The Day the Earth Stood Still: Perspectives on the remake

Ars took part in the pre-launch events for the upcoming remake of the sci-fi classic, <i>The Day the Earth Stood Still</i>, and we report on the new movie and on a panel discussion involving the actors and some Caltech scientists.<BR><BR>Read More

 

[KobayashiSaru]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HydroViking:<BR>Personally, I find MST3K:The Movie to be the better remake. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>That was "This Island Earth", a completely different movie.

 

[squeeb]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Matt Clary:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kunio:<BR>I think scientists need to be sensitive about respecting religion, and how God was treated in the panel discussion actually amplifies the stereotype that the scientists are out of touch with the "real" people. What we do need to do is to focus specifically on issues that prevent human progress, like the creationism and practical use of contraception, but not attack religious beliefs as whole. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Get used to it, Kunio. All the "cool" kids are atheist.<BR><BR>And i agree with you. I personally have no use for religion, but I find the disrespect and outright hostility disturbing. I don't know if god exists or not, but I am not a fan of showing this level of disrespect. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Well said. At least show some respect.<BR><BR>As for the crowd mocking Reeves, I find that disheartening. He is probably one of the most genuinely nice guys in hollywood.

 

[OrangeCream]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mltdwn:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OrangeCream:<BR><BR>If you want to be logical, you must first use good logic. Logic is a tool, like a hammer or a saw, and if you use the wrong tool in the wrong situation you make mistakes.<BR><BR>You are using bad logic to make bad recommendations. It's like outlawing hammers because they crush skulls...<BR><BR>Logic isn't the problem. Just like emotion isn't the problem.<BR><BR>A purely logical world would evolve to solve all the problems you submit because a purely logical world would see that genetic breadth and depth is good, that accumulated knowledge and wisdom is useful, and that compassion is reciprocal and beneficial, all without emotion involved. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I don't believe a purely logical world would evolve to solve all of the problems I speak about. Facts dictate that it takes money, time and resources to eliminate a particular problem through medical means (say Downs Syndrom). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>You misunderstand. When and where did I say we would ever eliminate Downs Syndrome?<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is therefor much more expedient to simply extinguish those who carry the gene and remove the possibility of it reoccuring. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Did you not see my example of sickle cell anemia? What if people with Downs Syndrome had some genetic fluke that prevented Alzheimer's? By preserving people with Downs Syndrome we may find (through research, study, and analysis) cures for other conditions totally unrelated to Downs Syndrom.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Same as say AIDs, look at the cost it has had to try to find a cure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>So? At the same time we look for a cure, we understand so much more of our immune system. Without AIDS to spur such research we wouldn't be nearly as advanced today.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Where as it would be far more practical and pragmatic simply to have rounded those individuals up, executed, or locked them away until they die, take care of the few minor ones that spring up here and there and thus alleviate the entire issue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>But logic has proven (my examples of sickle cell anemia, increased understanding of immune system, and genetic unintended consequences) that NOT eliminating the problem is actually beneficial. So if I, as an emotional person, can show this amount of logic, why wouldn't a logical person without emotion therefore come to the same conclusion?<BR><BR>1) Allow the weak and infirm to survive to increase our genetic diversity<BR>2) Allow the weak and infirm to survive to increase our understanding of ourselves<BR>3) Allow the weak and infirm to survive to increase our understanding of disease<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>As for genetic depth and breadth being required for the greatest chance for survival I agree and disagree. Yes you need a deep gene pool (look at the monarchs of the middle ages who often married relatives with the result of children who oft times went mad), but you also need a clean one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>No, you don't. Your perception of clean is purely subjective.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There are certain "maladies" (for lack of a better words) that are completely hereditary. Were we to cull those out of the gene pool who contain the genetics for such maladies they would simply no longer exist and time/money/resources that would be directed for decades to try to find a cure could instead be spent on more pragmatic and purposeful research. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Wrong. You keep harping about cure; no cure is necessary because evolution has already done the work for us. If the condition is fatal, people die before they can reproduce and therefore it isn't an issue. If it confers any sort of benefit at all then evolution will keep that condition in the genepool, even if it is detrimental.<BR><BR>My argument, as before, is sickle cell anemia. It is a mutation that is detrimental to people but it makes us immune to malaria.<BR><BR>Another example? AIDS. If we kill everyone with AIDS, do you know what? You are STILL susceptible to it. It just means 100 years later another monkey, another man, and another epidemic will occur. And will keep occurring. The only solution is evolution: We either adapt to it, or we die.<BR><BR>Science gives us a third option: Live with it. In the process we understand so much more about antiviral drugs, our immune system, and viruses in general. Logic, not emotion, dictates then that killing people with AIDS is also a waste of resources because, if nothing else, these people can still work.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>As for the infirm, yes they provide wisdom, but not many do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Every single one of them that knows even a single bit more than you can provide wisdom.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And by infirm I mean those who are say bed ridden or individuals handicapped by age. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>So what happens to YOU when you get sick and become bed ridden? Or old, since that is inevitable? Do we kill you at the age of 30 when you come down with mononucleosis? Or at 45 when an undiagnosed neurodegenerative disease makes you bedridden?<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Again there are certain maladies which are only brought on by onset of age (i.e. Prostate cancer, at age 40 you have something like a 1 in 50 chance, past age 60 you have a 1 in 3 chance and it increase even further past then), while yes those individuals may have wisdom what is the benefit that wisdom provides vs. the cost of treatment (in terms of time and resources) for the conditions they suffer from? It would make more sense from a logical point of view to spend what time you could learning from them and then simply extinguishing them from the pool to prevent the costs associated with their existance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Silly, it takes 40 years to learn everything a 40 year old knows, and by then they are 80! By the time you "catch up" with any one of a certain age, you are already at that age.<BR><BR>Put another way: How long does it take to teach a 5 year old the knowledge of a 20 year old? 15 years... so that by the time they are 20, they have the knowledge of a 20 year old! How long does it take to teach that 20 year old the knowledge of a 40 year old? 20 years!<BR><BR>The costs associated with their existence is more than outweighed by the wisdom they have. Parents learn how to raise kids from their grandparents, and great grandparents, so that if you are 40 raising a 10 year old, you still need a 70 year old around to ask, "How did you do this when I was a kid"?<BR><BR>So if you still wish to extinguish men because of prostate cancer, you couldn't do it until your own kids were old enough to have kids, which would be about 90.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>And strength is not just physical, it is mental, creative, charismatic, etc. the problem is when I say "the strong survive" you're taking strong to mean physical which it doesn't and never has. Out on the Savannah a hunter may think he sees something out of the corner of his eye. It could just be the wind or a Hyena. If he chooses to run and is wrong then no loss, if he chooses to stay and is wrong he dies. We evolved from those who chose to run. That is a demonstration of strength other than physical.<BR><BR>Anyways in a logical world each person would be surveyed for a purpose and then put into a job for that purpose. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>This is where I start to suspect you are stupid. You obviously don't understand evolution if you propose this solution. This is totally 100% against evolution.<BR><BR>Evolution exists because it works. In a logical world the intelligent people would understand evolution and would accept it as the most efficient manner of solving the problem of existence. If they accept evolution than the only real solution is to allow as many people to survive as possible so that when a new problem arises as many individuals capable of solving that problem exists.<BR><BR>If you survey for a purpose then you must know every single purpose in existence! That is a knowably unknowable problem. How can you possibly know that person A will solve world hunger, person B will improve agricultural yields, person C will produce a superior method of distribution of milk?<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You have a physically strong individual, but light on IQ then why bother providing them with education? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Because a strong person with an education is stronger than a strong person without education. In other words, it improves their chances of survival!<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Simply place them into a gov't run public works job for say road maintenance or what not and once they can no longer perform that job "retire" them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Your method total ignores the concept of "unrecognized problems". What if he has a gift for a skill that was uninvented when he was born? By the time that gift was necessary, you would have retired him. A logical world would keep him around as a backup so that when that skill was necessary, he would be available.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It makes far more sense than spending money attempting to educate those who cannot handle much above basic high school algebra. Like wise, highly intelligent, weak of body focus on educating them as much as possible, and again when they can no longer think/do and become a burden rather than an asset remove them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>As I already proved, they remain assets until the age of 90. At which point evolution has already programmed death into 99% of the human population.<BR><BR>90 years old has 60 year old children who has 30 year old children just starting to raise a family. Only then can the 90 year old retire/die because they know they finished the job of raising their kids to the point of being able to raise their own family.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>That's just what pure "logic" makes plain to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Pure logic makes plain to me that your IQ is probably 20 points lower than mine. You also have less education, you don't understand evolution, research, or science.<BR><BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>Once one ceases to serve a purpose, then they cease to be a contributing member to a society, and thus cost the rest of society without adding anything back. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>No. Once one ceases to serve ONE purpose, then they need to find a second purpose to stay a contributing member of society and thus provide a benefit to society. Evolution and 10,000 years of survival have programmed that into human nature.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">End result, you work until you are dead for it is illogical to do anything but. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>As a result, MY world would have you be productive for 50 more years than your world; my world has science, compassion, medicine, electronics, computers, bionics, prosthetics, cars, and spaceships.<BR><BR>Your world would probably 10,000 years behind mine.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>And note I speak of money here in terms of cost, but that is really just a reference word. I think a more applicable term would be resources (in the form of physical resources, individual time, etc.). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Look at it another way: When your arm falls asleep, do you cut it off? When your legs grow tired, do you remove them?<BR><BR>Or do you rest them, feed them, and put them back to use after they recover?<BR><BR>Why is a person any different? When someone becomes incapable of performing an action, they aren't useless, they just need to find a new purpose.

 

[westworldviewer]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The movie concludes that scientists are Klaatu's best bet, since they're trained to shift and adapt their view of the world as new discoveries are made and old concepts become obsolete. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>I am in the process of becoming a scientist (once I've submitted my thesis I might be comfortable with calling myself one...) and the assumption that scientists are trained to "shift and adapt" is a _bit_ of a stretch. I have personally witnessed discussions between "warring" factions at scientific conferences that were akin to the 30-years war. Scientists can be amongst the most dogmatic and conservative group of professionals. I find it quite funny, how then scientists are portrayed as being better than the rest of society. We're not, we can be a bunch of dickheads just like any other collectively named group of professionals. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif --

 

[Sindow]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OrangeCream:<BR>This is where I start to suspect you are stupid. You obviously don't understand evolution if you propose this solution. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Neither of you understand logic, as is evident from your inane blabbering about efficiency, which logic, quite frankly, does not give a damn about. I don't suggest calling another person stupid when your own grasp of another concept is clearly inadequate and flawed.

 

[thebackwash]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OrangeCream:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thebackwash:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OrangeCream:<BR><BR>Any religion that attempts to place controls on reproduction, marriage, and child-rearing is a form of eugenics, even if unintentional. Why is that so hard to believe? If the Church tells you when/how/who to reproduce with (and for that matter, so does advertising and television), then isn't that eugenics? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>No, it's not eugenics, and neither is advertising or television. Unless you establish that religion tells you who to reproduce with on basis of genetic (or phenotypic) characteristics, either intentionally or unintentionally, then in fact, no, it's not eugenics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Maybe not ALL religions, but how about Judaism? Orthodox Judaism doesn't accept "intermarriage", with some going so far as to call it a silent Holocaust. Or the caste system in Hinduism, which also does not sanction inter caste marriage?<BR><BR>Then there is certain Christian religions which do not sanction abortion or birth control? Or the Mormon religion which encourages larger family sizes? Eugenics is about racial improvement, which as a concept has existed as long as animal husbandry has existed even if the term itself wasn't relevant. Even Plato was an advocate of an early form of eugenics.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As far as I can see, any religious movement which has attracted significant following has done so on the basis of truth claims, and inclusionary methods, not genetic exclusion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>The key is "attracted significant following". Eugenics is not merely about infanticide and cleansing, it's also about reproduction, and one method of attracting a significant following is to have many kids. Catholocism and Mormonism grow through childbirth, alongside conversion. Genetic exclusion, insofar as genetics was missing, is a key component of defining Judaism; unbroken matrilinial parentage.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Belief in and adherence to a set of doctrines (among behavioral prescriptions) are typically the standards by which one is allowed to reproduce with another member of a religious community. Genes, aren't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Except, again, for Judaism and Hinduism (those are just the two I know).<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>Now it's time for me to call out what I see as an unfortunate rise in pseudo-intellectualism on ars. It's time to stop using big words simply because they're big, and you want to use them. I'm not making specific accusations, so OrangeCream, please don't misunderstand me, but what keeps me coming back to ars is the potential for a spirited and enlightening debate, having others hold themselves (and me!) to higher standards of proof. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I think the problem is that I used the word eugenics, which brings to mind cleansings and the Holocaust, when really I mean it to imply improvement and not selectivity.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>Incidentally, OrangeCream, I think the rest of your posts in this thread are well argued, but I've been disappointed by the amount of ridiculous and intellectually wooly arguments put forth on the forums lately. I've seen bandying back and forth by opposing viewpoints who lack the reasoning and communication skills to effectively engage each other. Makes me pine for the old ars... </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Perhaps I was being too broad, but my point is sound I think. Religions control their populations, and one way to do so is through sex, reproduction, marriage, and inclusion. Christianity and Islam are unusual in that they allow for anyone to convert; most others, I think, are much more selective. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Sorry for not taking the time to indicate the specific points of your post that I'm responding to. I agree that one could see the prohibition of marriage with ethnic non-jews as a form of eugenics (in the sense you seem to indicate.) I would say first of all, that in reference to Judaism, the Jews were designated to be "the light unto the nations," which many have taken to indicate (at least in Christian exegesis) a call for missionary work and preaching to pagan nations. The tradition has been mixed, certainly, but it appears to me that pressure to maintain some type of racial or ethnic purity is rooted in the all-too-common human repulsion to what is different, and scary.<BR><BR>I would ask that, in discussing these things, we be careful to maintain the distinction between what religions doctrinally prohibit or recommend against, and what human fears and prejudices the power structure of an institutionalized religion happens to promote. The fear which I believe many have of religion is that it seems to be impossible to criticize on a rational level, and that many people who are so fervently devout are so out of weakness and an effort to find legitimacy in the power structure they have invested themselves in. Sad, I know. It's the same old coercion game we've been playing for thousands of years, but I recommend we make an effort to treat power structures in general as an inherently value-neutral entity. One may certainly point out abuses of power, but it's valuable to learn how to find where the blame lies: with the doctrine, or with cowardly assholes who feel the need to order others around to make themselves feel important. Usually it's with the latter. Ideas are rarely coercive without a people doing the coercion. Institutionalized religion just happens to be a damn good tool for carrying out your (or your culture's) whims. It sucks, but the constant I see is people being shitty to others by whatever means they have available to them, religion being one of many.<BR><BR>I know when I write about these things my tone sounds like I'm just trying to get a one up on everyone else, but I've seen a lot of needless mud slinging about religion, and I want to precisely state my case so we can actually be sure what specifically we're discussing.<BR><BR>To tie this all back to the topic of "improvement" eugenics, I would argue that religion may be an expedient means to a culturally desired eugenic end, but there seem to be no natural ties between the two in most cases. Additionally, sexual selection by hypothetical religious degree couldn't possibly be about "improvement," rather merely maintenance of genetic purity, or something similar.<BR><BR>So in summary, I dispute that religion is a cause of racial improvement ideologies. I have difficulty addressing your claims specifically because they're tied tightly to the fundamentals of reproductive behavior. Sure catholics want to have many kids, to "make more blessed little souls," but if parents didn't want to see their characteristics passed on, the human race would be in a world of hurt right now.

 

[naphini]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thorpemark:<BR>And Rekul: "In the history of the world, more wars have been fought and more people have been killed in the name of religion than for any other reason."<BR><BR>That is patently untrue. Stalin, Pol Pot, etc... killed multi-millions in the name of non-religion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Careful. Stalin killed for Communism, for the state, or for his own power, not "in the name of" non-religion or atheism. You might as well say (to paraphrase Dawkins) that he killed all those people because he had a mustache (gasp-- just like Hitler! coincidence??!). One can find all sorts of horrible people who are atheists. One can find all sorts of people who are religious. The question is, does religion (or atheism) itself <I>cause</I> one to do violence. I'll leave that question to others for now, and move on to...<BR><BR><B>Logic!</B><BR><BR><B>@Mltdwn and OrangeCream:</B> I find this fantasy about "purely logical" beings repugnant and vapid. As if "emotion" (always proffered as the antithesis of logic) somehow sullies our minds, which would otherwise, without emotion, be "pure" and somehow better. I'm no neuroscientist, but it seems to me that even common lay knowledge of how the mind works, combined with a little clarity of thought, is enough to debunk this nonsense. First, our brains are not general purpose computers; all our programming is hardwired. I think this is important because it illustrates the problem with that implicit assumption (in trying to separate 'logic' and 'emotion') that we could, in principle, strip our brain of emotions and there would still be a thinking being in there that was still essentially human, now capable of following the "rational" or "logical" course without hindrance from those pesky emotions.<BR><BR>Let's put it this way: Almighty Reason is not native to the universe. By that I mean there is no ideal of rational thought, or any kind of thought at all, except what is practiced by organic brains that have evolved for very specific purposes. In fact, the things that feel the closest to this elusive notion, such as mathematics, aren't even really native to our brains. If you'll permit me a computer analogy, mathematical thought (likewise, formally logical thought) is processed <I>very</I> slowly in our brains -- like it's being run in a virtualization environment -- compared to other things we do natively, like pattern recognition and linguistic communication. Taking a derivative, or factoring a number in your head, requires bucketloads of difficult concentration, a conscious focus on the problem at hand, and a conscious awareness of the process being used to solve it. <BR><BR>There's no such thing as thought, on par with the complexity of human thought, or recognizable to us as thought at all, which is separable from evolutionary human motivations (of which emotions are an intimate part). To put it another way, logic is merely a tool for answering questions or solving problems. It doesn't tell you which problems to solve, whether you should bother solving any of them at all, or why. From an evolutionary perspective, our brains evolved to adapt our behavior in ever more subtle ways to keep us (as individuals) alive, because then we were more likely to make little copies of ourselves. The basic elements of our psychology, including such fundamental things as regarding ourselves as individuals in the first place, and not as parts of some larger whole, wanting to stay alive as such, and the notion of regarding some things as desirable or good and others as undesirable or bad, have absolutely nothing to do with logic. It doesn't even make sense to say so. If the goal is to stay alive, one can use logic (and we do, sometimes) to help one do so. I think part of the reason we like to fetishize logic, especially in our science fiction stories (where 'pure reason' is held up as an advancement, the future of our species) is because we as humans, seemingly, are able to use logic consciously, to advance our ends, in addition to other tools like reflexes and sexual urges that other animals also possess.<BR><BR>Strip these psychological elements away (trivializing them down to the word 'emotions' is misleading, to say the least), and you have nothing left. You give examples of a world in which human beings are emotionless and 'perfectly logical'. You argue about whether the logical course would be to keep old people around for the benefit of their wisdom to society, or whether it would be 'more logical' to let them die, preserving society's resources for the welfare of the young and productive. Don't you see the assumptions implicit in your example world? What on earth makes you think that "the good of society" has anything to do with logic? What's good -- the goal -- is prior to logic. If the goal is simply received from on high, logic may step in and help you get there, but then you've ruined your argument. Setting that aside for the moment, suppose we posit a goal. There's no reason it has to be "the good of society". Why shouldn't a race of so-called "perfectly logical" human beings pursue their own individual welfare without regard to others? "Ahh," you say, "but in their perfect logic they'll see that cooperation will guarantee better welfare of the individual," but that's not at all clear. I can think of endless scenarios...<BR><BR>But I digress. The main point is that there's no such thing as 'thought' that we would recognize without all the underlying characteristics of human psychology that make up our sense of self and provide us with the sorts of motivations that define what it means to even be alive. Trying to merely strip away "emotions" from the human mind is absurd. If you had anything left over, it would be something like a calculator with no one to use it for anything.

 

[Kung Fu Sid]

This thread seems to be mostly about God or not-God, but I'd like to suggest an interesting gedanken (thanks for the new word!) experiment for how aliens would present themselves. John Scalzi's got a book out called "Agent to the Stars", basically about aliens hiring a Hollywood agent to help introduce them to humanity. It's got Scalzi's typical humor, although I think it's one of his earliest, so maybe not as developed.<BR><BR>The best part is that it's available as a free e-book (at least, I think it still is).<BR><BR>It is!!

 

[willyolio]

"Diabologic" is a pretty funny "first contact" short story, if anyone can find it.<BR><BR>http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=405

 

[Kung Fu Sid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by willyolio:<BR>"Diabologic" is a pretty funny "first contact" short story, if anyone can find it.<BR><BR>http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=405 </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Thanks a lot, now you've sent me all over the internets looking for that story. And it ain't coming up. Can anyone provide a link to the story?<BR><BR>I'd also like to find a list of other first-contact stories. It'd be interesting to see how many people had come up with.

 

[bob k. mando]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Calling environmentalists "fundies" is equivalent to a child retorting "I know you are but what am I?" </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>i'm sorry. i grew up around card carrying GreenPeacers.<BR><BR>their irrational lunacy and near deification ( they don't technically believe in any 'Gods' ) of the Earth quite certainly CAN be referred to as "fundamentalist". take for instance, the ones who openly wonder about the best way to reduce the human population 'burden' to < 1 billion. <BR><BR>the repeated assertion that humans have the capability to "destroy all life on the planet" or even "destroy the planet" is a primary marker for a dogmatic enviro looney.<BR><BR><BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If there are aliens that reach us, chances are that they would wipe us out ... Yet from this perspective, so very different from Bob's, the idea of an alien intelligence watching this movie strikes me as completely inane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>a. the marauding, invading aliens is not "unknown" to my perspective. which is a good thing as that would be ridiculous. it's only the primary schlock sci-fi trope as well as <B>being evolutionarily expected</B>.<BR><BR>b. the "aliens watching it" isn't inane. it's the presumption that they would wish to view our entertainment product in order to more "peacefully introduce themselves too us" that's inane. presuming they have the tech and energy resources necessary for reliable interstellar flight means that they likely would have the ability to extinguish all life on this planet. <BR><BR>we would have no defense against them, should they be aggressive.<BR><BR><BR>c. my actual point, which you misconstrued, was that there is thus far no scientific evidence of any sort that extra-terrestrial intelligences actually exist. we don't know that there is anyone out there too watch, much less assume that they wanted to do so.<BR><BR><BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Genetic exclusion, insofar as genetics was missing, is a key component of defining Judaism; unbroken matrilinial parentage. Except, again, for Judaism and Hinduism (those are just the two I know). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>which only goes to show how little you know about Judaism. not only can goyim convert to Judaism, entire nations have. so much for your 'unbroken matrilinial parentage'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazar<BR><BR><BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Christianity and Islam are unusual in that they allow for anyone to convert; most others, <B>I think</B>, are much more selective. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>it's not just that you're so ignorant. it's that you're so proud of it. sigh.

 

[Bicentennial Douche]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OrangeCream:<BR>Perhaps I was being too broad, but my point is sound I think. Religions control their populations, and one way to do so is through sex, reproduction, marriage, and inclusion. Christianity and Islam are unusual in that they allow for anyone to convert; most others, I think, are much more selective. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>They might allow anyone to convert to their religion, but what about converting AWAY from their religion? At least in Islam, that is apostasy and it can earn yo the death-penalty.<BR><BR>Abdul Rahmans case provides quite interesting insights in to this:<BR><BR>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_(convert)<BR><BR>I think the best quote is this:<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ansarullah Mawlafizada also said "the Prophet Muhammad has said several times that those who convert from Islam should be killed if they refuse to come back, Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity. That is why we have told him if he regrets what he did, then we will forgive him". </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Go ahead and read it again. Immerse yourself in to the stupidity of it all.

 

[Paul Hill]

For extra larfs read this story about a Jewish kid converted by a babysitter:<BR>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgardo_Mortara<BR><BR>and this<BR>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_baptism<BR><BR>basically states anyone could stand outside a mosque with a water pistol and turn people Catholic if they wanted.

 

[pebblesonthemountain]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rust|:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pebblesonthemountain:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Paul Hill:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thorpemark:<BR>I have always found it interesting how so many "devout" atheists seem to believe in extra-terrestrial <B>intelligent</B> life. <BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>It's trivial to exchange "super advanced", intelligent, space-faring, alien races with moss and lichen? <BR><BR>You fail at logic.<BR><BR>WTF does one have to do with the other? <B>Lichen</B> growing on some rock somewhere else in the universe is a totally different and much more credible concept than an omnipotent sentient entity creating themselves and then the entire Universe for yucks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Lichen is neither sentient, nor intelligent, nor "super advanced".<BR><BR>You fail at reading. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>This is trivial. If you don't think so, then let us segue seamlessly into Evolution v Creationism! </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>If you believe that moss/lichen and "Super Advanced", intelligent aliens are interchageable, you fail at logic.

 

[Kung Fu Sid]

So I guess no one like first-contact debates....?

 

[siliconaddict]

The only problem I see with this movie is that Keanu Reeves stars in this. However he is playing an emotionless alien so it might just work out.

 

[Deleted member 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pebblesonthemountain:<BR>If you believe that moss/lichen and "Super Advanced", intelligent aliens are interchageable, you fail at logic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I think you don't quite understand the size of the universe and astronomical time scales. The time to get 'super advanced' is inconsequential, considering the duration of human history to this point. Or do you think it's going to take a billion years for any intelligent race to become 'super advanced'?<BR><BR>Edit: Personally, I don't believe in intelligent aliens making contact with us precisely because of the above. As a race we've come (relatively) close to destroying our entire planet (Cold War) and our civilized history isn't even 10000 years old. The fact that civilizations can wink in and out of existence in the blink of an eye (relative to astronomical time scales) coupled with the sheer size of the universe leads me to conclude that thinking about 'intelligent aliens making first contact' during my 100 years (being generous) on the planet is just a waste of time.

 

[Paul Hill]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by If you believe that moss/lichen and "Super Advanced", intelligent aliens are interchageable, you fail at logic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>1) Where's "Super Advanced" coming from? It's not in the original quote. <B>you</B> fail at reading.<BR><BR>2) Why can't lichen be intelligent? I'm not sure what environmental pressures would create intelligent lichen or what form that intelligence would take (perhaps each lichen participates in a group hivemind intelligence, perhaps it has to do thousands of Fourier equations to work out optimal growth strategy for a rock heated by multiple suns and that's all it's good at) but it's interesting you equate alien intelligence as (I imagine) some dude in a toga firing lightning bolts. <B>You</B> fail at logic.

 

[pebblesonthemountain]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rust|:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pebblesonthemountain:<BR>If you believe that moss/lichen and "Super Advanced", intelligent aliens are interchageable, you fail at logic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I think you don't quite understand the size of the universe and astronomical time scales. The time to get 'super advanced' is inconsequential, considering the duration of human history to this point. Or do you think it's going to take a billion years for any intelligent race to become 'super advanced'?<BR><BR>Edit: Personally, I don't believe in intelligent aliens making contact with us precisely because of the above. As a race we've come (relatively) close to destroying our entire planet (Cold War) and our civilized history isn't even 10000 years old. The fact that civilizations can wink in and out of existence in the blink of an eye (relative to astronomical time scales) coupled with the sheer size of the universe leads me to conclude that thinking about 'intelligent aliens making first contact' during my 100 years (being generous) on the planet is just a waste of time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I understand that you interchanged lichen with super advanced aliens. Your argument is a waste of time.

 

[pebblesonthemountain]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Paul Hill:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by If you believe that moss/lichen and "Super Advanced", intelligent aliens are interchageable, you fail at logic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>1) Where's "Super Advanced" coming from? It's not in the original quote. <B>you</B> fail at reading.<BR><BR>2) Why can't lichen be intelligent? I'm not sure what environmental pressures would create intelligent lichen or what form that intelligence would take (perhaps each lichen participates in a group hivemind intelligence, perhaps it has to do thousands of Fourier equations to work out optimal growth strategy for a rock heated by multiple suns and that's all it's good at) but it's interesting you equate alien intelligence as (I imagine) some dude in a toga firing lightning bolts. <B>You</B> fail at logic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>You responded to thorpemark's post: <BR><BR>His post was exactly this: <BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>I have always found it interesting how so many "devout" atheists seem to believe in extra-terrestrial intelligent life. <BR><BR>And many more are willing to entertain the idea of <B>aliens with super advanced alien technology</B>... but not the idea that "god" could exist.<BR><BR>Why can't we get to a point where the non-believers respect believers and vice-versa? And for that matter, detente between vegans and the meat and potato crowd or the jocks and geeks.<BR><BR><BR>And Rekul: "In the history of the world, more wars have been fought and more people have been killed in the name of religion than for any other reason."<BR><BR>That is patently untrue. Stalin, Pol Pot, etc... killed multi-millions in the name of non-religion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Emphasized for Paul Hill. Apparently, reading isn't taught in his part of the world. Curriculum is replaced with "Ignorant Snarkiness" and "Faulty Logic". Perhaps that continues to ensure the frequency of his ridiculously clueless responses.<BR><BR>Face it, Paul Hill, thorpemark made a good point. It is not any more far-fetched to believe in an unproven supreme creator than it is to believe in Klingons from outer-space. He made it very clear by using words like "intelligent" and "super advanced" what he was referring to and you tried to be a snarky jerk by bringing up moss and lichen.<BR><BR>You don't only fail at reading and logic. You just plain fail.

 

[Paul Hill]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by <BR>Emphasized for Paul Hill. Apparently, reading isn't taught in his part of the world. <BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>(sigh) Look at page 1. Look at the quote I responded to:<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>I have always found it interesting how so many "devout" atheists seem to believe in extra-terrestrial intelligent life. <BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>Face it, Paul Hill, thorpemark made a good point. <BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>It wasn't the point I was responding to though, because this "point":<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>And many more are willing to entertain the idea of aliens with super advanced alien technology... but not the idea that "god" could exist.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Is just another strawman. "What if God is a super-intelligent alien? Then you have to beleive in Jesus then!" It's quite bonkers. Even assuming that there is some people out there that are athiest but are cool with the idea of super-intelligent alien toga dude that can make fire out of their fingers or whatever, they still think that super-intelligent alien toga dude has had to have evolved from slime at <B>some</B> point, not (for example) created themselves at the beginning of the Universe. Do you see the difference? Tell me you see the difference.

 

[kaldec]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Among its many small improvements, the new movie added realistic portrayals of women in science and politics, and it incorporated families of mixed race into the mesh of the main storyline. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR><BR>Ugh - can't we leave Political Correctness timestamping of classic media to the Disney supercomputers. <BR><BR>I'd like to think that when someone digs out our movies 200 years from now they can learn more than what we as a society were feeling guilty about that year and what flavor of sex and violence 14 year olds were jerking off to.<BR><BR>And congrats on dressing up what by all other accounts is a real pig of a remake. I'm sure the studios will acknowledge your hard work with more PR dollars.

 

[Rekrul]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OrangeCream:<BR>Maybe he was lonely? Don't you own pets? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Are you suggesting that God, who is portrayed as being perfect, has the same failings as us lowly humans? Careful, that sounds like sacrilege to me.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OrangeCream:<BR>Maybe the process is as important as the end result. Maybe he doesn't want a perfect world because he already has one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>A process is only important if it helps to create the desired result. God wouldn't need to wait through a "process". As for the second part of your comment, are you suggesting that a world plagued with wars, murder, drugs, rape, torture, attempted genocide and all the other things wrong with this world constitutes God's idea of "perfect"? If that's his idea of perfect, he doesn't sound like a very loving God.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OrangeCream:<BR>Even the Bible says it took God seven days to create the universe, so if what he wants is even more complex than the universe then it would take correspondingly more time. He can't create instantly, even if he can create anything. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>In other words, he isn't "all powerful", as religion teaches.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OrangeCream:<BR>Oh, there are other explanations too:<BR>3. God exists and doesn't care that we exist </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Sacrilege, goes against the religious teaching that God is loving.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OrangeCream:<BR>4. God exists and doesn't actually have the time and resources to pay attention to us because he's got other things to do.<BR>5. God created us imperfect because he can't create things as perfect as he is.<BR>6. God is mostly omnipotent, but not totally omnipotent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>All of which contradict the teaching of the christian religions which paint God as being all powerful and that there is nothing he can't do. Which proves my original assertion that God, as described by christian religions, can't exist.

 

[DyDx]

This movie looks absolutely awful.<BR><BR>Maybe my opinion would be different if it didn't star Keanu Reeves. I can't take anything he does seriously.

 

[fteoOpty]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Starruler:<BR>I'm a student at Caltech and I attended this event. All I can say is that it was a farce. The moderator was terrible. She continually asked questions about The Matrix which noticeably pissed off Keanu and the questions that were allowed through the screen were truly retarded.<BR><BR>About the God discussion, that seems like a question that definitely should've been screened out, and when the panelist who answered about being a die-hard materialist and believing that god was made up there was a very awkward silence.<BR><BR>The whole ordeal made me embarrassed to be a student at Caltech. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>This is just a media PR event. Maybe not well planned but just a change to the hardworking CalTech students. Remember, a hollywood star, a director and their crew, in the movie making business that has very little to do with science in most cases but tried to relate to known scientific laws/principles to ensure some realm in the movie. A movie entertainment, no point discussing alien like of religion for that matter.<BR><BR>I am very surprised by this quote "Carroll warns that "aliens might be very judgmental.""<BR>Advanced intelligence <> judgmental<BR><BR>Would you be judgmental over an ant colony ?.

 

[OrangeCream]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rekrul:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OrangeCream:<BR>Maybe he was lonely? Don't you own pets? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Are you suggesting that God, who is portrayed as being perfect, has the same failings as us lowly humans? Careful, that sounds like sacrilege to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Huh? Who said it was a failing? Doesn't the Bible even say we are made in his image?<BR><BR>When has loneliness ever been a failing? It's existence means that we feel love, compassion, and affection.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OrangeCream:<BR>Maybe the process is as important as the end result. Maybe he doesn't want a perfect world because he already has one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>A process is only important if it helps to create the desired result. God wouldn't need to wait through a "process". </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>He might not, but we do. This is about us, our world, and our perfection, not his.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for the second part of your comment, are you suggesting that a world plagued with wars, murder, drugs, rape, torture, attempted genocide and all the other things wrong with this world constitutes God's idea of "perfect"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>No, I think Heaven is his idea of perfect. His world is perfect, our world is not. If our world were perfect, so would we be, and vice versa.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If that's his idea of perfect, he doesn't sound like a very loving God. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I wasn't implying that at all.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OrangeCream:<BR>Even the Bible says it took God seven days to create the universe, so if what he wants is even more complex than the universe then it would take correspondingly more time. He can't create instantly, even if he can create anything. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>In other words, he isn't "all powerful", as religion teaches.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Not at all. All powerful doesn't mean without constraints.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OrangeCream:<BR>Oh, there are other explanations too:<BR>3. God exists and doesn't care that we exist </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Sacrilege, goes against the religious teaching that God is loving. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Not at all. Who ever said it was US he loves?<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OrangeCream:<BR>4. God exists and doesn't actually have the time and resources to pay attention to us because he's got other things to do.<BR>5. God created us imperfect because he can't create things as perfect as he is.<BR>6. God is mostly omnipotent, but not totally omnipotent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>All of which contradict the teaching of the christian religions which paint God as being all powerful and that there is nothing he can't do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Not at all. All powerful, again, doesn't mean instant. As I said, Christians already accept that God has a constraint if it took seven days to create our Universe. He can indeed be all powerful, just not necessarily all at once.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Which proves my original assertion that God, as described by christian religions, can't exist. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Nope, it merely means you make some bad assumptions and use bad logic.<BR><BR>God as described by Christian religions has a time constraint as described by Genesis, and that means all other "failings" you perceive in God can be described by that time constraint.

 

[Milio]

So what movie was this article/caltech panel talking about?<BR><BR>Because the remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still has no commentary on the intersection of science and religion. None. Nada. Zip.<BR><BR>The panel, the Ars article, and this entire discussion have absolutely nothing to do with the movie any more so than if they asked the question of what is the best recipe for chocolate chip cookies.<BR><BR>Which god/not-god knows I could argue about forever!

 

[EricGisin]

This article is all the more inane after friday and I read the reviews on IMDB. All the SciFi fans were trashing it. Only the apocolyptic death-cult ("Humans destroyed Gaia!") enjoyed it, which pretty much sums up liberal Hollywood politics.<BR><BR>I cant' wait for the parodies: 50' Al GORT stomps the evil coal plants and oil&gas wells!

 

[farstar99]

My God, what a piece of dreck!<BR>I can't believe I wasted ten bucks seeing it.<BR><BR>Everyone involved with this project should be ashamed for dishonoring a great film with this shallow, empty retread.

 

[Riot Nrrrdâ„¢]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Staticstarter:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by serversurfer:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Notably, several members of the audience laughed impolitely whenever Reeves spoke… </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Wow. What a bunch of dicks.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Agreed. Proving that even among educated, "intelligent" people, assholes still exist. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>As a former Caltech (note: not "Cal-Tech", not "CalTech") undergrad (a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away), believe me, there's plenty of societally maladjusted kids at the school to go around.<br><br>Of course, <i>I</i> wasn't one of them -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif --<br><br>I had no idea this was happening at my alma mater, as I was out in Hawai'i at the time.<br><br>I probably would've done serious damage to myself if I'd not known about it and the Goddess Herself (a.k.a. Jennifer Connelly) had shown up -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif --