TM2YC

DuracellEnergizer said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

In all seriousness, I'd like to ask...

What is the point of Religion?

I've never understood what the practical benefit is of believing in something that by default has no proof behind it (That's what faith is). I'd be genuinely interested in how and what it adds to life that many consider it worth spending time, effort and money on?

When travelling in a car, I'd rather there by someone behind the wheel to steer the damn thing than for the front seat to be empty and the car to be headed on a course straight off the edge of a cliff.

Of course, this analogy applies to theism more than religion specifically.  

Whether an athiest or a theist, the car never has anybody behind the wheel. Because, for a theist to believe that God would favour their car over anyone else's on the highway is shear vanity and the athiest believes that random chance is driving the car and nought else. But whatever you believe, the car is still going off the cliff anyway.

It's what you do while you are in the car that matters.

A theist would spend their time reading and re-reading the owners manual and trying to gleam some sort of meaning from it and building a shrine in the glove box. Occasionaly looking out the windows and disaproving of other motorists who weren't driving according to their interpretation of the highway code or were driving cars of different makes and colours (Especially the pink cars!).

The atheist would just marvel at the beautiful view out the window, stick the radio on to their favourite station and enjoy the music for as long as the journey lasted.

LOL

This video was posted at the end of last year but it was new to me:

"You're like a dog at the controls of a helicopter"

Two UK broadcasting legends from different generations, Charlie Brooker and Jon Snow talking unedited. Games writer and presenter Charlie tries to explain videogames to TV journalist Jon (Who has never played one) while trying out the brand new PS4. I was laughing so hard I almost cried.

If you remember Owen was HEAVILY vetted by Ben, via the rigorous process of walking up to a stranger and handing them a baby without even speaking a word, then riding off into the desert backed by some John Williams music. If all adoption services 'adopted' this method it would solve so many problem. Another example of George's water-tight writing.

RicOlie_2 said:

That's a good question, Ryan, and one that I will do my best to answer this evening.

Saying that it has no proof is a gross misrepresentation though. There doesn't seem to be much evidence against it though. If you can give the supposed evidence against it before the end of the day, I will try to give counter-evidence/arguments.

 I'd hardly call saying "believing in something that by default has no proof behind it (That's what faith is" is a "gross misrepresentation" considering the Oxford English Dictionary offers the following definition of 'Faith'...

"strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof"

But for the sake of answering my earlier question properly, lets assume we all agree there is no proof for God and there is no proof for the absence of God either.

e.g. MrBrown says above, that the feelings of hope that belief in the afterlife gives, has benefits to a life lived here on earth. Wether there is or is not an afterlife is immaterial to this question or answer.

I can see how that would work for some people. But for me that's just self-dellusion which doesn't give me any hope or moral strength.

In all seriousness, I'd like to ask...

What is the point of Religion?

I've never understood what the practical benefit is of believing in something that by default has no proof behind it (That's what faith is). I'd be genuinely interested in how and what it adds to life that many consider it worth spending time, effort and money on?

NeverarGreat said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

RicOlie_2 said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

The Empire Strikes Back

Hired a beautiful young actress to play the body of Palpatine (I would have kept Clive Revill to play the voice, though).

 May I ask why you think a beautiful young girl is suitable to play Palpatine?

I've grown tired of antagonists who are ugly and misshapen on the outside. IMO, true evil is only ugly on the inside -- on the outside it is beautiful and attractive; if it weren't, if it were as ugly on the outside as on the inside, no one would ever give in to it.

On the flip side, I'd also like to see some protagonists who look like the Elephant Man; stereotypically beautiful heroes are just as tiresome as sterotypically hideous villains.

 

Beautiful on the inside ;)

Seriously though I agree that more heroes should be unattractive. As long as it stays away from Disney cheapquel fodder.

 I think just having everyday looking heroes and heroines is enough. Nobody wants perfect looking chisel jawed specimens from mount olympus. Mark Hamill looked like anybody so we could identify with him better. I thought it was very crafty starting the Captain America film with Chris Pine looking all weedy, thin and small so we were well on his side long before he turns into muscle bound perfection later in the film. The opposite would be the actors that Verhoeven used in Starship Troopers to make a satirical point.

But a villain can be anything in Star Wars so I agree it would be a shame if they just went down the scars and black robes route for the new films. Palpatine was fantastic in ROTJ but all the pale immitations since in the EU and the PT have watered it down.

Oh and to underline your point, one of the Sith in Dark Forces2 was the Elephant Man lol

EyeShotFirst said:

I refuse to judge a person, because I sin 5 times before breakfast.

"Why not round it off with dinner at Milliway's, the restaurant at the end of the universe?"

Warbler said:

I never meant to imply that you sent her any of those messages.  sorry.

I never thought you had, apology not needed.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Kenneth Branagh as (young) Obi-Wan

 All the joking aside, this would have been genuinely an amazing casting choice that could have been.

 I wasn't joking. All my choices -- Alanis included -- are serious choices.

 I know, they were well thought choices. I meant my joking aside.

IMO Ewan was perfect as Ben in ROTS but he was too young in TPM. KB would have had the age and authority from day one. I've heard it said on a couple of film commentaries that RSC trained British actors are perfectly suited to green screen acting since they are trained to act against nothing but their imaginations on an empty stage.

Warbler said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

 Again if you re-read what I said I made no mention of she should "have expected those types of comments", I merely said she should have expected an angry response.

when you "she should have expected an angry response" and fail to make clear that you don't mean those types of comments, will logically assume you do mean that she should expected  those types of comments.

Do we have to quibble over every word? The rest of my quote was "she should have expected anger. Personally, I felt my anger rising watching it". Since that sentence didn't make "clear" my own levels of anger did you "logically assume" I myself had also sent her death threats, since there are obviously no inbetween areas between agreeing and all out lunacy??

I just got angry because a lightbulb popped and I had to go to the kitchen to trip the fuse. I was sure to physically threaten the fuse box and call it a whore ;-)

RicOlie_2 said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Here is my current view on homosexuality and here is the angry response that the person who made the video received and the defense of her and her video.

I find it disgusting how some people treat those who respectfully disagree with homosexual sex. I'm glad people on this forum are more respectful (with a couple exceptions) then the people who gave such negative responses to the first video.

In response to the clip and it's fallout rather than your post...

If she decided to post a video that she knew to be offensive and ill-thought out to the rest of the world, then she should have expected anger. Personally, I felt my anger rising watching it. Especially the bit where she talks about finding out a "loved one" was gay.

 I'm sure she expected anger, but not that much anger. If the level and type of insult contained in the unfriendly comments are largely due to her being a pretty young woman, how was she supposed to predict that? As far as I can see, that latter statement doesn't agree with the former. Why should she have expected those types of comments? That doesn't make sense.

 Again if you re-read what I said I made no mention of she should "have expected those types of comments", I merely said she should have expected an angry response. I'm sure she never thought for a second that there were soooo many horrible people out there but she must have realised that feathers would be rustled on some level.

I hate that too many people seem to not see the tipping point between protest and harrasment/abuse. e.g. If you picket somebody's house/place-of-work everyday it's harrasment (For whatever issue) it was only a protest on day one, they heard you the first time.

A few of us SW fans can have a reasonable debate inside this thread, inside this forum, inside this website. But I wouldn't go spouting off on public forums like YouTube and Twitter or whatever to thousands/millions of complete strangers.

RicOlie_2 said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Here is my current view on homosexuality and here is the angry response that the person who made the video received and the defense of her and her video.

I find it disgusting how some people treat those who respectfully disagree with homosexual sex. I'm glad people on this forum are more respectful (with a couple exceptions) then the people who gave such negative responses to the first video.

...

Oh and I'd argue, the response she got is less about Athiest's intolerance of Christians and more about hatred of women.

 No, it is about those atheists' and agnostics' intolerance of that Christian belief. I don't see how it could be attributed to hatred of women, that's just bizarre. It seems fairly obvious why they were angry at her.

The extreme, sexually violent and repellent level of the response is down to it being a young pretty girl saying those things. If you re-read what I said, it says it was "More about" not wholly about.

As you say "It seems fairly obvious why they were angry at her" but the level of response is down to sexism first and foremost. In the same way that Anita Sarkeesian criticised the world of videogames and got a whirlwind of similar offensive and vile threats. That wasn't because the responders to Anita's video were all athiests, it was because they were all male-gamers and massive dickheads to boot.

RicOlie_2 said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

Plus arguably the hateful and violent things people posted back are approved by the same passages from the Bible that disapprove of homosexuality. So again don't pick and choose from the bible if you are gonna claim to live it to the letter.

 As I have said before, it has to be read in context. God was giving the rules for a theocracy, and the Israelites had a history of not being able to worship God properly and giving up on their religion in favour of immoral, idolatrous religions. Thus his rules were harsh back then. The New Testament says in many places that the old law is no longer necessary and it doesn't have to be followed to the letter and the old punishments are no longer applicable.

 Exactly, then let's all decide that the bits condemning gay people are "no longer applicable" and everybody will be happy. Nobody is saying that the Bible hasn't got great things in it too, live and let live.

Warbler said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

Plus arguably the hateful and violent things people posted back are approved by the same passages from the Bible that disapprove of homosexuality.

they are?

 They were threatening to rape her and other awful things and the Bible says rape isn't much of an issue.

I can't be bothered to trawl through the Bible for all the nonsense it says, so here is just one quote (Remember if one quote is wrong, then they can all be considered wrong).

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 -

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days

In slightly plainer speak...

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a virgin, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her"

A shekel is something like 25 cents now, so you can rape a virgin for twelve bucks fifty, bargain! (Cheaper than a Blu-Ray) and since she's forced to marry you, you get to keep raping for the rest of your life free of charge.

So like I said, if you support that ^ then fine quote away from the rest of the Bible and I won't object.

RicOlie_2 said:

Here is my current view on homosexuality and here is the angry response that the person who made the video received and the defense of her and her video.

I find it disgusting how some people treat those who respectfully disagree with homosexual sex. I'm glad people on this forum are more respectful (with a couple exceptions) then the people who gave such negative responses to the first video.

In response to the clip and it's fallout rather than your post...

If she decided to post a video that she knew to be offensive and ill-thought out to the rest of the world, then she should have expected anger. Personally, I felt my anger rising watching it. Especially the bit where she talks about finding out a "loved one" was gay.

As I was saying in another thread, my moral compass is dictated by my empathy for other human beings. Her's was obviously dictated by her own selfish interests and a 2000 year old book. Without the book, she might have stopped and thought for even a single fraction of a second of her life about how other people feel and wouldn't have got "emotional whiplash" when she realised that somebody she knew to be a good person from personnal experience belonged to a group she had previously arrogantly and callously labelled as bad.

Plus arguably the hateful and violent things people posted back are approved by the same passages from the Bible that disapprove of homosexuality. So again don't pick and choose from the bible if you are gonna claim to live it to the letter.

Oh and I'd argue, the response she got is less about Athiest's intolerance of Christians and more about hatred of women.

Finished up 'Spearhead from space' pretty quick. I'm inserting it into my all time top 5 Doctor Who stories. The production values look fantastic and the editing and pacing is very polished, probably the best the show has ever looked (Including since the come back).

The Blu-Ray is going on my Amazon wishlist for future purchase...

...as the image quality looks very nice:

Onto 'Terror of the Autons' next.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Kenneth Branagh as (young) Obi-Wan

 All the joking aside, this would have been genuinely an amazing casting choice that could have been.

^ This is what he looked like at almost exactly the time TPM was being shot and at the time AOTC was being shot...

...he looks even more like a young Guinness. Bet he could do the voice too.

^ Dammit, now I wanna to see 'Carry on Star Wars' more than life itself LOL

Kenneth Williams as Tarkin, Charles Hawtrey as C3PO and Leslie Phillips  as Ben... f*ckin' YES!!!

^ "I say, it's been a long time since a tall rough like you has grasped my helmet in his big hairy hands, ooooo!"

FrankT said:

Let's see, I did consider these....

• Malcolm McDowell as Luke
• Helen Mirren as Leia
• Peter O'Toole as Ben Kenobi
• Richard Burton as Han (maybe?)
• Marlon Brando as Jabba (original style!)
• Peter Capaldi as Tarkin (don't ask)

 ^ Tinto Brass directs Star Wars ;-)

^ Leia and Luke... write your way out of that scene Mr Lucas.

Roger Lloyd-Pack

The funniest use of the word/name "Dave" in human history:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvPs6uQlsvw

^ Expert comedy timing!

and more:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylgV8OyTIFg

and comedy lightning struck twice with Owen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXgSg2Oq36w

PM Sent :-)

^ LOL. Everybody knows it means "quipped Frink today".

as in...

TV's Frink said:

Yeah, we've seen it.  It sucks cock.

 QFT

Bingowings said:

I make no secret of finding Return of the Jedi to be a massive let down.

Top ten tips for improvement coming up.

1). Yoda should die at the beginning of the film, Luke should have finished his lessons rebuilt his saber and prepared to rescue Han. Leia should have rushed in needing a rescue like he did in the previous film. The rescue plan makes no sense at all in the current film, having it an improvised rescue of a bungled rescue party introduces some structure to the act which is on the whole the best bit of the film.

2). No real need for Fett especially his stupid death scene but if he had to be in the film at least give the guy some dignity.

3). At the risk of sounding speciesist Yoda was great but having too many mangled English speaking rubber Rebels kind of took away from the present peril felt in the previous two films. "It's a trap!" would have worked just as well as a subtitle and maybe if the Rebel Command centre in the final battle had a bit more of a mix of aliens and humans it wouldn't look so cartoonish.

4) The cinematography was a bit TV movie compared to the previous two, the sets looked a bit unambitious and half finished (even the 'legacy' sets looked like they had been put back together wrong and half the lights hadn't been switched on) and some of the special effects were truly awful even back then.

5). The Ewoks are in my view a good idea but badly realised. If the primitive diminutive warrior people were genuinely fierce and capable fighters and not just cute toy opportunities. Some of the currently nonsensical moments of the film would work (like where the hell did all those traps come from if going to the backdoor bunker was a last minute decision?). If the Ewoks had been successfully been fighting and eating stormtroopers before they meet the Rebels those traps could have been there for months.

6) There should have been either some other peril in the throne room or the great big hole in the floor serve some purpose. There is a similar hole in the floor in Flash Gordon (1980) and it's there for gladiatorial reasons. If the Emperor opened the hole up to add a bit of spice to the fight between father and son and ended up being thrown down it there would be a bit more function to the thing rather than just being an inferior reminder of Cloud City's chasm. Otherwise what's it for?

7) Leia shouldn't have been the other, if ROTJ had to be the final movie of the series Anakin should have been the person Yoda was referring to.

8) Han should have been Han and Leia should have been Leia not Harrison and Carrie larking around for a quick paycheck.

9) The Falcon and maybe her crew should have been destroyed saving the galaxy from whatever technological peril that wasn't another Death Star was and maybe Piett should have too to continue the theme that not all bad guys are bad through and through. The general feeling that the Empire is a few dozen ships and two old guys really shrank the sweep of the previous two films.

10). More women, particularly more women who aren't just there because the kids that saw the first one are now old enough to notice breasts. Not giving us more about Luke's mother before the end was astonishingly bad form. Caroline Blakinson would have been much better as the devious Moff commanding the new superweapon thing instead of being a galactic Galadriel over on the Rebel ship. Have some tough girls as Jabba's guards not just dancers and hangers on. Have Fett a woman if need be.

...okay I'll conceed, I agree 100% with idea no.7 ^.

Bingowings said:

It's Worzel Gummidge actually.

 Quite right.

I also watched the Peter Davison serial 'Frontios' this week. Some good costumes, Davison is great as usual and it's got some nice bleak Sci-Fi themes running through it but overall it was a bit meh. It looked very set bound and the acting was of a hugely variable quality. It was nice to see George from 'Drop the dead Donkey' (Jeff Rawle) as yet another leader out of his depth... only this time he's running a planet not a newspaper.

Worth the watch for the comical bit where Turlough is threatning armed guards with a hat-stand which they think is a fearsome timelord weapon :-D

and I got a little thrill at the very end when they get pulled into the time corridor that leads to the superior 'Resurrection of the Daleks' (Which I watched a thousand times on my home taped VHS as a kid). Now I know how they got there!