Finding Nemo?? Madagascar?? RATATOUILLE???

Being made with a computer doesn't make a movie sci-fi, you clowns. "Science fiction" is not a catch-all genre, and should stop being treated like one by this desperate network/magazine.

21st century Bond films are not science fiction. Is Die Hard sci-fi? Is Borne sci-fi? No...

Um -- you read the article, right?

Starting with the title:
"The decade's top films: They're all here, and they're mostly sci-fi..."

The article is about the top grossing films of the decade. Nobody said Finding Nemo was sci-fi. The only place that little tidbit appears is... well, in your post.

Better put on the floppy shoes and the red nose, pal.

While I liked most of them, I'd really classify all the top 15 films as fantasy. SW-3/Sith would be the first one that you can call Science Fiction.

Apparently you didn't read the article "Platypus" as it states that "only two" of these films are not sci-fi/fantasy and those are "Mamma Mia" and "Meet the Fockers." So all of the other 48, according to this article, ARE sci-fi or fantasy. If fish, turtles, and birds all communicating to each other in english isn't fantasy, i don't know what is, unless you've seen such a thing.

I don't know how Casino Royale could be science fiction. The thing that made it great was that it was based in reality unluck the previous Bond films.

The list is total BS!! Also, not official in my book. Star Trek (although only grossed $384,953,671 world wide) would be in my top 15 of all time.

I think it's a matter of what we consider "fantasy" films. This article clearly relies on a VERY broad definition.

I don't think of The Simpsons as a fantasy/science fiction/supernatural movie. But I do consider it pure fantasy that three men could possibly want to sleep with Meryl Streep.

Next time, try using a list in the industry instead of Wikipedia. While Wiki tries to be a "know all" site, it's not. There are box office sites that may or may not validate the above information and are more creditable as a source in the industry.

@Nightmoon

Seeing as you didn't click the article, you wouldn't know that the source for the numbers is boxofficemojo.com

Oh, top *grossing* films. So, not the top, then.

Because that list would surely include Timecrimes, Primer, Moon, Sleep Dealer and District 9, just to name a few of the last few years..

Making money is nice and all, but high quality scifi is rarely big budget.

What's with all the hate? so they checked Wikipedia? So what? So do most people? Did they try to claim it was the definitive list list? No, they didn't. All they said was check out this list on Wikipedia. Even if people can find other lists that might in minor points disagree, the main point that almost everything on the list is either science fiction or fantasy. Even with a fairly narrow definiton of SF/fantasy, only 5 movies on the list fall outside SF&F. That is pretty amazing and says a lot about the popularity of the genres. That is ll they were trying to say. Chill (wait, I shouldn't say that, most people here are pretty cold to begin with).

Something I've been wondering about for a long time, since SF/F films do so well at the box office, why can't SF/F television shows attract larger audiences?

I'm not a fan, but shouldn't twilight be on the list?

Twilight only made $383 million worldwide, far less than the rest of these.

um...If talking animals doesn't qualify as fantasy, then I've missed something.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone?

Interesting article, and I'm very happy to see most of the list are among my personal favorite films too.

Now, to the very difficult question of defining some things such as Science Fiction and Fantasy, for example.

Fantasy seems the most vague of the two. I don't understand how things such as Lord of the Rings (all parts), Pirates of the Caribbean (all parts), Shreck (all parts), Ice Age (all parts), Ratatouille? (a cute animated film), The Passion of the Christ (a very blunt R.C. interpretation of the Passion), any Bond films, or The SIMPSONS could be considered either Science Fiction or Fantasy. All are great films mind you, but I don't see the classification clearly. Perhaps I'm missing something and some of the folks out there "in the know" can help me out.

After all, I am an Old Man in Ohio.

I agree with others who noted no Star Trek film included in the list. Hmmm...perhaps the list makers are going on $$$$ alone. They must be related to the TV Network Morons who kill off great shows such as CRUSADE (Babylon 5 spin-off), DEFYING GRAVITY, and another of my personal favorites, JERICHO.
Then again, they are the $$$ people and the rest of us are nothing.

P.S. CAPTCHA REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY...Smells bad and doesn't work!

What was the article about again? I haven't got past the picture of Aragorn...*drool*

Wait wait wait, OldManInOhio, you don't see how 1. elves, dwarves and magic. 2. undead pirates and sea monsters. 3. Ogres and talking donkeys 4. Talking mamoths and dinosaurs. 5. a gourmet rat. 6. the son of god. 7.super gadgets. 8. Spider-pig and a giant town enclosing dome, are sci-fi or fantasy? I can kind of see some of them like the first ice age or passion of the christ but Lord of the Rings?

"But I do consider it pure fantasy that three men could possibly want to sleep with Meryl Streep."

A So Cal Guy... And we have a winner... That is the funniest comment of the year...

I have a hard time counting animated movies (or any movies) that are merely anthropomorphizing normal animals as fantasy. If that is the only supernatural aspect of the story, it doesn't count to me.

Just to name a few
Kung Fu Panda, Ratatouille, Ice Age: Meltdown, Madagascar, and Madagascar 2. (Also, why is the Simpsons fantasy? A glass bubble?)

Also, Quantum of Solace, Casino Royale, MI2... how are these SF/fantasy? (Even MI2 being based around a made-up virus... it's not like I Am Legend).

Finally, while I'm as much a non-Christian, anti-religion, Atheist as the next guy... are we really counting The Passion as a fantasy movie?

Lord of the Rings not fantasy? Can someone please tell me where I can catch a bus to Middle Earth?

All of the animated films are not Sci-fi but rather fantasy.. duh.. unless they are sci-fi like Wall-E.

And..

Lord of the Rings is the very definition of Fantasy as is the Bible, so Passion of the Christ certainly falls in this category.

Sci-fi? Oh I get it. This is the Syfy version. It's 'iffy', ya know? But that's all fantasy in my book. Thanks for putting back a few centuries.

Cheer scifi!

For those out there without any understanding of Sci-Fi, let me explain what it really means. It is anything that would be considered outside of normal. This means talking animals (animation), biological diseases, (MI2), and anything fantasy is scifi. You want to complain, try yelling about Da Vinci Code, (fiction - not fantasy or scifi) and james bond (fiction again) should not be considered sci fi. Advanced technology can be considered, but only to a point, because what is possible and real is always changing. For example, GI Joe is scifi now, but in twenty years, who knows, but talking animals, magic and unworldly creatures will forever remain sci-fi. And as a note, SYFY, try looking up names because it's Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

mdoz34, the mere presence of science fiction elements in a film doesn't make that film a science fiction film.

A film with one car chase doesn't make it a car chase film. A film with one fist fight isn't a martial arts film. A film with one shootout isn't an action film. A film with a nude scene isn't a porno.

It is surely the prominence of those elements and how they relate to the core story that determines a film's genre, not their mere presence. The films you cite have elements of science fiction in them, but they are hardly science fiction.

If they are, then Antichrist is a porno! But to accept that is to fundamentally misunderstand and misrepresent that film, as indeed it is when pigeonholing any other film into a broad genre based on largely inconsequential elements relative to the full scope of the film.

And, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is the UK title. It may be paid for with American money, but it's very much an English film. The UK title is the real title. Perhaps you are the one who should be researching names.

Thanks, QDonQ! Just trying to lighten the mood. :-) So much self-righteous misspelling and bad grammar!

But when has a true totally sci-fi Film won an oscar for best actor or actress, and i mean sci-fi not fantasy like The Lord of the Rings or Pirates of the Caribbean
all we win is stuff like best speical effects or music score the closest that sci-fi has gotten is 1931–1932 Fredric March - Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde as Dr. Henry L. Jekyll / Mr. Hyde.

Sci-fi has never been taken seriously by Hollywood, well only when it comes to money. even then its like pulling teeth to see a good Sci-fi movie.
But i hope this show times are a changing

So Sci-Fi Wire are trawling through Wikipedia now to find stories to make articles out of?

Scraping the barrel much?

Lords of the rings is not sci-fi its fantasy and the two are not the same. Sci-fi deals with the fictional aspects of technology and the worlds that they create like the Matrix and Starwars. Fantasy deals with magic, the supernatural, and in general stays away from high tech themes. On occasion the two can overlap but they usually lean more towards one genre.
This article proves that those people running SYFY have no clue what real science fiction is and just want to generalize the term. Maybe we are all a bunch of nerds complaining over nomenclature but I hate ignorance.
For those of you who don't believe me on this go look up sci-fi and fantasy in the dictionary.

Now we know what the public likes, how many Oscar Nominations for Other than special effects?

Ha,ha, SyFy just referred to Christianity as Fantasy!

I have to agree with a lot of the posters that a lot of the films supposedly included in the catch all are on very dubious ground. While Lord of the Rings is clearly fantasy (I can only assume the poster made a mistype on that one), I don't include animated movies with talking animals (or dinosaurs) as fantasy - they are childrens films, and that is a conceit of such, and as the subject matter of the story was neither fantasy or science fiction (and I don't count a flying saucer in the ice in Ice Age 2 as sufficient), these are not included. Similarly, the recent Bond films should not be counted, unless by association, taking the Bond franchise as an overall, as many previous films had elements.

So, without counting, that takes us down to about forty or so - that's still 80%, which is a pretty good representation.

BUT -

It's only for the last ten years. Were this to be an all time list, in adjusted takes, the picture would be a lot different - Titanic and Gone With The Wind and Sound Of Music and whatever else would appear. Admittedly, so would Star Wars, but the ratio would drop significantly.

What does this tell us? Not that scifi/fantasy is a defining force in modern cinema, but that we live in a modern age, and our media reflects that. That the films these days that studios spend most money promoting are the ones they have spent the most money making, which tend to be the big action films and disaster films, which often have a scifi element.

I doubt anyone could look at this list and say anything other than it reflects modern movie marketing and the way this affects viewer trends, and that it certainly does not represent a guide to quality, and most certainly does not represent the best in science fiction.

You've all overlooked one of the most important features of this list. It only contains 9 films that were neither sequels nor adaptations from another work. Seven of those nine are animated. That means that those of us who are sick to death of remakes and sequels can expect much more of the same.

Since I'm sure people will complain if I don't do the work for them, here's the list of new stories that did well at the box office this decade:

15- Finding Nemo, 30-Kung Fu Panda, 31-The Incredibles, 32-Hancock, 33-Ratatouille, 45-The Day After Tomorrow, 46-Madagascar, 48-Monsters Inc., 49-WALL-E

To wickednick and the others who are carping on Syfy because of an overbroad use of the term, please note that they never tried to claim that 48/50 were all science fiction. They very clearly state science fiction/fantasy/supernatural. They are not trying to say they are the same thing. If they were, they would have simply said science fiction.
What they are saying is that genre films like these that go beyond the normal world we all live in are very popular.

And no, fantasy is NOT a subset of science fiction. They are distinctly different even if many people don't see the difference. Science fiction does not have to deal with technology, although it normally does, but it does have to deal with science in some manner (thus the term 'science" fiction). If it deals with things that require the laws of physics to be completely changed (beyond the standard SF tropes that are currently thought to be impossible by today's physics), it is science fiction. It is fantasy if it makes up its own natural laws (i.e. magic). Science fiction tries to remain in the realm of possibility if only by the thinnest of veils. Fantasy only strives to remain internally consistent (and often fails at that, just like any other story of any genre).
They can overlap, As pointed out, a blaster does not a science fiction story make, nor does a ghost a horror story make. One can have science fantasy.
May I suggest people remember Venn diagrams. My kids find them very helpful in making distinctions like this. If my three year old can do it, so can everyone here (I sincerely hope).

Thanks, Leroy, for painting a picture even more bleak than my observation. Why not just put the whole lot in a movie blender and see if the kids will lap it up with their sugary drinks and popcorn?

I don't have a problem with adaptations of books, provided they are done well, but with so many great books out there, why the constant need to remake the same few over and over?

Sticking with the scifi topic, I know that even with modern technology, there would still be huge logistical problems in transferring the work of Iain M Banks or Alastair Reynolds to the screen, because so much is non linear (Banks himself said at the Edinburgh launch party of his last novel, Transition, that he thought of all the Culture novels, Consider Phlebas would be the most feasible simply because it is a straight narrative adventure story), but there has to be something out there, surely.

I've said before, though maybe not on these pages, that often the reason a film is so successful is simply because it is different and individual, yet any time it happens, a dozen studio leap on the bandwagon and produce clones, which totally fail to work.

I'm reminded of Cecil B Demented - "You just greenlit another movie adaptation of a videogame!" "What can I do? I'm only vice president in charge of creativity!"

Finding Nemo, Madagasgar, and Ratatoulie are, however, FANTASY films, because animals don't talk in real life. Meaning these 3 films do fit the criteria mentioned by the editors.

So The Passion of the Christ isn't an historical film? Christianity is nothing more than a lie to the people who put out SciFiWire? How bloody offensive can you do^che bags be? Maybe next you'll insult Muslims. No wait, you're way too PC to do that. Cowards!

All religions are lies. There is no creator, there is no afterlife, there is no eternal heavenly reward, and anyone who tells you different is selling you something or wants your obedience. All there is is the here and now, so stop living in a fairy tale and get on with doing something more productive to make the world a better place today, otherwise there will be no tomorrow.

And don't accuse me of being anti-Christian. I'm not. I'm atheist. Anything that is based on illogical, unfounded, unprovable wish fulfillment instead of repeatable, evidence based observation is superstition, and should be treated as such.

@Clay

I'll give you RATATOUILLE, but animation where the humans in the story don't understand what the animals are communicating to each other while it is translated for the audience into said audiences's native tongue doesn't make the cut for fantasy in my book.

If you are going to be that loose then all movies are fantasies because it is a total fiction that those flickering images on the screen appear to be "real" objects and beings - they aren't; they are just flickering streams of light that fool the audience's visual systems into perceiving them as having substance.

Yes, Christianity is pure fantasy. There is no historical evidence that Yeshua ben Yosef was a real person. The official gospels were chosen, censored, and carefully rewritten by the Council of Nicea at the direction of Emperor Constantine and his advisor Eusebius to turn Christianity into the perfect religion for keeping the slaves in their place with a nice story about heavenly rewards for being obedient little believers during life. I'm sorry you find the truth offensive.

"By ObeyMyBrain at 8:48 PM ON 11/16/09

Wait wait wait, OldManInOhio, you don't see how 1. elves, dwarves and magic. 2. undead pirates and sea monsters. 3. Ogres and talking donkeys 4. Talking mamoths and dinosaurs. 5. a gourmet rat. 6. the son of god. 7.super gadgets. 8. Spider-pig and a giant town enclosing dome, are sci-fi or fantasy?"

Hmmm...I don't really see any of those very good films in the Science Fiction genre. Fantasy is a bit more difficult to define, don't you think?

Lord of the Rings isn't either - IT'S LITERATURE made into film.

Pirates - all of them - Wonderful entertainment, but Fantasy? I don't see that one. For me Fantasy is more like "The Dark Crystal".

Please undersand, I'm not trying to insult you in any way, but you lost me with: "7.super gadgets. 8. Spider-pig and a giant town enclosing dome."

7. Supergadgets? 8. Spider-pig? Please re-define for my tired old head.

Remember, I very much enjoy almost every film on the list.

M.

P.S. Did I happen to mention how much I really hate CAPTCHA?

@Pixel - atheism is a religion, btw, lmao. Funny how atheists like you think your opinions are facts. You are welcome to believe whatever you want to believe and judging by your comments it reveals that you have chosen to believe in unscientific illogical fantasies.

You wrote, "Anything that is based on illogical, unfounded, unprovable wish fulfillment instead of repeatable, evidence based observation is superstition, and should be treated as such." You just defined atheism. Here's what we know about the cosmos: it is finite (the universe is expanding) and temporal. Here's what repeatable, evidence-based scientific observation tells us about all finite and temporal effects - they must be caused. And since any argument which says that the First Cause of a finite/temporal effect is also temporal or finite violates the scientific Law of Infinite Regress then we can logically know that the First Cause must be both eternal and infinite.

Regardless, your points are moot. The only question at hand is whether SciFiWire really wants to call a historical film based on Jesus' last few days a work of fantasy, thus insulting a majority of the world's population. If that's their stand then they have taken sides on an issue they should never be touching with a ten foot pole. And to take such a stand is so idiotic it boggles the mind but I guess it goes to show why so much of the shows on Syfy are pure mindless sophomoric garbage.

@Leroy - I am having a hard time figuring out if your are being serious or satirical. The fact that you wrote "There is no historical evidence that Yeshua ben Yosef was a real person" is so funny I literally laughed out loud. How do you know that is his name? lmao And you do realize that we have New Testament writings that predate the Council of Nicea? Also Christianity condemns the institution of slavery so your last argument is just as laughable, which again makes me wonder if you were joking.

So please settle my curiousity - were you joking or are you just an intellectual joke?

I'm just glad the SCIFIWIRE staff finally found a way to put this year's STAR TREK box office in its proper perspective.

Pixel,

Wonderfully stated! You are my hero.

AngryJonny - thanks, dude!

McTex - read your post several times, even had a sleep on it, trying to make sense of it. I'm not sure if the argument of finite & temporal vs infinite & eternal was better stated in your mind, and it just hasn't transferred well to the page, but while I can't claim to be an expert on cosmology, having only read two or three books (my background is biochemistry, not physics), it does strike me as Something Made Up because you don't have a real argument. Maybe science at this time cannot explain the origin of the universe, but to fill that gap in knowledge with a conscious, directed "creator" who monitors and rewards our actions is delusional. It speaks of an entirely human need for meaning, for comfort in our lives. I understand that, and I feel it myself, but I seek validation by trying to live a good life, not by spreading falsehoods and false hope to those who are vulnerable in mind.

You are also wrong when you state that atheism is a religion. It is not - a religion is a set of governing beliefs that are passed down, a set of rules and rewards and punishements and stories to illustrate the points, on the whole unchanged, or at best adapted as society changes. Examples of this would be that, despite the urging of scripture, most cultures, but not all, now frown on the act of stoning homosexuals, for which I am personally grateful.

Atheism is an approach to the world that is based on observation of evidence. I'm not a personal fan of Richard Dawkins, but unfortunately it is apt to paraphrase him at this point - all the evidence strongly indicates that there is no such being as "god," in whatever form your personal bias leads you to picture him, but if such evidence were presented, we would adapt our worldview to encompass such. But - and I'm much happier quoting Carl Sagan - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and so far no such evidence exists.

It is not religion that has created the modern world - it is science (and, unfortunately, in many ways, warfare). It has brought us global communication, such as this internet page, and modern medicine, and telecommunications, and air travel, and archaeology and carbon dating, and the powerful computers that have created most of the films that spurred this thread in the first place. Because yes, science also gave us science fiction, flights of imagination and possibility, but it is important that they are recognised as such, taken as inspiration or as cautionary tales, but not as fact. This is the same way religion should be viewed - moral tales to illustrate a point, but not a literal retelling of documented history. The world was not created in seven days, it is not only a few thousand years old, we are not the centre of the universe. As time goes on, more and more falsehoods are seen to be such, and it is only the scared and the willfully ignorant who cling to outdated ideas for fear of facing change and thier own impermanence.

Unfortunately, far from being a quaint throwback that doesn't affect us, religion is used in the modern world to affect government policy with orchestrated campaigns of disinformation. And I'm not talking of extreme Islam - I'm talking about the American Family Association, who only this week ran a podcast denouncing global warming as a fiction created to raise taxes, stifle American industry, and remove individual freedom. Never thought I would quote Janet Jackson in a post in scifiwire, but "We are in a race between education and catastrophe." Only by moving forward past superstition into an age of enlightenment can we hope to survive this century. We are in a far worse state than is generally recognised or admitted, and now is the time to wake up to it.

@Pixel

Well you should read it again then instead of grasping at straws for why you are incapable of understanding it. And please, put aside your assumption that you are smarter than everyone else. You are not. In fact you are a modern sophist who excels in holding contradictory ideas without knowing it. I love it when pseudo-intellectuals, such as you, force themselves to believe that an idea must be ‘something made up’ instead of wrestling with difficult notions that may negate your precious faith.

And yes you are an atheist by faith which makes it your religion. You have no objective empirical or even forensic evidence that validates your atheistic faith. And the reason atheism is a religion for you (which by your own definition makes it a lie) is because it answers all of the 'x' questions (why, what for, when, how, etc) about the reason for or meaning of life in a manner that requires nothing but your faith. Furthermore, your definition of religion is not the full or only definition. A religion need not have any rules (such as Christianity) or any behavior-based rewards (also see Christianity). For example, in Christianity salvation is a gift and God elects those, based not on their worldly deeds, who will be the recipient of said gift. So, by your definition, Christianity is not a religion yet I would bet money that you would never go there… lol

The one thing we clearly know is that atheism is NOT an approach to the cosmos that is based on observation of the evidence, as you, an atheist, have clearly proven. And Dawkins has made a career out of proving that fact. Atheists spend their lives looking for excuses. I presented to you two obvious natural examples for why any commonsensical non-depraved human would conclude that the First Cause of nature is Supernatural. How did you respond to said evidence? You didn’t. You ignored it and went on to rant about your leftist mantra which included gay rights, global warming and other left-wing doctrines. Yes, 'doctrines' because they are core beliefs in your atheistic religion, which you obviously dogmatically observe.

Of course it is now evident why you have chosen atheism as your faith d’jour: you need something to justify your homosexuality. Odd that you didn’t realize how quick you were to reveal that mere emotion, not empiricality or evidence or knowledge, led you to your faith in atheism. But you are hardly unique – most atheists are running from some innate guilt or anger at their Creator.

Science did not create the modern world. Science is nothing more than the pursuit of knowledge. The modern world exists because we, in the West, are free to individually pursue knowledge in a way that conforms to no man’s rules and demands. Liberty of the soul led to such progress and the role of the religious (Christians) who helped usher in this unique era in individual freedoms cannot be denied. It is human beings who have created the modern world and MOST were devout religious people. If you enjoy reading whatever you want to read and not what some authority tells you that you can read then thank Martin Luther. If you enjoy studying the big bang theory then thank the Catholic Priest who originated that theory. The list of examples is endless. So yes, you can thank all those devout religious thinkers for the sacrifices they made that now gives you the luxuries you so callously take for granted.

Lastly, you write that you understand and feel the need to find meaning and that you seek validation by trying to live a good life, not by spreading falsehoods and false hope to those who are vulnerable in mind. Yet the sad truth is that you do spend your time spreading falsehoods and false hope to the most vulnerable. As I have shown, your atheism is not in the least empirical. You hold on to your faith because you want to believe it is true. When presented with contradictory evidence you shun it and attack the messenger. You are very much like the theocrats who refused to look in Galileo’s telescope. If you were honest you would admit the faith-nature of your beliefs. But you are not honest which means you are not good.

And why would you, an atheist, come here promoting the concept of goodness? According to your faith system, goodness and evil do not and cannot exist. They are mere man-made conventions which sometimes lead to certain societal outcomes. But in no way, shape or form do they exist in and of themselves. ‘They are tools used by the strong to control the weak. There is no objective right way that is universally true’ (according to atheism). Yet here you are validating your existence with claims of goodness. How funny. I can't wait to read how you will now justify this blaring contradiction.

If life now exists then life has always existed. If something now exists then something has always existed. Nothing can come from nothing.

McTex, sorry dude but you sound like a raving lunatic who goes on and on but says nothing. I go to church semi regularly but I think Pixel has got you beat, dude.

I'll take some time to digest this before responding. Once I've stopped laughing, that is.

I'm just so delighted at the epiphany that I've been so graciously given, that I'm atheist because I'm angry at god.

Still, I got called depraved as well. That's a new one for me - don't think I've ever been called depraved before. Well, not for a while, anyway.

Just a few quick points, though, if you could clarify, McTex - "And the reason atheism is a religion for you (which by your own definition makes it a lie) is because it answers all of the 'x' questions (why, what for, when, how, etc) about the reason for or meaning of life in a manner that requires nothing but your faith."

I don't remember saying that atheism supplied answers about the meaning of life. I think I said quite the opposite, that any meaning we put on life we have to put there ourselves, which is why it is important to live decent, honest, caring, generous lives. From a biological point of view, we are nothing more than organisms fighting for resources to reproduce and (sometimes) support our young. I choose to live a life better than that, but I do it in the knowledge that the universe is heedless of my actions, and my death will go unmarked. I do it because it is, to me, the right thing to do. There is no atheist dogma or doctrine that compels me to do so, because atheism does not speak to these questions.

Secondly - "A religion need not have any rules (such as Christianity) or any behavior-based rewards (also see Christianity). For example, in Christianity salvation is a gift and God elects those, based not on their worldly deeds, who will be the recipient of said gift."

So, Christianity offers no rewards to its followers, except for the rewards it offers? I'm having trouble understanding the nuance here, so could you clarify, because it sounds to me like you just contradicted yourself. All things considered, I should be able to grasp that, since I'm "a modern sophist who excels in holding contradictory ideas without knowing it."

Next - "The one thing we clearly know is that atheism is NOT an approach to the cosmos that is based on observation of the evidence." Well, no, we don't look through telescopes and see the stars forming the letters "There is no god here." But nor do we see god. What we do see are distant galaxies in an ever expanding universe and cosmic microwave background radiation that is entirely consistent with big bang inflationary theory. We see nothing to suggest that we are unique or special in the universe, that we are a favoured species. Our entire ecosystem could collapse in the next century, we could go the way of the dinosaurs. You may have heard of them - they were a dominant life form on this planet several million years ago. That was before the Bible was written, and in fact before the Bible says this planet even existed. We know of them from a thing called the fossil record. We can date the fossils by a technique called carbon dating. We can trace those that were successful and have modern descendants, and those that were wiped out by a branch of science known as evolutionary biology.

Together, these things are what we call evidence. The evidence is not the providence of one select group of people who jealously guard it should it be shown to be false. It is all over the world, open to view, so all may share in the knowledge. It is in museums and books and schools and universities, so all may participate in the wonderful process of free thinking. If you have an alternative theory that matches all the evidence I have mentioned above, I am sure the scientific community will be eager to hear it.

I'll tackle the next one briefly - "According to your faith system, goodness and evil do not and cannot exist." When did I say that? While you tend to declare yourself in absolutes, and I tend to take a more measured view of humanity, and would have said "bad," for evil requires a higher authority to be measured against, I still can't see where this comes from. If you wish to bring new topics to the case, be my guest, but don't be telling me off for something I didn't say. Or is there an Atheist Manifesto that I don't know about, like the American Family Association are always telling us about the Gay Agenda. Seriously, I'm still waiting for my copy of that.

Which, in a circuitous way, brings me to my final point for tonight, for it is late here in Britain - "You ignored it and went on to rant about your leftist mantra which included gay rights, global warming and other left-wing doctrines. Yes, 'doctrines' because they are core beliefs in your atheistic religion, which you obviously dogmatically observe." Hate to break it to you, but I didn't rant about gay rights and global warming is not left wing, and neither am I. It is in fact front and centre politics, the most important topic of our time. It is real and it is happening. The ice caps are breaking up, the sea is rising. Ask the villagers in Thailand, who have moved their villages four times, as the sea now covers where they once stood, or the islanders of Kiribati, who are in the process of permanent relocation to Australia and New Zealand, for soon their home will no longer exist. Again, this is evidence that the world is changing. It has happened before, in the six great extinctions shown in the fossil record, and the planet was indifferent to all those species wiped out. Did the dinosaurs have the sentience to believe in a mystical entity that would save them from catastrophe? If so, he, she or it failed to come through for them. If it happens again, our species will be gone, or at least existing on a totally different level to what we have now. Do you have enough faith in the supernatural to say that you won't take action against climate change? Or did you enjoy the story of the Biblical flood so much that you wish to see it recreated in modern times?

@McTex I think that you will find that religion is generally taken as a belief in a "creator" or "higher power" which by definition atheism does not believe in. Yes there is some faith in being an atheist, but far less than believing in a religion that requires you to pray or be subservient to some invisible being.

What is the point of MLK? He has had no effect on Pixel's life or mine most probably. As you seem to have missed the point that this is the World Wide Web and neither of us are from the US and therefore the changes he help introduce there would not impact us.

There is empirical evidence to the age of the Earth that disagrees with what many religious texts say and the experiments can be repeated to provided this data time and again. Though I have yet to see an experiment, even once, prove a religious text correct.

To quote you "If something now exists then something has always existed. Nothing can come from nothing. " How literal are you taking this? As there are more people alive now than ever and they have obviously came from somewhere! Six billion and counting!

Just because a lot of the science has been done by people with a religious belief that does not mean god exists, as which god takes the credit when people of multiple faiths have worked on something? CERN for example? Which god created that? Likewise a lot of modern discoveries have been by Scottish people, especially when you consider the size of the country, but that does not mean all scientific discovery is Scottish!

TBH you come across as a homophobic religious zealot who needs to word their arguments better, I think you either have some funky typo's or are speaking a different language in places!

But back on topic!!!!!

That list is very vague I think I would have to take out a few more, but I think the point they re trying to make is that in recent times a lot of the larger grossing movies have been of a SciFi/Fantasy nature which in general I don't think you can argue with, the exact number yes, the general idea no.

@Pixel:

Gay Agenda.

Its like the Straight Times only it dresses better and goes into the changing room with all the girls!! Damn it!!

Damn McTex you wiped the floor with Pixel never seen such an @ss whippin wow cant wait to read more
@Wayne youre an idiot

@Pixel

I highly doubt your emotion-based issues with God were an epiphany. I know you consider yourself an honest and good person so it’s possible that you are deceiving even yourself. But I am sure there is an expensive couch you can receive counseling from to help explore your emotional issues so that you don’t burden others. And don’t worry about the depravity – all you have to do is remind yourself that as an atheist you don’t believe in morality anyways.

As for your faulty memory, of course atheism supplies you with an answer on the meaning of life and that answer, which you take much comfort in embracing, is that there is no meaning to life. Sure you enjoy playing your sophist games and pretending that “it is important to live decent, honest, caring, generous lives” but like I said you excel in holding contradictory beliefs.

I have observed that you are a very faithful atheist, religiously so. With great devotion you profess and proselytize your doctrines: “I choose to live a life better than that, but I do it in the knowledge that the universe is heedless of my actions, and my death will go unmarked. I do it because it is, to me, the right thing to do. There is no atheist dogma or doctrine that compels me to do so, because atheism does not speak to these questions.”

It’s really funny how you, once again, fail to see the blaring contradictions. You do not possess THE KNOWLEDGE that the universe is heedless of your actions or THE KNOWLEDGE that your death will go unmarked. You merely take it on faith that this is the case and your faith is not bolstered by ANY rational or empirical evidence.

In fact, for atheism to be true you would have to know ALL knowledge that exists. For you to conclude that atheism is true while simultaneously admitting that you are hardly omniscient reveals an arrogance (or possibly a stupidity) that is truly remarkable in this day and age. How do you reconcile your ignorance and condition (imperfect knowledge) with your absolutist beliefs?

You asked, “So, Christianity offers no rewards to its followers, except for the rewards it offers? I'm having trouble understanding the nuance here, so could you clarify, because it sounds to me like you just contradicted yourself.”

First off reread what I wrote. I stated that “A religion need not have any rules (such as Christianity) or any behavior-based rewards (also see Christianity).” In the religion of Christianity one is not rewarded for their behavior (works). Clearly you were taking about behavior-based rewards, were you not?

Next – you are telling me that you think it is wise or intelligent to argue that atheists reject a Creator because you don’t see him when you look at the creation? Wow. That’s like an orphan saying that he rejects the idea that he must have real parents because he has never seen them. The absurdity in your comments is both hilarious and troubling – troubling because it is remarkable that educated people are so uncritical that they have never questioned their own irrationality. Seriously now, why would an intelligent person look for God in a telescope?

Being the brilliant scientist that you are, let me spend a few moments correcting your numerous errors. Yes we do see distant galaxies in an ever expanding universe and we do detect cosmic background radiation but it is NOT entirely consistent with big bang inflationary theory. The expansion is increasing exponentially – not slowing down as was expected. Furthermore, said expansion reveals the finite nature of nature – something your side refuses to deal with (as you have previously shown). Moreover, we do NOT see other sentient lifeforms so you are wrong when you say that there is nothing to suggest we are unique or special. And then you go from arguing about what science can know about the cosmos to what you (erroneously) think you read in a holy book. Nice strawman. So you aren’t truly interested in what science says about the First Cause of nature – you just enjoy mocking people who find truth in Scripture. What do you do with someone like Plato? Maybe you’ve heard of him? He lived before the New Testament was written. I guess you must now argue that Plato also never existed, lol

Alas, you then jump to your conclusion as if you made any real valid evidentiary points: “Together, these things are what we call evidence.” What? Dinosaurs, fossil records, galaxies? This is your universal objective evidence that there absolutely is no God? But you are right, it is evidence – evidence that we live in a finite and temporal existence which is, in and of itself, evidence for a Creator since nothing can come from nothing.

Next – you asked, “When did I say that? While you tend to declare yourself in absolutes, and I tend to take a more measured view of humanity, and would have said "bad," for evil requires a higher authority to be measured against, I still can't see where this comes from.”

Wow. Are you now saying that good and evil absolutely exist? Clearly you are confused. Atheism fully rejects the concepts of goodness or evil. Or are you now embracing additional contradictory ideas which you can simultaneously hold?

And though there are some absolutes that I wholeheartedly embrace I don’t come close to being as much of an absolutist as you are as you have determined that you know everything pertinent to science regarding the origins of the cosmos and also determined that humans are “nothing more than organisms fighting for resources to reproduce and (sometimes) support our young”. What comfort you must take in your absolutes.

Lastly – I hate to break it to you but I am in politics, have worked as a pollster and work for the most respected bipartisan environmental NGO on the planet and global warming scaremongering absolutism is clearly the domain of the left. It is not the most important issue of our time (as an atheist how can any issue really be important?) and it is not currently happening. In the last 10 years the earth has not gotten warmer but has cooled. All of the ice caps are not melting and the sea is not rising everywhere. Yes there is massive evidence that the earth is changing because most with brains knows that our ecosystem is not static. Is mankind contributing to a warming planet that could eventually lead to a human catastrophe? Possibly – it is impossible to know for certain. Do you have any knowledge or evidence that would lead you to be absolutely certain in your paranoid quasi-religious fanatical the sky is falling doomsday forecasts? No you absolutely do not. I guess that again I have proven who is the more nuanced.

Confirming my previous estimate of you, your diatribe about global warming reveals how doctrinaire you really are and how important this leftwing canon is to your religion.

And when the end comes (and it will come as both science and theology teaches us) then I put my fate in God’s hands. And you, with gnashing of teeth, can blame carbon, lol.

@ planetbob99

Yes I understand what the general definition of religion is. I also see that you understood my point. But where you are most certainly wrong is in believing that there is only ‘some’ faith in being an atheist. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there is No God. So an atheist embraces that worldview solely through faith. Whereas, there is a plethora of scientific evidence for a Creator.

Boy you really embarrassed yourself. You wrote, “What is the point of MLK? He has had no effect on Pixel's life or mine most probably. As you seem to have missed the point that this is the World Wide Web and neither of us are from the US and therefore the changes he help introduce there would not impact us. “

Well I never mentioned MLK. I mentioned a German man who lived about 400 years ago named Martin Luther. I have to hope that you’ve heard of him, especially with that little American invention called the World Wide Web? Lol But I do want to thank you for providing an additional example of a religious man who helped change lives (even if they were merely American lives) for the better (as well as for providing me with a good chuckle).

Next you write, “There is empirical evidence to the age of the Earth that disagrees with what many religious texts say and the experiments can be repeated to provided (sic) this data time and again. Though I have yet to see an experiment, even once, prove a religious text correct. “

There is no empirical evidence for the age of the earth. Do you know the meaning of empiricality? There is only forensical evidence. Why don’t you learn the difference between validity and empiricality and then get back to me – otherwise this is just a huge waste of everyone’s time. BTW, there’s this tiny little country called Israel – you should go there someday and look at all the amazing evidence, lol.

Next you write, “How literal are you taking this? As there are more people alive now than ever and they have obviously came from somewhere! Six billion and counting!”

Wow – not that you were aware but you made my point, lol. Obviously they came from another lifeform. Let me know when you can empirically (there’s that word again – did you learn what it means yet?) show life coming from non-life.

Finally – the best line I’ve quoted yet: “TBH you come across as a homophobic religious zealot who needs to word their arguments better, I think you either have some funky typo's or are speaking a different language in places!”

Ha, thank you. That really touches my heart. And being that there were no typo’s I love that you found such an ingenious way to blame me for your inability to comprehend. I do apologize if some of it was over your head but don’t give up hope – maybe one day English words won’t seem foreign to you.

For the record, I am neither a homophobe nor overtly religious. But thanks for playing.

Hope you are all enjoying yourselves....

I know that a lot of ‘atheists’ are turning against the term, and for good reason. The OED defines it as ‘a belief that God or Gods do not exist’ which does put it on something of a faith basis, but let’s be honest this is just semantics. Maybe we should just describe ourselves as anti-religionists and be done with it! We can never prove that God / Gods do not exist, just in the same way that we will never be able to prove that that giant chocolate teapot somewhere in the solar system does not exist, or are at least highly unlikely ever to be able to. What we can do is look at the evidence and veracity of religious texts and let’s be honest they almost always come up very lacking.

The ‘discussion’ (I won’t say argument – we’re all kind of friends on here right?) started with a simple statement that (and I paraphrase) it was offensive to list “The Passion of The Christ” as a fantasy film because it was in fact a ‘historical’ film.

First of all I haven’t seen the film, but I have read the books that it is based on ;)

There are numerous and well documented cases where not only do the gospels contradict each other (which emperor’s reign was Christ born in again??), but contradict historical events that were recorded independently, and more verifiably. The gospels are well documented to have been written some 70 to 80 years after the events, based mainly on stories passed down by oral tradition, which, I’m sure we will all agree, is never the most accurate way of telling stories.

However, the most damning problem is that the mythology; the basics of the story if you like; has been recounted before, not just once, but time and time again throughout many ancient religions. There are many examples: Osiris, Odin, Prometheus, Mithras, Horus and numerous others. Well before Christianity there were tales of Gods and Sons of Gods being born to a virgin, having 12 followers, dying on a tree, being resurrected after three days, and so on.

Once could be considered coincidence, but there is obviously something more going on here.

Of course all of these stories come from the same roots, mainly related to sun worship, and ancient astronomy and astrology. It is also well know that early Christians ‘borrowed’ from the local religions in order to ally themselves with the adherents of those religions (hence Christmas in December and Easter in Spring), but this all starts to point towards the gospels being, well, anything but gospel.

So, in conclusion (sighs of relief all around) we have a film based on a book that has little or no historical accuracy, and contains miracles, resurrection and other fantastic events. Sounds pretty much like a fantasy film to me.

@Pixel
Beers tomorrow???

Dogoes Ate My Baby? and I've not even had a drink yet ;)

Yeah, you're still drunk from your birthday yesterday.

See you tomorrow, unless you're playing out tonight.

“Hope you are all enjoying yourselves....”

Having a blast, thanks.

“I know that a lot of ‘atheists’ are turning against the term, and for good reason. The OED defines it as ‘a belief that God or Gods do not exist’ which does put it on something of a faith basis, but let’s be honest this is just semantics. Maybe we should just describe ourselves as anti-religionists and be done with it! We can never prove that God / Gods do not exist, just in the same way that we will never be able to prove that that giant chocolate teapot somewhere in the solar system does not exist, or are at least highly unlikely ever to be able to. What we can do is look at the evidence and veracity of religious texts and let’s be honest they almost always come up very lacking.”

Ahhh yes… semantics. Well semantics is using the term God as if it has utterly no meaning. Thankfully, I was apparently wise and careful enough to not allow you any such slippery slope. I didn’t just throw out the G word. I defined it as the First Cause of Nature. And in that sense there is really no similarity to your glorious giant chocolate teapot. Furthermore, religious texts do not have to have any part in this. We are talking science and correct me if I am wrong but I don’t remember using religious texts to validate God. It was the atheist corner that played that card.

“The ‘discussion’ (I won’t say argument – we’re all kind of friends on here right?) started with a simple statement that (and I paraphrase) it was offensive to list “The Passion of The Christ” as a fantasy film because it was in fact a ‘historical’ film.”

Of course – we are the best of mates, right?

No – my point was that SciFiWire was listing it as fantasy knowing full well that the vast majority of the West, especially the USA, disagrees. Really what SciFiWire was doing was inciting religious tension between believers and non-believers. There is no reason why they needed to attack the beliefs of Christians by calling the last 24 hours of Christ’s life, as presented in that movie, a lie.

“First of all I haven’t seen the film, but I have read the books that it is based on ;)”

Yeah – big shock. It was actually a brilliant piece of cinema.

“There are numerous and well documented cases where not only do the gospels contradict each other (which emperor’s reign was Christ born in again??), but contradict historical events that were recorded independently, and more verifiably. The gospels are well documented to have been written some 70 to 80 years after the events, based mainly on stories passed down by oral tradition, which, I’m sure we will all agree, is never the most accurate way of telling stories.”

There is not a single contradiction in the New Testament. Yes I know this contradicts the orthodoxy of your canonical beliefs but why let the truth stand in the way of a masterful fallacy? There are plenty of ‘cases’ where lay people thought they discovered logical contradictions only to have logicians easily point out their mistakes. These misnomers were put to rest decades again yet your ilk simply rehashes them time and time again with no concern for the truth. And what does that say about the integrity of atheists? It really goes to show how shameful your motives are – you are not out to enrich the human experience with new and enlightening knowledge that will increase the clarity of our understanding about nature and nature’s laws. No, you are about bashing religious people using any tool at your fingertips, regardless if it involves lies and irrational sophistry.

“However, the most damning problem is that the mythology; the basics of the story if you like; has been recounted before, not just once, but time and time again throughout many ancient religions. There are many examples: Osiris, Odin, Prometheus, Mithras, Horus and numerous others. Well before Christianity there were tales of Gods and Sons of Gods being born to a virgin, having 12 followers, dying on a tree, being resurrected after three days, and so on.
Once could be considered coincidence, but there is obviously something more going on here.”

Actually that is not a damning problem at all and in fact as CS Lewis wrote it more often validates the essential truth behind the message since truth is universal.

“Of course all of these stories come from the same roots, mainly related to sun worship, and ancient astronomy and astrology. It is also well know that early Christians ‘borrowed’ from the local religions in order to ally themselves with the adherents of those religions (hence Christmas in December and Easter in Spring), but this all starts to point towards the gospels being, well, anything but gospel.”

Wow – it’s awesome to watch the workings of a depraved mind. How fun and easy debating must be when one has no standards or morals. Are you really going to argue that Judaism is just another form of sun worship and astrology? Furthermore, you misunderstood what ancient Christians did. They didn’t borrow theology – they incorporated (some say stole) the non-essential and replaced it with something they found to be significant in order to maintain societal harmony. Thus a very important day to Romans (Zeus’ birthday) became Christmas (because Christians are intelligent and adult enough to know that the exact day He was born is not essential). However Easter falls on Passover weekend which has nothing to do with pagan Spring festivals.

“So, in conclusion (sighs of relief all around) we have a film based on a book that has little or no historical accuracy, and contains miracles, resurrection and other fantastic events. Sounds pretty much like a fantasy film to me.”

Little or no historical accuracy? Which book? The Book of Acts by St. Luke is considered THE MOST accurate book from antiquity and has been verified and validated by numerous archeological finds and historians.

Furthermore, most humans believe in miracles and claim to have observed one, thus miracles can hardly be relegated to mere fantasy. Just because something isn’t empirically provable does not mean that it is a lie. One must ask how valid it is. And when the vast majority testify that such an occurrence is valid, because they have personally observed it, then I think the minority has an obligation to respect their claims. And you are in that minority.

The question I have is not have you ever experienced the miraculous (for I am sure you have) but what must you do to convince yourself that your denial has any merit? Is it hard to convince yourself believe a lie?

@McTex

"Furthermore, most humans believe in miracles and claim to have observed one, thus miracles can hardly be relegated to mere fantasy. Just because something isn’t empirically provable does not mean that it is a lie. One must ask how valid it is. And when the vast majority testify that such an occurrence is valid, because they have personally observed it, then I think the minority has an obligation to respect their claims. And you are in that minority."

Can you please show evidence for this as I do not know anyone who has observed a miracle or even claims to.

"maybe one day English words won’t seem foreign to you."

Thank you, though I live in the modern country that invented the language. Always nice to see it bastardised by other countries though!

@planetbob99

Whatever helps you continue the masquerade… It's near impossible to see anything with blindfolds on.

As for your comprehension problem, please tell me which words you don't understand and I will define them for you.

And you are not from the modern country that invented English since it was invented by Germans. You are just from the country that bastardised it to its modern form. Don't you hate it when a yank has to teach you your own history? Shame shame... lol

@McTex

"Whatever helps you continue the masquerade… It's near impossible to see anything with blindfolds on."

Sorry? WTF is this in reference to? Was it because I asked you to prove your statement about more than 3 billion people having claimed to have seen a miracle? Please some reference or link would be nice.

If you take a quick look at Wiki, which we know is always beyond repute ;), it does tells us that it came from a West Germanic language, so in that sense you are correct. Though it is (as is real life) so much more complicated than that. There are several influence's that came to create modern English. Have a look yourself, I can provide evidence, even if its only Wik!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language

LORD OF THE RINGS BABY.........WOOT WOOT. The rest of you, REALLY? Really having this debate on syfy.com on a list of movies?..................LORD OF THE RINGS BABY ................WOOT WOOT. Can't wait to not read the slow responses since this is a one time view kinda page. KITTENS GIVE MORBO GAS!!!!!!!!!

I promise after this to be quiet and let you get on with talking about movies, but I had to respond really!

"Ahhh yes… semantics. Well semantics is using the term God as if it has utterly no meaning. Thankfully, I was apparently wise and careful enough to not allow you any such slippery slope. I didn’t just throw out the G word. I defined it as the First Cause of Nature. And in that sense there is really no similarity to your glorious giant chocolate teapot. Furthermore, religious texts do not have to have any part in this. We are talking science and correct me if I am wrong but I don’t remember using religious texts to validate God. It was the atheist corner that played that card."

OK, my bad, I should have been more specific and included religious movies, but have to add that the provability of a ‘first cause of nature’, or lack thereof is just as valid.

"No – my point was that SciFiWire was listing it as fantasy knowing full well that the vast majority of the West, especially the USA, disagrees. Really what SciFiWire was doing was inciting religious tension between believers and non-believers. There is no reason why they needed to attack the beliefs of Christians by calling the last 24 hours of Christ’s life, as presented in that movie, a lie.
Surely this is a judgement call, and, as an unverifiable history this is no different from any other work of historic fiction.
There is not a single contradiction in the New Testament. Yes I know this contradicts the orthodoxy of your canonical beliefs but why let the truth stand in the way of a masterful fallacy? There are plenty of ‘cases’ where lay people thought they discovered logical contradictions only to have logicians easily point out their mistakes. These misnomers were put to rest decades again yet your ilk simply rehashes them time and time again with no concern for the truth. And what does that say about the integrity of atheists? It really goes to show how shameful your motives are – you are not out to enrich the human experience with new and enlightening knowledge that will increase the clarity of our understanding about nature and nature’s laws. No, you are about bashing religious people using any tool at your fingertips, regardless if it involves lies and irrational sophistry."

I’ll just leave it to people to read the gospels, compare them and make up their own minds. However remember I am talking about historic, factual and sometimes subtle inconsistencies, relating to dates and statements that just don’t ring true across the gospels. You’ll find plenty of examples if you care to go looking, some of which can be explained away, but some require a great deal of wriggling. All that this goes to show is that the gospels, being written well after the events are of dubious historical accuracy. It doesn’t necessarily need to detract from the message.

"Actually that is not a damning problem at all and in fact as CS Lewis wrote it more often validates the essential truth behind the message since truth is universal."

And this has relevance to the validity of Christ’s life as a historic event how? Just because another devout Christian happens to state that the repetition of myth contains some inner truth (which is, at least some of the time is true) does not make Christ’s life any more believable as historic fact.

"Wow – it’s awesome to watch the workings of a depraved mind. How fun and easy debating must be when one has no standards or morals. Are you really going to argue that Judaism is just another form of sun worship and astrology? Furthermore, you misunderstood what ancient Christians did. They didn’t borrow theology – they incorporated (some say stole) the non-essential and replaced it with something they found to be significant in order to maintain societal harmony. Thus a very important day to Romans (Zeus’ birthday) became Christmas (because Christians are intelligent and adult enough to know that the exact day He was born is not essential). However Easter falls on Passover weekend which has nothing to do with pagan Spring festivals. "

Ahem, let’s avoid ad-hominem argument shall we? If you have evidence of my depravity of mind, or lack of morals please do present them to the audience. Dictionary definitions will be adhered to!
And I fail to see the relevance of Judaism to my point, other than your failure to be able to disagree with the analogies between ancient religions and the story of Christ. You say that the early Christians incorporated the non-essential? Does this mean that the virgin birth and resurrection (as two examples) are non-essential to Christians?
Although the dates of Easter are of course related to the Passover the name ‘Easter’ and much of the symbolism (admittedly non-Christian such as eggs and bunnies) are quite apparently related to pagan fertility rites.

"Little or no historical accuracy? Which book? The Book of Acts by St. Luke is considered THE MOST accurate book from antiquity and has been verified and validated by numerous archaeological finds and historians."

The simple answer is the four books that claim to account Jesus’ life, not the one that claims (more accurately) to account what people said about his life after the events.

"The question I have is not have you ever experienced the miraculous (for I am sure you have) but what must you do to convince yourself that your denial has any merit? Is it hard to convince yourself believe a lie?"

No, I believed in a lie for most of my childhood, went to church every week and believed. It was as I grew up that I put such childish ideas behind me and started to face my own mortality.
A miracle is defined (again the Oxford English) as being ‘a marvellous and welcome even that seems impossible to explain and by the means of the known laws of nature and therefore attributed to a supernatural agency’. Have I witnessed things that ‘seem’ impossible to explain? Well, yes. Have I then researched and found that they can be explained? Of course I have, because I am interested in deeper truths and not in validating dogma.

Oh, and LORD OF THE RINGS BABY!!!!!! Hee hee.

Sorry to have been absent the last few days - been really busy - and not even had the chance to read last few posts, and I'm sure there are interesting things to catch up on, but I just wanted to stop by to say Happy Birthday to Charles Darwin's Origin of Species, 150 years since publication today, and more relevant than ever, considering the changes the planet is undergoing.

“OK, my bad, I should have been more specific and included religious movies, but have to add that the provability of a ‘first cause of nature’, or lack thereof is just as valid.”

I didn’t use a religious movie to argue the validity of God. I argued that it is bigoted to classify The Passion of the Christ as a fantasy movie. You, of course, know this so your argument here really is childish.

“Surely this is a judgement call, and, as an unverifiable history this is no different from any other work of historic fiction.”

Of course it is a judgment call – that’s my whole point – what bad judgment this webazine has considering the judgment already reached by the vast majority.

“I’ll just leave it to people to read the gospels, compare them and make up their own minds. However remember I am talking about historic, factual and sometimes subtle inconsistencies, relating to dates and statements that just don’t ring true across the gospels. You’ll find plenty of examples if you care to go looking, some of which can be explained away, but some require a great deal of wriggling. All that this goes to show is that the gospels, being written well after the events are of dubious historical accuracy. It doesn’t necessarily need to detract from the message.“

I wish you would just leave it to that but you are actually about influencing people’s perception here in a way that does not depend upon truth. I am extremely familiar with all of the examples you would like me to go looking for as one who seriously studied apologetics and one thing I know is that you are incapable of proving a single violation of the law of contradiction. Yes your ilk is masterful at promoting the lie that certain ‘subtleties’ appear contradictory at first read but, as a stated, logicians have long ago put this mendacity to bed. For example, if I say that I had dinner with Mary and Jane last night but Jane says she had diner with Mary last night there is no logical contradiction between the two accounts because Jane did not say ‘only’ when listing her diner guests. All of the so-called contradictions are of this sophistic sort. And people who still rely upon them should have either their intelligence or integrity questioned.

“And this has relevance to the validity of Christ’s life as a historic event how? Just because another devout Christian happens to state that the repetition of myth contains some inner truth (which is, at least some of the time is true) does not make Christ’s life any more believable as historic fact.”

Ahh but your point was that it somehow makes Christ’s life less believable just because great truths can be found in other cultures or other histories. It does not. Furthermore, though kernel of truths may be found there is hardly any real similarity in the substance of the two accounts. And CS Lewis isn’t just some 'other Christian' but possibly the greatest philosophical mind of the last 100 years.

“Ahem, let’s avoid ad-hominem argument shall we? If you have evidence of my depravity of mind, or lack of morals please do present them to the audience. Dictionary definitions will be adhered to! And I fail to see the relevance of Judaism to my point, other than your failure to be able to disagree with the analogies between ancient religions and the story of Christ. You say that the early Christians incorporated the non-essential? Does this mean that the virgin birth and resurrection (as two examples) are non-essential to Christians?”

I was never appealing to your or anyone’s emotions. A depraved mind grasps for straws. Since you didn’t answer the question (Are you really going to argue that Judaism is just another form of sun worship and astrology?) then I have my answer.

You fail to see the relevance? Jesus was a Rabi – a devout practicing Jew. Christianity is as much a branch of Judaism as is Orthodox or Conservative.

And of course I do not mean that the virgin birth and resurrection are non-essential because they were not incorporated after the fact. They are and have always been essential doctrines of the Gospel accounts. To deny this means that you have chosen to embrace sophistry over legitimate historicity. What double standards your side has when it comes to historical methodology!

“Although the dates of Easter are of course related to the Passover the name ‘Easter’ and much of the symbolism (admittedly non-Christian such as eggs and bunnies) are quite apparently related to pagan fertility rites.”

Yes, like I said – the non-essential.

“The simple answer is the four books that claim to account Jesus’ life, not the one that claims (more accurately) to account what people said about his life after the events."

Those four books are not the only New Testament books which claim to describe Jesus’ life. Furthermore, there is nothing in those 4 books which could lead any one to conclude that they are lacking in historicity.

“No, I believed in a lie for most of my childhood, went to church every week and believed. It was as I grew up that I put such childish ideas behind me and started to face my own mortality. A miracle is defined (again the Oxford English) as being ‘a marvellous and welcome even that seems impossible to explain and by the means of the known laws of nature and therefore attributed to a supernatural agency’. Have I witnessed things that ‘seem’ impossible to explain? Well, yes. Have I then researched and found that they can be explained? Of course I have, because I am interested in deeper truths and not in validating dogma. “

Deeper truths? Don’t make me laugh. What’s apparent is that you are interested only in maintaining the masquerade, which requires a good bit of self-deception. And that’s your prerogative. But by calling it a lie you have chosen to play the role of priest in your dogmatic atheistic religion. And as priest you stand before us telling us what is canon and what is 'damnable'. Don’t you see what garbs you wear?

If you were interested in the deeper truths you would have made an attempt to discuss the finite and temporal nature of the cosmos and what these conditions reveal about existence and, more importantly, what they reveal about the Cause of existence. However, your silence spoke volumes.

Briefly:
The observable universe is observed to be expanding in 3 dimensions. This does not mean that the universe is expanding in all places for all observers, and indeed does not exclude an infinite universe.
We know of 4 dimensions including time and it is now considered likely that there are many more (at least 11), within which expansion may or may not be observed, and which may or may not be infinite.
There is also a reasonably convincing argument that there are a multitude of universes, which may or may not be infinite in number (and which may or may not prove to be observable, which is of course where science breaks down because science is about the observable and verifiable).
None of this can currently be proved, but I’m just throwing some alternatives to there being a ‘cause for existence’ for you.

A couple of things:

First, you obviously do not understand, even at a basic level, infinity. But I will come back to this.

What fascinated me the most was how quick you were to embrace the 'possibility' of multiple dimensions while admitting that you have no proof. Yet there is valid scientific evidence for a Creator but you’ve made up your mind against that. I guess it’s all about what you WANT to believe, regardless of the evidence. This barbaric mentality is extremely dangerous and could lead to a new dark age, especially since you are not alone. As Climategate has revealed, many so-called scientific elites are more than happy to fudge the data to make it fit their preconceived notions as well as blacklist anyone who disagrees or even tries to share conflicting data.

Now back to your poor understanding of infinity. Let's say you are right and there are more than 4 dimensions - well it is illogical to argue that one of those dimensions could be infinite. The reason is that such a dimension, to be classified as a new dimension, would have to be unique or definable in such a way that would differentiate it from other dimensions. And if that is the case then it must be finite because an infinite object is never measurable - that's the key quality of an infinite nature.

You claim that you are all about what science can observe and verify. Well science observes a finite cosmos that had a beginning. But in truth, you aren’t prepared to deal with such scientific knowledge because it contradicts your precious anti-theistic faith. At least we are now absolutely clear that science plays no part in your rationale.

@Zanderzen

The one two punch of 2012 and THE TWILIGHT SAGA: NEW MOON have knocked STAR TREK to 10th place in the list of 2009's top grossers and of course, bumped it even lower on this decade's (2000-2009) list.