It's been done before.

https://videosift.com/video/Moby-Dick-1956-Gregory-Pecks-Best-Scene

Sometimes to cross that bridge, there's no other choice but to behead the troll first. That's why so few bridges still have trolls today.

What do you mean there's no such thing as trolls?! Then how do you explain all the dead unicorns?

Learn?! You really think he's capable?

Remember, Moby Dick wasn't blameless. If he had just returned the leg he stole maybe he wouldn't have ended up so perforated, but his raison d'etre was triggering Ahab, and no amount of harpooning was going to dissuade him from trolling and no argument, no matter how unassailable and reasoned, could dissuade Ahab from his vendetta.

I never denied saying that. I'll say it again if you like.

"You common cry of curs, whose breath I hate
As reek o' th' rotten fens, whose loves I prize
As the dead carcasses of unburied men
That do corrupt my air, I banish you!"
-Shakespeare

"Swerve me? The path to my fixed purpose is laid with iron rails, whereon my soul is grooved to run."
-Herman Melville

"That Edward shall be fearful of his life,
And then, to purge his fear, I'll be thy death.
King Henry and the prince his son are gone:
Clarence, thy turn is next, and then the rest,
Counting myself but bad till I be best."
Shakespeare

"All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in Moby Dick. He piled upon the whale’s white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart’s shell upon it."
-Herman Melville

“Destruction is a form of creation.”
-Graham Greene


I should probably thank @bobknight33 . Now I know why people cut the tongues out of some men.

Have you forgiven the cop that put a gun to your head and saved your life and his by not pulling the trigger?

I wonder where he is today and if he truly regrets and is sorry for his actions at that time. It's been awhile hasn't it?

To forgive him would show that you learned something on that day.

If you're lucky maybe he did too and both of you can stop lugging that heavy weight around with you.

If nothing else it would free you from the jail that he did lock in.

He gave you his anger. That makes two bad cops.

He is your Moby Dick.

Thor vs Moby Dick, eh?
I'm on the whales side

"There she blows!-there she blows! A hump like a snow-hill! It is Moby Dick!”
― Herman Melville, Moby Dick

The Moby Dick and Peter Pan tattoos were nice looking.

A simpler gesture of self-importance might be more simply inked, "I am a pretentious hipster."

(a couple of these were quite tasteful-dug the Moby Dick and the dandelion )

>> ^ReverendTed:

It must be great being Patrick Stewart.
He literally cannot be in a bad production. The worst script in the world becomes a masterpiece by his mere participation.
What was that? Nemesis? I'm sorry, I think you're breaking up...


Unfortunately you didn't see the very crappy made for TV movie of "Moby Dick" he stared in (for a bung load of money) ... By an Australian TV company ... I work for an Australian TV Company .. their standards aren't the best.

>> ^shveddy:
@HadouKen24 - All that you say is very dandy and very well may be true, but you'd be shocked at how widespread it is to cling to 19th century literalist beliefs. I'm not sure what country you're from, but here in the US it's remarkably common and even presidential candidates manage to think it despite pursuing the most powerful office in the world. I grew up in a particular Christian denomination, one of hundreds, and we had an official statement of faith that stated the absolute, literal, inerrant nature of the bible. This particular flavor of Christianity has about 3 million adherants, and again, this is only one of hundreds - many of which are even more conservative in their biblical interpretation.
When you say that it has been common for some time to regard sacred texts in a metaphorical sense I think that's definitely true, especially in the case of liberal theologians. However, when you take away the literal interpretations and leave interpretative metaphor all that remains is an interesting and influential piece of literature that has no specific authority. And I think this is a good thing. But the fact of the matter is that it lowers it to the same level as Moby Dick, Oedipus, Infinite Jest and Harry Potter - all of which are books that have interesting, moralistic metaphors just like the bible.
Let's face it, religion needs the teeth of absolute truth and the threat of moral superiority to have any privileged relevance over other interesting, moral works. I see neither in any of its texts.
@shinyblurry - Give me a non-macroevolutionary reason that junk mutations in Cytochrome C just happen follow a clear developing and branching pattern that just happens to coincide perfectly with those independently developed by scores of other disciplines (such as embryology, paleontology and so on) as well as those based on hundreds of other non-coding markers (such as viral DNA insertions and transposons, to name a few).
If you can give me an answer that can account for these coincidences, does so without macroevolution, and indicates that you actually took the time to understand the concepts I listed above, then I'll take the time to write a much more exhaustive response as to why you're wrong.


Hmm, your statement is littered with all sorts of inaccurate information.

Okay, first of all, this idea of "junk dna" is dying a slow death:

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/

Contrary to your assertion, so-called junk dna is functional. And the idea of viral DNA insertions is completely ruled out when this "random" DNA turns out not to be so random after all, and serving very specific purposes. The idea, created in ignorance, exists mainly as a fudge factor for the evolutionary paradigm. The problem for evolutionists is that natural selection cannot produce enough mutations to account for the millions it needs in the 300,000 generations it took for humans to evolve. It's a lot easier to come up those numbers when 95 percent of the genome is "junk".

Second, molecular and morphological phylogenies are often wildly divergent. This is from an Article in nature magazine subtitled:

"Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don’t resemble those drawn up from morphology. Can the two ever be reconciled, asks Trisha Gura"

"When biologists talk of the ‘evolution wars’, they usually mean the ongoing battle for supremacy in American schoolrooms between Darwinists and their creationist opponents. But the phrase could also be applied to a debate that is raging within systematics. On one side stand traditionalists who have built evolutionary trees from decades of work on species' morphological characteristics. On the other lie molecular systematists, who are convinced that comparisons of DNA and other biological molecules are the best way to unravel the secrets of evolutionary history. . . .

Battles between molecules and morphology are being fought across the entire tree of life. Perhaps the most intense are in vertebrate systematics, where molecular biologists are challenging a tradition that relies on studies of fossil skeletons and the bones and soft tissue of living species. . . .

So can the disparities between molecular and morphological trees ever be resolved? Some proponents of the molecular approach claim there is no need. The solution, they say, is to throw out morphology, and accept their version of the truth. “Our method provides the final conclusion about phylogeny,” claims Okada. Shared ancestry means a genetic relationship, the molecular camp argues, so it must be better to analyse DNA and the proteins it encodes, rather than morphological characters that can end up looking similar as a result of convergent evolution in unrelated groups, rather than through common descent. But morphologists respond that convergence can also happen at the molecular level, and note there is a long history of systematists making large claims based on one new form of evidence, only to be proved wrong at a later date"

They are so divergent that two camps have emerged in systematics, each claiming their phylogenies are more accurate. So your claim that Cytochrome C matches "scores" of different phylogenies is patently false, since hardly any of them agree. If want to say that isn't true, please provide the evidence. Note that "scores" means at least 40.

Third, creation theory predicts a hierarchical pattern, so finding one isn't going to falsify creationism or prove common descent. Especially in the case of the phylogeny of Cytochrome C, which has no intermediates or transitionals to be found. You do also realize that a common design can be explained by a common designer? It could simply be the case that Cytochrome C was tailored for different groups according to individual specifications, which then diverged futher by mutations. If your response is that Cytochrome C functions the same way in all life, my response is that the differences could be for coding other proteins.

Before I go any further, I would ask you to support your claims. Show me the specific data you're talking about so I can rebut it.

Not only do I live in the US, but I live Oklahoma, one of the most religiously conservative states. I don't have a great deal of respect for that brand of religion, for sure. Which is precisely why it's so galling to see a video that suggests that's just what Christians have to be like--that Christians who reject the Bibliolatry and hermeneutic cutting and pasting of those idiots somehow aren't real Christians, that rejecting the sheep-like credulity of these so-called faithful means that the thoughtful ones haven't actually thought it through. And somehow it is averred that those who cling to the ancient traditions of Biblical understanding are inauthentically Christian, since they don't accept the quasi-heretical doctrines of 19th century upstarts.

Clearly false. Yet that's the whole thrust of the video!



With regard to your last two paragraphs, I think we're starting to move away from straightforward commentary on the video. But that's alright with me, if it's okay with you.

As far as dogmatic authority goes, I think that you're partly right about some religions. Specifically, the big Abrahamic religions--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It's important to remember that this is not the entire world of religion (even if they are important), so there are a number of statements about them that will be incorrect about other religions--in fact, most other religions.

It's true that the Big Three do indeed seem to require acceding to the truth of certain propositions in order to remain in their historical form: e.g., that the Torah was revealed by God, that Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead, and that Mohammad received the Qur'an from Michael. (for each religion respectively) There is certainly an important sense in which certain very liberal theologians are still Christian, but this is something very different than historical Christianity.

Nonetheless, this is something separate from moral authority. One may deny that there is anything correct about the metaphysical pronouncements of the Bible, and still accept that its moral teachings are profoundly important. This is precisely what philosophy Slavoj Zizek has done.

For most other religions, the number of specific propositions that must be accepted is few to none. Pronouncements about gods or salvation are amenable to multiple interpretations. The ancient Greek philosophers, for instance, were quite religious on the whole. Yet read a book on Epicureanism, Stoicism, and Platonism, and tell me what proposition about the gods that they agree on. You'll find it quite difficult.

The same can be said of Shinto, Hinduism, Buddhism, Western Pagan revivals, etc.

Moreover, I myself don't think that moral authority is actually essential to religion. It's certainly related to religion, but as I'm sure you've observed--there's not much of a correlation between religious belief and moral behavior. Simple observation shows most Christians to be liars. Morality is not why they are Christian.

Instead, I think it's something else--transcendence, and the promise of new states of being. Morality has almost nothing to do with this. The same man can be capable of the most holy ecstasies and raptures before the beauty of the God or gods that he prays to, a writer of the most delicately beautiful hymns and homilies--and the worst bastard on earth outside of church. Cardinal Richilieu was just such a person.

This is why we'll never get rid of religion, of course. But it's also why the monotheistic religions can be so dangerous. They incorrectly tie the ecstasies of the spirit to crude and intolerant dogmas, then demand that all others agree or face the sword or the pyre.

>> ^shveddy:

@HadouKen24 - All that you say is very dandy and very well may be true, but you'd be shocked at how widespread it is to cling to 19th century literalist beliefs. I'm not sure what country you're from, but here in the US it's remarkably common and even presidential candidates manage to think it despite pursuing the most powerful office in the world. I grew up in a particular Christian denomination, one of hundreds, and we had an official statement of faith that stated the absolute, literal, inerrant nature of the bible. This particular flavor of Christianity has about 3 million adherants, and again, this is only one of hundreds - many of which are even more conservative in their biblical interpretation.
When you say that it has been common for some time to regard sacred texts in a metaphorical sense I think that's definitely true, especially in the case of liberal theologians. However, when you take away the literal interpretations and leave interpretative metaphor all that remains is an interesting and influential piece of literature that has no specific authority. And I think this is a good thing. But the fact of the matter is that it lowers it to the same level as Moby Dick, Oedipus, Infinite Jest and Harry Potter - all of which are books that have interesting, moralistic metaphors just like the bible.
Let's face it, religion needs the teeth of absolute truth and the threat of moral superiority to have any privileged relevance over other interesting, moral works. I see neither in any of its texts.

@HadouKen24 - All that you say is very dandy and very well may be true, but you'd be shocked at how widespread it is to cling to 19th century literalist beliefs. I'm not sure what country you're from, but here in the US it's remarkably common and even presidential candidates manage to think it despite pursuing the most powerful office in the world. I grew up in a particular Christian denomination, one of hundreds, and we had an official statement of faith that stated the absolute, literal, inerrant nature of the bible. This particular flavor of Christianity has about 3 million adherants, and again, this is only one of hundreds - many of which are even more conservative in their biblical interpretation.

When you say that it has been common for some time to regard sacred texts in a metaphorical sense I think that's definitely true, especially in the case of liberal theologians. However, when you take away the literal interpretations and leave interpretative metaphor all that remains is an interesting and influential piece of literature that has no specific authority. And I think this is a good thing. But the fact of the matter is that it lowers it to the same level as Moby Dick, Oedipus, Infinite Jest and Harry Potter - all of which are books that have interesting, moralistic metaphors just like the bible.

Let's face it, religion needs the teeth of absolute truth and the threat of moral superiority to have any privileged relevance over other interesting, moral works. I see neither in any of its texts.

@shinyblurry - Give me a non-macroevolutionary reason that junk mutations in Cytochrome C just happen follow a clear developing and branching pattern that just happens to coincide perfectly with those independently developed by scores of other disciplines (such as embryology, paleontology and so on) as well as those based on hundreds of other non-coding markers (such as viral DNA insertions and transposons, to name a few).

If you can give me an answer that can account for these coincidences, does so without macroevolution, and indicates that you actually took the time to understand the concepts I listed above, then I'll take the time to write a much more exhaustive response as to why you're wrong.

My brother committed suicide one week and a half ago. No warning, except for a few small clues of "usual" depression. He most likely had Asperger's from everything we know. But, he never got diagnosed as he was paranoid of doctors and hadn't seen so much as a dentist in 13 years.

I've tried to commit suicide myself in the past. I failed and was diagnosed with bi-polar. My brother pulled his off without a hitch. He had no such second chance--to rise from your own ashes and learn to understand yourself, and in turn others.

I have the vision of hindsight with me now. I know just how dangerous these murky waters of the mind are. They are utterly ignorant. Unrelenting. These waves deceive your mind's eye and convey only one premonition to come. And just when you think it can't be worse reality chases you through your days and dreams like some harried demon; an elemental made of some compulsion filled fateful last night of twilight's last dance. The lighthouse throws shadows rather than light and all the ports are closed.

THAT is what it means to be lost, truly. It requires great effort to stave it off. It is very much like a pitching sea. You must treat it almost like a monster of the deep by going to your doctor and arming yourself with what you can. Drugs, meditation, life changes, and most importantly knowledge...

The Internet may be a trigger in some small amount of cases, I agree. But, it is at school before we become young adults that we need to know these things and learn where to get help. We need to know how to recognize all types in ourselves and others as it is a common place issue; meanwhile psychiatry still remains semi-taboo topic in the public domain, making it a bigger problem still. It's very hard to help someone set on suicide as they are very much like Ahab in "Moby Dick". Watch your words, but know it is never truly one needle that truly breaks the camel's back.

I was agnostic and to me the definition was simply, I didn't know. Not that I couldn't know, that I just didn't have enough information to make a determination. For instance, the size of the Universe vs the fact we've never even left our backyard. So in that way I lacked a belief, because I couldn't believe either way without enough informaiton. I was open to the possibility of a God (with proof) or no God and just death.

Now, atheism has always been the explicit denial that a God exists. Claiming atheism is a lack of belief as a premise is plainly just a device for argument, to shift the burden of proof on the theist. If you lack belief either way, you're an agnostic not an atheist. If lack belief in a God(s) but then on the other side believe there are no Gods, that's just the same as denying that any Gods exist.

Also, it's never useless to quote the Word of God..I've found that most atheists really have no idea what is in the bible, and are often surprised when I show them verses which illuminate something that they misunderstood, or assumed.



>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Actually, atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist. Look it up in a dictionary sometime. A lack of belief, ie, you don't know, would be agnosticism.
Both are valid definitions for atheism, as indicated by every definition you yourself linked to. Theism is the belief in a god or gods. Atheism is anything else, whether it be a lack of belief or an active disbelief.
Agnosticism is the position that we can't know. You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.
I prefer to avoid such terms whenever possible. I'd rather just explain what I believe if someone wants to know than give a one-word (maybe two) blanket answer.
I'd also like to make a suggestion. You quote the Bible a lot but it's pretty useless in this context. The words of the Bible have power to you because you believe they are God's words, are divinely inspired, or something of the such. To those of us who do not believe in God, the words of the Bible are no more proof of anything than the words of Moby Dick. Know your audience, my friend. If you want to convince us, you're going to need to present evidence that we find compelling, not just you.

>> ^shinyblurry:
Actually, atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist. Look it up in a dictionary sometime. A lack of belief, ie, you don't know, would be agnosticism.

Both are valid definitions for atheism, as indicated by every definition you yourself linked to. Theism is the belief in a god or gods. Atheism is anything else, whether it be a lack of belief or an active disbelief.

Agnosticism is the position that we can't know. You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

I prefer to avoid such terms whenever possible. I'd rather just explain what I believe if someone wants to know than give a one-word (maybe two) blanket answer.

I'd also like to make a suggestion. You quote the Bible a lot but it's pretty useless in this context. The words of the Bible have power to you because you believe they are God's words, are divinely inspired, or something of the such. To those of us who do not believe in God, the words of the Bible are no more proof of anything than the words of Moby Dick. Know your audience, my friend. If you want to convince us, you're going to need to present evidence that we find compelling, not just you.