Nov. 29, 2005, 2:50 a.m. CST
RUN FOR IT DENZEL!!
Nov. 29, 2005, 2:54 a.m. CST
...in the new millenium
Nov. 29, 2005, 2:57 a.m. CST
Shaky-cam, stock changes, over exposure, franetic cutting, kinetic reframing... I miss the Tony Scott who would just pump the room full of atmospheric haze and remind me how pretty men can look playing volleyball.
Nov. 29, 2005, 3:14 a.m. CST
Nov. 29, 2005, 3:30 a.m. CST
Where is that damn quote from dude? It's got me buggered
Nov. 29, 2005, 4:08 a.m. CST
Time travel... Last movie that got the idea right was Back to the Future III, and that was what? Fifteen years ago or what. This movie will bomb big time.
Nov. 29, 2005, 4:24 a.m. CST
Hell of a flick. Borgies. Vulcans. Drunk warp-drive-inventors. IT'S THE DAMN REASON I'M MAKING A LIVING WORKING AT MISSILE COMPLEXES ACROSS CENTRAL MONTANA, DAMMIT!!!!!!!!!!
Nov. 29, 2005, 4:37 a.m. CST
by Citizen Arcane
Christ, can't he just shoot one frame that looks normal? Anyway, does Denzel figure out that he has to let his wife die or the future will be fucked, does he wind up somehow creating the incident that got his wife killed, does he have have to replace some historical figure that died due to his time travelling interference? Pick a Trek, any Trek.
Nov. 29, 2005, 4:37 a.m. CST
Time travel movies are usually pretty good. Provided they aren't straight-to-video or something.
Nov. 29, 2005, 5:53 a.m. CST
"Oh, my God, they found me, I don't know how, but they found me." - Back To The Future
Nov. 29, 2005, 5:59 a.m. CST
"with the shenanigans and going's-on' -Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie
Nov. 29, 2005, 6:19 a.m. CST
Nov. 29, 2005, 6:39 a.m. CST
by Citizen Arcane
Every single movie has to bludgen you with the same almost incomprehensible visual style or else the movie is bland and mediocre? And who the hell are you? I'll bitch about whatever I want, fuck you.
Nov. 29, 2005, 6:59 a.m. CST
That`s mainly why Denzel did that overrated one-dimensional piece of crap Manchurian Candidate remake. It seems to that the conservative pundits are doing this type of material to counter more complexe pieces such a Syanara. This has old-time Hollywood typical blood-salivating arab terrorist with Caviezel chewing the scenery while Denzel playing the true blue all-American boy. PATHETIC.
Nov. 29, 2005, 7:16 a.m. CST
Nov. 29, 2005, 7:59 a.m. CST
Explain yourselves. Or at least the mechanism for time travel. Be creative, come up with something with the word "flux." I'm not sitting through another "Jacket" or "Butterfly Effect" without knowing how that shit works.
Nov. 29, 2005, 8:01 a.m. CST
Nov. 29, 2005, 8:07 a.m. CST
... he once had great talent, but now wastes it on hyper-fast cuts and shitty saturations and just all around nauseating style. Man On Fire was one of the most frustrating movies ever - some brilliant performances ruined by his directing, and Domino was utter garbage. If this is done with the same style, forget it, I'll go the rest of my life without seeing it.
Nov. 29, 2005, 9:29 a.m. CST
by Citizen Arcane
Someone goes backwards or forwards in time and materializes in deep space, end of movie BECAUSE THE EARTH IS MOVING, ASSHOLES. Unless you travelled in precise year increments, down to the second. That might work. but seriously, time travel has been beaten to death, buried, the body exhumed and skull fucked by Star Trek alone, much less ever sci-fi channel original movie that comes on TV when it's way too late or early.
Nov. 29, 2005, 10:02 a.m. CST
by Randall Flagg
Jello Biafra is laughing his ass off...
Nov. 29, 2005, 10:06 a.m. CST
which is why the Romans killed him, of course... and then later stole his name, mangled / spiritually castrated his teachings, and created the worlds largest pedophile rape death cult -- the Catholic Church. in short, the real Jesus kinda was a terrorist -- a lefty, peace terrorist, revolutionary, and activist. i still haven't quite figured out who the Christian Right worships, cause it sure as shit aint Jesus...
Nov. 29, 2005, 10:24 a.m. CST
I would've worn a condom that time I boned Gus Van Rant's mom in the barn...and thus Gus Van Rant wouldn't be alive to post shit on this TB.
Nov. 29, 2005, 10:27 a.m. CST
by Osmosis Jones
Nov. 29, 2005, 10:41 a.m. CST
Nov. 29, 2005, 10:48 a.m. CST
by R.C. the "Wise"
Back to this movie,... Denzel/Scott...I'm in.
Nov. 29, 2005, 10:52 a.m. CST
There must have been about 100 direct to video titles with the same "plot" since that wretched Time Machine remake.
Nov. 29, 2005, 10:55 a.m. CST
The NES game would make a better film methinks.
Nov. 29, 2005, 11:16 a.m. CST
The Simpsons episode where Homer repeatedly goes back in time and like kills a butterfly or something and causes major changes in the future. Who wrote the original story about that "butterfly effect" premise, Bradbury? Aren't they making a movie?
Nov. 29, 2005, 11:18 a.m. CST
I'd go back to the start of AICN and force Harry to take on an editor for the site. More than half the crap you people report on needs some serious editing.
Nov. 29, 2005, 11:28 a.m. CST
According to your theory, even if you time travelled in year increments down to the second, you'd still end up in deep space BECAUSE THE SUN IS MOVING TOO, ASSHOLE.
Nov. 29, 2005, 11:31 a.m. CST
They already made that movie starring Jason Scott Lee, damn. Well, Jim Caviezel is a damn good actor but he needs something to really push him over the top. It seems to me that he plays a lot of low key characters, though the Count of Monte Cristo was his best movie, in my opinion. Oh yeah, and how come Denzel seems to be the only black, dramatic male actor in Hollywood?
Nov. 29, 2005, 12:03 p.m. CST
Right. And Zarqawi, Osama, and Sadr have all been known to do unto others and turn the other cheek. Wow. TB never ceases to amaze.
Nov. 29, 2005, 12:05 p.m. CST
see www.johntitor.com I'm actually working on the script right now! Call me, hollywood, call me on my mobile!
Nov. 29, 2005, 12:09 p.m. CST
Nov. 29, 2005, 12:11 p.m. CST
by Some Dude
Christians haven't been known for those behaviors either.
Nov. 29, 2005, 12:11 p.m. CST
They need quit the fucking super-hyper-happy-editing and they need to quit the look-at-the-pretty-colors-look-how-I-switch-film-stocks-cinematography. That is all.
Nov. 29, 2005, 12:15 p.m. CST
Damn dude, that's some harsh words. Not every Priest rapes little boys and aren't cults by definition religion with few people that practice them? Maybe not, who knows. Scientology - now there's a fucked up cult. But yeah the Catholic Church has done some rancid shit over the centures, but then again, so has every other religion.
Nov. 29, 2005, 12:39 p.m. CST
by Guy Gaduois
with the world and this talkback. I think I thought 'butterfly effect' was from chaos theory, but that might be just b.s. from the movies. It's cluttery in the fact/fiction section o'brain. Bradbury did write the short story where the astro-time traveler steps on a butterfly during a time travel experiment (Do not leave the path) and completely f*uckertates the future. Also, why do people hold 'the Passion' in such disdain and elevate 'the Last Temptation' to great art? Both are 'impressions' of the same historical figure, one revered, one reviled by antithetical groups. That's funny to me - the likelihood is that if you liked 'Temptation' you are an intolerant asshat towards 'Passion' and the people who liked it, and if you liked 'Passion', you want to kill Katzansakis and Scorcese - but in a Christian way, of course. That Jesus does inspire. Is there any one else in film subject so divisive? Besides John Saxon, of course.
Nov. 29, 2005, 12:54 p.m. CST
by Neo Wolf
They love him so much they cant stop talking about him in every goddamn thread!
Nov. 29, 2005, 1:18 p.m. CST
Haha, I used someone else's joke without reading the full article or any of the talkback responses! Today I am a true talkbacker! If only I got first!
Nov. 29, 2005, 1:24 p.m. CST
Everyone saying "I hope Tony Scott doesn't do Tony Scott style for this one", get over it. He will. Just like you wouldn't hire Christopher Walken for any role in which you wouldn't want him to give his Christopher Walken performance, they're not going to hire Tony Scott to direct in any other style than his Tony Scott style. Fast cuts, handheld cameras, bleach bypass color, random zooms. That's what we'll see here, and don't get your hopes up for anything else.
Nov. 29, 2005, 1:36 p.m. CST
It needs to be film noir about a detective investigating a murder. He goes back in time and in the end it's his own murder he's investigating! Also, you can't feel the rings.
Nov. 29, 2005, 1:49 p.m. CST
by Childe Roland
...and he doesn't look too happy. Someone better call Denzel Washington to travel back in time and stop those people from nailing him to those 2x4s in the middle east or we're all fucked! I know what you science nerds will say: "We can't do that." But what if we could? Oh...and I promise you that if anyone from these talkbacks ever went back in time to talk to anyone about "stuff," that hisytorical someone would not only blow his or her brains out, they'd climb a bell tower and start picking off anyone who looked like he or she might be a talkbacker ancestor.
Nov. 29, 2005, 2:26 p.m. CST
"am I right haters or am I right" What a horrible tagline. You're the new Trevorfactor. BTW...how's your mom doing? Tell her I said hellooo.
Nov. 29, 2005, 2:28 p.m. CST
by Thirteen 13
Attention 5th graders: The Jesus jokes were already old back when Aerosmith made their first album. Nobody laughs at them anymore because they are so old. Even Christains don't get offended by them anymore. They will just look at you and laugh. So just get back in your car. Pop in some nu-metal. And make sure you have your ballcap turned backwards and your Raiders jersey on. Then drive on over to a Kong talkback and start asking where Kong's balls are for the umpteenth time.
Nov. 29, 2005, 2:51 p.m. CST
Jim Caviezel is a scientist who discovers how to time travel, then goes back to Titanic to get the big blue diamond necklace. Denzel and Bill Paxton follow him back, but have to assume disguises as a cook and machinist. In the climax, Caviezel is crushed between the Titanic and the iceberg, and Paxton must decide who to rescue: Denzel or Rose.
Nov. 29, 2005, 3:25 p.m. CST
I've had both FrodosBlueBall's mom and Gus Van Rant's mom and I have to tell you they weren't worth the 20 bucks I paid them. Am I right haters or am I right?
Nov. 29, 2005, 3:33 p.m. CST
can you guys come up with a time travel movie that isn't illogical/full of plot holes? (and I don't mean nitpicking things like you'd show up in space cause the earth is moving, or that 1.2 gW is to little power or whatever. We're not discussing the technique, but the philosophy) The only one I can think of is 12 monkeys. (although I may be wrong, haven't seen it in a while) And I haven't decided on donnie darko yet. discuss.
Nov. 29, 2005, 3:54 p.m. CST
You just mentioned the holy three in the subject heading...J
Nov. 29, 2005, 4:02 p.m. CST
you need commas. so far, you have repeatedly asked whether you are "right haters" or "right". while you do seem, from the tone of your posts, to be haters, none of us has any idea what "right haters" is. this makes it hard to understand why there should be a choice between being this and being right, and, indeed, which of these you are; therefore, we can't answer your question. i need capital letters.
Nov. 29, 2005, 4:53 p.m. CST
And it said something like, Jesus' crucifixion only became such a big deal because so many people were going back in time to view it happening. How's that for a paradox? And it also unites two of the subject headings in this talkback. I gotta find me that book, anyone know what it was called?
Nov. 29, 2005, 5:32 p.m. CST
Behold the Man, by Michael Moorcock? not *exactly* the premise you describe, but close.
Nov. 29, 2005, 5:39 p.m. CST
One of the most entertaining talkbacks in recent time. Anything that involves Jesus, Tony Scott, time travel, and babbling geeks(not to mention insulting each others nerd mothers)is absolutely grade A material. Good show!
Nov. 29, 2005, 5:46 p.m. CST
by Guy Gaduois
Is there any way we can work him into this flame session and really get the party started? Okay, Jesus gets into the time machine with Mel Gibson and proves that Che Guevara raped and beheaded nuns (with Ted Kennedy's full knowledge) with money Nixon sent to him via Western Union.
Nov. 29, 2005, 6:04 p.m. CST
You're giving Smith script ideas, you know. Van Dante stars in TIMECLERKS.
Nov. 29, 2005, 6:08 p.m. CST
I'll make sure I'll wear my huge converse shoes with my jean jacket and puffy red vest over it. Can we stop off and kick Mussolini in the nuts on the way?
Nov. 29, 2005, 6:11 p.m. CST
Who said they hadn't? Oh, right, you subjectively inferred this. Please don't fault me for your misinterpretations. Getting back to the 'Jesus is a kinda terrorist' schtick, shouldn't we instead start with that fellah who called for striking down the infidel, enslaving them, and so on? He sounds much more dangerous than the hippie.
Nov. 29, 2005, 6:15 p.m. CST
I think Zombie's a closet pedophile... Meantime, the courts over here recently decided to keep the age of consent at 14 despite recommendations from police and other groups due to people taking 'advantage' of that... how 'bout that Zombie? That make you excited? It's all legal... go scout some chat rooms. Twat...
Nov. 29, 2005, 6:16 p.m. CST
Anyone seen that Rope-like movie with Cameron Diaz and One in it, where Diaz and her gang are a bunch of pseudo-intellectual liberals who concoct a plan to get their revenge on the world by inviting hard-bitten Republicans to dinner and then, for deserts, killing them and burying them in their back-yard? Ron Perlman plays a supposedly brash and ignorant politician, but when he comes to tea and is posed with the question "If you could go back in time would you kill the baby Hitler?", he answers "No". So the liberal do-badders immediately call him for a Nazi, but he hasn't finished yet. "No I'd sit him down and try to convince him of the error of his ways." Needless to say One doesn't get offed, if I remember rightly it's he who wipes out the Cameron Diaz cofee-sipping crew. Anyway, shitty film really, apart from Ron Perlman who's the man.
Nov. 29, 2005, 6:16 p.m. CST
Nov. 29, 2005, 6:27 p.m. CST
I got no heating at the moment, so it's cold while I type... Now if only I had that excuse for typos all year round. Alaska here I come.
Nov. 29, 2005, 6:40 p.m. CST
by Some Dude
Another book on the subject is "Live from Golgotha" by Gore Vidal.
Nov. 29, 2005, 6:43 p.m. CST
by Monkey Butler
because he made a Futurama reference. Pity nobody noticed it. Also, nobody said Jesus WAS a terrorist, just that he'd probably be branded as one today.
Nov. 29, 2005, 6:43 p.m. CST
by Some Dude
I have no idea what you are crying about. You bristled at the comparisons made between the mythological Christ and modern day terrorists. I chimed in with the fact that not many Christians behave like the mythological Christ. There were no more subjective inferences made in my response than there were in your response. No need to cry.
Nov. 29, 2005, 6:58 p.m. CST
More subjectivity. Look, you know what you did. Let's review. ZanyeSolutions specualted how Jesus was a terrorist. I called him out on it. You chirped about Christians not following the words of Jesus. I called you out for introducing tangential tripe. And now you claim it's me who got all hurt and bothered about the comparisons of christians to the 'mythological christ'. Newsflash, buddy -- I'm not a christian. Note the lack of capitals in all my posts regarding the topic. Not all conservatives are christian. Amazing how a bedwetting libbies still manage to take time to capitalize the name of He that you Find To Be Silly.
Nov. 29, 2005, 7:12 p.m. CST
I'm a Native American (hate the redundancy in that label) from the People's Republic of Taxachussetts, Camp Caimbridge. You don't get much bluer than the home town of Noam Chomsky!
Nov. 29, 2005, 7:12 p.m. CST
Get it right!!! J/K. This has got to be the most entertaining talkback I've seen in awhile. Even better than Smith tearing everyone a new asshole. Since no one has mentioned it yet, I'll throw Arnofsky's THE FOUNTAIN into the mix, and say that it looks like a damn good time travel flick (or something). And I say that if we go back and kill Hitler, something worse could happen. One, the overpopulation would eventually become an issue,...but what if one of the people he killed was to become a worse tyrant than Hitler ever dreamed of? Lesson: don't fucking time travel!
Nov. 29, 2005, 7:16 p.m. CST
in order to kill your enemies. Do I need to point out how retarded that is? I'm sure your pet dino would kindly differentiate between you and your enemies when it's snack time.
Nov. 29, 2005, 7:19 p.m. CST
Discus. Would we all have two heads as a result?
Nov. 29, 2005, 7:29 p.m. CST
was the Cameron Diaz vehicle in question. It's actually a good flick, if only for calling people on their respective hypocrisies. As for this new "time travel to prevent terrorism" plot, I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt, despite my issues with Tony Scott. As for Washington and "Jesus" being conservative I consider that a non-factor when judging their artistic tallent.
Nov. 29, 2005, 7:33 p.m. CST
I'd steal him away from his parents and take him on a pilgrimage through India; here he'll meet Mini-Maharishi Mahesh (he likes to be called Mini-Ma for short), and they'll become best friends. So Hitler will live as a Yogi for years and years, enlightening visiting Westerners with talk like: "Yes, but one must not look at the leaves as they fall from the tree as the sign that Winter is coming, but as a sign that soon Spring will be here." Until one day the Beatles travel to India to visit Mahesh (no longer mini). Here Mahesh introduces the Beatles to Hitler, who naturally runs through the "falling leaves" line to them. John Lennon, cocky Liverpudlian git that he is says, "'eh, 'ow long you been in India-like mate?". Hitler answers with, "As long as I can remember." "You do realise you're white don't ya", chimes in the cheeky George Harrison. "What do you mean?", says Hitler, with a slightly worried tone in his voice. "What my friend here's trying to say", begins Paul, "is that you know...Mahesh here is Indian, with nice brown skin, and Ravi Shankar here is also Indian, with nice brown skin, and...you're white." Hitler, distraught at the news that he has been living a lie, that he could never be one with his best friend Mahesh, or the country he spent so much of his life in, India, because of his White skin, flees India back to his home country Germany. Here Hitler gets the notion to destroy anybody whose skin isn't white... So my point is, Time Travel's pointless.
Nov. 29, 2005, 7:53 p.m. CST
Read Mein Kampf. Also, he wanted nothing more than to be an art student. The pricks at the university denied him, and he went on to be a tyrant. Smooth move. I wonder if they regret that? If we go back and change anything, I think the simplest thing is to let Hitler express himself through art, not genocide.
Nov. 29, 2005, 8:23 p.m. CST
by Some Dude
I think I have an idea what your latest rant is about. It is becoming clearer that you have difficulty reading. Let's review: Some one made a claim, you disputed it with a piece of 'evidence' and I pointed out that the 'evidence' was not really that useful. So, in this sequence, my original post was as on-topic as yours. Please note that not once did I make reference to or speculate on your religious or political views. On to the bonus round... Even when I use the phrase "mythological Christ" I will still use the upper-case in the same way I would if discussing Zeus, Paul Bunyan or Batman. You can go back to crying or being wrong or both. Or you can relax and try to respond without coming off like a hysterical girl. Good luck!
Nov. 29, 2005, 8:24 p.m. CST
by Some Dude
Unfortunately, terrorists are real.
Nov. 29, 2005, 8:49 p.m. CST
by Monkey Butler
Because Germany was completely fucked before Hitler came along. But his ability to capitalise on Germany being fucked up was only allowed because of a number of very lucky (for him, not for the rest of the world) circumstances. So yeah, it would be interesting. Probably Germany wouldn't exist anymore - France would've eventually just marched in and taken it over.
Nov. 29, 2005, 9:18 p.m. CST
but, hey, your the one who blindly follows a proud ex-nazi / child rape sanctioning /hatemongering psychopath, not me. so if anyone has a closet pedophile / pedophile apologist thang going on, it's you sir. or maybe you hjust have a thing for skinny bloody naked guys in diapers nailed to trees? curious that you would pay so close attention to the sex laws too. intereresting. but, i digress: either way -- you're the deviant, i just tell it like it is...
Nov. 29, 2005, 9:31 p.m. CST
If we go back in time and kill Hitler, STALIN will emerge with Tesla Coils. Do you have a Tanya on hand? NO?!
Nov. 29, 2005, 10:17 p.m. CST
If your mom wasn't such an easy ass target who didnt give it up to everybody she's ever met maybe I wouldn't make fun of her, and Gus...I know you in real life...and I really do know your mom...and let me tell you buddy...she's all around town when papa ain't lookin.
Nov. 29, 2005, 10:21 p.m. CST
If I had a time machine, I'd go back in time and make sure George W. didn't live to embarass the U.S. like the fucking hick he is. Mr. Bush, we just received word that five Brazilians were killed in Iraq. Bushes reply: Wow! And uh...how much is a brazilian? Sounds like alot.
Nov. 29, 2005, 11:32 p.m. CST
by Alonzo Mosely
If I had a time machine, I would go back and read this thread again...
Nov. 29, 2005, 11:44 p.m. CST
I have only seen bits and pieces of "Passion of the Christ," so I have not had the pleasure of seeing Jim Caviezel act, but I have seen him in-person many times, and the guy strikes me as a bit low-key for an actor of his type. I am a manager of a store in the area where Jim lives. He and his wife frequent my establishment often and he orders very eclectic stuff from me. Don't get me wrong, the man is extremely respectful, and he carries himself with confidence, but whenever I see him, he just seems a bit off, like he's comfortable being in another plain of existence. He's just appears (to me) to be a tad understated, and maybe even quiet. It made me think of the stereotype of an actor who, without his lines, is a very boring individual. That was the impression I got when I first met Mr. Caviezel. I have no idea if he's boring or not, and I don't care, considering I want his continued business. However, he struck me as the total antithesis of what I expect (and see frequently) from the celebrities who shop at my store. He is not an asshole, and he doesn't cop a "star" 'tude. Although, all of my employees gush about how they helped "Jesus," or that "Jesus" was in the store. I gotta admit. Jim doesn't need to do a damn thing after "Passion" because people actually treat him as if he WAS Jesus. (Although I guarantee you that few people who see him in person could actually tell it was him. I've seen this first-hand, and it's probably what he enjoys most about living a rather low-key lifestyle.) Anyway, it will be interesting to see Jim tackle this part. He'll never break the Jesus-typecast, but maybe he can modufy it a bit with more interesting roles.
Nov. 30, 2005, 12:29 a.m. CST
Does Jim Caviezel's character have a bomb in his ribcage?
Nov. 30, 2005, 1:14 a.m. CST
...I love the smell of a new, out-of-control talkback in the morning. Fantastic stuff. I just spent the last half hour or so reading this thing with my A.M. coffee and laughing my ass off. Best insult so far: "You're the new Trevorfactor".
Nov. 30, 2005, 4:42 a.m. CST
DanteCubit, so because caviezel isnt an asshole with a "star"'tude he's boring? And to all of you with time travel capabilities: please dont travel back in time and kill baby hitler. if you do, I will never have been born, and I value my life a lot more than the life of a 100 million people that are already dead. thanks.
Nov. 30, 2005, 7:55 a.m. CST
First use the time travel device to zip back to the day after Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. Take a hair from his head then zip forward to the year 2132. Bargain with the Alien Overlords controlling Earth to allow you to clone Lincoln. Then take the newly cloned Abe, zip back to Hitler's birth day, switch the babies in the hospital, and voila! Germany gets a compassionate leader that leads them through their reconstruction, rather than a meglomaniac homicidal dictator. Howzat work for you?
Nov. 30, 2005, 8:57 a.m. CST
do we dare use time travel to kill brilliant satire?! but, i'm seriously, the moral justification of killing Hitler Jr. seems almost irrelevant. as evil as the man was, he didn't create anti-semetism (the Catholic Church's favorite past-time), and the nazis were far more than just one man; he was just the mouthpiece. maybe killing Baby Adolph would have averted the holocaust, but, remember, the nazis had Speer -- another charismatic man-of-evil who escaped the death sentence largely based on his innate (seemingly demonic) charm -- ready to go and take over with the Reich's plans for world domination and mass murder. in other words, the holocaust may have happened anyway... who knows... maybe we should ask Popenstein Ratzinger (the proud ex-nazi and pedophile enabler / apologist) what he thinks. i bet it'll be something monsterous, evil, and psychotic.
Nov. 30, 2005, 9:45 a.m. CST
"When I return I will not be there with a message of peace this time, I will roar like a lion with a sword". That sounds a lot like USAma Ben Laden.
Nov. 30, 2005, 9:47 a.m. CST
now THIS is a talkback. Jesus was no terrorist, but he WAS the first bleeding heart liberal, and if you listen to the nutcase right-wing fundamentalists rant, like the robertsons and falwells, you'll notice they are MUCH more fond of quoting old testament than Jesus and have little use for the ideals of forgiveness and the obligation of the strong to care for the weak, which were a big part of the foundation of what Jesus was teaching. ok, next. Immortal Fish, a conservative indian? holy shit, talk about a guy who must be riddled with self-loathing. next he'll start explaining how the $26 was a fair price for Manhatten and the Cherokees deserved the Trail of Tears. i mean, its conservatives who have voted against anything to help whats left of the cultures we trampled in building the U.S. ok, now for the time travel thing; for the most part i agree with Arcane in that its a premise that has been done to death, philisophically/morally/etc, BUT, with the relatively new string theory,dark matter and dark dark energy revelations, black holes, etc, a new twist on the technical/scientific side could be possible. what would i do if i could go time travel? great question really, but my answer would be pretty mundane compared to most; i'd go back to when i was a freshman in highschool, you know, the 'ol, "i wish that i knew then what i know now, when i was younger" thing. damn i love that song, old-time Rod Stewart is great.
Nov. 30, 2005, 10:28 a.m. CST
Here's how to prove whether time travel will ever be possible...get a tattoo of today's date on your arm (so you won't forget it), then walk out of the tattoo parlour and wait around for a bit. Promise yourself that if time travel becomes possible in your lifetime, that you will travel back to the day tattooed on your arm and meet yourself outside the shop. And, just in case the invention is way off, write something into your will so that your heirs have to get the same tattoo (or no inheritance), and fulfill the same promise to meet you outside the tattoo shop on that day. Also, give them some sort of secret password that they have to say, just so you can verify their identity. Okay, got all that? Fine. Now just go and get the tattoo like I said, and wait outside the shop. If no-one turns up to meet you, you can safely conclude that time travel will never be possible. And you can also safely conclude that you're a moron.
Nov. 30, 2005, 10:33 a.m. CST
by Doom II
Anyone still get excited to see what this film school video hack has coming up?
Nov. 30, 2005, 10:39 a.m. CST
The notion that the biggest problem with time travel is convincing yourself that you're not insane as you experience it was pretty neat. I don't think we'll ever have actual time travel, but eventually technology will probably give us a substitute - once they figure out how to "Matrix" us all up, reality can be whatever you want it to be. Want to witness the crucifixion? The computer will take you there. Then just edit out the part of your consciousness that knows it's not real. Voila - time travel.
Nov. 30, 2005, 10:49 a.m. CST
It makes sense. As long as you can accept that at some time in the future the human race will develop computer power so great that it can accurately simulate real life, then you must also accept that we could be living in that simulation right now. That's not to say that we're all imprisoned in pods in the future. What is more likely is that we are created by the computer, and don't exist outside it. This thesis went on to give advice on how you should live your life in a simulation. Basically it says to live life to the fullest to avoid deletion - I'm not kidding.
Nov. 30, 2005, 11:19 a.m. CST
by Childe Roland
...I don't know that I can get behind that comparison, and I can entertain some pretty wacky notions where religion and philosophy are concerned. Terrorism is all about using fear to obtain compliance from one's opposition. Jesus really seemed to be more about the love and acceptance and tolerance (at least from the various readings I've done). Was he a radical? Most certainly. Would he be branded a liberal by today's pundits? Absolutely. Does liberal=terrorist? I don't think anyone's stupid enough to believe that. The Judaeo-Christian representation of God the Father was much more about the fear as a control mechanism thing. So He most certainly was characterized as an entity employing terrorist tactics (i.e. "My word is law and the One Truth and to defy it is to invite pain, suffering and eternal damnation). The Man Jesus and his embracing of enemies and loving of neighbors, that was kind of a departure from the accepted wisdom of the day. But he's still just all right with me. And on the topic of religion and conservatism: where would the Church weigh in on the idea of pre-emptive time travel to "right the wrongs" of the past? It seems to me that religious-minded folk tend to come down on the less-is-more side of things where science is concerned, particularly when it comes to influencing the natural course of events. And, philosophically, wouldn't any tampering with what has been be seen as defiance of God's plan? I'm genuinely curious how folks would react to this kind of technology and implementation across the political and theological spectrums.
Nov. 30, 2005, 11:20 a.m. CST
Basically, this theory asserts that any species that advanced technically to the point where it could achieve interstellar travel would also be able to bury itself in a Matrix of its own making. Therefore, the reason ET isn't here is because he's too busy living in a fantasy world of his own creation to bother to come.
Nov. 30, 2005, 11:28 a.m. CST
"old-time Rod Stewart is great"? smorgasbord of insanity, alright...
Nov. 30, 2005, 11:34 a.m. CST
no-one has come back to re-edit Tony Scott's work.
Nov. 30, 2005, 11:38 a.m. CST
So immortal fish is a Native American republican? A Native American republican! That's the funniest thing I have ever heard of. What's next, we find out acnhorite is a homosexual republican? Oh wait, he probably is. You know, us poor Christians are soooooo powerless and oppressed in this country. It's amazing that we even find ways to survive with the constant assault we get from Kevin Smith and AICN. Making jokes about Jesus? That's just plain heresy! What's next, department stores start using the term Holiday Sale instead of Christmas Sale? Who cares that Hannukah also goes on in December. I'm a Christian and I demand you call your sale a Christmas Sale. Heil Bill O'Reilly!
Nov. 30, 2005, 11:49 a.m. CST
you don't like early Rod Stweart stuff? i'm talking early-mid 70's. if you don't, hey, its all a matter of taste, but damn, if you don't then you obviously are no classic rock fan, which i am. i think most stuff put out today sucks ass in a big way, and that the 70's were the golden age of modern music, where people actually played instruments, wrote their own stuff, and stretched the creative envelope, Kiss notwithstanding. those asswhipes were the beginning of the end; thanks to them we ended up with the wave of shit hair bands of the 80's, which led to the backlash which was grunge, which went nowhere creatively, just faded away. give me old time Rod Stweart any day over some sampled, synthisized, kiddie pop and copycat hip-hop that dominates today. thats just my opinion and taste.
Nov. 30, 2005, 11:50 a.m. CST
I wonder what the talking points are for Native American conservatives. Here are some theories: 1) Killing them and taking their land is okay because we need big business to develop their land and build strip malls and parking lots. 2) Killing them and taking their land is okay because they're not Christian and need to be "enlightened". 3) Killing them and taking their land is a "pro-growth" policy. 4) Killing them and taking their land is ok because they're illegal immigrants (they call their tribes "nations") 5) Killing them and taking their land is ok because we might find oil. 6) Killing off almost all of the buffalo is necessary because the land they graze on could be used to build new Wal-Marts. 7) Killing them off is good because they were going to end up being poor anyway and asking for government handouts.
Nov. 30, 2005, 12:01 p.m. CST
1) Taking their land was good because the majority can take away your property rights whenever they want. 2) Not one of their lodges or tepees had the proper zoning permits so sticking them on government reservations instead was simply due process of law. 3) Hunting wild animals is cruel, so they should be happy with food stamps and booze instead. 4) Thinking that your culture deserves to live is bigoted; they're much better off now that their culture has been swamped by the beautiful diversity of European and African cultures. 5) The Aztecs and Incas didn't believe in the separation of church and state, so their empires deserved to be conquered. OK, 5's enough. I'm bored now.
Nov. 30, 2005, 12:40 p.m. CST
it boggles the mind that there are actually people like this -- those who would vote directly against their best interests and support ideologies that work against them. anyone here who considers themselves a Republican (the party of the overtly racist, ultra wealthy, white conservative christian elite) and is either non-white, non-christian, or makes less than 6 figures a year is a straight up moron. wake the fuck up. Jesus was screaming liberal revoltionary and peace activist NOT a war mongering hate freak aka Republican Right Wing Christians Wake! Up!
Nov. 30, 2005, 12:56 p.m. CST
where's Marlon Brando when you need him?
Nov. 30, 2005, 12:58 p.m. CST
Nov. 30, 2005, 1:02 p.m. CST
I can see where he would be seen as one by today's standards. But the man also said "no one comes to the Father but through me." That's pretty much "my way or the highway." Childe Roland, interesting question! Personally, I'd not go back in time and mess with the plans. I like the way things have turned out. I would consider tampering with the past to be in defiance of God's plan. The future however, is unknown so we have the right to try and make it better than today. But that's just the opinion of this Hispanic, Republican, Christian, Conservative fella. Which brings me to ZombieSolutions. So, I'm a moron because why? Republicans are against us Mexicans? What in the Republican ideology works against me as a Hispanic man?
Nov. 30, 2005, 1:23 p.m. CST
by Childe Roland
...is kind of a given, if you accept that human beings have free will and those same humans possess the ability to interact with/impact their surroundings. Place a round glass ornament on an inclined plane and gravity will almost assuredly take care of the ornament's fate. But intervene, even at the last possible second, and you've theoretically changed the future (the future being defined as the most likely probable outcome of the course of events and not having much to do with predestination or a divine plan). The past is what I'm more concerned with. One of my favorite shows was always Quantum Leap, which got pretty theological in the later seasons, speculating that God/Time/Fate as an entity was responsible for leaping Sam around in the past (always the past) to change history - for the better. Of course, in the series finale the show suggested God was nothing more than a bartender in limbo and that Sam was somehow leaping himself through time by the force of his subconscious will (not sure yet if that was supposed to mean Sam had died in the intro to the first episode and we were following ghost-Sam for several years or what). Anyway, where do other folks fall on the Time Travel for a Better Today technology issue? Ethical or unethical? In accordance with or defiance of God's will as you percieve it?
Nov. 30, 2005, 1:57 p.m. CST
My take on it is that this has already happened numerous times. Which explains such anomolies as the success of Ashlee Simpson and the duck-billed platypus.
Nov. 30, 2005, 2:04 p.m. CST
...and I did the impossible. I found a film clip from Uwe Boll, THAT IS ACTUALLY ENTERTAINING! Even more, it stars Uwe Boll! Fuck Hitler, time travel should focus more on the enigma that is Boll. Check it out... http://www.grapheine.com/bombaytv/playuk.php?id=282175
Nov. 30, 2005, 2:14 p.m. CST
Nov. 30, 2005, 2:35 p.m. CST
Then all the unknown talkbackers would reunite together to save Harry and his pals on a remote island with large half-breed creatures. It would be the adventure of the ages!
Nov. 30, 2005, 2:45 p.m. CST
In the third Potter movie they didn't changed anything. All they did is complete the loop. Therefore there was no "original" time line that was changed - it was always meant to happen the way it did. That makes sense - if at some point in the future time-travel became possible, we could travel back to any point in time we wished. That means that any alterations to our past have already happened, and if we invented time travel tomorrow we couldn't change anything - we could only complete the endless loop that has no beginning and no end. I'm getting dizzy now. But my point is this - I'm sure that time-travel is impossible because if it was, someone would have done the 'kill Hitler' thing already, and we would have no memory of him.
Nov. 30, 2005, 3:31 p.m. CST
hey Peven - i'm with you on the current dross, but as for the 70's, i'm all about Hawkwind! HAAAAAWKWIIIND!!!!!!!!!! of course, that's just me - if you're into Rod Stewart, that's cool. insane... but cool. ;-) this talkback is surreal.
Nov. 30, 2005, 3:39 p.m. CST
Ikkyu, you've gained my ultimate respect. I caught Hawkwind (Mark XXVII no doubt) a few years ago, and they drove me over the edge of insanity; now I can feel free to read this talkback without fear of going loco.
Nov. 30, 2005, 3:39 p.m. CST
My time travel plot is to travel back and keep the band together, thus ensuing that Motorhead never forms! Did I mention that I am an evil overlord. My cyclotron will destroy you all!!
Nov. 30, 2005, 4:07 p.m. CST
When it comes to 70's rock, I'm all about the Prog! The insane keyboards of early Genesis, old Yes, Gentle Giant, ELP, and the true Lord of Prog, Ian Anderson himself and the immortal Jethro Tull!!!! Feel the Tull!! Love the Tull!!
Nov. 30, 2005, 4:12 p.m. CST
Stephen Fry has a pretty entertaining novel about what happens when you kill Hitler, called "Making History". Its a good read, if a bit heavy-handed on the gay themes. I still recommend it. Stephen Fry is a very funny writer. "The Hippopotamus" is another very good novel.
Nov. 30, 2005, 5:02 p.m. CST
we get a DeLorean, invent Time Travel, travel back in time, kidnap Hitler just around the time he was bumming out of Art College, enter the Time Tunnel and Quantum Leap back to one of Hawkwind's Warrior on the Edge of Time gigs (or maybe Chronicles of the Black Sword), lay some very heavy acid on the kid and let the HwaLords and the ol' Acid Casualty Light Show fry all of that crazy killing-people shit right out of his head (along with whatever else was in there too), then drop him right back to 1930-whenever and let him go peacefully on his way, spending the rest of his life going head-to-head with Salvador Dali for the title of world's most fucked-up surrealist painter, instead of becoming No.1 Genocidal Megalomaniac of the Century. THEN, we let Tony Scott film the biopic, and his mind-sprangling visual style will finally have a worthy subject matter and, perhaps, make some kind of sense.
Nov. 30, 2005, 5:04 p.m. CST
i got over-excited.
Nov. 30, 2005, 5:11 p.m. CST
Now, how do we get a DeLorean? Oh, wait, I think my neighbor, old crazy Dr. Snizzlegus has one locked up in that old shed of his. That old crazy scientist is always up to no good! No, seriously, very amusing talkback. Love it.
Nov. 30, 2005, 5:17 p.m. CST
Hmmm, freaky. If I were inclined to do such a thing I think I'd opt for doing the same for Stalin. He made Hitler look like an amateur in the mass killing department.
Nov. 30, 2005, 6:03 p.m. CST
by Dr Lizardo
Traveling back to Planet 10, now THAT would be something! I can see it now. Denzel Washington as the leader of the Black Lectroids. Me as the Red Leader, of course. Jim Cajeziel as Buckaroo Banzai's long-lost twin brother, Phil. ...And Bea Arthur as Number 2. Can't forget that.
Nov. 30, 2005, 6:58 p.m. CST
For someone who follows some beliefs he made up, you're sure one to talk, maybe it might interest you that some of the so called groups the Church is 'hatemongering' against are pushing to make pedophilia a well and normal thing... oops, sorry, I believe the public relations friendly word for it is now 'intergenerational love' at least that's what EGALE called it when they petitioned to keep the age of consent in place, so thank you very much in advance zombie for blindly sanctioning any of these groups. How do I know about the sex laws thing? Well it's in the news, which I pay attention to, well it's rather page 4 news because I suppose the MSM would like to avoid upsetting these groups, poor babies, but it is talked about in Christian circles and media... why? Because unlike someone like you, we care and try to stop these things. Last time we sparred I provided plenty of material disowning every idiotic statement you made. Try it again, and this sexual deviant will own your ass like George Takei.
Nov. 30, 2005, 7:13 p.m. CST
i mean, defending the Catholic church as institution fighting AGAINST pedophilia? i mean we're talking the Catholic church, the MAMBLA before there was MAMBLA, right? the same people who knowingly aided and abbetted pedophiles across the country for generations? oh man, now THATS irony, and i do so love a good dose of irony. thanks man, that was classic.
Nov. 30, 2005, 7:26 p.m. CST
by Monkey Butler
You're being glib. You don't know the history of Festivus. I do. It's a Festivus POLE, not a Festivus tree.
Nov. 30, 2005, 7:45 p.m. CST
by white owl
PRIMER is the best, most realistic time-travel movie ever. Damn I love watching that dvd time after time and still discovering new plot twists and little things here and there.
Nov. 30, 2005, 7:58 p.m. CST
by Van Damned
Timecop III: The Unnecessary / Unintended Sequel. Denzel goes back in time to save love of his life, only to find Van Damme has done so already and is on his way to making 2.5 children with her. Enter the zombie corpses of Ron Silver, John Lithgow, Dolph Lundgren and Russel Crowe as SID-XP (Bill Gates is behind every evil act in the 21st Century) and set it in Austrailia. Then sit back and watch the cash roll in.
Nov. 30, 2005, 8:02 p.m. CST
by Some Dude
We don't feel guilty. We're laughing at you and your kind, while trying to stem the spread of the infection in public places. You can infect children at home or in a "church" but not in public with public money.
Nov. 30, 2005, 8:33 p.m. CST
I'd go back in time and find out if Rod Stewart really swallowed like a gallon of semen and had to get his stomach pumped. I always wondered if that were true. Why smoke the pole when you've got Rachel Hunter? It doesn't make sense. Unless of course he was a galactic time traveler sent back in time to break the world record for semen guzzling. Enigma!
Nov. 30, 2005, 10:40 p.m. CST
How does it feel to be that stupid? Actually, what's striking about your post, Anchorite, is something I noticed in the work of Lippman: although ostensibly it's a defense of religious belief, nowhere in your post is there any serious attempt to defend religious beliefs as such as TRUE. There's the good old cliched argument from moral necessity ["There has to be a creator because otherwise people will think they can do whatever they want" - gee, class, how many logical flaws does the construction of THIS argument have?], and there's also a quite comical and pathetic attempt to make it appear that it is somehow your OPPONENTS who are "intellectual sloths" - but there isn't even the tiniest smidgen of an attempt to demonstrate that religious belief is TRUE. I think you need to take a step back and realize that it really doesn't matter if you think that people would behave better if they could be made to believe in a creator, and it doesn't really matter if you enjoy the oceanic feeling that comes over you when you inflict the cognitive dissonance of religious belief upon yourself, and it doesn't really matter if you manage to convince yourself that religious belief is good for society. The only thing that matters is if it's true or not. Since no one has been able to present a remotely intellectually credible defense of the TRUTH of Christianity [as opposed to the supposedly salutary nature of the effects of belief] for several centuries, it's very unlikely that you will break through and be the one to do it. I piss on you and your religious beliefs, and I wish it were true that Christianity really WAS threatened and maligned in our society. You certainly deserve it.
Nov. 30, 2005, 11:34 p.m. CST
by Rant Breath
That would make a kick ass movie! Baby FDR could out smart the nazis like "Baby's Day Out".
Dec. 1, 2005, 12:21 a.m. CST
by Monkey Butler
Or do you honestly not see that what Fluffy is saying is that there is no God and Jesus was not the Messiah? Grow up, and stop picking at semantics.>>>>>>The flaw inherent in the idea that religious beliefs are necessary for moral and social control is that the systems of morality found in religious beliefs were created by people themselves. Thus, you don't need religion to tell you right from wrong, because we told religions right from wrong in the first place.
Dec. 1, 2005, 12:57 a.m. CST
Dec. 1, 2005, 4:35 a.m. CST
by Hairy Nutsack
Everyone is bickering so, can we all at least agree that seeing Mia Sara naked in Time Cop was worth the price of admission all by itself? Man I was so in love with her after Ferris Bueller, hot damn.
Dec. 1, 2005, 6:42 a.m. CST
In the current edition of the Journal of Religion and Society, a researcher called Gregory Paul tests the hypothesis propounded by evangelists in the Bush administration, that religion is associated with lower rates of
Dec. 1, 2005, 7:18 a.m. CST
by Monkey Butler
I'd argue that there's not so much a correlation between teenage abortions, juvenile mortality etc. and evnagelical religion, as both of those phenomena being more prevalent in a society with a lower socio-economic level and lower education level. The poorer and less educated you are (as Hitler proved, bringing this nicely back to that argument) the more likely you are to accept extreme ideologies and act in extreme ways. So I'd say that the prevalence of evangelical and literal Christianity, and increased juvenile mortality etc. are both just the upshot of a neglected society.
Dec. 1, 2005, 7:30 a.m. CST
"And while you're at it, please elaborate on the logical flaws you seem to think are inherent in the argument of the value in religious belief as a positive moral influence on society (the "There has to be a creator because otherwise people will think they can do whatever they want" argument)." The first reason you are intellectually dishonest is because you refuse to acknowledge that your statement does not carry the same content as my statement. The statement "Religious belief has a value because it has a positive impact on society" is not the same statement as "There has to be a creator because otherwise people will think they can do whatever they want." The fact that a belief has a positive impact on society [which I do not concede] is not sufficient to make it TRUE. There either is a creator, or there is not. The impact of the creator's existence or nonexistence on our social situation is not relevant to determining whether that creator exists or not. Monkey Butler and TonyWilson are doing a nice job of addressing both the theoretical and empirical merits of the notion that religious belief has salutary effects on society, so if you're interested in that question you can address it with them. I was interested only in pointing out that apparent social necessity is not an argument for truth. Thank you for demonstrating that I was right - you think the two arguments are one, and they aren't. Nothing can make there "have to be" a creator except reality, and that creator's actual existence. You are, of course, welcome to dispense with truth as a value [as, say, Nietzsche did] but then you are forced to concede that will alone supports your belief structure, and when someone comes along and posts that he thinks your beliefs are stupid because they aren't true, you have to sit there and shut your mouth and take it. "You question the truth of Christianity? As if it never existed? Like it was made up? Are you denying the existence of Christianity, Fluffy?" I did not question the existence of Christianity, I denied the truth of it. The second reason you are intellectually dishonest is because I'm sure you know that very well [no one - NO ONE - is stupid enough to make your counterpoint in good faith]. You're also a fool, because you're attempting to parse words to make yourself look clever - but you have parsed my sentence incorrectly. My initial statement is perfectly sound and coherent in both its grammar and its sense. There's nothing to parse. "You really aren't as clever as you imagine yourself to be, Fluffy. You're just intellectually and spiritually lazy and a miserable, venomous bastard to boot." Actually, I am exactly as clever as I imagine myself to be. Frankly, I may even grossly underestimate my own cleverness. Certainly I'm your superior in virtually every way. Can't you see yourself? Don't you realize that the debate about the soundness of religious belief once produced a Pascal and a Montaigne or a Kierkegaard, and now seems to only produce people who complain that the Wal-Mart greeter says "Happy Holidays"? That a religion whose members once dominated nearly every aspect of western life, and whose titular heads contemplated imposing a universal peace under their leadership, or sent armies across continents to sack cities - is now reduced to a state where you have to ask us to tremble at the thought that they might "rise up" to LEAVE THEIR NATIVITY SCENES OUT ON THEIR LAWNS? You come here every day, never making any statement more demanding than what you hear on O'Reilly [who's not as bad as the liberals make out, but who certainly isn't exactly Spinoza] - and then you turn around and tell ME that I'm intellectually lazy? ["Spiritual laziness" is an empty and meaningless concept, so we won't address it. "Spirituality" has no quantifiable content. That makes it impossible to fashion a yardstick by which to measure "laziness". I may as well be Hermes Trismegistus. How do you know that venom isn't the proper measure of spiritual rigor? You can't. That's what happens when you try to hide the shameful quality of religious belief behind a veil of pluralism - you make us all equal spiritually. Tied at zero.]
Dec. 1, 2005, 8:25 a.m. CST
I'd agree with you somewhat. However there certainly is a correlation between "teenage abortions, juvenile mortality etc. and evnagelical religion" shown by this study. It may not be a causal relationship but the correlation is there.
Dec. 1, 2005, 8:58 a.m. CST
by Some Dude
Tony: Great study. I about laughed my ass off when I read it a few weeks ago. Can you imagine if it had been a link between porn and violence or videogames and violence? It would have been fron-page news for weeks. I wonder why Fox news won't touch this? -------- Fluffy: Great posts. I was too busy hating people who believe in something, anything, to respond much last night. -------- Anchorite: You are outmatched. Perhaps that is why you believe the silly things you do.
Dec. 1, 2005, 9:50 a.m. CST
by Childe Roland
...I've always thought of religion as a potentially good thing. But I feel like I've come to a place in my philosophical justification of my continued existence where I understand that our lives are limited windows of opportunity in a largely adverse environment. The quality of the time we spend together, sharing consciousness on this globe that's trying to kill us from the day we're born, can either be dramatically improved or worsened by our actions toward each other. Simply put, life is too short to be as selfish, cruel and generally unconcerned with each other's welfare as our primal drives might normally incline us to be. But I know not everyone has come to that place in their understanding. To help them impose a sort of structure and meaning "greater than themselves" on the whole thing, they've turned to religion. Whether that religion is Christianity, Judaism, Islam or whatever, if it serves to keep these people from indulging their baser instincts, I say let them have it. But keep it the fuck away from my government. Because I, for one, want the people who make the rules for my society to take responsibility for their actions...to rationalize their decisions in some way other than referencing a quote attributed to a man they thought was or spoke for a god. I do find it amusing, however, that one of the chief slams of religious pundits against the agnostic or the aetheistic is that we are incapable of believing in anything greater than ourselves. That's an interesting take on the whole thing. Especially when these same loudly religious folk living for the rewards of the afterlife are apparently incapable of believing in themselves or each other. "God will provide. If it's God's will, it will happen. If I say 'I'm sorry' at the end, none of this evil, hateful shit I've done to other people will matter." Whatever. Today matters. Your actions now matter and the ramifications of your doing "evil" are a lot more immediately impactful than the prospect of eternal hellfire or whatever you think awaits those who don't pass muster at the end of time. We're all we've really got, kids. Each other. And that should be enough. If it's not, you've got bigger problems than feeling oppressed and persecuted for your beliefs.
Dec. 1, 2005, 12:20 p.m. CST
Every fucking talkback I have to scroll past his ignorant paranoid Christian conservative garbage. I love how he tries to make himself sound sophisticated too, like he's an intellectual. I know there's a war in Iraq going on that's a disaster, I know New Orleans is destroyed, I know the economy blows but who cares, what's really important is the WAR ON CHRISTMAS. America is a Christian nation and how dare we attempt to respect other religions outside of Christianity.
Dec. 1, 2005, 12:33 p.m. CST
Jesus: I'm sick and tired of you using my name in vain and exploiting me for your own political purposes. GOP: Now now Jeez, we're defendning you in the War on Christmas. We feel that entitles us to use you to win elections. Jesus: There are billions of people straving in the world, you actually think I care that JCPenney is calling it a "Holiday Sale"? GOP: But the democrats and far-left media eventually want to destroy you. Jesus: Are you fucking kidding me? GOP: No. Jesus: You are so fucked you don't even know it.
Dec. 1, 2005, 12:42 p.m. CST
Hating and dismissing people because they believe in something? That's fucking retarded. Get past the bullshit, you go nowhere debating which beliefs are better.
Dec. 1, 2005, 1:32 p.m. CST
can you prove that their belief is false/wrong? no, of course not. Can they prove that their belief is true/fact? surely not, that's why it's called belief, not fact. so just let it go, let people believe or disbelieve what they want. anything else is just arrogant and intolerant and is no better than what the worst kind of missionaries do.
Dec. 1, 2005, 2:37 p.m. CST
by Some Dude
If you make a claim and can't prove it, it is bullshit. How come religions get a free pass? Of course people are free to believe what they want, just as they are free not to read or learn.
Dec. 1, 2005, 2:55 p.m. CST
Good point. I do believe that you shouldn't knock anyone because they can't prove anything. Do you not think that people have thought this for ages, just going around in circles trying to prove human being's faith in something other than reality? This debate gets nowhere and I don't think religion has gotten a free pass.
Dec. 1, 2005, 3:37 p.m. CST
"If you make a claim and can't prove it, it is bullshit" ... tell that to the theoretical physicists. Dark matter, anyone? Or dark energy? Hell, up until very recently, the fact that there are extra-solar planets was just a theory. Now there is proof which, erm, proves the theory. And on the subject of physicists, there are those that believe strongly in God. They see such beauty and perfection in the mathematics of the workings of the universe, that this, more strongly than anything else, suggests the existence of the divine. Who else could have ordered every facet of the universe so perfectly? I'm heavily paraphrasing here, but try picking up Freeman Dyson's autobiography sometime. Fabulous reading! (Completely apart from his belief in God)
Dec. 1, 2005, 3:43 p.m. CST
Politics and religion. What happened to the stimulating conversation about killing Hitler or having sex with Anne Hathaway? What? No one's mentioned sex with Hathaway? See what's wrong with this talkback!!!
Dec. 1, 2005, 4:07 p.m. CST
This talkback started off really nice when the time travel talk came into it, what with plans to kill Hitler baby and flying in DeLoreans. Once again, talking religion is like beating a dead horse.
Dec. 1, 2005, 4:59 p.m. CST
Bordering on arrogance actually. As Jack Skellington said: "just because I can't see it doesn't mean I can't beleive it." The best christians i know have no desire to prove the existence of god. They know what they believe (and i stress believe, because, you know, it's not based on fact), and let others believe what they want to believe. in the end, you can't really prove anything 100% anyway. so there.
Dec. 1, 2005, 5:43 p.m. CST
just to throw in my 2 cents: i think it's not so much what folk believe or disbelieve that's the problem, nor even how strongly they hold that belief - rather, problems between people and peoples seem to arise in this world more from some folk's *intolerance* of others' beliefs, or lack thereof. there's a certain insecurity - and i would say a lack of faith and understanding - inherent in being unable to happily accept criticism of one's own beliefs, be they scientific or religious, or in feeling the need to belittle another's. so lay off of each other already! none of this is helping to solve the problem of Tony Scott's filmmaking. nor is it throwing any further light on the Time Travel issues of our age. we should stand united in our diversity and face these questions together. and, lastly: HAAAAAWKWIIIIIIIIIIIIIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dec. 1, 2005, 6:42 p.m. CST
by Some Dude
Once you have evidence for something, faith and belief are not needed. Monorail, go ask those theoretical physicists about the evidence for their ideas. I'm sure you'll get much more data than you would from a creationist...
Dec. 1, 2005, 10:21 p.m. CST
Dec. 2, 2005, 4:48 a.m. CST
I want you to prove for me that there is no god. No, can't do it? So does that mean that you only BELIEVE there is no god? Cause you can't know if you don't have any evidence, can you? Damn, you're one arrogant sob.
Dec. 2, 2005, 6:12 a.m. CST
Anchorite you are thick as pigshit. OR you are a very silly troll who just got throughly schooled by fluffy and are now depserately clamouring for some semblance of dignity. It's not working, so please fuck off, you'll look less pathetic and the smell will go too. Oh, and if there is no proof or evidence of a creator anyone who is rational will doubt his/her/it's existence. The burden of proof is on those who claim a creator exists/existed.
Dec. 2, 2005, 6:40 a.m. CST
and there's a difference between believing and claiming.
Dec. 2, 2005, 7:06 a.m. CST
You don't prove something that isn't, you prove something that is. Sorry, but the burden of proof is on the believers. Personally I think religion can be a good thing but also a bad thing, people like zombiesolutions forget all the good work christians or jews or muslims or budhists or whoever do.
Dec. 2, 2005, 7:20 a.m. CST
you fail to see the fundamental difference between knowledge and belief. the very definition of the word belief makes it incompatible with knowledge. they contradict each other. if you know something, it is no longer a belief, it is knowledge/fact. you don't have to prove something you believe. you have to prove something that you claim is fact. Your point that "you don't prove something that isn't" is valid in a courtroom, but not in a philosophical discussion like this. The belief in god is just as valid as the nonbelief in god, none of them are something that "is" or "isn't". There are people here claiming that it's a fact that god doesn't exist. prove it. if it's a fact, it can be proven, if it can't it's a belief. you can't claim something is a fact and then say "I don't have to prove it because I'm claiming it's a fact that something doesn't exist, which is different than claiming it's a fact that something does exist." There's no difference. A fact's a fact.
Dec. 2, 2005, 7:35 a.m. CST
You said we are having a philosophical discussion, well then we should look at it in logical terms. Nothing in the known universe suggests there is, was or will be a creator. However there is mountains and mountains of scientific evidence that prove or back up that the birth of stars, the formation of planets, evolution, quantum physics etc etc all happen without a consciousness intervening or starting them.
Dec. 2, 2005, 7:48 a.m. CST
Dec. 2, 2005, 7:50 a.m. CST
least agree on that? People with brains are usually able to see that, and people with brains should know better than to believe that everything can be explained and quantified. einstein believed in god. he wasn't able to prove it (he didn't much feel the need to either), but hey, people with brains didn't take him seriously either, did they? And I completely disagree that there is nothing in the known universe that suggests there ever was a creator. the fact that there are planets and stars and evolution doesn't negate god. Quite the opposite, imo. But that's beside the point. It's a matter of opinion (or belief), not fact. Is it impossible for you to admit that a person can be intelligent and still believe in god? if it's not then you are more arrogant and self-righteous than i thought.
Dec. 2, 2005, 7:56 a.m. CST
I find it much more logical that there is a divine control behind the creation of the universe, evolution etc. rather than it all just happening at random.
Dec. 2, 2005, 8:10 a.m. CST
Ok I'll go through this with you. If you prove something it is no longer a belief, I agree with you. "people with brains should know better than to believe that everything can be explained and quantified" I assume you mean something like a random accident? God knows (pun not intended) why you bring einsteins belief in god into this. People didn't take him seriously for his theological beliefs they took him seriously for his theories and experiments BECAUSE HE HAD EVIDENCE. You completely disagree that nothing in the known universe suggests there is a creator, well ok then, what things suggest there was one? "the fact that there are planets and stars and evolution doesn't negate god." no but the reasons they exist show God had nothing to do with their existence, everything in existence can be explained without God. And why is it more logical that there is a god?
Dec. 2, 2005, 8:13 a.m. CST
Remember the quote "god does not play dice with the universe"? Einstien refused to believve in quantum theory becuase of his belief in God, that really backfired for him.
Dec. 2, 2005, 8:31 a.m. CST
i'll take it point by point: 1:"I assume you mean something like a random accident?" You assume wrong. I mean that there are things happening in the universe that can't be explained by logic or science alone. Disagree? 2: with einstein, I was merely making a point that even the brightest of natural scientists believed in god (as I intepreted you to saying that religious people have no brains. I may have interpreted you wrong), that there isnt necescarrily a conflict between science and religion. 3: "they took him seriously for his theories and experiments BECAUSE HE HAD EVIDENCE" now I'm nitpicking, but one of his theories (i don't remember which) einstein was unable to prove, and it was never proved in his lifetime (it's proven now). 4: "what things suggest there was one?" Pretty much everything. The universe, from the tiniest atom, to the dna-helix, the living cell, to the human body, to ecosystems, the planets, solar systems and galaxies, is so beautifully, logically, purposefully and perfectly put together that I refuse to believe this happened at random. (I think it is much more logical (or probable/likely if you will) that there was a plan behind it (and i dont mean that god intervened, came down and smote people with lightning and stuff, i believe in science and evolution - i just think its not accidential) than everything, from the big bang and up to us sitting here now discussing this just being a set of random events accidentially leading up to for instance two conscious entities discussing, via telecommunication, the possibility of a maker. I hope I answered all your questions. Now can you please answer: Is it impossible for you to admit that a person can be intelligent and still believe in god?
Dec. 2, 2005, 8:44 a.m. CST
What things are happening in the Universe that can't be explained by science and do provide some sort of evidence that god is responsible? There are things that science can't explain.....yet. Super colliders are forever finding smaller and smaller particles but that doesn't suggest there is a god. You did misinterpet me about saying religious people have no brans, but those who take the Bible (I'll stick with the Bible as it's the one holy book I know best) literally are very stupid. And yes I agree there doesn't need to be a conflict between science and religion but I think the intelligent design nitwits are making one. The theory einstien was unable to prove was not really taken all that seriously until someone actually proved it. Although his equations for the theory were pretty much right. Now the bit about randomness is a really interesting one. But you are looking at it from the backwards perspective i.e "I'm sitting here discussing the possibility of a creator, that's too improbable to come about without a design" BUT if you look at from the big bang onwards you can see that it could indeed be random and it's only our perspective that makes it seem so damn improbable. Yes everythings looks so beautifully constructed to us because we are the results.
Dec. 2, 2005, 8:46 a.m. CST
by Childe Roland
I mean, seriously. If when you get off work tonight, you see flaming letters scrawled in the asphalt outside your office building, twenty feet high, that say: "I am the Lor thy God and I am coming to judge all humanity on Sunday," would you do anything dramatically different than what you would normally do on Friday night and all day Saturday? If so, then you're a raging hypocrite. Because whether you believe in God or not, you should be behaving decently toward your fellow man (and woman). You should be living your life as if you fully uinderstand the implications and ramifications of every decision, every action. You should, in short, be a responsible human being. And if you've been doing that all along, you should have nothing to worry about if and when God or Jesus or Allah or Buddha or Shiva or Khali or who-the-happy-fuck-ever shows up and runs down the balance sheet of your existence. Sad thing is, I know most of the loudest religious types would want to make sure they got to church right quick and absolve themselves. Me? I'd go home. Play with my son. Maybe have a drink and definitely make love to my wife (and maybe I'd try to do that extra well, just in case Somebody's watching). If you honestly believe what you believe and your practice of a religion somehow enhances your experience of life, then I say more power to you. But if you NEED a religion or the idea of an all-knowing, all-seeing God to lend purpose or meaning to your life, then I feel really, deeply sorry for you.
Dec. 2, 2005, 8:52 a.m. CST
If it was just some letters saying "judgement on sunday, religions not important aslong as your a nice guy" I'd be cool with that.
Dec. 2, 2005, 8:57 a.m. CST
on those points cameron. Except for the randomness, though I agree I look at it backwards (where else could I look at it from?). The creation of the universe and everything up till now is like the opening sequence of magnolia, times a billion trillion gazillion. I just refuse to believe that these things just "happened". I refuse to believe that consciousness is a fluke. I agree with you about taking the bible literally though. That's narrowsighted. So hmm...we basically agree then, although one's a believer and one's a nonbeliever. what do we do now then...oh that's right. get off the internet, and return to reality. have a nice day, thnx for a nice (mostly civilized :D)discussion. roland: i agree with you too about the feeling sorry part.....hm....something feels wrong...a tb that has a civilized conclusion....it's unnatural.
Dec. 2, 2005, 9:15 a.m. CST
by Monkey Butler
I'd laugh at God because he can't spell. As for Intelligent Design, I think of the Universe kinda like a diamond. A diamond is just a latice of carbon molecules, right? (well, something like that). It's a perfect design. But it wasn't designed; it formed that way because that's the only way it could exist. Same thing with the Universe, or even just Earth. People ask how it was possible for Earth to be the exact proximity to the Sun and for it to have the exact right attributes for human life to grow; I see it the other way around - we evolved because of those conditions; it's not like we were a pre-ordained species that was just looking for a planet to suit us. But hey, that's just how I see it. And I'd very much like to know what these universal phenomena are that add weight to the ID arguments.
Dec. 2, 2005, 9:42 a.m. CST
No, seriously... what? What was that? Where can I learn more about this forgotten historical perspective? Or did you and some crack team of historians literally pull it out from some ass crack? Show me some specific detail where the Church furthers the agenda to normalize underaged sex for society.
Dec. 2, 2005, 9:52 a.m. CST
by Childe Roland
...I don't think I'd laugh so much at God being unable to spell as just smile contentedly. Because so many things would make so much more sense then. Seriously, sorry about the typo. Perhaps God has a cockney accent...and was dictating.
Dec. 2, 2005, 10:25 a.m. CST
not me - i'm not Jewish, my science is 101 at best, and i'm certainly not highly-respected, but this is a nice (short!) article on science and religion: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4488328.stm where did that DeLorean get to...?
Dec. 2, 2005, 10:38 a.m. CST
Actually, the Founding Fathers were Deists. They admired Jesus' teachings, but held no specific religious beliefs. This is precisely why you won't find the words "Jesus" or "Christ" in the very best thing about America: its Constitution.
Dec. 2, 2005, 2:26 p.m. CST
If we follow the best schollars on the bible and what happened that day when Jesus was judged and how the Bible was altered to make Jesus even more "Godly" and "Shiny" than he ever was..if we read between the lines, Jesus and Barabas may have been the same guy. The name "Barabas" means "The Son of Man". I think the truth about Jesus is displayed right there in that he was probably a mix of what we know of him and Barabas. Jesus was a political leader and a rebel. A guy that would "raise Hell" as shown when he opened a can of whoopass in the temple against the people making money there. But at the same time he had that "offer the other cheek" thng. So he would cause damage, then when there was retaliation for that, he would come up with these message of peaces as if he was pushing the authorities to kill him and make him a marthyr.
Dec. 2, 2005, 9:46 p.m. CST
Ah, yes. The old Jedi mind trick of turning one's argument against them. How Cicero of you. Or would you prefer me to say how Kerry of you? Either way, good on you for dealing a ploy that would work on a smaller mind. Case in point: "Some one made a claim, you disputed it with a piece of 'evidence' and I pointed out that the 'evidence' was not really that useful." More subjective tripe. Believe what you want to believe, even if you think you 'won' this debate.
Dec. 2, 2005, 9:49 p.m. CST
Does Michael Newdow and others like him ever say, "Goodbye," when parting company? After all, it's the conjunctive phrase of 'god be with you'. Blame ignorance.
Dec. 3, 2005, 1:25 a.m. CST
by Monkey Butler
Nor will I say 'Bless you' when somebody sneezes. And I'll never say 'God Damn' or 'Jesus Christ' to express emotion. And forget watching the Narnia movie.>>>>>And I think you're right Childe, the world would make a lot more sense if God were dyslexic; maybe Douglas Adams was onto something when he revealed the Question to be "what is six times eight?"
Dec. 3, 2005, 5:18 p.m. CST
42. It explains everything.
Dec. 4, 2005, 12:48 a.m. CST
by Monkey Butler
I just checked. It's 6 x 9. Which doesn't equal 42 either, but it's still funny.
Dec. 5, 2005, 1:08 p.m. CST
"The burden of proof is on the one trying to establish the existence of God." I howled with laughter at that. "Burden of proof" is a courtroom procedural term, nothing more. Are you suggesting that someone needs to prove the existence of God in court? That's just goofy. That'd be like trying to prove Santa Claus is real...Hey, wait a minute, where's my DVD of "Miracle on 34th Street"?
Dec. 5, 2005, 1:11 p.m. CST
As long as we're proving God in court, what's the standard of proof we're being held to? Do we have to prove God's existance Beyond A Reasonable Doubt (the Criminal standard) or On A Balance Of Probabilities (the Civil standard)?
Dec. 17, 2005, 9:29 p.m. CST