Not lying doesn't necessarily mean being rude. You don't have to walk in to a room and start pointing out people's shortcomings or making fun of their appearances, like most of the characters did in the film. A sensible person, even in a no-lies-world, waits until somebody says "Does my bum look big in these jeans?" to give his/her honest opinion.
Excuse my English please, not a native speaker.
yes, well politeness is a type of lying, but the film shouldn't be taken too seriously, its an comic exploration of how important deception is and being nice to each other often involves not telling people how your really feel (lies of omission) but that is not the same lies of commission... so yes its over done... but its funny. Yes people don't typically tell you how they feel until asked, but that is often a lie of omission.
--------------------------
RIGOLETTO: I'm denied that common human right, to weep.
Exactly OP. It could have been called, The Invention of Manners.
It was a terrible film on so many levels. I saw this in the cinema convinced it would be great and suddenly realised half way through that it wasn't. I liked the concept, but it just didn't work on any level. It was quite a strange movie in many ways. So just because you can't lie, then you can say whatever you like, be incredibly shallow, act like a robot without feelings and have absolutely no manners at all. This could've worked if it had been toned down a bit and kept out the religious aspect out of it.
I didn't find it funny at all and the two main characters were just incredibly unlikeable. It was a mess and deserves a 6.3 rating.
Watch Groundhog Day instead to see how quirky ideas should be played out!
not everyone likes satire
too many people are taking this film literally
its a satire
a brilliant satire about the deception involved in social mores, film, and religious beliefs
the fact the the people were unlikeable was kind of the point, take away the deception and people are actually quite mean to each other... we just cover it up with politenes.
its a rare treat to watch a true satire with a point
the fact is satires touch a lot of raw nerves if they are any good
so the fact that you didn't like its mocking of religions means it did exactly what its supposed to do -- that is, it works!!!
if it was toned down, it wouldn't be a satire.
fyi, it was also mocking atheism
--------------------------
RIGOLETTO: I'm denied that common human right, to weep.
'the fact the the people were unlikeable was kind of the point, take away the deception and people are actually quite mean to each other... we just cover it up with politeness.'
Yes, but politeness wasn't supposed to be absent from this, was it? People had the ability to be polite. In other words, they couldn't lie, but why couldn't they be polite? Are you saying that every time a person is polite, they don't mean it?
This is my point: they could have had manners when dealing with people. I like to think that I say nice things to people and I am being honest. This isn't present in this movie at all. For example, his date at the dinner table takes a call from her mother and, right in front of him, belittles him. So, if you couldn't lie, a person would behave like that? They wouldn't at least leave the table first?
Satire or film, it was terrible. Usually with awful movies, people tend to dress it up and say people just don't get it. I fully expect Ricky Gervais to mock religion any chance he gets(he does it every single day on Twitter). While he does mock religion in this film, that's the least of the problems with The Invention of Lying.
well in this world when people are polite sometimes they mean it, and sometimes they don't -- sometimes they are just pretending to like you to get a bigger tip, or to get along with coworkers, or to avoiding getting a bad reputation amongst ones social group etc..
Being polite is only honest if you really mean it. If you say something nice to a person who you really don't like, then you are lying. You are not being honest about how you really feel about that person.
In that world without lies people cannot pretend to like you if they don't like you, so they are not polite to people they don't like and they are not polite when dealing with issues that would involve deception -- so, although the girl in the film did not dislike the main character, she did not think he was a suitable mate and told him exactly how she felt about him which was not polite, but was true. In our world one would try to come up with an excuse to let the person "down easily" (though that often backfires).
In that world, in order to leave the table when she got the cell phone call in which she belittled him, she would need to understand the concept of not letting him know the truth, which as was established in the film is not possible in that satirical world.
Anyway, I guess, we must agree to disagree about the film; I think it was brilliant.
It was not perfect, I would like to have seen it explore the legal system a bit more in a world without lies. The short spoof about his dad was hilarious, but left me wanting more. But it was just simply a brilliant satire... I also am not sure about the use of figurative language, humor, and insults which could be considered deception in a sense, but as I said, the film is a satire, so such details are missing the point.
But I think he was spot on the important of deception in relationships (politeness), film (making up things to make the story entertaining), religion (creating a belief to encourage people to be nicer to each other and help people feel better about death), and death (pretending that its not the end). Moreover I like the fact that it focused mostly on the positive aspects of deception and makes a mockery of anyone who thinks that honesty is always the best policy.
--------------------------
RIGOLETTO: I'm denied that common human right, to weep.
'religion (creating a belief to encourage people to be nicer to each other and help people feel better about death), and death (pretending that its not the end).'
I'm glad you enjoyed it. However, Ricky now allows his atheism to influence his work far too much. His success now allows this. The Office was superb. I have the box set. What a series and the Christmas specials rounded off the story perfectly.
This film, however, was one long religion bashing exercise. The story was secondary. Ricky just wanted to have a go at religion. Whether it was good or not, was irrelevant. And here's the problem: Ricky is completely ignorant of religion. He hasn't a clue. He stated himself that he stopped believing in God when he was eight. Eight! I always like when somebody has actually looked at the other side of things and decided one way or the other what they want to believe in, or not believe in. Ricky hasn't done that.
He once tweeted, 'that the bible was written thousands of years ago by a bunch of weirdo's!'
Does this sound like a man capable of producing a fair satire based on religion? No, this is just an ignorant comment from someone who is very poorly educated in ancient history and has no ambition at all to research it. If he looked into the New Testament, Ricky might actually be surprised at the historical strengths it has going for it. Any historical will pinpoint the irrelevant details in the New Testament to strengthen its case (along with much more). In other words, the writers of the New Testament were telling the truth. The way it was written isn't consistent with fabrication.
Ricky frequently belittles believers simply because they believe God was responsible for the Big Bang. I feel this is a reasonable thought process. Science has absolutely no explanation for the Big Bang. It just happened. Then everything just arranged itself by chance and luck. Atheists do believe in something - they believe in luck and chance. They believe the sun magically stopped within a certain distance of the Earth. Any closer and there would be no life as it would be too hot, any further back and it would be too cold. The sun just arranged itself so perfectly out of luck. Actually Ricky does believe in something: he believes in a huge amount of luck and chance. I fail to see how this is any more logical than a belief in God.
I never said its a fair satire, but its his opinion about it and he has every right to let his atheism bias his films.
What I was pointing out though is that a world without religion is also savagely mocked as being very cold and nasty towards dying people -- not a nice place to face the end of the life. So clearly Ricky is pointing out to the audience the value of religion and in fact its that potential coldness of atheism that gets the story going. You are overlooking that simple fact about the film.
But what the film does is pursue religion to it illogical extreme to make fun of religion as well.
It does the same thing with film. It shows how boring film would be without deception, but then takes it all the way to the creation of a really stupid story to sell tickets.
As for the role of chance and luck, actually all you need is physical forces to understand how things occurred since the Big Bang. Consider that there are some 100 billion stars in the galaxy and another 100 billion galaxies so the odds of at least one planet being in the Goldie Lox zone of a mid-sized star is very high. Estimates are there will be several million such star systems in our galaxy alone... What anti-chance people ignore is the number of opportunities of improbable things. Please keep in mind that even though the odds of winning the Powerball are 175 million to one, some lucky fool wins it every few weeks.
Given enough opportunity, anything that could occur will occur.
"The way it was written isn't consistent with fabrication."
Well, I respect your belief that that is true about the bible, but I find it very unconvincing. There are many example of fiction which some people believe is based on real events and historical fiction that is so well written that it distorts many peoples beliefs about the actual event.
--------------------------
RIGOLETTO: I'm denied that common human right, to weep.
'I never said its a fair satire, but its his opinion about it and he has every right to let his atheism bias his films.'
Yes, by having success with The Office, he got the chance to make his own movie. I just propose that his atheism and his own 'beliefs' biased this movie in a negative way. It was just way too much.
'What I was pointing out though is that a world without religion is also savagely mocked as being very cold and nasty towards dying people -- not a nice place to face the end of the life. So clearly Ricky is pointing out to the audience the value of religion and in fact its that potential coldness of atheism that gets the story going.'
This is a very good way of looking at this scene by you. You could look on it like that. However, I'd say Ricky doesn't view it like this at all and certainly had no intention of the scene playing like this. He was trying to make the scene the equivalent of a father reading the 'Night before Christmas' to his son or daughter on Christmas Eve. In other words, he was going all out here to mock people believing in God and Heaven.
'There are many example of fiction which some people believe is based on real events and historical fiction that is so well written that it distorts many peoples beliefs about the actual event.'
It's more than that. For the case of the Resurrection of Christ, for example, a case can be made for the honesty of the accounts (the writers didn't paint themselves in a positive light) They betrayed the hero of the story in his hour of need. If fictional, would they not have embellished their own involvement in Christ's story? The bible is full of irrelevant details. For example, it talks about the day of the week and other irrelevant details like the time of the day. Historians look for these things in historical documents.
Finally, there's motive. The apostles had no motive for making up stories. People will die for something they believe in, but they won't die for something they know is a lie. Before Christ's resurrection, the apostles hid in fear. Afterwards, their attitude changed and they weren't afraid to die.
'As for the role of chance and luck, actually all you need is physical forces to understand how things occurred since the Big Bang.'
Your paragraph on chance is really good. You could think of it like that, but the coming together (by chance) of all the necessary components is still incredibly illogical, far more than a person winning the lottery. And you mentioned the words, 'since the big bang' Science has nothing, absolutely nothing to explain the big bang. But I respect all your well-thought out arguments.
This is the problem I have with atheism - If you don't believe in God, then you believe that human beings are as good as it gets in the entire Universe. There's nobody more intellectual than us. There's no higher entity or being, no greater power. Human beings are master of the Universe. I find this a very narrow way of thinking. I simply don't have the faith to be an atheist.
I think you are missing so much of the cleverness of his total satire. As I've said, he mocks both sides of an issue, be it relationships, religion, or film. Honesty would be horrible, but lies are not depicted as good either. You just don't like the fact that he's characterizing religion as lies. But in my opinion its a brilliant satire. He's going all out to mock everyone... religious and atheist. Watch it again and enjoy how he is mocking the coldness of life without religion; its a very clever scene. Remember in the film he invented religion out of compassion to his dying mother. Of course he then pushes it too far in the other direction because its a satire after all.
"Finally, there's motive. The apostles had no motive for making up stories. People will die for something they believe in, but they won't die for something they know is a lie. Before Christ's resurrection, the apostles hid in fear. Afterwards, their attitude changed and they weren't afraid to die."
The stories were written down later and at least embellished by the church leaders quite some time after Christ's death. None of your arguments hold any merit. Motive -- power and control; the same motive that motivates all faiths, cults, ideologies, and political entities. As for being in fear of ones life from persecution, there are numerous cases of oppressed people who wrote their ideas down and eventually triumphed. Christianity is not particularly unique in that respect and it does not validate the existence of a God.
"writers didn't paint themselves in a positive light"
Not convincing. Dostoyevsky doesn't present himself in a positive light in "Notes from the underground", but that doesn't make it a true story... its a work of fiction (written as a first person narrative). But more importantly there is no written record of the stories being written down during the life of Christ, and were likely written years later by the followers of these people. They were written to sell the religion.
"For example, it talks about the day of the week and other irrelevant details like the time of the day. Historians look for these things in historical documents."
There are lots of irrelevant details in the film Blade runner, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't make it true... it makes it a case of good story telling.
"And you mentioned the words, 'since the big bang' Science has nothing, absolutely nothing to explain the big bang."
True, as I said, that's a gap in our knowledge that may well never be filled, but that does not necessitate a God, its merely a pragmatic gap in knowledge. It will be difficult to test any explanation of the beginning of the universe without actually being in control of the process, which is not likely to ever occur. Still the gap may someday be partially filled in without appeal to a God.
"This is the problem I have with atheism - If you don't believe in God, then you believe that human beings are as good as it gets in the entire Universe. There's nobody more intellectual than us. There's no higher entity or being, no greater power. Human beings are master of the Universe. I find this a very narrow way of thinking. I simply don't have the faith to be an atheist."
That's hilarious. Actually the opposite is true. Religion is human centric and prop us up as the most important things in the universe. Its a fight against the smallness of humanity... that somehow we are special and the most important things going... placed on earth personally by ruler of the universe. Its very egotistic. I'm too humble to believe in God.
A scientific atheist believes that we are tiny insignificant beings with no great power looking over us to protect us. Our little lives are very fragile and could end by either a random event from a uncaring universe (asteroid, supernova, blackhole), or by our own stupidity (pollution, war, etc.). As a result scientific atheists are typically are much more concerned about environmental destruction than religious believers because we don't believe there is a god watching out for us or an afterlife to look forward to.
I don't know of any scientist who believes we are the most intelligent being in the universe, in fact most would acknowledge that we are only marginally smarter than apes, dolphins, and a number of other creatures, who've just not quite managed to acquire the right technology yet. Most of us acknowledge that we are likely to kill ourselves off from out own stupidity. There is also a strong expectation that there are other creatures in the universe on a par with us, and perhaps more advanced, but the distances in the universe are so immense that we may never be in contact with them.
--------------------------
RIGOLETTO: I'm denied that common human right, to weep.
'Watch it again and enjoy how he is mocking the coldness of life without religion; its a very clever scene.'
I will watch it again, but Religion aside, I just thought it was a dreadful film. I can see your point about how he shows that a world without Religion doesn't provide much comfort for people. However, as I was watching the film I had no idea why he continued to pursue the female lead. In Groundhog Day, Phil tries to pursue Rita, without success, and eventually decides to give up. In the end, only after he has successfully made a better life for himself and become a better person, did he succeed in attaining Rita and by that stage it was for all the right reasons.
This story arc isn't here in The Invention of Lying. The girl he is after is just portrayed as a horrible person and yet Ricky's character sulks when he can't attract her. So, Religion aside, the story was very weak to me. I had no idea why he wanted to be with this woman. I didn't care for characters one bit.
'The stories were written down later and at least embellished by the church leaders quite some time after Christ's death.'
We'll just have to agree to disagree here. Where is your proof of this? Yes indeed the stories were written after Christ and yes many years. But not 200 years as some would claim. John was a follower of Christ. The different gospels ranged from 21 years to 60-80 years after Christ's life. Historians count anything written up to 200 after an event as accurate or worthwhile.
'Motive -- power and control; the same motive that motivates all faiths, cults, ideologies, and political entities. '
I'm not talking about the Catholic church and some of the terrible things that have happened in that faith. I'm talking about the writers of the New Testament. They had nothing to gain from making up stories about a carpenter rising from the dead and conducting miracles. I doubt they were doing it to enhance the lives of corrupt people 2000 years later.
'There are lots of irrelevant details in the film Blade runner, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't make it true'
Yes there are, but here is the difference. In Blade Runner (which I've never seen, I know, I know, not good!) I'm guessing all the loose ends and irrelevant details are tied up in the end. In fiction a reader expects this. In other words, something that has been mentioned at the start of the movie, is explained later. If it isn't this causes debate and uproar in some cases. In the New Testament they don't tie up the loose ends. Of course this doesn't mean it's true, but it is a very strong indicator that it is. This isn't my opinion. Please do, if you're interested, read any historian's views on the bible. Leaving the bible aside, historian's always look for irrelevant details to ascertain the sincerity of an ancient test. Listen to any Bart Ehrman interview. This guy isn't even a Christian or a believer but remarks that the bible is full of irrelevant details, which enhances its credibility. When you say that this isn't a strong argument, you are reducing the work that historians do and how they do it. In short, irrelevant details in text is one of the strongest indicators of sincerity and one that historians look out for. Should mankind not have some rules and procedures in how they analyse ancient texts?
The way they paint themselves poorly in the Bible is a strong indicator of the authors sincerity. If I tapped you on the shoulder, handed you a 50 dollar note and said, 'I stole this from your wallet earlier' You would believe me, wouldn't you? Why? Because I have no reason to make it up. As I've mentioned, the Gospel writers had no motive. Again, not my opinion. I've read up on it from countless historians who cite this as a positive aspect of the Bible.
'True, as I said, that's a gap in our knowledge that may well never be filled, but that does not necessitate a God, its merely a pragmatic gap in knowledge.'
Yes, but without this knowledge, it's not exactly unreasonable for human beings to credit God, is it?
I wonder why some people have no problem believing that aliens might exist on other planets, yet also draw the conclusion that people who believe in God are deluded. I'm with you on this: I too believe it is likely that life exists on other (out of reach) planets somewhere. However, I also believe it's likely that there is a God. You can't prove there's life on other planets, you have no evidence, yet when people apply this same logic to God, they are deluded?
"This story arc isn't here in The Invention of Lying. The girl he is after is just portrayed as a horrible person and yet Ricky's character sulks when he can't attract her. So, the Religion aside, the story was very weak to me. I didn't care for the character one bit."
I disagree, in a world without lies, she is just an ordinary person who lives according to the rules of that world. She is not a horrible person; she says what she feels because in that world, that's what people do. Yes she is trying to maximize the genetic fitness of her offspring, but that's also true in this world. The only difference is that she's blunt and honest about it, whereas in this world we invent lies to pretend that that is not the case. That is the point of the film; its a satire on relationship exposing the nasty selfish truth that is hidden by lies. I remember I had this conversation with a woman friend who was upset about the importance of a good photograph for success with online dating sites. She felt that relationship should be about inner beauty -- but she only mainly wanted a man to give her financial security (she told me so), just as shallow a motive as a man wanting a pretty face (though perhaps more practical than a pretty face).
As for Ricky pursuing the gal, he loves her so he keeps pursuing her; love is not rational. Its interesting that he realizes that he could lie and win her for himself, but he chooses not to abuse his power. So not only does he invent lying, he also invents limits on his own lies.
Again, watch the film more closely to appreciate just how clever the satire is. I think you focused so much on the religious issue, that you missed the other satire topics such as the mocking of human relationships... also enjoy the way he mocks film stories. Just as with religion, he mocks both sides of the issue going from horribly boring truth only stories to made up rubbish.
"Yes indeed the stories were written after Christ and yes many years. But not 200 years as some would claim."
It doesn't matter to me if it was 20 or 200 years later, the stories were embellished because that's what people do; people create a narrative. I do believe that Christ lived, but believe that most of the details of those stories are highly embellished by believers who wanted to deify him.
"The way they paint themselves poorly in the Bible is a strong indicator of the authors sincerity."
Not convincing at all.
"all the loose ends and irrelevant details are tied up in the end"
Oh, you must watch Blade Runner, great film, but I only listed it because of the detail. I've never seen a film that ties up all the irrelevant loose details though film makers do tie up the main details because that's what the audience wants. Tying up details has more to do with selling the story, than with writing the story. Authors have to learn how to do that... its not a natural skill. It takes years of learning, practice, rewriting, and rejection to learn how to tell a good story. Your biblical writers were essentially amateurs writing to recruit followers, publishing it themselves. They were not trying to get published in the modern novel market where only a small minority of manuscripts get published.
What films typically tie up is the central story, but everything else is left unstated. Irrelevant details do not testify to the truth of the document. However, I have never doubted that Jesus lived... I believe he was an ordinary man, that's all.
"Yes, but without this knowledge, it's not exactly unreasonable for human beings to credit God, is it?"
You are welcome to believe in a God of the gaps if you wish, but I see no explanatory value is that idea, and it presents a naggingly more complex problem of explaining the existence of a God itself... that is considerably more difficult to explain than the gaps that exist in our knowledge. By proposing that God did it, you just cover up one little gap in our knowledge by inventing an even bigger gap in our knowledge -- the existence of a divine entity to explain everything that cannot be demonstrated to exist in the first place.
"no problem believing that aliens might exist on other planets, yet also draw the conclusion that people who believe in God are deluded"
I don't believe in the existence of any particular alien creature that I have no evidence for, I believe that there is a high probability that other creatures on other planets have evolved in a manner that lead to intelligence. As I noted the odds are strongly in favour of at least one other alien species being out there somewhere. However, the odds are also high that intelligent life might be short lived by a tendency to pollute and destroy etc.. God on the other hand, is a much more improbable entity. I cannot rule out the existence of God, but have concluded that God is highly unlikely and unnecessary as an explanation for anything. Personally I hope there is no God because it makes the universe a very boring place. The universe without God is so much more interesting. And without invoking a God, the gaps in knowledge become a fun topic for speculation, mathematical models, and theory.
--------------------------
RIGOLETTO: I'm denied that common human right, to weep.
Thanks for the reply.
'As for Ricky pursuing the gal, he loves her so he keeps pursuing her; love is not rational.'
I never got love from this relationship arc. I couldn't buy their relationship at all. Maybe it was the constant put downs (part of the honesty, okay) that she constantly said to him. I don't know, it just didn't work for me, but I'm glad it did for you.
Believe me, if this movie had've been funny and touching, I would have overlooked the Religious element. Groundhog Day is considered a Religious movie of sorts and it has never bothered me one bit.
'Yes she is trying to maximize the genetic fitness of her offspring.'
While I do agree that for a lot of people this might be the sole purpose, it surely isn't for others. How many seemingly mismatched couples do you constantly view on the street? Lots, I would imagine. It can't always be about looks and money and so on. In this world, the norm is for people to be shallow and it actually paints everyone in such a poor light, particularly Ricky's love interest.
'Irrelevant details do not testify to the truth of the document.'
I said this myself in my message. However, I pointed out that historians do consider irrelevant details as very important when ascertaining the sincerity of any document. Do you not consider historians views on The New Testament useful? I do, that's why I mentioned irrelevant details found in the Bible. You can play down this element if you like, but it will still be used as an important element in the favour of the New Testament.
"The way they paint themselves poorly in the Bible is a strong indicator of the authors sincerity."
'Not convincing at all.'
Why is this not convincing? Again, like the last point, this is an element in the Bible's favour frequently mentioned by biblical historians. I used an analogy to demonstrate this, but you seemed to ignore it. We also have four different accounts of the same events. These accounts are all slightly different. If they were all the same, then it might point to collusion between the writers. These differences also point to sincerity. You believe these documents were embellished at a later date. Well they mustn't have done a very good job. If they were embellishing these writings do you not feel they would've made all the accounts practically identical? The subtle differences all point to sincerity.
Do you not believe that some rules or practices have to be considered in order to ascertain the sincerity of documents? In a court of law, these same procedures are used. If historians used your logic and brushed this off as unconvincing they wouldn't have much to go on, would they? They believe this to be very relevant.
Surely it is important to determine how many years after Christ The New Testament was written?
'I have never doubted that Jesus lived... I believe he was an ordinary man, that's all.'
Ricky Gervais doesn't believe this. Neither does Richard Dawkins. He doesn't believe Jesus existed at all. I love science and I love facts. When believers say the world is 6000 years old it is ignoring the facts. However, the same can be said for those who say Jesus didn't exist. They are ignoring all the historical evidence. If Ricky even listened or read an interview of one biblical historian he would realise that his views on the New Testament and Jesus Christ are ignorant. These two men would be doing well to find one historian who might agree with them, yet they conveniently choose to ignore this and constantly shout from the rooftops that Jesus was a myth.
"It can't always be about looks and money and so on."
Its not, but they are awfully important in normal relationship. Ask yourself this... who has a easier time finding "love": (1) a person who is attractive, well off, and in great physical shape, or (2) someone who is ordinary, low income, and is in poor shape? The film is mocking ordinary relationship by exposing the crass self-interest and selfishness behind the actions of typical people. I found it hilarious. No idea with Ground Hog Day had to say about religion (for or against it), but I'll take your word for it. Its a funny film, but not very interesting from an intellectual point of view. This film is so much more amusing and intellectual. But that's probably a matter of taste. I like satires and this film was one of the rare true satires.
"If they were embellishing these writings do you not feel they would've made all the accounts practically identical?"
No, because in the context of the early Christian church, they were underground movements, following what were in fact rival accounts of the events and there was considerable disagreement about the actual nature of Jesus himself between different factions.
"this is an element in the Bible's favour frequently mentioned by biblical historians."
Well as interesting as this is, biblical scholars operate on a principle of confirming their belief, rather than of challenging their belief so anything they come up with is more a justification of what they already believe than any real evidence. But thanks for the tip, if I ever want to create a religious text, write badly, paint myself poorly, and add irrelevant detail. By the way differences between witnesses accounts in legal cases is used to discredit them, not confirm their sincerity.
"Dawkins...He doesn't believe Jesus existed at all."
That's kind of irrelevant. What Dawkins does or does not believe is not particularly interesting to me. Personally I think its a red herring to pursue that line of reasoning. Legends often are based on some grain of historical truth and it would be much simpler to suppose that they are embellished stories based on actual events then pure fiction (people are really not that creative).
Personally I think that Jesus would be regarded today as a philosopher and moral teacher, but his teachings were distorted by a belief in his divinity.
Edit: According to Wikipedia Dawkins "writes that it is probable Jesus existed, but that a serious argument can be mounted against it".
--------------------------
RIGOLETTO: I'm denied that common human right, to weep.
'I found it hilarious. No idea with Ground Hog Day had to say about religion (for or against it), but I'll take your word for it. Its a funny film, but not very interesting from an intellectual point of view. This film is so much more amusing and intellectual. But that's probably a matter of taste. I like satires and this film was one of the rare true satires.'
Hilarious? In fairness, comedy is subjective and you're entitled to your opinion. However, you probably would be in the minority on rating The Invention of Lying over Groundhog Day. Groundhog Day has a rating of 8.3 on IMDB, whereas The Invention of Lying has a 6.3 rating. Groundhog Day is a modern 'It's a Wonderful Life.' It has a 'Scrooge' story arc, where we see the main character transform from being a miserable, self-centre individual to a person who genuinely cares about helping other people and improving his life.
'No, because in the context of the early Christian church, they were underground movements, following what were in fact rival accounts of the events and there was considerable disagreement about the actual nature of Jesus himself between different factions.'
This sounds like something straight from 'The DaVinci Code'. A conspiracy theory that you have no evidence of. Simply rumour at best. You dismiss claims about the authenticity of the New Testament, yet come up with a theory like this, which has no substance and which you probably believe happened shortly after the writing of the New Testament. You dismiss one ancient story (The New Testament), which has a lot of historian backing going for it, but believe this ancient account (which Dan Brown would be proud of writing)?
'Well as interesting as this is, biblical scholars operate on a principle of confirming their belief, rather than of challenging their belief so anything they come up with is more a justification of what they already believe than any real evidence.'
Bart Ehrman has no belief. He's not a Christian. He doesn't believe Jesus was the Son of God, so this argument makes no sense. He's not out to prove anything only the truth about an ancient text. He's not a believer! I actually feel this is a sad way of viewing biblical historians. You could say this about any historian who studies any historical event of the past.
Maybe in another 1000 years people will question the Holocaust. After all, there will only be books outlining the atrocities that occurred. Why should we believe those? In 1000 years time, mankind might just ask, 'Who wrote these books on the Holocaust?' 'Can we believe these writers?' 'But maybe they weren't there?' 'Perhaps the text was changed?' Can you see my point here?
"Groundhog Day has a rating of 8.3 on IMDB, whereas The Invention of Lying has a 6.3 rating. Groundhog Day is a modern 'It's a Wonderful Life.'"
Well, I did say I like it because its a SATIRE and neither Groundhog day or its a Wonderful life are. I personally don't like things based on their popularity.
"This sounds like something straight from 'The DaVinci Code'."
Maybe you should read up a little more on debates in the early church before you dismiss my views as being taken from a ridiculous novel.
"Maybe in another 1000 years people will question the Holocaust."
Now you are just getting absurd and nasty.
The debate is over. You win by stooping so low. Congrats.
Enjoy your ridiculous fairy tales.
--------------------------
RIGOLETTO: I'm denied that common human right, to weep.
How was I being nasty? I wasn't being nasty at all. I was trying to make a point.
'If you say that historical evidence doesn't count, then I think you get into huge trouble, because then why not deny the Holocaust, or that Abraham Lincoln lived. I think it matters what happened in history.' Bart Ehrman (New Testament Scholar)
Stooping so low? I was just repeating what Bart Ehrman once said in an interview about the New Testament. I think it's a legitimate point. If enough time passes, mankind can dismiss anything as 'ridiculous fairy tales.'
I was enjoying this debate until your last reply. I think we should end it here, though. I fully respect your right to believe or not believe whatever you want. Please respect mine. In fact, I don't know what to believe. I'm not religious at all. I was just stating my belief that people tend to dismiss the New Testament without studying it in any shape or form - like Ricky Gervais. I'm fascinated by any historical document (whether legend or fact) that has stood the test of time. All the best.
You got probability a bit backwards.
Saying that a god had to have created Earth because the chance that a planet will be able to support life as we know it is infinitesimal is like saying that the guy who won a lottery last week din't actually win because the probability of winning is extremely low. It has happened. It's done.
When we discuss probability, we're talking about future. Probability of past events is 1.
There is little point in discussing how improbable it is that a planet would turn out like ours because the mere fact that we're having this discussion means that it HAS happened.
Any historical will pinpoint the irrelevant details in the New Testament to strengthen its case (along with much more). In other words, the writers of the New Testament were telling the truth. The way it was written isn't consistent with fabrication.
Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.share
In that world, in order to leave the table when she got the cell phone call in which she belittled him, she would need to understand the concept of not letting him know the truth, which as was established in the film is not possible in that satirical world.
Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.share
Lack of lying and lack of even the concept of lying means that you also lack the sensitivity to know that people might be hurt from your words. Why? Because this extreme honesty is their permanent default situation, while they lack any alternative means of saying or think about other things to say that would not hurt the feelings of other. If you cannot even imagine a different way how can you do things differently?
Their extreme honesty is realistic because there can be no honesty without lying or distorting the truth. If you do not evolve the ability to lie you cannot evolve the ability to be polite or even having any imagination at all. Being polite does not mean you always have to lie, but there is no way you can maintain politeness to anyone without ever beautifying the truth. Without lies you cannot even have that, so how can you be avoid being impolite?
The film can only be examined as a thought experiment or satire, not literally. There is no way there could ever have any civilization and technology without lies and imagination, we would still be in the caves tearing each other apart for territory.
Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.share
I know what you mean. I only wanted to watch this because I liked the concept, but once I realized it wasn't that people didn't lie, it was that they blurted out everything that came to mind, I was completely turned away. I literally only made it to the restaurant scene at the beginning and realized it wasn't what I thought it was and shut it off. Maybe I'll watch it later on when the concept sounds appealing, but I don't care for it right now.
shareExactly! I went to see it in the cinema very much looking forward to it, thinking it was a great concept, but around the restaurant scene I too couldn't understand why everyone was shouting random things out. Poorly executed film.
shareyou people, don't worry it's most people on earth, are so addicted to lying you need a rehab (in an honest world that of course doesn't exist.)
i mostly will not be able to answer your reply, since marissa mayer hacked my email, no notification
Politeness is a type of dishonesty, as keeping your thoughts to yourself constitutes an act of deception. That's why characters like House or Sherlock can be described as "too honest." A world without lies would therefore be a world of Houses and Sherlocks.
shareNaaah. Only kids believe that.
shareNot lying and saying everything that you think would lead to the situation of the film though. Because if you really think about it politeness evolved socially and culturally as a way to prevent us from tearing out the guts of each other, which could be a certain... hurdle to the formation of even the most elementary civilization*. Politeness evolved out of lying and/or distorting - beautifying the truth (half lies). If you do not evolve the ability to lie or distort the truth in any way, then you cannot evolve the ability to be polite. Or write fiction either.
*Which is why a no lying world could never co-exist with a civilization, and thus the film should only be viewed as a metaphor or thought experiment, not literally.
Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.share
'Where are the independent historical sources and archaeological findings to verify your (self-evident apparently) truthfulness of the bible?'
Hi Korios,
Saying the authors of the New Testament were telling the truth isn't an over the top statement. Someone can be telling the truth and still be completely wrong or mistaken in their observations. I'm saying they were being sincere in their testimonies.