Perhaps, but not at all news, and in fact recently brought up in this discussion (not in relation to that article, however).
I have two questions for you:
What are your reasons for believing that their are no gods? I'll take lack of evidence as an answer, but I'd prefer something more specific.
How much historical credit do you give the (canonical) gospels? Do you think Jesus was crucified and buried, but didn't rise from the dead, or do you not think he was crucified at all, or do you think he didn't exist or was only based on someone historical (historical in this case meaning real)? Do you think he was a healer of some sort, or just a preacher, or none of the above?
"He" being Yoda or Palpatine? Did Palpatine even hit the wall? And wasn't Yoda in frame when he did his thing to the guards?
Never mind....
I'll just warn you in advance that we already had a thread for asking atheists (in response to my thread which was a response to the Mormon Q&A thread), so your thread may not be very successful.
Easterhay said:
I know what people were calling it back in the day; I was one of them. And now it's been re-titled.
The point is not that is was once called something else; the point is that some still call it that. It's a stupid intellectual argument to continue to call it something which it isn't. You may as well say that people "used" to say the world was flat.
Just because it was officially retitled doesn't mean that people have to mindlessly follow along with the title change. Why should they when they've been calling it something else for years? The flat earth analogy fails because the earth was never flat, it was only something people thought. ANH was originally called Star Wars, rather than Star Wars: A New Hope, so why not continue calling it that?
I bet you'd still call a cannonball (the kind you do at the swimming pool) a cannonball rather than a "tuck-in jump" even though the latter is the "official" term for it.
For context watch whole thing.
To answer your question, Frink, yes, I believe you did.
My confusion must be that I'm mixing up the appendixes of the Lord of the Rings with the rest of the Middle Earth mythos.
TV's Frink said:
I've never heard the term Amerindians. Is that considered a term in poor taste, Tobar?
It was used a lot more before the age of political correctness. I don't get why a person would find it offensive--just inaccurate. I only used it since the Québécois call them "indiens" or "amerindiens" and I've still got French on the brain.
TV's Frink said:
Pretty good! You?
Since when are you LDS's Frink?
Correct response!
I think you need to make more posts.
slickdeals said:
I've always referred to Star Wars as "The First Star Wars", and for the rest "Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi"
Dang it, you corrected your typo before I could make fun of it!
I'll instead make fun of the fact that you apparently refer to the prequel movies as Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi.
Bingowings said:
I agree there are some detractors of anything that follow a trend. But the PT is demonstrably crap. I have repeatedly been saying "Manikin Skywalker" since the release of AOTC so either I invented it or it was parallel evolution because I certainly don't remember reading elsewhere before I started.
I recall Jake Lloyd saying in an interview (or perhaps it was someone talking about Jake) that he was called "Mannequin Skywalker" at school after the release of TPM.
And he's still named George. ;)
knreuben said:
AntcuFaalb said:
knreuben said:
Guys why do you prefer the Original Version when the Special Editions have improved CGIs?
Is this a joke?
I'm just 15, I grew up with the special edition and the prequels. :)
So did I, but that's no excuse to like them! ;)
I don't think it's quite that bad...by your analogy, one would expect to see the stormtroopers wearing pink skirts in every shot of the SE. Perhaps a better analogy would be if Leonardo painted a horse in the background--using acrylic paint.
Sauruman's appearances in the movie mostly come from the Unfinished Tales, et al., if I'm not mistaken.
Tobar said:
You know what I find hurtful. That once my ancestors were millions strong across the land. That children are taught they were a primitive people when in fact they were an advanced culture with large cities.
What children are these? I've never been taught a negative thing about Amerindians (or whatever term you want to give them) in school, but many positive things. Technologically, only the Central American tribes, and some South American tribes, were advanced. Mentally, they were, and are, no different than Europeans, despite not advancing as far in other ways due to location, population (and consequently lack of competition), and many other things.
G-11rs
Wouldn't want you throwing a pawn away for nothing....
Skyped in? Wouldn't that result in a really bad quality recording?
I'm not sure. I suppose it's an assumption based on the dropping of "Episode VII" from the title of TFA, but it's a baseless assumption.
G-14st
Considering he switched to his current avatar about five or six hours before making that post, the second part of your question needs no further answer....
"Point me out" isn't a biggy, since native English speakers sometimes word it like that. It isn't technically correct, however, because "point me out" means that you want me to point you out to someone (the following "any errors in my grammar" clarifies your meaning, so you could get away with using it).
Now I'd better slow down before this discussion turns into the official OT.com "Consult a Grammar Nazi" thread. ;)