The Passion
- Thread starter Legion
- Start date
BOX OFFICE
'The Passion of the Christ' official Wednesday tally: $26,556,573
Third biggest wensday opening ever .
"
Among all opening days, The Passion land at No. 9, but it reached No. 3 among all Wednesday bows, behind only The Return of the King's $34.5 million and Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace's $28.5 million and ahead of The Two Towers's $26.2 million and The Matrix Revolutions' $24.3 million.
"In just one day, The Passion has become the highest-grossing Christian-themed movie of recent memory. It's a genre that's been ghettoized as a niche market up until now – former champ Jonah: A VeggieTales Movie grossed a modest $25.6 million in its entire run.
"
http://boxofficemojo.com/articles/news/?id=040225potc.htm
'The Passion of the Christ' official Wednesday tally: $26,556,573
Third biggest wensday opening ever .
"
Among all opening days, The Passion land at No. 9, but it reached No. 3 among all Wednesday bows, behind only The Return of the King's $34.5 million and Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace's $28.5 million and ahead of The Two Towers's $26.2 million and The Matrix Revolutions' $24.3 million.
"In just one day, The Passion has become the highest-grossing Christian-themed movie of recent memory. It's a genre that's been ghettoized as a niche market up until now – former champ Jonah: A VeggieTales Movie grossed a modest $25.6 million in its entire run.
"
http://boxofficemojo.com/articles/news/?id=040225potc.htm
I don't know, I imagine it wouldn't be hard to believe in God if he so choose to become manifest.
Lets see, God could appear in the sky, and start raining down new testaments or something ridiculous.. Such that I wasn't the only one seeing him.
Maybe he could supernova the Sun, and put it back together...
Such a thing would violate every law of physics ever devised, if every experiment measured the same thing, scientists would have to accept the premise.
You could say, well there might be worldwide hallucination. But if even machines measure the same exact thing... It becomes progressively harder and harder to believe that hypothesis.
Lets see, God could appear in the sky, and start raining down new testaments or something ridiculous.. Such that I wasn't the only one seeing him.
Maybe he could supernova the Sun, and put it back together...
Such a thing would violate every law of physics ever devised, if every experiment measured the same thing, scientists would have to accept the premise.
You could say, well there might be worldwide hallucination. But if even machines measure the same exact thing... It becomes progressively harder and harder to believe that hypothesis.
Legion said:
Gay marriage threads.
Duh!
You genuinely expect an answer here?
This is something you do for yourself.
Nothing stops you from intellectulay exploring ideas and concepts. But I guess about eveyrhting you tell me is that you dont what to do in the case of exploring the idea of God. I can respect that. Tho Id prefer more straightforward questioning and people looking into the various spiritual themes that have eons of thought behind them in many cases. But on the subject here you can delay this till the day you die if you so choose. I think its possible that people can live a life of denial and deep inside in fact entertain doubt over their posture...
Verify that awareness isnt special. Dont quote commonality. That by itself does not determine something isnt special... Awareness I see as showcasing the universe is more than some think it is. Its more than numbers and matter and energy.
Evidence is what you accept as evidence. Not what I accept. Ive presented evidence but you simply dont accept it. Ill respect that choice.
Legion said:
Hmmm... Im only gonna see this movie next week... but already I wonder if its not catalysing some latent anti semitism... maybe a good thing to know who thinks what. But on the other hand anti semitism is one of the few popular phenomenons I dont like see played with.
AICN Moriarty's review is pretty damning.
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17075
Pontius should have never been shown as caring or compassionnate,. He was a brute who eventualy became prefect. A very high position that is very hard to attain short of brutality and exceptional performance in service to the empire. I.E. The best enslaver-conquerer-taxer wins...
To be fair to Mel, Pontius in the movie is precisely how he was portrayed in the gospels, i.e. beholden to the "jewish mob." The movie is pretty much a step for step retelling of the gospels, which is what Mel was going for.
Of course historically, Pontius Pilate was far from benelovent or a push over. He crucified hundreds of people without giving it a second thought and is documented in many cases as barely having a conscience. But this isn't about history. It's about the bible. That's the only history that matters.
Of course historically, Pontius Pilate was far from benelovent or a push over. He crucified hundreds of people without giving it a second thought and is documented in many cases as barely having a conscience. But this isn't about history. It's about the bible. That's the only history that matters.
OF course. Despite your clear denial throughout history deities have been devised to convey a wide variety of emotions and behaviors. Many of them i'd say were hardly sound minded or rational.
Such would be an admittion of subjectiveness. You are choosing what to believe in based on your perception of religious teachings. At this point you might as well admitt your belief is an opinion, something not based on facts.
as far as i am concerned Aliens could have created us. Can you substantiate your beliefs?
What i am saying is how i picture God is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with whether he is ficticious or not.
I am being very straight forward. I am telling you this argument is a meaningless farce.
Exactly what does being "special" entail? Pax, the onus is on you to prove your positive claim. I have made no assertions as to what awareness is or from what it is derived.What a purely circular way of viewing things.
Where did I deny the various superstitions and humanzing aspects given to the idea of God? That he was defined as such by some others doesnt make it true. Of course there are bad affirmations out there. I asked you to make an effort to discern the valid from invalid ideas. But you dont give a yourself a basis to work from. And thus arent even leaving first base.
Define facts. I have facts to work with but you dont accept them.
If aliens made us then who made the aliens. This is one of the things that separates the idea of God from any other. A being with no originator as it is timeless.
The you'll have a hard time to even do most science. You have to work from an hypotheses to explore what cant readily be seen nowadays. And in the case of philosophical thought be ready and willing to accept the possibility that somethings can exist as long as they exist within a logical framework.
I would call this myself you're being simply subjective.
I know. You dont seem to want to explore the idea of awareness as special. Now you sound like Clinton... "it depends what they mean what 'is' is"... maybe you should claim something about god or awareness so we can move forward if thats what you really want to do. I dont think you really want to. At least provide the basis of your atheism... Is the only argument give me evidence?...
I cant get you to touch the subjects I give out no matter how basic. What else am I supposed to do... You're resolved to posturing.
I has been in your questions. You ask me to define what God is. Why can't there be many Gods? Why am i limitted to what i can define him as? Why does this matter at all?
The discussion has nothing to with "leaving first base." Defining God is an impossibility being that i have no evidence for his existance. Likewise many other deities which have the same capacity to exist. God's personality has nothing to do with this conversation.
You state you have them, i will allow you to define them.
Who made God? No one silly, God is omnipresent throughout time.
And why can't these Aliens be seperate of time?No actually i won't have a problem. I am analying "facts" behind the existance of a proclaimed deity. This is not to much different from practices in psychology where axioms are reviewed by testing.
Why? Because i fail to see the importance of defining God's personality or how his personality is relevant to this conversation?
You obviously don't know what you are talking about. I asked you to define what special entails. You are dodging my question.
Now, that you have said all this, in hindsight, do you feel you answered my question?
The only subject i have refused to discuss is the personality of God. Nothing else. Its irrelevant to the existance of him.
Looking at your argument i would say you are dodging my questions. I have asked you to provide what you consider evidence of God, you haven't done this. I have asked you to define what it is to be "special." You haven't done this. Now you are telling me i am the one who is posturing...
Reminds me of a joke:
The staunch atheists is asked: What would it take for you to believe in God existence? He answers: "If the havens opened up, God came to me and showed me he exits, I would have to admit he/she/it does."
The devout believer is asked: What would it take for you to renounce God's existence? He answers: If the havens opened up, God came to me and told me he doesn't exits, I would proclaim that he does not."
The staunch atheists is asked: What would it take for you to believe in God existence? He answers: "If the havens opened up, God came to me and showed me he exits, I would have to admit he/she/it does."
The devout believer is asked: What would it take for you to renounce God's existence? He answers: If the havens opened up, God came to me and told me he doesn't exits, I would proclaim that he does not."
The minute you said you didnt think awareness was special I knew it was posturing. There is so little you can say to back that up its not worth pursuing the conversation. As for evidence I told you what I consider evidence. Even many hardcore highly educated atheists admit awareness is something utterly tho simply special.
The problem isnt that I didnt provide you with evidence. The problem is that you dont accept what I presented you to be evidence. You should at least be honest about that.
Im not saying you're necessarily completely insincere in the debate. Im saying that as an atheist you dont make much of an effort to defend your position. The idea of god has untold number of definitions some of which dont even include his being an aware personality. You could at least provide cohesive arguments against god (in his more philosophical definition other than the mere superstitious ones) other than ask me to prove he or it exists.
You debate the more supersitious versions of god and its not a really diffcult thing to do. I dont see why you spent so much time debating with v3 as its like arguing with a kid (no offence v3) about arithmetic. In any case I thought you came off as bad as poor old v3 did.
But when faced with more simple and basic philosophical questions you circumvent them. You dont seem to answer basic questions for yourself about meaning of life. I think you'd likely say why should there be a meaning of life outside the temporal existence.
How can you move forward on a basic issue when you go about thinking in such ways? As if questions asked by billions and intellects far above our own isnt worth an attempt at answering...
How does god smell... if he exists why cant I smell him... Is not an honest question... Your query for evidence and every other post where that has already been asked for here dont provide undeniable proof of gods existence. Therefore there is no physical manifestation by itself that can be sufficient. So evidence is indeed subjective as in the case of self awareness. You either accept some creature if it ever manifests in front of you for your senses as being god or not... but I dont see how doubt cant creep into such methods of arrivng at belief. But intellectually you can arrive at a concept that is both logical, without the obvious paradoxes you latched onto to support your posture, and reasonable...
I dont want to define that for you as its like asking me as a 5 year old to describe to an adult what turtle looks like... Look it up yourself...
But that doesnt mean I dont have a general understanding of who or what god may be. Grab a philo 101 book and see and itll probably be near to what I think of god.
A sentient being, without origin, loving, just, perfect in moral ways, capable of prescience in terms of mechanisms but not in terms of the destiny of other sentient free willed beings. Who can make anything thats not encompassed by a paradox... the original creator.
But heck you're probably a robot what do I know... And thus responding to any idea with a question ultimately irrelevant to the concept. This is like asking for proof before undertaking formulating a hypotheses before looking for evidence to the contrary of the hypothesis.
This insight Ill readily tell you is in my mind a completely an intellectual one. What we call faith but I dont subscribe to the idea that experimentation shouldnt be pursuid. Its faith until we can create experimentation to the contrary and that experimentation proves itself invalid. But the hypotheses itself will never ceese to demand experimentation because the universe maybe as timeless as god. Thus no final origin might possibly be finally arrived at. I think this situation is very likely to be the case... Thus we should pursue experimentation but due to the fact its a possibly infinite exploration I dont see why we cant allow intellectual speculation.
So ya of course its subjective. And the most personal investigation one can take. My only attempt here isnt to convince you its just to see where you stand.
Well probably dance again on this in 6 months to a year hhe...
The problem isnt that I didnt provide you with evidence. The problem is that you dont accept what I presented you to be evidence. You should at least be honest about that.
Im not saying you're necessarily completely insincere in the debate. Im saying that as an atheist you dont make much of an effort to defend your position. The idea of god has untold number of definitions some of which dont even include his being an aware personality. You could at least provide cohesive arguments against god (in his more philosophical definition other than the mere superstitious ones) other than ask me to prove he or it exists.
You debate the more supersitious versions of god and its not a really diffcult thing to do. I dont see why you spent so much time debating with v3 as its like arguing with a kid (no offence v3) about arithmetic. In any case I thought you came off as bad as poor old v3 did.
But when faced with more simple and basic philosophical questions you circumvent them. You dont seem to answer basic questions for yourself about meaning of life. I think you'd likely say why should there be a meaning of life outside the temporal existence.
How can you move forward on a basic issue when you go about thinking in such ways? As if questions asked by billions and intellects far above our own isnt worth an attempt at answering...
How does god smell... if he exists why cant I smell him... Is not an honest question... Your query for evidence and every other post where that has already been asked for here dont provide undeniable proof of gods existence. Therefore there is no physical manifestation by itself that can be sufficient. So evidence is indeed subjective as in the case of self awareness. You either accept some creature if it ever manifests in front of you for your senses as being god or not... but I dont see how doubt cant creep into such methods of arrivng at belief. But intellectually you can arrive at a concept that is both logical, without the obvious paradoxes you latched onto to support your posture, and reasonable...
I dont want to define that for you as its like asking me as a 5 year old to describe to an adult what turtle looks like... Look it up yourself...
But that doesnt mean I dont have a general understanding of who or what god may be. Grab a philo 101 book and see and itll probably be near to what I think of god.
A sentient being, without origin, loving, just, perfect in moral ways, capable of prescience in terms of mechanisms but not in terms of the destiny of other sentient free willed beings. Who can make anything thats not encompassed by a paradox... the original creator.
But heck you're probably a robot what do I know... And thus responding to any idea with a question ultimately irrelevant to the concept. This is like asking for proof before undertaking formulating a hypotheses before looking for evidence to the contrary of the hypothesis.
This insight Ill readily tell you is in my mind a completely an intellectual one. What we call faith but I dont subscribe to the idea that experimentation shouldnt be pursuid. Its faith until we can create experimentation to the contrary and that experimentation proves itself invalid. But the hypotheses itself will never ceese to demand experimentation because the universe maybe as timeless as god. Thus no final origin might possibly be finally arrived at. I think this situation is very likely to be the case... Thus we should pursue experimentation but due to the fact its a possibly infinite exploration I dont see why we cant allow intellectual speculation.
So ya of course its subjective. And the most personal investigation one can take. My only attempt here isnt to convince you its just to see where you stand.
Well probably dance again on this in 6 months to a year hhe...
pax said:
Really? It was that obvious?
My argument has nothing to do with posturing Pax. It does however, have everything to do with you defining the words and concepts you use. I guestion your perception of what special means as I don't see awareness as an indication of God or likewise any other deity. I feel this side of our discussion is heading dangerously close to the Watch Makers Fallacy.
Oh no this isn't even so. You haven't presented evidence at all. You might find it soathing to convince yourself you have make sound arguments but you haven't stated anything supporting your beliefs.
In summary the last few post of our debate have been concerning your observation of awareness as evidence of a creator. How so? YOu refer to it as "special." IMO this is no different from the Watch Makers Fallacy which implies all complexity in nature simply couldn't happen without the guidance of a creator. As time and science have progressed we have realized more and more about ourselves and likewise the world around us. What we once held as religious axiom we now know is nothing but a biological occurance. It shouldn't strike you as odd that i request you back your claims (something i seem to have to request of you often in debates). Can you substantiate that awareness is not a biological construct as opposed to a spiritual one?
I find your statements to be nothing more than pure sanctimony.
Pax i should not have to provide as you say "cohesive arguments" against God (whatever you may consider them
). I am not the one discounting an axiom or some other matter proven to be fact. The matter we are discussing is that the existance of God has not be proven. Which brings us to a portion of our discussion: what evidence do you have for the existance of God? An atheist or agnostic, logically, has not responsibility to go about disproving or discounting every known deity in order to adhere to their disbelief. Likewise it would make no sense of me to request you to disprove every other deity.
You argument is a reflection of your culture. You believe in God as that is more than likely what you have been lead to believe. Is there any reason why some one else's belief in an entirely different belief structure then yours is some how incorrect? On what basis would you decide this?
I debate the version of God portrayed in the bible. Is there any reason your version of God is some how more accurate then the thousands of years old depictions of the same deity?
What is a less superstious version of God pax? Would being less superstious make it a more accurate depiction? I can't help but recognize the convolusion in your reasoning.
Pax my entire dicussion with you here, as in many other instances, has been a class act of you posturing and condescending while attempting to take a higher moral ground. You often pretend to be informed on topics by substituting life experiences in place of facts.
I have asked you several times to provide the evidence in your life for the existance of God, not once have you done this. You have suggested that awareness is "special" ergo being existance of God. You refused to explain what it meant to be "special" or how it couldn't be derived from a biological existance. Lets run with your religious reasoning shall we?
Lets say for a minute you are correct about awareness being of spiritual origins. Which deity would be the founder of that spiritual construct? Odin? Ra? YHWH? Ba'al? Certainly your response would be God. How could you confirm this over the possibility of it being 1000 other deities we either know or don't know about?
As have many asked questions concerning other deities...
Its quite obvious you are attempting to disintigrate this discussion into a meaningless apologetics speal. I am fine with that. Its so very typical.
More sanctimony. You use loaded terminology. I, trying to keep with the principles of debating request that you present the meaning behind your words in order to make sure we are in the same ball park. You apon receiving the request go on a tangent about how puerile and simplistic i am.
Nor does it mean you have even the slightest clue. If all you can do is refer to your knowledge of God with such weak conviction i question the exact nature of how representative your evidence for him is.
Why couldn't he be the opposite?
Of course because nothing can be determined with solid facts. We live in a mythical world without concrete evidence for anything. Our entire lives are nothing more than an illusion.
after trying God 6.1 Pax had this testimony of our product....
But when some one ask the "wrong questions" they are to be considered a simplisitic child by people like yourself.
