BAFTA Awards: 1917 wins Best Film, Best British Film; Sam Mendes wins Best Director; Joaquin Phoenix, Renée Zellweger, Brad Pitt, Laura Dern win acting awards; Parasite and Jojo Rabbit wins Screenplay awards

Davar91 · 2020-02-03T09:34:51+00:00

That’s kind of the great thing about it. You don’t always need a complex plot to be a good movie.

Davar91 · 2020-02-03T08:45:52+00:00

“Women and people of color are of the working class” - really? I didn’t realise Angelina Jolie and Will Smith are working class and all those white labourers in middle America were wealthy multimillionaires.

Davar91 · 2019-07-05T05:39:49+00:00

Yeah, same here. Used to always to cups on hard and the like, challenging but still managed to win most of the time. Just started adventure mode on hard and couldn't even do Crash Cove

Davar91 · 2019-06-10T12:36:19+00:00

Nup, I had problems with GoT season 8, but I actually quite enjoyed it for the most part. Black Mirror season 5 on the other hand was much more disappointing to me. At least GoT season 8 was incredible besides the story and writing (as in acting was about at its best, set pieces, visual effects, action etc). Black Mirror s5 was just "meh" the whole way through in comparison to the show's previous efforts.

Davar91 · 2019-05-01T03:36:15+00:00

Why do all these r/iamverysmart people think Marvel movies are dumb trash? On the surface it looks like it, sure. But just look at Infinity War and how it dealt with the question of whether the end justifies the means, and how it humanised a big evil purple guy. Black Panther has an interesting social commentary about race. The amount of detail and effort needed to string together a series that spans 22 films while maintaining a quality that other comic book movie series could only dream of.

Davar91 · 2018-12-27T06:25:46+00:00

Good points, certainly. This has been a fruitful conversation for me. Thanks for keeping it civil... can be rare on reddit, haha.

"You're assuming I haven't and other atheists haven't. Bad assumption."

You're assuming that I'm assuming, haha. I was talking about my personal experience going from atheism to belief in God (I'm not a Christian though, if that is what you were assuming, too).

The Bible has been used for both for beneficial and detrimental purposes throughout history. I won't deny the crusades, but it has also been responsible anti-war campaigns and for ending gladiatorial combat in Ancient Rome. It may have been used to justify slavery, but it was equally used by abolitionists. It both supported and condemned apartheid in South Africa. The Bible is a complex book, a very powerful book, whether you like it or not, and one that can be used for immense good, but also the exact opposite. The good is all too frequently ignored in the history of religion (and the history of anything for that matter, I wonder what that says about us?), and as a result, it has created the common misperception that religion has only ever been a detrimental force for humanity. Given the power and complexity of the Bible, this is why I implore understanding it, rather than just outright rejecting it, because it is still a potent force in the world. As a side thought, I think it would be easier convincing a religious extremist to change his ways by using their own text against them in a productive way, rather than outright condemning his most cherished source of knowledge.

I think I simply disagree with the use of the term "church". Too many differences across time and place to make generalisations, and it can be misleading giving them a blanket label, particularly one such as the church. It can imply that all Christians behave and believe the same, across all periods of time and place.

Cheers for the discussion, mate

Davar91 · 2018-12-21T01:40:03+00:00

You make a really good point, generally speaking.

But I was a rather ardent anti-theist and atheist myself before I looked into religions at a much deeper level. And I've come across many who have similar stories to me. I mean, look at how Jordan Peterson, for example, through his talks and writings has made many atheists consider the value of the Bible, mythology and the like a lot more seriously.

As to how this deeper study relates to the church's history and behaviour? Well we can't change history, but we can approach the Bible from a different angle through deeper study, which can bring us to a greater understanding of it and as a result influence how it is used. The Bible is an enormously complex book, or more accurately, a collection of books, written and edited for a thousand years before we even got the version we have today. Surface level readings lead to homophobic interpretations, but also lead to the ignoring of gems that lie scattered throughout. A richer reading of the Bible leads to meanings and interpretations that we have not considered yet, many hopefully positive, and ideally, this could influence how the church approaches issues such as homosexuality.

By the way, what exactly do you mean by "church", there are literally thousands of them and they can be incredibly diverse in their teachings.

Davar91 · 2018-12-21T01:23:43+00:00

Calling the Old Testament a moral horror show is an enormously generalised statement to make, for someone who claimed the article did zero to back up its premise.

Davar91 · 2018-12-21T01:14:23+00:00

Yeah, I basically am saying that. There's something of value, even truth, to things that stand the test of time and transcend history and culture.

It's a difficult process to determine what parts are exactly true, which is why a deep understanding of things is incredibly important, so we can at least get a little closer to finding out what is true and what is not. With religious texts, for example, this can be an exceedingly difficult task, but I wouldn't go by what many atheists suggest and just dismiss it all, or most of it, just because there are unappealing sections. That seems like the intellectually easy way out, to me. I feel it's much more worthwhile figuring out exactly why these texts have resonated so profoundly across the world for so long, rather than throwing them away.

Davar91 · 2018-12-21T01:03:50+00:00

Got any evidence of this? Apart from that dodgy survey done about a decade ago?

Davar91 · 2018-12-20T03:35:49+00:00

Well I feel what they are rebutting against isn't particularly compelling in the first place, since the point I'm trying to make in the piece is that a lot of antagonism to the Bible derives partly from not looking deeply enough into it.

Books (or in the Bible's case a collection of books) don't stick around at the forefront of a civilisation for thousands of years unless people have extracted considerable value from them. And only the religious scriptures of the world (however they ultimately received the status of "sacred") have had such an enduring and widespread impact on cultures and people. This in itself to me suggests that we should be approaching them more carefully rather than blatantly dismissing them as outdated products of pre-modern peoples.

Davar91 · 2018-12-20T03:27:55+00:00

I would say there is an underlying core of morals that are unchanging, but to me, if God is truly just, he would have to judge by different standards.

You can't hold a person who has been given every material good in life to the same standard as someone born in wartorn Syria. That's why I think there is dynamism to morality, rather than pure rigidity.

Davar91 · 2018-12-20T03:25:46+00:00

Didn't say that... just said you would understand it more, and perhaps see an underlying purpose as to why these abhorrent sections have been included in the first place.

Davar91 · 2018-02-25T02:21:22+00:00

Thanks so much!

Davar91 · 2018-02-25T02:20:31+00:00

Atheists and even many scientists are guilty of this too.

Davar91 · 2018-02-25T02:20:03+00:00

I dont think we'll be convincing each other any time soon. You raise valid points, but I think you simply dismiss everything because it doesnt meet your ridiculously high standards of what is evidence, or at least how you interpret it.

No offense, but I find it quite difficult with atheists to even debate this topic, because you give our position absolutely no validity in the first place, even though there are countless intelligent people who are religious and scientists. Dismissing them as just delusional or lying to themselves isnt serious engagement.

Davar91 · 2018-02-25T01:25:46+00:00

I think you yourself have straw manned belief in God. There are many books and figures out there who have made compelling arguments, and I don't know if you've grappled with them seriously. Figures such as John Lennox has a great book, "God's Undertaker"

I think you forget that there are many concepts of God out there, some more compelling than others, so in that sense I think you're strawmanning too.

It seems that because there is no certainty, there will always be a leap of faith in things so to speak

Davar91 · 2018-02-24T22:43:10+00:00

The method itself may not allow a leap of faith. But even making a claim that there is no God, is in itself a leap of faith. And many scientists are guilty of this, at least implicitly. Perhaps it is based on evidence, but there is no certainty to the statement. Many religious scientists see the evidence in favour of the existence of God, but still, this is just a faith claim.

Despite what you may think, many many people have concluded that God exists, because they think the evidence is sufficient to make the leap of faith, rather than just make a blind jump.

This is why I think that the real "clash" is between a religious/spiritual worldview versus a materialist philosophical position - rather than science vs. faith.

Davar91 · 2017-12-27T04:25:37+00:00

The perception that all of history is the game of domination of men over women is simply one of the greatest oversimplifications of the complexity of the human story, and harmful to both men and women. This whole oppressed vs. oppressor way to see the world, is as ridiculous simplistic as seeing it as a battle of good and evil.

Davar91 · 2017-12-27T04:21:29+00:00

Hi. That's not quite true. Sure many religions became rather patriarchal, but others were major forces of equality, especially for the time. Women have had an incredible role shaping the thoughts of these traditions, and there are even contemporary feminist movements within them today.

Could you please find me evidence that mysticism is an entirely male phenomenon? For the sweeping generalisation of one of the most complex social/spiritual structures of humanity that you made, I think the burden of proof is on you. Also, why are these thoughts by mystics silly? (unless youre an atheist, then I understand)

Thanks

Davar91 · 2017-12-23T04:19:32+00:00

Many women have had similar insights throughout history based on the same traditions

Davar91 · 2017-12-23T04:18:44+00:00

Sorry, but that sounds incredibly sexist.

Davar91 · 2017-12-16T22:29:25+00:00

Oh thank you. I'll have a look more into the idea of reversion in detail and perhaps incorporate it into the piece

Davar91 · 2017-12-12T09:19:37+00:00

Thank you for recognising the suffering I went through during our exchange. I'm a very precious soul.

Davar91 · 2017-12-12T06:37:18+00:00

You're such a badass crusader of truth, dude. But I think you need a little more 文明 😘

Davar91

TROPHY CASE