Its rating shows we have mainly hardcore Atheists voting.

Yes, it is ridiculous to believe that places called Hell and Heaven exist, that two dead movie reviewers are in either of them, and that there wouldn't be Hi-Def media installations in the Glorious Land of the High Lord Satan who doesn't exist either. Your blind belief in whatever it is you spout has also affected how you understand satire, sarcasm and irony as well as metaphysical reality. When you get your head around logical thought, you can come back and join me in an intelligent discussion at the grown-up table about why you are entirely wrong about every childish delusion you hold dear.

Prove it, prove this movie wasn't based on a real story; until then you comment is HOGwash.

That's ridiculous.

THe movie is about a experience that changed a childs life, and this movie fleshed that story out, so please remind me as a Christian and not hardcore and NOT in the slightest offended about how my religion'' was portrayed , should be offended ?

NOt in the slightest.

I had a experience myself which some non adults might laugh at and for a time get giggles from their similar non adult peers, but this movie is doing nothing other than sharing similar experiences of which are many throughout many peoples lives and reminding people, that believe or non belief is irrelevant, when viewing and heck even 'listening' to a movie about a real-life experience or someone in person, its all the same.

People in general, or far deeper than you give them credit for, and not having religion forced on them, as this movie doesn't DO at all, is enough to turn a few heads into directions that before might have seemed impossible or undesireable ;)

I say AMEN and eeeeeeeeeeeeehaw.

Oh and btw, what exactly are the 'offensive' elements of Christianity, please do share.

Thanh You for saying it in a few effective words.
It is indeed frightening to see such instability calling the rest of us unstable and mentally ill.

I will put my degrees and IQ up against your Sunday school diploma in fairy tales, dreams of cloud monsters and defiance of reality, history and logic any day.

Because if you have no argument other than ad hominem attacks and faith-based insistence on your preposterous hypotheses and ignorance/revisions of the past, you might want to hit some non-religious books yourself.

But of course I seriously doubt you have anything to say other than "you're stupid because my god thing just exists and church and stuff".

Nevertheless, here are my ironclad arguments that reality backs up:

1) Only that which exists exists.

2) All that exists is all that exists. There is nothing outside of all that exists because all that exists is the sum total of everything. If something exists, it is in this set of all that exists.

3) That which is claimed to be outside of all that exists do not exist. Schrödinger's cat aside, things cannot be in and out of existence at the same time.

4) Space, time, matter and energy exist. Because we can measure them and the things that are composed of them.

5) Space and time exist and are actually a single unit; this is observable through gravity and time dilation - part of that big old thing called Einstein's general relativity - it's not in some dusty old "book" written by cave-dwellers 1800 years ago, so you have probably never heard of it.

6) The matter and energy are linked too, but by special relativity (also by that stupid Einstein guy) - in fact, you might have seen but do not understand its shorthand E=mc2. It is a kind of important little formula. It proves that the mass of matter and its energy are equivalent to each other, in a constant locked proportion. This too is consistently observable in things like chemical and nuclear reactions.

7) Also because of special relativity, matter and energy are conserved. That means neither can be created or destroyed. The amount of energy and matter in a closed system (like the set of all that exists) is always the same. Only the form of the matter and the energy changes. But the equivalency holds. In other words, something never comes from nothing. Again, that which exists never comes from outside of the set of that which exists because that is not logically possible, it is not what is observed, and it is not how physical reality works. If something appears new, it is just reconfigured matter and/or energy that already existed in spacetime which too has always existed. (Big Bang was the start of measurable time, not time itself. And it hardly coincides with any ridiculous theological creationist myth.)

8) Concepts are abstracts and exist only as such. The idea of a unicorn exists in a mental construct. This idea can be drawn as a picture. It can be scuplted in clay. It can be rendered as a costume. And while these representations will exist, until a unicorn comprised of matter and energy is observable and measurable in spacetime in a concrete form exactly as it has been conceptualized and defined, a unicorn does not exist.

Now here is the false premise at the core of all this religious nonsense:

A creator deity as defined in the Judeo-Christian mythos is the originator of all that exists. (Remember: that which doesn't exist doesn't exist.)

So let's test this definition:

A) For this god thing to have created all that exists, it had to create time. But at what time did it decide to invent this time thing? Ten minutes before it did? Fifteen? An hour? If you cannot see the problem here, you have no understanding of logic and never will. There is no such thing as a time "before the dawn of time" without the existence of time. For time to be created, it had to not exist previously. But if there is no existing thing called time, there is no such concept as previously. So this ubiquitous "before the dawn of time" stipulation on a creator deity definition sounds all magical, mystical and fearfully awe-inspiring but actually disproves its possibility.

B) This god thing to have created all that exists had to create all that exists - including itself. What time did it do that? Before it created time I would imagine, so that it could create time while it existed and not while it didn't exist. Because things that don't exist can't create anything. Plus matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed so it is not possible to make everything (including itself) out of nothing unless this god thing was also non-existing in the void that it didn't exist in before it created itself, time and everything else. But that which is claimed to be outside of what exists is that which doesn't exist. And that again just proves the opposite of your ultimate hypothesis here - even as grandiose as "outside of time and space" sounds.

And all this supposedly took six days, according to your source material. But that too doesn't hold up because we know things took a little longer from observations catalogued in actual books. Moreover if this god thing is truly all-powerful, why take six days at all? That's not a really huge selling point for its supernatural abilities. And then why plant false antiques like dinosaur bones but forget to mention them in the book that is supposedly a verbatim history of how everything came into being? These are not the actions of a perfect omniscient and omnipotent entity writing down or directly relating its story correctly.

C) For this god thing to be truly omnipotent, because according to its definition it can do and create all - which would include the inconceivable and it has absolutely no limits whatsoever. So then it has to be able to create its own destroyer. If it cannot create its own instrument of destruction - a superior entity by definition, then it is not all powerful. If it creates such a superior entity, it is not all-powerful - its creation is. Because you probably still do not comprehend logic, I will let you know that this is what is called a paradox and it cannot be argued around.

So, now it is your turn to reply with your well-reasoned arguments and empirical evidence. In all your years of school, you do know how the scientific method and Aristotelian logic work, right? Things I will not accept are "it just does", "the bible says....", "you have to believe without anything to back it up", or any number of fallacious arguments like straw men, the appeal to popularity/fear, or the rest of the mumbo-jumbo that your side has been spewing from pulpits for years. I doubt you have much to say outside of insults. Either you blindly defend ramified nonsense based on a bad premise, or you need to keep changing the definition of this god thing. Because you are clinging to really antiquated definitions and hypotheses that are just not tenable anymore. If you cannot prove the premise from which all your other beliefs stem, none of your subsequent hypotheses have any validity. If you cannot take this god thing as it is conceptualized and present it to me here in the realm of the existing for observation and measurement, it is a concept no different than a unicorn or Russell's teapot.

But here is what I will tell everyone who claims fables and folktales over science and logic as to how the universe works: for all your talk of surrender to a higher power, for all your devotion to the incredible and unseen, I invite each and every one of you true believers in an earthly religion to ascend to the highest cliff in the land, get as close to your sky master as possible and pitch yourself off on the wings of your faith.

> Faith (in gods, heaven, etc.) and scientific truth are in all ways opposed.

You keep making those completely unsupported claims. It is almost like you have taken them on faith and don't require evidence.

Here's the thing about an omnipotent deity, you can neither prove nor disprove their existence. That makes it outside the realm of science - it is completely unfalsifiable. Don't believe me? Describe a test that could definitively prove or disprove the existence of an omnipotent deity. If you are honest you will admit no such test can exist.

At that point, if you have any critical thinking ability at all, you must accept that belief in such a deity means absolutely nothing about how much one values the scientific method.

> Nevertheless, it's not like we're going to get anywhere talking about this since
> all my comments are going right over your head anyways, so I shall leave you to
> your comforting superstitions.

Hey smug guy, I've always been an atheist and I alway will be one. I've just paid a whole lot more attention than you have.