http://www.wayofthemaster.com


It just keeps getting better and better.

I see they've added an "intelligent design" segment that is absoultely horrifying.

Eww. What's the purpose of this thread? Other than grossing out some people? Is there a discussion point? Or is this just part of the anti-religion agenda?

Entertainment.




Oh, there's PLENTY to discuss on that site. I don't even know where to start.





Anti-religion? Hardly. It's insulting to associate that type of idiocy with "religion" as a whole.

I think people need to be aware of what this particular group is putting out there. Take the Intelligent Design part for starters. If you watch the video segment, they outright LIE. In addition to the outright lies, they use a lot of sleezy tactics. for instance, they start out asking a bunch of people not well versed in evolutionary theory to explain what they believe. Of couse, they can't do it very well, and the producers use this to site a lack of evidience for the theory. They don't talk to biology teachers or PHDs in evolutionary biology, but a couple of kids in what looks like a student union or something.

Anti-religion agenda? How about the site's anti-science agenda?

You can't make a site like that and not expect people to comment on it.

When it comes to has-been 80s sit-com stars turned Jesus-freak, I'm more of the Willie Ames/Bible Man persuasion.

--Jaylemurph

I guess that's the only acting gig he could get after his stellar acting performance on Growing Pains. Hey why try to top perfection ?

I feel sorry for anyone convinced by Kirk Camerons arguments, I really do. To believe some of the stuff religion teaches you have to surrended some of your reasoning abilities, but to believe that the banana proves the existance of God you have to surrender them all.

Hey, remember Leo DiCaprio (that paragon of left leaning tree-huggers) got his start on that show too. Pretty weird, isn't it?

Funny , sad , and true all at once. Whatever pays the bills.

My point was, what's to talk about? It's like tossing out the WB baptists as a talking point. Stupid is stupid, no matter what it's cloaked in. Maybe I should find some wacky atheists websites and just toss them out there at random, or some alien conspiracy/reptilians-are-ruling-the-world sites for people to poke fun at. Just looking for a defined point to discuss.

I made the effort listened to True and False Conversion on that site. I wish I never but I did.
I also watched the wake up call video on there and I felt like punching that guy in the nose.


Why would anyone feel the need to go around to people and question them if they think they are a good person then tell them they are a thief and a liar and a hypocrite.

go for it. I'm not a athiest, so maybe I should be exposed to some more stuff from people I don't know much about. Maybe I'll agree with them. Maybe I'll think they are full of it. And maybe I'll post my opinion.



Ok, let's discuss their video on Intelligent Design, and how it lies and oversimplifies things. I think that's disgracefull, and I have to wonder if they are just ignorant or willfully distorting things to make a point. If it's the latter, their other segments would say that they are liars and going to hell.

The "Are you a good person?" Test is just awesome. Wow.

I will admit that I only watched about 15 seconds of their little intro, and then read the first few questions on the "Are you good enough for Heaven" quiz. The first question was about always putting God first, before anything, and loving him so much that your love for everyone else is like hatred in comparison. Then I decided that it was probably a sin to watch the video, because I could have been spending my time praying, and I put the wacky website ahead of God in that respect, so that website just bought me my one way ticket to eternal damnation.

Thanks, Kirk.

BEHOLD THE ATHEISTS NIGHTMARE!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

By that guy's logic, I'm glad to see that fundamentalist evangelical christians are not fully in favor of fellatio!

Kind of a catch 22 situation there. They say that you have to love god soooooo much that in comparison you would hate your family. Then it asks, if you honor your father and mother. How can you honor someone that you hate when compared to your love of god?

Boy this religion stuff gives me a headache. And I thought taxes were confusing.

I think it's watered down and over-simplified. It's like "Christianity lite". I have a hard time getting some of the videos to work, but one I did see was the kid at "Seal Beach". It's kind of amusing and sad at the same time. The part about looking at a woman with lust being the same as committing adultery is, as is so often the case, an over-simplification. (Let's use the biology excuse here too as it relates to human attraction!!). It's almost like scare tactics, but the reality is it should be seen as a way of recognizing our own spiritual short-comings. It's hard to really see their intent through all the gloss and flash. That's really the saddest part.
Reminds me of the old saying, The road to hell is paved with good-intentions.

their intent seems pretty clear to me...you're going to hell unless you follow their religion, and here's why......


They also feel threatened by the theory of evolution, because if their book isn't 100% verbatim, then they fear their entire message will crumble, so they need to keep people from understanding evolutionary theory, so they oversimplify it in order to ridicule it. My only solice is that I suspect that only stupid people buy into this anyway.

I just get the over-simplified feel to it myself. It's almost geared towards kids looking for a simple answer.

Over simplified or not it's intent is fear. Check out the Ten Principles for New Christians section. You'll find this lovely tidbit under "Warfare" (which is apparently a principle):

Did you know that God kills people? He killed a man because he didn't like what he did sexually (Genesis 38:10). He killed a husband and wife because they told just one lie (Acts 5:1-11). Knowledge of God's goodness -- His righteous judgments against evil, should put the fear of God in us, and help us not to indulge in sin.

Creepy isn't it?

Or people without college educations, or even high school biology. Or people who want to be told what to do and how to live without the burden of figuring it out for theselves.

I hate that this nonsense is what christianity seems to be associated with today.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, religion doesn't offend me, people who follow tin-pot preachers blindly because they can't think for themselves offend me. This seems to fall into that category roughly.

Pretty funny stuff, they've also got a load of crap on youtube which makes me laugh

I wonder if this embarrasses regular christians? Or maybe this is regular for christians?

I'm embarassed, and I don't even go to church. I'm even more embarassed that we keep electing people that think the same way as Kirk Cameron and holding them up as examples of good morals.

That is very true, they have over simplified a complex and intellectual theory so they can ridicule it. Not only is this strategy foolish and ineffective, it's offensive to both those that agree with their view points and those who they are trying to convert. On the other hand, it is identical to the stunts evolutionists pull. Most refuse to even debate the possibility that their flawless theory may have errors or be completely false in its nature. Rather than look at the data and disprove the so called Christian nuts, they label them as fruitcakes and make comments about their mental health. Ridicule has always been the focal point of the evolutionary hypothesis. Both sides are guilty of the same crime, so if you are going to condemn the irrational believers of one faith, then you must do so of another. Anything else is hypocrisy and quite clearly shows one is not interested in the pursuit of truth.

Hey, now. I /am/ one of those left-leaning tree huggers (or would be, if hippies didn't smell so bad) and Leo's not one of my paragons. He's all scrawny and whiny and not-good-actor-y.



You filthy liberal scum. Only people who /enjoy/ non-procreative sex would even think about fellatio! Now, lie on your back and think of England.

--Jaylemurph

A perfect example of the point I made above.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...13320&st=15

Note posts 7, 11, 13 and 14. Evolutionists seek to dominate conversations through verbal abuse and filibustering.

lol. I wonder if Mr. DiCaprio leaves that bit off his resume ? Does he acknowledge Kirk if he see Kirk waving Christian literature or pretend he doesn't see him as Kirk yells above the fray of fans " Leo , I got you your start man ! " ? aahhh the hard questions of life.

As a Christian, I do find this embarassing, non-productive yes. Moronic, yes.

Most liberal to mainline christians don't behave or think this way. Thank goodness.

I hope your right about this MissMelsWell,

Maybe my perspective is skewed but it seems like allot of nuts are coming out of the woodwork lately. I don’t know maybe it’s the upcoming election.

Not true. Evolutionists understand that the theory is supported by the overwhelming majority of evidence. When new developments arise, when new discoveries are made, the theory changes to assimilate new evidence.




We look at the data and present it to the so called Christian nuts all the time. But the so called Christian nuts counter with passages from the bible and an avalanche of grossly innacurate or distorted "science."

This infuriates us, and sometimes it's hard not to get angry and call people who ignore all science has presented a bunch of idiots. The focal point of the evolutionary THEORY (it is a theory, not a hypothesis. You should know the difference, it's a key point) are conclusions backed up by evidence. Ridicule comes into play when folks like Kirk Cameron ignore all that and distort or ridicule the evidence, we can only conclude that we are dealing with people with a sinister adjenda, or else a bunch of idiots.

I know it's not nice, and I'm trying to have more patience for people who disregard all evidence and form an opinion based on ignorance, but sometimes I just lose it. I'll try harder to be nicer to these people in the future.

I do know the difference between the two, and it is a hypothesis. The majority of data conflicts with the the hypothesis of macro evolution, and supports the theory of micro evolution. There is a distinct difference between the two and the majority of the data is in complete contradiction to the hypothesis of macro evolution as Dawkins himself has admitted the data supports the hypothesis that life was simply placed here, fully evolved in time, seemingly by a creator. He goes on to say that despite the evidence, it is absurd to believe in God so evolution is the only answer. Now which side should be furious?

That is simply complete BS. Wikipedia puts it nicely:

While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution" (Theobald 2004). Nevertheless, macroevolution is sometimes disputed by religious groups. Generally speaking, these groups attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution, asserting various hypotheses which are considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

When discussing the topic, creationists use "strategically elastic" definitions of micro- and macroevolution.[1] Macroevolution, by their definition, cannot be attained. Any observed evolutionary change is described by them as being "just microevolution".

And Dawkins does not believe that life was simply placed here fully evolved. In fact, he believes the exact opposite, written books about it, and studied evolution for over 20 years. Why did you invent that? Are you lying purposefully, or are you just ignorant?

Oh boy,

Here we go again with the macro evolution thing again. Where is your source about Dawkins, and macro evolution?

In your own words, what is the difference between regular evolution, and macro evolution?

Please don’t point us to a creationist website as your source please.

BTW It’s the theory of evolution.

First off, I did not say Dawkins believes that. I said that he said that the evidence points to that conclusion but that it is absurd so he doesn't. Second, if all the empirical data supports the hypothesis of macroevolution, perhaps you'd like to show some, rather than simply claim it exists. I can't refute data that isn't presented. Third, wikipedia is not a reliable source as everyone knows. Anyone with an agenda, whether it be atheistic or Christian in nature, can put a slanted spin on an article.

Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker

It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Both schools of thought, (punctuationalists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creastionists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and we both reject this alternative.

First, you realize that macroevolution occurs as a continuum of microevolution.
Second, if macroevolution wasn't true, neither is the WHOLE field of biology. Modern biology is nothing but evolutionary biology. The only reason people question macroevolution is because it conflicts with their religious beliefs and have no idea what it means.
Third, if you wish to try to 'refute' macroevolution with a biologist such as myself, then please do so in a appropriate thread. I'm sure you have mountains of evidence against it, but this thread's subject is about Kirk Cameron, not macroevolution, but I am more than happy to have a debate with you concerning it.

First: you are obviously taking something out of context here, because Dawkins obviously does not in any way, shape or form believe that the evidence leads to creation.

Second: Of course I can't present to you the entire science of evolution here (which is an issue which could fill thousands of books), don't be unreasonable. Of course you could find out about it for yourself - there is a massive abundance of solid science behind evolution - but the real problem is that you, like all religious nutjobs, don't care what the truth is, so you won't even bother to look, and every single time any evidence is given, you just spurt out some ridiculous pseudoscientific crap, and discard the entire argument, just in order to defend your reality-defying dogma.

Third: What? Read it again. Do you really think that that was a "slanted spin"? Of course not. You could say that it's "an outright lie", but you would be wrong, because even if wikipedia didn't exist, that would be the truth - creationism is nothing but a mindnumbingly stupid pseudoscience fuelled by blind faith, lies, willful ignorance, the complete abondonment of logic, reason and the discarding of all evidence and proof. And evolution would still be an astoundingly solid scientific theory with massive quantities of evergrowing evidence.


I see you are not too good at reading comprehension. Dawkins is saying that punctuationalists and gradualists both hate creationists equally, and that they both reject divine creation.

Oh Man,

I wanted him to explain all that.

Oh well good job as usual Cimber.

Context please!

My reading comprehension is fine thank you. However, perhaps your eyes have not fully evolved or maybe you would have been able to see more than one sentence in a paragraph. A paragraph is a collection of sentences, sort of like a theory is a collection of hard evidence, something that evolution lacks. He is clearly saying that the evidence supports creation, but he rejects that theory so despite the evidence, he rejects what it points to. Now how am I the one with the "lack of reason or logic?" Once again, you refuse to debate the subject, calling me mindnumbingly stupid, you my friend, are mindnumbingly repetitive. If their is really so much evidence for your hypothesis, present it. Whether here, another topic, or in a person message. Unless you do so, it is clear that you are either, unwilling to debate a debateable subject, as stated before, or there is in fact no evidence in which case evolution would be a mindnumbingly stupid psuedoscience to be read about in science fiction novels.

Literary criticism and evolutionary biology: together again at last!

Oh wait. They've never been together. So that's tortured metaphor, one, evolution, nil. Suck it, Science!

--Jaylemurph

That's a good one LOL!

Good videos.

What did you like most about the videos WalkingWF?

The bit about taking the chimp on the planes was pretty good. I got a good laugh out of that.

Nope, he does not say the evidence points towards creation. If you believe he does say that, show me, because frankly all he is saying is that he despises creationists.

You have the burden of proof, not me. If you want to prove that this entire field of biology is based on falsehoods and that your hypothesis of creation is true, then you should provide a convincing case of what is wrong with evolution, and why creation is right. So far creationists have not come close to doing either (surprisingly, eh?).

And the fact that you are just getting acquanted to evolution through someone on an "unexplained mysteries" forum just shows how little you know about evolution. How can you criticise evolution when you don't know ANYTHING about it? You are just copypasting stuff (which you probably don't even understand) from religious fanatic websites which in turn just invent ridiculous crap to support their holy book, despite the crushing evidence against them.

Really, why do you think nobody believes in creationism?

While people are entitled to believe what they will, and publish most of what they believe, it does make some sort of an impact on the young and clueless and the older and very lonely.

First time seeing some of the website. Terribly Born Again, nice enough guys; perhaps even sincere in the beliefs - if a fortune is not being raked in from the desperate.

Just how much damage do you think such stuff would cause? There is much more corrosive stuff on the internet.