* * * "Trekking for Stars" So I didn't hate STAR TREK (2009). It was beautiful, actiony, explody, sexual, pretty, glossy, dark, Romulany. Much like eating a meal of ice cream, it may at first seem like a really good idea, but then you get the feeling that, perhaps it was a bit excessive. And you feel a bit full. Then sick. And then you remember, you don't really like ice cream all that much and you are lactose intolerant.
--BBY
Edit. Qqv. P Zed Myers' more eloquently put analysis of Star Trek (2009).
Did anyone notice the interior design of the Romulan ship? Funky weird platforms with no guardrails suspended over a huge empty space. Only the Mario Brothers could like that layout.
[The] franchise has become much of a muchness. The new movie essentially intends to reboot the franchise with younger characters and carry on as before. The movie deals with narrative housekeeping. Perhaps the next one will engage these characters in a more challenging and devious story, one more about testing their personalities than re-establishing them.
Wait for the next one, eh? Neither read as glowing endorsements.
The wonderful super mega awesome opening music is Jonathan Coulton's "Skullcrusher Mountain," a sad song about unrequited love between a mad supervillain and the object of his affection who seems to be less than enthused by the number of ponies murdered to construct a monstrous hybrid pony beast as a present. Thank-you Mr. Coulton, thank-you to the brilliance that is Creative Commons.
The theme for today's episode is what is known popularly as "Poe's Law". For those of you in the know that means we're going to be talking about religious extremism today. Since my training is religious studies foremost, I feel quite comfortable addressing this topic at length.
The Urban dictionary is a fun project and has a good definition of Poe's Law here.
1. Word of the Week: L'esprit d'escalier Good definitions can be found here & here.
Denis Diderot (1713 – 1784) and l’esprit d’escalier. Here & here & and here.
2. The Book for this Week is: The Portable Atheist edited by Christopher Hitchens.
2b. Quote for this Week The Atheist Experience.
Before quoting the Bible to atheists, always ask yourself whether the same statement would be just as effective in your mind if you were quoting Captain Kirk.
If the Qur'an is the infallible Word of God, then it stands to reason that it would not contain factual errors of science. By "factual errors" we mean errors that can be physically examined . . . Many Muslims believe in the Qur'an as a blind leap of faith. They really do not care if it is filled with mistakes and contradictions . . . The more closed minded they are, the more fanatical they become in their religion. When ignorance unites with arrogance, fanaticism is born.
#3. Ms. Palin, another fundie. Sarah Palin has links to Joel’s Army, “is an apocalyptic movement of 'hyper-charismatic' preachers that claim to have a divine mandate to physically impose Christian 'dominion' on non-believers during end times.”
#4. Father Robert Barron on Bill Maher’s Religulous is available here: *
*
I Quote: “these poor people . . . if he really posed these serious questions to serious people who’d know how to respond to him. But he just knocked down strawmen. ...It was just line up stupid people.”
#5. P Zed Myers v. Roger Ebert as inspired by the "lovable" Ben Stein. Myers v Ebert Ben Stein and Expelled or better yet here for their well deserved trashing.
Imagine if, in 1729, there had been a number of letters to the editor by various authors proposing that Irish children be exterminated and eaten. Imagine that laws of that nature were being seriously debated in Parliament, and that one of the parties had made it a part of their platform. While the laws were being regularly defeated, opponents still had to stand up and seriously debate why it was unethical to eat babies. Imagine that a candidate for prime minister actually solemnly suggested that we ought to at least consider the merits of eating Irish children. . . .
That's Ebert's mistake. He presented a plain statement of creationist beliefs with satirical intent, but that intent cannot possibly be seen in a world where millions say exactly the same things with sincerity. Does Ken Ham have invisible quotation marks around the AiG Statement of Faith? No. Was the Wedge Document an amusing practical joke by the Discovery Institute? No. Is Sarah Palin pulling the entire nation's leg when she attends her speaking-in-tongues, young-earth-creationist, End-Times-worshiping church? I wish.
Let me suggest that while satire was certainly my purpose, creationists were not my intended audience. By stating their beliefs accurately, my hope was that on a site such as mine they would reach a wider readership that might have heard about creationism but didn't realize what it actually believes. Only 4 percent of Americans are creationists. Do you have any idea how many Americans don't know what it teaches? I don't. I know the original article was linked far and wide, which is encouraging.
*
We are reachable via courriel or l’email if you prefer France-French: podcast at b e a r dot s t
I am also on Facebook, Brendan Bao-Yi. As is our Heretical fan page, which is currently craptacular because I am the one who put it up. Salut, à la prochaine fois.
Posts
