Raf

Me neither. Useless info needs an outlet sometimes, though. Another three-fer Elsa the Lioness returns to the U.S. from Africa to help an orca escape from an aquarium so he can go on a tour of a wondrous and mysterious candy-making operation.

By the way, depending on who you speak to, you'll get different definitions of what it means to be "atheist" as opposed to "agnostic." No one is in charge of policing which definition is correct, so I want to let you know what definition I employ so that, at the very least, you are hearing what I am actually saying when I use these terms. The following is not unique to me, nor is it universally accepted: different "atheists" may define their terms differently. Gnosticism and Agnosticism speak to what someone KNOWS. A person who KNOWS there is a God is a gnostic theist. A person who KNOWS there is no God is a gnostic atheist. A person who does not KNOW whether there's a God is an agnostic. [The term Gnosticism is used here differently from its historic usage -- it is a pure definition of the word with none of the historical connotations attached to it]. In my view, anyone who claims to be a gnostic theist or a gnostic atheist isn't worth arguing with -- this kind of person believes he/she has all the evidence he/she ever will have. Generally a closed-minded lot on the subject of God. Theism and atheism speak to what someone BELIEVES. It overlaps with gnosticism, but is not entirely dependent on it. A theist believes there is a God. An atheist lacks that belief. Note my wording there, because it's significant, and a lot of atheists will give you a really hard time if you misstate it. Theism is an affirmative belief: "There IS a God." An atheist rejects that belief. Now, some atheists go further than that and assert, affirmatively, that there is no God. I use such language sometimes, but only rhetorically, because I don't KNOW there's no God. I BELIEVE there's no God. But I don't KNOW. Notorious atheist Richard Dawkins uses a "scale" to try to clarify matters, and I've found that scale to be quite useful. So here is the scale (the aka's are my own): 1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God. I know he exists. (aka, Gnostic Theist) 2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption he is there and has something to say to us. (aka, Your Average Theist) 3. Weak Theist: I am uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God. (aka, Agnostic Theist. Your average deist falls into this category). 4. Pure Agnostic:God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable. (aka, No one) 5. Weak Atheist:I do not know whether God exists, but I am inclined to be skeptical. (aka, Agnostic Atheist) 6. De-facto Atheist:I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and live my life on the assumption he is not there. (aka, Your Average Atheist) 7. Strong Atheist:I am 100% sure there is no God. (aka, Gnostic Atheist) Agnosticism is a feature of every point on that scale except 1 and 7. Most atheists I have encountered are a 6. Some like to get clever and say "6.9999." The point is, they don't pretend to "know that they know that they know" there is no God. But they're pretty confident on the subject. That confidence may sometimes come off as certainty, but that's because we're all human and we don't stand around qualifying every single sentence we utter. When I said in my opening post on this thread that I say in my heart there is no God, I said it with confidence, not certainty. Anyway, just thought I'd share that, in case you were wondering.

I'll give you two: The Golden Child Young Frankenstein

Here's an honest question: Anachronisms are obviously mistakes/errors. If Genesis says Abraham had camels (it does) and camels weren;t domesticated in that region until centuries later (also a fact), then that's an error -- subject to revision if REAL additional evidence warrants it. But what about the implications of anachronisms? Anachronisms happen because someone either accidentally or intentionally reads a historical fact into an earlier era in history. For example, if we were to write a short story about Abraham Lincoln's favorite TV shows, that would be an anachronism. Lincoln didn't have a TV. Or a radio. But for me to make such a mistake, I must know something about television. Thus, the use of the anachronism proves that I am not a contemporary of Lincoln. Abraham's camels demonstrate that the writer(s) of Genesis lived after camels were domesticated, roughly 1000 BC. Whoever wrote Genesis would have to have lived AFTER that time. The writer would also have been ignorant about how long camels had been domesticated. So what, right? The anachronism is an error, but does it really matter whose error it was? Well, yeah. Sort of. If you assume the writer of Genesis was Moses, you have a problem. Moses would have been long dead by the time camels were domesticated. Problem is, does the Bible actually SAY Moses wrote Genesis? Or is that a tradition we never challenged because we never thought to? I believe the anachronism is an error (efforts to refute it are out there, but I don't find them very convincing. Your opinion may differ). But the anachronism's value in disproving Moses as the writer is not an error in the Bible. It may be an error in what we think/thought about the Bible, but that's another matter entirely. So I think we can say with certainty that Moses didn't write Genesis. But we can't refer to that as an actual error IN Genesis. Steve Lortz? This is where you come in!

How do I know this? Logan's Run, Fatboy, Run Lola Run.

Irene Cara sang what a feeling, fame, and out here on my own.

Married With Children

According to Genesis 3, snakes crawl on their bellies and eat dust in retaliation for the serpent's role in the temptation. Why? If it was "Satan," and not a literal snake, why punish snakes? (Never mind that snakes don't eat dust). If this "curse" is not really being directed at snakes but at Satan, it makes no flipping sense. Satan doesn't crawl on his belly or eat dust. And there's nothing in the narrative to indicate that we're talking about anything other than the animal. So again, why punish snakes?

No. We did Flashdance already. But there's a reason you're thinking of Flashdance.

Here's an idea of something I would not consider an actual error: The Bible refers to the moon as a "light." We now know that the moon is not a light in itself, but that it reflects the light of the sun. Lots of atheists like to point this out as an example of early scientific ignorance. It may be. But I wouldn't go that far. From our perspective, the moon is a light source. At least, it is at night, depending on how full it is. I think atheists are nitpicking here.

In addition to "Out Here On My Own," the movie's title track included these lyrics: "I'm gonna live forever! I'm gonna learn how to fly (high)!"

Not the movie I was thinking of. And for what it's worth, I see no indication that the song appeared in that film. Not saying it wasn't. Saying I don't see any evidence of it.

Fiddler on the Roof "Out Here On My Own"

I appreciate each answer, and see the distinction. And I won't quibble here about what people "know" in the depth of their hearts. Perhaps in another place. I will speak only for myself: not only do I not "know" there is a god, I've become quite persuaded that there is not. I promise not to speak for what you "know" in the depth of your heart if you will grant me the same courtesy. ;)

Thanks!

Just curious: how are you distinguishing between "taking things for granted" and "blind faith"?

It was on two soundtracks. Both movies were named Footloose.

Arguably the biggest wasted opportunity in the history of television.

One of the better known moments in this film is a speech that few in the American audience even understood, as it was delivered in a foreign language. Translated, the speech reads: "How did I find myself here? They say my famous lover held down my husband and I cut his head off. But it's not true. I am innocent. I don't know why Uncle Sam says I did it. I tried to explain at the police station but they didn't understand." In the same scene, red scarves indicate guilt. But the character who gave the speech above pulls out a white scarf. The movie took liberties with its source material by having its defining plot conceits and sequences all taking place inside the main character's head.

The Little Mermaid. "Let's Hear It For the Boy"

Technically, they were not the same characters, as the story lines were not connected. But I quibble.

is the fact that a claim defies credibility enough to make that claim an actual error? I would have to say no. Not that I believe for a fraction of a second that people lived to be hundreds of years old. I don't believe such a thing. But an unsubstantiated claim is not the same thing as an actual error as I have used that term in the past. Of course, I am not the arbiter of what is and what is not an error. I leave the final judgment to each reader.

Ah. Then yes

That's a link to part 2. There's obviously a part 1 as well.

The article footnotes another article on the same subject. I'll see if I can find and post it. It offers plenty of support for its view. I can only find it in pdf, and can't figure out how to link it using my Kindle. So google "the firmament and the water above" by Paul Seely.