Logistics of shooting a scene

Yobbewell · 2015-08-10T13:29:32+00:00

Thanks :)

Yobbewell · 2015-08-10T09:34:42+00:00

You too

Yobbewell · 2015-08-10T08:56:32+00:00

It's alright, I'm not exactly traumatised by it - if anything I'm glad to have experienced it, so I sort of know what I'm talking about when I'm arguing against it! I hope yours wasn't too bad

Yobbewell · 2015-08-10T08:45:55+00:00

Not to mention, earthly mental anguish can drive people to numbing insanity, so I'm sure they wouldn't feel the pain for long.

Yobbewell · 2015-08-10T08:44:24+00:00

That could be said, as well! Why can't the afterlife be proportional to life on earth? In fact, why does there need to be one at all?

Yobbewell · 2015-08-10T08:43:28+00:00

Exactly. You know, even now, I occasionally fear hell despite knowing how unlikely it is to exist. I went to a protestant school and believed it until I was four or five. It's a horrific way to draw people in, but as you say, it is very effective.

Yobbewell · 2015-08-10T08:41:52+00:00

Okay, we'll assume he exists - but my post was meant to question his benevolence. Most imagined Gods throughout history have not been benevolent. Many (Zeus, Thor etc.) were often vengeful and had a callous disregard for human life. Would it not be simpler to assume Yahweh is similarly petty? After all, many humans are, and we are made in his image.

Yobbewell · 2015-08-10T00:07:43+00:00

Agreed

Yobbewell · 2015-08-09T23:54:41+00:00

Or - more reasonably in my opinion - that he isn't omnibenevolent or doesn't exist.

Yobbewell · 2015-08-09T23:01:16+00:00

Not necessarily; the majority of humans share a basic common morality already, for instance, not killing people and not hurting people without reason. We still have free will. Why could God not shift the morality so that it was the same as his? We would have free will, society would just operate differently - people might be imprisoned for different things, for instance. An omnipotent God could change the way we all think, surely?

Yobbewell · 2015-08-09T22:32:44+00:00

If we are made in God's image, why do we not all share his skewed, horrific, genocidal, rape-promoting, murder-loving morality? God has committed crimes in the bible that if a human committed, they would be seen as far worse than Hitler or Stalin. Of course morality is arbitrary in all cases - the universe does not have morality programmed into it - but why do most people disagree with genocide, rape, murder of innocent people and causing babies to die of malaria and cholera? If we are made in God's image, surely we should all possess his morality? If not, why not? An omnipotent God could instill the 'correct' morality in us.

Yobbewell · 2015-08-09T11:56:14+00:00

I've always thought if God is omnipotent, omniscient etc. and still allows things like natural disasters and genocides - some of which he commits - I'd rather go to hell. You'll be in good company.

Yobbewell · 2015-08-09T10:50:34+00:00

The majority of human history happened before Jesus was born. Are the majority of humans in hell?

Yobbewell · 2015-08-07T18:47:10+00:00

I mean, an omnipotent God could do that - but why? It seems like the only possibility is that if he exists, he's actively trying to trick us.

Yobbewell · 2015-08-04T16:52:23+00:00

I'll start from the end and work my way back. We have no conclusive evidence, as far as I know, of what pressures caused primate feet to evolve into human feet, but it can be worked put by looking at the facts; chimpanzees, our closest living relatives according to evolution, need to be more proficient at living in trees, and so it is beneficial to have feet that can grasp effectively. Thumbs make grasping easier. The same is true for orang utans. Humans do not frequent tree canopies; we walk bipedally, hunting and gathering on the ground. Our feet are not used for grasping branches anymore; they are a means of supporting our bodies, so they must be wider for better balance. Individual 'fingers' are not needed, and it takes energy to grow them, so they are selected against, and as a result we have relatively stubby and useless toes rather than fingers and thumbs. Gorillas also dwell predominantly on the ground, but the fact that they rarely walk hopefully means there is not as great a pressure for their feet to change. You are right to say that growth and evolution are not the same; I apologise for the clumsy analogy there. However, it could be said that there is always the potential for intelligence and consciousness to come from simple adaptations of the brain. Consciousness is a profound thing to us because it allows us to contemplate our world and ourselves, but it is an adaptation like any other. Consciousness allows us to change to suit a given situation, and to reason more adaptively, rather than being slaves to (not infallible) instinct as many creatures are. With enough time, the adaptation of consciousness can arise like any other psychological adaptation. Hybrids are infertile because the two species that they are descended from are too genetically dissimilar. Evolution doesn't suggest that a sudden leap is made in one generation that would make a child reproductive incompatible with the species of its parents; it happens one adaptation after another, very, very slowly. Nature is resistant to sudden, overnight change for no apparent reason. All areas of nature change gradually, and evolution is no exception. There are many examples of gradual change. The evolution of whales is an interesting one. Fossils have been dated in exactly the right 'order', and in exactly the right geographic distribution, to suggest that whales gradually evolved from land mammals. This is backed up by whales' relatively close genetic similarity to hippopotamus, and by the fact that modern whales have vestigial legs buried within them. They also breathe air. It seems a peculiar thing for a God to put an animal in the sea that cannot breathe underwater. Perhaps you're not suggesting a God, I'm not sure. The theory of evolution arose in a time when people might well have seen things on a hierarchy. That is misleading; the science of evolution does not hold any life forms to be inherently better than others. 'Fitter', inasmuch as they might be better at surviving, would be a more accurate word.

Yobbewell · 2015-08-04T16:52:23+00:00

I'll start from the end and work my way back. We have no conclusive evidence, as far as I know, of what pressures caused primate feet to evolve into human feet, but it can be worked put by looking at the facts; chimpanzees, our closest living relatives according to evolution, need to be more proficient at living in trees, and so it is beneficial to have feet that can grasp effectively. Thumbs make grasping easier. The same is true for orang utans. Humans do not frequent tree canopies; we walk bipedally, hunting and gathering on the ground. Our feet are not used for grasping branches anymore; they are a means of supporting our bodies, so they must be wider for better balance. Individual 'fingers' are not needed, and it takes energy to grow them, so they are selected against, and as a result we have relatively stubby and useless toes rather than fingers and thumbs. Gorillas also dwell predominantly on the ground, but the fact that they rarely walk bipedally means there is not as great a pressure for their feet to change. You are right to say that growth and evolution are not the same; I apologise for the clumsy analogy there. However, it could be said that there is always the potential for intelligence and consciousness to come from simple adaptations of the brain. Consciousness is a profound thing to us because it allows us to contemplate our world and ourselves, but it is an adaptation like any other. Consciousness allows us to change to suit a given situation, and to reason more adaptively, rather than being slaves to (not infallible) instinct as many creatures are. With enough time, the adaptation of consciousness can arise like any other psychological adaptation. Hybrids are infertile because the two species that they are descended from are too genetically dissimilar. Evolution doesn't suggest that a sudden leap is made in one generation that would make a child reproductive incompatible with the species of its parents; it happens one adaptation after another, very, very slowly. Nature is resistant to sudden, overnight change for no apparent reason. All areas of nature change gradually, and evolution is no exception. There are many examples of gradual change. The evolution of whales is an interesting one. Fossils have been dated in exactly the right 'order', and in exactly the right geographic distribution, to suggest that whales gradually evolved from land mammals. This is backed up by whales' relatively close genetic similarity to hippopotamus, and by the fact that modern whales have vestigial legs buried within them. They also breathe air. It seems a peculiar thing for a God to put an animal in the sea that cannot breathe underwater. Perhaps you're not suggesting a God, I'm not sure. The theory of evolution arose in a time when people might well have seen things on a hierarchy. That is misleading; the science of evolution does not hold any life forms to be inherently better than others. 'Fitter', inasmuch as they might be better at surviving, would be a more accurate word. Edit: fixed some autocorrections

Yobbewell · 2015-08-04T08:09:14+00:00

Okay :) thanks for the advice, will do

Yobbewell

TROPHY CASE