What is an Atheist?

Originally posted by bbarr
I wasn't referring to you specifically. I know you're on the side of truth, goodness and light.

I am an avowed wishy-washy atheist, and happy that way. 😛

(edit: although I'm also on the side of Joss Whedon films)

Originally posted by twhitehead
If I say I had a gay time at the party last night, you may interpret it in multiple ways. But if someone who knows me correctly interprets it as having a happy time, then I don't even need to include a definition. All that really matters is that my intended meaning is understood by my intended audience. Popular usage is [b]not everything. It is import ...[text shortened]... rpret someone simply because their intended meaning does not match the popular usage of a word.[/b]

Well I take my hat of to you and googlefudge, and wish you the very best of luck in your campaign. I think it's a bit of a tough fight you have ahead but who knows, maybe you'll prevail. Me, I'm more of a 'go-with-the-flow' kind of guy where language is concerned.

Originally posted by googlefudge
[b]"I wasn't referring to you specifically. I know you're on the side of truth, goodness and light."

... And Joss Whedon films.... Don't forget the Joss Whedon films.[/b]

I liked Serenity, as well as the series Firefly.

A splash of genius that had a way too short life.

I don't recall his latest film, but I do recall that I liked it too and was surprised to find it was a Whedon project.

EDIT: Oh, of course, I was thinking about The Avengers.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I liked Serenity, as well as the series Firefly.

A splash of genius that had a way too short life.

I don't recall his latest film, but I do recall that I liked it too and was surprised to find it was a Whedon project.

EDIT: Oh, of course, I was thinking about The Avengers.

oi!!! suzianne, googlefudge and avalanchethecat, you whedon loving super-nerds, hear this!!

he writes decent 'witty banter' and characters. firefly had a good cast that delivered the lines well, other than that the show and its story lines were pretty dull, the 'wild west in space' and 'american civil war' vibe was too obvious and made it feel slightly ridiculous. it seemed to be going nowhere, very little in long story arcs, or character development, it felt more like a kids saturday afternoon show from the 80's, not adult or clever enough to match battlestar g and a bit too adult for kids, despite the funny dialogue and well acted parts the show was a bit of a mess, it only had 12 or so episode and half of them were seemed like series fillers, hardly any stand out classic episodes (only the ones with christina hendricks for me). i really think the only reason its got a following is because people liked the characters and want to see more of them especially mal. to be fair it could be because he was forced deliver 40min shows that were complete within themselves which is an outdated format. so it could be the studio's to blame. im going to rebel against my geeky brethren and say the studios did the right thing, if the show had gone on it would of died. at least this way it will remain a cult hit.

apart from whedons comedic touch. dollshouse and the avengers were terrible. whedons over-rated and yet to deliver a real bit of quality.

so put that in your geek pipe and smoke it!!!

Originally posted by stellspalfie
oi!!! suzianne, googlefudge and avalanchethecat, you whedon loving super-nerds, hear this!!

he writes decent 'witty banter' and characters. firefly had a good cast that delivered the lines well, other than that the show and its story lines were pretty dull, the 'wild west in space' and 'american civil war' vibe was too obvious and made it feel slight ...[text shortened]... d yet to deliver a real bit of quality.

so put that in your geek pipe and smoke it!!!

I assume you are quoting someone (who?)... someone who I pretty much totally disagree with.

I don't know why you think I would give a damn what some reviewer thought...

I thought they were great (as do my friends/parents) and the fact that this reviewer didn't is utterly irrelevant to me.

I read most of what critics say and think they are talking total hogwash.

Dollhouse and The Avengers were brilliant, as were Firefly/Serenity, Buffy, Angel, ect...

No amount of critics (people who couldn't cut it as actual film makers) disagreeing is going to change that.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I assume you are quoting someone (who?)... someone who I pretty much totally disagree with.

I don't know why you think I would give a damn what some reviewer thought...

I thought they were great (as do my friends/parents) and the fact that this reviewer didn't is utterly irrelevant to me.

I read most of what critics say and think they are talkin ...[text shortened]... itics (people who couldn't cut it as actual film makers) disagreeing is going to change that.

It is all hogwash if it does not agree with you. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is all hogwash if it does not agree with you. 😏

No, it's hogwash if things don't agree with reality.

Critics are perfectly entitled to have their own tastes just like anyone else.

However their job is to review what they are watching 'not just for people with their particular tastes'.

A good reviewer might (should) mention that fact that they do or do not personally like something,
but they should be aiming to convey the information required for someone with different tastes to
be able to make a decision about whether they would like it.

AND they should actually watch the thing properly and review it based on what actually happens not what
they imagine will probably happen.

The number of reviews i read where I have seen (or subsequently see) the film and wonder if the reviewer
was actually watching the same film I was, given how inaccurate their review was.


The number of reviewers for example that seemed to think that Scarlett Johansson in The Avengers was just their
as eye candy despite the fact that out of all the characters she was the only one who stayed on mission the whole
time, was the only one to trick Loki and get valuable actionable intel, managed to close the portal, repeatedly and
successfully kicked ass (despite no super powers or fancy technology), while at the same time being a believable and
real character and not a 'Mary Sue'.

The number of reviews that despite this barely mentioned her character, and then only to comment on her looks, was
staggering. They saw what they expected to see not what actually happened on screen.

Thus hogwash.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I assume you are quoting someone (who?)... someone who I pretty much totally disagree with.

I don't know why you think I would give a damn what some reviewer thought...

I thought they were great (as do my friends/parents) and the fact that this reviewer didn't is utterly irrelevant to me.

I read most of what critics say and think they are talkin ...[text shortened]... itics (people who couldn't cut it as actual film makers) disagreeing is going to change that.

no....i was quoting myself....well, not quoting as that would be weird but it was my words.

how could you like the avengers!!!! to be fair it was better than most superhero films. buffy and angel are okay for teenagers that just want to look at hot other teenager for while, but it wasnt much more than twighlight meets scooby doo. dollhouse had an interesting premise but avoided dealing with and of the darker more adult issues that it hinted at and more often than not resorted to a-team style doll in action based undercover mission. the best episode was the final one set in the future, which at least gave the show a bit more of a larger concept. if firefly had felt a bit more like serenity it may have done a bit better, rather than the 'oh, weve just landed on a planet and everybody acts like its 1850's vienna, 1890's texas, cheap with no depth. kids t.v. (i had to watch all his shows all the way through and the re-runs, before i came to that conclusion!)

Originally posted by googlefudge
No, it's hogwash if things don't agree with reality.

Critics are perfectly entitled to have their own tastes just like anyone else.

However their job is to review what they are watching 'not just for people with their particular tastes'.

A good reviewer might (should) mention that fact that they do or do not personally like something,
but they ...[text shortened]... They saw what they expected to see not what actually happened on screen.

Thus hogwash.

its true, she was an important character, but as much as i hate to objectify woman (openly), she was defiantly eye candy. was there a logical reason she needed to wear high heeled boots as part of her skin tight combat outfit with zip down cleavege revealing top and push up bra...........did she get her uniform from s.h.i.e.l.d or ann summers??

Originally posted by RJHinds
Buddhism is a false religion along with atheism.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/false_religions.htm

Your arrogance demonstrates itself in that you believe Buddhism is a religion!

-- "It is neither a religion in the sense in which that word is commonly understood, for it is not "a system of faith and worship owing any allegiance to a supernatural being."

Buddhism does not demand blind faith from its adherents. Here mere belief is dethroned and is substituted by confidence based on knowledge, which, in Pali, is known as saddha. The confidence placed by a follower on the Buddha is like that of a sick person in a noted physician, or a student in his teacher. A Buddhist seeks refuge in the Buddha because it was he who discovered the path of deliverance.


A Buddhist does not seek refuge in the Buddha with the hope that he will be saved by his (i.e. the Buddha's own) personal purification. The Buddha gives no such guarantee. It is not within the power of a Buddha to wash away the impurities of others. One could neither purify nor defile another. The Buddha, as teacher, instructs us, but we ourselves are directly responsible for our purification. Although a Buddhist seeks refuge in the Buddha, he does not make any self-surrender. Nor does a Buddhist sacrifice his freedom of thought by becoming a follower of the Buddha. He can exercise his own free will and develop his knowledge even to the extent of becoming a Buddha himself.


The starting point of Buddhism is reasoning or understanding, or, in the Pali words, samma-ditthi.


To the seekers of truth the Buddha says:


"Do not accept anything on (mere) hearsay -- (i.e., thinking that thus have we heard it for a long time). Do not accept anything by mere tradition -- (i.e., thinking that it has thus been handed down through many generations). Do not accept anything on account of mere rumors -- (i.e., by believing what others say without any investigation). Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. Do not accept anything by mere suppositions. Do not accept anything by mere inference. Do not accept anything by merely considering the reasons. Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions. Do not accept anything merely because it seems acceptable -- (i.e., thinking that as the speaker seems to be a good person his words should be accepted). Do not accept anything thinking that the ascetic is respected by us (therefore it is right to accept his word).


"But when you know for yourselves -- these things are immoral, these things are blameworthy, these things are censured by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken conduce to ruin and sorrow -- then indeed do you reject them. "

NOW.. -- "Buddhists do not worship an image expecting worldly or spiritual favors, but pay their reverence to what it represents.
An understanding Buddhist, in offering flowers and incense to an image, designedly makes himself feel that he is in the presence of the living Buddha and thereby gains inspiration from his noble personality and breathes deep his boundless compassion. He tries to follow the Buddha's noble example.

Furthermore, it must be mentioned that there are no petitional or intercessory prayers in Buddhism. However much we may pray to the Buddha we cannot be saved. The Buddha does not grant favors to those who pray to him. Instead of petitional prayers there is meditation that leads to self-control, purification and enlightenment. Meditation is neither a silent reverie nor keeping the mind blank. It is an active striving. It serves as a tonic both to the heart and the mind. The Buddha not only speaks of the futility of offering prayers but also disparages a slave mentality. A Buddhist should not pray to be saved, but should rely on himself and win his freedom.


"Prayers take the character of private communications, selfish bargaining with God. It seeks for objects of earthly ambitions and inflames the sense of self. Meditation on the other hand is self-change." -- Sri Radhakrishnan.


In Buddhism there is not, as in most other religions, an Almighty God to be obeyed and feared. The Buddha does not believe in a cosmic potentate, omniscient and omnipresent. In Buddhism there are no divine revelations or divine messengers. A Buddhist is, therefore, not subservient to any higher supernatural power which controls his destinies and which arbitrarily rewards and punishes. Since Buddhists do not believe in revelations of a divine being Buddhism does not claim the monopoly of truth and does not condemn any other religion. But Buddhism recognizes the infinite latent possibilities of man and teaches that man can gain deliverance from suffering by his own efforts independent of divine help or mediating priests.


Buddhism cannot, therefore, strictly be called a religion because it is neither a system of faith and worship, nor "the outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a God or gods having power over their own destiny to whom obedience, service, and honor are due."

note the words: "Buddhism does not claim the monopoly of truth and does not condemn any other religion." - condemning other religions as you DID in your obnoxious and arrogant post above - yes, RJ, the one I am responding to.

Did Jesus teach you to be condescending and condemning of other religions?

Poor show!!

-m. 😠

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think Firefly was probably the best American TV series I have watched in the last 10 years or so - and one of the few that I would consider watching over again. (and I have already seen it twice).

did you see battlestar galactica? (the modern version) is was head and shoulders above firefly.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
did you see battlestar galactica? (the modern version) is was head and shoulders above firefly.

Saw it, didn't like it.

We have different tastes.

The difference is that you seem to want to tell me that the things I like are crap, rather than you simply didn't like them...

Why is that?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
its true, she was an important character, but as much as i hate to objectify woman (openly), she was defiantly eye candy. was there a logical reason she needed to wear high heeled boots as part of her skin tight combat outfit with zip down cleavege revealing top and push up bra...........did she get her uniform from s.h.i.e.l.d or ann summers??

There is a definite pattern forming with regard to clever, strong atheist's, they like crappy, frothy T.V.

Hard not to enjoy the one dimensional escapism of The Avengers, but why anyone over the age of 13 would sit through more than one or two episodes of the others on the list: well it must be a 'wind up'.

I can only assume they represent a bubble bath for their aching brains, if I can find one I shall post a link to 'Blakes 7'.

Oh there you go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=pnautWFuEnQ

Originally posted by kevcvs57
There is a definite pattern forming with regard to clever, strong atheist's, they like crappy, frothy T.V.

Hard not to enjoy the one dimensional escapism of The Avengers, but why anyone over the age of 13 would sit through more than one or two episodes of the others on the list: well it must be a 'wind up'.

I can only assume they represent a bubble b ...[text shortened]... Blakes 7'.

Oh there you go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=pnautWFuEnQ

Why do you feel the need to insult the programs I/we like and rather unsubtly us as well?
rather than just accept the fact that different people have different tastes?


What makes you think (decide to claim) that because your tastes are different that they are better?