Lucy Goosey

[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.

 

[Super Cyborg]

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.

 

[Abnaxis]

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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

 

[Super Cyborg]

Snip

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.

 

[AtomChicken]

@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.

 

[mtarzaim02]

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.

I'm perfectly fine with your post up to that point.
Religion is just an old way to explain the world, to predict it and to use those predictions at our advantage.
That's why most of religions are similar in their myths and stories. We both live on the same planet, with the same sun going through the same sky for 12 month and doing it again.
Tales of birth and ressurections are only an ancien way to explain how the sun does its cycle, and why (not how, WHY) he does it. Humans needed reasons for this apparent order, and only religion was available at that time.

But here's the something I'm less fine about:

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

It won't work as an argument against deity, because you're presupposing this god is part of the universe he created.
As implied in religions, he existed before the universe. Meaning he exists in a "void", devoid of any dimension.
So he is everywhere (since there's not space dimensions) and he's omniscient (since there's no time dimension, everything is simultaneous to him, the far future as the far past). With omniscience comes omnipotence, so he's omnipotent too.
Conclusion: a god outside our universe would have mostly all the features described in, say, the bible.
Human on the other hand is constrainted by his universe. His brain and concepts are heavily modeled by his immediate surroundings, meaning no quantum physics for him or 11 dimensions' multiuniverses. Physically, we cannot expect (as we currently are) to achieve a god status. We would need machinery to get it for us.

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.

Please realize that atheism is not a religion, any more than monotheism or polytheism is a religion.

This point is important, because it's usually the argument we get: "you are as religious as I am, hypocrit!".
Atheism cannot be a religion, since any religion is based on faith, while atheism is based on doubt.
A theist will always believe, no what matter the evidence against it.
An atheist will reasset his system of thinking, at the first proper evidence against his view of the world.
Atheism is a versatile process of finding the truth, adapting itself to the world and building ideals from it.
Theism is a process of keeping old traditions alive, bending the truths of the world to its made-up ideals.

The core of atheism is here: how do I decide what's the best thought process to make decision on a daily basis?
A process that can correct itself every second?
Or a process of circular thinking?

I mean, many denominations of Buddhists are atheistic.

They claim there's an after-life.
Even if there's no god for them, they're still pretending to know something they absolutely don't, forcing people to follow madeup rules for a benefit they have no way to prove (without using sociology or biology).

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.
For that, you need a world getting shittier and shittier for certain. So no matter what their reincarnations will be, they will be sure to fall into a worse situation they currently are. Meaning as many disasters as possible, so people will join you in your wheel obsession.
Basically, buddhism is against ecology and progress, because it needs an upcoming apocalypse to convince people to follow its teaching in their current life. Another trait common to all religions I know about.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

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.

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

Quite a vivid image you have there >.>

I wonder how you procured such detail <.<

 

[Zipa]

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.

It is in the United States, especially in some parts of the South, and it can get pretty damn frustrating at times let me tell you that.

OT: Eh...I don't know. I barely define as Catholic anymore, I'm more agnostic, but this joke...I'm just gonna say it isn't that funny and leave it at that.

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.

 

[Super Cyborg]

I'll give you one, since you only gave ten percent of your effort to your joke.

Beyond that, as a Christian myself, can't we just get along? (I know what the answer is BTW). Also I don't know if you are doing it because it's based on the Bible, or the movie deviated from the source material. (I'm going with the former, just asking the latter because of the Game of Thrones article I read just a second ago.

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.

 

[Super Cyborg]

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.

 

[House_Vet]

I'll give you one, since you only gave ten percent of your effort to your joke.

Beyond that, as a Christian myself, can't we just get along? (I know what the answer is BTW). Also I don't know if you are doing it because it's based on the Bible, or the movie deviated from the source material. (I'm going with the former, just asking the latter because of the Game of Thrones article I read just a second ago.

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.

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.