dclarkg

team_negative1 said:

Here is a sample from Reel 4, from the scene where Ben, Luke, Han and the robots hide in the room from the other stormtroopers:

NOTE : There is still flicker on the walls, we are testing ways of reducing it.

============================================

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/k1ZZ2nHaqlEVTR9nKon

Team Negative1

 It looks great actually, I noticed a little flicker but isn't that part of the 35mm frames rolling? To me it looks so classic that I kinda like it... unless you are referring to some other flicker that I missed

msycamore said:

dclarkg said:

I'm planning a new SW marathon (all 6 episodes) and I wanted to hear your opinions on the preferred order to do so. So far I like the so-called machete order (IV,V,I,II,III,VI). I've seen other order suggestions but the don't seem appealing including the regular 1 to 6 order. Also I feel that most of the people here hate (or at least dislike) the prequels but that aside I would like to know your input. Also there is the possibility to skip the episode I completely since plot-wise you won't be losing to much, I have the Phantom Edit/Attack of the phantom Cuts as well so should I skip episode I, watch the edit or watch the full original movie? I won't be skipping episode II but I should go for the full version or the edit version? I've never seen the edits of episodes I and II so I don't know if they are good enough or if I should stick with the originals.

I know how you feel, I'm planning a new Die Hard marathon, and there's so many of them I don't know which one I'm gonna see first. Any suggestion what's the best order? So far I like the so-called machine gun order (3, 1, 4, 2 ,5). I've also seen the Nakatomi-order but I'm leaning towards the Yippie-ki-yay, motherfucker! - order. Any suggestions?

 Well I recently watched them in release order with my girlfriend and it worked pretty well since it was the intended order and she was a first time SW viewer, I will try 4,5,1,2,3,6 in a few weeks and see how it works

RicOlie_2 said:

I'm pretty sure this is wrong. Atheists are making the claim, since they're in the minority. Most people believe a god exists. Therefore, the burden of the proof is on the non-believers to show that he does not. If someone thinks a certain god is the right one, the burden of proof is on that person, since their is no majority agreement on any specific god.

It's like if I decided to become an a-atomist, because I believed atoms weren't real. In that case, the burden of proof would be on me, because it's generally accepted that they are. I can't just say "hey, I don't find the reasons for their existence convincing, there just isn't any evidence for them," and expect people to think it a valid position to hold (I'm not saying that atheism isn't, however).

 The main difference is that atoms are real and we can see them, we can test them, we can name their properties, we can change them, study them, etc. There is no debate on the existing of the atoms because there is enough evidence to support the claims even if someone does not belive in atoms despite the evidence, science doesn't care if you believe or not in it... god on the other hand even that it is a supreme being can't provide enough evidence to settle the debate once and for all, and again, here we are still debating interpretations over ancient books. He talked Abraham into killing his son but he can't whisper me in the ear that he is real? Odd

I don't see why the atheists have to provide evidence of the NOT existence of a god just because we are a minority, the fact that the majority of people believe in a god (not even the same one) does not make god real; to support a claim you must provide evidence and not the number of how many people believe in a claim.

I'm not making a claim here since I don't have to, I'm just saying that the evidence provided to support the claims of the existence of a god are flaw and not conclusive. I'm not claiming that there is not a god, I'm claiming that the evidence provided to support your claim of the existence of your god is not valid because it contradicts the reality and knowledge of the world we all live in.

If I come to you and say that there is a magic teapot orbiting Venus:
A) Should I, as the person making the claim, provide evidence of what I'm saying is real or
B) Should you provide the evidence that my claim is false?

The burden of proof is on the person making a claim and not on the person that is part of the minority.

twister111 said:

So since the subject of evidence was brought up. I'll simply ask what evidence of God's existence would you atheists accept as proof of God? Something short of God actually appearing to you as proof. Something that you wouldn't deny. Like what would you accept that proves God's existence?

Well ANY evidence should do. God himself appearing? Yeah why not? he is almighty right?

twister111 said:

dclarkg said:

 I would expect something more accurate of a knonw-all supreme being, also there is a post made earlier that actually contradicts those claims of the earth being round in the bible and so on. We can still debate what the bible says about this matter but that is only because the claims come from interpretations and not actually stated facts like I would expect of a holly book.

Thing is language isn't exact unless it needs to be. For instance if we were in a room together, I pointed at something and said "Give that to me please." If it's not cluttered together with other stuff you're going to know exactly what I meant. Unless you're trying to be stubborn or a bit of a jerk and say something like "Nuh-uh you didn't say the object's name so I'm not giving the remote to you." As our society has gotten more complicated so has our communication and need for exact word choice. Plus the questions we ask today aren't the type of questions they would ask back then. Your expectations for the Bible to conform to your term specifications today are a bit like asking 'why didn't God just give everyone iPhones with Twitter and Facebook?' Such things weren't needed and the terms and specifications you're asking for today weren't needed back then as well.

 I didn't understand your point with the room example but what I meant is that you can't make''revelations'' or ''predictions'' off the bible based on words or vocabulary because of the translations and edits across the centuries.

Also what is the relevance of the questions we ask today or back then to prove that the bible is true or that god is real?

Post Praetorian said:

Did you have any apprehension in revealing your strong atheism to others? Did you lose any relationships as a result?

 Is not that I go screaming around that I'm a atheist, if someone asks about the subject I'll answer. I don't feel uncomfortable at all saying that I'm a atheist. I haven't lost any relationships due to that.

Possessed said:

You're claims that the bible have changed may be true, but that has no effect on my argument.  The references to spheres and the earth being suspended over empty space are still there in the original manuscripts.  Ships are still being built modeled after the ratios of noah's ark.

Noah's Ark = Flood myth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark

Which ratios? where in the bible god gave the ship's ''ratios''?
Also, where are the original manuscripts with the original reference to the ''spheres''? Even if the original manuscripts have the same words how does that  prove that god exists?

Possessed said:

You say you'd expect something more accurate from an all knowing being.  I see that point, but I view it not as him/her not knowing exactly what's going on, but the humans he's told not understanding or comprehending.  

Is not abut how you view it, is about evidence to prove the existence of god. He could show himself with all the supreme evidence of a supreme being but here we are debating ancient books full of mythology and  contradictions to prove his existence.

Possessed said:

At the end of the day you really can't prove he exists.  You can't prove he doesn't exist either though.  Arguing about it will always be fruitless because there is no definitive argument for either side.

How I'm going to prove the NOT existence of something? The person who makes a claim has to provide the evidence to support the claim. You can't disprove the unicorns, magic pixies or elfs neither so therefore they exist?

Possessed said:

I personally believe God exists, but in a form not recognized by man.  But I can't prove this any more than you can prove God doesn't exist.

See above, the burden of proof is on the person making a claim, I say that god doesn't exist because there is no evidence that supports the claim.

Possessed said:

You can point out errors in scripture all day, and while these claims may be 100% true, all they prove is that the beings who wrote them are flawed, not their subject matter.  Even the bible itself says it was "inspired" by God.  Not directly written.

Therefore is not to be trusted, right?

Possessed said:

All I'm saying is just as we can't prove God is real, you can't prove he isn't.  If you think you can, you're wrong.  You might even be right and there might be no god, but there's no way to definitively prove that.  All you can prove is that the people who have written about him make mistakes.

Same argument about proving the NOT existence of something. I'm not providing ANY evidence of my claim since I don't have to, I'm just pointing out at the flaws of the evidence you are providing.

Possessed said:

For the record I don't worship or praise God at all.  I believe he's real, and I believe he's a dick.  A big dick that sticks its head into holes without caring what's best for those holes.

 Ok...

Possessed said:

dclarkg said:

 

 I expected something more than mild-suggestions that might come from interpretations due to language transcripts or editing that the text has suffered across the many many centuries, 

The original transcripts are still available and they read the same.  The bible has not changed so much from translation as people like to lead you to believe.

 Oh it has changed quite a bit, there are idiomatic issues when translating the text to all languages and there are also a lots of edits and fixes made throughout the history, as expected on a very ancient text. The bible has changed more than people are lead to belive ;). Also lets assume for a second that the bible is exactly the same as written a long time ago, would that make it a prove of it's validity as an accurate text or about the existence of the judo-christian god? There is still a long way to prove that there is a god, and if there is one, that it is the judo-christian one.

Possessed said:

Plus "suspended over empty space" is pretty specific.  Sounds like orbit to me.  Or at least an ignorant person's interpretation of what we now know is merely orbit.

Check this one out.

https://answersingenesis.org/answers/books/taking-back-astronomy/the-universe-confirms-the-bible/

Some of the points are definitely far fetched and I don't buy all of it, but interesting points and food for thought none the less.  I will admit some of it is a stretch.

Another interesting point is that the "3 by 5 by 5" rule when building large waterships came from the story of Noah and the *very specific* instructions he was given to build the ark by, and alot of that is still followed to this day.

Again, not concrete evidence, but worth noting.

 I would expect something more accurate of a knonw-all supreme being, also there is a post made earlier that actually contradicts those claims of the earth being round in the bible and so on. We can still debate what the bible says about this matter but that is only because the claims come from interpretations and not actually stated facts like I would expect of a holly book.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Not really, no. On a subconscious level, I think I still believe in a God, but on a conscious level, I have nothing but doubts pertaining to any and everything supernatural.

 How do you cope with that? I know you don't control the subconscious level but you are aware of an internal struggle so... I assume that there must be a lot of questions in your head

Do you currently hold a belief in something metaphysical? Maybe not a god but something more elusive, like ''aware energy'' a ''conscious force''?

RicOlie_2 said:

In what way?

EDIT: I should clarify, just in case you aren't familiar with the English term, that this is different than creationism. The Intelligent Design Theory theorizes that God created life through evolution.

 Both are flaw, intelligent design is just taking the evolution stuff that the religion fought so much to deny and now since we know that evolution is a scientific fact they just took god and but it before the evolution, saying that god invented whatever new scientific discovery comes along won't prove his existence.

darth_ender said:

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/The-Weak-Atheist-Thread/topic/14351/

Silly joke where I probably am the only one who laughed.

 I really apologize for the misunderstanding, I thought that you were mocking me and I jumped to conclusions too fast. I was not aware of that thread. In this case I created this topic for strong atheists.

Post Praetorian said:

Would you consider yourselves:

Strong Atheists: Belief that there are no gods.

Weak Atheists: Belief that there is little or no evidence of god(s).

Defacto Atheists: Unconcerned about there being gods or not.

Agnostic: Lacking knowledge in whether there may be gods.

or some other form?

Strong.

Post Praetorian said:

It has been claimed in a recent survey that atheists rank Christians higher than fellow atheists when it comes to issues of trust.

Would either of you tend to agree with such results? Why or why not?

 I would like to see the survey and results first before commenting, I think trust has many variables depending on the factors surrounding specific situations.

Post Praetorian said: How has your family reacted to your atheism?

 They haven't say anything to me, I guess some members of my family disagree but that's ok.

Possessed said:

 Actually the bible implies multiple times that the earth is round.

The only times it says otherwise is either in poetry (not in actual description), and the other one people go to is in Revelation when it says angels are standing at the four corners.  But if you read the surrounding verses it becomes clear that it actually refers to the four cardinal directions of N,S,E,W.

In Job it says the earth is suspended over empty space.  Isaiah 40:22 says "He sits on his throne above the CIRCLE of the earth"

Also in Luke 17 around verse 30 it implies that where it is dark at one time in another place it is light at the same time, which could not happen if the earth is flat.  There are others.

 I expected something more than mild-suggestions that might come from interpretations due to language transcripts or editing that the text has suffered across the many many centuries, I expected something more clear like: ''The earth is round and floats around a burning star'' ;)

DuracellEnergizer said:

Here's an article -- written from a Christian perspective, I might add -- which casts serious doubts on those claims.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Schneider.html

 Interesting!

RicOlie_2 said:

What's wrong with the Intelligent Design / Theistic Evolution Theory)?

 It contradicts all the scientific knowledge about the origins of the earth and humans as a specie :p

Post Praetorian said:

Were you always an atheist or did you at one time have a religious background? Do you have a deconversion story?

 My family is roman catholic, but they don't go to the church unless there is a wedding, funeral or baptism. Is more a cultural thing than a devotion. I was baptized and took first communion but the religion thing never stuck on me. There is not much of a de-conversion story, I just asked myself questions about the religions and started reading a little bit on ancient cultures, gods and science stuff.

Post Praetorian said:

Are you happy, as an atheist? Does it content you to so be?

 Yes and Yes :)

RicOlie_2 said:

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.

 I don't have expectations about where this thread should go so let's see what happens :P

darth_ender said:

This could be retitled "Ask the Weak Atheist Anything," and then we would have a real good use for it.

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

I considered starting a similar thread, but then decided it probably wouldn't be very popular.  Plus, there is a wide variety of atheism, and my beliefs are unlikely to match very closely with that of other atheists.

 Well, actually the plan is to discuss the lack of beliefs and atheism is just ''disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.'' so I don't know how many kind of atheists there could be. I understand that atheist can have different opinions on different subjects but there is no set of rules to be a atheist as far as I know :P

RicOlie_2 said:

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?

 1-Lack of evidence is pretty specific :P

2-It could be that some parts of the history of Jesus are true, maybe he existed and was a preacher and kind to the poor an sick, but I don't believe he resurrected or that he was the son of god/god himself. Jesus existence as a historical fact (if we ever reach that point) does not prove the existence of a god outside the bible.

RicOlie_2 said:

BTW, your thread title is grammatically incorrect. It should be "non-member" rather than "no-member", but "Ask no member of all churches" would also be grammatically correct.*

 Changed :)

The problem is that when you say ''I saw Star Wars yesterday'' they'll ask ''Which one'' :P

It doesn't bothers me if they call it Star Wars, ANH or ''the first one they made''. For me is Star Wars but the movie is officially referred as ANH so a lot of people use ANH 

Possessed said:

Do you go all the way to the base?

 I'm not following, can you please clarify the question?

First of all, I don't represent any atheist/secular community or affiliation.

Feel free to ask anything, make sure to avoid ambiguous questions so we can keep posts as short and clear as possible, all comments and questions are welcome as long as they are respectful and constructive :)

Feallan said:

Mkvmerge

stretch009 said:

Feallan said:

Mkvmerge

 Not enough info.  It's part of MKVtoolnix, download it here:

http://www.videohelp.com/tools/MKVtoolnix

Thanks  guys!

TV's Frink said:

It's enough info if your google machine is working.

Altavista FTW

RicOlie_2 said:

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! ;)

 Nailed it!

AntcuFaalb said: My opinion: "Improved CGIs" don't belong in a film released in 1977.

Nailed it!

The CGI looks terrible and out of place, specially on the SE where the technology of that time for CGI wasn't good enough, for example the part where Han ''steps'' on Jabba's tail looks like the cheapest effect ever and Jabba itself is awful. Once you see the Harmy's DEED's there is no way back.

Where I live most of the people call them ''Star Wars'' to all three haha

slickdeals said:

<3

I like to lurk more :D

 Everytime I see your nickname I think is a spam bot lol

Does anybody know about a good program to convert the m2ts file to mkv? I tried with a free program I found (I don't remember the name and I'm not at home) but I feel that the converted file has less quality than the original.

I watched all 3 DEED movies over the weekend and I must say that it is an impressive work, I don't know anything about video editing but I'm sure there are hundreds or hours behind the project and you must be proud of what you created. My girlfriend never watched the movies before but I convinced here of watching them for the first time and I'm glad she could see the real McCoy on her first time (she loved them btw). I was 12 when the SE came out and after that I never watched the OOT again until now so thank you for the nostalgia as well

I think the issue is where to draw the line of ''canon'' and that's a line each one draws differently, there are arguments for every one of those lines as well so :P

Handman said:

dclarkg said:

I prefer Harmy's versions for OT, for the PT you can keep the BR

 Well, there are some issues with the colours still.

 Maybe I don't know enough about the subject to notice that issue but I'm sure those have their flaws as you point out.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess that all comes down to money, if you can afford it then it won't hurt to have it, who knows? maybe in 40 years it will become a collector's item. Nevertheless, get Harmy's EDs, and some fan edits for the PT. You could have the official BRs and a special customized collection made by yourself :p

In that case the cannon should be OOT only, everything after that (SE, PT) actually destroys the integrity of the story despite that some people consider them canon as well.

I prefer Harmy's versions for OT, for the PT you can keep the BR

RicOlie_2 said:

"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. ;)

 Got it haha