I have always looked towards something such as the weekend or a holiday etc. If one is always looking forward and making plans for stuff to do then they are not really enjoying what life is. Life is very limited and the older you get the more you realise that this world is going to pass faster and faster. I am nearly 21 and it seems like just a few weeks ago I was 20.
John Lennon once said "life is what happens to you while your busy making other plans" (John Lennon, Beautiful Boy (Darling Boy), 1980). I first heard it aged around 10 or 11 and did not understand it. The quote becomes more meaningful the older you get.
I recently had a girlfriend who showed me that time matters we were given almost a time limit before she had to go back to her country. This meant that although we could plan to meet each other we were wishing days away yet at the same time hoping the days would go as slowly as possible.
This can applied to everyone most people long forward to the weekends and hope the work days go faster. We could be losing days, weeks and even years. I am not saying that I do not look forward to events I am just saying it is important to truly look around and admire this world.
Monday, 6 April 2009
Sunday, 5 April 2009
Religion: why the atheist view “there is no god” view could be bad
Religion is a touchy subject and people that believe in god tend to be very restricted in how they talk about a universe without god.
I have asked a number of believers what if there is not a god and the reply I get is there is a god. Having an argument about how they could be wrong can be sometimes even violent.
We are forgetting another strong view, the atheist view. They believe to not believe a deity i.e. a god or powerful being. I used to class myself as an atheist but I feel denying lots of written word older than a lot of history books, can make me narrow-minded.
Having seen lots of atheists and them argue that they could not be a god because we would have detected it or it cannot exist because it cannot be sensed and coming out with lots of science views.
I asked the same question I asked the god believer but the other way around. What if there is a god? He replied there is not a god because it is impossible for there to be a god that could create something as complex as the universe. My reply was “you are only thinking of what we can relate to”. He did not understand what I said so I explained that although what god is meant to have done is impossible for anything on this world to do does not mean it is impossible for something outside of this world. He said something like so god is an alien. He is still very much thinking only in this world and what can be proven by us. Where I was thinking of outside of the universe he found it very hard to think the wide. Now who is narrow minded?
This does not answer the question if there is a god and if there is not a god, nor is it meant to. What this is meant to mean is that although you believe so hard in something it could be wrong. The key word is “could”. If there is any chance any little chance it could be wrong then you should not completely rule it out. The whole god or no god argument is very hard to say there is or there is not. You could say there is not a god because we can not prove there is. You could say there is a god because we can not prove there is not. We could go on and on. The main point of this is that a believer in god believes that if they honour and worship their god. Good will happen and if they do not then bad will happen. Think about the worse case. Say there is a god and you have ruled him completely out, that is worse than saying there could be a god. If there is a god and god is all forgiving then all this is meaningless. Let’s say god is as strict as some believers believe then, if you are completely atheist and die and go to god. God may view it as worse than if you believed there could be although could not fully believe it with out proof.
Saying something could be true when it cannot be proven not to be, is better than saying it is not true.
I have asked a number of believers what if there is not a god and the reply I get is there is a god. Having an argument about how they could be wrong can be sometimes even violent.
We are forgetting another strong view, the atheist view. They believe to not believe a deity i.e. a god or powerful being. I used to class myself as an atheist but I feel denying lots of written word older than a lot of history books, can make me narrow-minded.
Having seen lots of atheists and them argue that they could not be a god because we would have detected it or it cannot exist because it cannot be sensed and coming out with lots of science views.
I asked the same question I asked the god believer but the other way around. What if there is a god? He replied there is not a god because it is impossible for there to be a god that could create something as complex as the universe. My reply was “you are only thinking of what we can relate to”. He did not understand what I said so I explained that although what god is meant to have done is impossible for anything on this world to do does not mean it is impossible for something outside of this world. He said something like so god is an alien. He is still very much thinking only in this world and what can be proven by us. Where I was thinking of outside of the universe he found it very hard to think the wide. Now who is narrow minded?
This does not answer the question if there is a god and if there is not a god, nor is it meant to. What this is meant to mean is that although you believe so hard in something it could be wrong. The key word is “could”. If there is any chance any little chance it could be wrong then you should not completely rule it out. The whole god or no god argument is very hard to say there is or there is not. You could say there is not a god because we can not prove there is. You could say there is a god because we can not prove there is not. We could go on and on. The main point of this is that a believer in god believes that if they honour and worship their god. Good will happen and if they do not then bad will happen. Think about the worse case. Say there is a god and you have ruled him completely out, that is worse than saying there could be a god. If there is a god and god is all forgiving then all this is meaningless. Let’s say god is as strict as some believers believe then, if you are completely atheist and die and go to god. God may view it as worse than if you believed there could be although could not fully believe it with out proof.
Saying something could be true when it cannot be proven not to be, is better than saying it is not true.
The Butterfly Effect 3: Revelation
Having seen and loved the first The Butterfly Effect and seen the second The Butterfly Effect 2. I did not really like the second movie as I felt it would have been nicer to see a prequel to the first. I did feel it was an acceptable revisit to the universe. This movie was a mess. They were messing up the theory too much for it to be believable. I am a very trusting viewer and I like to accept that although a movie may seem unreal if it is real from within their universes then I accept it. The way I saw the theory and I am sure others feel the same is:
1. Objects such as photos, journals, etc can trigger a flashback where you can revisit a past moment. This is in effect time travel.
2. It would allow one with the ability to change their and those that is affected by their actions.
3. If one was to do something such as save someone from an accident upon coming out of the flashback. The time would have been fixed and the person would have lived and may or may not be alive still depending on weather or not they died since the flashback.
Where the movie goes wrong is it has now lost the need for photos or journals (point 1) and replaced it by the need of a dark bathroom with a bath of ice. This may be possible in their world given that it could induce a state that would allow the transportation into the previous moments/memories.
The movie is about a man who has the ability and uses it with the supervision of his sister to go to crime screens and witness them. He then sells the information claming to be a psychic. This goes against point 2/3 by moving ones self from ones pervious location they would change where they was before. Such as if one was buying food at the time of the murder and later revisited the moment and went to witness the crime, one would not have got food and would then need to still buy it and hence change the course of history. The first movie meant that every change (apart from the Jesus moment) always changed the time when they came out of it. The movie could provide a solution to this problem one being that his life is very boring and he does not change any events. The movie also fails by the fact everyone around him seems to know his ability and the common talk about these rules makes it more annoying than a pleasure to watch. The ending is well completely stupid with the murder unable to provide the information that they give at the time they gave it in the movie. He also breaks the ice rule at the end. Sorry if I have given to much information away I have tried to keep it as brief as possible. I would recommend the movie only to those who enjoy the theory. The movie is watchable and I would watch it again but is not a very believable story. One last point about the whole horror thing, these movies is better in my opinion to be thrillers not horrors, unless you can pull it off and in this case it really cannot. If you do watch the movie I hope you enjoy it as although I have complained a lot I did enjoy it and thought it was nice to go back into the Butterfly effects world.
1. Objects such as photos, journals, etc can trigger a flashback where you can revisit a past moment. This is in effect time travel.
2. It would allow one with the ability to change their and those that is affected by their actions.
3. If one was to do something such as save someone from an accident upon coming out of the flashback. The time would have been fixed and the person would have lived and may or may not be alive still depending on weather or not they died since the flashback.
Where the movie goes wrong is it has now lost the need for photos or journals (point 1) and replaced it by the need of a dark bathroom with a bath of ice. This may be possible in their world given that it could induce a state that would allow the transportation into the previous moments/memories.
The movie is about a man who has the ability and uses it with the supervision of his sister to go to crime screens and witness them. He then sells the information claming to be a psychic. This goes against point 2/3 by moving ones self from ones pervious location they would change where they was before. Such as if one was buying food at the time of the murder and later revisited the moment and went to witness the crime, one would not have got food and would then need to still buy it and hence change the course of history. The first movie meant that every change (apart from the Jesus moment) always changed the time when they came out of it. The movie could provide a solution to this problem one being that his life is very boring and he does not change any events. The movie also fails by the fact everyone around him seems to know his ability and the common talk about these rules makes it more annoying than a pleasure to watch. The ending is well completely stupid with the murder unable to provide the information that they give at the time they gave it in the movie. He also breaks the ice rule at the end. Sorry if I have given to much information away I have tried to keep it as brief as possible. I would recommend the movie only to those who enjoy the theory. The movie is watchable and I would watch it again but is not a very believable story. One last point about the whole horror thing, these movies is better in my opinion to be thrillers not horrors, unless you can pull it off and in this case it really cannot. If you do watch the movie I hope you enjoy it as although I have complained a lot I did enjoy it and thought it was nice to go back into the Butterfly effects world.
Saturday, 4 April 2009
X-Men Origins Leak
Having just seen the new X-Men movie called X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Yes it was the leak. I am very pleased with it and the movie is over twice as good as the fail that was X-Men the Last Stand. The movie really allows the viewer to learn about Wolverine which was always by favourite X-Men character anyway. The movie shows Wolverine as a child with his brother Victor/Sabre tooth. The movie introduction is also very nice showing Wolverine going through the various wars he took part in. I feel the movie is well done and the story does not fail to entertain. Finding out how and why and when Wolverine got his adamantium skeleton. I would recommend any fans to watch it as well as people who hated X-Men the last stand.
Friday, 3 April 2009
China Censorship
Been reading a lot on China and how over controlling they are. It is easier so say what one cannot do than what one can do. In places not all but in places you are limited to only having one child. That is a nice one to bring it in they are worried about over population. Now for the evil ones, porn, BBC website, google.com (they have Google china), searching human rights on the internet, some video games, Brad Pitt, and many other loads of random stuff are BANNED in the peoples republic of china. Now I bet you are thinking Brad Pitt is surely not banned so here is a quote from an, ok an unquotable website but still a quote all the same “1997: Seven Years in Tibet, for its view on a free Tibet. (Banned outright along with actors Brad Pitt and David Thewlis for life)”
site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_films#China.
site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_films#China.
Explore new things
I like to explore new unseen things. Travelling to another country has been seen by people before. No one has been able to pollute my mind with a drug so I cannot ever know for sure the out come of a drug on my mind with out trying it. There for I explore something undiscoverable by other people. A hot beach is a hot beach, one mans mind can never be compared to another as there is no way in knowing they are alike. This just means when people say “why don’t you go on holiday?” and I reply with because it is nothing really new and would cost more than I gain. I am just saying there are loads of places in the United Kingdom I have not seen yet why brother going away? That is not to say I would not want to see some parts of the world for research such as China (See next post), Cuba and Amsterdam.
Thursday, 2 April 2009
April 1st is…
April is here and there are loads of great offers available for spring shoppers such as:
Ever wanted to go see Mars?
http://www.expedia.com/daily/mars/flights-to-mars/?mcicid=Mars_home_us
Google have come up with something new again:
http://www.google.com/intl/en/landing/cadie/index.html
Ever wanted to go see Mars?
http://www.expedia.com/daily/mars/flights-to-mars/?mcicid=Mars_home_us
Google have come up with something new again:
http://www.google.com/intl/en/landing/cadie/index.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)