Slashdot Mirror
Star Wars TV Show
The lunatick writes "IESB and Theforce.net report a Star Wars TV show. Lucas will not direct it just produce it. Kevin Smith (Silent Bob, the clerks series) is named as a possible director."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
>Theforce.ner .net? unlike the .ner adress, it works.
shouldn't that be
It's as if it's defining something to simply make a cut at it.
Yes, that was Ambrose Bierce's whole point. Thanks for helping us summarize the Devil's Dictionary so succinctly.
Then you go on to invent two of your own definitions, trying to play Ambrose's game. But he's a little better at it than you, because his definition is inarguably true. I mean, really, exactly what claim in the following might you dispute?
"FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel."
Even the very faithful must concede on each individual point. By contrast, the "definitions" you give are simply false.
"Atheist: A person too stupid to realize the practicality of religion"
False. In fact, many atheists recognize that religion is tremendously practical.
"Atheist: A person living in a constant state of hypocrisy by critisizing religious zeal
False. The majority of atheists are happy to sit back and not stir up a ruckus. And even zealous atheists don't hold a candle to the efforts put in by a hard-core theist.
"FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel."
Even the very faithful must concede on each individual point. By contrast, the "definitions" you give are simply false.
Really? There are very very few faithful that will say they listen to the word of someone without knowledge on the subject. That one section is the one that makes the remark negative. "FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in that which is without parallel." That is a very different tone in that statement.
The majority of atheists are happy to sit back and not stir up a ruckus.
Really? Explain your grandparent's sig. I don't see a lot of god sigs around here.
First, you have no proof God doesn't exist. You claiming God doesn't exist is as much based in faith as claims that God does exist. You claiming that is for the advancement of the species may be based on things such as religion leading to wars and fun things like that, which is an entirely different conversation. I'm not giving you grief for not following "some mythical god," I suppose I am giving you grief for giving people grief about following myth or god.
And now, for your quote in more detail!
Belief without evidence: true, by definition... Ok, that's fine.
in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge,: Hint: the priest is just repeating what's in the book... Really? Maybe you should check out what priests say and what's in the books (Hint: they are different!) And are you going to tell me that priests have no knowledge of belief in God?
What, is there another universe you can point me to? This may be you misunderstanding the quote. God is without parallel because there is nothing that we know of that is anything like it. How does this have anything to do with the Universe?
Furthermore, Deists and Atheists are very similar, except that Deists believe that some supernatural force began the Universe. Oh, and Deists were part of the Enlightenment where as Atheists were part of Modernism (Existentiallism) and post-modernism (Nihilism)
First, you have no proof God doesn't exist
True. I also don't have proof that fluffy pink bunnies don't dance on my head in my sleep. Nor do I have any evidence that they do. So, should I believe in them? You can't "prove" a negative anyway.
(Hint: they are different!)
Interestingly, the priests don't all read the book the same way, either. One would hope that an all-powerful god could write a more clear instruction manual.
How does this have anything to do with the Universe?
The universe was created by a god, presumably... many would argue that a Creator (big "C") and his Creation are closely related or the same. If we're not talking about the universe (or existence, or the "IS" or whatever) then what are we talking about?
except that Deists believe that some supernatural force
OK... and I'm a christian except for the fact that I don't believe in jesus christ... You can't "except" the defining characteristic and expect your logic to hold water.
I suppose I am giving you grief for giving people grief about following myth or god. That's fine. When evidence for god (or fluffy head bunnies) presents itself, you can all laugh at me. Until then, I'm going to stick to a more rational view of the universe.
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
First, you have no proof God doesn't exist.
That's not what "atheist" means. Theists believe god(s) exist. Atheists, by definition, don't- but that doesn't mean they believe gods don't exist!
For example, do you think I'm taller than you? If you don't think so, does that necessarily mean you think I'm shorter? No, you could have no knowledge at all.
How does this have anything to do with the Universe?
If, hypothetically, we were aware of events in other universes, then we'd have a parallel to compare Biblical Creation with.
Depends of what you mean by "God". The "problem of evil" is adequate counterexample to the idea of a god that is omnipotent and perfectly good.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood