While I usually enjoy Critical Miss I found this one rather weak. Whatever punchline there was supposed to be didn't register with me. Oh well, everybody has their off-days.
Lucy Goosey
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Never saw Noah, but I agree with your point.Mcoffey said:
I get the same reaction when I tell people how underrated The Prince of Egypt was.
Just want to give you a heads up that we ran with this joke on twitter and people have came up with "Secularyn" and "Gryffreethinkindor." No one's came up with one for Hufflepuff yet, because no one likes Hufflepuff.PunkRex said:Sigmund Av Volsung said:
Better beee...
AGNOSTICLAW!
OT: You see, this is why I tell people that I believe in Dinosaurs and keep walking.
"Big chunk". Yeah, sure. Most of my fellow atheists I've met don't go provoking religious types. Not because we're afraid of being repressed or tortured like in times past, but because we're more grown up than that. Most atheists don't push their beliefs on others because they're mature enough to follow the golden rule. We really only debate or argue if pressed.
In my experience, it's only some Christians and a handful of insecure atheists/agnostics who feel the need to score points. And I just shake my head slowly at all of them.
In my experience, it's only some Christians and a handful of insecure atheists/agnostics who feel the need to score points. And I just shake my head slowly at all of them.
I think they're just disappointed that it was Lucy and not a Black Widow movie.Zombie Badger said:
Religion is no longer a major force in the secular, Western world, so there's not much for atheists to argue or fight about. Hence, a large proportion of the arguing is from those who can't see the silliness of shooting fish in a barrel.
If the criteria for good/bad sci-fi is if they are 100% scientifically accurate, then by that reasoning Star Trek, Farscape, Babylon 5, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica (new and old), Matrix, Stargate (all of them), Dr. Who, etc. etc. are all terrible shows and should be constantly called out for their scientific inaccuracies, right?
Seriously, the worst thing that the Internet brought about is that it made everyone so bitchy...
Seriously, the worst thing that the Internet brought about is that it made everyone so bitchy...
It took me three lines for me to realise that was a London Grammar remix. Huh. Reminds me of Protomen.
I watched that controversial scene from Noah, the birth of the earth 7 day one, with Russell Crowe talking over it like someone trying to grade a breezeblock. I thought it was spectacularly done.
Capatcha: Blah Blah Blah. Yup.
I watched that controversial scene from Noah, the birth of the earth 7 day one, with Russell Crowe talking over it like someone trying to grade a breezeblock. I thought it was spectacularly done.
Capatcha: Blah Blah Blah. Yup.
I'm sure somewhere Noah's still going. Though I could only find 2 lkistings in Texas and one in Minnesota. Quick! Where does Erin live? We need to make sure this theater is accurate!Vault101 said:
<.<
And this is why I steer clear of the Amazing Atheist.Clowndoe said:
I'm not sure if that counts as a point or a zinger, so I'm going to go with "both."
If you drop the specification of "at religious people," you described the entire "group" of the internet, though, so it's not like there's anything that stands out about this behaviour.Sigmund Av Volsung said:
You do realise that people ***** about the scientific accuracy in all of the above, right? Even the fans will? There are people who just can't get past warp drive or the TARDIS or psychics or snakes that can cure all disease.Jandau said:
Kerfufflepuff, for those who don't wanna get involved.The Wooster said:Just want to give you a heads up that we ran with this joke on twitter and people have came up with "Secularyn" and "Gryffreethinkindor." No one's came up with one for Hufflepuff yet, because no one likes Hufflepuff.PunkRex said:Sigmund Av Volsung said:
Better beee...
AGNOSTICLAW!
OT: You see, this is why I tell people that I believe in Dinosaurs and keep walking.
2meta4meLoki_The_Good said:
What FOUL ruses are you playing on me, Trickster?!
And I would say it gets a bad rap because of people like TheAmazingAtheist(not to mention Richard Dawkins' and Ricky Gervais' occasional, yet unbearable smugness and hints at anti-theism).
But I'd like to rest this matter, I don't want to be included in the inevitable religious 'discussion' that this thread will be engulfed by :X
I would say most active atheists are not "tired of Christians" but just fed up with the apologetics and the silent approval of the general Christian public when it comes to evangelism-fueled anti-scientific bullshit (like putting creationism into the classroom or the entire "teaching the controversy" and "academic freedom" wedges they tried to use after the former failed in court).Super Cyborg said:
In fact I would go as far to say that Atheist (or rather Rationalist, but atheism is arguably a part of that) activism is actually really needed today because the popular apologists like Ken Ham, Ray Comfort and Eric Howind ARE incredibly and demonstrably stupid (one of them famously declared that the human-bred banana was the "atheists' nightmare" because it's "design" proved that it was made by God specifically for human consumption) and yet they are not only swimming in money (mostly because they know how to work the heartstrings of their wealthy conservative evangelist Christian audience) but they are actually going out of their way to disrupt science education and are spreading Biblical tales as hard facts, and no one else seems to lift a finger to challenge them!
As for the rudeness... You know, when you are an atheist on the net, you are generally not arguing with the sane religious but the nutjobs that are only regurgitating the same tired old "arguments" their apologetic role models are putting into their mouth. You can only have so much patience when you have heard "If there is anything that contradicts the Bible, Satan put it there to fool us!", "Evolution is just a theory!" and "I know that I am right and you are wrong because the Bible says so and you are going to burn in hell!" for the billionth time, and sadly this frustration can easily slip into other conversations as well...
I really want to see it, but mostly because the trailers made it look fucking terrible. Like, awesomely terrible, the kind of film you just laugh all the way through.Mcoffey said:
My best mate and his wife saw it and absolutely hated it, but that's because they're both very Christian types and I doubt their reasons for disliking it - "It didn't even mention the idea of forgiveness or God's love!", for example - would bother me much.
If I remember correctly, the original cut was pretty much as faithful to the original Bible story as it could be... and test audiences hated it for "defacing the original story". As it turns out most people are only familiar with the watered down "Disneyfied" version of the Bible filtered through their pastors. So they did a second cut where they focused on these versions instead of the Bible and the thing suddenly got way better reception.SonicWaffle said:
I for one thought it was an okay movie. You just have to take it for what it is: a fictional story adapted from an ancient myth, like Hercules or Troy. It also served as a wonderful conversation topic with my friends, so I would say it is worth a watch just for that.
The Amazing Atheist is a bit of a bad apple, and at least two thirds of what he does he does for entertainment and for click-bait to the point where it is hard to tell where the real person with his opinions ends and the online persona with its exaggerated antics begins.Loki_The_Good said:
I for one don't follow him because I don't like said online persona, but apparently a lot of people are finding him hilarious and/or interesting enough to keep him afloat.
As for the back-and-forth, it is almost exclusively between Atheists and Apologists, and I am pretty sure the entire "Atheists hate all Christians" thing is propagated by the latter to garner attention and to fuel their persecution complex. Not to mention, as I said somewhere up above, when you have apologists saying things like "The flood former the Grand Canyon in five minutes.", you just know that the person have given up on rational thought and you can only ridicule them at that point.
RoonMian said:
While I try to avoid fanboyism as much as possible, among other reasons so as to not be lumped together with the kind of people attacking de Boton, I feel the need to defend Dawkins here. Both Dawkins and Hitchens (another "strident, militant atheist", now sadly lost to cancer) went to schools with religious over- and undertones, and both have very much done their Bible-reading, as well as Koran-reading and Torah-reading. Saying that he "just don't have the right education" to analyze and criticize these texts for what they very much say, seems like a tactic of avoidance, and reminds me of an interview Dawkins did with a woman propagating for "Intelligent Design" who told him that if he just "did his research", he'd see that creationism is legit and "evilution" bunk.
Also, Dawkins never said that there are no benefits to be had from religion, only that the lions share of the claims religions make for themselves are simply demonstrably untrue. Also, Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, and his doctoral advisor was Nikolaas Tinbergen, an ethologist. So I'd say that he's very much an authority when it comes to analyzing behaviour, and there's at least one chapter in "the God Delusion" that deals with this.
In my experience and only in my experience, I've seen two main currents in the atheist camp.
One is ruled by reason by people who have examined religion and found nothing edifying in it and have reasoned the nonexistence of God from a lack of empirical evidence. Since there is no need for a God in their lives, they have no need for religion as a vehicle to this God. These are generally scientifically minded individuals and are a joy to have in a debate. They use reason in their arguments and while tenacious are generally polite because they are secure in their belief.
The other camp is ruled by emotion. They have become "atheists" because there was a part of religion that they were exposed to at some point that tried to make them feel at odds about some aspect of their life or lifestyle. This leads to one of two things- shame and repression or rebellion and anger. These "atheists" opted for rebellion and decided there was no God because "He's a mean ol' cranky pants." You cannot hold that God does not exist and yet still be angry at God. This would indicate that God doesn't exist because you wish that he didn't. These people are not a whole lot of fun in debate and generally raise the emotional level because they feel there is a personal stake in the veracity of their claim, for if there is a God there's a whole lot of "sinin'" there to account for. In reality they aren't as secure as their reasoned brethren and sistren in their belief.
What I find most interesting is that there is a similarity in certain theist camps as well. The difference between the Jesuit philosophy and the fundamentalist philosophy and their approach to knowledge shows that cool-headed people who use reason and hot-headed people who use emotion exist perhaps even agnostic to the subject or belief. What is odd is that orthodoxy which holds views almost as rigid as fundamentalism are not generally hot-headed or at least only intermittently. This might stem from the tendency of orthodoxy to form enclaves kept apart from mainstream society, where as fundamentalism tends to want to overtly change mainstream society to match their views.
All in all, Yay for reason and rational discourse! Boo for emotionally charged rhetoric and ad hominem attacks!
One is ruled by reason by people who have examined religion and found nothing edifying in it and have reasoned the nonexistence of God from a lack of empirical evidence. Since there is no need for a God in their lives, they have no need for religion as a vehicle to this God. These are generally scientifically minded individuals and are a joy to have in a debate. They use reason in their arguments and while tenacious are generally polite because they are secure in their belief.
The other camp is ruled by emotion. They have become "atheists" because there was a part of religion that they were exposed to at some point that tried to make them feel at odds about some aspect of their life or lifestyle. This leads to one of two things- shame and repression or rebellion and anger. These "atheists" opted for rebellion and decided there was no God because "He's a mean ol' cranky pants." You cannot hold that God does not exist and yet still be angry at God. This would indicate that God doesn't exist because you wish that he didn't. These people are not a whole lot of fun in debate and generally raise the emotional level because they feel there is a personal stake in the veracity of their claim, for if there is a God there's a whole lot of "sinin'" there to account for. In reality they aren't as secure as their reasoned brethren and sistren in their belief.
What I find most interesting is that there is a similarity in certain theist camps as well. The difference between the Jesuit philosophy and the fundamentalist philosophy and their approach to knowledge shows that cool-headed people who use reason and hot-headed people who use emotion exist perhaps even agnostic to the subject or belief. What is odd is that orthodoxy which holds views almost as rigid as fundamentalism are not generally hot-headed or at least only intermittently. This might stem from the tendency of orthodoxy to form enclaves kept apart from mainstream society, where as fundamentalism tends to want to overtly change mainstream society to match their views.
All in all, Yay for reason and rational discourse! Boo for emotionally charged rhetoric and ad hominem attacks!
While I totally agree with the underlying sentiment, that right there is just wrong. It simply does not work that way.Hoplon said:
If someone makes a claim, he has to prove the claim. It's not a case of "both can't prove or disprove something." Especially not if one of the main traits of the thing you claim is "It's unobservable and thus CAN'T be disproven!"
Live and let live, yeah, sure, I can get behind that. But once it comes to the "evidence" part, that's where the fun stops.
You can't disprove something that has no proof of existence.
See also: Sasquatch, Yeti, honesty in politics.
