search results matching tag: atkinson
» channel: learn
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds
Videos (108) | Sift Talk (0) | Blogs (8) | Comments (95) |
Videos (108) | Sift Talk (0) | Blogs (8) | Comments (95) |
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
Lion King - Live Action Teaser
I get the casting choices, I really do. But why, exactly, couldn't Rowan Atkinson reprise his role? Nothing against John Oliver, but really...
Edit: I can only surmise that based upon his public comments of "I didn't really want to do voice work" has overridden any enduring desire to revisit something that he ended up liking, even after the fact.
BSR (Member Profile)
Your video, Rowan Atkinson Dusts Off An Old Comedy Bit, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.
Gun Control Explained by Mr Bean
That's not Mr Bean, it's Rowan Atkinson on a completely different show.
Mr. Bean Is A Master Of Physical Comedy
Sorry nerdwriter, this is where you and I part ways.
I HATE Mr Bean. It's Atkinson's worst role, which is a shame because Atkinson is brilliant.
Blackadder is one of my favourite characters, but even the other stage bits are way funnier than Bean.
The Incoherence of Atheism (Ravi Zacharias)
@alcom
I hear you shinyblurry, but I feel that your argument meanders back to the original appeal to authority that most believers resort to when justifying their positions. I also find that the related video links provided by TheGenk provide a valid refutation of the idea that God is The One who put values of good and evil inside each of us.
There is always an appeal to authority, either to God or to men. There are either objective moral values which are imposed by God, or morality is relative and determined by men. If morality is relative then there is no good or evil, and what is considered good today may be evil tomorrow. If it isn't absolutely wrong to murder indiscriminately, for instance, then if enough people agreed that it was right, it would be. Yet, this does not cohere with reality because we all know that murdering indiscriminately is absolutely wrong. The true test of a worldview is its coherence to reality and atheism is incoherent with our experience, whereas Christian theism describes it perfectly.
If you feel the videos provide a valid refutation, could you articulate the argument that they are using so we can discuss them here?
In my mind, Zacharias' incoherence with the atheist's ability to love and live morally is influenced by his own understanding of the source of moral truth. Because he defines the origin of pure love as Jesus' sacrifice on behalf of mankind, it is unfathomable to him that love could be found as a result of human survival/selection based of traits of cooperation, peace and mutual benefits of our social structure. His logic is therefore coloured and his mind is closed to certain ideas and possibilities.
The idea of agape love is a Christian idea, and agape love is unconditional love. You do not get agape love out of natural selection because it is sacrificial and sacrificing your well being or your life has a very negative impact on your chance to survive and pass on your genes. However, Christ provided the perfect example of agape love by sacrificing His life not only for His friends and family, but for people who hate and despise Him. In the natural sense, since Jesus failed to pass on His genes His traits should be selected out of the gene pool. Christ demonstrated a higher love that transcends the worldly idea of love. Often when the world speaks of love, it is speaking of eros love, which is love based on physical attraction, or philial love, which is brotherly love. The world knows very little of agape love outside of Christ. Christ taught agape love as the universal duty of men towards God:
Luke 6:27 "But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
Luke 6:28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.
Luke 6:29 To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either.
Luke 6:30 Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back.
Luke 6:31 And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.
Luke 6:32 "If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.
Luke 6:33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.
Luke 6:34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount.
Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.
Luke 6:36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.
Indeed, moral foundations can and must change with the times. As our understanding of empathy, personal freedoms and the greater good of mankind develops with our societal and cultural evolution, so too must our standards of morality. This is most evident when concepts such as slavery and revenge (an eye for an eye) are seen as commonplace and acceptable throughout old scripture where modern society has evolved a greater understanding of the need for equality and basic human rights and policing and corrections as a measure of deterrence and rehabilitation for those individuals that stray from the path of greatest utility.
This is why slavery is no more, why racism is in decline and why eventually gay rights and green thought will be universal and our struggle to stifle the rights of gays and exploit the planet's resources to the point of our own self-extinction simply will be seen by future historians as sheer ignorance. Leviticus still pops up when people try to brand gays as deviant, even though most it is itself incoherent by today's standards. Remember that "defecating within the camp was unacceptable lest God step in it while walking in the evening." Well, today we just call that sewage management.
Some people, like Richard Dawkins, see infanticide as being the greatest utility. Some believe that to save the planet around 70 percent of the population must be exterminated. Green thought is to value the health of the planet above individual lives; to basically say that human lives are expendable to preserve the collective. This is why abortion is not questionable to many who hold these ideals; because human life isn't that valuable to them. I see many who have green thoughts contrast human beings to cattle or cockroaches. Utility is an insufficient moral standard because it is in the eye of the beholder.
In regards to the Levitical laws, those were given to the Jews and not the world, and for that time and place. God made a covenant with the Jewish people which they agreed to follow. The covenant God made with the world through Christ is different than the Mosaic law, and it makes those older laws irrelevant. If you would like to understand why God would give laws regarding slavery, or homosexuality, I can elucidate further.
In regards to your paraphrasing of Deuteronomy 23:13-14, this is really a classic example of how the scripture can be made to look like it is saying one thing, when it is actually saying something completely different. Did you read this scripture? It does not say that:
Deuteronomy 23:13 And you shall have a trowel with your tools, and when you sit down outside, you shall dig a hole with it and turn back and cover up your excrement.
Deuteronomy 23:14 Because the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and to give up your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you.
Gods home on Earth was in the tabernacle, and because God dwelled with His people, He exorted them to keep the camp holy out of reverence for Him.
The rules that God gave for cleanliness were 2500 years ahead of their time:
"In the Bible greater stress was placed upon prevention of disease than was given to the treatment of bodily ailments, and in this no race of people, before or since, has left us such a wealth of LAWS RELATIVE TO HYGIENE AND SANITATION as the Hebrews. These important laws, coming down through the ages, are still used to a marked degree in every country in the world sufficiently enlightened to observe them. One has but to read the book of Leviticus carefully and thoughtfully to conclude that the admonitions of Moses contained therein are, in fact, the groundwork of most of today's sanitary laws. As one closes the book, he must, regardless of his spiritual leanings, feel that the wisdom therein expressed regarding the rules to protect health are superior to any which then existed in the world and that to this day they have been little improved upon" (Magic, Myth and Medicine, Atkinson, p. 20). Dr. D. T. Atkinson
What's interesting about that is that Moses was trained in the knowledge of the Egyptians, the most advanced civilization in the world at that time. Yet you will not find even a shred of it in the bible. Their understanding of medicine at that time led to them doing things like rubbing feces into wounds; ie, it was completely primitive in comparison to the commands that God gave to Moses about cleanliness. Moses didn't know about germs but God did.
Paedophilia will never emerge as acceptable because it violates our basic understanding of human rights and the acceptable age of sexual consent. I know this is a common warning about the "slippery slope of a Godless definition of morality," but it's really a red herring. Do you honestly think society would someday deem that it carries a benefit to society? I just can't see it happening.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_Ancient_Greece
I hear you shinyblurry, but I feel that your argument meanders back to the original appeal to authority that most believers resort to when justifying their positions.
Rowan Atkinson Blood Donation P.I.F. - (1989)
Thanks to @halfAcat for the memory jog.
*related=http://videosift.com/video/The-Really-Useful-Guide-To-Alcohol-Rowan-Atkinson
The Really Useful Guide To Alcohol - Rowan Atkinson
Rowan Atkinson Blood Donation P.I.F. - (1989) has been added as a related post - related requested by Barseps on that post.
Rowan Atkinson Blood Donation P.I.F. - (1989)
The Really Useful Guide To Alcohol - Rowan Atkinson has been added as a related post - related requested by Barseps.
Stephen Fry on American vs British Humor
I don't know about this... Think about the best American comic right now, Louis CK. His on-stage (and on-screen) persona almost exactly fits what Fry describes as the British archetype. And he's not alone: think about Larry David in Curb Your Enthusiasm, George Costanza in Seinfeld, Homer Simpson, even Lucille Ball.
On the flip side, British comedians like Russell Brand, Jimmy Carr and Rowan Atkinson in Blackadder (except for the first season) are more like Fry's description of American comedy. It seems to me that what Fry has done here is come up with a nice neat story about differing national character based on broad stereotypes rather than acute observation, turned that into a theory of comedy, and then cherry-picked examples that fit his theory without mentioning exceptions. It all sounds very impressive given his amazing facility with language and rhetoric, but it's not very good analysis.
Rowan Atkinson's Speech: Reform Section 5
>> ^Boise_Lib:
Hear hear!
"No sir, I do not. Unless, of course, the definition of genius in his ridiculous dictionary is 'a fat dullard or wobble-bottom; a pompous ass with sweaty dewflaps"
Rowan Atkinson's Speech: Reform Section 5
>> ^vaire2ube:
double cheers!
now apply this to the drug war!
Aye!
radx (Member Profile)
In reply to this comment by radx:
*promote
Thank you for the promote!
best or worst death scene ever
A step down from Rowan Atkinson's usual roles... well except for maybe Johnny English
New Gorilla Study Reveals Much About Their Personalities
Pamela Stephenson, Mel Smith and Rowan Atkinson.
Rowan Atkinson performs Ode to Joy
>> ^ponceleon:
>> ^cracanata:
Let me get this one. I was well known or speculated that EU wasn't as much about a union but rather a 4th Reich back then? Because this is the vibe I get these days.
Come again?
More on the subject. http://www.stirringtroubleinternationally.com/2011/11/24/germany-is-taking-over-europe-without-a-shot-being-fired/
Sure, this can easily pass as a conspiracy nut case but still.