, many of the conversations on TDF are full of hatred. There are many people on TDF that are like piranhas ready to eat up anyone who dares to talk about their understanding of life especially if that understanding is based on spirituality (or not scientifically up to date) . What these people have in common is that they are educated, but not educated to be educators...far from it.
      I have enjoyed learning many things from many of them but i have also disliked how they (seem) to enjoy bashing anyone (new or familiar) who dares to put in words what the sum of experiences of their personal life has taken them to understand.
      Now i must say many religious people just love to confront with damnation atttacks, in a way it shows exactly the opposite of the peace goal they profess to want to achieve.
      I will say it for the hundredth time, can we write the way we write without having to be corrected all the time. If you are too anal to be able to read texts from thousands of people from all over the globe, you are at the wrong site. There are sites for you "Erudites Pros", type Erudite Readers on Google, you will find a few.
      I often wonder how a group of TDF members would sound in a convivial setting. Hopefully not like in these forums.

    2. i feel like i have learned to be a better educator through trial and error on here to be honest.

    3. nice to see that you recognize the attitude you have towards most people. i agree! You are one of the people i have learned a lot from.


    4. Religees and the like have no desire to be educated, only to expostulate on matters of which they know nothing. Certainly this is innocuous if confined to an individual, but the problem is that they feel the need not only to put down or go up against their intellectual betters such as scientists with half-truths, lies and distortions picked up from who knows where, but also to disperse their ignorance wherever and whenever they can, school systems being a case in point.

      By declaiming when they should be asking and endeavoring to bring everyone down to their own level of ignorance, they merit the hatred and scorn they receive from the intelligentsia.

    5. I think if a renowned scientist was to come on TDF and use a very basic language (with a few spelling mistakes) to explain a very new hypothesis (purposely, like that violon virtuoso who sat in a metro station and was completely ignored by passer-by), you would be the first to bash him with your "uneducated popular lines", i often get the impression that for you someone has to use correct english or scientific jargon to be considered as someone thinking from the mind.

    6. I'm sure a renowned scientist coming on TDF to explain his new hypothesis would couch it in acceptable and accurate, though lay, English.

    7. Not if he wanted to trick us....and you possibly would be one of the first to bite.

    8. Then his honesty and sincerity would be in question and no reputable scientists wants that.

    9. A scientist with a sense of humour must exist somewhere!
      Why else would a REAL reputable scientist come here for?

    10. Perhaps to enlighten us on some aspect of his field of expertise.

    11. That would be nice...but if he was to read this forum down below
      ...not exactly the inspiration for participating in a serious manner.


    12. I disagree, but I feel that both of us are engaging in useless straw man logic--and quite frankly this discussion has descended to the level of how many angels are on the head of a pin.

    13. Ya, what am i saying? Agreed, i 'll leave you to argue all you want.

    14. What is a head pin?

    15. If topdoc was a dinner party, who would you invite as your special guest ? Dead or living :)

    16. At a table of 20
      1. Brian Cox (looks and smarts)
      2. Albert Einstein (to set the arguments straight)
      3. Nikola Tesla (to hear what he wasn't able to clarify)
      4. John Lennon (for peace)
      5. Epicurus (ours with the real one...see below)
      6. Jane Goodall (so i can offer to be her assistant)
      7. Sarah Mclachlan (every good diner party needs an entertainer)
      8.Leonarco Da Vinci (he knew things he wasn't aloud to talk about)
      9.Buzz Aldrin (i love travelers, he apparently went the furthest)
      10. Luc Besson (so it can be made into a movie)
      I would ask each one to bring an additional guest of their choice, dead or alive or not born yet.
      You and WTC7 to help me for the service and Robertallen1 and Achems to do the dishes while discussing big words and scientific jargon...lolol

    17. Az, I would only bring one..."Lady Gaga" she is over 18 I presume. lol

    18. I bet she can clean dishes in a kinky way that one...but then you may ignore Robertallen1 all together, wonder what sexy vixen he would take along?

    19. hed bring a book about darwin and stephen hawking.. lol

    20. She brings her own tea cups as well, less washing up !

    21. 8.Leonarco Da Vinci (he knew things he wasn't aloud to talk about)
      especially the use of drugs !

    22. The conversation around your table would leave me seeing stars ! When serving I would dally a while by da Vinci to see what notes he took and what he doodled. Your totty, Mr Cox does a show on radio 4 (bbc) called The Infinite Monkey Cage. You might like it, comedy and science. Van Morrison in the background maybe? No guru, no method, no teacher :)

    23. That's why i suggested that each of them brings a guest of their choice...surprise surprise, the table could end up with a few gurus who have new methods for teachers.
      Now what the menu would something fun to think about.


    24. Menu?? Pulleeeeese! Just need a room. lol

    25. Lady Gaga would surely enjoy Strawberries and champagne and.... i make the best wrapped brie, but not until the dishes is all done and put away!

    26. Nah, I ate yesterday.

    27. Okay, you talked me into it, i rescind my last post. Better have a dishwasher though.

    28. Sorry az, I wouldn't miss it. I'm crashing this soiree you're throwing. I'll take my chance as a fly on the wall, so please no rolled up newspapers.

    29. Your airplane might come in least for Achems, when you hang with stars you got to fly...but he did say he has his own jet not long ago...doubt it though!

    30. He was trying to impress the girls (you). We do that.


    32. oh and JFK

    33. Jesus ? Considering his history you might find he's not the life and soul of a dinner party :)

    34. Don't worry, Robert. The religionista's lack of intellectual depth is obvious to anyone with a working cerebellum; some people seem to need religion to cling to, it being socially unacceptable to carry blankies around after a certain age. The rest of us can see their issues for what they are. Vic may think he is proselytizing for his side; instead his innate insecurities and negative attitude are evidence for the uselessness of his religious stance. Just ignore him, please. He's trolling because he has nothing better to do; I guess reading the Bible and only the Bible gets boring after a while.

      Responses here should be to the documentary, not endless back and forths between tired and useless discussions; in the end, it is disrespectful to Vlatko and the wonderful site he has put together.

      There's a reason religion is losing influence on the younger generation; they see it for the joke (and a horrible one it's been) that it is.

    35. A look through the posts on scientific subjects such as biology, evolution, natural history will reveal that the religees and the like are the ones who start the process. For too long, the attitude has been merely to turn the other cheek--these cretins are not worth responding to--and walk on egg shells-- perish the thought of giving offense. The problem is that there is all too great a number who believe everything they read and hear with little or no critical thinking or consideration of the source, such as the younger generation (and I hope you're right and I'm wrong).

      In their desire to bring everyone down to their level of ignorance, these disseminators of nescience and superstition are not above resorting to distortion, misstatement and out and out mendacity for what they consider a greater good than scientific truth.

      I think it's far more disrespectful of Vlatko and what he seems to stand for not to show up these dissemblers, poseurs, distorters and liars in no uncertain terms.

    36. man you want some too ? did you not learn from rob ?? when in the world did i say i read the bible and nothing but the bible.. truth be told ive only read the first 4 books completely and i do more scientific research than i spend in my bible (which sometimes i do feel a little guilt for .. but its all good .. im learning) And if you did your research ... (look up thelema .. A.crowley) youll see that the discrediting of religion through scientific means..was planned yrs and yrs ago buddy... it has nothing to do with us growing.
      quite the opposite...notice how all u super brainy guys talk down to me but have not addressed what i claim directly.. you dont look anything up, but go off what you already "know".... AGAIN HOW ARE YOU NOT LIKE BIBLE THUMPERS?

    37. "We" base our arguments on evidence and abstraction from it, bible thumpers of which you have a disquietingly large number of characteristics don't.

    38. where is the missing link then???thats a huge hole in your theory.. which i agree on ..but its not fool proof.. u guys talk AROUND all my facts and circle the one part that you can corner me with"wheres your proof of god"thats lazy.. i know i spoke of an agenda yet you all ignore that.. which raises suspicion to me. im not gonna defend how much i believe in science just bcuz you want to stereotype me based on my belief in a superior being address facts or stop talkin.. it would seem that you all are here seekin to be affirmed not to learn

    39. What missing link? Again a non-fact.

      And as long as we're at it, where is your proof of god?

    40. wait... stop the effin presses! science has found the famous missing link in evolution????? GO AHEAD ROB PLEEEEEAAAAAAAAAASSSEE PASTE THE LINK TO A WEBSITE THAT PUBLISHED THIS GROUND BREAKIN DATA!! how in the world is the missing link a non fact? but im uninformed.. smh

    41. You can't find what doesn't exist--and yes, you are uninformed and silly to boot as this post shows.

    42. you are....the piranha! what alota smack talk AZ

    43. First timer...not a bad punch.
      We need more like you, your participation on Edgadget is stimulating.

      "Your temper is the only thing you can lose and still have."
      (not sure who wrote that one)

    44. Ignoring 'Vic' works too. When the discussion is about which peacock is better at intellectual preening, and not the movie, just ignore them.

  48. religious or spiritual based statements should always have ''i believe that...'',''my personal view is...'' or the classical ''in my humble opinion....'' & so on .it would help to exclude the ' i'm right your wrong ' mentality which,without a doubt,seems to always bring up the same old discussion with it's ever repeating arguments ,as if it will end one day with one righteous answer,conquering the opposition into oblivion .both parties missing the fact that nature has always two ends of the spectrum & should inspire thinking souls to contemplate the maxime of 'live...& let live' !

  49. Another reason for FREETHINKERS around the world to continue fighting against religious indoctrination and dogma. Sadly, it appears that freethought and science are not winning in what is again becoming a backward, dark age thinking America.

    1. It's really hard to tell. As a pessimist, I'd like to be optimistic, but when confronted with the likes of a Jerry Falwell, George Bush, Billy Graham, Ken Ham and their minions, many of whom occupy positions of authority and respect, I wonder.

      On the other hand, there are more scientists now than ever and more science courses taught as they should be.

    2. Heres where we can be confused.. are some of bennett's views valid?...yes are they true.. somewhat.. the problem with "free thought" as it is labeld is that it is actually slavery.. here's how.. when you search for the answers to the answers you inevitably get more questions... just because we can see how the creator created things does not mean he doesnt exist.
      Instead of us taking science as an explanation of how god created the world we think the world created itself... lol . and somehow thats logic. I know all you scientific minds will heckle me for my stance (so noahs ark was logical? Do you really think moses split the sea and a snake convinced a woman to eat a fruit and because of that we are all screwed? these are some q's that non believers push.. ) But just because it is fantastic or grandiose , that doesnt mean it never happened.
      Speaking from a spiritual standpoint, often times the creator will test you .. especially if you are an exceptional specimen of faith.. as mr bennett was. This will either turn you away or make you believe more.. watchin this documentary we obviously know the path he took once his child died...and the creator would have it no other way.. this is one consistant thing in the bible.. men @ the pinnacle of their faith being tested.. put thru tribulations and rewarded if they stayed the course.. the logical lesson here is "if you love something let it go..itll come back to you if its yours.. if it doesnt it never was" or dont just love me when you are benefitting from me.. learn to love me unconditionally. And this is not because the creator is a sadist or an ego maniac... this lesson helps us in our day to day interactions with ppl. .. teaches us how to differentiate who is really your friend and who is only your friend because it benefits them.
      Be clear, im no zealot, i give evolution some credit.. there is simply too much evidence pointing towards it, but it kills me how all you guys sit here and say how close minded the christian establishment is (and i wholly agree) but you dont think believing in science is closed minded in its own right.. the truth is the bible backs science and science proves the bible.. dont believe? look at the order in which the animals were created in genesis.. it backs everything we were taught in science class!
      Whats at work here is the ever present threat of "the age of reasoning" or The age of horus.. as luciferians have called it since forever blavatsky was one.. they may put off how spiritual their beliefs were but theres plenty of documentation that disproves that.. they do worship the "devil" when its all said and done.. (lucifer publishing ? lucis trust? yea...) so obviously they hold spirituality in high regard while simultaneously spreading the message that no such thing exist (when cornered it is common for them to say we dont believe in the devil either.. but thats only cuz they would have you believe there is no god)
      The king of the free thinkers was one A. Crowley.. and he never denied there was a god he is quoted as sayin something along the lines of.."i dont know how one could say there was no god, i know very well that there is one i just chose the other side" And trust me as educated as all these ppl we have mentioned were.. Crowley was triple that..he too sought the age of reason.. as does marilyn manson.. see a pattern?
      Cloaked in the visage of freedom comes bondage, we see what he did for sexual rights and the progressive theories presented make us think this is what its really about.. when in reality the age of reason is the same old nwo plot..placed in pretty wrapping and sprayed with perfume to tantalize our senses.. at the same time.. the ppl representing god do themselves no good placing hypocrits in high office.. but they are behind that too (falwell is a zionist, graham is a 33rd degree) these ppl are in charge of withholding scientific truths that would help humanity AND withholding spiritual truths that would keep us happy..yet they have convinced you all this is innocent independent thought..malarky..BS to say the least

    3. No, I'm not confused. You're right, free thinking engenders more questions than it does answers--and that's what it should do!

      Now, what makes you think you know anything about "the creator" or even if there is one? When the only support you can provide consists of religious drivel written in an anfractuous style, anything you posit becomes as ludicrous and suspect as your lack of knoweldge of the nature ahd history of the bible and your belief in the literalness of its fairy tales and your inability to understand them.

      And yes, science should be close-minded to anything masquerading as scientific such as creationism or to matters foreign to it. So don't try to justify superstition, ignorance and dogma under the cloak of intellectual liberality.

      Until it is scientifically proven otherwise, spirituality remains a hoax and a fraud.

    4. LOL .. that my friend absolutely obliterates the notion of logic and by default you are a traitor to your own scientific process.
      Let me ask you a question, seen as you are a bright person. It makes sense to you that random chemicals came together to create species...that animals magically grew legs and came out of the water to become land species, that every occurrence can be explained away.. even tho much heralded "sciences " have been debunked like ecology you give absolutely no credence to that. Most of ourt science is "theory" meanin we have no definite answers.. yet you speak definitively as if these are the definite answers.
      With all do respect your comments did little to grasp the notions i pointed out and you speak from ur ego
      "When the only support you can provide consists of religious drivel written in an anfractuous style, anything you posit becomes as ludicrous and suspect as your lack of knoweldge of the nature ahd history of the bible and your belief in the literalness of its fairy tales and your inability to understand them." whats wrong with that statement? you ASSUME! I am very aware of the inconsistencies that exist in the bible ..AGAIN... im no zealot... im no bible thumper. but ur ego tells you "hes talking about "god" hes an i*iot.. thats a fantasy.. instead of approaching it scientifically.. "what is he really saying.. can it coincide with what we view as science?" and my answer is yes.
      At the end of the day its not that i think im right or im stickin to religious dogma if you look at my avatar youll see that im definitely not in line with what the religious authority of the day has to say. so your notion of me heaping copious amounts of belief into what im sayin bereft of all logical understanding falls flat on its face.
      There was a time when faith and science were seen as one... now we have them split.. and needlessly argue about the relevance of our chosen view, when we need not argue we need understanding. The main idea behind what i was sayin was only that there are ppl behind the scene pushing these lies and overall agenda..not just against god.. but against real science as well..(this is why aids is not cured and why we dont have cars that give us 200 miles a gallon.) that this thought process was not independently made but is part of a predetermined plot to get us to only trust what we can see.. that my friend is a fallacy. There are forces we cannot see that affect us all the time... see:gravity.

    5. " It makes sense to you that random chemicals came together to create species...that animals magically grew legs and came out of the water to become land species"

      that proves you dont understand evolution and should stop talking about it.

      so do you believe that animals magically popped into existence when an all powerful god decided them to? they just appeared? popped into existence with an audible popping noise?

      "There was a time when faith and science were seen as one..."

      and that time is called the dark ages. that was when religious people were making claims about nature and keeping anyone from actually investigating them. then when we started to use science without religion getting in the way we noticed all the things that we were wrong about. the idea of animals being created is one of them. we know things dont pop into existence in a complicated form they must gradually form and evolve. and its not just a guess anymore. we have ample genetic and fossil evidence as well as the fact that evolution is a unifying theory that brings all the life sciences into a neat explainable package.

      your main problem with it is that you dont understand it. i get it. science was too hard for you so you went with belief.

    6. notice how all of your responses to me are ego influenced you speak with no desire to learn as if you know everything already... and neither the brightest scientist nor theologian knows all there is to know .. and i would appreciate a debate minus the slights on my intelligence. I did /said nothing to offend anyone.. only seekin to learn and teach..
      No the dark ages were not when science and religion meshed stop the non factual slander it does nothin to help you ... the dark ages were when the faith was lost for the most part and folks were practicing all kinda barbarity and black magic practices.. once you look into it.. there was all kinda stuff goin on at the time. Along with abuse of power by religious institutions. If you actually read what i said instead of highlighting small portions in an attempt to defame my character youll see i do understand evolution.. i was generalizing to highlight how silly both science and faith can sound when u just look at it in a glance.. or try to reduce it to a soundbite ..but they actually support each other.
      and who said i dont believe in science ? its hard for me ? oh the f*ckin egos.. i tell ya

    7. There doesn't seem to be anything of substance that one can learn from you, first of all because you don't write clearly or in an organized fashion, making it impossible to discern what you are driving at, the first sign of an impaired intelligence, the second because you ramble on positing nothing, another sign of impaired intelligence, the third because as Epicurus pointed out, you are basically uneducated, another sign of impaired intelligence--and while we're at it, when were science and religion ever seen as one, if not in the Dark Ages?

      It's your ego that's gotten in the way of your education, not Epicurus'.

    8. i dont write clearly ???? lol lol .. what a tool... okay this is the point where i ignore you because you are degrading the nature of the convo.. and thats just .. well.. lame.impaired intelligence? wow... you address no point i make because you are ignorant to the details i provide but instead of askin what do i mean or where can you find info on such things you take slights at me.. another sign of a person who thinks hes too smart to be shown anything but a view that affirms what you already believe.. and that is the enemy of intellect
      Here ill leave you with a statement i made on a social network in regards to this then we dont ever have to talk unless you wanna be civil.. i dont do the berating.
      "Intellect can easily be mistaken, it can be ego masquerading as intellect. But the foundation of intellect is knowing that you know nothing at all.. it is the fuel that makes you smart in the first place. The minute that you come to believe that you do know everything.. you remove any semblance of smarts and instantly revert back to what you thought you would never be...dumb"

    9. First of all, you write as if English is your second language and a poor second at that.

      Secondly, why should anyone go to the trouble of asking what you mean when you do not have the consideration to even attempt to state it clearly in the first place--that is assuming that you really have anything to state.

      And the exercise in the jejeune with which you close your post shows you up for the conceited poseur that you are.

    10. lol .. yea you are a hyper logical toolbag. lol.. ur use of words like jejeune show me that you have no interest in being someone ppl can relate to and all ur pride is invested in what you believe to be true..i write in a manner that i feel anyone can grasp so if a 15 yr old with no college education comes on here he can see what i say and say to himself "ok.. i understand what hes saying." when i type on forums like this i try to be as shorthanded as possible its called being casual im not writin a thesis paper.. tool... i write without being technically on point as i can but only tools like urself take that to be a sign of ignorance .. while you pepper us with words like "jejeune" so you can show us how super smart you are... but IM the one full of conceit.. ROFL! Ya even went as far as to say the word "poseur" instead of plain ol' "poser"
      ppl like you agitate me to no end..because i have taken the time to say sorry and be humble about things i may have overstepped on.. but you come with more vitriol in each post... for gods sake( or in your case for atoms sake) you dont even know what BTW means.. talk about socially aloof! In finality your posts sum up what i mean when i say some ppl are so smart that they are dumb,, but you know whats really funny ? YOU WENT OUT OF YOUR WAY TO USE ELOQUENT WORDING AND ENDED UP SPELLING IT ALL WRONG ITS JEJUNE NOT JEJEUNE...see how i did that? took a lil misprint and used it to categorize you as intellectually inferior? I can knit pick to.. but what does that prove? Nothing. Take it as a lesson

    11. I'm not touching this with a three meter pole, but i would like to point out that if both of you want to be grammar/spelling police, It's nit pick. Not knit pick. tomgone. peace out.

    12. *Actually its "nitpick" or even "nit-pick", not "nit pick".

    13. rofl... good call tom! i originally thought that.. but i was like what's a "nit"? lol

    14. If you didn't know or had doubts, why didn't you look it up before commiting it? But again, as you admit, you're not one for such details--and I don't mean typos.

    15. robert its over .. you were owned.. have a seat

    16. "You were owned." What does that mean?

    17. upps, it's nit picking not knit picking (i got plucked for the same mistake)!only trying to help !

    18. I'd like to be optimistic, but when confronted with the likes of a Jerry Falwell, George Bush, Billy Graham, Ken Ham and their minions, many of whom occupy positions of authority and respect, I wonder.<<< do you see george bush in that quote ? oh it must be my limited capacity to think that projects these imaginary words on the screen.. forgive me... lmao

    19. YOU write in jumbles and fits as if afflicted with St. Vitus' dance. What you characterize as your shorthand is on the contrary expatiation filling the page and sprinkled with an affected use of ellipsi to disguise your inability to catenate your so-called thoughts, thereby concealing your lack of anything substantial to offer.

      YOU insult the intelligence by positing that the story of creation as related in the Bible mirrors what has been uncovered by science. The first few chapters of Genesis demonstrate that it doesn't and a knowledge of history that it cannot. The authors of Genesis (a man-made work as is the rest of the Bible) have an excuse for their gaffes; they couldn't have known what was discovered almost 2,000 years later. On the other hand, you have none.

      YOU fail to see that science and religion do not, cannot and never did go hand in hand or for that matter become one. Religion is based on faith and science on evidence, two opposites--and I'll take evidence, logic (which in your attempt to appear wise you decry) and abstraction from them every time.

      So there. I have responded to two of your more lucidly expressed points (and all I needed was one set of ellipsi). The remainder of your posts is merely sophistry, jeremiad and alibi which you're not even good at.

      If your feelings are hurt by the reception you receive, they are meant to be. Your boeotian statements coupled with your helter skelter approach entitle you to the ridicule which you complain of. If this ridicule annoys you, you can do one of two things: stop posting or get an education.

    20. dude you should stop posting and get some female attention

    21. Does this represent the sum total of your intelligence? But again what can one expect from someone who states that biblical creation runs parallel to science or that at one time science and religion were one?

    22. "jeremiad" ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! you reek of someone who walks around adjusting his glasses and suspenders, and a pocket protector.. explaining to everyone just how smart he is.. i dont have respect for you . Just because you dont like the way someone types or you are too caught up in what you believe to open your mind to somethin different you heckle and ridicule.. how mature is that?
      you know what i think? i think you are intimidated by what i know.. which is stupid because we all come here to learn.. not to be affirmed.
      Nothin annoys me rob.. i enjoy learning. Epicurus was cool to debate with but you are uptight and well... dweeby. I am not so thin skinned that geeky little barbs are gonna make me sleep any less or affect my life in any adverse way.. when im done here ill log off and have female companionship .. a novel concept eh? Let it be known that i welcome all manners of debate, i am not thin skinned.

    23. Just read all your posts, you are wrong, in so many ways, logic defies you buddy.

    24. Don't try to elevate your twaddle to anything approaching "somethin different." It's as much an insult to intelligence as bringing female companionship into the matter

    25. @vic:

      Besides all the ad hominem attacks, by the way why would a person need female companionship to elicit all these arguments in the first place?

      When you say "intimidated by what i know" what is it that you know? I would like to know, and then I will tell you if intimidation holds true.

      You say you enjoy learning, well you have come to the right site for that.

      Just to let you know were I stand, science and religion are two separate entities, and the two shall never meet and see eye to eye.
      Science and evolution rocks.

      Just sayin.

    26. No, but they certainly swing.

    27. i never implied you need females companionship to debate this.. (robert does need a gal pal tho.. there where several things he says that suggest that he is dangerously aloof.. lol!)
      What i THINK i know is that science exists and is valid.. but so is god and the thought process that leads you to believe god is not.. is predetermined by those who set a plan in motion hundreds .. even thousands of yrs ago.. if you look up the folks i have mentioned youll see it on full display!
      Go see that "watched over by loving machines" doc ayn rand was also a person of this particular ilk... a dark mind dressed in the garbs of progress .. kurzweil is another.. these are the kinds of ppl who pushed this particular viewpoint.. that man and his logic are the true god. Closer examination however.. reveals that these ppl are a lil nuts (ray wants to bring back his daddy using data files..smh).
      There is a pattern im tryin to show you guys... its "proggressive" ppl .. who are quite frankly just as mad as some of these folks on TBN.. the brainwashing isnt done only by religious zealots its also done by mad scientists and occultists.. and it can be just as pervasive.

    28. What makes you think god (or a supreme being) exists? Do you have some evidence that no one else has?

      Also, you mention scientific brainwashing. Please provide some CLEAR examples.

    29. go watch All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace .. see the myth of ecology exposed.. all because some big brained scientist wanted to attach his name to a THEORY

    30. Don't try to turn scientific and philosophical debate, which is what this documentary is about, into a cheap exposé of scientific brainwashing. In other words, don't try to snow me or anyone else!

      Because you don't know what you're talking about, you categorize the cognescenti as narrow minded for not affording you the consideration which you feel is coming to you.

    31. vic,you're being corner'd !let go,you cannot win in an agnostic cage!

    32. God can only exist for those who are able to reinvent the meaning of the word for the god we were enslaved to accept...that was given by others milleniums ago....not for me ...thank you!
      The many religions have stunned the world with their meaning of the word God. Science has to be bold and give a new meaning to the word and expect the religious to be what! There are a lot of people who are scandalised by the present meanings...let's change that.
      Imagine if the children of this generation were explained the word god in a whole new way. We can't expect the idea of God to change if all we have to offer is God isn't, the word exist...let's add a definition that reflects where our society has arrived.

    33. How about just leaving it out in the first place?

    34. We will never be able to kill GOD (or leave it out as you suggest) because there will always be someone to say GOD is, was and will be this and that for ever more. The problem is that the word GOD has always meant the same thing. Add a complete new meaning, one that is undeniable because it is a reflection of our reality or actuality...and you got it made!
      If it starts with the kids of parents who advocate a new meaning, those kids will pass it on and slowly at first but eventually a new meaning will take over. No kids, no parents, no one will ever be able to reverse something by saying it isn't.
      As i said; if science was to say, from now on we choose to use the word god for this...a reversement will unfold. We have too many people saying God isn't, it's like saying love isn't because it can't be measured.
      Que sera sera.

    35. On the contrary, we don't have enough people saying God isn't. And the ability to measure has nothing to do with it. We also can't measure talent, emotion, superstition, ignorance or atheism, but they exist.

    36. Allow me.

      Two objects of different weight fall at the same speed (32 ft/s/s) in a vaccuum in One G (gravity). This is a false statement.

      Begin with a test object of one american pound / 16 ounces. It can be tested to fall at approximately 32 ft/s/s which is 32 feet in the first second, 64 feet more in the second second and 128 feet more in the third second (get it?).

      Now begin dropping 10x heavier objects to test the original hypothosis. You should notice no variance at 10 lbs, 100 lbs, 1000 lbs...but lets jump ahead to something really heavy like the moon.

      The moon would fall at a rate of 1.6 G instead of 1 G because it has its own G field added to the Earths' 1 G field giving a falling speed of 52.1 ft/s/s.

      Conclusion: If any heavier object falls faster than another lighter object then every heavier object will fall faster than any other lighter object to some degree [even if it is infantesimal (really, really small)].

      The real reason that any object weighs anything at all is because every object has its own gravity field interacting with whatever planet you are currently on. One G = the weight of Earth/the weight of Earth - in pounds. A one pound objects' G = 1/the weight of Earth.

      I wonder why this is not taught in any school. What would the world be like if this simple understanding where known worldwide? I can also explain what Gravity is if you like this example.


    37. I believe Epicurus, Over the Edgem Achems Razor or someone with a physics background can answer this better than I can.

    38. @Cool E Beans:
      Yes, your hypothesis/theory/fact is correct, gravity does interact upon one another/bodies, the reason we do not float off into space is that we are constantly trying to go through the Earth, by the earths gravity and by our bodies almost insignificant gravity in combination/attraction, but of course the strong electromagnetic force prevents this from happening since gravity is a much weaker force.

    39. Fine, but this does not respond to the thrust of Cool E Beans' post about the alleged differences in acceleration in a vacuum of bodies of various weights and his statement that such difference is not being taught. Has he added some crease in the textbook condition which changes the outcome?

    40. you mean ' jejune ' which has a quintessence of poseur in itself .

    41. Sorry for my failure to catch the typo.

      As for the juxtaposition of jejune and poseur, let's consider it a hendiadys and leave it at that.

    42. oh and your characterization of g.w.bush as a well to do christian shows me how ignorant you are to well as the global domination scheme.. which is why you never addressed it.. and instead you portray me as a person with no sense who rambles.. but there were plenty of facts provided that you didnt care to focus on.. instead you want to call me dumb.. grow up

    43. @vic,

      How do you expect to be taken seriously while saying this:

      "Speaking from a spiritual standpoint, often times the creator will test you..." (and you say you're not a creationist BTW)

      "...look at the order in which the animals were created in genesis.. it backs everything we were taught in science class!"

      "There was a time when faith and science were seen as one... now we have them split.."

    44. Pardon my ignorance and shortsightedness, but I keep seeing BTW and I can't for the life of me figure out what it stands for.

    45. BTW = By the way...

      For other abbreviations you can't parse out, try the Urban Dictionary.

    46. Thanks for the information and the reference.

      Unlike all too many, I admit when I don't know and if I am interested enough, I try to find out.

    47. Its simple vlat.. why do these things have to have these silly labels on them? Also by saying "how do you expect to be taken seriously" you are slanting a readers opinions towards not understanding /ridiculing what im could have been more tactful, that seemed like an attempt by the editor himself to put me out there as a joke. Because i have faith im a creationist ? lol ! With all due respect you sound like those church folks who say "you believe in evolution? you practice the devils work!"
      In showing you how the order of the animals creation is backed by science i am merely showing you that the bible is not opposed to science and i make the case that science should not thumb its nose at religion.. they go hand in hand .When you read genesis it basically tells you 5the same things we were always taught in science class the theory of evolution is on full display! For instance. evolution says life started in the sea.. so does genesis.. and the order of creation is just as evolution tells us! Evolution is the explanation of the creation process, not a theory meant to supplant the works of a creator, but the explanation in vivid detail of the creation process. So where the bible is basic, science elaborates (the bible says 7 days we now know through science that it took millions of yrs of years..)
      Im not a creationist! they believe god made the world literally in 7 days and that the bible is the only way to go when explaining creation.. when did i say that ?
      I take it that you are well versed in these things.. go look @ ancient Egypt .. was their culture not equal parts faith and science? Exactly...
      Now it is taught that these are opposing schools of thought .. when it hasnt always been that way. whats not logical about that ?

    48. In addition to your other vices, you're delusional as well. I never wrote about G. W. Bush whom I despise.

      Out of curiosity, why do you feel the need for so many ellipsi in your writing? Perhaps they're a manifestation of your inability to express a coherent set of thoughts or a pretentious device or a lot of both.

    49. ellipsi is used to show an actual pattern of speech... once again im not writing a thesis paper..i think this is how ppl speak. especially when they are asked to elaborate extensively.. the current president does it.. but instead of small spaces in his speech he uses the word AND to bridge the gaps in his words was that in depth enough for you ? (notice the frequent use?.. i thought you would..:) )

    50. only points i highlighted were the things that were not directed towards only your conversation with Robert.

      now how come you say that i speak like i know everything? all i mentioned was evolution and the dark ages.

      i am in school for studies based on evolution and i know you were wrong in your straw man characterization.

      if anything YOU are speaking like you know that science is wrong.

      i have no ego invested in evolution. if it is wrong i would gladly accept the new evidence showing it to be wrong. but there hasnt been any.

      so when was science and religion one if not in the dark ages? and tell me why you think evolution is wrong.

    51. Just a refinement. How much science was there in the Middle Ages?

    52. ya i should have said "science"

    53. na, you should have keyboarded (written?) "science." One verb seems gangly and the other inaccurate. You see what pedantry can get you into.

    54. epi.. thx for being cool on your response. i gathered that after all you are trying to reach an understanding which all of us on here are doin regardless of belief.
      The thing is i dont think evolution is wrong.. at all.. i think its similar to biblical lore in the sense that it is missing things.. but that doesnt mean i dont believe in it.
      Stupid church ppl fight me all the time on my views.. but as you can see so do scientific types. My belief is faith oriented, meanin i do buy into faith... but i do not neglect science because of it.
      Sorry if my response rubbed you wrong.. really it is not my intent.
      The dark ages were more about mysticism.. the ideas were highly sacrilegious to faith and ignorant to science.both science and faith suffered because of it .. the Renaissance was an interesting period of scientific thinking mixed with faith .. and ancient egypt is also a culture that seemed to fuse the two.
      the problem i have with some of this stuff is that ppl act as if one must be more right than the other. when there is ample evidence to support both. I cant stand zealots and tea party types.. but there are also scientific zealots.. who want everything to fit within reason and if you look at the world around us thats not always applicable.
      When i poked fun at evolution it was just to show you that it can sound just as crazy as some biblical stories do.. trust me dude im no creationist. I dont think science is wrong.. it just doesnt explain everything.. i dont think faith is just doesnt have all the answers ... but if we hold both with equal value, we may be on to a new way of thinkin progressively.
      Once again i thank you for bein respectful and thoughtful in your response

    55. There is no ample evidence for faith, spiritualism or the like.

  50. Theology when viewed in an introspective manner as Spirituality can have a reassuring, beneficial effect on the human soul. When viewed as religion and forced upon everyone regardless of an individuals belief, Theology is rarely reassuring and hardly ever beneficial to anyone. I applaud Bennett’s courage, tenacity and sacrifice in the face of such adversity to give people, for whom Christianity isnt comforting, an acceptable alternative and affirmation that their views are just as valid. Because of men like Bennett, free thinking men have the freedom to question established doctrine, change their views if appropriate and keep society evolving instead of stagnating in the repressive power broking of men like Reverend Cook.

    1. Before watching this documentary, I had never heard of Dr. Bennett. But, like you, I applaud him and his minions, despite his association with Madame Blavatsky. Alas, we still have the likes of Anthony Comstock who, among other things, endeavor to dictate and influence what's taught in biology and history classes.

      However, the so-called benefits of problematic spirituality are mere placebo and as such the alleged comfort derived from this intellectually vacuous concept is empty and hollow. I'd rather endure the pain caused by the real thing than this narcotic.

  51. wow, what a progressive man! Thanks for this one; I learned a lot. He seems to have died rather suddenly, maybe he was poisoned?

  52. YES YES YES .where are men like him now in the usa? remember its just a handfull of old men taking our world apart.

  53. Excellent. Thank you Vlatko for another good one.

  54. Superb.

  55. An inspiring and well presented Biography. Well worth watching.

    Christians always seem to know who or what should be suppressed to make the world a better place... For themselves.

  56. Surprised i havent seen this. Loved it. Thank you again Vlatko.

  57. How did you see it? Is there somewhere else you can go to view it?

  58. Interesting and inspiring.

    DM Bennett - a great modern hero!