Escape to the Movies: Paul

[Fetzenfisch]

A real scientist never proofs anything, for nothing is certain in science. The believe in something like a real truth, is for, exactly , believers. But its better to know that something is very probably like it is, than to believe real hard in a dogmatic unmovable truth, for it shows the superiority of wisdom behind it.
Lets just accept that it is possible that neither side is even close to the real answer. And future generations will laugh at all of your silly ideas, they now know were wrong.
*bows*

 

[FROGGEman2]

3. It is possible to explain or convince in a relative world

Then you agree that some ideas hold more truth than others?
That not all explanations are equal?

What? No! I never said that.

I don't want to ge banned, so I'm not going to respond. I also see no point arguing over semantics.

 

[lumpenprole]

Well, now I'm definitely going to see it for the 'Screw You ID' factor. Thanks Bob!

What's so wrong with ID? As long as it isn't taught in the classroom, people have a right to believe in it if they want.

Sure, people have a right to. And I have a right to call them idiots, and enjoy any media that calls them idiots.

 

[rockoffanddie]

im british saw this a while ago and it is without a doubt the funniest movie i have seen for a long time

 

[Pyode]

Wrong, the burden of proof is always on the accuser. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

No. You are misunderstanding the concept of innocent until proving guilty.

What it comes down to is negative vs. positive.

An accusation of a crime is a positive claim. "You did steel that car."

The statement that I didn't commit a crime is a negative claim. "I didn't steel that car."

In this case, the positive claim is the one with the burden of proof.

Religion is the same way. It makes a positive claim that god exists. Atheism is a negative claim that god does not exist. Again, the positive claim is the one that requires proof.

However, it usually doesn't go that far because most atheists don't make a claim at all. Instead of claiming that god doesn't exist, they simply say that there is insufficient evidence to support his existence and they will not believe in a god until that proof has been provided.

 

[DearFilm]

I saw the film and was actually pretty disappointed with the level of laziness involved.

Sure, it was vicious and mean-spirited towards Christianity, but I could get beyond that if it was fun and interesting (hi, Dogma!). However, it went for every low-hanging fruit on the tree while never even bothering to try to jump a little bit to grab something requiring the slightest bit of effort.

Seriously, movies that skate on their charm (a drinking alien, no way!) kind of bum me out because of their lost potential. Like that fun friend you have who is going to go places, but then just decides "forget it" and heads off to Burning Man.

 

[mptothedc]

I really really liked this movie!

 

[Anchupom]

It's not just 30-something sci-fi nerds that get the references. A certain teenage super nerd got most of the references when he went to see it. And was very smug after because most of his friends didn't.

I love being a super nerd.

 

[Tsuki Akechi]

PAUL WAS AWSOMESAUCE!

 

[noxymoron19]

Loved the movie. Laughed my ass of for most of it. The end slows down the comedy a bit, but hey, who am I to complain. Great movie, even if I didnèt catch all the reference that I knew Bob got.

 

[Steven True]

The degree that somebody loves their beliefs has absolutely nothing to do with whether they are true or not. None.

And yet there is just as little proof denying the existence of God as there is proving the existence of one.

The burden of proof is on those that claim that something exists.

Wrong, the burden of proof is always on the accuser. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

Accuser? Nobody is accusing anybody of anything.
This is the question as to the existence of something.

Basic logic:
The burden of proof is on the one who makes the positive assertion.

Example:
If I say "Unicorns exist," it is up to me to provide the evidence that they do exist. Until that evidence is produced there is no reason for you to believe that they do. You do not need any evidence that unicorns don't exist to reject my claim.
Otherwise we would have to believe in any crazy thing that we can think of; faeries, imps, trolls, extant dinosaurs, Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. until somebody had evidence that they didn't exist. Why would god(s) be any different?

 

[Steven True]

3. It is possible to explain or convince in a relative world

Then you agree that some ideas hold more truth than others?
That not all explanations are equal?

What? No! I never said that.

I don't want to ge banned, so I'm not going to respond. I also see no point arguing over semantics.

This isn't semantics. It's a basic question concerning epistemology.
So it is your position that ALL claims to truth have equal validity?
If I said that your feet was held to the ground by magic pixies instead of gravity, you would consider that equally valid as Newton's theory of gravity?

 

[Lionsfan]

It's not just 30-something sci-fi nerds that get the references.

Same here, the way Bob had it in the review I thought it was just gonna be super deeply layered obscure jokes about rare Sci-Fi stuff from decades ago. Pleasant surprise though when I was able to catch (hopefully) most of them...

[sub]even if it was a little weird being one of the only people laughing at the jokes[/sub]

 

[jabrwock]

What's so wrong with ID? As long as it isn't taught in the classroom, people have a right to believe in it if they want.

That's the thing. ID isn't merely a belief system. It's coupled with a strenuous effort to get itself legitimized as a scientific principle, and an effort to get it taught in the classroom. (as others have pointed out, != theism, even Stephen Hawking says there's nothing wrong with God designing the laws of physics...)

The major proponent of ID, the "Discovery Institute", doesn't actually do science trying to support ID (the idea that God makes all the creatures, the process of evolution cannot happen). Instead, they spend half their effort trying to discredit evolution using BS and decades old problems that have since been dealt with (and all it's related scientific fields of study), and the other half using that "we'll there's controversy" to promote the inclusion of ID in science class as an "alternate theory".

The Dover case showed that this was all just a ruse to get biblical creationism taught in science class. They literally just took a creationist book and did a "s/God/designer/g"...

 

[Anchupom]

Pleasant surprise though when I was able to catch (hopefully) most of them...

[sub]even if it was a little weird being one of the only people laughing at the jokes[/sub]

I got that - but going with a friend of a similar level of nerdiness and trying to out-do each other by getting references turns those awkward moments into a game that you're winning.
[insert now-obligatory Charlie Sheen joke here]

 

[LogicNProportion]

Maybe it's just because i'm not American, but I didn't find the film that funny at all.

It was average at best, with shoe-horned in romance and the usual twist ending.

>mfw when the movie is British.

I haven't seen it yet, but I enjoyed Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz IMMENSELY!!!

Definitely going to give this a go!

 

[beema]

I was pretty interested in seeing this until i found out Seth Rogen is the alien. I am so incredibly fucking sick of that fat jewfro stoner stereotype that I think even a voice-over role might be too much for me.

I'll see if it's playing cheap somewhere then maybe go...

 

[DisturbiaWolf13]

30-somethings? I just turned sixteen and even I've seen "Mac and Me".

 

[pezmanon]

Good review. I thought the film was pretty good. It wasn't nearly as funny as Hot fuzz, and Shaun of the dead though. But then, I was probably closer to the target audiences of those films.

 

[moviedork]

Saw it last week, and I thought it was extremely lazy. There were too many geek references that do nothing but mention something, too many lame recurring jokes that weren't that funny to begin with, as well as an insulting anti-Christian agenda. Look I can accept people poking fun at religion, but this felt way too preachy for me. I love the friendship between Pegg and Frost, but other than that, it's a waste of great talent from the entire cast.