From: (No Email available)

Date: 2008-06-07 16:04:53

Comment:

pmapson here again...

You said (paraphrasing for brevity):
"[to you who] stated that the movie is not based on scientific proof, you are incorrect.

and then:

The [ideas in the movie have] not been scientifically proven

- you just contradicted yourself in the next sentence!

and then:

"There is no more basis for religion than quantum physics"

- actually there's less! (i.e. basis for religion)


You also said:

"There is no scientific proof for the existance [SIC] of a god - a higher power - a heaven, yet millions believe."

- That doesn't prove anything, just because many people believe it. Ancients Greeks believed in the existence of Zeus, or was that the Romans? No matter, still doesn't prove he exists.

- Would you agree?


You said:

" "delete from memory" "deny existence" button, instead of the pessimistic avoidant approach to the idea of new concepts"

- why do the supporters of this film usually resort to ad hominem attacks on critics, instead of debating the film's concepts logically?
I'm open to new concepts, as long as they are presented with credible proof.
I do believe some parts of  the film, for example that your thoughts affect your emotions - this is well known and scientifically proven. It's the more irrational stuff I have a big problem with, e.g.. the Ramtha channeling, the water reacting to written words, the early native Americans being unable to see ships because they had no concept of what a ship was. I understand that this is meant to be allegorical also to show the difficulty of accepting new ideas, but it's presented as fact. Come on! They couldn't see a sailing ship? I'd also like to see that water experiment reproduced independently under controlled conditions by impartial scientists.


"through life you have been conditioned." - we all have in one way or another. I was brought up to believe in a god, but through rational thought was able to overcome that conditioning.

In the last
paragraph you seem to be arguing that reality would be different without our conditioning. Yes, the world could be different but I don't think the laws of physics would change, and I'm not sure what this phrase means:
"reality could exist on a level beyond matter's perception.". Could you elaborate?

"As we inherently have the drive to explore - on our earth, in space, with friends and family, with partners, with teachers and bosses, with chaos and daily drama's [SIC], so to [SIC] must matter have that drive. Or maybe, the drive is matter."


- Are you implying that matter itself, in general, not just the matter that comprises our brains, has some kind of consciousness?

Note: This is the longest online debate I've had - not that I post much anywhere.
Oh, and I guess both sides are guilty of ad hominem attacks i.e. against the person and not -- in this case -- the film. For example the first response to my first post which said I should rent "Kill Bill" instead. They don't advance the argument at all but they do entertain those of the same viewpoint I suppose :)