Two quick questions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-11-2016, 08:42 AM
RE: Two quick questions
(14-11-2016 01:16 PM)Jokurix Wrote:  Hi! Really liking this atheist forum, I realize I'm becoming more and more involved as times goes!

I wanted to ask my fellow atheists.

1. Do you think religion is bad? Why?

2. What do you like most about atheism?
1. Bad, mainly because of believing what is not true.
2. Not believing in a non-existent deities.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2016, 08:51 AM (This post was last modified: 16-11-2016 08:56 AM by Celestial_Wonder.)
RE: Two quick questions
(16-11-2016 08:28 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(16-11-2016 08:18 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  It should have been a lot longer than what it was, everything felt so rushed, also kind of wish it had had a bigger budget that way it could have had more of an environment. I wonder why they didn't just use a desert arid climate?

The 1950s. It was actually an astronomically (pun intended) big budget for a sci-fi film of its day. Production companies simply didn't invest big bucks into making that "weird" genre, science fiction... it was another 10 years before sci-fi was seriously represented on TV (and even then with a strangled budget and numerous social restrictions), and 21 years before Star Wars showed everyone that SF could be a blockbuster. But they spent more on Robbie the Robot than any other prop in history, if I recall correctly; it was a pretty big deal... it wasn't a guy in a suit!

My only real issue with the movie is that it's sexist as fuck (it WAS the 1950s) and that they made the sound effects so painful to the ears. But seeing a young, handsome Leslie Nielsen as the archetypal predecessor to Captain Kirk and the magnificent performance of Walter Pidgeon totally make up for the painful bits.

I also enjoy that the introductory scenes actually attempt to use the language of real astrophysics to describe the situation, worrying about things like G-forces during acceleration (instead of using techno-magic to cancel it out, as Star Trek did), speed as a percent of C, and describing the power meters in terms of "orders of magnitude", actually accepting that the audience was capable of handling the whole thing not being dumbed down. It almost counteracts the XO describing Robbie the Robot as "a housewife's dream", followed by a scripted chuckle. Tongue

But I love Star Trek and all that Sci-Fi represents, and it would not have been possible without this breakthrough movie, even with its 1950s-imposed flaws.

I was rather impressed myself with the effects, the subconscious monster was particularly amazing (given its time) and I certainly did not know that Robbie wasn't just a guy in a suit. I was kind of banking on it being like c3p0 and r2d2. Do you know how much they spent on it then? And for that matter, how they made it walk? If it was the most expensive movie prop of the time I would have been terrified that it would have tripped over and broke. The scientific terms were not lost to me in the introduction and it was refreshing to see a different method of dealing with going from light speed (or faster than light travel) to 'normal' speed. Wait were they worried about acceleration because I thought they were decelerating?

There is on thing they never explained though. That scene where the tiger attacks Altaira and the captain, when she says he didn't recognize her. They never explained how it went from being tame to being wild.

But to that extent I suppose they did go later on about how in the subconscious even the most advanced race had its 'beasts'. I wonder if that was their explanation for it and the tiger was just more of an allegory to foreshadow the events of the future?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2016, 08:52 AM
RE: Two quick questions
(14-11-2016 01:16 PM)Jokurix Wrote:  Hi! Really liking this atheist forum, I realize I'm becoming more and more involved as times goes!

I wanted to ask my fellow atheists.

1. Do you think religion is bad? Why?

2. What do you like most about atheism?

1) Yes, it is inherently divisive. Many things are though, the question is whether or not it provides any benefits that only it can provide, and the answer there is no. Secular groups and institutions can offer the same help and outreach that religion does. So religion is divisive and unnecessary.

2) Nothing really. To me, all it means is that I am absent a god belief, it's a simple and accurate summation of my views on gods but doesn't explain anything else about me or my beliefs.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
16-11-2016, 09:14 AM
RE: Two quick questions
(16-11-2016 08:52 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(14-11-2016 01:16 PM)Jokurix Wrote:  Hi! Really liking this atheist forum, I realize I'm becoming more and more involved as times goes!

I wanted to ask my fellow atheists.

1. Do you think religion is bad? Why?

2. What do you like most about atheism?

1) Yes, it is inherently divisive. Many things are though, the question is whether or not it provides any benefits that only it can provide, and the answer there is no. Secular groups and institutions can offer the same help and outreach that religion does. So religion is divisive and unnecessary.

2) Nothing really. To me, all it means is that I am absent a god belief, it's a simple and accurate summation of my views on gods but doesn't explain anything else about me or my beliefs.

The reason the Greeks put Socrates to death is that religion is the way culture(s) embody their values (supposedly). He was seen as rejecting Greek cultural values. In rejecting religion, atheists are seen (falsely) to reject the values of their society. Slowly, that is changing. That's why it *can* be divisive. We know historically, for example, the texts in the Bible are nothing more than myths embodying their cultural values.

There's nothing to *like* (about the absence of something .... well maybe like the absence of *disease* can be liked Tongue ). Atheism the absence of something.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
16-11-2016, 09:18 AM
RE: Two quick questions
(16-11-2016 09:14 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(16-11-2016 08:52 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  1) Yes, it is inherently divisive. Many things are though, the question is whether or not it provides any benefits that only it can provide, and the answer there is no. Secular groups and institutions can offer the same help and outreach that religion does. So religion is divisive and unnecessary.

2) Nothing really. To me, all it means is that I am absent a god belief, it's a simple and accurate summation of my views on gods but doesn't explain anything else about me or my beliefs.

The reason the Greeks put Socrates to death is that religion is the way culture(s) embody their values (supposedly). He was seen as rejecting Greek cultural values. In rejecting religion, atheists are seen (falsely) to reject the values of their society. Slowly, that is changing. That's why it *can* be divisive. We know historically, for example, the texts in the Bible are nothing more than myths embodying their cultural values.

There's nothing to *like* (about the absence of something .... well maybe like the absence of *disease* can be liked Tongue ). Atheism the absence of something.

Well, I think anything that defines people into groups based on what is perceived of as shared traits/values/beliefs is inherently divisive. Countries are inherently divisive, but they serve a beneficial purpose that other institutions can't effectively offer.

It's also part of the reason why it's so odd for atheism to even be a label that exists. Because it doesn't really define a group of people based on shared values or beliefs or traits. It defines people based off of the absence of one belief. Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
16-11-2016, 09:53 AM (This post was last modified: 16-11-2016 10:01 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Two quick questions
(16-11-2016 08:51 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I was rather impressed myself with the effects, the subconscious monster was particularly amazing (given its time) and I certainly did not know that Robbie wasn't just a guy in a suit. I was kind of banking on it being like c3p0 and r2d2. Do you know how much they spent on it then? And for that matter, how they made it walk? If it was the most expensive movie prop of the time I would have been terrified that it would have tripped over and broke.

I was incorrect; Robby the Robot was "operated from the inside by an uncredited stuntman, Frankie Darro", according to WikiPedia. I always saw him credited "Robby the Robot as Himself", so thought it was their way of saying it was entirely robotic. Nevertheless, it cost $125,000 back in 1955 when it was built. That would be $1,107,326.78 in today's money. I'm sure they were quite afraid of breaking it!

(16-11-2016 08:51 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  The scientific terms were not lost to me in the introduction and it was refreshing to see a different method of dealing with going from light speed (or faster than light travel) to 'normal' speed. Wait were they worried about acceleration because I thought they were decelerating?

They were decelerating. Any form of a change in velocity is called an acceleration, even if it's slowing down. That applies to turns, as well as faster/slower.

(16-11-2016 08:51 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  There is on thing they never explained though. That scene where the tiger attacks Altaira and the captain, when she says he didn't recognize her. They never explained how it went from being tame to being wild.

It's a morality play trope. She was a total virgin, "untainted" by man. Once she kissed the Captain, she lost her magical powers to tame the savage beast. 1956!

(16-11-2016 08:51 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  But to that extent I suppose they did go later on about how in the subconscious even the most advanced race had its 'beasts'. I wonder if that was their explanation for it and the tiger was just more of an allegory to foreshadow the events of the future?

Nah, I think the "Monsters from the Id" (the beast within) was a separate part of the morality play. The Krell were no different than us, despite all their advancements. Like many similar sci-fi tropes, it's a warning about both technology and hubris. (Edit to Add: Keep in mind that in 1956, that generation of humanity was looking, for the first time, at the ability to wipe ourselves completely off the planet with nuclear weapons. Making a movie about a race that invented a powerful "reactor" that wound up killing them all was much more on-point for those audiences than it is for audiences, today... though it should still hit us just as hard, as we've only gotten better at our ability to kill everyone on earth.)

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2016, 10:13 AM
RE: Two quick questions
(16-11-2016 09:53 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(16-11-2016 08:51 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I was rather impressed myself with the effects, the subconscious monster was particularly amazing (given its time) and I certainly did not know that Robbie wasn't just a guy in a suit. I was kind of banking on it being like c3p0 and r2d2. Do you know how much they spent on it then? And for that matter, how they made it walk? If it was the most expensive movie prop of the time I would have been terrified that it would have tripped over and broke.

I was incorrect; Robby the Robot was "operated from the inside by an uncredited stuntman, Frankie Darro", according to WikiPedia. I always saw him credited "Robby the Robot as Himself", so thought it was their way of saying it was entirely robotic. Nevertheless, it cost $125,000 back in 1955 when it was built. That would be $1,107,326.78 in today's money. I'm sure they were quite afraid of breaking it!

(16-11-2016 08:51 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  The scientific terms were not lost to me in the introduction and it was refreshing to see a different method of dealing with going from light speed (or faster than light travel) to 'normal' speed. Wait were they worried about acceleration because I thought they were decelerating?

They were decelerating. Any form of a change in velocity is called an acceleration, even if it's slowing down. That applies to turns, as well as faster/slower.

(16-11-2016 08:51 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  There is on thing they never explained though. That scene where the tiger attacks Altaira and the captain, when she says he didn't recognize her. They never explained how it went from being tame to being wild.

It's a morality play trope. She was a total virgin, "untainted" by man. Once she kissed the Captain, she lost her magical powers to tame the savage beast. 1956!

(16-11-2016 08:51 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  But to that extent I suppose they did go later on about how in the subconscious even the most advanced race had its 'beasts'. I wonder if that was their explanation for it and the tiger was just more of an allegory to foreshadow the events of the future?

Nah, I think the "Monsters from the Id" (the beast within) was a separate part of the morality play. The Krell were no different than us, despite all their advancements. Like many similar sci-fi tropes, it's a warning about both technology and hubris.

That is indeed a pretty penny for a robot suit. But even in Jurassic park you had guys in raptor suits its a real shame that most things like that today are cgi.

Are ya sure? because I really like that deeper meaning to the tiger explanation buuuut, I do see your point of view, given that there weren't even any women on the ship and the ship itself was rather small for a spacefaring vessel. I can see how that 'it was in the 1950s' could be a logical explanation.

I mean the 1950s were like the golden age of the man supporting the woman.

Sad fate of the Krell indeed. However I would have been with Morbius, in that the information should have been parsed out to humanity overtime instead of all at once like the captain wanted. Mainly because I am not a stranger to the deficiency in the morality of some members of my species.

In that regard, the movie was pretty predictable. Did it explain how Morbius was able to manifest his consciousness without the learning machine?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2016, 10:54 AM
RE: Two quick questions
(16-11-2016 10:13 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Did it explain how Morbius was able to manifest his consciousness without the learning machine?

Once Morbius used the learning machine, his mind was powerful enough to operate the machine telepathically, and have his will turned into reality. That's what killed the Krell. As soon as they turned on the machine that could turn their wills into reality, it read all their minds and created a lot of that kind of monsters.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2016, 11:27 AM
RE: Two quick questions
(16-11-2016 10:54 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(16-11-2016 10:13 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Did it explain how Morbius was able to manifest his consciousness without the learning machine?

Once Morbius used the learning machine, his mind was powerful enough to operate the machine telepathically, and have his will turned into reality. That's what killed the Krell. As soon as they turned on the machine that could turn their wills into reality, it read all their minds and created a lot of that kind of monsters.

So why didn't they just destroy the machine?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2016, 06:21 PM
RE: Two quick questions
(16-11-2016 11:27 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(16-11-2016 10:54 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Once Morbius used the learning machine, his mind was powerful enough to operate the machine telepathically, and have his will turned into reality. That's what killed the Krell. As soon as they turned on the machine that could turn their wills into reality, it read all their minds and created a lot of that kind of monsters.

So why didn't they just destroy the machine?

Morbius says, "Oh my poor Krell. After a million years of shining sanity, they could hardly have understood what was happening to them."

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: