On House, while atheism may be seen to tie into the various negative aspects of House’s personality, I can’t see how it represents a negative part of Cameron’s character. Indeed, I think Cameron from House is one of the ideal portrayals of an atheist on popular television, in terms of going against the grain of the usual stereotypes.
My recollection of the movie *Contact * is not that Foster’s atheism is presented as a weakness or character flaw. Certainly, her atheism is cynically exploited by Matthew McConaughey, and his appeal to popular prejudice prevents Foster from being chosen for the mission. But that doesn’t make it a flaw in her character. And you wouldn’t expect Carl Sagan to write the character that way, either.
Actually she comes across as the one with the most integrity. Even Matthew McConaughey doesn’t come across as a raving religious fanatic wanting to thwart the evil atheist…but as a guy in love who doesn’t want his woman to die. The ACTUAL raving religious fanatic (the white haired dude…no idea what his name is) comes across as…well, a raving religious fanatic and VERY negative. As does the psudo-religious scientist who is originally selected for the mission and gets wacked by said religious fanatic. All in all the religious folks are the ones who looked bad in the movie…while the avowed atheist is the hero.
-XT
Huh, my recollection of the movie was that Foster was playing a sort of weak and wandering soul in it, lacking in character with her atheism being representative (in the movie, at least) of that lack of character. …But it’s been a long time since I saw that movie, and for all I know my vague recollection of it has been entirely been replaced with fabrication produced entirely by my nether reasons. So don’t mind me.
Well, it’s been a while since I’ve seen it too. **xtisme ** seems clearly to more vividly recall the plot details than I do, so I shall defer to him.
Are you suggesting that all your thoughts and opinions need to be based on truth or something to back it up, like citings or research? Isn’t that an uptight rigid way to live? Can’t you just be without having to validate your thoughts and opinions to everyone?
I like designer clothes… designer handbags, shoes, clothes, all of it. I like the quality and the feeling I get wearing something that Jean Paul Gaultier designed. I don’t have anything to back this up, no evidence, research, citings, I’ve got nothing.
I really love the Patriots… not only because I’m a new englander, but I get real excited when they play. And it’s not because they happen to be the best team in history at this moment, I’ve loved them for years… I think it’s a Belichick thing. He excites me. I don’t have anything to back up my claims though, there are so many reasons that made me love the Pats. Designer clothes, the Patriots, the Red Sox… discussing gang wars on message boards, yeah, that’s always fun too. So although you have a strong need to establish real hard evidence for why you think as you do, as a good majority here do, I don’t have the same need. I don’t need to intellectualize every single thought or feeling to justify or validate myself establish acceptance and approval from others.
But I could be wrong, this is only my perception… and we all know a person’s perception is indeed their reality, yet could also be “wrong”. Regardless, I’ve got nothing to back it up… no citings or links to back up my reasoning … only all your posts objecting to my style of being.
Of course I’m thinking to myself there’s a vein of nit-picking and pettiness in some of your posts, and I kind of feel bad for some of you guys.
Do you not understand the difference between an objective and a subjective claim?
I understand the difference between a baiter and a pain in the ass. Sometimes they’re the same. 
Please, please, don’t worry your pretty little head about it. Go bake us a lasagna and us men folk will use our facts and arguments to get to the bottom of this.
:dubious:
In Cafe Society, opinions on fashion and TV and movies are quite appropriate. In GD a bit more objectivity is expected, and opinions based on facts or data, not just feelings.
We’re not asking you to intellectualise your entire state of living. It’s fine to support a team or like fashion or whatever your bag is without asking “oh, support that with evidence” because the evidence in those cases is that you like them. Your claim that “I like fashion”, “I like the Patriots” are and can only be supported by your own ideas.
It’s when you get to claims about outside reality that you kinda need to back things up. So, for example, were you to say “Fashion is a good thing; not my opinion, but reality” or “The Patriots are the best team ever and their record shows it as such” - these things would kinda require some actual evidence.
I note that again you have attributed bad feelings to other’s posts. I find myself beginning to wonder how actually mean these women in your past were to you, given that apparently your immediate reaction to people disagreeing with you is to assume they’re arguing in bad faith. I don’t think your posts are petty; I think you honestly believe what you’re writing. I attribute no genuine bad motivation to your posts at all. May I not be extended the same courtesy?
You are conflating matters of taste with matters of fact. Nobody is asking you to give evidence to support your being a Pats fan. But if you are asserting some FACTUAL claim about the existence of God, or the paranormal, or psychic powers, then you would be expected to have some reason for thinking this belief is true.
You do understand the distinction between matters of taste and matters of fact, right?
Spare me your condescension. We point out several flaws in your argument style and your belief system, and so far the best reply you can come up with is to pretend superiority. Give me a break.
Regardless of your rather odd views of debate or reality in general, this Forum does have several rules, and refraining from personal attacks and name-calling is among the first.
Do not do this again.
[ /Moderating ]
I think this is an entirely accurate summary.
However, this is why Contact is such a deeply unusual movie.
I dunno, he did revere the Ancient Egyptian God of Frustration.
Sure…but then again, when was the last movie or TV show you saw where the devout religious bible thumper was the hero? Aside from obviously religious movies like The Passion I can’t think of many off the top of my head (a couple come to mind). I think both the TV and movie industry strive for the middle of the road/bland course where people are either quasi-religious or vaguely agnostic. That way no one is offended…and that way both the bible thumper types AND the atheists can complain that Hollywood is <insert the opposite view of the individual ranter>.
-XT
I agree.
Bart, preparing to lead a team of kids into rival town Shelbyville to recover the stolen lemon tree:
“Okay, I’m the leader. Milhouse is my loyal sidekick. Nelson’s the tough guy, Martin’s the smart guy, and Todd’s the quiet religious guy who ends up going nuts.”
18 - 0 
thank you.
And yes, indeed…
Yes, truth is important to me. Apparently, not so much to you. Different strokes, I suppose.
No. Why would I want to hang onto invalid thoughts and opinions?