Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 9 years, 12 months ago
    From the trailer and film website, at best this is a "Hoop Dreams" or "Chariots of Fire" story about someone who succeeds despite the odds. Beyond that, we have been through this time and time again and all it does is magnify the gulf between conservatives who relate to the anti-socialist message of the movie and those who perceive and understand all of the other lines and scenes taken from a book that is a philosophical detective novel told as a love story.

    I agree 100% that you get these tin god college professors who rule the classroom as a dictatorship. Literally and truly, I was told that by a professor with whom I largely agreed politically, even after she brought my up on charges in front of the student judiciary committee for directly challenging her authority in the classroom. It happens.

    But no one here has proved the existence of God.

    In this sense it is like praising the movie "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" while ignoring the actual events and real actions of the historical characters.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 12 months ago
      I haven't seen it yet but it kind of reminds me of Miracle on 34th St. The judge in this class was the class itself. They all stood up one by one at the end and declared that God is not dead (got that from some interviews with the cast). The proof of God being alive and Santa existing was indirectly shown in both movies. As to proof, I think of the movie "Contact" where the priest asks Jodi Foster if she loves her deceased father. After she says yes, he asks "prove it." She is speechless. 8-)

      For the record, there's no doubt in my mind that He exists but that is a personal decision we each have to make.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 12 months ago
        The key part of your statement, "The proof of God being alive ... was indirectly shown in both movies." is the word indirectly. A direct proof of God's existence would be required for objectivists. For Christians, the indirect evidence is sufficient to make a conclusion.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 11 months ago
          JerseyBoy and Gonzo309 may be surprised to hear this, but I also think that indirect evidence can be sufficient to draw a conclusion on the issue of a creator or anything else. The biblical example of doubting Thomas is relevant here in John 20:26-29. "Unless I see the mark of the nails on his hands, unless I put my finger into the place where the nails were, and my hand into his side, I will not believe it.

          A week later his disciples were once again in the room, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them, saying "Peace be with you!" Then he said to Thomas, "Reach your finger here; see my hands. Reach your hand here and put it into my side. Be unbelieving no longer, but believe. Thomas said, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said, "Because you have seen me, you have found faith. Blessed are they who never saw me and yet have found faith." The apostle Paul writes that there 500 people that saw Jesus after the resurrection. That is a lot of people to call liars. Objectivists would need to probe Jesus' hands and side as Thomas did to believe in Jesus' resurrection. As for me, the preponderance of the historical evidence is sufficient, especially when one factors in the many prophecies concerning Jesus.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 11 months ago
            I realize that I just committed heresy before Ms. Rand, but I have looked at the evidence myself and while I agree with Ms. Rand on > 95% of what she says, this one major point is an area that I will politely disagree with her and many Atlantis citizens on.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ stargeezer 9 years, 11 months ago
              I join with you in this most comforting of heresies. I found the proof of God's existence more than adequate. Josephus, the first century historian recorded many first and secondhand accounts of Jesus and his actions both mortal AND post mortem.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 11 months ago
          It was also sufficient for the class to be convinced of the existence of God. Most Christians depend on written first person accounts of what happened in the time of Christ plus the certainty of fulfilled prophecy in the scriptures, some yet to be fulfilled. This is more than enough proof for us to believe. The prophecies about Christ were written over 1000+ years before Christ and were translated into Greek (Septuagint) in 273 BC so there is no possibility of it being written after His time on earth. This is confirmed by secular historian accounts like Flavius Josephus. He fulfilled 300+ prophecies of His first appearing.

          If in a court case proof is shown from a deposition or a video, that would be considered sufficient evidence to rule on that case. Indirect evidence is being used to prove guilt. How many folks have been jailed that were innocent?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by JerseyBoy 9 years, 11 months ago
          jbrenner: "For Christians, the indirect evidence is sufficient to make a conclusion.

          "Indirect evidence" for the purpose of drawing a tentative conclusion is good enough for the majority of people, most of the time, for the majority of issues, both trivial and important. That applies to Objectivists, too.

          "A direct proof of God's existence would be required for objectivists."

          A "direct proof"? I don't know what that is. What is a "direct" proof vs. an "indirect proof"? And why does only the issue of God require this higher standard of proof, when you don't require it for anything else in life? Most of science, for example, rests on indirect proof, not "direct" (whatever that is), and everything in forensic science rests on indirect proof.

          I just love that you posit two different standards of proof: a lower, easier one for issues you approve of (science), and a higher, more difficult (if not downright impossible) one for issues you disapprove of (religion).
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -1
      Posted by JerseyBoy 9 years, 11 months ago
      MM: "No one here has proved the existence of God."

      No one here has proven that a woman named Ayn Rand was the real author of a novel titled "Atlas Shrugged."

      Sorry, you can't rely on statements by supposed eye-witnesses such as the young Peikoff, writings by the young Brandens, etc., from the 1950s, claiming that they personally saw such a woman handwriting the novel and reading excerpts to them during its creation. Asking me to believe STATEMENTS by putative eye-witnesses to an event is obviously INDIRECT proof.

      Live up to jbrenner's high standard of proof, please, by providing us healthy skeptics with DIRECT PROOF that a woman calling herself Ayn Rand in fact wrote a novel titled Atlas Shrugged.

      Personally, I believe you cannot do it. The most you can do is provide indirect proof that rests on the idea of "the preponderance of the evidence points to such-and-such a conclusion." That's fine, but it's a much lower level of rigor and certainty than the kind of "direct proof" jbrenner has in mind when he speaks of proofs for other kinds of things — like the existence of God.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 11 months ago
    I watched this movie with my wife. The plot was predictable in that it kind of forced dramatic turns to advance the story. Otherwise it was well acted and presented compelling information. It's worth seeing.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WillH 9 years, 11 months ago
    Looks like an interesting movie. Given the anti-christian tendencies of liberal Hollywood I am a little surprised it was made.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 12 months ago
    It reminds me of some discussions on the Gulch when Christianity is brought up! It's uplifting for all (depending on who is currently winning the argument in the movie). Currently playing in theaters.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 9 years, 12 months ago
    "This wasn’t in the Bible belt. It was in cosmopolitan Ft. Lauderdale, Florida."
    ---
    Florida is still pretty much in the Bible Belt.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 12 months ago
      North Florida is in the Bible Belt. Central Florida is nice and pretty normal compared to the rest of the US except that it has better weather and better entertainment (Orlando, mostly). Ft. Lauderdale and South Florida is more like a cross between retirees from the Northeast, lots of Caribbeans, and a few South Americans. I like all of these places, but Ft. Lauderdale is definitely not Bible Belt. Being in Florida is kind of odd in that the further north you go, the more you feel like you are from the South.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 12 months ago
      The movie is meant to stimulate thought and discussion. The point is that the showing occurred in a cosmopolitan city with all the varied opinions that exist in that environment. I've always taken the Bible belt to be above Florida and over a wide swath of the south. Florida is considered to be the retirement location for us Yankees. 8-)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo