Englebertnightingale
Posts: 128
Joined: 20/11/2011
|
Apologies for dropping out of the debate. But I needed some sleep. I have now returned and am looking forward to debating with you, and wow what a debate it is. A prickly and multifaceted one concerning Hollywood, a divisive director, religion, and a war of ideologies about where we came from. I will begin with rebuttals because boy did I get attacked last night. Lukeyboy (1) quote:
' the Bible contains some bloody good stories! Personally I'd like to see this.' Personally, I'm looking forward to Skyfall because it's going to kick ass, but if you want to look forward to 'Bloody good Bible stories' then all the best to you. Timon (1) quote:
'...And they [animals] also don't talk, but Diney tells us otherwise.' Do you mean human speech? then What about parrots or lyrebirds? Or do you mean animal communication? let me answer this for you. No. You don't mean animal communication, because you're too human-centric to realise that animals also can communicate through other means. Timon (2) quote:
'I'm a lovely, lovely atheist and love the likes of Ben Hur, The Ten Commandments and The Prince of Egypt.' And I get criticised for calling myself a man of science? I never said I was a lovely, lovely man of science. Had I used lovely, lovely, would I have been the underdog in last nights debate? think about it y'all. Also, in my opinion, a lovely, lovely athiest who loves biblical movies is a very unusual athiest. I think more likely a confused agnostic. Timon (3) quote:
'Prometheus was all about how the Greek titan gave mankind fire, would you say that was also spreading propaganda?' No. Because it's a dead religion. It's officially myth. Noahs Ark is not officially myth. There are milliions of creationists who believe in Noahs Ark and it is preventing us as a global community from truly understanding the world around us and the living things with which we share this world. As a result of this ideological congestion, we are unable to successfully change the situation because we collectively don't recognise the value in what we are destroying on a daily basis. Timon (4) quote:
'Just like Charlton Heston's career sank without a trace and no-one went to see Ben Hur and The Ten Commandments. Oh wait.' ' Watch the Michael Moore documentary 'Bowling For Columbine' and then tell me what you think about Charlton Heston. Oh wait.' quote:
Darron Aronofsky: 'Culturally, I am Jewish. I was raised slightly Jewish, with respect for my culture and my ancestry, but with an open mind to the connectivity of people.' Darren (1) aren't you American as well? Does it even factor? I understand national identities can be abstract, but.... Pigeon Army (1)quote:
'(I mean my god I found this interview with two seconds of fucking Googling)' Perhaps 'your god' guided you to the website. Or perhaps he bestowed upon you the gift of googling. Either way, I'm sure he's displeased with your potty mouth. Funkyrae (1) quote:
'Just so when you are argue you're arguing fact and not emotion.' If Barack Obama argued without emotion, he probably wouldn't be president. Fact and emotion are natural bedfellows. It's lies and emotion that don't sit well together. LIes usually come out lifelessly like most of the statements and lame critiques in this forum. Timon (5)quote:
'Doesn't shout pro religious Biblical epic? It's about Moses! And the Exodus! And the 10 Commandments!' Yes but it's cunningly titled 'Prince of Egypt'. Presenting itself as just another animated adventure for the whole family. When really there's an undercurrent of religious propaganda. Timon (6) quote:
'For all we know, Aronfosky's Noah will think the same' Possibly, I do appreciate the 'wait and see' sentiment rattling around the forum, but I've got a feeling that he wont. I've got a feeling that this will be a change of gears for him, establishing himself with an epic like when Kubrick did 2001. But Kubriks 2001 shone it's light on evolution. Pigeon Army (2) quote:
'Get off your high horse, "man of science"' Let's not forget whose side I'm arguing for..... the animals, including the high horses. So, no. I won't get off my high horse, we're on the same team. How about you try to see this from the high horses point of view. jcthefirst (1) quote:
Some people believe in God. Some people don't. THE END. Could you have a more apathetic opinion? Funkyrae (2) quote:
'Ti, this is someone who can blithely ignore historical evidence. What on earth makes you think he's going to understand the difference?' Funkyrae, I don't 'blithely do anything. I don't even know what 'blithely' means. Anyway the whole historical evidence argument is finished!, it's history! in which case, you should be lapping it up. Funkyrae (3)quote:
'...........there's still a living connection to them then you have major problems mate' Funkyrae. I'm not your mate. Mates listen to one another. Rgirvan44 (1) quote:
'How disappointed I was when my eyes passed this bit, that it wasn't what I intally thought it was.' Can you elaborate? I have no Idea what you mean. Funkyrae (4)quote:
'Paul, Angels & Demons' Nice. Coming through with the goods. elab49 (1)quote:
'You realise that, by definition, you're given the bible more credence than it deserves' Do you mean: 'Do I realise this?' I don't realise this. Can you explain in more detail how I am giving the Bible more credence? elab49 (2)quote:
quote:
'Why not simply go with the common idea that it's been debunked as anything more than an often nicely written work of fiction and as open to fictional adaptation as anything?' I don't quite understand the suggestion, but it sounds a little apathetic. Common ideas aren't necessarily good ideas. After all religions are common ideas. elab49 (3) quote:
'At the moment your argument is tending towards nothing exists if someone hasn't seen it' No. not 'nothing' or 'someone'. I'm much more specific than you give me credit for. My argument distilled might be something more like this: 'Noah's Ark, was a biblical story once written. Henceforth many religious people have believed it to be a true event. Some religious people might not believe it was a true event, but still turn up at church on Sunday because they're addicted to the wafers and consumed with guilt for god knows what. I classify this story as a religious claim because religious people claim it is true. I have a problem with this religious claim. My problem is that there is no scientific evidence for this religious claim. Some people in this Empire forum attribute historical references to a big flood. I do not dispute the flood. I do not care about the flood. I care specifically about the animal migration.' elab49 (4) quote:
'I'm assuming that will include disputing the works of great scientists of the past, the discoveries on which others have built.' Please don't assume anything. Simply ask me. I'm just across the forum pond. elab49 (5) quote:
'So you'll accept the science but the only person you'll credit with actually working the experiement is someone who's done so/seen it in their lifetime?' I accept scientific evidence. Specifically scientific evidence that emerges from the scientific method. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method elab49 (5) quote:
'.....You're never going to be on my team in a general knowledge quiz' What a shame, for you I mean as you're clearly lacking in that department. Spaldron (1) quote:
'There are pointless debates and there are pointless debates........ And then there's this.' And what is this Spaldron? Please share. Rgirvan44 (2)quote:
'The Bible isn't a histroical document, but rather a document that informs us about history.' 'a document that informs us about history' all the more reason to remain objective about it and to evaluate its messages and most certainly to challenge and question critically its scientific claims especially as we develop deeper scientific understandings continually. Rgirvan44 (3) quote:
'And the Flood myth appears in just about every religion - so either something did happen, or this is an example of the collective myth building at work. Certain ideas and images repeat themselves.' Are we on the same page? I can't figure it out. jobloffski (1) quote:
' Given all the current 'rising sea levels' stuff that is the end of the world/tax raising scenario (take your pick) du jour, isn't it more likely than not that the 'parable for the ages' nature of the story is the most important for the film, and therefore in tune with the 'save the animals' attitude of TODAY that it be in tune with/be propaganda for (take your pick)?' Finally someone with a level-headed perspective and fresh ideas. Funkyrae could do with taking a leaf out of your book. Invader_Ace (1)quote:
'Well, not true. Clean animals and Birds went on the Ark in Sevens.' Please read you statement again. Then consider fact and science using rational thought. You're not in a position to tell me what's not true about something for which there is no evidence it is true in the first place.
|