SUPPORT FILMTRACKS! CLICK HERE FIRST:
Amazon.com
Amazon.co.uk
iTunes (U.S.)
Amazon.ca
Amazon.fr
eBay (U.S.)
Amazon.de
Amazon.es
Half.com
Glisten Effect
Editorial Reviews
Scoreboard Forum
Viewer Ratings
Composers
Awards
   NEWEST MAJOR REVIEWS:
     1. Godzilla: King of the Monsters
    2. Aladdin (2019)
   3. Pokémon Detective Pikachu
  4. Avengers: Endgame
 5. Shazam!
6. Dumbo
   CURRENT MOST POPULAR REVIEWS:
         1. Gladiator
        2. Batman
       3. Nightmare Before Christmas
      4. Titanic
     5. Justice League
    6. Star Wars: The Last Jedi
   7. Harry Potter: Sorcerer's Stone
  8. Maleficent
 9. Star Wars: The Force Awakens
10. Edward Scissorhands
Home Page
Menu Options ▼

Edit | Delete
This guy's got his head on straight
• Posted by: Dan Sartori
• Date: Monday, November 18, 2002, at 2:41 p.m.
• IP Address: p-proxy-2-int0.net.wisc.edu
• In Response to: It's Magic (Ashi-taka469)

> Gee, I must have some serious introspection then, because for some reason,
> these stories fail to wisk me away on that magical mystery tour your
> raving about. As for the rest of your post, if rants on the occult make
> you sick, you must get a lot of notes from the doctor, because that seems
> a little bit sensitive. But that aspect of you post is unimportant. It's
> the other parts that interest me more.

> Must everything be filtered through blind faith you ask? Well, yes and no.
> Christians are intelligent human beings (believe it or not :o). We do have
> the ability to rationalize or reasons for doing certain things. Yet within
> the realm of faith, as with everything, there are certain things that
> cannot be proven with theory and observation. One of my favorite movie
> quotes offers a real good illustration of this. It's the scene in
> "Contact" where Ellie and Palmer are basically challenging each
> others beliefs.
Palmer:"Did you love your father?"
>
Ellie:"What?"
Palmer:"Your Dad. Did you love
> him?"
Ellie:"Yes, very much."
Palmer:"Prove
> it."
Now let me ask you, how would one go about proving such a
> thing by use of the scientific method? You may try, in which case you
> would ultimately come to the conclusion that this love could not possibly
> exist and is merely a mental illusion created by the subject to prevent
> herself from slipping into feelings of self doubt and thusly depression.
> Still, after reaching such a conclusion, try convincing the subject that
> it is true, try convincing anyone that their love for another is merely an
> illusional state of mind. In the end you will fail, simply because the
> people would somewhere in some indescribable area of their heart and mind
> know for a fact that what you presented is not the whole story, that some
> all important element is missing, something that all the theory and
> observation in the world could not identify and explain, and the only way
> it can be seen is through that blind faith you so despise.

> Immediately proceeding this you make the claim that the Bible is nothing
> but a series of fictional stories in of its self. Quite a bold claim,
> considering it is probably the most influential book in history on the
> path of western civilization. Yet despite the bold nature of your comment,
> you fail to enlighten us as to your reasoning for such a claim. It's
> almost as if you wish us to accept it "on faith." In this case,
> blind faith is not an acceptable answer to such a claim, given that there
> are documents that could be used to illustrate either parallels or
> contradictions in literature of the time, there is archeological evidence
> that could be searched for and that has been found, example the ashes of
> James brother of Jesus just recently recovered. So, you essentially could
> make scientific judgements in either direction regarding the Bible. Yet
> regardless, that fact seemed to pass you up.

> One final thing before I cease my ranting, please lighten your tone.
> Responding to something in such a cruel manner only presents the image of
> someone speaking out of uncontrolled emotion rather than rational and
> disciplined thought, and as a result, provides an argument that is self
> destructive to the writers image rather than supporting his or her point.

Wow! I love reading the thoughts of someone who actually judges a faith system without resorting to superfluous, unsupported arguments and blind arrogance. There are so few of these on this site, and throughout the world...

I think we could all learn a thing or two about fairness in our judgements from Ashitaka.

Dan




Comments in this Thread:     Expand >>


Copyright © 1998-2019, Filmtracks Publications. All rights reserved.
The reviews and other textual content contained on the filmtracks.com site may not be published, broadcast,
rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Christian Clemmensen at Filmtracks Publications. Scoreboard created 7/24/98 and last updated 4/25/15.