Lucy Goosey Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT | |
I never thought I'd be bored in a movie with Morgan Freeman in it, but it happened. | |
Even worse, this movie has God tells a character to kill another through vague messages, a kid can take that the wrong way very easily. This is clearly a movie for above the age of 16 or close but yeah, it really seems that as long as it doesnt tick those boxes its fine for kids | |
A group that believes (has faith in) in a negative that has not been proven being snarky at a group believing (having faith) in a positive that has not been proven. Fun stuff. I always preferred Dawkin's Scale anyways. Asshole though he is, it's a good scale for showing atheists as being every bit as "faith"-based in the lack of information as the other side. 1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know." The only thing is that I believe the scale to be narrowly defining the term theism. For example, just because someone believes it is likely that God created the universe doesn't mean they have to believe that He still exists in any way shape or form. Like a video game developer that booted up the creation and then went out for a bite to eat and may or may not come back to the artificial universe created. So believing that something created the Universe does not necessarily correlate with behaving as though "He is there". Dawkin's identifies himself as a 6 for the very reason I stated that both extremes are faith without facts scenario. He'd likely consider a 2 to be an honest believer. | |
I personally have one evidence about the inexistence of a god as described by the monotheisms: genetic disease.
Woah. So facts =/= truths? But maybe you're speaking about morality. Alas, morality was long in use before any monotheist religion. The greeks litteraly invented it. | |
I'm a little confused by the doublethink going on here; a story that never took place anbout a young couple taking a journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem because of a nonsensical census that we know never happened leads us ultimately to conclude THE TRUTH; this man is the successor of David because reasons! Also, are Jesus and David the only two people ever to have been born in Bethlehem? Don't answer with the "born of a virgin" thing, that's a translation error. I don't get what you're trying to say Dawkins is doing wrong. He's a man of science, using his capacity for reason to argue against and hopefully dispel the hold a bronze age blood god might have over those still not wholly convinced. He's fully aware he wont win over the convinced fundamentalists, but might be able to reach and provide ammunition for some who grow up in religious settings but aren't yet on either side of the fence. Ignorance need to be faced with reason, and the Richard Dawkins Foundation is a step in the right direction. Now don't misunderstand me; the study of religious texts as literature is important, and much of important literature becomes incomprehensible without knowledge of these books. But a field dedicated to the study of these texts for the purpose of divining how modern day people should conduct their affairs and adhere to scripture? I'm sorry sir, but for all that substance, you might as well turn to the stars. At least Alchemy was a precursor to modern chemistry.
Burden of proof lies on the positive claim, for a negative claim cannot be positively proven. i.e. "you can't prove it isn't so" isn't a thing but "I can prove it is so" is. | |
*Shrugs* Aye, pretty much. At least the number of different definitions I've heard from people is relatively dinky compared to what I was expected to learn in Sunday school. | |
Removed. Was criticism. | |
I enjoyed the comic and sort reminded me of MovieBob's little spiel about Noah ruffling feathers of armchair atheists, which I thought was an entertaining flick. I highly recommend Noah to the curios, detractors, and Aronofsky's style. @Ingjald: Well, if you take the New Atheist movement as a whole, it does have cult like and downright disturbing mentality. Coming from my own experience having studied under Old School Atheists, Dawkins sets a dangerous Anti-Intellectual precedent. He's a biologist, but is a hardened religious scholar? I will admit Hitchen's was the only one who had half a brain, but after witnessing shenanigans from PZ Meyers, Dan Dennet and Sam Harris, I can collectively call bullshit on the movement after the infamous Christian Apologist John Lennox and William Laine Craig caught Sam Harris attempting to fidget vague meanings and interpretations regarding morality. Attempting to use Scientism as a blanket for skewed Scientific Literalism? Kinda stupid, considering the nature of Science itself is an evolving concept as new theories are proposed and old ones thrown out. However, rather than just bash the New Atheists with a hammer, it's more like they're trying to revive "Postivist" thinking that went out of a fashion in the philosophical world during the 1930s and 40s. The New Atheists aren't "new" but a bunch of kids with scientific degrees who found lots old ideas that was covered by academics generations ago. They easily mask "reason" and "science" with a flawed argument about truth. And if you want a literal clusterfuck, "Truth" is the dagger at the heart of any belief system, even our vaunted and worshiped science. New Atheists purposely eschew individuality and replace it with group think - even many Atheists have reached a rational conclusion Dawkin's had been toking up the Test Tube one too many time. | |
Space Aliens and lightsabers aren't real, but the brain is. Star Wars is in a galaxy far far away and Lucys gimmick is that "if YOU could use more of the brain this could happen". But it is widely known that no we can't. | |
I ran into some major spoilers for Lucy that stated which tells me I should just watch the Akira movie instead. From the sounds of it, Lucy is just a dumber live-action version of it that happens to have much poorer review scores. | |
Except it isn't. No one going into this movie should ever think that what happens in it is in direct correlation to reality or what their brain is capable of if it ran at 100% 100% of the time, because that's not how brains work. The "backlash" against this movie for using that particular myth and running with it as a gimmick is about as dumb as any display of physicality that is present within DBZ or any other shlocky sci-fi film, including Star Wars and the whole "force" nonsense. Just because you will it does not make it true. The only people who would mistake that for reality are under the age of 10, and I'd give most of those more credit than that as well. Suspension of disbelief with this generation is seriously lacking, especially when it's entirely functional in-universe. A lot of things are "real" in fictional universes, not a whole lot of people rave about it in the grand scheme of things. If they did we'd be in for some really fucking boring fiction. | |
The whole problem with Science-Fiction is that its an oxymoron. If it were up to me it would probably be Present or Future Fantasy. Or even Past Fantasy, but I'm pretty certain that's just Regular Fantasy & Steam Punk. Now Lucy (which I assume is named after the fossils of a transitional form) doesn't bother me beyond the feeling that humans should be 90% smaller. And in that case I'd gladly go see it. However I'm creeped out about it as this is the 2nd time Movie Bob has declared And the first time I trusted Movie Bob with such an opinion it was Splice. Off the bat Splice couldn't comprehend how to create 2 X chromosomes (female) & thus relies on XY chromosomes (male) to create a female. It's ending was so disturbing as to what Movie Bob called a Pro Science Movie that when I got home I couldn't help but to fall dead asleep. Then again even without the 10% thing I'd still rather watch Galerians: Rion as it basically has a similar theme to Lucy. But on top of that is a CGI Anime with a Heavy Metal sound track. | |
huh?....oh right...right on!
if you count r/atheism as the "group"...its like listening to NIN's "Heresay" while masturbating furiously | |
It makes a six hour drive across Texas twice a year more bearable. B) And it's at least 50% of the reason I take that drive after sundown. | |
In the Old Testament, God kills a lot of people...mostly through temper tantrums. Kids have been reading that in the Bibles for a long time now. WAIT, WAIT, NO RELIGION FLAME WAR, I'M A NOOB HERE. I'M SORRY! Uhm...on topic, Lucy...looks like something you'd see on the Sci-Fi channel. | |
I just watched Under the Skin and have a much greater appreciation for Johansson as an actress, so I want to see Lucy. But, oh my god, that 10% thing aggravates the hell out of me. I mean, ignore for the moment that it's a myth that has been broken repeatedly. A bit of common sense, nevermind basic understanding of human physiology, should make you realize that the 10% thing is stupid. A) a head injury ANYWHERE is serious, not just 10% of head injuries (plus how injuries/strokes/disease impact function) So, you know, I find the 10% nonsense alternately stupid and kind of like... I'm being spoken down to as a viewer. I get it, there are stupid people who still believe that nonsense. But c'mon. >:| | |
This comic made me mad! SO MAD! | |
Yeah. Its a good thing nobody disliked when Star Wars tried to give a physiological explanation for how the force works... That could have gone badly. | |
Well this thread is much more civil then I expected. I thought it was going to get to WGDF levels of bad, but I was pleasantly surprised. I want to take part of the discussion, but I feel that it might be best not to, but I'll leave something up to add at least, despite the fact it would be best not to. The following is stuff from only my experiences, and it's my personal beliefs as well. I don't want to get into an argument over the stuff. I minus well come out and say the big stuff right away, that way you can decide if you want to keep reading this, but this is probably hanging myself only a week after joining this site. I partly belong to the group of Christians you hate, mainly that I believe in creationism, and I think Gay marriage is wrong. PLEASE, hear me out before you start hating me. That is my personal belief, but I still believe that Gay marriage should be legalized, and that evolution stay's in Science class, and that if creationism is talked about, it is talked about in a religious studies class. I believe everybody should be treated equal, and that people should believe what they want to, as long as they aren't actively harming people. The reason I think Gay marriage should be legalized, despite my beliefs, is that married people get legal benefits, and that by not allowing them to be legally recognized, we are taking away their rights that the government should provide. As far as the creationism part goes, I know a lot about evolution, and see all the good reasons, but I have my reasons that I won't get into. You can make fun of me, you can berate me, but these are my beliefs and it won't change. It felt good to get that out of the way, so I will go on with the rest of my stuff, if you feel the need to keep reading after this part. I have friends of various beliefs, from agnostic, to atheist, to combinations of things. Our politics also range quite a bit, but we all manage to get along. How? Because we are reasonable people that while some may consider what we believe to be stupid, we can respect each other, and we don't try to force our beliefs on each other. I've lived in Texas all my life, and most of my fellow Christians who believe what I do don't care about most of the stuff. Also, which might surprise some people, we don't go around preaching to everyone and telling them they are going to hell. We are rational people, and it does tick us off to a certain degree when other people tell us we are stupid for believing what we do, despite not being in peoples faces about it. This is usually more from personalities that are berating the hard core Christians, like Westboro Baptist, but when people are grouping us with them, it gets annoying, kind of like when Atheists get annoyed for being grouped with the extreme ones. Mainly what I am trying to say, is that despite what some think, a lot of Christians, and other people from other religions, are reasonable people. As far as Atheists go, as I mentioned in another post, all the ones I met are nice people, and the most we will say when it's brought up, if at all, is why we believe what we do, then go on to other topics. There are those that are more outspoken against religion, and while they have that right, I don't like that some will berate others for having a certain belief. I apologize if my post seems preachy, and I know I'm bringing pain upon myself by admitting some of these things, but I feel it's necessary so people can know that not everyone with these types of beliefs are dicks like some groups. I don't want to talk about why I believe certain things, and I don't want to get into arguments, I just want to make that one point. I have laid out what I thought, so know people can decide if they want to take anything I have to post seriously again. | |
A few thoughts on this thread... First, to the "as long as you don't bug me, I won't bug you" crowd...it all sounds well and good to lambast atheists who will snark at Christians, and the Christians who will tell an atheist that they will burn in hell. However, I feel like it is important to note that the snark isn't just about an uppity asshole tossing potshots at people who aren't like them. There a thing in social psychology, called the Bogardus Social Distance Scale. It's a measure--one of many--basically of how acceptable an individual finds a particular subgroup within their community. On this scale, and every other measure like it, atheists consistently rank dead last by a sizable margin, in terms of how accepting the populace is of them. The only time I have known of when this was not the case (in the US, at least) was for about six months after 9/11, when muslims very briefly fell more out of favor when compared with atheists. That's not to say that all theists are jerks who hate atheist, but that the sentiment is very much out there, and not just in internet flame wars and evangelical chruches. There is very little people will consistently agree on regarding spiritualism, but if there's one place where members of many different religion can see eye to eye, it's that they don't like atheists. An acquaintance once told me, in exact words, "No, you can't be an atheist. Atheists are all assholes." And they weren't a Christian, but a follower in (I guess?) some flavor of pagan religion. To me, the snark you often see is parallel to the all-to-familiar-in-gamer-circles snark you (used to? I think people are more accepting these days?) see from socially-outcast nerds. When you have enough people telling you that you are a horrible person and rejecting you based on a label, snark is a natural response. Not a good response, mind, because it catches a lot of people who don't deserve ire in the vitriol, but still natural. Second, to the "truth versus fact" stuff from RoonMan: I think I understand the point being made when you try to draw a distinction between truth arrived at through allegory and truth arrived at through scientific investigation. However, I do not think the distinction is as hard and fast as you make it. The fact is, science is only built around the "facts" that we have dilligently tried to disprove, but never can. The laws of thermodynamics are only "laws" because they give us the right answer every time we try to apply them, not because of some immutable power of science. And even at that, every measurement has error, every hypothesis has a non-zero probably of being disproven, even if we were somehow able to gather all of the information in the universe to make our prediction. Quantum mechanics sees to that. What I'm trying to get at, is that both religion and science are, in essence, the practice of determining what we think is the most likely truth based on the assumptions we live with. The only difference is that in science, I can assign a number to how certain I am--which incidentally, could be completely wrong if my base assumptions are off (see also, origin of quantum physics). Finally, for my own personal take, I am atheist not because there is no evidence of a higher power, but to my mind there is overwhelming evidence against it. Specifically, in all of my experience, and in all of my learning, I have yet to encounter a thing that operates completely outside of the laws of causality. I would not say that we have reached a point where those laws--and the extent to which we can leverage them for progress--is fully understood, by a long shot, but even the deepest, most perplexing mysteries in the universe occur because some set of circumstances made them happen, which could be quantified and repeated if we just knew more about the system. Given this, even if a higher being somehow does exist, why should I pledge fealty to it? It is bound by the same laws of physics as I am, and there is no reason why I can't be just as omnipotent and omnipresent as He is, with more understanding. Theism presupposes separate planes of existence: the first for the deity, whose grace can never be approached by the likes of the mortals on the second lower plane. I see no reason why humans should be so limited. I bring this up, because so far, wherever I have see a "all atheists are in one of these camps" or "atheists believe this," I have yet to see my actual views represented in the generalizations being made. Please realize that atheism is not a religion, any more than monotheism or polytheism is a religion. I mean, many denominations of Buddhists are atheistic, but I'm sure they weren't considered when you laid out your view on what you think atheism is. You are pidgeonholing a lot of people into very narrow boxes when you do that. | |
Good stuff, and I never realized that about Atheists, it always seemed more something to do with the vocal minority of Christians, which with the size of it still comes out as a high number. I guess that a lot of people, including me to a degree, are very attached to our faith and beliefs, and that lots of people will associate an entire group based on a few people who can match one description, which in this case is Atheism. People need to realize that the lowest subgroups should be jerks. I always hate people being generalized into a group, whether about religions, politics, sex, sexuality, race, etc. That's why I made that poorly composed rant of mine earlier. I respect your reasoning, and I hope you don't get a lot of flak for it, because that is something that should not be done. | |
@Abnaxis: You summed up the importance of individuality greatly - not all Atheists are arses XD. I just find it funny and pathetic the loud-mouthed Atheists got worked up about "another" biblical movie, when their own "field" is just fragmented, fool-ridden and stupid as the theists they so often try to paint as being morons. In the end, it's the pot calling the kettle black. As for the New Atheists? I'll take any time needed to knock them and their ilk down a peg, to smash their Scarlet A's and to cover their "sacred" Scientism and whitewash it like the Iconoclasts of old. They are not Atheism, they are not brights, and never will be an answer to solve the Atheist riddle. If you want "hard" Atheism, go Sartre, and give Nihilism a hoot. | |
I'm perfectly fine with your post up to that point. But here's the something I'm less fine about:
It won't work as an argument against deity, because you're presupposing this god is part of the universe he created. In my opinion, if you need a reason to refute the existence of a god, your current posture (if I understood it well) isn't enough. Science is powerful enough to find a "rational" justification to this kind of god. That's why I prefer to refute the existence of god as a merciful creature, caring for our well-being. Because for this, I have plenty of evidences against, bringing all the claims of any religion to the ground. That and the inability of any religion to prove the claims they're making about an afterlife, for the last 100 000 years.
This point is important, because it's usually the argument we get: "you are as religious as I am, hypocrit!". The core of atheism is here: how do I decide what's the best thought process to make decision on a daily basis?
They claim there's an after-life. Plus, the consequences of their samsara thing is dangerous: you cannot force people to "get out of the reincarnation circle" if they know their next lifes will be better than the current one. You need to convince them they will be better when dissolved into the great nothing. | |
Quite a vivid image you have there >.> I wonder how you procured such detail <.< | |
It is very much a major force in the USA when there are some states that exclude Atheists from being an electable candidate. http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2012-05-unelectable-atheists-us-states-that-prohibit-godless Or when there are illegal kidnappings going of youths in America and subjecting them to child abuse and what is basically brainwashing. | |
The Christian Religion, and every branch of the Christian Religion, is about NOT getting along with people. Can you really blame us? In the same way I highly doubt there was ever Athiest being mean to Shinto, a very inclusive and peaceful religion. | |
I know I'm probably going to get a lot of people saying otherwise, but this seems like you are generalizing everything. I will not deny about the history of the religion, and that there are people and sections of the religion that spreads hate, but there are lots of sections and people that are good and actually do get along with others. I'm not going to argue with you past that. If you've experienced the exact opposite, then I apologize, since that is something that should not be happening. | |
And to that statement, I use my other often used statement. There was Nazi's who were generally nice people and kind to most people they met. Doesn't make Nazi's as a whole a good thing, and they would probably be nice people without the Nazi'ing as well. | |
Well, I guess I'm basically a Nazi. Look, I can take whatever insults people want to at me, but to condemn millions of people based on past atrocities, or a small percentage of them today that like to spread hate (such as Westboro), but to say that there are millions upon millions that are basically Nazi's really pisses me off. Even those that are actively denying Gay marriage are not going around and killing them, imprisoning them, and causing mass genocide. Yes, there are still people who use the Bible as an excuse to do horrible things, but horrible people will use any excuse. In a way you are basically saying my father is spreading ideas of killing people and depriving them of basic human rights, just because he's a pastor for a Christian church. I don't know what has happened in your life, but no matter what it is, there is no reason for someone to condemn an entire religion based on the past, or even the present of some of the stuff some do. I know this probably won't change your mind, it might even make you say worse things, but going to the Nazi analogy is really pushing things. If you take anything from this, please don't throw everyone under one label, even if you consider people that are part of said group to be like Nazi's. You can say whatever terrible things you want to me personally if it makes you feel better. | |
I'm sorry you feel that way. However, you do realise that by dropping a supposed Nazi parallel into an astoundingly diverse group of people, (some good, some less good, most just getting by) you are deliberately going after an emotional or hostile response - or trolling, to put it another way. If you feel that a world without religion would be a less evil place, I understand, based on past evidence, but have to disagree. Religion has simply been a point at which less moral people can rally support based on fear or anger, relying on the faith of the devoted, and subverting that faith to their own ends. There will always be war, greed, famine, exclusion etc. That's the human condition, and no amount of 'well if they just gave up these outmoded ideas' will reduce it. So I will try to reduce suffering in the world my way, (education, medicine and public health and the application of 'Love thy neighbour' without labelling it as such) and you do it yours - I just hope you have something to believe in to carry you through. | |
Again, you're not describing anything that doesn't happen to other franchises.
So is Angnosticlaw one you can enter freely from the other houses, as it doesn't really address belief, or is it just the "atheists who don't want to be called atheists" house? I'm just wondering if I want to end up there. | |
You can say "small minority!" all you want, but when close to half the country agrees with WBC on homosexuality, predominantly on religious grounds (the part they disagree with isn't "God hates fags," after all, it's the way WBC protests our sacrosanct soldiers' funerals), the idea that it's a small percentage of the base is complete trash. At best, you can say #notallreligiouspeople, but that doesn't make it a small fraction.
And besides, what does the concept of millions of people who undertook horrific actions under the banner of a religious institution, largely targeting other religious groups and spurred on by a man who thought he was protected by God Herself have to do with religion? They're so unrelated, it must be specifically to garner an emotional response.
If it is, in fact, the human condition, then your method won't reduce it, either. It's weird. It's part of the human condition and changing people's mind sets away from believing in angry bronze age genies who hate gays and pork but love slavery and genocide won't change that, but...your method will? I mean, it seems completely contradictory to go "human condition!" and then insist you're out to change it. That at least borders on special pleading. At the same time, secular societies tend to have higher quality of life, so one has to wonder if reduction of religious beliefs might actually, in fact, reduce suffering. Even if correlation doesn't equal causation, it does make the Bible (and other books, but I'm looking at you, Psalm 13) wrong. Or, to put the question directly to you: Why do the most religious parts of the world tend to correlate to more poverty, more hunger, more violent crime? Yes, yes, I know that correlation doesn't mean causation, but if you're going to tell people that reduction in religious beliefs won't reduce these issues, then you should be able to offer a reason why it looks like the exact opposite in reality. | |
Did you honestly just compare Christians to Nazis? The Inquisition ended hundreds of years ago thank you very much. Heck, I identify as agnostic and am sick to death about my Dad rambling about religion, and your comment STILL rubs me the wrong way. | |
While the way it was formulated was unlucky, that's not what he said. He did not say "Christians are Nazis", he (badly) said "The same measurements apply". It's called "highlighting the parallels", not "comparing". And for what it's worth, the same would apply to atheists, too, if they ever start the same shit that the big institutionalized religions do and did. | |
| Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT | |