[Kosh]

http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/11/25/0430235.shtml

The Discovery Institute, more a lawyer mill than a scientific institution, copied Harvard University's BioVisions video 'The Inner Life of the Cell,' stripped out Harvard's copyright notice, credits, and narration, inserted their own creationist-friendly narration, and renamed the video 'The Cell As an Automated City.' The new title subtly suggests that a cell is designed rather than evolved

Of all the universities, they just had to plagarize from the university with the best law department in the world.

[Mefustae]

You were expecting a group that is essentially anti-thought to thoroughly think-through their actions?

[vyper]

Hmm. Nicely pwnt.

[Kosh]

You were expecting a group that is essentially anti-thought to thoroughly think-through their actions?

Not really, but then again even the RIAA is smart enough to avoid Harvard.

[Mefustae]

Wow, some of those comments on Slashdot are really golden.

[Edward Bradshaw]

Of all the universities, they just had to plagarize from the university with the best law department in the world.

*sigh*. Im always surprised how low these guys go.

[G0atmaster]

I hate it when people go and give us a bad name.

[karajorma]

Then stand up and say that they don't speak for you. The reason that Christians get a bad rep is because not enough of the moderates are willing to stand up and say "I'm a Christian and I think you're full of bull****!"

Not you personally, you pretty much did that. But make sure you get more other Christians to point out what a bunch of idiots these people are.

[Hazaanko]

Lots of people DO that, but it doesn't get reported because its not good news.  Doesn't create an issue... it ends one.  And because Christians generally aren't internet/blog trolls, like the rest of us.

[G0atmaster]

Yeah, Kara, that's not how we handle things.  That's how feuds, schisms, and wars start.  The Bible very clearly lays down a process for dealing with Christians who aren't living in the likeness of Christ, and it doesn't involve making a scene and publically embarrassing a person.  If I were to do what you would suggest, I would, myself, be giving Christians a bad name.

[Agent_Koopa]

Yeah, Kara, that's not how we handle things.  That's how feuds, schisms, and wars start.  The Bible very clearly lays down a process for dealing with Christians who aren't living in the likeness of Christ, and it doesn't involve making a scene and publically embarrassing a person.  If I were to do what you would suggest, I would, myself, be giving Christians a bad name.

Wait, which part is this?

[redsniper]

...get more other Christians to point out what a bunch of idiots these people are.

These people are a bunch of idiots. There.

[Nuclear1]

...get more other Christians to point out what a bunch of idiots these people are.

These people are a bunch of idiots. There.

Thirded.

[G0atmaster]

Yeah, Kara, that's not how we handle things.  That's how feuds, schisms, and wars start.  The Bible very clearly lays down a process for dealing with Christians who aren't living in the likeness of Christ, and it doesn't involve making a scene and publically embarrassing a person.  If I were to do what you would suggest, I would, myself, be giving Christians a bad name.

Wait, which part is this?

Matthew 18:15-20

"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

 "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will bebound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

 "Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

[karajorma]

Fine, do that then.

I don't see much of the taking it to the church and I don't see much of the church telling them they are wrong. I certainly don't see much of the "You don't speak for me, as far as I'm concerned you're a pagan."

[WMCoolmon]

I don't see much of telling these generalizing people that not all Christians agree. It seems like if someone has already decided to go the route of assuming that all Christians think the same, they're not going to be convinced by one or two Christians claiming they 'disagree'. They could always rationalize that as them lying to save their reputation.

Besides which, I don't think that a Christian needs to explain himself to someone who's already decided that all Christians are lawbreakers any more than an atheist needs to explain himself to someone who's decided that all atheists are babykillers.

Negative assumptions do not grant you a special right to make other people explain themselves.

[Mefustae]

I don't see much of telling these generalizing people that not all Christians agree. It seems like if someone has already decided to go the route of assuming that all Christians think the same, they're not going to be convinced by one or two Christians claiming they 'disagree'. They could always rationalize that as them lying to save their reputation.

Well, it certainly doesn't help that the most vocal Christians are invariably the biggest douchebags in that particular religion, same as every religion. The fact of the matter is that a group is always going to be judged by its loudest members, and that can't be helped. What can be helped is every rational person taking that fact in stride whenever some whackjob shoots his mouth off, and refraining from making snap judgments about a large group of people from just one example.

[karajorma]

I don't see much of telling these generalizing people that not all Christians agree. It seems like if someone has already decided to go the route of assuming that all Christians think the same, they're not going to be convinced by one or two Christians claiming they 'disagree'. They could always rationalize that as them lying to save their reputation.

Besides which, I don't think that a Christian needs to explain himself to someone who's already decided that all Christians are lawbreakers any more than an atheist needs to explain himself to someone who's decided that all atheists are babykillers.

Negative assumptions do not grant you a special right to make other people explain themselves.

No they don't but if you're saying you hate those negative assumptions then maybe you should do something about it.

In case you didn't notice the first person to make any comment about these people giving Christians a bad name was GOatmaster himself. If he dislikes that Christians get a bad name cause of these idiots then his choices consist of sitting there annoyed about it or getting up and doing something about it.

If he wants to do the former then that's his choice but if some minority was giving FS2 players, or British people or atheists or any other group who I was a member of a bad reputation you can bet I'd point out that they were dickheads who didn't represent me.

[TrashMan]

Then stand up and say that they don't speak for you. The reason that Christians get a bad rep is because not enough of the moderates are willing to stand up and say "I'm a Christian and I think you're full of bull****!"

It pretty much goes without saying that you have to be a idiot of massive proportions to try to pull something like that. It's like yelling "They sky is blue." But, granted, some people have to be reminded of the simple truths every once and a while.

[karajorma]

Actually no. It's not that simple.

America is the worst example of this. Look at the example of Intelligent Design (which these same guys were behind in fact). A bunch of idiots were able to subvert the education system of an appreciable part of the country by saying that a large percentage of the country were behind them and agreed that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools.

They could never have done that if the majority of the Christians in the country had simply said "Shut up, you're talking bollocks" but that isn't what happened. The vast majority of Christians said nothing. It was left to the atheists and a small percentage of vocal Christians to say that ID was bull****. The fact that the majority of Christians didn't say anything allowed the Discovery Institute and their friends to present the whole thing as an assault on Christianity instead of what it actually was, an attempt to try to bring religion into science classes via the back door.

So this isn't a simple case of Christians unfairly getting a bad name due to the actions of a few. They are getting a bad name due to their own inaction. And that bad name may be deserved. We'll never know now just how many Christians were quiet because they believed in ID and how many were quiet simply because they couldn't be arsed. I tend to feel that the majority were actually of the latter group but while the majority say nothing we'll never know.