Lucy Goosey

[Johnny Novgorod]

Lucy is rated R? Interest peaking...

 

[direkiller]

Wait, Noah is PG-13? That crazy movie where there are rape pits, cannibalism, and the main character trying to murder two innocent babies is rated PG-13?!

yep

as long as there is no blood or boobs and you limit the swearing to two fucks you can scoot by with a PG-13 regardless of the movies context.

 

[RoonMian]

-snip-

I'm sorry, bit I'm going to have to disagree. When the bible says that Pi = 3, the mathematician will show it to be wrong. When the bible says that crickets have four legs, the entomologist will count out the legs of a cricket and proclaim this statement to be incorrect. When the bible says that bats are birds, the taxonomist will provide a resounding correction. When the bible says that humans and all animals were created, as is, some measure of time ago (the 6000 years thing is a later invention) the entire scientific fields of anthropology and biology would like to have a word with it.

What you're hinting at is what Stephen Jay Gould called Non-Overlapping Magisteria, that science and religion should just each play in their own corner of the sandbox of reality. Something that sounds like a peaceable position, but I'd call it unholdable when faced with things such as the catholic church spreading lies about condoms causing AIDS in Africa, in direct opposition to the medical sciences efforts to spread awareness and contain the spread.

and to call Theology "a whole field of human thought" as if that alone warranted its conservation; are not Astrology and Alchemy also "whole fields of human thought"?

When religion wants to sell you "facts" that are untrue, then of course they are untrue. All the stuff you said about pi and bats, you are completely right. But as I said, religion doesn't (or isn't supposed to) deal in facts, but in truths. For example, the story in the bible about Josef and Mary travelling to Bethlehem because of a Roman census... Factually complete bullshit, such a census never happened and would be stupid anyway. But the story is there to tell the reader the "truth" that Jesus is the successor to king David, born in Bethlehem just like David was.

I never denied that a buttload of religious people and even religious leaders are wrong when they rigidly apply their own dogmas to the factual reality, like your example with HIV in Africa. But that doesn't make doing the opposite like Richard Dawkins does right.

And also I didn't call theology a whole field of human thought, I meant the humanities as a whole with that. But even so, putting theology on the same level as astrology and alchemy, which are clearly factually wrong, is disingenuous at best.

 

[josemlopes]

Wait, Noah is PG-13? That crazy movie where there are rape pits, cannibalism, and the main character trying to murder two innocent babies is rated PG-13?!

yep

as long as there is no blood or boobs and you limit the swearing to two fucks you can scoot by with a PG-13 regardless of the movies context.

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

 

[Lightknight]

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaY

KAVINSKY!

*ehem*

Yeah, lol Atheism, right? It's true that the entire... group(?) has been kind of reduced to snark and sarcastic quips at religious groups.

Agnosticismwin >.>

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."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."


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.

 

[mtarzaim02]

I personally have one evidence about the inexistence of a god as described by the monotheisms: genetic disease.
A merciful, infinitly forgiving being with all knowledge and power, decided it was a good thing to condemn innocent and defentless babies to slow and painful agonies.
Sorry, this does not compute.
And don't tell me about a greater plan. Any plan including the suffering of one single innocent is unworthy of any omnipotent/omniscient creature.

When religion wants to sell you "facts" that are untrue, then of course they are untrue. All the stuff you said about pi and bats, you are completely right. But as I said, religion doesn't (or isn't supposed to) deal in facts, but in truths.
...

Woah. So facts =/= truths?
There we have a problem. Because what's more true than facts, if not facts themselves?
At best, tehre's no more truth in the bible than in any other religion, belief or common sense we could find around the earth (and probably beyond). Most civilizations strived wonderfully without jesus to tell them about his "truths".

But maybe you're speaking about morality. Alas, morality was long in use before any monotheist religion. The greeks litteraly invented it.
And I'm still wondering where's the morality about a guy who died then ressurected to save us all, is seen as a savior, when millions of firefighters risk their lives everyday to save just one person, without any ressurection for them or any certainties about their afterlife.
Could jesus "sacrifice" himself to save one person? I bet he wouldn't.

 

[Ingjald]

When religion wants to sell you "facts" that are untrue, then of course they are untrue. All the stuff you said about pi and bats, you are completely right. But as I said, religion doesn't (or isn't supposed to) deal in facts, but in truths. For example, the story in the bible about Josef and Mary travelling to Bethlehem because of a Roman census... Factually complete bullshit, such a census never happened and would be stupid anyway. But the story is there to tell the reader the "truth" that Jesus is the successor to king David, born in Bethlehem just like David was.

I never denied that a buttload of religious people and even religious leaders are wrong when they rigidly apply their own dogmas to the factual reality, like your example with HIV in Africa. But that doesn't make doing the opposite like Richard Dawkins does right.

And also I didn't call theology a whole field of human thought, I meant the humanities as a whole with that. But even so, putting theology on the same level as astrology and alchemy, who are clearly factually wrong, is disingenuous at best.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Barbas]

Most of the ones I've talked to can't agree between themselves on whether Agnosticism and Atheism are separate things, or it's a case of being either a Gnostic or Agnostic Atheist.

That's not a big deal, most religious groups can't agree between themselves on their own religious deity and how he/she/it operates. Which is why we've got like 3000 different variations on Christianity alone, not to mention other doctrines for other faiths. People disagree about stuff, that's nothing new.

*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.

 

[Ticklefist]

Removed. Was criticism.

 

[AtomChicken]

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.

 

[thanatos388]

I really don't get people not liking Lucy purely for using the 10% thing. The force isn't real either, and I doubt Lucy is presenting itself as scientifically accurate given the superpowers she gets.

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.

 

[Zak757]

I ran into some major spoilers for Lucy that stated

Spoiler

they went for the "evolves into god" ending

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.

 

[Ferisar]

I really don't get people not liking Lucy purely for using the 10% thing. The force isn't real either, and I doubt Lucy is presenting itself as scientifically accurate given the superpowers she gets.

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.

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.

 

[Jacked Assassin]

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 a Science-Fiction an oxymoron to be pro science.

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.

 

[Vault101]

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaY

KAVINSKY!

huh?....oh right...right on!


[quote/]Yeah, lol Atheism, right? It's true that the entire... group(?) has been kind of reduced to snark and sarcastic quips at religious groups.
[/quote]

if you count r/atheism as the "group"...its like listening to NIN's "Heresay" while masturbating furiously

 

[Overquoted]

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaY

KAVINSKY!

*ehem*

(snip)

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.

 

[Naturally Sound]

Wait, Noah is PG-13? That crazy movie where there are rape pits, cannibalism, and the main character trying to murder two innocent babies is rated PG-13?!

yep

as long as there is no blood or boobs and you limit the swearing to two fucks you can scoot by with a PG-13 regardless of the movies context.

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

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.

 

[Overquoted]

I really don't get people not liking Lucy purely for using the 10% thing. The force isn't real either, and I doubt Lucy is presenting itself as scientifically accurate given the superpowers she gets.

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)
B) why would evolution design a brain so large that we normally have just one child at a time (also the difficulties of childbirth; also the whole thing where human infants are completely helpless for an unusual amount of time), but only have us use 10% of it?
C) 10% is an unusually round number... Awfully convenient, no?
D) Neuroimaging does not show only 10% of the brain active (maybe ONE scan, might, but multiple scans won't).

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. >:|

 

[Norithics]

This comic made me mad! SO MAD!
They completely mis-assigned that word bubble by not giving it a tail! Is he talking to himself?? I don't think so! [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/79/The_Simpsons-Jeff_Albertson.png]

 

[Caffiene]

I really don't get people not liking Lucy purely for using the 10% thing. The force isn't real either, and I doubt Lucy is presenting itself as scientifically accurate given the superpowers she gets.

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.