This atheist's God

I was just talking to myself and decided that rambling on a blog makes me appear more sane than rambling to myself while writing Java applets. So, here goes.

I'm an atheist. But I don't dislike the idea of God. I don't dislike the concept of a higher being. I don't even argue it. Don't get me wrong, there're plenty of things that are associates with the idea of God that I sincerely dislike. But not the point of a deity. I only ask for concrete proof, and for the lack of it I am forced to conclude that there is no God. Sort of like saying that there are no unicorns. Except that a unicorn is more likely than God. As long as you're willing to accept a horse mangled in an industrial accident as a unicorn. But that's not the point.

The point is that I see no reason whatsoever to believe that there is a God. That there is an elderly bearded white guy in the clouds (clearly a Simpsons-centric view) who gives a rat's ass about the minute details of my life, who created the world in 6 days (shut the hell up about the definition of 'day', you'd make Bill Clinton vomit in rage), who put fossils in the ground to screw with us, who aged the moon, who put a crap-load of photons in space aimed at Earth to 'fake' the view of stars and galaxies. There is no reason to believe that this God exists. Why? Because everything in the world can be explained without this God.

Except one. The beginning. The Big Bang. Or was it really the Big Bang? I have some doubts about that. Which is not the point of this post, you're right. Anyhow. So far, we don't have the answer to that particular question. So, that's why propose a new religion. A belief in a God who's slightly different. Here's my image of God:

God created the Universe. He farted and a lot of hydrogen started filling 'space', a new concept that started existing at the same time as the hydrogen. God looked at his creation. He saw that physics would drive this hydrogen into galaxies, stars, planets (after the stars go through a supernova to create heavy elements), life and, in the end, yours truly, sitting here and typing up a post about this God. He saw all of this, realized that there was no need for him to exist anymore and pulled a Kurt Cobain, which, incidentally, is all that cosmic microwave background radiation that we're seeing nowadays. The end.

So, I guess this would make me an atheist who believes that a God once existed. What do you call that?

</ad absurdum>

Expand...

Collapse...

HD TV

HD TV is amazing! It's so damn pretty. I usually watch recorded shows, owing to the fact that I'm normally not home yet when the shows are running and that I don't want to sit there waiting for the commercials to end. But, when I tape HD shows, some of the commercials are also in HD (others are standard, lower resolution with black bars on either side), and often times I actually stop the DVR from forwarding and watch the HD commercials. So pretty. No words to describe... They should have sent a poet.

Expand...

Collapse...

Mr Brooks

STOP! SPOILERS BE HERE!

The following is a bit of a review of "Mr Brooks", a film I saw last night. The reason that most of it is not yet visible is because simply by saying whether or not I liked it, I'm liable to give away much of the plot. So, you've been warned.


"Mr Brooks" SPOILERS FOLLOW
-------------------------------------------

First things first: I liked the movie. Although the plot twists weren't huge, and there were a dozen stories being told and Dane Cook was in it, I liked the movie. That's of course not surprising, considering that in the end the killer gets away with it and Dane Cook's character is six feet under. Literally! I like that. I don't want all movies to be morality tales. I don't need to learn a lesson every time I go to the movies. The bad guy is allowed to win. It's OK. And of course any time an annoying asshole like Dane Cook gets killed, I'm happy.

That being said, the movie does have faults. First, there are too many stories being told: everyone has a story and none of them are explored entirely. Earl's daughter is one of the main characters, in terms of impact, but barely anything is mentioned about her motivations or feelings. Why did she kill that guy? Give me more details! Considering the importance she has to the plot, it's very odd that the entire subplot of Mr Brooks committing a look-alike murder is shown in the span of a minute, mostly as he's traveling to and from the airport. Did Jane kill the father of her baby because he refused to even acknowledge the child? Or does she actually have the mental "condition" of her father?

Second, too many characters. We get introduced to a number of characters who have a total of 30 seconds on-screen time. Atwood's father is mentioned in a bit of detail but nothing ends up happening in the end. For obvious reasons, sure, but it's still a valid point.

Lets return to the highlights, though. I'm a little wired right now and my brain is a bit jumpy, I apologize for the inconvenience.

Mr Brooks is one evil badass. He is already in my Top 10 list of Evil Fictional Characters. BTW, that list is populated by the likes of Darth Vader, Hannibal Lecter, Verbal Kint, God and Hans Gruber. Marshall is superbly played by William Hurt. One of his better performances, I think. That, and his role in "Dark City".

The film has very few glaringly obvious plot holes, at this point. I usually spend a few days analyzing a film after watching it, but so far I haven't hit on anything serious. Not like "Fracture", which oozed with bad plot and mistakes. Right now, the only thing I can think of as being wrong was said by Mr Brooks: he mentioned that because Dane Cook's character peed himself in the victim's house, the police will be able to track him down by DNA. That's not accurate: urine is sterile and has no human cells in it to identify a suspect by, so unless the character was actually urinating blood, the police would still have nothing to go on. But, I didn't mention this mistake in the faults section. Why not? In all likelihood, Mr Brooks was lying. He needed a good reason to convince Dane Cook's character to kill him, and a threat of jail or even the death penalty is a very good reason. This threat is only effective if the police actually have a way to link Dane Cook's character to the murders. Mr Brooks is smart enough to know that urine wouldn't be that link, but who knows about the man with the weak-bladder?

Finally, and this is something I discovered after watching the film, it's apparently the first of a trilogy. I'm happy to hear that. There is still so much to find out about Earl and Marshall. And Jane. And her baby. I just hope that the sequels don't take too long. I'm not that patient.

-------------------------------------------

Expand...

Collapse...