Aunt Robin is going to end up having Ted's kids. Because who needs narrative consistency when you can surprise your audience.

Agreed. Not only switching the narrator, but then revealing that the narrator's audience was a figment of her/our imagination is just lazy and manipulative writing. Wouldn't Ted's kids be able to recognize that Aunt Robin doesn't have kids?

I thought Into The Abyss was good, but Cave might be one of Herzog's best. I wouldn't expect Into The Abyss to do much at the Oscars. And honestly, I don't really care who wins. I would just really love to see a Werner Herzog acceptance speech.

No mention of Cave Of Forgotten Dreams in the documentaries. Well played National Board Of Review.

Agreed on The Blind Watchmaker. It is fantastic and clearly meant to be read by everyone and to be an effective argument. The God Delusion seemed like Dawkins was asking atheists to give themselves a pat on the back. I enjoyed reading it as a nonbeliever, but I kept thinking to myself that if I were a christian I…

I understand the annoyance with Dawkins, but I also understand his frustration. He is one of the top scientists in his field with a focus in a theory that is as close to "fact" as any scientific theory man has ever come to grasp. His job at Oxford was to serve as "Professor for Public Understanding of Science" and…

The New Atheist movement is openly atheist and antitheist. vs an atheist who is also an apatheist. But I feel what your saying. One's interest in the subject does not change the fact of belief.

I was thinking they should CGI Chief Dan George and bring his character back from Little Big Man. It will be the spiritual journey of John McClaine.

Hoffs

And a real human being

Finally bagged PGOAT?

Borderline?

Anon, I typically assume something is fiction when water turns to wine, men are raised from the dead, and there are talks of global floods that leave no geological evidence. Let's not pretend that we are discussing the merits of A Million Little Pieces.

How does one determine what is literal and what is not?

No, It wasn't criterion for credibility or decency. I was responding to the post above (which I misread as a response to my post) and stating that I do not think "evangelical" is defined by a literal interpretation of scripture, and that I personally know evangelicals who have a liberal view of the bible. I didn't…

It's also done a tremendous amount of harm. You can look at missionary movements as christians helping poorer nations and citizens, or you can look at it as indoctrination. It's somewhat subjective until a country like Uganda proposes a bill to start executing homosexuals.

Science is just faith in a method of testing hypotheses and establishing consistent models of the world based on empirical evidence. It's really just like faith in God.

I did not mean to lump all evangelicals into the extreme, young earth creatonist camp. I know plenty of rational, liberal evangelicals. I also know many young earth creationists, and they are at least pleasant people. But their insistence that evolution is a "theory in crisis" is just absolutely mind-numbing.

Apologies. It seems even the word "literal" is open to debate in Christianity. It is probably not a good use of time to understand what people believe to be literally true in the bible. I imagine the beliefs have changed quite drastically over time, and will continue to do so in the future. Such is the fate of the God…

And the evidence of self-righteous atheists ruining the USA is? Ayn Rand I guess?